The Climate Change Myth?

​Did you know that there is no evidence that climate change is man made and no evidence that carbon dioxide is the cause of the world's climate changing. However there is evidence of a Cabal that control's the world's money supply who are intent on controlling the world's population under the guise of saving the Planet.

Video below: Australian Geologist Ian Plimer states 'It has not been proven that human activity drives Climate Change'

Climate has been the master excuse for decades now, ever since the idea was exposed in documents like Report from Iron Mountain in 1966, The Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution in 1991, and by the Rothschild’s and Rockefellers at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987.

"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison". - Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen of MIT

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook to create a New World Order.” Maurice Newman chairman of former Australian PM Tony Abbott’s business advisory council

“The world is actually about 1 degree cooler than it was 20 years ago, with cooler summers and longer winters. The oceans are not getting warmer. The North Polar ice cap is actually increasing in size. Your automobile and the factory downtown are not making the weather hotter. Sure, the liberal media and their paid scientist shills, hacks, and charlatans are all screaming in their arguments that it’s all the humans’ fault, but the only ones behind the real HOAX are the ones who stand to gain financially from it, and in the biggest ways”, Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey.

“Global Warming is pseudoscience … from 1880 to 2013 the temperature has increased from ~288K to 288.8K (0.3%) … the temperature has been amazingly stable. Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of “global warming”, not the CO2? CO2 is not pollution.” Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prize-winner for Physics.

“Global surface temperatures have not risen in 15 years. They make the high estimates unlikely.” Piers Forster (Climate Change Professor, Leeds University).

Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.

“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom

Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and its ultimate agenda:

“Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60’s and 70’s. This pseudo-science is the centrepiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population. The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon .”

“The facts, such as we can observe and calculate them, do not support the idea of man-made global warming. Natural processes completely eclipse anything that man can accomplish.” -William Hunt, research scientist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

“Climate is changing, and climate has always changed. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.” - James Inhofe U.S. Senate’s chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee

Former UK Gov and UN Scientist Demolishes the Fake Climate Change Hysteria

"The UN climate crisis predictions are not based on physical evidence, rather they are based on complex computer modelling. One has to decode and analyse the modelling process to ascertain whether or not the models are valid and accurate or whether they have obvious flaws. The vast majority of scientists, economists, politicians and the general public have simply assumed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models are accurate. Very few people have the time or skills to analyse these models, not to mention actually dispute them. Nonetheless, there were many senior and highly distinguished scientists that did exactly that – they claimed the UN narrative was incorrect and that there was no climate emergency. Their voices have been drowned out by a vast money-driven political and media establishment of the globalised ‘system’. The vitally important work of some of these renowned scientists is referenced in my book Transcending the Climate Change Deception, which is available on amazon. A group of elite interests own the world’s media corporations and literally control the corporate-media narrative. The masses are not supposed to think independently about the reality that is served to them by the current TV/corporate media culture. This is because the intellectual position of the people hypnotised by the corporate-controlled information ‘matrix’ is built on sand. This is the reason thousands of truth tellers are banned or suspended on corporate-owned Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, etc. The world’s central bankers are fully funding the worldwide climate change ‘project’. The Bank for International Settlements created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure, which represents the world’s mega-banks and well over $100 trillion of assets globally. The truism ‘follow the money’ springs to mind – and by doing so, one quickly discovers who runs the corporate, political, and media world. Many people are, thus, in a media-and-government-induced dysfunctional state of confusion, and, thus, blindly assume their pre-determined role in society under this ‘dictatorship of words’ without even being aware of it. For example, we now have millions of so-called climate change warriors blind to the fact that climate change is not actually caused by carbon emissions. This is all to scare people into accepting totalitarian authority and limitations to their freedom and personal wellbeing" - Mark Keenan - Former scientist at the UK Government Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and at the United Nations Environment Division.

The reason I say that Global Warming (or climate change as they call it now) is a scam is because the Global Elite make hundreds of millions, perhaps billions in profit from theses carbon taxes they collect from organisations and countries. If activities of human beings are causing the planet to warm up the why does someone have to make billions of dollars from this and why does it go into the coffers of the Global Elite and not the poor people in the world. Take the Rothschild stooge Al Gore who was the spokesperson for this Global Warming, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 - largely due to investments in fake "green tech" companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.

Climate change proponents have ignored numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.

Al Gore's dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 - a year that was touted as being "the hottest ever" in the Earth's history - there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.

On top of those "inconvenient truths," the White House's assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the "97 percent" statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

Most people believe that 99% of scientists believe in global warming, even though that statistic is completely fabricated and comes from a study where only 75 cherry-picked scientists were “interviewed.” There are an abundance of scientists refuting the idea of manmade Global Warming. In early 2008, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) published their Petition Project, a list 31,000 honest scientists who rejected the science behind the theory of humans causing global warming.

In the Climate Depot (2009) report more than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by Al Gore and his globalists. These 1000 scientists including many current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

In reality, nature produces way more CO2 than man. In 2014 NASA launched a satellite measuring CO2 levels from around the planet and realized in their findings that the majority of CO2 was coming from rainforests in China, Africa, and South America, rather than from industrialized nations of the northern hemisphere.

There are a few other indications that Climate Change is a hoax. First they called it Global Warming but when it was noted that the temperature had not risen over the past twenty years they changed the name to Climate Change. In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica and one of the great lakes, Lake Superior, only had 3 ice free months in 2014. Al Gore said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is but 20 inches (50cm) of snow fell across most of America in 2017. Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2010, but many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years. Where I live in the north-east of England it is bitterly cold between October and April and the summers do not get very warm, maybe 21c at the most and in fact my parents says the summers were hotter in the 1970s, so much for global warming

17 Questions to Challenge the Climate Change Crisis

We are forever getting told of a forthcoming major climate change crisis. How we are destroying our planet by unwittingly contributing to potential catastrophic famines, flooding and heatwaves… through our negligence to climate change.

Many have challenged this climate change crisis claim: It has been said that the human-led climate change crisis is a monumental lie. A deceptive Deep State tool. A PSYOP used to control the sleeping masses to get their compliance as they blindly walk into an engineered dystopia under the guise of saving the world.

In reflection of this, here are 17 truth seeking questions to challenge the climate change crisis claim and its related implications that something desperately needs to be done to prevent the so-called predicted catastrophic events.

Climate Change is a Malicious, Dangerous Myth

It is the global warming hoax which is going to destroy us. It’s the mad green, fake environmentalists, sanctimonious and self-important, who are going to kill us by forcing us to cold turkey off fossil fuels and live in a cold, cruel world where the poorest will starve or freeze to death and where the chosen few, the self-appointed elite, will ignore reality, worship electricity (made from the diminishing fossil fuels) and create a pseudoscientific crisis out of thin air in order to oppress, suppress and banish humanity, decency, dignity and respect from our lives.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that a global warming of 2.5 degrees centigrade to 4.0 degrees centigrade would reduce global GDP by 2% to 5% by the year 2100 but that the global economy will, by 2100, be between 300% and 500% larger than it is at the moment. This destroys the argument that climate change will have a noticeable impact on the global economy.

The International Energy Agency has stated that by the year 2040 our planet will still obtain only around 5% of its energy needs from renewable sources (including burning trees or `biomass’). If the mad greens have their way and stop us from using fossil fuels there is just one certainty: billions will die of cold and starvation.

Of course, the majority of the preening, self-satisfied, ignorant global warming cultists actually believe that the world is coming to an end. These middle-class cultists are too stupid to realise that they are working for conspirators determined to take away our freedom and our humanity and to control us with social credit and digital money. The latest dire nonsense is that everything in central London will be under water before we’ve had time to pick up our wellington boots, head for the nearest mountain and pitch camp where we can choose between freezing to death and starving to death. The mad cultists have been told that the planet won’t survive and that billions will die as the waters rise inexorably towards the heavens. There is, of course, no evidence for any of this. They started off by calling the plot `global warming’ but had to change the name of the scam when it became clear that the planet seemed to be getting cooler more often than it got warmer and they realised that calling it climate change would give them more scope to include more varieties of natural disaster in their propaganda. And the whole scam was created decades ago to prepare for the Great Reset.

Read the full article at:

Davos WEF is Promoting Impossible Zero Carbon Green Agenda

All this for a scientific fraud called man-made global warming?

Why are major governments, corporations, think tanks and the Davos WEF all promoting a Zero Carbon global agenda to eliminate use of oil, gas, coal? They know that the turn to solar and wind-based electricity is impossible. It is impossible because of the demand for raw materials from copper to cobalt to lithium to concrete and steel exceeding global supply. It is impossible because of the staggering trillions in cost of battery backup for a “reliable” 100% renewable electric grid. It is also impossible without causing the collapse of our present standard of living and a breakdown of our food supply that will mean mass death from starvation and disease. All this for a scientific fraud called man-made global warming?

Even paling the brazen corruption surrounding the recent vaccine push by Big Pharma and major government officials globally is the mindless push by especially EU and USA governments to advance a Green Agenda whose costs vs benefits have rarely been openly examined. There is a good reason for this. It has to do with a sinister agenda to destroy industrial economies and reduce the global population by billions of human beings.

We can examine the stated goal of Zero Carbon globally by 2050, the UN Agenda 2030, allegedly to prevent what Al Gore and others claim will be a tipping into irreversible sea level rise, “boiling oceans,” iceberg meltdowns, global catastrophe and worse. In one of his first acts in office, in 2021 Joe Biden issued a proclamation that the USA economy shall become Zero Net Carbon by 2050 in transportation, electricity and manufacturing. The European Union, under the notoriously corrupt Ursula von der Leyen, has announced similar targets in its Fit for 55 and countless other Green Agenda programs.

Farming and all aspects of modern agriculture are being targeted with fake allegations of greenhouse gas damage to the climate. Oil, natural gas, coal and even CO2-free nuclear energy are being phased out. We are being pushed for the first time in modern history from a more energy-efficient economy into a dramatically less energy-efficient one. No one in Washington or Berlin or Brussels talks about the true required natural resources for this fraud, let alone the cost.

Read full article below:

Video Below: Everyman's guide to the Climate Model Deception

Global Warming or Climate Change is about controlling you, not the climate.

The climate has changed for millions of years, long before humans arrived on the scene, and it will continue to change long after humans have gone.

So nobody is "denying" climate change, let's just get that out of the way.

What we're refuting is the assertion that climate change is caused by a trace gas (CO2) that makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere, of which at least 95% comes from natural sources, not human activity.

What we're refuting is the fanatical, dogmatic, faith-based belief pushed by the Net Zero doomsday cult that human activity has anything but a negligible effect on the climate.

What we're refuting is the suggestion that imposing climate totalitarianism (under the banner of 'Net Zero'), coordinated by unelected globalist bodies like the UN, WEF etc, will make even the slightest difference to global temperatures.

(But it will strip us of our standard of living, our ability to travel, our cars, our private property and what remains of our freedoms.)

Climate Disruption: It’s Not Due to CO

Professor Claudia von Werlhof wrote to Greta Thunberg

In her letter Von Werlhof says that the disruption of the global climate is not due to CO2

Following the publication of her letter, Silvia Terribili, of Onda Italia interviewed Professor von Werlhof on her radio show: Onda Italiana on, April 9th

The following text is the transcript of the radio interview

The link below will redirect you to the radio interview.

Climate Disruption Is Not Due to CO2 (audio

By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof and Silvia Terribili, April 30, 2019

Below is the transcript of the interview:

Claudia Von Werlhof: The question is how we define climate change and its alleged reason, of which it is said is CO2. We consider climate change, at least in the official discussion, as “global warming” and this global warming doesn’t exist.

There are data from NASA, which is the North American Space Agency, and they show that in the last 18 years there was no general global warming. What exists indeed – because we are not deniers of the problem – are changes in different dimensions in the weather, in the climate and more so in the atmosphere, etc. We are going to explain this more in this interview.

The second is the CO2-question which is now very prominent as all these young people are now on the street, because they believe in this story and this dogma of the CO2.

And this is very strange because a lot of scientists, real scientists, are denying the influence of CO2 as a reason for climate change or as an influence at all.

For example, there are about 30,000 scientists in the US now who say that there is no problem with CO2. On the contrary, CO2 this is a gas that stems from rotten natural materials which is needed by the plants to transform it into oxygen. They say that CO2 is not at all detrimental for the climate, and that it even is something we are to welcome and that we need for our trees and plants and as a positive effect.

So, the funny thing is that CO2 is often shown as some dirt, as if it was a dirt in the air. Then you look at the factories that are shown in this opportunity, you see the dust coming out of them, etc. This is not CO2.

CO2 is a gas that is invisible and doesn’t smell so you don’t see it.

In general, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.038 % only. Most of that is vapour, water vapour, some 80 or 70%. So, this tiny amount of CO2 cannot change something huge like the climate of this planet. This is impossible.

So, all these scientists who are serious scientists, are denying a negative influence of CO2 on the climate. There are even winners of the Nobel Prize etc., like Ivar Giaever, who are explaining it or people from the MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, like Richard Lindzen and others. The IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, founded at the end of the ’80s of the last century, however, is not so much a scientific but a political organization, and it is propagating and proposing the CO2 myth in public.

So, this is a political question and from the point of view of a real scientist, CO2 is not really something detrimental and is not changing any climate. It’s too tiny for that.

If you look at the origins of this debate at the end of the ‘80s, you see that before this time all the world spoke about a possible ice age, a new ice age. Lowell Ponte, f.i., wrote a book on “The Cooling”. It was in 1976.

They spoke about a cooling and a new ice age in contrast to the global warming-speech of today. There is no historical debate any more about how this myth about CO2 came about.

The IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, the Rockefellers, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. And they found, I think it was an analysis by William Engdahl, who said they found or invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined which is humanity itself.

Humanity is guilty of producing so much CO2 by civil industry and consumption. This ideology can be used for another, a new policy. So, this was the origin of the CO2 myth and this has been their propaganda worldwide. Then came Al Gore and everybody believes in him. This is contrasting with the fact that a real climate change is not occurring in the sense they are defining it. This history is generally not known. And people don’t really know anything about Nature and the Planet. There is a certain ignorance generally, and the public just believes in everything.

There are a lot of changes in the world, in the climate, in many aspects, like those Dr. Rosalie Bertell found out, we are speaking about her later, who said we are wrecking our planet. But how? It’s not by global warming, but by something totally different. This is not mentioned by these people who speak about climate change. They don’t see that there are changes but there are different ones with very different origins.

Silvia Terribili: Yes, it seems also that computer models predicting catastrophic global warming in the coming years are parameterized and there is a risk of framing the outcome of these methods and models. Can you say something about these models?

CvW: These models the IPCC is using are computer models. Their results are just an outcome of computer simulation. It has nothing to do with reality and what they are measuring is what they want to measure. They just measure something like more CO2-output, but they do not consider the complexity of the climate on this planet.

They have no parameters about them and so they are really trying to fool us with what they are saying about such a big amount of climate change and global warming. This is not happening, and it will not happen because of CO2.

Full article below:

There is no climate emergency

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modelling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.

To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.

A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message.

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modelled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO2 is not a pollutant. It 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.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birth rates are low and people care about their environment.


The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts

World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf

The article 'There is No Climate Emergency' is from the following website:

1500 Scientists Say “Climate Change Not Due to CO2” – The Real Environment Movement Was Hijacked

The Climate (CO2) Hoax and the Control Matrix. Mega-banks and Corporations

Central bankers created the fake climate change agenda, and are entirely funding / controlling the advancement of the worldwide climate change ‘project’

31,000 scientists sign a petition to say Climate Change is a Fraud

The claim that 97 percent of scientists supported the global warming theory was exposed as a fraud, as was the claim that the 4,000 scientists associated with the IPCC endorsed its report—those 4,000 hadn’t endorsed it, and most hadn’t even read it but had merely reviewed parts of the report and often disagreed with what they read.

The claim that the “science was settled” on climate change never withstood scrutiny. Scientists around the world signed a series of petitions to dispute that claim.

The 2008 Oregon Petition, spearheaded by a former president of the National Academy of Science and championed by Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein’s successor at Princeton and one of the world’s most preeminent scientists, was signed by more than 31,000 scientists and experts who agreed that “the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. … Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Oregon Petition (1998) Signed by 31,000+ Scientists and Experts

The Oregon Petition (2007; repeating text of the Global Warming Petition Project, 1998) was signed by 31,487 American scientists and experts, including 9,029 with a PhD. Among them are individuals from the following disciplines:

Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805
Computer and Mathematical sciences: 935
Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812
Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: 2,965
Medicine: 3,046
Engineering and General Science: 10,10

The Petition states:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Video: Climate models are the entire basis for changing the world around you. They are being used to control every aspect of your life and welfare from planned restriction of your movements to making it impossible for many to, in the future, own a car.
This video simply explains the deceit behind them:-

Half the World Faces Starvation Under Net Zero Policies, Say Two Top Climate Scientists

Billions of people around the world face starvation if Net Zero policies ban the production of nitrogen fertiliser derived from fossil fuels. This is the stark warning from two top American scientists who say that eliminating fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides “will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat”. They add that eliminating Net Zero fertiliser will create “worldwide starvation”.

In a wide-ranging paper titled ‘Challenging ‘Net Zero’ with Science‘,

Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively, along with geologist Gregory Wrightstone, state that Net Zero – the global movement to eliminate fossil fuels and its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – to be “scientifically invalid and a threat to the lives of billions of people”.

The battle over nitrogen fertiliser is being hard fought by green activists who argue for massive reductions in its use and more organic methods to be mandated. This can extend to fanaticism, as marked by the Guardian’s George Monbiot who argues for an end to dependence on farming. The ground for less choice and food is also being prepared in academia. Recently, three barking academics operating through the University of Leeds suggested World War II rationing could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Also harking back to the days of spam and when spivs controlled parts of the supply chain was the actress Joanna Lumley, who has suggested a return to a points distribution system and a form of wartime rationing.

The authors make a general point that any present or future Government actions that omit analysis of the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 to Net Zero for low income people, people worldwide, future generations and the United States, “is fatally flawed science and appalling government policy”.

Full article can be read at:

Net Zero will lead to the end of modern civilisation says Top Scientist

A damning indictment of the Net Zero political project has been made by one of the world’s leading nuclear physicists. In a recently published science paper

Dr. Wallace Manheimer said it would be the end of modern civilisation. Writing about wind and solar power he argued it would be especially tragic “when not only will this new infrastructure fail, but will cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment, and be entirely unnecessary”. The stakes, he added, “are enormous”.

Dr. Manheimer holds a physics PhD from MIT and has had a 50-year career in nuclear research, including work at the Plasma Physics Division at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. He has published over 150 science papers. In his view, there is “certainly no scientific basis” for expecting a climate crisis from too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the next century or so. He argues that there is no reason why civilisation cannot advance using both fossil fuel power and nuclear power, gradually shifting to more nuclear power.

There is of course a growing body of opinion that points out that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to all the fashionable green technologies. Electric cars, wind and solar power, hydrogen, battery storage, heat pumps – all have massive disadvantages, and are incapable of replacing existing systems without devastating consequences.

Manheimer points out that before fossil fuel became widely used, energy was provided by people and animals. Because so little energy was produced, “civilisation was a thin veneer atop a vast mountain of human squalor and misery, a veneer maintained by such institutions as slavery, colonialism and tyranny”.

This argument hints at why so many rich, virtue-signalling celebrities argue not just for Net Zero but ‘Real’ Zero, with the banning of all fossil fuel use. King Charles said in 2009 that the age of consumerism and convenience was over, although the multi-mansion owning monarch presumably doesn’t think such desperate restrictions apply to himself. Manheimer notes that fossil fuel has extended the benefits of civilisation to billions, but its job is not yet complete. “To spread the benefits of modern civilisation to the entire human family would require much more energy, as well as newer sources,” he adds.

The author notes that the emphasis on a false climate crisis is becoming a “tragedy for modern civilisation”, which depends on reliable, affordable and environmentally viable energy. “The windmills, solar panels and backup batteries have none of these qualities,” he states. This falsehood has been pushed by what has been termed a climate industrial complex, comprising some scientists, most media, industrialists and legislators. Furthermore, he continues, this grouping has “somehow” managed to convince many that CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on Earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison.

In Manheimer’s view, the partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners, “truly is an unholy alliance”. The climate industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everyone. “We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act,” he added.

Perhaps one of the best voices to cast doubt on an approaching climate crisis, suggests the author, is Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the world’s leading authorities on geological fluid motions:

"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison".

Much of Dr. Manheimer’s interesting paper debunks many of the fashionable nostrums surrounding politicised ‘settled’ climate science. It is an excellent read. Discussing some of the contrary opinions that debunk obviously false claims, he says it is “particularly disheartening” to see learned societies make definitive claims when so much contrary information is readily available. He points out that over the last 10,000 years, the Earth has almost certainly been warmer. There have been warmer and colder periods, just like today.

Net Zero Has Nothing to Do With Climate but Has Everything to Do With Control of the World Population and Global Resources

1500 Scientists Say ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’ – The Real Environment Movement Was Hijacked

Many people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.

Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.

However, many scientists dispute with the UN-promoted man-made climate change theory, and many people worldwide are confused by the subject, or are unaware of the full facts. Please allow me to provide some information you may not be aware of.

Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that 1500 of the world’s leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no climate emergency and have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made climate change? See this

Read the full article below:

Climate Change Conference: The world’s best scientists reveal the truth

On February 25th 2023, the The Heartland Institute held its 15th International Conference on Climate Change (“ICCC15”) to bring together the world’s best experts to analyse the latest climate science and the wrong-headed energy and policy solutions the world’s governments are determined to impose on us all.

From the green energy boondoggles in the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” in the United States to the ongoing wind-power disaster in Germany and threats of energy cuts in the winter in the UK, the climate policy “solutions” are a real and growing problem for the people of the world. Why are we making life poorer and more miserable for most of the people on the planet when there is no climate crisis?

ICCC15 aims to reveal the truth and inspire viewers to spread that truth around the globe.

There are four panels or sessions during the one-day conference held in Florida, USA, on 24 February 2023.

During the first session titled ‘Taking the Temperature of Global Temperatures’, Anthony Watts discusses how the US temperature data has been hopelessly corrupted; Willie Soon, PhD, speaks about the effect of the sun on global temperatures, and how that is not taken well enough into account; and Joe Bastardi speaks about the effect of the oceans on global temperatures.

Dr. Willie Soon is a co-team leader of CERES-Science. His presentation, ‘Global warming: Mostly human-caused or mostly natural?’, summarises some of the key findings of two of CERES’ recent scientific papers:

  1. Evaluation of the Homogenisation Adjustments Applied to European Temperature Records in the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset

  2. How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Supplementary materials for this study can be found HERE.

The slides for his presentation can be downloaded from the CERES-Science website HERE.

During the second session titled ‘Understanding What’s Really Happening to the Climate’, Judith Curry, PhD, gives a presentation titled ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk’; Ross McKitrick, PhD, gives a presentation titled ‘Updated Climate Sensitivity and the Social Cost of Carbon’; Richard Lindzen, PhD, gives a presentation titled ‘Actual Climate vs. Policy’.

During the third session titled ‘Is Climate Science Scientific?’, the flaws in climate models are examined. Tom Sheahen explains the need to apply the Scientific Method to modelling. Howard Hayden points out the glaring numerical inconsistency between AR-6 climate models and physical reality. Ken Haapala discusses the impact of IPCC’s continuing errors.

During the fourth session titled ‘Green Agenda’s Impact on People’, Donna Jackson speaks about how “environmental justice” for communities of colour is a scam; Bob Carlstrom speaks about the impact higher “green energy” costs have on the poor and the elderly; Margaret Byfield speaks about the Biden administration’s “30×30” agenda and its impact on land owners.

Very few scientists agree that climate change is driven by human activit

You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on the question of whether climate change is man-made, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer.

Only 0.3% of science papers state humans are the cause of climate change. And when surveyed, only 18% of scientists believed that a large amount – or all – of additional climate change could be averted.

There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of temperature change since 1900 was caused by humans. We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces.

Two Top Climate Scientists Find Further Evidence That Global Warming Has Been Exaggerated

Up to one fifth of all warming reported across the planet by around 20,000 weather stations is invalid due to corruption from non-climatic data. This finding is the latest revelation from two atmospheric scientists seeking to measure the effect of human-caused urban heat on global surface temperature measurements. The news is sensational because it depresses further the major slowdown in warming observed since around 1998. With the global temperature warming by little more than 0.1°C over the last two decades, it makes claims of 4°C warming by the end of the century seem even more implausible.

23 Scientists from 14 Countries, – UN Undermines the Impact of the Sun - The 23 Scientists make it clear that UN evaluations of climate are based on no substantial physical evidence, but only mathematical models that by now all readers have heard of.

To counter the media and government onslaught that has accompanied “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis,” yet another of the United Nations climate change propaganda reports, 23 courageous scientists have set aside their regular research to produce a fair and balanced review of how the Sun influences climate. Their collective goal was to right an amazing wrong promoted for decades by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That wrong, as incredible as it may seem to unbiased observers, is the lie that the Sun plays no significant role in the changes to our climate.

The group of 23 (listed at the end of this article) are experts in the fields of solar physics and climate science located in 14 different countries. The paper, “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate,” appears in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. It is the most comprehensive paper to date analyzing the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC.

The abstract of the paper reads, in part:

“It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded [that the Sun’s output contributed negligibly to Earthly climate change] had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of Total Solar Irradiance and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates.”

In other words, the 23 expert authors of the new paper conclude that the UN IPCC was wrong to only consider research that supports the hypothesis that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. As if we didn’t already have enough evidence to suspect that the IPCC is cooking the books to generate support for the UN’s official narrative, the new paper proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UN IPCC reports are subordinated to the whims and desires of politicians. “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis” contains little reliable science and consists mostly of fabrications to support the totalitarian drive to enslave the world by eliminating inexpensive, prolific fossil fuel energy.

The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun was originally studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. Indeed, it is one of the oldest science subjects. The new paper blows open the mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make true scientific advances in today’s “woke” environment dominated by politically-correct, but scientifically flawed narratives.

To begin, the 23 make it clear that UN evaluations of climate are based on no substantial physical evidence, but only mathematical models that by now all readers have heard of. The senior author of this article has been working with such models since 1960, and it took him a long time to recognize how models relate to the real world. Mathematical models are merely representations of physical systems used primarily to try to understand how a physical system MIGHT work. No intelligent scientist would endanger a nation’s economic system based on a mathematical model that has never included even a fraction of the variables that impact Earth’s climate or the equations that describe it. The 23 scientists, who are named at the end of this article, all know this, and it is why they so passionately took up this challenge to help the citizens of the world who have been so terribly misled.

Richard Wilson, a co-author of the new report, is in charge of NASA’s Sun monitoring efforts. He said:

“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations, in recent decades, have demonstrated that there is no climate change crisis. The concept that devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980s, vintage, global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication.”

Cult of Climate Change

Global warming has become a religion. This is the opinion of Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever , Prof. Richard Lindzen, and many others. Climate change alarmism has a surprising number of attributes of a medieval or even ancient religion. Nevertheless, real religions have some pre-requisites, like a tradition spanning at least few generations. So the proper name for climate alarmism is a cult. And these are the telltale attributes:

1) Climate alarmists pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future. From minute details of the paleoclimate to the world state 200 years in the future, alarmists know everything.

2) The alarmist movement stubbornly refuses to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and viciously attacking its critics. The attacks are not limited to name calling but include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts this dogma. Significant figures within the movement call for criminal persecution of those who publicly disagree with the dogma and, in some cases, for those who do not follow it. Proposed punishments for “heretics” and “infidels” include prison and even death.

3) The alarmist movement has a formal doctrine-setting body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reports and summaries by this body are considered by the alarmists to be the main source of authority on all things related to climate, energy, the biological cycle, and consequentially, everything else. The cult followers (individuals, organizations, and even governments) regularly quote these unholy texts and use them to justify their decisions.

Full article is here: