Climate Change: The Unsettled Science – Part 1

Iain Davis

Image source: pixexid.com

At the recent 28th Conference of Parties (COP28), convened by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the British aristocrat, political lobbyist and climate activist, King Charles III, said:

I have spent a large proportion of my life trying to warn of the existential threats facing us over global warming, climate change and biodiversity loss. [. . .] The dangers are no longer distant risks. [. . .]  How can we bring together our public, private, philanthropic and N.G.O. sectors ever more effectively, so that they all play their part in delivering climate action, each complementing the unique strengths of the others? Public finance alone will never be sufficient. [. . .] [H]ow can we ensure that finance flows to those developments most essential to a sustainable future.

Two things stand out from Charles’ speech: the warnings of the dire consequences of “global warming” and that his suggested solutions all having something to do with redirecting the investment strategies of a global public-private partnership.

Charles has long warned us of climate catastrophe. It was 14 years ago when he reliably informed us that we had just 8 years left to save the world.

Claimed justification for a new global economic model is, of course, why the people we might call the parasite class are so eager to push “climate alarm.” If we look at the alleged solution of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), they have far more to do with global economic, political, financial and social control then they do with addressing “climate change.” Among the gathered so-called “thought leaders” at COP28, Charles was one of many to declare that fighting climate change necessitates much more global governance.

The global transformation of pretty much everything is based upon the claim that global warming is leading to dangerous climate change and we must all collectively do something about it. Although it is equally clear that “we” doesn’t include aristocrats like Charles, or many of the other COP28 billionaire “climate activists” who each have carbon footprints comparable to small island states.

Nevertheless, even if we accept the selective, collective responsibility demanded of us, when we look at the scientific evidence there are many reasons to doubt the alleged basis for any of it. Not least, because the foundational, underlying theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is eminently questionable.

Broadly, AGW theory posits that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as methane (CH4), are being added to the atmosphere where they accumulate and supposedly reduce the rate that heat is radiated from the Earth. This allegedly causes additional warming in the lower atmospheric layer: the troposphere.

Burning so-called fossil fuels for energy has been identified as the primary culprit for humanity’s emission of alleged GHGs. Proponents of AGW theory add that this man-made warming is unprecedented and adversely affecting weather patterns to such an extent that life on Earth is in imminent peril.

Consequently, our use of energy, often referred to as the energy mix, is said to be leading us toward a “climate disaster.” When reported by the media, this causes widespread “climate alarm.”

Governments and many “climate scientists” strongly argue that we must change the energy mix toward a reliance upon alleged renewable energy, radically alter our consumption patterns and accept increasing restrictions. These measures form part of the United Nations’ “sustainable development” agenda.

The South African economist, Rob Jeffrey, achieved some brief fame after successfully gaining his PhD at the age of 80 years old. His remarkable final dissertation is one of the few published documents to collate a large body of scientific evidence questioning both AGW theory and the prevailing “climate alarm” narrative in one resource. This article series is partly based on some of his finding but cannot hope to do his work justice. Reading his paper is highly recommended.

We will discuss some of the many scientific and other empirical reasons to question AGW theory. For example, a recent statistical review of the historical temperature record published by the Statistisk Sentralbyrå—the Norwegian Statistics Bureau—considered the extent to which historical temperature change is driven by man-made GHG emissions. In the abstract, the researchers noted:

[. . .] [standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. [. . .] [T]he effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.

The article you are reading does not represent “climate change denial.” No one who seriously questions AGW theory, the claimed “climate crisis” or the resultant “climate alarm,” denies either that climate changes or that the planet is in a general warming phase. Nor do sceptics “deny” the potential for climate change to have a significant impact on the environment and the global population.

This article is not intended to be a rebuttal of the consensus AGW climate science. It is a reference to a small percentage of the science that questions the consensus climate science. Much, but not all of this evidence is cited by Rob Jeffrey in his thesis. The objective is to hopefully stimulate open, honest debate. That discussion should also consider the United Nations’ claimed justification for its sustainable development agenda.

Understanding AGW Theory

According to the German theoretical physicists Sabine Hossenfelder AGW theory determines that primarily shortwave “ultraviolet” solar radiation is initially absorbed by the Earth then emitted, in the form of longwave “infrared” radiation. The infrared radiation emitted by the surface slowly spreads upwards through the atmosphere where it is trapped by GHGs.

The total incoming solar energy must balance with total outgoing energy to achieve “radiative equilibrium.” The radiative balance is called the Earth’s “radiation budget.”

Atmospheric pressure and temperature decreases with altitude, thus the density of GHGs reduces to the point where the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface is emitted by GHGs, notably CO2. It is emitted in all directions and some is emitted “back” toward the Earth’s surface

In order to maintain radiative equilibrium, the resultant, average surface air temperature (SAT – very low altitude, only 2M above the surface) will always be proportionately warmer than the “top of atmosphere” (TOA) where the infrared radiation is finally released by more sparsely distributed GHGs.

Loeb et al. (2018) states:

Climate change involves a perturbation to Earth’s energy budget [. . .]. Changes in the composition of the atmosphere either through natural or anthropogenic sources alter how energy is distributed and can lead to irreversible changes in regional climate. At the top-of-atmosphere (TOA), the Earth’s energy budget involves a balance between how much solar energy Earth absorbs and how much terrestrial thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space. Since only radiative energy is involved, this is also referred to as Earth’s radiation budget (ERB). Approximately 30% of the incident solar radiation reaching Earth is scattered back to space by air molecules, clouds, the Earth’s surface, and aerosols. The remaining 70% is absorbed by the surface atmosphere system, providing the energy necessary to sustain life on Earth. The absorbed solar radiation (ASR) is converted into different forms of energy, and transported and stored throughout the system. The Earth also emits thermal infrared radiation to space as outgoing longwave radiation, which must balance ASR in an equilibrium climate.

Different GHGs have different wavelength absorption and emission properties. CO2 best absorbs longwave radiation with a wavelength of around 15 micrometers. This means, at approximately 12km above the earth, where the atmospheric temperature is about 220K (-53°C), CO2 causes a notable dip in outgoing longwave radiation.

However, CO2 doesn’t just absorb and emit longwave radiation in this narrow emission band at this altitude. It also absorbs it at shorter and longer wavelengths to a lesser degree at both lower and higher altitudes. Increasing total atmospheric CO2 slows the emission of an expanding chunk of long wave radiation. In essence, this raises the altitude at which infrared radiations leaves the Earth.

Speaking about what she calls the “enhanced greenhouse effect,” Dr Hossenfelder said:

The greenhouse effect works because pushing the effective altitude of emissions up reduces the temperature emission, and that brings the system out of balance.

This positive “radiative forcing” creates the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) measured as radiative flux (W/m2). Shukmann et al, (2023) currently estimated the EEI to be +0.76 W/m2.

The radiative forcing adds additional heat energy to the climate system. This largely manifests as potential and kinetic energy causing more frequent and severe weather anomalies. Proponents of AGW theory claim that this positive radiative forcing leads to an ever more energetic climate system, with possible dangerous implications for life on the planet.

AGW theory is allegedly proven by the observation of stratospheric cooling. In 1967 Manabe and Wetherall predicted that increasing energy trapped in the troposphere would lead to an observable cooling in the Stratosphere. This is said to be the “fingerprint” of AGW. Santer et al, (2023) has observed stratospheric cooling and, combined with tropospheric warming, claim this as “incontrovertible evidence of human effects on the thermal structure of Earth’s atmosphere.”

Sabine Hossenfelder explained the significance simultaneous stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming for AGW theorists:

This was a super important prediction because, if global warming was caused by an increase in solar radiation, rather than an increase in global gases, then they should both warm. And the upper stratosphere has in fact cooled. If someone asks you how we know it’s not a change in solar radiation a good answer is [. . .] “stratospheric cooling.”

Dr Hossenfelder recognised that the basic diagrammatic representation of the mathematical model of the greenhouse effect—something we’ll discuss shortly—in nearly all the major introductory “climate science” textbooks is confusing. Therefore, she simplified the scientific explanation of how the greenhouse effect “really” works:

The incoming radiation from the sun comes through the atmosphere and hits the surface. It’s converted into infrared radiation and that heats the atmosphere from below. Somewhere up here [TOA], the infrared light escapes for good. If the concentration of CO2 goes up then infrared light escapes from somewhere further up where the atmosphere is a little colder. So now the total emitted energy is smaller and the system is out of balance. The Earth then has to heat from below until the emission comes into balance again.

This simple, layman’s explanation from a climate scientist is important for sceptics because, as Einstein allegedly said to Louis de Broglie:

All physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them.

If the theory is sound then it should be simple enough to explain it.

Temperature “lapse rates” in the lower atmospheric layers

Questioning AGW Theory Consensus

AGW theory is widely considered “settled science” and the scientific consensus on the theory is equally “settled” and said to further strengthen the notion that AGW theory is scientific fact. Legacy media (LM) outlets, such as the BBC, have editorial policies that prohibit any questioning of AGW theory in its news and scientific coverage. Other LM outlets like the UK Guardian refuse to call the questioning of consensus climate science “scepticism,” instead insisting upon labelling it “climate denial.”

Scientific consensus is scientifically irrelevant. It is not even evidence, let alone proof of anything. The very fact that there is scientific debate about the alleged consensus emphasises that science is never settled, either by consensus or otherwise.

In many respects, it is ridiculous that Rob Jeffrey Ph.D even needed to address the question of consensus. Unfortunately, it is frequently cited by AGW theory advocates as if it were reason to accept their claims. Therefore, he was compelled to briefly tackle the issue.

Rob Jeffrey wrote:

Some years ago, a claim was made by Bedford and Cook (2013) that “There is an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community [. . .] the Earth’s global average temperature is increasing, and human emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are the main cause.” The conclusion of Cook was that on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], “97.1 % endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” [. . .]. This figure is often bandied about as experts’ clear-cut consensus on humans’ responsibility for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Many other experts have strongly disputed this, notably Legates (2015). They set out strong arguments that the figure of 97% is blatant misrepresentation.

Cook et al. (2013) examined the abstracts from 11,944 papers, published between 1991–2011, where the topics “global climate change” or “global warming,” etc. were discussed. The researchers deemed the abstract to be supportive of AGW theory “consensus” if it expressed some degree of agreement with the following statement:

Human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

Later, Legates et al. (2015) would describe this as Cook’s “standard definition” of AGW consensus. From Legates (2015) we note:

It is not possible to discern either from the paper or from the supplementary information what percentage of all abstracts the authors considered to have endorsed the standard definition. [. . .] Of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 (32.6 %) were marked as explicitly or implicitly endorsing at least the unquantified definition that humans cause some warming. It was only by arbitrarily excluding those 7930 abstracts that expressed no opinion (but retaining forty abstracts expressing uncertainty) that Cook et al. (2013) were able to conclude that 97.1 % endorsed ‘consensus’. However, the authors’ data file shows that they had marked only 64 abstracts (0.5 % of the entire sample) as endorsing the standard definition of consensus. Inspection shows that 23 of these 64 do not, in fact, endorse that definition. Only 41 papers (0.3 % of the sample) do so.

Effectively it appears that Cook (2013) excluded papers that did not promote the “standard definition” and rated the degree of agreement among the remaining papers to derive the 97.1% “consensus.” Yet, as Legates (2015) highlighted, this level of agreement is not evident from the full Cook (2013) reported dataset.

As a result of scientists and other sceptics questioning the “consensus” claim, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) funded some more scientists to double-down on the consensus irrelevance. Presumably for economic or political, rather than scientific reasons, they were eager to promote the consensus narrative.

Bill Gates and his foundation are heavily invested in climate alarm—Gates even wrote a book about his “alarmist” beliefs. Like many other billionaires, having profited enormously from the policy response to the pseudopandemic, Gates seems eager that we should all embrace the UN’s sustainable development goals and the related climate change policies.

BMGF board member Mark Suzman wrote:

As bad as the pandemic has been, climate change will be even worse if we do not start applying the same spirit of global collaboration right now to address it. [. . .] [O]ur global civilization needs to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050 [. . .] this is the time to aggressively reduce global emissions and help vulnerable populations adapt to the changing climate.

The BMGF paper claims that the consensus on AGW now stands at 99%. Building on the methodology of Cook et al. (2013)—referenced as C13 in the Gates paper—the BMGF scientists didn’t mention Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) but used the term Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) instead.

The AGW theory claim is very clearly based upon the idea of unprecedented global warming. Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is exclusively an alleged consequence of nothing but unprecedented global warming.

From more than 88,000 related articles catalogued by Web of Science between 2012 – 2020, searched using a set of questionable keywords, Gates’ researchers identified just “28 papers from the full dataset” that were said to be sceptical of ACC, not necessarily AGW. Hence their reported certainty about the ACC “consensus.”

Web of Science is a database of scholarly books, peer reviewed journals, original research articles, reviews, editorials, chronologies, abstracts, as well as other items. Web of Science is a maintained by Clarivate.

Clarivate is a British based, global data analytics company which claims to be a “global leader in trusted and transformative intelligence” that collates “enriched data” with a view toward enabling investors to “direct funding toward the most promising research areas.” Clarivate asserts that Web of Science is “curated with care” by its “expert team of in-house editors.” Clarivate stresses that its “corporate sustainability goals are aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”

Effectively the BMGF team had searched a biased source, using biased criteria to demonstrate a biased and evidently predetermined conclusion. Searching funding reliant climate science for evidence that the prevailing climate science is doubtful is like surveying the opinions of postal workers for evidence that the postal service is unnecessary. It is junk “science” in other words.

The funding bias in science reached crisis proportions years ago. We are now at the stage where scientific papers are often rejected for peer review by the so-called “prestigious journals” if they don’t support the “consensus.” There is an orthodoxy and perfectly legitimate scientific theories have become heretical. Bluntly, science is in deep trouble and is increasingly used as little more than political propaganda.

The problem with such scientific junk is that it is then deployed by the legacy media to bamboozle the population. It enables leading “climate scientists,” such as the BMGF funded Mark Lynas, who is a climate change activist and lead author of the 99% consensus paper, to make anti-scientific statements like “it is really case closed.” This unscientific claim is consequently believed by millions as if there was such a thing as “settled science.”

In 2019, approximately five hundred scientists, engineers, economists and academic researchers submitted a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations stating the following:

  1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
  2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
  3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
  4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
  5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
  6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
  7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

Throughout his paper, Rob Jeffrey cited numerous peer reviewed scientific papers and articles from renowned climate scientists that question AGW theory and the associated climate alarm. As he put it:

There have been many papers and much research done on this subject [AGW theory]. This thesis considers that the debate at this stage indicates that the Science is not settled, nor is there consensus.

Questioning The Greenhouse Effect

To illustrate the point about the lack of “consensus,” even the greenhouse effect is not beyond scientific dispute. Rob Jeffrey noted:

A crucial part of the argument against CO2 is the so-called “greenhouse gas theory.” At this stage, this is purely a hypothesis, and there is significant evidence that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is oversimplified and inaccurate.

As previously discussed, advocates of the greenhouse effect postulate that solar shortwave radiation—measured in watts per square meter (W/m2)—is the sole energy source that creates the climate. Some of the shortwave radiation is reflected off clouds, ice, snow, etc. This is called the albedo effect. Light coloured surfaces have high albedo, dark surfaces have low albedo.

The shortwave “ultraviolet” solar radiation is absorbed by surfaces with a low albedo, often referred to as a theoretically ideal “blackbody.” Shortwave solar radiation heats the low albedo “blackbody” surfaces which then emit effective longwave “infrared” radiation that translates into heat energy in the atmosphere. GHGs impede the outgoing longwave radiation. This is said to destabilise the Earth’s “radiation budget” causing the troposphere to warm.

Based on this greenhouse theory, NASA states:

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere [troposphere]. In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of emitted radiation, resulting in “global warming,” or, more broadly, global climate change.

The greenhouse effect is allegedly a radiative, heat trapping phenomenon which assumes the reduction of surface cooling because GHGs absorb the outgoing longwave radiation and then re-emit part of it “back.” This process supposedly causes net warming of the troposphere and the Earth’s surface.

In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—more on the IPCC in Parts 2 and 3—provided a handy diagram [Fig 1] revealing how the “enhanced greenhouse effect” is said to work. The IPCC claimed the diagram was based upon the measured radiative flux taken from a combination of terrestrial measuring stations, balloon and satellite readings.

IPCC AR5 measured readings demonstrating the enhanced greenhouse effect

The yellow arrows show the total absorbed incoming solar flux to the Earth as 340 W/m2. Of this, 100 W/m2 is said to be reflected by the  albedo effect at the top of atmosphere (TOA). Consequently, the IPCC AGW theory model—allegedly drawn from empirical measurements—shows net solar radiative flux supposedly received by the Earth as 240 W/m2. This is comprised of 79 W/m2 absorbed in the lower troposphere (by clouds) and 161 W/m2 absorbed by the Earth’s surface.

In AGW theory, the TOA is also the point where radiative infrared flux emitted from the Earth is finally released back into space. As shown by the orange outward flux arrow in the top right (thermal outgoing TOA), the enhanced greenhouse effect emits 239 W/m2 from the Earth via the TOA “atmospheric window.” Therefore there is a suggested net imbalance of about 1 W/m2. This is the claimed “radiative forcing” leading to runaway net warming of the Earth’s surface and climate system.

We note from Dr Sabine Hossenfelder that the only source of infrared flux absorbed by the “enhanced” GHGs, which allegedly cause the problem, is the “incoming radiation from the sun” that “comes through the atmosphere and hits the surface.” Hossenfelder states that this 240 W/m2 of solar flux is “converted into infrared radiation” and “heats the atmosphere from below.”

In the IPCC diagram of the enhanced greenhouse effect, the outward surface radiative flux from the Earth’s surface—shown by the orange arrow as “thermal up surface”—is 398 W/m2. This appears to be more than twice the radiative flux the surface received from the sun—161 W/m2—and, even if we add the 79 w/m2 absorbed in the lower atmosphere, it is still considerably more radiative flux than initially delivered by the sun. If Hossenfelder’s simple description is correct, this suggest another energy source in addition to the sun.

This is supposedly accounted for in AGW theory by so called “back radiation” shown as the orange 342 W/m2 downward arrow—marked as “thermal down surface.” But this is still more than twice the solar radiative flux initially received by the Earth’s surface and remains much higher than the total 240 W/m2 allegedly input into the “heating” of the troposphere.

The atmospheric GHGs do not “reflect” infrared radiation received from the Earth. They absorb it and then supposedly re-emit it “back” toward the surface. It is difficult to understand how 240 W/m2 somehow becomes 398 W/m2 in the first place, or how GHGs can emit 342 W/m2 without additional energy from somewhere.

AGW theory suggests that the lower troposphere and the surface are “warmed” by re-absorbing infrared energy they have previously emitted. If true this represents a net gain in energy from an unknown source. But this only adds further apparent problems to the GHG model.

In physics, Kirchoff’s Laws of thermal radiation states that the radiation emissivity and the absorptivity of a surface at a given temperature and wavelength are equal. In addition, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic states that net heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions of matter. That is to say heat energy flows “downhill,” from warmer regions to colder regions. This includes energy transferred by radiation.

As stated by Hossenfelder, atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude. Furthermore, according to Hossenfelder, CO2 absorbs most infrared energy at about 12km above the Earth at around 220K (-53°C). In keeping with Kirchhoff’s Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, even if we overlook the apparently inexplicable additional energy source problem, it does not seem possible that atmospheric CO2 can “warm” the planet‘s surface with “back” radiation.

The rate at which the atmosphere cools with altitude is called the adiabatic lapse rate. This refers to the rate of reduction of a gas’ temperature without loss or gain of heat energy. Thus, gaseous temperature deceases with altitude overwhelmingly as a result of reduced internal gas pressure. Lapse rate varies with moisture content but, in AGW theory, the average lapse rate is around -6°C per kilometre (km) until it reaches the tropopause.

Adiabatic dry lapse rate

AGW theory posits that the adding CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect by increases the altitude at which infrared radiation is ultimately emitted but, crucially, this somehow transpires without changing the temperature at which it is emitted or it doesn’t, depending upon which “climate scientist” is explaining it.

Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert is a lead author for IPCC assessment reports. Like Dr Hossenfelder, he has followed Einstein’s evident advice and explained the enhanced greenhouse effect—from an adiabatic lapse rate perspective—in layman’s terms:

[The Earth receives] energy at more or less a fixed rate from the sun. [. . .] When what goes out equals what comes in that’s your equilibrium temperature and that is called the radiating temperature of the planet [. . .] The radiating temperature may be around -20°C, though the surface temperature is a lot hotter than that. The difference between the radiating temperature and the surface temperature is accounted for by greenhouse gasses. When we add CO2 to the atmosphere we’re not primarily changing the radiating temperature. What we’re changing is the radiative altitude. [. . .] The temperature at the radiating level [. . .] remains at -20°C but that temperature is occurring higher up. And since the radiative temperatures increase as you go deeper in the atmosphere, and this [adiabatic lapse rate] is approximately fixed, but you’re starting at that -20°C from higher up, by the time you extrapolate to the ground you wind up with a higher temperature.

Professor Pierrehumbert agrees with Dr Hossenfelder and all other AGW theorist “climate scientists.” They all maintain that the Earth’s surface warms because the Earth’s radiation budget is perturbed by additional CO2 absorption and then “back” emissions of longwave infrared radiation.

But Pierrehumbert and Hossenfelder disagree about how “radiative forcing” supposedly works. Dr Hossenfelder thinks “pushing the effective altitude of emissions up reduces the temperature [of] emission.” From the layman’s perspective it is hard to know what’s going on. These simple explanations don’t concur.

Many other physicists have numerous problems with both of these explanation. The laws of physics determine that to increase the temperature of a gaseous atmospheric layer one of two processes must occur. Either diabatic heating provides additional heat energy from some external source or adiabatic compression heats the gas by increasing the internal gas pressure.

As far as anyone knows, absent these additional forces, the Ideal Gas Law suggests that both pressure and temperature decrease with altitude. Dr Hossenfelder appears to be right in this regard. But if adding CO2 complies with known physical gas laws, by expanding its concentration higher up in the atmosphere while simultaneously maintaining the adiabatic lapse rate, there doesn’t appear to be any logical reason to explain why this would cause any “enhancement” or “additional warming” of the surface.

If, as Professor Pierrehumbert contends, CO2 somehow maintains it’s temperature at higher altitude—without any added energy or compression—effectively elongating the distance over which adiabatic lapse occurs, perhaps reducing the average lapse rate to something like 5.6°C/km, this would theoretically support the notion of “radiative forcing.” Such a mechanism could cause surface temperature to rise. But this suggested process appears to contravene the known laws of physics.

It is all very confusing. Perhaps Einstein would have suspected something was amiss with AGW theory. If we accept fundamental physical principles, the suggested AGW “enhanced greenhouse effect” doesn’t appear to be physically real.

The AGW Theory Physical Reality Problem

The astrophysicist, Joseph E. Postma, has tried to point out what he considers to be a glaring error in the basic mathematical formula for the greenhouse effect. He suggests this may account for the apparent divergence of AGW theory away from basic physical laws, such as known gas laws.

In AGW theory, the Earth’s equilibrium temperature is calculated by applying Stefan Boltzmann’s Law of thermal radiative emissions to a theoretically average Earth. Postma highlights that this calculation assumes that the Earth is an isothermal flat disc—a constant temperature flat Earth—whereas, in reality, it is a globe with uneven solar radiative flux and temperature distribution. The greenhouse effect “model” is seemingly based upon something that physically does not exist.

This basic “greenhouse effect” equation calculates the Earth’s equilibrium “radiating temperature.” Postma’s argument is that the product of this erroneous mathematical model is then used as an input for the “more complex” AGW climate models which are, therefore, based upon an initial, fundamental error.

Postma presented his relevant paper for peer review to some “prestigious journals.” His submissions were ultimately rejected because the scientific reviewers would not accept his observation that energy from the sun, not GHG radiative forcing, creates the Earth’s climate. Fortunately, the paper was published by Dr Tim Ball’s website, so at least we have a chance to read it.

In Postma’s paper, he noted that the basic greenhouse effect model assumes that the “radiative equilibrium temperature”—the average surface temperature of the Earth warmed by the sun—was 255K or -18°C. This, Postma observed, is assumed to be the result of the warming effect of the solar radiative flux “input” into climate models. In physical reality, Postma contends, it is the net “output” of the Earth’s climate system.

Harvard University’s mathematical model of the greenhouse effect

Postma observed, with an assumed solar input that equates to -18°C, the basic greenhouse effect model determines:

[. . .] the average ground temperature is +15°C or 288K.

This appears to suggest, he says, that the 33°C additional warming is created solely by the greenhouse effect. That is to say, in the basic model, the atmosphere, not the sun, apparently generates considerable energy. As the sun is the only energy source, Postma concluded that the basic greenhouse effect model must, therefore, be wrong.

Postma’s argument has been resoundingly rejected and ridiculed by the proponents of AGW theory, among them the Skeptical Science website. Skeptical Science was founded by John Cook who was the lead author of the 2013 Cook et al. (consensus) paper. Skeptical Science has published a summary of John Cook’s academic background:

John Cook is a Senior Research Fellow with the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change at the University of Melbourne. He obtained his PhD at the University of Western Australia, studying the cognitive psychology of climate science denial. His research focus is understanding and countering misinformation about climate change.

In two articles—posted by Skeptical Science—offering a rebuttal to Postma, it is conceded that the model Postma criticises “is described in many climate books [. . .] and radiation books.” Skeptical Science adds that the model “fails to capture the physics of the greenhouse effect.”

This is why Hossenfelder also questioned it. Why you would continue to publish a mathematical model in numerous “climate science” text books that supposedly “fails” to explain “climate science” is perplexing.

Describing this apparently incorrect model as a “simple textbook model,” Skeptical Science nonetheless asserts that the same model enables climate scientists to “build in complexity from there.” Postma repeatedly stresses that adding complexity to a model that is wrong will not result in more convoluted models that are correct.

According to Skeptical Science, while the model does not “capture the physics of the greenhouse effect” it provides “a useful approximation on Earth when coming up with an average emission temperature (255 K).” Effectively, Skeptical Science proposes that a failed model that does not explain the physics of the greenhouse effect nevertheless accurately describes -18 °C as the average Earth equilibrium radiative “emission temperature.”

As Skeptical Science puts it:

Of course, this [simple text book equation] is never done in climate modelling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature.

This is precisely Postma’s criticism. He accepts that the model is discarded in the more complex climate science, but points to what that infers. The product of the failed equation is used as an input, without further verification, to the more complex models. Ultimately this means that the AGW theory “climate science” starts from an incorrect assumption because it effectively ignores the natural variation caused by solar energy.

Postma’s paper explores what would happen if you don’t reduce the impact of solar flux and apply it’s full effect to a globe that has a day and night cycle. He concluded the following:

We hold that the average solar radiative input heating is only over one hemisphere of the Earth, has a temperature equivalent value of +30°C, with a zenith maximum of +87.5°C, and that this is not in any physically justifiable manner equivalent to an instantaneous average global heating input of -18°C.

Postma subsequently calculated the radiative aggregate output of the globe model which, he claims, does indeed equate to 255K or -18°C. Tellingly, however, all of the energy supplied to the climate model he describes is accounted for as solar radiative flux—energy from the sun. There is no additional energy provided by any “greenhouse effect.”

Postmas’s argument includes the observation that the failed “simple textbook model” is used by the IPCC to define the greenhouse effect. This, in turn, forms the entire basis for the AGW theory. From the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report 2008:

Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

This is a written account of the “simple textbook model.” Postma proffers that claiming -19°C is “in balance with net incoming solar radiation” is completely wrong.

In Part 2 of its Postma rebuttal, Skeptical Science expands upon how the additional 33°C, or 33K, is apparently generated by the greenhouse effect in the more complex AGW climate models:

The way CO2-induced warming really works [. . .] is by reducing the rate of infrared radiation loss to space. [. . .] Increasing CO2 would nonetheless warm the planet by throwing the TOA [Top of Atmosphere] energy budget out of whack.

This is in keeping with Hossenfelder’s and Pierrehumbert’s claim that “the difference between the radiating temperature and the surface temperature is accounted for by greenhouse gasses.”

Postma concludes that the greenhouse effect is based upon a model where the atmosphere independently generates the energy that controls the Earth’s climate. The same model practically ignores the energy supplied by the sun.

Postma suggests that the greenhouse effect model is totally ridiculous. He questions why “climate scientists” maintain, what he considers, an absurd folly.

The frequent rebuttal from “climate scientists” is that all of these criticisms fail to grasp the intricacies of highly complex climate science. But Einstein’s apparent observation shouldn’t be easily discarded. There is little point claiming that we mere mortals don’t understand the “climate science” if the so called climate scientists can’t explain it logically, based upon known physical principles. This suggests they don’t understand it either, especially when their attempts to explain it are contradictory.

There is no “consensus” and, even if there was, this is a scientifically meaningless claim. At the same time any questioning of these seemingly sacrosanct theories is attacked as “climate denial.” All debate is dismissed and scepticism is framed as merely the confusion or mendacity of people who don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge “the Climate Science™.”

Along with the official climate science comes a raft of alleged “proofs” and consequent “climate models.” The proofs supposedly demonstrate the validity of AGW theory and the models predict the impact of AGW driven climate change, assuming we do nothing to “save the planet.” Yet, when we look at these experimental and measured proofs, and the models that stem from the theory, again we find that they too can and should be questioned.

Which is precisely what we’ll do in Part 2.

I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

4 18 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sunface Jack
Sunface Jack
Dec 29, 2023 4:55 AM

Iain, You may find this funny about Skeptical science and John Cook.

I have kept it to respond to any comment or reference too Skeptical Science or the clown known as Jon Cook of Skeptical Science.

Source:. http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist” – John Cook, Skeptical Science

Phillis Stein
Phillis Stein
Dec 27, 2023 12:17 AM

Here’s the REAL reason for all of this:

The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.
– Mikhail Gorbachev 

This is about CONTROL, not climate.

Phillis Stein
Phillis Stein
Dec 27, 2023 12:14 AM

“There is no correlation over geological time between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature. No one has yet shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, and if they did, they’d also have to show that the natural emissions—and that’s 97% of the total—don’t drive global warming. Then I look back in time through my geological eyes, and look at times in the past when we have very high carbon dioxide contents of the atmosphere, up to hundreds of times higher than now, and we see that we didn’t have runaway global warming… But what we did have is six major ice ages.”
~ Australian Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, on Global Warming

Phillis Stein
Phillis Stein
Dec 27, 2023 12:09 AM

“‘Net zero,’ as Bill Gates admits in his book, ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,’ is not about polluters stopping their pollution. It is about polluters getting new profits by creating new markets for fake techno-fixes like geoengineering and fake food, and new forms of land grab through ‘carbon offsets.’
“Net zero is a financial scam like the subprime crisis of 2008, which led to the collapse of Wall Street and entire economies.”
“I watched Bill Gates take over the U.N. [United Nations] system with the climate summit in Paris in 2015.”
~ Vandana Shiva, Ph.D.

Phillis Stein
Phillis Stein
Dec 27, 2023 12:08 AM

“Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.”
~ Dr. John Clauser, last year’s joint winner of the Nobel physics prize and signatory to the World Climate Declaration (WCD) – speaking of the climate change narrative and radical Net Zero policy

Phillis Stein
Phillis Stein
Dec 27, 2023 12:07 AM

Dr. John F. Clauser, a joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has criticized the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

Phillis Stein
Phillis Stein
Dec 27, 2023 12:06 AM

“The climate has been constantly changing since the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. For example, in just the past 2000 years, we have seen the Roman Warm Period, when it was warmer than today. The science is not settled. The debate is not over. The climate is always changing. It always has. And it always will.”
~ Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore

Dec 24, 2023 3:28 PM

Doreen’s Handy Guide to Climate Change (youtube.com)

Excellent advice from the black country.

Dec 24, 2023 4:33 PM
Reply to  richard
Dec 25, 2023 11:47 AM
Reply to  richard


Climatology is a Joke – Nobel Laureate Dr Kary Mullis

Dec 24, 2023 11:02 AM

Another rant about climate deniers as recommended by those helpful people/bots at Microsoft:

This is encouraging because one can read between the lines that the pushback against “climate change” is gaining some traction.

Dec 22, 2023 9:00 PM
Dec 22, 2023 6:03 PM

Iain writes great, very long almost inclusive articles, and like his UK Column chums always misses the point. He avoids the one real issue, maybe because he doesn’t want to be conspiratorial, but it’s here again – THEY want us all dead so they can live off the fat of our lives and ‘climate change’ is yet another tool to bewitch and bother us with to achieve that goal. I have no more to say about any of it

Feb 26, 2024 3:50 PM
Reply to  Bob

I think you are assuming he misses that point. He is undoubtedly aware but doesn’t want it to get in the way of his takedown of The Science.

Dec 22, 2023 8:08 AM

Cutting to the chase:

comment image

Dec 22, 2023 1:54 AM

What do Con, Co2 & Covid have in Common? Only a FEW knew from the WEF. No, not a Conspiracy Comerades from the Nazified Cia!

Dec 22, 2023 12:22 AM

I’m not holding my breath they can forecast correctly the climate one or ten years from now when usually weather forecast sites such as this: https://www.weather.gc.ca/city/pages/bc-85_metric_e.html can’t even correctly forecast the weather seven days ahead or even two hours ahead.
They are no more reliable at forecasting the weather than they were in the early 1950s before there were even satellites circling the planet.

Dec 22, 2023 9:43 AM
Reply to  Fritz

“A scientific theory with too many factors and too much interplay between different factors is so adjustable that it’s not even wrong” — Wolfgang Pauli..

Dec 21, 2023 9:08 PM

Come on Iain your no different than the oppsite your trying to tell us is taking crap.

Climate Change: The Unsettled Science

but no mention off…….

Weather modification.
Notice how films and Tv series now reworked with lines in the sky in them normalizing them.
When I have watched reruns of old TV series they have managed in some to digitally enhanced/implant lines in the sky when they wasnt in them before.

Climate Change: The Unsettled Science Like discussing covid without the vaccine.
if you deliberately leave out chemtrails
is like the covid inquiry for the woke alt right alternative media crowd.

Duncan Wearing
Duncan Wearing
Dec 23, 2023 9:27 AM

Why so many down votes? Range nails it.

Dec 27, 2023 11:03 AM
Reply to  Duncan Wearing

I have noticed that true facts often get down voted on here.
Its like trying to explain to some peeps that if anything has the word theory attached, it is not fact and that’s a fact. I await the down voters.

Richard Pinder
Richard Pinder
Dec 21, 2023 6:33 PM

With an IQ of 164, I have gone from debating Stefan Boltzmann’s Law and Infrared radiation to time lags, thermal inertia and the laps rate on the Mensa Debating Forum. In fact the above confused complexity can be eliminated by the use of NASA observations of other planetary atmospheres. Everything is balanced out by time lags between input and output due to atmospheric pressure. The Sun is the only important generator of heat. In my understanding of “The Theory of Heat Radiation: by Max Planck” the implication is that radiative heating does not occur for a gas. The reason being that the random nature of the movement or vibration of gas molecules means that half of the molecules moving towards the radiation are slowed down or cooled. So then radiative forcing is real because the frequency is lowered, but only positive for half of the molecules. So in reality no heat is created in this process for gas molecules. A NASA technical review of Jupiter implied that this was also the case for gravitational heating and that the excess heat radiated by Jupiter is simply a remnant of the heat generated when the planet coalesced from the solar nebula. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, by Gerhard Gerlich, helps to understand the history of this dumb (carbon dioxide warming) disaster. But the best body of irrefutable, credible, empirical, scientific evidence comes from NASA data, which adds an extension to the work of James Clerk Maxwell’s ‘Theory of Heat (1871)’. Maxwell only had data for the Earth, but the theory provides a well-substantiated explanation of why Venus with a quarter of a million times more carbon dioxide than the Earth provides the best answer to the problem. The temperature on Venus at the altitude that has identical pressure to that on the Earth’s surface is 1.176 times the Earth’s average surface temperature. The radiating temperature of Venus is 1.176 times that of the Earth, proving that input from the Sun and a change to thermal inertia due to pressure as a precise function of altitude are all that is needed to calculate the atmospheric greenhouse effect on Venus. This body of irrefutable, credible, empirical, scientific evidence is confirmed by the fact that the average temperature at the one bar pressure points on each of the planets, is the same, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus. The surface temperature of Venus, Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan and Triton also follow these rules.

The illusion that carbon dioxide has any effect on Climate is caused by the fact that carbon dioxide levels follow the temperature by about 800 years. The Medieval Warm period peaked 800 years ago, so that proves that most of the increase was natural CO2 from the deep Ocean which has a 275 to 1 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a period of 800 years. Analysing the atmosphere confirms this evidence with 5ppm for Man-made CO2 and 10ppm for volcanic CO2. This evidence therefore reveals that 122ppm of the increase since 1888 was natural, and 5ppm was Man-made. The ocean contains more than 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. Most of this is stored in the very cold benthic layers of the ocean. The solubility of CO2 in water depends on temperature. The warmer the water temperature the less CO2 it can dissolve. Hence as the ocean depths are warmed CO2 is released. This is known as oceanic out-gassing. The evidence shows that the deep Oceans are now cooling due to the Little Ice Age, but that the outgassing from the Medieval Warm Period lag has reached the surface of the Ocean.

Dec 24, 2023 5:15 AM
Reply to  Richard Pinder

“The Sun is the only important generator of heat”.

Supplemented by our own little nuclear furnace in the fiery belly of Mother Earth. Without which we would have frozen long ago.

Dec 21, 2023 5:58 PM

CC is a diversion of attention from the real problem caused by humans, industrial pollution. The advent of CC came same time as deregulation of industry, and has been ongoing for 30+ years. We no longer guarantee clean water, air or food. Just so the 1% can reap huge profits while claiming to be green. We can’t even recycle like we did 10 years ago, eventhough a drop in the bucket. It’s a ludicrous scam meant to keep the 99% from localizing economies, cleaning up Earth and corraling the greed of the 1%. And now look at the elite throwing up there hands, oh we can’t afford this or that and even abandon their FAKE plans in the first place.

Dec 22, 2023 11:58 AM
Reply to  sandy

We used to call it “pollution”.
They’re not interested in cleaning up the earth. They’re interested in cleaning up at the bank.
A carbon footprint should be imbedded on the backside of all of them.

The Coming Revolution
The Coming Revolution
Dec 21, 2023 4:47 PM

Before the GFC, concerns over the environment were reasonable enough as an issue over which bureaucrats at the UN and other NGOs could work on and write papers about, delivering recommendations to nation States; we all know that bureaucracies justify themselves only in problem-solving mode; and, of course, the interests of some of these organisations go beyond concern for the environment and work on behalf of business investors always hunting for new opportunities. However, it was nothing like the hype some noticed during the last decade which worsened since 2020. Indeed, the financial crisis of 2008 prompted the need for a global effort to concoct new values which would create new outlets for investments. “Sustainability”, “green”, “nature as an asset”, “environment”, “health”, were seen upon as means that could be used salvage Capital grappling with a crisis of valorisation and low rates of profit; hence the global, ubiquitous, feverish, exaggerated and unjustified alarm surrounding the environment. The monster born was called the Global Green New Deal (GGND).
“The green new deal was a term first coined in 2007 by political commentator Thomas Friedman who described it as a “huge industrial project” to develop industry fuelled by clean power (Friedman, 2007). Yet, it was the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) that first launched a comprehensive plan for the GGND in 2009 in response to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) (UNEP, 2009). The UNEP describes the GGND as a policy package with the objectives of reviving the world economy, reducing carbon dependency and furthering sustainable growth (UNEP, 2009: p. 5). UNEP’s definition of a GGND includes three elements: economic stimulus, domestic regulatory reform, and international cooperation (UNEP, 2009: pp. 5–6).[Emphasis added]” – Nature
Notice that the first goal of the GGND is reviving the world economy, and the newly concocted values would be the assets around which the revival shall be made possible through billions of global investments, a real reshaping of the economy and public opinion that goes with it. Just like the medical charade was prompted by the financial crisis in the repo market starting September 2019 and the practical going under of Big Pharma, not the other way around; so the unjustified but needed hype around the climate and the environment was a response to the GFC. The Copenhagen Communiqué, developed by the Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change at the Copenhagen Conference of 2009 stated:
“These are difficult and challenging times for the international business community and a poor outcome from the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will only make them more so, by creating uncertainty and undermining confidence… Economic development will not be sustained in the longer term unless the climate is stabilized.” And,
“[I]f a sufficiently ambitious, effective and globally equitable deal [GGND] can be agreed, it will…deliver the economic signals that companies need if they are to invest billions of dollars in low carbon products, services, technologies and infrastructure.” (Whole article here)
Read: We need those climate stabilising investments around all-green, sustainability, clean energy, etc and we need them badly – even if the alarm is unjustified – and only global State-based commitments around those newly concocted values can deliver the right confidence and guarantee for us to engage our money on a global scale. Needless to say, there is no consensus among the business community as to what extent and how soon should this green project be carried out; lots of conflicts of interests there.
Who said investors, whether self-proclaimed liberal, neoliberal, or anarcho-capitalists, detest the State? They’re good buddies, especially when the formers need to be bailed out or reinstalled into business, which is what the whole climate and digital hype is about. Do we see these companies hit by the GFC accepting their bankruptcy and going out of business – thus spectacularly precipitating the demise of Capital as the basis of the economy – as their CEOs and intellectuals like to preach in their lectures in the name of free market and competition? Heck no; that’s just for the suckers. That’s my only disagreement with the article; social control is IMO only a consequence of primary policy objective, which is to keep Capital flowing as long as possible. Also, therefore, it is not about securing selfish interests merely, as those interests are the basis of the global economy in crisis and out of which all social classes worldwide draw their livelihood, until, that is, we devise a new way of living.

Dec 22, 2023 6:43 AM

Thank you very much, I completely agree with you.

> Before the GFC, concerns over the environment were reasonable enough as an issue over which bureaucrats at the UN and other NGOs could work on and write papers about, delivering recommendations to nation States

All true, but I think that’s exactly what it came down to before. I was a great advocate of the local agenda 21 process. I was in groups at the time that were campaigning for the establishment of the first renewable energy sources. So I saw first hand how this was used to make profits. With the agenda process, there was a huge privatisation involved. Yes, that really was in the Rio 1992 resolutions.
If you haven’t seen it yet, have a look [here](https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2010/07/28/taking-strong-action-for-capitalist-led-environmental-destruction/). I think it’s a good explanation for the beginning of these global environmental institutions.

No deal for nature!

The Coming Revolution
The Coming Revolution
Dec 22, 2023 4:45 PM
Reply to  Gokh

Thanks for the article. Yes, the objectives set up by the UN in its agendas are laudable as such; only when gone through the shredder of Capital that they turn into their opposites.

From the linked article:

“Elite institutions like the United Nations must be superseded: something that is unlikely to happen until we collectively start channelling mental resources to describing suitable alternatives: Communism anyone?”

Dec 24, 2023 5:18 AM

“Who said investors, whether self-proclaimed liberal, neoliberal, or anarcho-capitalists, detest the State? They’re good buddies, especially when the formers need to be bailed out or reinstalled into business, which is what the whole climate and digital hype is about.”

Yes. Socialism for the rich and austerity for the poor.

Like in the old wedding night joke:

“Darling, do the poor do this?”
“Darling, yes”.
“It’s much too good for them”.

Dec 21, 2023 2:34 PM

In ‘scientific’ arguments running within protected models & narratives, I often recall the phrase ‘how many angels can fit on the tip of a pin’ – as an earlier example of contentious identities set within a larger delusion that thus runs immune.
The baiting provocations of the man made global warming shock & guilt tactic run gaslighting, its source is a top-down fronting of billionaires running philantho-pathy. The persistent funding and fronting of NGO leverage as guidelines to regulations to ‘security enforcements’ generates a tumour of shock shaped as a body corporate.

By allowing the Accuser to set & frame the claim to allegiance by manipulations of fears compounded by offset or outsourced Corporate guilt, we lose the simple alignment of common sense, love & reason in discerning or determining the true nature of anything.

That the insiders to a ‘control class’ use narrative manipulations to organise social structure is nothing new, but the insidious trojan of a sci-tech extension of ‘powers & protections’ has undermined our true nature to operate a bot-net of fragmented ‘identities’ or indeed corporate assets.

the nature of reality is infinitely beyond our models, yet vested model can become the framework of adaptation such as to program the ‘reality experience’. ‘Hells’ are not forbidden as a result of contracting in lies given power. The underlying ‘self-hate’ of vengeance on life is projected out from ‘heaven’ as a cold light of denial.

Discerning the ‘spirits’ is recognising the purpose or driven urge that shapes our mind & world as IF our self, our power & protection.

The nature of our physically experienced universe is awe inspiring, but the meanings we give, set the measure of our receiving.

Dec 21, 2023 10:43 AM

My chief concern is that they don’t intend to try to pull this off without some, to borrow a phrase, catastrophic and catalyzing event. Something more than a localised, HAARP-induced heatwave.

A good read for the doubtful is Lomberg’s ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’. Lomberg was a Danish green who didn’t doubt AGW but who realised that, even within that paradigm, the impact of climate change was being massively exaggerated (for example, the deserts are shrinking – anyone else noticed that’s one issue, like teenage pregnancies, that used to be everywhere but has quietly been retired?) and the “solutions” disastrously counter-productive (get very drunk for Christmas reading it and downing a bevvy every time he writes “surprisingly”). For those who prefer their info through fiction, try Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’.

Really, the argument about the deception in the ‘hockey stick’ graph should be enough to persuade anyone – it reveals deliberate intent to deceive – but one can always throw in the ‘climategate’ emails as well if needs be.

One of the biggest self-deceptions among “climate advocates” is that they are the rebels and plucky outsiders. That’s why Cory Morningstar’s articles about ‘Manufacturing Greta Thunberg’ were such an eye-opener. One needs to realise these people are programmed to believe anyone arguing against their worldview must be a conscious, or at best unconscious, oil-industry shill. They won’t listen unless that plank is taken away. It’s how the Fraud was painting Cop28 – it was bound to fail because of “oil-industry lobbyists”. There were apparently no lobbyists on the other side – like all the state-owned media, all the corporate media and every high-profile billionaire. It’s the same pattern as with BLM and trans/feminism groups.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 9:59 AM

Babble babble babble. Cant we just just say Clima Change is simple Weather change and a financial instrument on paper only. Period.

Endless analysis and graphs of the same simple fake is not worth a discussion more.
Then we can go on discussion how to deal with it  🤔 .

Matt Black
Matt Black
Dec 21, 2023 9:01 AM

Now they own everything! All assets financed with debt will be taken, all equity severely taxed. They have designed an elaborate digital construct using the ‘one world’ Ecosystem Approach, a particularly heinous, destructive ideology, essentially restoring autonomous-feudalism for a 200 year period, self-managed by global surveillance tech. One needs to understand this utopia, world gov. thing, makes everyone a traitor even the collective of millions of Judeo-masonic cult-minions, the people who put cash before principle. I can assure you, your favorite ‘truther’ is a member.

Dec 21, 2023 8:20 AM

Will history classify (not my King) Charles as Charles the Clueless?

Here is a family that didn’t pay any inheritance taxes or death duties, (when Liz died), doesn’t pay income tax or capital gains tax but does receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer pounds to carry out their duties, plus enjoys numerous other benefits such as free close protection from the state. They “own” lands seized by force in earlier times by their predecessors from which they earn a vast income. Charlie acquired his job by inheritance and not by the will of the people. Before that he spent his time occasionally shaking hands and cutting ribbons, riding round on royal planes and trains and generally trying to avoid getting his hands dirty. To pad out all those dull days he mingled with so called “opinion formers” and involved himself with the World Economic Forum. And at this point he allowed himself to be ensnared in numerous acts of treason – despite an entourage of advisers. Most of his recent utterances, are as a minimum, derogatory to this Country and he continues to attempt to serve globalist interests.

if he had paid a little more attention while at his hugely expensive boarding school he would know that the history of Kings called Charles includes Charles the First who was executed for treason and would have discovered that history frequently repeats himself.

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
Dec 21, 2023 10:37 AM
Reply to  MattC

Amen to that..

Thom Crewz
Thom Crewz
Dec 24, 2023 12:32 AM
Reply to  MattC

Saxe-Coburg are small time in the 21st century. Professional criminals Mr. Bigtime & Co came and gave Charlie an ultimatum. You either go along with our evil plans or, we’ll destroy you and your legacy. Like a good useless eater he caved in.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 21, 2023 7:23 AM

Tim Ball, whose page published Joseph Postma’s paper, used as a source here, has gotten Exxon funding, by the way.

A different view of Postma’s paper,

Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
Dec 21, 2023 6:45 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Thank you.

And so it would seem at least one anti-AGWer has oil and gas and coal industry funding. You see, ladies and gentlemen–here lies the problem. There is clear and present motive for the oil and gas and coal industry to fund the argument you are supporting.

Also, btw, I wonder why people on here don’t argue the science discussed and debated in the article and comments you cite. Could it be that it’s too complicated for them (Gosh. I never thought of that)? Could it be that, therefore, they actually have no clue either way about the truth or falsity (or in-between) of anthropogenic global warming? And then that it’s really all just a matter of taste for them? Opposing the current dispensation makes them feel like big revolutionaries? When they are actually doing what the PTB want them to?

Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
Dec 21, 2023 6:49 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

How about this alternative?

Let us postulate that, even though AGW theory is essentially right–all the solutions that the PTB propose for it are wrong. Intelligent people from both sides of the debate could probably get behind that one.

Nahhh. Never go there. It’s too rational.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 23, 2023 7:22 PM
Reply to  Thomas Paine

I have argued that here. And got called a troll and a shill for the WEF for doing so.
Here is again what i posted.
Top 10 ways you may have been deceived by the climate COPs & the IPCC #cop28, Epic Tomorrows, 12/14/23. Just under 5 minutes. 

TIMESTAMPS [with links]
00:00 Juggling 
00:18 Intro 
00:47 Deceit 1: scientific objectivity 
01:10 Deceit 2: scientific consensus 
01:38 Deceit 3: IPCC vs observed climate crisis 
01:51 Deceit 4: tipping points 
02:03 Deceit 5: (un)realistic pathways 
02:33 Deceit 6: negative emissions tech 
02:54 Deceit 7: ‘green transition’ 
03:26 Deceit 8: global south & racial justice 
03:40 Deceit 9: ecological crisis & overshoot 
03:55 Deceit 10: metacrisis & societal collapse 
04:13 BONUS deceit!: nation statism, capitalism & alternatives 

DECEIT 1 ...that the IPCC is fair & objective in its choice of research directions within climate research, & that the IPCC could never possibly censor, massively respected & mainstream climate scientists. // Quote from esteemed climate scientist Dr James Hansen et als 2023 peer reviewed paperGlobal Warming in the Pipeline`: “Science usually acknowledges alternative views & grants ultimate authority to nature. In the opinion of our first author (Hansen), IPCC does not want its authority challenged & is comfortable with gradualism. Caution has merits, but the delayed response & amplifying feedbacks of climate make excessive reticence a danger.” OPEN ACCESS paper: [Limk]
DECEIT 2 ...that there is a general consensus amongst the IPCC & climate scientists in general, on significant core metrics of the climate crisis, including climate sensitivity & that any such lack of consensus couldn’t make much difference to how many billions of people could die before the end of the century. // Following quote from same paper as above: “We find that Earth’s climate is very sensitive—more sensitive than the best estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—which implies that there is a great amount of climate change ‘in the pipeline.’“ (Note, the IPCC currently estimates climate sensitivity at 3.1 degrees avg. Hansen et al estimate climate sensitivity at 4.8 degrees avg.) More on climate sensitivity: [Link] Why the differences of opinion between Hansen et al, & the conservative consensus of the IPCC, could mean billions of deaths: [Link]  (Combine with insights from DECEIT 5) 
DECEIT 3 …that the observed climate crisis hasn’t consistently been worse than predicted:[Link]
DECEIT 4 …that the IPCC adequately deals with so-called climate tipping points: [Link].. 
DECEIT 5 …that the IPCC recommends realistic pathways for governments to achieve drastically lower carbon emissions to limit global warming to an average of 1.5 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels. Another deceit, that Working Group III of the IPCC, responsible for policy recommendations, are politically unbiased: [Link] 
DECEIT 6 …that negative emissions techs even exist on any meaningful or usable scale, & that they could possibly be relied upon to meet the goals of the so-called Paris Agreement, which is what the IPCC is literally banking on[Link] 
DECEIT 7 …that the so-called green transition is biophysically and economically possible within the current capitalist society & political economywith its current level of energy use & its imperative to grow or collapse, with GDP being tightly coupled to energy consumption. In other words you may have been completely deceived that continuing with a global capitalist system & solving the climate crisis are compatible:    • The Green Transition will not work as…   
DECEIT 8 …that the global south will be listened to, and that racial justice will ever be centred at the COP meetings:[Link]   
DECEIT 9 …that the climate crisis is not part of a broader ecological crisis, and is not a feature of ecological overshoot:    • Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality  
DECEIT 10 You may have ultimately been deceived that there are clear solutions to the climate and broader ecological crisis, that we are not in a predicament, that society won’t collapse, that we are not in a metacrisis:    • TGS Bend Not Break Series  
BONUS DECEIT! You may have been completely deceived about the benefits of a nation state and capitalist system, in the absence of a thorough education about alternatives. One alternative is social ecology, a comprehensive praxis for socio-political change which could deal with the Metacrisis, not just the climate crisis. More info about social ecology here[Link]

susan mullen
susan mullen
Dec 21, 2023 7:07 AM

Per NASA, US Clean Air Acts of 1970s and 1990 caused half of Arctic “warming” by aggressively removing sulfates from Northern hemisphere (to fight “acid rain.”] April 8, 2009, Half of recent arctic warming may not be due to greenhouse gases, Houston Chronicle, by Eric Berger

“According to a new report, half of the recent Arctic warming is not due to greenhouse gases, but rather clean air policies.

That’s the conclusion of two scientists in a new Nature Geoscience paper (see abstract), which is more deeply outlined in this NASA news release.

Here’s a quote from lead author Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:

“There’s a tendency to think of aerosols as small players, but they’re not,” said Shindell. “Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases.”

“We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide, Shindell said. “If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”

[Article includes NASA graph clearly showing this]. Another 2009 NASA article no longer at the link stated: “Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon — small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels — absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere.”…4/8/2009, “Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming,” nasa.gov/topics

The “climate” industry was created around 1990 when George HW Bush with approval of entire US political class installed “climate” within the exec. branch of US gov. thus permanently enslaving US taxpayers to it, forcing them to pay billions yearly to create an imaginary new global industry based on CO2 as a poison. Even if CO2 were a poison, US CO2 could go to zero & China’s would still keep the world at allegedly unacceptable levels….2015, “Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom,” Butos & McQuadehttps://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_20_02_01_butos.pdfGeorge Bush #1 signed Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, making sulfate removal rules even stricter than 1970 and 1977 versions. Bush plucked his EPA chief William Reilly from his job as WWF president by Bush….1992, “The George H.W. Bush administration signed the UNFCCC in Rio on June 12, 1992, and the U.S. Senate ratified it unanimously shortly thereafter, on October 15, 1992. [10].”…US elites hate Americans but love the UK monarchy.

Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
Dec 21, 2023 7:30 PM
Reply to  susan mullen

Pardon me, but nobody says CO2 is a “poison.” They say it exacerbates the greenhouse effect and causes global warming.

The point about aerosols is interesting though.

Dec 21, 2023 7:04 AM

In 1889 Lorenz in his lecture to French Academy Sciences about remarkable progress of XIX century physics declared end of physical sciences as scientists suposedly discovered, understood and described all that was to know with few loose ends to tie down remaining. A decade later this self congratulatory pyramid of scientific understanding started to collapse.

All those who assign to themselves scientific infallibility and final understanding should humbly read history.

The theoretical model of Greenhouse Effect that is published in college textbooks is based on engineering design of real agricultural Greenhouses where closed, isolated thermodynamic system is a good approximation. It is glass enclosure of greenhouse that regulates equilibrium temperature within by holding on (increasing greenhouse temperature ) or allowing convective heat to escape (lowering greenhouse temperature). The reason why temperature raise inside greenhouse is because of bouncing infrared heat radiation flux multiple times trapped between floor and roof/ceiling of greenhouse where radiative heat flux is absorbed by greenhouse air molecules multiple times and by that increasing temperature inside.

Such simple model however fails when applied to dynamic earth’s troposphere and stratosphere where energy/mass flux balance is hard to correctly establish simply because of complex atmospheric molecular flow and heat flux and atmospheric micro dust dynamics that blurs and twists any discernible thermodynamic boundaries of any such closed system that regular Greenhouse effect models are based on.

As simple theoretical models of Greenhouse effect failed global climatic models turned to fluid dynamics to model global dynamic heat flux and mass flux transfer, instant local balance and resulting always changing global dynamic local equilibrium temperature. As fluid dynamics took over modeling simple greenhouse effects became much less relevant.

However for propaganda purposes so average Joe can understand vague and inaccurate analogy of global warming to Greenhouse effect is being promoted in media.

That created problems institutional scientists don’t want to admit turning instead into peddling dogmas about threat of Greenhouse effect serving not scientific but funding and propaganda purposes.

In fact in global climatic models greenhouse effect has become very limited factor among many strong factors with positive and negative feedback impacting global equilibrium temperature.

Public, in order to properly understand situation, must realize that very nature of Earth-Sun planetary system is not static but complex spatial-temporal phenomenon that was born and certainly will cease to exists as providing life sustaining place one way or another in some distant or not so distant future. Human race can ultimately do nothing about it in such cosmic context hence such apocalyptic narratives were weaved throughout all religions . 

The Earth system will continue to change from one local dynamic thermodynamic equilibrium to another and there is overwhelming geological/geophysical/astrophysical evidence of that fact at short periods and epochal scales.

Any claims about overwhelming consensus on global change or settled science or sure predictions or effective remedies are absurd as at this point real complexity of the problem is not even fully grasped.

Especially this is the case of inherently dynamic, highly variable nature of Sun- Earth System that is not of deterministic but of probabilistic nature where direct causes are replaced by correlations where quantified outcomes are replaced by probabilities of certain occurrences. Complex system always has many complex causes, many causes with certain variable probabilistic contributions to variable probabilistic multitude of outcomes.

Consequently so called quantitative results of sophisticated IPCC theoretical models are naturally vulnerable to instabilities of fluid dynamics as well as to probabilistic outcomes also referred to as large errors due to inherent probabilistic nature of Sun-earth thermodynamics as well as due to inherent extreme sensitivity of those models to uncertainty of historical data. 

Additional problem is determination of precise amount of contribution of specific physical processes to observed Global Climatic Patterns Change effects today and in the past from natural sources (solar photospheric or coronal activity, Earth axis precession or plate tectonics (continental drift), volcanic eruptions or relocation of ocean currents, planetary albedo to name few global climate forming factors) Insisting on sole anthropogesis of observed global change patterns among other dominant factors is simply megalomaniac.

Instead of declaring end of Climatic science they should declare its honest beginning as all we know today is that we know almost nothing to make any reliable judgments about observed global change of Earth’s climatic pattern.

Dec 21, 2023 6:17 AM

The Unsettled Science?
Well, my only argument after decades of this bunkum is: ridiculous nonsense.

That may not be considered an effective argument against the asinine anthropological global warming theory, but as it has been debunked by so many for so long, it seems pointless to keep to keep repeating the same facts.

Interesting though, that sub-par minds, like that of King Charles, have a new religion.

Dec 21, 2023 6:01 AM

Global Warming is a scientific hoax, a huge money making scam. A handful of corrupt scientists have been paid (bribed) to produce reports for their paymasters (banksters) benefit. The so called deep state have been using geoengineering on a global scale for half a century. Activities such as haarp, cloud seeding, chemtrails are real, the fires in California (Paradise) are an example of geoengineering, why the hell would they do that? Just research Agenda 21/30…if you haven’t done so.

Big Al
Big Al
Dec 21, 2023 5:36 AM

All you have to do is look at the proposed remedies and who is proposing them to call bullshit on the whole thing. I mean, “King” Charles? “King”? Seriously? If we don’t get “our” house in order, i.e., face reality, they’re going to own it lock, stock, and barrel and we’ll all be up shit creek without a paddle. Fuck the science, we’ve already seen what the science brings us.
(Comment pending OffG censorship review)

Dec 21, 2023 4:29 AM

We have always had climate disasters. We have always had con artists. Con artists like herr König Charles and Al Gore who want us to believe that climate disasters coincide with the Industrial Revolution which resulted when anthropogenes started burning lots of hydrocarbons in order to power their labour saving industrial machines and thereby giving birth to the dreaded,Yeti-like, carbon footprint. Of course, like most con artists, the afore mentioned, are the worst hypocrites. Their carbon footprints are on sacred ground where as ours tread dirtily all over their planet.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 21, 2023 5:43 AM

Con artists? Like the Heartland Institute, author of many an argument portraying global warming as a hoax, funded by the oil industry?  😂 

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 10:08 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

At least the oil industry participate to our civilisation, warm our houses, give flexible fuel to our industry and comfortable trucks and cars.

This is more that we can say about fluffy leftist PowerPoint theories and financial derivatives build on future debt slavery for our children.

Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
Dec 21, 2023 7:32 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Nice point. They can’t answer that one. Not that I think it’s not a hoax. It’s just that I’m not a scientist and I admit it. I don’t know if it is true or not. It is a very complicated issue and no-one on here seems qualified to address it.

Paul Ashley
Paul Ashley
Dec 24, 2023 12:58 PM
Reply to  Thomas Paine

“I don’t know if its true or not.” Well I’m not a scientist and I do know. AGW et al, in its largest sense, is neither complicated nor true. Claiming only scientists can understand truth, especially given the last four years, is ridiculous. With the stakes involved, sitting on the fence is not a noble virtue.

Dec 25, 2023 4:50 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

You are going to have to come up with better counter arguments than ” funded by the oil industry”. You need to assess what they are saying. Everyone is funded by someone and these days there is a bias towards funding climate alarmist ” research” ( stories).

Dec 21, 2023 4:21 AM

I can’t believe how easy it was for them to convince carbon based lifeforms that carbon is the enemy!

Tim Glass
Tim Glass
Dec 22, 2023 5:18 AM
Reply to  Cloverleaf

try breathing pure oxygen.

les online
les online
Dec 21, 2023 4:07 AM

“It’s all very confusing” for this poor boy, too…But
i’ve been warned “Dont follow Leaders. Watch the
Parking Meters !”

And then there’s this:
Some recent research shows that co2 levels rise after
overall temperature rises, not before, and, a Russian
scientist is certain Global Cooling will set-in on/about
2030…(nothing to do with Agenda 2030)…

So i’m storing up on woollies – as you can always take
more off to cool when it’s HOT, but can never put on
enough to stay warm, when it’s COLD…

Anyway, the scaremongers must be desperate if
they’ve got to claim hoomins breathing is adding to
‘climate change’…
“I fart in your general direction” said the Frenchman…
ditto, from me…

Dec 21, 2023 6:09 PM
Reply to  les online

I’ve seen these charts, used by Warmists to prove their point, they actually show that CO2 is an effect of warming, not a cause. Obvious, in their own charts, but they can’t see it.

Dec 21, 2023 8:06 PM
Reply to  snafuman

Research showed that carbon dioxide levels increased after the planet warmed. As the planet warmed (from solar activity), the sea released more co2.
Not the other way round…

Dec 21, 2023 9:04 PM
Reply to  les online

It’s all over the place. Theories and ideas. None proven. Wild guesses.

And the flow charts of gas cycles and their origins and fates.

A clamoring for grant money to push a new angle that supports the narrative.

Sun spots.

I say sun spots.

Shuts them up.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 22, 2023 2:20 PM
Reply to  les online

Where is this GOLD?

David Ho
David Ho
Dec 21, 2023 2:46 AM

Thankfully we have some selfless rich people to controll the world, determining which countries are allowed to develop, which companies are permitted to prosper, how everyone is to live according to some decrees based on a Science that no one is allowed to question because it is Consensus Science. And rightfully so, asking questions is a sign of heresy. That’s why we need a religion with priests, a church and obedient followers fearing punishment. And an evil spirit, the vapours of Hell bringing about the damnation of planetary death, CO2 is being manifest by each and every one of us sinners. Only the super rich gods of this new church are able to save us from the devastating effects of the climate emergency we face each day when it rains, or the sun shines and the wind blows.

It must have horrible for the people who were living through the end of the ice age where climate change was rapid, not having billionaires. We are still living through the End Of The Ice Age transition and thankfully we do now have billionaires to guide us through.

Dec 21, 2023 1:57 AM

An article from Iain Davis – Free on Off-G – though I did buy it he – is like his book…Possibly one of the most intelligent people I have come across…In the same kind of league as Dmitry Orlov (his book is actually funnier – which is not bad for a Russian) – but Dmitry f’cked off from Russia to the USA – did computer programing – wrote bollocks about Peak Oil, and probably lost everything , apart from book sales, whilst he fcked off in his Sailing Boat and tried to flog his build a boat at home to Americans.. Well if that is all you have got – Your Sailing Boat, Your Wife and Kids, he probably made the correct decision moving back to Russia

In my view, though I have never met either of these gentleman..

Iain Davis is in The Einstein Class – and probably nice with it..

You see, we live in a big old house, and I did a very quick apprenticeship, about being a spark and a plumber – my Dad got me the job when I was 15 for 6 weeks. I learnt more then, before I did my A Levels and Physics and Maths…

So I asked the local Boiler company regularly to check my Boiler, and clean it out..remove all the shit, and he showed me how to do it…

He looked at me, as he walked through the door, and I know exactly what he was thinking…”I can charge this man £116.76 for cleaning out his central heating (he said that is the best Boiler you could possibly have – even if it is 50 years old), or I can condemn it, and charge you £5,000 for a new Boiler, which I will have to come and maintain every year…and which will need to be replaced in 5 years”

It is possible, that I used to work with this man, or had met him down the pub…

So 20 years later, we are fitting a new Radiator – and Flushing The System (Dad and Son – he can do plumbing too – got his own boat)

I also got a quote for a new Boiler…

Didn’t bother with a quote for a Series of Heat Pumps, even though both I and my neighbours are pretty deaf, we can easily get annoyed by the constant humming.

Can’t beat British Gas – though I wouldn’t employ them..

Most of them are Salesmen with limited skills.

Far better off going to your local Boiler compamy recommended by Friends and Family and people you meet down the Pub – Real Tradesmen – Mainly Word of Mouth, who don’t need to advertise..

The main problem with Radiators is that they get full of shit..but usually work fine, when they have been flushed out. Most of it is Easy.

The same is likely to happen to Politicians soon All Full of Shit

“Don’t vote for any of these horrible people” – Quote from My Kids..

If you can smell gas, or the pressue is low – phone the emergency number – they were round like a flash -fixed it in 5 minutes and then asked me to test it.


Dec 25, 2023 4:44 AM
Reply to  tonyopmoc

Agree — Iain Davis is brilliant.

Dec 21, 2023 1:41 AM

Daily Caller, December 19, 2023 9:45 PM ET

The American researchers who have, for years, been at the center of the COVID-19 origins debate, were revealed this week to have misled the U.S. government about their research partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.


Dec 21, 2023 2:51 AM
Reply to  Antonym

Partly. There is no virus, so no need for an origin story, but the US has definitely been cooking up some nasty poisons at the Wuhan I of V.

Dec 21, 2023 2:42 PM
Reply to  Martha

“Virus GoF research” sets up the funding and the smokescreen, and the source of terror narratives, but what goes on beneath is beyond all accountability.
the intent to hack, violate, abuse and shape life into slaves, tooled weapons & fantasy gratifications is part of the original mind-virus – running self-illusion as opposition & in enmity to truth hated & feared.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 10:21 AM
Reply to  Antonym

It was not deliberately. Everybody can make mistakes, also scientists. Scientists reach a stage of knowledge until we reach a higher stage of knowledge.

Therefore scientific research never finish, if you want to be a professional scientist super duper professor MSc with a PhD.

Many people thus dont understand Science and feel misled, because people dont understand it.
This is what we know today and tomorrow we know something else about the same thing, and thats just the way it is with Science. So now you know it!  😉 

Dec 21, 2023 2:52 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

The framing of the mind always involves some degree of a cultivated ‘blind eye’.
However I agree mistakes are part of learning not a basis for damning.
Scientists are human with biases working in cultures of competition under hierarchies of invested models & theories that set the framing for funding or advancement/cancellation of career. Bent & bought science is thus as inevitable as banking. This is addressed to the terrain of which we are mostly trained not to see – or to believe doesn’t apply to us.
Science has replaced religion – as a mode of social & cultural order. Its treasure lies in the curious freedom of a question persisted in as desire to know truth. It cannot deliver such a truth, but can prepare the way for self-revealing truth, otherwise blocked or masked over by ‘knowledge’ operating an active ignorance.

Dec 20, 2023 11:03 PM

There the King is. Daydreaming of the day he becomes King of the world.

When you assign doomsday dates based on human lifetimes it is so easy to miscalculate. But…..when you insert your dates into a geologic time scale you can never be wrong because the resolution is so bad. Therefore, they are all “technically” correct. You can go back two 2,000 years or forward 2,000 years and, technically your predictions are correct.

Otherwise, they are fools and will have none of that.

I can see the King now, as he gets lost in his daydream.


Parading around the palace in his beautiful light as air garments as his servants, immediate family and extended family sip expensive champagne as they applaud the beauty of his clothes.

Hmm. Are his grand kids speaking in full sentences yet………..?

And there would be mum, cupping her hand over their mouths as they blurt out the obvious.

underground poet
underground poet
Dec 21, 2023 1:04 PM
Reply to  Hemlockfen

They’ve been lost for a long time, they keep believing that God will save their King or Queen from death, but once it doesn’t, they quickly forget and move on to the next king or Queen.

It’s a rather amusing watch if you look long enough back.

Captain Birdheart
Captain Birdheart
Dec 20, 2023 11:00 PM

Where to start with this..

Water finds its own level, (not ‘hydrogen’ and ‘oxygen’)

That’ll do.

Captain Birdheart
Captain Birdheart
Dec 20, 2023 11:52 PM

‘it can be frustrating to discuss topics with other people who do not share your view’


Matt Black
Matt Black
Dec 21, 2023 9:01 AM

interesting -thanks

Dec 21, 2023 3:05 PM

The wish for a blocking identity of belief against relational confusions becomes a blocking denial of real relationship. Everything is flattened out to a dogmatic variant of “whatever!” or “Its all lies!”
It may be that humanity is even now splitting to vibrational timelines in which we each experience the world of our accepted core definitions and beliefs – so I am not needing others to wake up to recognise their fundamental choices – but that’s where I’m at – so that’s what I naturally extend by invitation.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 5:15 PM
Reply to  Binra

Duality. I hate this eternal black an white, up and down, plus and minus scenario.

But the world we walk into is a 2-dimensional transhumanism world where most people’s brain and senses will be managed through middlemen AI, IoT, smartphone, laptop, powerpoints, zoom meetings, TV screens, 5G, 6G, thus loosing their brain ability to receive organic information and impotence of their senses of organic reality diving into Metaverse and transhumanism.

The rest a minor crowd will live in the real organic world the 3-dimensional and keep all their human senses intact and still be potent and still be able to connect to divine cosmos.
The bank world will leave us on a station and we will be punished, according Mike Carney, Bank of England.

Dec 21, 2023 5:39 PM

Sounded like Dennis Hopper (Shooter) in the movie Hoosiers when he explains to Gene Hackman (Coach Norman Dale) the nuances of the upcoming game.

Dec 20, 2023 10:55 PM

Nazi fear, communist fear, AIDS fear, terrorist fear, climate fear, pandemic fear, economic fear, uncontrolled social media fear, aliens fear _ _ _

Mmm, there seems to a pattern emerging.

Captain Birdheart
Captain Birdheart
Dec 21, 2023 12:11 AM
Reply to  Johnny

Certainly is Johnny !

Dec 21, 2023 10:23 AM

And a pattern to the “solutions”:
1) More centralised power.
2) Fewer rights and freedoms.

Every… single,… time.

Paul Prichard
Paul Prichard
Dec 20, 2023 10:29 PM

Your alternative update on #COVID19 for 2023-12-20. WHO’s ‘Pandemic Preparedness’ fascist, loss of human rights & freedom, ultra vires, contrary to Nuremberg (blog, gab, tweet, pic1, pic2, pic3, pic4).

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 20, 2023 9:53 PM

If global warming is an elite plot, one would need to explain this study by Exxon scientists in 1977 which not surprisingly got suppressed by the company for over a quarter century. 

Geoffrey Suppran, 11/30/19. 

In 1977, Exxon scientist James Black warned executives of the “effect of CO2 on an interglacial scale.” His knowledge of historical global temps & prediction of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial'” (in black) was remarkably consistent w/ today’s best models (red). 1/n [Graphic]2/n: In @SPIEGELONLINE today, @rahmstorf discusses Exxon’s early understanding of paleoclimate and its significance to ongoing climate litigation:[Link]

3/n: Exxon’s original 1977 graph is here [Link] 4/n: Compare Exxon’s early, detailed knowledge of climate science above against this pamphlet they published *21 years* later, which conveniently omits their projected CO2-induced “super-interglacial” and instead promotes “debate about climate change” by arguing “it isn’t new”.[Screen shot, link]

5/n: Or take this ExxonMobil ad in @nytimes, *23 years* after Black’s internal warning, which argues: “Against this backdrop of large, poorly understood natural variability, it is *impossible*…to attribute the recent small surface temperature increase to human causes.”[Screen shot]

6/n: It is dichotomies like these, & ExxonMobil’s weaponization of its early climate knowledge to promote doubt, that led me & @NaomiOreskes to conclude that ExxonMobil knowingly & systematically misled the public about climate change and its implications: [Link]
7/n: Ref: Exxon’s 1998 pamphlet is here: [Link]
Ref: ExxonMobil’s 2000 NYT advertorial is here:[Screen shot] [That’s an ad which presents an editorial by the advertiser]

Ref: My & @NaomiOreskes peer-reviewed analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate communications:[Link]
8/n: P.S. An interesting addendum is that, as @rahmstorf notes in his article (according to Google Translate), “Black underestimated the duration of the warming...”
9/n: “What he did not know at the time, since this detail was only understood since the beginning of the 2000s: the increased levels of CO2 in the air will continue for tens of thousands of years, and not decline within a few millennia of the end of emissions.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 21, 2023 6:31 PM
Reply to  Sean.

That’s rich! Watts got money from the Heartland Institute, which got half a million from Exxon and a bunch more from the energy industry.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 10:29 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Nobody can predict anything more than 7-14 days ahead.
Thats why Wall Street is pessed with the weather. It make it difficult to manipulate the stock prices, and why they shifted from global warming to clima change.

Now you got it explained 27 times, and just ask again if you still are in doubt. We will explain it for you time no. 28.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Dec 21, 2023 6:32 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

You confuse weather and climate. Weather is highly unpredictable. But climate much longer term, can be predicted in general regarding what happens when the composition of a planet’s atmosphere is changed. Do science much?

Sam - Admin2
Sam - Admin2
Dec 21, 2023 7:40 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Given that many climate predictions made over the last 30 years haven’t been very accurate at all, can we resist making sweeping statements like this? It really doesn’t strengthen anyone’s case.

I get it that climate and weather are different.

Many people, however, dispute whether atmospheric composition, in particular CO2, is as central to climate change as is often alleged, and they feel other factors are neglected in climate computer models (on which most of these predictions are based). For instance, solar activity. A2

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 9:54 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

With our great Creators help I made it beyond science:
The earth circulates around the sun with 107000 km/hr and takes a year to get around.
While the earth circulates around the sun it circulates around itself, and the moon circulates around the earth pulling in th earth creating flood on the upper side and low on the under side.
This pulling in the earth gravity, flood and low, and circulation creates streams and winds, which takes sediments from one obstruction and lay to another obstruction thus islands disappear and appear, and our continents, islands and rivers change their shape daily.
Then you have tectonic movements, volcanoes, permafrost melting on occasions, reversal of the magnetic poles, to add to a non-linear chaotic unpredictable but self regulating system.

When the sun brings light, cosmic waves and heat to the earth, it is being filtrated through an exosphere, exobase, thermosphere 2000C, karmaline, mesosphere -150C, stratosphere, ozonlayer, troposphere, before it reach earth to feed all living with cosmic waves and energy adapted to all organic living.

The whole system is kept in place by regulating magnetic planets in our sun system around the sun and earth, like a kind of connected moving plasma moving through the universe.

In the earth circulation it is in periods being pulled a little too close to the sun why we have tropic clima on earth, and the system pull it back and a little too far from the sun why we have ice ages, and back again non linear.

Within this frame of tropic clima +40C to -40C ice age and weather shift there is only one universal rule for us humans: Adaption to prevailing conditions.

If you dont adapt to this universal rule, you will end up as a fiddling and fiddling and fiddling scientist, centuries after centuries after centuries, without getting nowhere.

Question 29?

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 23, 2023 10:44 AM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Visible invisible or invisible visible? That is the question.

underground poet
underground poet
Dec 20, 2023 9:16 PM

Its the method of green energy transition that will get the west in trouble.

They always want to do it the wrong way.

Dec 20, 2023 8:51 PM

Postma highlights that this calculation assumes that the Earth is an isothermal flat disc—a constant temperature flat Earth—whereas, in reality, it is a globe with uneven solar radiative flux and temperature distribution.

So belief in AGW also implies belief in a flat earth, sweet.

Dec 20, 2023 8:36 PM

Exellent article, though a bit heavy going because the author wishes to be fair to the Climate Alarmists while refuting them. Unfortunately, as with Con-19, no amount of reason will stop the Globalist Juggernaut. So I shall just pick out a few wry grins at the Con-men’s spiel:

The description of His Majesty King Charles as a “thought leader”. Though I have seen his undoubtedly earnest face lengthen from babyhood to maturity, I never seen it associated with the activity of thinking, let alone original thought.The Link to 3 British “thought leaders” — His Majesty, The PM and Lord Camoron — flying 3 private jets (1 each) to protest against the Peril of hydro-CARBON fuel.Here I expose my ignorance, prejudice and cynicism. Never heard of Clarivate, don’t care what they are selling and don’t want any. This is how they introduce themselves:”Clarivate is a British based, global data analytics company which claims to be a “global leader in trusted and transformative intelligence” that collates “enriched data” with a view toward enabling investors to “direct funding toward the most promising research areas.” Clarivate asserts that Web of Science is “curated with care” by its “expert team of in-house editors.”

Dec 21, 2023 6:06 AM
Reply to  NickM

Maybe he should go and eat his sausage fingers and f-ck off 😂

Gary Wilson
Gary Wilson
Dec 20, 2023 8:07 PM

“CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”

“That the increasing yield per acre (dry matter) of different plant species in their ecological arrangement should mean that it is made up of more carbohydrates but of less and less protein, or less and less nitrogen, has been worked out to a mathematical refinement in the so-called Inverse Yield — Nitrogen Law of Nature, by O.W. Wilcox.” This was published in June, 1956.

Apparently the author of the first statement above is not aware of the second statement above. Agricultural yields have been increased by altering the plant (creating a hybrid) and by altering the soil. Increased yields in agriculture have not been caused by increased CO2 in the air. This is just one more example of the inability of scientists in agriculture and medicine to comprehend causes.

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
Dec 20, 2023 8:53 PM
Reply to  Gary Wilson

Co2 is 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere.
Anything less than 0.02% and plant life starts dying off.
I suggest this is the ultimate goal of this anti human agenda..

Dec 20, 2023 10:55 PM
Reply to  Paul Watson

Sounds like the major advertisment for near total depopulation, and/and or the synthetic food industry.

Dec 21, 2023 7:14 PM
Reply to  ariel

Synthetic food requires just as much energy. Only difference will be modified pathway. Science class in junior high (probably 4th grade too): Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It just changes form. Big question I have is how they will keep bacteria and fungus from spoiling the brew. Chemical preservatives is likely the answer. Nasty. Especially fungicides.

Dec 22, 2023 5:53 AM
Reply to  Paul Watson

And cow farts make up less than 0.0002% of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 22, 2023 6:04 PM
Reply to  Elmo

These 0.0002% cow farts is what will destroy the entire global vaccinated population if we dont do something now.

Dec 21, 2023 12:17 AM
Reply to  Gary Wilson

It’s a population culling.

Then came the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They began studying excess gasses about the same time and concluded that the gasses were stable then and still are because of accelerated photosynthesis.

Discussed the papers in our advanced plant ecology seminar graduate class in the 70s. The concept is not unique to Wilcox.

The only thing that has changed is the new results by recent studies by “people” with an agenda. They are people disguised as scientists based on the junk they produce.

First thing we were taught in graduate school is this: “Garbage In. Garbage Out” The other thing we were forced to grasp is the concept of not being afraid to say, “I don’t know”.

There is no data. There is no previous pinpointed event to draw data from.

So they made up some garbage output and worked backwards so the calculations worked out. The dissolved gasses in the Antarctic ice borings were supposed to tell the story of recent warming. They could not get the data because the resolution wasn’t fine enough. So they made the data up. The direct weather readings were too erratic except for a short duration where the numbers fit the theory perfectly. Then they applied this data over a much larger time frame. And voila. They had their manufactured proof.

Not rocket science. Although, NASA rocket scientists are leading the charge. My take on that: NASA is being used to bully the general public with propaganda. After all, Rocket Scientists are some of the smartest people on Earth. They would know. Wouldn’t they?

But that’s just me. None of them can be trusted. Never ending lies on top of lies.

In my opinion, it has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with overpopulation.

Good old (and she is what, in her 90s) Jane Goodall professed the population target of 450 million in a recent WEF interview. That’s a 95% draw down. That’s the term we used when making maple syrup. But the concept is just that dehumanizing.

Meanwhile, the UN wants to ban Nitrogen fertilizers (that require vast amounts of fossil fuels to produce – their excuse to ban them).

Thing is, the existing population of 8 Billion cannot not survive without producing Nitrogen fertilizers.

That leaves them with two choices. One: Keep making the Fertilizers. Or. Two: Cull the world populations and stop making the Nitrogen fertilizers so the populations cannot recover to the preexisting levels (after they die of starvation if they are not already culled).

They chose two. Cull the populations with the mRNA experiment disguised as a life saving medicine. This experimental culling, according to Denis Rancourt took about 17 millions lives, so far. Hundreds of thousands more were permanently maimed and, likely, sterilized. Not nearly enough were affected, although, the unexplained sudden deaths keep happening.

Weirdly, WHO was assigned the authority to administer future fake pandemics by the United States Congress in the latest Omnibus Bill and no one noticed. Most of them probably did not even read it.

WHO has a plan. Digital vaccine passports. If and when that happens you can say goodbye to your personal sovereignty. And they won’t take no for an answer to anyone who refuses to comply. Some are saying quarantine camps along the lines of the holocaust camps will be in order for those that refuse the clot shots. Again, more weirdness: Democratic politicians are warning that if Trump becomes president, he will do that very thing to those that disagree with him. Not making this up. At all.

The question is this: How many cullings will be needed? How many will have been sterilized in earlier cullings? The success rates of earlier cullings will determine the number of followups that are needed. Maybe this is where the NASA engineers pick up the slack.

Clearly this is what they are doing. 95% is their goal. How will they know when to stop injecting us? Will all the vaccines contain the poison? Will we track the vaccine batch numbers and direct the nonpoisonous batches to the elites?

Are you part of the 95% or the 5%?

Just asking questions.

It’s a culling. A population culling disguised as a climate change crisis.

In the 1960s the UN goal was zero population growth and it has failed because sovereign states could not sell it to their populations.

So the U.N., with the help of the World Economic Forum has devised a plan via the climate crisis to control the world.

The Paris Accord is the vehicle and our world leaders have bought in. And it’s all bullshit.

Like a popular night club that only admits the elite.

It’s a culling for those that aren’t on the list.

That leaves us with two choices. One: Get on the list. Or. Two: Overthrow the government any way you can.

Because it coming as a culling. Like a runaway freight train.

Gary Wilson
Gary Wilson
Dec 21, 2023 1:09 AM
Reply to  Hemlockfen

What was your concept that was not unique to Wilcox?
Banning nitrogen fertilizers would be a good idea.
The existing population could be better nourished without nitrogen fertilizers than they are now with nitrogen fertilizers.

Dec 21, 2023 2:56 AM
Reply to  Gary Wilson

Yes, but a graceful transition away from synthetic nitrogen to a system of regenerative organic agriculture is not what they have in mind.

Dec 21, 2023 6:39 PM
Reply to  Gary Wilson

Killing 7.55 Billion people would be OK with you? The world cannot produce enough food to prevent starvation without massive amounts of fossil fuel dependent fertilizers.

And what’s the doubling time of the existing population? In 1974 the population was about to roll 4 billion. What is that? Roughly 50 years to almost reach 8 billion. That’s the number they are looking at. I remember the doomsayer narratives that year. Drew my attention.

Soil fertility has decayed rapidly. The soil that hasn’t eroded away, that is. Most farmland is dependent on these fertilizers. Period. Fertilizers (and roundup combined with roundup ready genetically modified crops) are the reason why populations have swelled to where they are.

There is not enough manure on earth to refurbish them. Composted humans? There was an effort to apply human sludge to farmland in the U.S. but was abandoned. Probably new efforts. Drinking water is being recycled out west.

The Wilcox concept you wrote about in your statement is what I was referring to. Simply pointing out that he wasn’t the only one with an opinion. Everyone latches onto an expert that agrees with his or her belief. I am just as guilty. But I am also a botanist.

It’s not that complicated. A good friend told me the other day accelerated photosynthesis is causing water vapor to increase in the atmosphere which is accelerating warming. Absolute bullshit. I guffawed. It was not worth a response. He has a degree in marketing and hangs on every word that the MSM spews. He can’t handle the truth.

It’s a culling. Clear as day and I know I am not on the list. I have one choice: Kick the fucking liars out of office.

Confidence that you are one of the elites and expect to be on the list might get you killed. Is that a risk you are willing to take?

The irony is this: Their target population is 450 million and at the same time they want to protect the 8 billion with breakthrough experimental “vaccines”. Does not seem to make sense. Does it?

Gary Wilson
Gary Wilson
Dec 22, 2023 1:46 AM
Reply to  Hemlockfen

As a botanist you apparently know nothing about the creation of soil fertility. This is how a soil scientist, William Albrecht, PhD, described soil fertility:
“What is soil fertility? In simplest words it is some dozen chemical elements in mineral and rock combinations in the earth’s crust that are being slowly broken out of these and hustled off to the sea. Enjoying a temporary rest stop enroute, they are a part of the soil and serve their essential roles in nourishing all the different life forms. They are the soil’s contribution–from a large mass of nonessentials–to the germinating seeds that empowers the growing plants to use sunshine energy in the synthesis of atmospheric elements and rainfall into the many crops for our support. The atmosphere and rainfall elements are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, so common everywhere.”
Your belief in the necessity of using nitrogen fertilizers, roundup and roundup ready genetically modified crops is what is killing people, It may produce food, but it doesn’t produce nutrition. Deficient nutrition is the fundamental cause of cancer.
It’s not what is in your food that kills you, it’s what is missing.

Dec 22, 2023 10:22 PM
Reply to  Gary Wilson

You seem to have forgotten how long it took to build up that soil fertility. Thousands of years. Herbaceous prairie plants. Mostly. Their roots extend tens of feet deep. Soils that were once several feet deep are maybe a foot or two now. Most are less. Not a soil scientist but I know enough to be dangerous. A good friend is one. Spent a lot of time helping him probing and checking profiles.

I was also a licensed pesticide applicator. Scary me. Read everything I could get my hands on regarding what we were using. EPA documents were our guide. Biggest danger was handling concentrates. Nasty.

Much to the chagrin of the people of Off-Guardian, I have written this before. Glyphosate, when applied in the proper concentration and formulation is one the most innocuous herbicides out there, regardless of volume. It binds with soil particles where it stays until it breaks down with a relatively short half life. Not like DDT which, basically, lasts for decades. And glyphosate does not accumulate and concentrate in your body fats like DDT.

Regarding autism. ………….. I would look at other things and there are plenty of them. DDT would be first on my list. 2 4-D another. Plenty more. How about ant killers. Ever accidentally breathed in wasp and hornet spray or gotten it in your eyes or on your skin? What about oven cleaner vapors. Liquid mercury. Paint strippers like methyl ethyl chloride. There is so much shit than can fuck you up. Next time you are in the hardware check it out. Most have an entire aisle dedicated to some of the nastiest crap on earth.

I used to think like you. I don’t any more. Just look at the basic facts. Biggest facts are how many people are on Earth and what the average life expectancy is and how it has changed. Without agricultural chemicals, it is unlikely that you and I would not be having this exchange. My young neighbor stopped speaking to me for a while after throwing that one out. Truth is truth.

Biting the hand that feeds you.

Facts don’t lie.

Utopia is just a dream.

We knew this was coming.

And it’s here now.

I don’t want my family to be culled by a UN movement.

I do have a list of those that should be culled.

Liberals who think the world is ending are at the top.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 10:32 AM
Reply to  Hemlockfen

Did I see the word gold? Good old or what, is that gold?

Dec 21, 2023 7:03 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

Sarcasm. An exclamation of disrespect for an old lady who as lost her sense of reason.

She does deserve an accolade for risking her life while invading the social structure of a colony of wild chimps in the jungle.

Clearly, her desire to cull the population of the world reflects her view on people. It is one thing to think it but to promote it publicly? That’s something else.

Ever see the original version of the TV show Dennis the Menace? “Good old Mr. Wilson” was the old retired neighborhood victim of ten year old Dennis’s antics. That’s lodged way back there, never to be erased. Not even with 5G.

In my environmental biology class it the 70s the gist of the class was to pummel us with the idea of reducing the population growth rate to zero. We never talked about culling the world population, however. Times have changed. They are in a panic.

By the way. What’s your plan? Getting on the list or joining the revolution.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 8:21 PM
Reply to  Hemlockfen

Yes we were filled with bs in school at that time especially in biology.
I remember especially the leftist as a slimy experience. But the math and physics were still ok, and the music excellent.
There is no revolution here around, all stressed narrowminded sheeple sleeping.
I will probably do both, getting on the list of outcasts and join the revolution with my special abilities ;-).

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 5:26 PM
Reply to  Hemlockfen

Its not a culling. Its a test. A global emergency test agreed in UN 2006.
The figures of death and defects are within a 1/1000 and therefore uncertain.
There will always be people who are allergic or have a vulnerable immune system.

If you think this is a culling, wait until you see the real culling or a real culling.

Dec 21, 2023 8:48 PM
Reply to  Erik Nielsen

I agree, this was phase one and it was a test. A successful one. More are coming because of the success. We were pushed to the brink purposefully. Phase two: Handing the authority over future pandemics to WHO. That’s basically done. And their plan is digital vaccine passports which will coerce a higher percentage of people into taking the vaxx by threatening quarantine camps if they don’t. Future concoctions will be more “effective”. The most important unknown will be what percentage of children (and young adults) will grow up sterile. Once they do their own data analysis they will have a better idea on future formulations. There could be a disastrous overkill. Weird writing this. If you haven’t watched it yet, I would recommend the Amazon Prime UK version of Utopia. There is also an American version with one season that came out in 2020, I think. The UK version came out in 2014 with 2 seasons. Schwab was trying to have Utopia banned. The plot is so similar, it is crazy.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 10:37 PM
Reply to  Hemlockfen

I will try it. I think you are close.
Before the scam started I read Bill Gates had made experiments with ultrasound to sterilise both mens testicles and women’s ovaries.

So there could easily be stuff in the vaxx or somewhere else in the digital chain that creates a discrete future sterile population problem.

I mean when they talk about depopulation they always talked about “doing it in a human way”  😅 . Who would be able to see where it come from.

Erik Nielsen
Erik Nielsen
Dec 21, 2023 10:53 PM
Reply to  Hemlockfen

Done, 5 hrs 17 minutes in Russian. Not bad. A crimi.

Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine
Dec 20, 2023 7:44 PM

Pro-AGWers suggest that anti-AGW scientists are paid by the fossil fuels (don’t tell me that term is wrong–don’t change the subject to quibble about nothing) industry.

Common sense will tell one that the fossil fuels industry certainly has a vested interest in continuing to sell fossil fuels and to oppose anyone opposing the sale of fossil fuels.

And so they hire people to make their case. And keep that hiring secret to avoid accusations of conflict of interest.

What do you say to that?

Big Al
Big Al
Dec 21, 2023 5:31 AM
Reply to  Thomas Paine


Dec 21, 2023 8:17 AM
Reply to  Thomas Paine

A False Binary ! !

Fossil Fuels Geneva 1890’s thereabouts, a standard oil expression &

Carbon Footprint was B.P.’s concept, 100 years later in 1999: with PR
From Ogilvy & Mather, like Hill & Knowlton Strategies and Partners,
All owned by WPP, Preston Rabl & Martin Sorrell, just marketing, paid for
By Big Oil. What do you say to that…?

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
Dec 21, 2023 10:39 AM
Reply to  Thomas Paine

When the elites pushing it, stop buying beach front properties and using private jets and yachts then maybe, just maybe, I will start to listen…

Phillis Stein
Phillis Stein
Dec 27, 2023 12:01 AM
Reply to  Thomas Paine

I will say that the term “fossil” fuels is inaccurate and a fantasy cooked up by Rockefeller and the usual characters to make people think that oil is a finite scarce resource so that they could justify charging big dollars for a liquid that is the second most abundant on earth, after water.

So, I suspect that changing our terminology might be a good idea to make it more truthful. Just as I refuse to call a DNA-altering potential depopulation jab a vaccine.

Jonathan K X
Jonathan K X
Dec 20, 2023 5:55 PM

“These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

-Al Gore, 2009

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

-Dr. Wieslav Masłowski, 2009

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
Dec 20, 2023 8:54 PM
Reply to  Jonathan K X

Modelling , modelling always modelling.
Liars, charlatans and thieves…

Dec 21, 2023 10:58 AM
Reply to  Paul Watson

Yep, here we go again.

Dec 21, 2023 8:54 PM
Reply to  Paul Watson

One contributor asked, “what if they are right”? I laughed for a couple days. I probably would have died of a heart attack, had I been vaccinated.

Phillis Stein
Phillis Stein
Dec 27, 2023 12:04 AM
Reply to  Jonathan K X

They cherry-pick the data that suits the narrative. Yes, ice can reduce in some areas, but guess what? It SHIFTS to OTHER areas that they then handily fail to measure as increasing.