Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Claims that ‘Global Boiling’ Led to “Shocking” Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet are Nonsense

The Ice Sheet is Currently Bigger Than Normal

BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 8, 2023

The new era of ‘global boiling’ has brought a return of the much loved climate scare story featuring the imminent demise of the Greenland ice sheet. The Daily Mail recently ran a headline noting the ‘Impact of Global Boiling‘, saying it has “shocking” photos showing how much the ice sheet has melted during the “hottest month ever recorded on Earth”. Snow melt is said to be higher than the 1981-2010 average.

But, alas, those who strive for accuracy in these matters are likely to quibble. The Earth is not “boiling” – that is the unhinged raving of the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres – the claim about July comes from a computer model, while “ever” refers to data of varying quality going back barely 150 years. Furthermore, the surface balance of ice on the Greenland ice sheet is higher than the 1981-2010 average, and could improve on last’s year performance, when there was little or no loss of the surface mass after the brief summer melting season.

If the Mail is “shocked” by how much the Greenland ice sheet has melted this year, it probably didn’t consult the polar portal site run by Danish meteorologists, which updates an accurate record on a daily basis. Both graphs above show the effect of a cold June where the ice loss was considerably lower than the previous year. Warmer weather arrived from the south in late June in time for the peak summer melt season.

As the second graph shows, the accumulation of surface ice on Greenland is more than the 1981-2010 average, and a big improvement on a decade ago. But as the Daily Sceptic noted recently, the current improvement can be seen in an even better light. A number of scientific institutions still use a decadal 1981-2010 average for comparison purposes, despite data to 2020 being available. The cynical might note that the ice sheet lost just 51 gigatonnes a year in the 1980s, compared to an annual loss of 244 gts in the 2010s. Updating the average figure would greatly amplify the recent, and continuing, recovery in the surface ice mass.

The ”shocking” before and after photos revealing how snow melts in the summer, even in Greenland, were taken by NASA satellites over the Frederikshab Glacier running down to the warmer south-west coast. The information and photos came from a NASA blog aimed at educators headed ‘Wasting Away (Again) in Greenland‘. More than halfway through the 2023 melting season, reports NASA, “Greenland has seen a substantial transformation of its snow cover”. This line – if it’s summer in Greenland, the snow melts – is readily taken up by the Mail. “According to scientists, snow falls on the Greenland ice sheet every winter… but experts say hotter summer temperatures are reducing the amount of snow cover.” The NASA blog is heavily quoted: “More than halfway through the 2023 melting season, Greenland has seen a substantial transformation of its snow cover. … Changes are the result of the increasing warmth of summer weather that took hold across the region in late June.”

Hold the front page – snow melts during the summer in Greenland, not many dead.

It is not difficult to find areas of rock in Greenland, especially in the south-west where most of the population of 55,000 live. The climate in this area is characterised as ‘low Arctic’ and temperatures are well above freezing in the warmest months. Ice in the Arctic waxes and wanes on a cyclical basis, while the long-term Greenland temperature is fairly stable. At a time when the planet has seen a gentle period of warming over the last 100 years, Greenland even held back slightly on the general trend. The five-year moving average of -18.57°C in 1929 compares with a measurement in 2021 of –17.96°C. The largest boost, as with other areas of the world, occurred in a short period in the 1980s and 90s, as the World Bank graph below shows. Since that time, as elsewhere, the rate of warming has considerably declined.

The Greenland ice sheet is the alarmist scare story that keeps on giving because water flowing off the land can increase sea levels. The Mail notes that scientists have already warned this year that the Greenland ice sheet is the “hottest it has ever been” and will cause global sea levels to rise by 20 inches by 2100 if it keeps warming at the same pace. In fact this information is linked to an earlier article that referenced a science paper quoting temperatures between 2000-2011. The next paragraph of the current story reports a rise of four feet or 1.2 metres by 2300, “even if we meet the 2015 Paris climate goals, scientists have warned”. Scientists might “warn”, but all these opinions of greatly increased sea level rises are produced by climate models, often assuming outlandish future scenarios.

Again, as we have noted in numerous articles, sea level rises are notoriously difficult to calculate since land rises as huge weights are lifted from it. Many areas in the northern hemisphere show falls in coastal sea levels, and this process is ongoing since the Earth is currently in an interglacial phase. In fact, current rises of 2mm a year are tiny compared with the huge boosts between 12,000 to 4,000 years ago.

Again, hold that front page – shock 2mm annual rise will lead to civilisation being inundated in the next century by a catastrophic seven inch increase in sea levels. Not many expected to die.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

August 9, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Always Follow the … ‘Incentives.’

Dr. Karen Landers is widely admired in my state and is a hero to journalists and editors at our state’s largest news organization … But I’m not a big fan.
BY BILL RICE, JR. | AUGUST 8, 2023

As my readers know, I write articles and make posts anywhere I can which try to advance my hypothesis that the novel coronavirus was spreading widely in late 2019.

After I made yet another “early spread” post, a colleague made a reply that sums up everything far better than I’ve done to date. Here’s his astute post:

“There is absolutely no incentive for about 99%+ of the scientists in the world (administrative state, academic, private, corporate) to ever want to truly trace down the origin timing (and a case zero may be an impossibility). They would all look like quack minions if they discovered something other than the narrative.  Too many threw all of their chips into the narrative ship and should that ship sink…”

All this fellow skeptic did with this post was frame the debate using incentives as the psychological motivating factor that explains everything that happens. In doing this, he reminded me to always examine every topic from a “risk-reward” perspective.

The incentives – positive or negative – are all that really matter.

Why do many people, especially those in leadership positions, act in nefarious, disingenuous ways? Why are they not interested in exposing untruths?

To answer this question, one has to imagine the repercussions or harm such people would suffer if the truth was exposed. (These would be professional “risks”) […]

… and then compare these negative outcomes (disincentives) to the rewards or benefits that would (and did) accrue to these same individuals if they simply went along with authorized narratives many of these people must have known were either lies or, at least, very possibly, falsehoods.

Two case studies from my own state …

To illustrate my point, I can reference two “public health leaders” in my own state as case studies.

Dr. Fauci’s successor … that’s ‘high cotton’ as we say in Alabama.

The first example is Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, who previously served as director of UAB’s Division of Infectious Diseases, and was recently named as Dr. Anthony Fauci’s successor at the NIAD.

The second example is Dr. Karen Landers, one of the top officials at the Alabama Department of Public Health and the primary media spokesperson for this high-profile public health agency.

In my strong opinion, both public health leaders enthusiastically and daily promoted myriad Covid falsehoods

I also do not think either person could have risen to these high-ranking positions without having some intelligence. At some point, it must have occurred to both individuals that the positions they were championing weren’t necessarily supported by certain statistics, data or scientific studies.

Still, they supported all of these false or dubious positions.

Also, significantly, they took absolutely no steps to debunk any of these false or dubious narratives.

Here, I need to cite specific examples …

I’m confident in writing that both Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers …

Supported draconian and civil-liberty-eviscerating lockdowns as a non-pharmaceutical “mitigation” measure, unprecedented measures they assured the public would slow or stop the spread of the coronavirus.

They both supported mask mandates that did nothing to slow virus spread and probably caused harm to the people forced to wear masks 8 to 12 hours a day for months or years.

They supported school closings and, once schools re-opened, student masking and social distancing.

They pushed the bogus narrative that Covid was a serious health risk to every citizen, including children who faced virtually zero mortality risk.

They endorsed the proposition that proven drugs like ivermectin and HCQ should not be used to treat Covid patients.

They either endorsed or didn’t criticize the myriad new “Covid protocols” used in hospitals even though these treatment protocols probably caused numerous unnecessary deaths.

They supported endless testing of asymptomatic citizens with PCR tests, testing which accomplished little if nothing to slow or stop spread or future cases.

They also never mentioned or questioned the fact the 40 to 45-cycle PCR tests were producing millions of bogus or dubious “cases.”

As far as I’m aware, neither Dr. Marrazzo nor Dr. Landers ever questioned the safety of Remdesivir, which many (ignored) scientists and doctors say killed many patients. (Update. Read this. Yes, Dr. Marrazzo “supported” Remdesivir. Big-time).

They never took any interest in investigating the possibility the coronavirus was spreading widely in America by late 2019 (although I myself presented both of them compelling evidence this was almost-certainly a fact).

And, of course, they strongly supported everyone over the age of 6 months getting a “vaccine.”

They both enthusiastically participated in the campaign to vilify the unvaccinated and spread the false narrative this was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Today, they both still say the vaccine is incredibly safe and poses no real risks for anyone who got the original series of shots or now the extra “boosters,” which they still encourage everyone to get, including pregnant women and children.

Of course, these examples are my opinion, but these are opinions backed up by millions of skeptics, including countless intelligent scientists, doctors and writers/thinkers.

If our opinions are wrong, neither of these two alleged experts and public health authorities have ever agreed to a public debate to engage with these skeptics. This factual observation tells us these are not real scientists, who are happy to engage in scientific debates.

Now let’s look at the consequences from being spectacularly wrong …

So what consequences have these alleged experts suffered from being spectacularly and stunningly wrong about so many important public health subjects?

Answer: There were no negative consequences. In fact, the careers of both ladies flourished.

As noted, Dr. Marrazzo just got the biggest promotion in the world of science, replacing “Science Himself” Dr. Fauci as the head of the agency that basically controls scientific research in America.

As far as I know, Dr. Landers didn’t get a promotion, but she’s still one of the public faces of the Alabama Department of Public Health, an agency which has never had more power or influence.

She certainly never had to worry about losing her cushy and prestigious job.

Career benefits can come from ego-boosting feature stories …

And both are literally celebrated as heroes of public health in my state.

In a recent article about Dr. Marrazzo’s big promotion, I pointed out that al.com (the largest “news organization” in Alabama) wrote a glowing piece on Dr. Marrazzo as a leader who “made a difference” in Alabama. In fact, the headline said Dr. Marrazzo actually made the citizens of our state “smarter.”

The same news organization also celebrated the contributions of Dr. Landers in a series of articles that told readers who Alabamians should exalt as brave and all-knowing public health heroes.

This series – “21 Alabamians who made a difference in 2021 – ” (highlighted) people who … made our state a better place to live this year.”

Excerpt: “Landers … has become a key public figure as the state battles COVID-19. Her calm demeanor and straight-forward answers have been a reassuring voice amid the changing health landscape …”

Regarding those alleged “straight-forward answers,” I’ve interviewed Dr. Landers and sent her office many emails trying to find out why the ADPH didn’t investigate two people who almost certainly had Covid in late 2019; trying to find out how many Alabama children really died “from” Covid and what the cycle threshold was on the PCR tests the agency used to determine Covid “cases.”

I can report I’ve never gotten one “straight forward answer” from this lady and/or this public health agency. 

I also speculate I’m probably the only journalist in my state who doesn’t consider the information disseminated by this agency as infallible.

But my main point is the point my colleague made at the beginning of this article. That is, these two people clearly personally benefitted from spreading false or dubious Covid (dis)information.

Today’s thought exercise considers what would have happened to their careers if they’d acted like me and actually questioned a few of the authorized Covid narratives.

I can make these predictions with high levels of confidence: Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo wouldn’t be getting ready to replace Dr. Fauci … and Dr. Karen Landers would now be retired from the ADPH.

Nor would either person have been the subject of the fawning feature stories al.com published.

Above, I write neither of these ladies is stupid. That is, they figured out all of the above on their own:

“Go along with the authorized narrative” = “Fantastic career accolades and unlimited prospects.”

“Challenge the authorized narrative” = “That’s it for my public health career.”

And one can multiply these two “cost-benefit” case studies by every public health official in the world and by just about every political leader or every person who leads any important organization.

All the operative incentives point to … one authorized narrative being protected and pushed … forever and ever, I guess.

While I would argue the actions and statements of these public health officials contributed to many unnecessary deaths and immeasurable harm to countless Alabamians and made residents of our state dumber not “smarter,” from their perspective or from their (selfish) mental calculations … they definitely “chose wisely.”

My own ‘case study’ is the corollary of this maxim …

I’ll end with a “case study” of someone who did challenge the authorized narratives – me.

Did I suffer any professional or personal “harm” by opposing the authorized narrative?

Well, I lost friends. Some family members are embarrassed by my efforts and rarely talk to me anymore.

My Facebook account was suspended and de-boosted repeatedly, which meant a professional writer couldn’t do any writing that would reach a large audience using that speech platform.

I could find only one news organization (uncoverDC.com) that would pay me to write contrarian Covid articles.

My main job or skill set is as a “journalist,”  but I’m now-un-hirable at 100-percent of corporate news organizations.

However, if I wrote the type articles al.com journalists write, I’d probably have no problem landing a real (paying) job in journalism. If I’d kept my real views private, all my former friends would still think it was okay to interact with me. Family members wouldn’t be nervous about engaging with me.

My professional and financial prospects would probably be much better than they are today.

So about that “road less travelled” … before you take it, you better think long and hard about where it might lead.

This said, this should also be said …

Actually, though, the world and all its roads can lead us to interesting places. God might have a larger plan for all of us, even the contrarians.

As it turns out, I’m as poor as I’ve ever been, but my writing (thanks to starting a Substack newsletter) has reached more people than ever and my words might be influencing more “debates” than ever.

I certainly don’t want this article to come across as whining because I wouldn’t change anything I’ve done.

If a few people like me didn’t criticize people like Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers, who would?

The world does need at least a few contrarians … and I guess this is my lot/purpose in life.

When you write as much as I do, you have to do a little thinking about the topics you’re writing about.

At least I now understand why the world is full of “leaders” like Dr. Marrazzo and Dr. Landers.

In investigative journalism, “follow the money” is supposed to guide our thinking. But I might adjust that maxim to say … follow the incentives. They’re all backwards, but at least this tells us why the world’s like it is.

August 9, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Dr Jonathan Engler Dismantles The Covid Pandemic & mRNA “Vaccine” Narratives

Doc Malik | July 30, 2023

Dr Jonathan Engler is qualified in both medicine and law. During a varied career he has worked as a doctor, medical adviser within the pharmaceutical industry, entrepreneur and barrister. He has 4 adult children and 2 grandsons, and lives near Manchester in the North of England.

Jonathan co-chairs the Hart Group with Dr Clair Craig and is on the exec of Panda, for both of which he regularly writes and reviews articles.

In this conversation, Jonathan dismantles both the official Covid and mRNA “vaccine” narratives.

Enjoy and as ever love to you all x

Websites –

HART Group

Panda

Twitter –

Please support the show so that I can continue to speak up by choosing one or all of the following options –
Buy me a coffee⁠ if you want to make a one off donation.
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/docmalik

Join my Substack to access free and paid additional content.
https://docmalik.substack.com/subscribe

⁠Support the show⁠ and have access to exclusive contents and perks.
https://docmalik.com/support

To sponsor the Doc Malik Podcast contact us at hello@docmalik.com

August 9, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

The Infuriating Climate Alarm

By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | August 8, 2023

In the UK, we all know that this summer has been rubbish. We had a few weeks of glorious sunshine in June and since then it’s been bloody miserable. It’s been cold, wet and the dog has got trench-foot. Which isn’t great because he stinks at the best of times—bless him.

Yet, according to the UN Secretary General and blithering buffoon, António Guterres, we’ve entered the “era of global boiling.” Though not in the UK—or anywhere else for that matter

Just as we were during the pseudopandemic, we are once again invited to reject the evidence of our own senses and “trust” whatever we are told by the “experts,” although Guterres is not a meteorologist. Mind you, Bill Gates isn’t an epidemiologist and everyone “trusted” his “expert” opinion during the pseudopandemic, so who cares?

I know! I know! Weather isn’t climate change. While climate constantly changes, the process can only be understood through the accumulation of evidence revealing a highly complex system that is subject to radiative forcing.

It is safe to say that no one who seriously questions “climate change” alarm, denies that climate changes. What they question are the claims made by organisations like the UK Met Office:

The evidence is clear: the main cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. When burnt, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the air, causing the planet to heat up.

There isn’t one, published scientific paper, anywhere on Earth, that empirically proves that increased atmospheric CO2 precedes and causes global warming. The evidence is far from “clear.”

Climate change alarmists offer all kinds of convoluted arguments, usually by applying highly questionable statistical models, in their attempt to prove causality. Yet this very basic, empirical scientific proof is notable only for its absence.

But let’s not let scientific facts get in the way of a good story. The planet is boiling I tells ye!

If CO2 is the problem then the solution seems pretty simple, not to mention quite pleasant: plant as many trees as we can, wherever we can, and don’t cut them down to burn in biomass power plants that emit more CO2 than brown-coal fired power stations. But that is not a “solution” that anyone in power is interested in.

If CO2 is the problem then the solution seems pretty simple, not to mention quite pleasant: plant as many trees as we can, wherever we can, and don’t cut them down to burn in biomass power plants that emit more CO2 than brown-coal fired power stations. But that is not a “solution” that anyone in power is interested in.

No, the proposed solution to supposed planetary vaporisation is Sustainable Development debt slavery. Which all raises a few questions about, for example, UK Met Office gibberish. It’s almost as if there’s some sort of agenda at play. Which, of course, there is.

But we’re not going rehash arguments about the climate change woo-woo Science™. There’s no point anyway. Climate change alarm is a death cult, not an exercise in intellectual honesty.

Instead, let’s look at just a few examples of obvious climate alarm tripe. As we do, we’ll also ponder why, if anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is so sound, so-called “climate scientists” and the mainstream media—legacy media—feel the need to perpetually lie about its alleged effects.

In 2009, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, which provides much of the HadCRUT data underpinning the IPCC’s climate change models, was caught fiddling the climate data in order to “prove” AGW theory.

Scientific fraud was evident and key “climate scientists” involved were subsequently unable to provide any data to support their misleading conclusions. Something that was later proven in court. Yet still the legacy media (LM), in this instance represented by the appalling propagandists at the Guardian, manage to deny the blatant scam.

This is all irrelevant because, irrespective of the fake science, all scientists agree that the planet is being cooked like a hard boiled egg. Except the Nobel laureate physicists who don’t. Oh, and all the other scientists who don’t either.

They are not “real” scientists and therefore must be cancelled and definitely barred from explaining to the IMF that the IPCC’s modelled predictions are drivel. Global financial institutions are set to profit from “da climate Science™” and are not interested in having their plans undermined by pesky, Nobel prize winning scientists.

Gutteres’ boiling planet yarn is based upon the recent LM alarm about the Cerberus and Charon heatwaves that supposedly plagued central and southern Europe. The LM used scary colours on their maps to make sure everyone soiled themselves. As if naming the summer after mythical devil-dogs and boatmen for the dead wasn’t enough.

Reuters said ambulances had been put on standby to rescue people from the sunshine; Sky warned that the fingerprints of climate change were forcing people to “shelter from the heat;” CNN reported that the heat was at “unbearable levels” and the constantly petrified Guardian, alleging that “human-caused climate crisis is supercharging extreme weather around the world,” added:

The European Space Agency (ESA) said the next week could bring the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe.

While the Guardian mentioned the ESA, they neglected to report its subsequent data clarification. The ESA made it clear that they were providing satellite readings of “land surface temperatures” not the “air temperatures” that are commonly given in weather reports.

On a hot day, land surface temperatures tend to be considerably higher than air temperatures. The degree of difference varies, depending on numerous factors such as the heat absorption and radiation properties of the surface material and so on. As pointed out by the pro-climate alarm website SkepticalScience :

[. . .] on a sunny day in a heatwave, many land surfaces become hotter than the air – that’s how tarmac can melt in a sunny spot.

Contradicting themselves, and ignoring the ESA clarification completely, SkepticalScience then said that the reported air temperature high of 48.8°C on July 17th “did happen.” However, as pointed out by the genuinely sceptical What’s-Up-With-That (WUWT), this claim presents us with a major conundrum.

The LM consistently reported “air temperatures” that were the same as the ESA’s reported “land surface temperature.” The air temperature should have been notably lower, but wasn’t reported to be so.

Quite simply, that just can not be true. It is all very odd, because the actual recorded air temperatures were lower than those reported by the LM, such as the Guardian and the BBC.

This is not to say that it wasn’t very hot in southern and some parts of central Europe and the US. But the ridiculous, exaggerated LM claims that July was the hottest month in 125,000 years were unmitigated claptrap. As Kit Knightly, writing for the OffGuardian, rightly observed, there is simply no way to know this.

The University of Alabama and Hunstsville (UAH) Global Temperature Record is also a key data set for the IPCC. The UAH measures temperature anomalies and, using this measure—which is not the same as a consistent average—confirmed that July 2023 was the hottest July and the hottest single month since 1979, when satellite records began. Given, for example, that an “air temperature” anomaly of 50°C was recorded in Paris in August 1930—before satellite records began—the “hottest ever” claims don’t remotely stack up, even from an anomaly perspective, and certainly don’t constitute any evidence of the “ravages” of CO2 driven climate change.

Reports from European holiday makers that they had to avoid the midday sun, as they mingled with the crowds enjoying the lovely weather, is hardly a sign of the end-times. Noel Coward wrote the song “Mad Dogs and Englishmen,” advising people to avoid sweltering midday temperatures, in 1931. It went down well because it was funny and something people could relate to. Probably because the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century.

SkepticalScience is among the climate alarm pushers who assert that the heatwave was obviously caused by climate change. As noted by James Corbett and James Even Pilato, that notion is speculative to say the least.

Both NASA and the ESA reported that the Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai underwater volcano eruption in January 2022 increased the amount of stratospheric water vapour by a minimum of 10%, possibly up to 30%. So vast was this expulsion of H2O that it is likely to increase average global temperatures for several years to come.

If you are looking for LM reports on the staggering global climate impact of this event, don’t bother. There aren’t any.

Instead, the BBC, for example, published an article on July 14th 2023 which spoke about the amazing expulsion of lava and ash and the spectacular associated volcanic lightening. They even linked to the NASA report which said the additional volume of atmospheric water vapour was enough to “fill the equivalent of 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.” But the BBC propagandists couldn’t bring themselves to report the rest of the quoted NASA statement, which read:

The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

Just eleven days later—July 25th—BBC amnesiacs told the world that the European and US heatwaves would have been “near impossible” without climate change. Despite previously citing the NASA and ESA findings which clearly show this claim is totally groundless.

The BBC offered a ludicrous report from World Weather Attribution (WWA)—deceptively calling it a “study”—to supposedly “confirm” that “climate change” had increased the heatwaves by 2.5°C. Based upon nothing but LM reports and speculative computer models, the WWA report was scientifically illiterate dross that presented absolutely no evidence at all to support any of its wacky conclusions.

The  Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption and the ESA spawned media “confusion,” over the difference between surface and air temperatures, was entirely ignored by the BBC as it pumped out its climate change propaganda. Rounding off its disinformation, the BBC wrote:

[. . .] increased temperatures from burning fossil fuels was the main driver in the more intense heatwaves.

A conclusion, it is worth reiterating, for which there is no evidence. The BBC’s role is to make you imagine that the evidence exists.

SkepticalScience, which isn’t sceptical enough to explore atmospheric science or check what its scientific sources really said, didn’t deem it necessary to mention any of this either. But it did ram home that anyone who questions climate alarm is a “climate denier”:

People who create and/or circulate such myths are denying plain reality. That reality is that it got extremely hot across southern Europe for a prolonged period in July 2023. Such prolonged heat is a serious health-hazard, never mind the appalling wildfires.

Aah, the wildfires!

Presumably ignited by the 40+°C heat. Or so the LM would have us believe.

Reporting the “end of the world,” the BBC were certain that the “heatwave spreading across Europe is fuelling wildfires in Portugal.” Someone should tell the Portuguese the end of the world is nigh, because comments from people in Portugal during the “catastrophic heatwave” don’t give rise to any cause for alarm.

This is all reminiscent of the climate alarm that spewed out of the LM during the Canadian wildfires in June that sent a pall of smoke across the US eastern seaboard. The New York Times said this provide us with a “grim climate lesson;” CBS said that the fires were started by lightening caused by dry hot weather as “climate change continues to warm the planet” and the always unreliable BBC wrote “climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires.”

But the prize for most outstanding baloney must go to the Guardian for its unhinged piece, “Canada’s Wildfires are Part of a New Climate Reality.” Claiming that the fires were the “harbinger of our climate future” and that climate change could “double the acreage burned by wildfires each year,” the Guardian exposed itself when it revealed that its headline “new climate reality” was “sourced” from a tweet by US politician Bernie Sanders. Probably after he read a New York Times or other LM article that told him what to think.

None of these wildly inaccurate LM affirmations were remotely plausible. In a fully referenced article, weather forecaster Chris Martz, outlined the many reasons why there is no foundation for the claims that the Canadian boreal forest wildfires were, in any sense, attributable to CO2 caused “climate change:”

Headlines and armchair experts articulated with boastful confidence that the primary cause of the Canadian fires [. . .] was climate change. Despite the fact these claims are neither supported by the greater body of peer-reviewed work nor the observational record.

The actual reasons for the Canadian wildfires were the encroachment of human settlements into woodland areas—increasing the human ignition risk, decades of poor forestry management and inclement weather conditions that produced the lightening strikes which appeared to simultaneously ignite some of the fires.

Prior to the heat driven thunderstorms, Canada had been experiencing average or below average temperatures for the time of year. As Martz accurately observed:

This justifies the case that the fire weather conditions were a transient response to ongoing weather conditions which primed the environment, not a long-term pattern that could be altered by the climatic base state.

Martz reported the Canadian government’s forest burn area records from 1959 to date. Contrary to all the claims spewed out by LM disinformation agents, the records clearly show that total burn areas and fires peaked in the late 1980s. They have steadily decreased ever since. There is, once again, no correlation with increased CO2 levels nor any evidence linking the boreal wildfires to “climate change.”

Like most people who question climate alarm, Martz is concerned about the environment and recognises that the obsession with CO2 reduction does nothing to address the real environmental problems. He wrote:

Sitting on our hands and blaming climate change for every abnormal environmental event is a waste of time when our efforts would be better spent on addressing how to manage risk and mitigate vulnerabilities.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 programme yesterday morning, some numpty—sorry, I didn’t catch her name—claimed that the seas were boiling. Because climate change … Duh! I’m sure she is a learned numpty, but seemingly clueless nonetheless.

This followed on from the usual BBC climate bunk highlighting that Florida seawater surface temperatures had achieved 37.8°C. This, we were authoritatively informed, was all caused by climate change. The Guardian piled in to ramp up the terror. That being said, Guardian columnists also think we should end farming to save the planet, so perhaps taking the Guardian’s word for anything isn’t the wisest course.

Both the BBC and the Guardian had simply parroted a story fed to them by the newswires. There was no more “journalism” than that. They investigated nothing, didn’t verify anything and just published whatever they were told to publish.

The high water temperature reading was taken from just one censor buoy in Manatee Bay, near Key Largo. Writing for WUWTJim Steele pointed out that the temperature reading of the same buoy had dropped to 29°C within a day. Other measurement buoys in the surrounding waters were consistently reporting much lower water temperatures. This was due to the fact that the Manatee Bay buoy floats in a sheltered, coastal “solar pond,” largely protected from cold water flows.

If CO2 propelled climate change caused the buoy reading to climb to 37.8°C, then it must have caused it to cool down again the next day. Equally, “climate change” must also be responsible for the much cooler waters surrounding Manatee Bay. This is, of course, an absurd contention. As Steele highlighted:

Clearly those water temperatures were being driven by dynamics other than rising CO2.

Clearly! So why couldn’t the LM figure that out? Are they all irretrievably stupid or is there something else going on?

As we noted earlier, weather is not climate change. Except when it’s really hot.

While it was scorching in Europe and the US, the LM regaled us with an slew of climate change fairy tales. However, as soon as the weather in the same European and US regions returned to at or below average temperatures they fell stony silent. According to LM propagandists like the Guardian, “climate change” always reverts back to weather when it is chuffin’ freezing.

Wherever we look, those who are pushing the idea that climate change threatens some sort of cataclysm just can’t stop misleading, manipulating, deceiving and propagandising. The question is why. If we accept that climate change is a concern, why do they feel the need to constantly lie about its alleged impacts?

It is never ending. Frankly, it has become infuriating. Maybe that’s the point.

Every nonsensical climate alarm story we have discussed deploys applied behavioural psychology to convince you to believe evident insanity. You are supposed to unquestioningly accept that the planet is “literally” on fire. Or, as the the UN Secretary General insists for no apparent reason, that the era of “global boiling” is upon us.

We are very close to climate lockdowns to “save the planet.” None of this has anything to do with climate change.

The only thing that is “literally” true is that the net-zero, sustainable development solution is “literal” population control. The mind-bending propaganda can only succeed if you ignore the view from your own window, which invariably reveals that it is actually pissing down.

When the farcical climate lockdowns arrive, may I suggest you dress for the weather, grab a bottle of water, and go out and enjoy yourself. What are they going to do? Lock us up in our own homes again?

I’ll see you out there.

August 8, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

CDC, Pharma Giants Angle for Annual COVID Shots Despite ‘Unclear’ Science

By Monica Dutcher | The Defender | August 7, 2023

The U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic wants to know more about plans by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to recommend annual COVID-19 vaccines.

During a July interview with Spectrum News, CDC Director Mandy Cohen said she “anticipate[s] that COVID will become similar to flu shots, where … you get your annual flu shot and you get your annual COVID shot.”

As part of the House investigation into federal COVID-19 vaccination mandates and policies, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) last week sent a letter to Cohen, stating:

“It is unclear if the science supports such a recommendation. If this anticipated CDC recommendation occurs, it will mark a significant change in federal policy and guidance regarding COVID-19 vaccines and the way in which they are utilized.”

Wenstrup requested all documents and communications about any annual — “or any other time-based iteration” — recommendation for COVID-19 booster shots, including correspondence between or among the CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (also under the subcommittee’s investigation), the White House, the CDC Foundation, CDC contractors and any other CDC stakeholders.

PfizerModerna and Novavax are slated in September to release new single-strain COVID-19 shots targeting the Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5. These vaccines are not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but manufacturers are following the June 15 recommendations of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).

The committee of 21 independent advisers in June voted unanimously that any new vaccine should protect against just one strain of the virus — a departure from the available bivalent vaccines — and should target one of the three Omicron subvariants currently circulating, including XBB.1.5.

The XBB.1.5 variant spread globally in the first quarter of 2023, reaching dominance in North America, and other parts of the world by April, according to the FDA’s briefing document for the June meeting.

‘We really don’t know what the COVID season is’

FDA advisers in January raised concerns about shifting to a yearly schedule for COVID-19 vaccines. Unlike the flu, which thrives in the winter months, COVID-19’s spread has proved erratic, consistently mutating into new variants.

Dr. Mark Sawyer, professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, told CNBC that describing COVID-19 as seasonal “could be problematic” because “we really don’t know what the COVID season is.”

Dr. Peter McCullough, author of “The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” told The Defender :

“COVID-19 respiratory illness is now like a mild head cold. There is no seasonal pattern. The COVID-19 vaccines have failed to stop transmission or protect against hospitalization and death.

“The products on the market have theoretical efficacy of less than six months. Annual COVID-19 shots have no clinical indication, medical necessity, are not durable for 12 months and have never been tested for use on a yearly schedule.

“On Dec. 7, 2022 in a U.S. Senate panel on vaccines, I called for all COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the market because they are not safe for human use. There has been no objection to that testimony from public health officials.”

NBC News reported that Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, acknowledged during an FDA advisory committee meeting in January that “simplifying the COVID-19 vaccine schedule to be exactly like the flu may not be possible.”

Pfizer hopes otherwise. The drug company’s chief scientific officer, Dr. Mikael Dolsten, thinks an annual COVID-19 vaccine would improve vaccine sentiment, telling CNBC the public grew dissatisfied with mandates during the earlier stages of the pandemic.

He said:

“Unfortunately some people see vaccines as part of that [the mandates].

“I think of it like the introduction of seat belts for cars. People didn’t want to wear them at first, but over time they realized how much seat belts protect them. Now everyone uses them today. That’s kind of how the vaccine story needs to be reimagined.”

An annual schedule, Dolsten added, may help people view COVID-19 shots as another “very natural part” of protecting their health.

CDC director ‘very worried about parents not vaccinating kids’

In addition to the ambiguity surrounding COVID-19 vaccine scheduling, there is no consensus among medical experts on which patients would be recommended for an annual jab.

Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of VRBPAC, took issue with not only the annual model but also with administering COVID-19 vaccines to low-risk groups.

Offit told CNN:

“If the goal of the vaccine is the stated goal, which is protection against severe disease, do you really need a yearly vaccine for otherwise healthy people less than 75? I mean, is this the flu model? Because I would argue it shouldn’t be.”

Health advocacy groups and doctors argue against authorizing mRNA shots in young children and babies. As of July 28 — when data were last updated in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — there were 6,591 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in children under age 6.

Cohen said she is “very worried about parents not vaccinating kids,” telling Spectrum News, “There’s plenty of other things that are hard as parents that we can’t do. This is one we can do to protect our kids.”

McCullough described Cohen as “fully entrenched in the bio-pharmaceutical complex” and “on the wrong side of every pandemic public health intervention.”

Jeffrey A. Tucker, founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, said Cohen’s career has been punctuated by “heartbreaking fear-mongering, pseudo-science, and propaganda,” adding that “she passed with flying colors all three tests of compliance: closures, masking, and vaccine mandates.”

Reduced trust in vaccines and the CDC concerns Cohen, who plans to rehabilitate that trust by focusing on “transparency, execution and building relationships with the public, health leaders and politicians.”

survey by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published in the journal Health Affairs found that roughly a quarter of Americans have little to no trust in the CDC for health information, including 10% who do not trust the agency at all.

The CDC currently recommends the primary series of mRNA shots, or the first two doses of the updated vaccine be given weeks apart, followed months later by a booster shot. The FDA updated its guidance for these shots in August 2022 to contain a bivalent formulation targeting the original viral strain plus the BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants.

Pfizer is working on a combined flu/COVID-19 vaccine, expected to be available after 2024. Moderna is also working on a “next-gen flu-COVID combo” vaccine. Other vaccine makers are following suit.


Monica Dutcher is a Maryland-based senior reporter for The Defender.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 7, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Everything you need to know about Covid’s “Eris” Variant

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 7, 2023

The big news the last couple of days is that “Covid” is back… again. This time it’s the “Eris” variant, named after the Greek goddess of strife and discord, it supposedly is causing a spike in cases for the first time in… who cares how long.

The bulk of reporting on it is detailing how it’s supposedly related to Omicron or Arcturus or all the other names they flash in the headlines.

That, or the symptoms.

They are a runny nose and a sore throat and…well, you know. The only noteworthy thing to mention here is that the “loss of taste of smell” – so long sold as Covid’s calling card – is no longer considered a common symptom.

Yahoo even reported – without a shred of irony – that the alleged up-tick in “cases” was due to people spending more time indoors:

Bad weather encouraging people to spend more time indoors and waning immunity have been blamed for the rise

… a peculiar position to take, considering lockdown is meant to have helped, last time.

Anyway, without further ado, here is everything you really need to know about the Eris variant:

It’s bullshit.

Just like all the others.

Nothing else really needs to be said, does it?

Sure the media are setting up softballs for us to hammer over the fence, talking about the “symptoms” and “infection” rate again as if the past three years haven’t rendered all those words meaningless. But we are – or should be – well past that point of arguing against the mainstream.

We know everything we need to know about the symptoms – they are “generally mild” and “flu-like”, because Covid is nothing but re-branded endemic respiratory diseases. We know the death statistics are made up and the tests don’t work except to manufacture cases.

We know all this, even this repeating of it is unnecessary, to be honest.

The only aspect of Eris worth discussing is why it’s in the papers, and even that answer is briefer than usual.

Eris exists because the “Cerberus” heatwave is over, and July was unseasonably cold and damp in the UK. Because Autumn will be setting in soon enough and there are no more major sporting events for Just Stop Oil to disrupt for a while.

In short, Eris is what happens when people refuse to panic about climate change.

In fact, we can probably expect headlines linking Eris to the climate in the next few days.

The trouble with that is, just like climate change, people can only be scared by words for so long. The media repeated “global warming” so much the words lost their meaning, and filled the papers with so many apocalyptic predictions that never came to pass that people got numbed to it, they filter it out now even if they don’t realise they do.

The same will happen with covid; the more they bring it back for a jump scare, the less people will jump.

That’s probably why they’re laying the groundwork “the next pandemic” of “disease X”.

August 7, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Massive Water and Cloud Boost From Tonga Eruption Could Explain Recent Unusual Weather Patterns

BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 4, 2023

The accurate satellite record confirms that last month was an unusual weather period with higher than normal temperature recordings on both land and at sea. It was the warmest July since 1979, it tied with March 2015 for the second warmest departure from the norm and it was the warmest month for tropical land. Of course, the climate alarmists had a field day, with ‘global boiling’ now making an official UN appearance. Inexplicably missing from all the hysteria, however, was any mention that NASA scientists have recently confirmed that the Tonga volcanic eruption in January last year boosted water content in the stratosphere by a massive, and weather-changing, 10%.

Scientists have been shocked by the dramatic increase in water vapour spread around the globe by the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai submarine volcano. Water vapour is the most powerful of all the greenhouses gases since, unlike the others, it traps heat across a wide part of the infra-red spectrum. It accounts for about 4% of all atmospheric gases, compared to 0.04% for carbon dioxide, but its effect is relatively short-lived since it re-enters the natural hydrological cycle. Nevertheless, Tonga water vapour and its associated clouds could last in the atmosphere for a few years, and scientists suggest both temperature increases and disturbed weather patterns will continue.

A group of NASA scientists have published a paper noting Tonga’s “high impact” consequences. Unlike most volcanic eruptions, Tonga released few aerosols such as dust and ash into the atmosphere which cause temporary falls in temperature. In 1815, Mount Tambora exploded on the island of Sumbawa causing widespread cooling and a subsequent “year without a summer”. In Tonga’s case, specific geological conditions threw vast amounts of super-heated water up to 50 kilometres into the air. Such is the “unprecedented” amounts of water involved, the NASA scientists believe it could remain in the atmosphere for serval years. The scientists say they will continue to monitor volcanic gases from this eruption, along with future ones, “to better quantify their varying roles in climate”.

Not that it is likely that the spoon-fed activists in the mainstream media will be much interested. Any warming will be gratefully seized upon to promote the so-called climate emergency, and the collectivist Net Zero political solution. The scientific jury is still deliberating on the effects of the Tonga eruption, but recent unusual weather changes occurring at a time when water vapour has been given such a massive boost, must rank as a possible cause. As the Daily Sceptic has often noted, the tragedy for any commentator too afraid to challenge the prevailing narrative about the climate is that whole areas of debate around physics, chemistry and geology are off limits for fear that alternative explanations will cast doubt on the carefully constructed political narrative.

Cliff Mass is the Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington. He has long been critical of catastrophising about individual weather events. According to Mass, the golden rule of weather extremes is: “The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability, and the smaller the contribution of human-caused global warming.”

Earlier work from a group of European scientists had drawn attention to the scale of the Tonga discharge. They concluded that the unique nature and magnitude of the global stratospheric perturbation caused by Hunga “ranks it among the most remarkable climatic events in the modern observation era, with a range of potential long-lasting repercussions for stratospheric composition and climate”. They also observed that Hunga was likely to have been the most explosive event of the modern observational era, while comparisons were made to the eruption of Mount Krakatoa in 1883.

The latest work from NASA analysed satellite data showing the volume of water injected into the atmosphere between 12 and 53 kms. “We’ve never seen anything like it,” commented lead author Luis Millan. “We had to carefully inspect all the measurements in the plume to make sure they were trustworthy,” he added. Volcanoes rarely inject much water into the stratosphere. In the 18 years since NASA has been taking measurements, only two others produced appreciable amounts, but these were said to be “mere blips” compared with Tonga.

It seems that the smart alarmist money is backing the Tonga warming effect, with some shorting of the once promising El Nino boost becoming apparent. Signals from the latter stable are not wholly sanguine. Sea surface temperature departures from the norm, known as anomalies, are mixed, notes the U.S. weather service NOAA. “Collectively, the coupled ocean-atmosphere system reflected a weak El Nino” it adds. Odds can change – it is after all the weather. Forecasters are said to favour continued growth of the El Nino oscillation through the fall, peaking this winter with an 81% chance of “moderate-to-strong” intensity. In forecaster-speak, this translates as we haven’t a clue.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

August 7, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

A Round-Up of the BBC’s Climate Howlers of the Past 12 Months

BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 6, 2023

The annual Paul Homewood review of the BBC’s climate howlers is always an enjoyable read, even for those keen students who follow his investigative work during the year. But with the consensus starting to crumble for the insane Net Zero collectivist project, this latest instalment of Tall Climate Tales from the BBC seems to have attracted a wider audience. Talk TV and the Daily Express have both given extensive coverage to the latest set of BBC bloopers.

How we laughed when Julia Hartley-Brewer read from the list on her TalkTV morning show. Such as the report from the Norfolk village of Happisburgh where “extreme weather linked to climate change” has eroded the soft sand cliff rock. No mention of the finding of the British Geological Society that it is likely the Norfolk cliffs have been “eroding at the present rate for about the last 5,000 years”.

Or the report that the 2021 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active on record. Nothing of the sort, of course, with Homewood observing that since 1851 there have been 32 years with a higher count of hurricanes. There was also an evidence-free claim in September 2022 on the BBC Verify that hurricanes were getting more powerful. The U.S. weather service NOAA states in its latest review that “there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity”.

Your own correspondent’s personal favourite made the list with news that bee-eaters had turned up in Norfolk to the delight of local twitchers. But the BBC was worried, reporting that rare ‘rainbow birds’ trying to breed in the UK was a worrying sign of how our climate is changing. It was an “unmissable sign”, no less, that the climate emergency had reached our shores. As any half-knowledgeable bird watcher could have told the BBC, bee-eaters have frequently visited England in the past. One archive alone lists 80 sightings between 1793 and 1957. Then there’s a story about trees in British cities that a study said were at risk of drought due to climate change. There is no evidence that the areas were getting drier, nor is there any evidence they will. “Once again, the BBC is uncritically presenting a controversial study as factual,” commented Homewood.

It is the common practice of the BBC to reproduce the most extreme climate claims without challenge, without providing supporting data, and without reporting on the views of scientists who disagree, writes Homewood. In fact, the practice continues almost daily. In March, the BBC said that Antarctica ocean currents were heading for collapse – “a new report warns”. The article proceeded to go into full Day After Tomorrow mode with “previous research” suggesting a slowdown in the North Atlantic current causing Europe to become colder.

Modern climate science/activism is awash with clickbait predictions looking for a suitable home in useful idiot mainstream media. As recent research from the Clintel Foundation revealed, about 42% of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate impact statements are based on a computer model that assumes temperatures will climb by 5°C in less than 80 years. Even the IPCC itself admits this is of “low likelihood”. About half the published climate papers are thought to use this 5°C input, leading to a festival of misinformation for gainfully employed journalists content to append “scientists say” to fanciful copy. The latest giant of modern science to rain on this parade is last year’s joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics Dr John Clauser, who calls the climate emergency narrative a “dangerous corruption” of science that threatens the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”, he observes.

The state broadcaster has followed this path of eco-extremism for over 20 years, providing covering fire for politicians to promote a Net Zero project. As audiences continue to decline, the BBC increasingly operates as a club of eco-fanatics intent on signally their virtue to fellow members of the cult. It fails to cover the scientific process at almost every level, discounting the views of any scientists that don’t adhere to the party political line. As with Covid, there seems to be an irrational belief in the output of computer models. Such belief leads to a preposterous acceptance that ‘attribution‘ models can link individual weather events to supposed human involvement.

As we have noted, large areas of science are now closed for debate for fear that any competing views will cast doubt on the unproven but ‘settled’ hypothesis that humans cause all or most climate change. Natural variation in the climate is largely ignored, while stories of once fanatical interest suddenly disappear from the carefully constructed catastrophe playlist. These include polar bears – more than you can shake a stick at these days – the recovery in Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, and spectacular coral growth on the Great Barrier Reef.

In Homewood’s view, the BBC’s coverage of climate change and related policy issues such as energy “has long been of serious and widespread concern”. In his latest review, Homewood notes that all of the BBC’s factual errors could easily have been avoided with a bit of basic research. And he asks, who is editing all this “fake reporting”? Where are the highly paid executives who let all this continue? “It is apparent that nothing has changed in the last 12 months,” he says.

One more for the road – another personal favourite of mine. It was dry in February this year, despite an average amount of rainfall over the winter. Banging the drum for drought, the BBC produced a picture of an empty reservoir labelled “water levels in rivers, reservoirs and groundwater levels were abnormally low in February”. Alas, the picture showed trees in full leaf, which wasn’t surprising since it was taken in September 2021, a time when reservoirs can be seasonably low. “There’s nothing like a fake image to fool the public,” comments Homewood.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Stop Press: Paul Homewood has produced a summary of his latest report about the BBC’s climate howlers for the Express.

August 6, 2023 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Is the Era of ‘Global Boiling’ Really Upon Us? The Climate Fear-Mongers are Becoming a Laughing Stock

BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 2, 2023

Increasing numbers of commentators are starting to call peak Net Zero and this process is being helped by the crumbling of the decades-long suffocating stranglehold exerted on ‘settled’ climate science by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The latest body-blow to its credibility has come from last year’s joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, Dr John Clauser. He has warned the Nobel Foundation not to model a proposed new body to police ‘misinformation’ on the IPCC, adding: “In my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.” It would seem unhelpful that at a time when Clauser voiced his criticism, the UN’s Secretary General headed for a public stage and upgraded global warming to “global boiling”.

Of course, by ramping up the fear to ‘boiling’ point, the unhinged Antonio Guterres has fallen into the ‘worse than Hitler’ trap. Where can you go after you call someone a Nazi, or tell a world audience that the Earth is bubbling beneath its feet?

Details have recently been made public about the short speech Clauser gave to young scientists in South Korea. He implored them to follow the scientific method based on good observations and experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory, he told them. Referring to climate science, he noted the current world was “literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation”.

Referring often to climate science, he told his audience that if they are doing good science they must beware since it may take them on paths that lead them into “political incorrect” areas. “If you’re a good scientist, you will follow them… I can confidently say that there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme events,” he said.

Easier said than done of course since most scientists are funded in one form or another by governments. In the area of climate, politicians require scientific backing for their collectivist plans to re-order society around Net Zero. Huge amounts of public money are flowing into untested, unproductive new technologies, few of which would be viable in a free capital market. Green subsidy hunters are making serious fortunes with little risk involved. The climate narrative is absurd, says MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen, but trillions of dollars says it is not absurd.

There are a number of fault lines that run through the IPCC science narrative. It maintains that all changes in the climate since 1900 are caused by humans burning fossil fuel. This is plainly odd since it asks us to ignore almost all natural variation, having accepted that natural causes were responsible for climate change in the past. It also suggests that the current period in the Earth’s history is the hottest for 125,000 years, ignoring copious evidence that temperatures were much higher in the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 9,700 – 5,700 years ago. The IPCC would have us believe that higher levels of carbon dioxide cause the temperature to inevitably rise, despite observational evidence throughout the paleo record that contradicts that simple hypothesis. After 50 years of trying, not a single credible paper has yet been published providing conclusive proof for the anthropogenic global warming boiling hypothesis.

Earlier this year, a group of scientists operating through the Clintel Foundation examined the latest work of the IPCC. The authors were damning about its most recent report, finding it emphasised worst-case scenarios, rewrote climate history and had a huge bias against good news. Its standout revelation was that 42% of the IPCC’s claims were based on climate models fed with the implausible assumption that global temperatures would rise by around 5°C in less than 80 years. Deep in the main body of its work, even the IPCC admits this is of “low likelihood”. Even worse, Clintel noted, was that about half the extreme climate model forecasts found across the entire body of scientific literature are based on this 5°C boost. It is a fair bet that almost 100% of the clickbait scare stories that dominate mainstream media are taken from these sources.

The former IPCC author and economics professor Roger Pielke Jr. thinks that the continuing reliance on these implausible assumptions by the IPCC is “one of the most significant failures of scientific integrity in the 21st Century”.

The tide could well be turning as the voices of previously cancelled giants of science are heard. In the UK, there is increasing media interest in the retrospective uplifts to temperature datasets enabling previous inconvenient pauses to be removed, and ‘records’ to be declared at regular intervals. Not before time, the Met Office’s habit of declaring heat highs amidst the jet exhaust at British airports is becoming something of a national joke.

One of those science giants, atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen, recently told a U.S. government body that climate science “is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence”. In his view, the IPCC only issues “government-dictated findings”, noting that the important, and much quoted, “Summary for Policymakers” must be approved for publication by all governments. He further noted that, “misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry-picking or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called global warming caused by fossil fuel and CO2”.

Dr Clauser signed off his inspiring talk to young scientists in South Korea by telling them to observe nature directly so they could determine real truth. “Use the information gained from carefully performed experiments and research to stop the spread of scientific misinformation, disinformation,” he said.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

August 6, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Failed Climate Predictions

We should all be dead by now

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | August 5, 2023

In 2013 The Guardian wrote an article saying that the Arctic would be ice-free in two years. Does anybody remember the ice-free Arctic in 2015?

Image

Professor Peter Wadhams was heralding a methane catastrophe. I guess after such a terrible prediction, Wadhams retired? Of course not, he is still a professor at Cambridge University and he’s still writing books and recording videos in which he tries to terrify everyone about the impending ice free Arctic (in another two years of course).

In 2018, Jeff McMahon wrote an article in Forbes claiming that “We have five years to save ourselves from climate change, Harvard Scientist Says”.

Image

The Harvard scientist was a chap called James G. Anderson. He said “the chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero”. Don’t tell Anderson but it’s 2023 and there is plenty of ice left in the Arctic.

When the article was written, Anderson prosecuted a moral argument that implicates university administrators who refuse to divest from fossil fuels, journalists who fail to fact-check false statements made by political candidates and executives of fossil fuel companies who continue to pursue activities that are exacerbating climate change. “I don’t understand how these people sit down to dinner with their kids because they’re not stupid people”, he said.

I don’t understand how end-of-the-world doomsters such as Anderson sleep at night. Climate anxiety is a major mental illness in the young, all because of failed predictions such as his. I know lecturers at my local university who have to give climate counselling before and after each lecture, just in case something they talk about triggers an anxiety attack in their students – bonkers.

Furthermore, young adults are deciding not to have children because of climate change and instead gluing themselves to runways, begging their governments to impoverish them further. The only global catastrophe there will be is when there aren’t enough humans being born.

I guess Anderson must have retired now, after so many failed predictions. Once again, of course not, he is still a professor at Harvard. And the Forbes reporter, Jeff McMahon, is still at Forbes, still telling us the world is going to end.

These people expect us to take them seriously and listen to their dire warnings. ‘But but this time I am 100% definitely right, my models were not adjusted correctly last time, you need to listen to me now’. It seems that if you are part of the climate death cult, you can make as many false predictions as you like and you still keep your job. Just as long as you keep making scary predictions to control the masses.

August 5, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Number of Vaccine Doses During Neonatal Period and Infancy and Mortality in Children at 1 and 5 Years

Ecological Analysis Suggests Worldwide Mass Vaccination for Childhood Illnesses Could be Backfiring

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | August 3, 2023

When ACIP panel added the experimental mRNA vaccines for infants age 6 months and older, it triggered concerns that ACIP may not have ever had adequate intent for risk mitigation or re-evaluation of the ever expanding vaccine schedule. Many have had reservations for a long time and have felt drowned out by the medical orthodoxy of “more vaccines are better.” Now an analysis by Miller, et al, suggests the entire program of hyper vaccination may be backfiring.

The two main independent variables in this analysis restricted to developed countries at two time points 2019 and 2021 (check for internal validity) were the number of vaccines given in the 28 day neonatal period (none, hepatitis B, Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for tuberculosis) and then the overall number of shots given before age 1 year. The outcome variable was all cause mortality at age 1 and 5 years.

As you can see this does not look good for vaccines. In every analysis the children who went “natural” with no shots did the best and there was a trend for the fewest number of injections to be associated with the lowest mortality. I was born in 1962, so I received zero shots in the neonatal period and a total of 6 doses for four diseases (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio) before the age of 1 years. As you can see the optimal number of infant doses in the vaccine schedule is <14. The current US ACIP schedule is ~23 doses by year one—a proxy for national intent for hyper vaccination.

This paper has all the limitations of an ecological analysis where individual child record information is not available. The exact configuration of specific vaccines and causes of death are not specified. Thus we can only conclude from this study that “less is more” and countries should consider a risk stratified approach. The two main neonatal vaccines, hepatitis B and BCG should be reconsidered altogether according to individual risk of hepatitis B and tuberculosis, respectively.

August 3, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Biden Regime Pressured Facebook To Suppress The Daily Wire, Boost Legacy Outlets Like The NYT

New internal documents reaveal

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | August 3, 2023

In a significant blow to the principle of free speech, recently disclosed documents reveal that President Joe Biden’s administration exerted considerable pressure on tech giant Facebook to constrain the reach of The Daily Wire and The New York Post, and promote content from established news outlets, within months of occupying the White House in January 2021. This revelation, coupled with the administration’s alleged intentions to alter the Facebook algorithm, has raised substantial concerns about government-sanctioned censorship.

These documents shed light on the Biden administration’s campaign to promote its Covid vaccine strategy, sidelining dissenting viewpoints.

The dialogues memorialized in the disclosed documents underline the charged interactions between then-White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty and Facebook representatives. The focus of these discussions was curbing The Daily Wire’s considerable influence on Facebook while simultaneously elevating legacy news outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

For context, The Daily Wire’s popularity on Facebook had outstripped that of both NYT and WSJ, drawing significantly more audience engagement, and casting a more amplified conservative alternative.

The meeting notes underline the Biden administration’s apprehensions about “misinformation” leading to vaccine hesitancy, sparking a quest to mold public sentiment using Facebook’s vast reach.

White House representative Flaherty’s frustration with Facebook’s inability to readily produce data to support the administration’s agenda becomes evident in the correspondence.

Highlighting the confrontational tone of these correspondences, Representative Jim Jordan, chairing the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, reinforced the troubling indication of the administration’s attempts to stifle free speech via social media control.

August 3, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment