This post is written with a mutually shared understanding, or perhaps not “mutual” or “shared”. The Climate Change movement is powerful, backed by unseen forces and controlling scientists, pundits and the media, a mass public relations apparatus, and Donald Trump. (Did you really think that a true “denier” would be allowed in that office?) Trump is allowing us a pause, to get dissidents (“deniers”) to relax while the PR machines is subtly spreading the message that the movement is in retreat. It is not, and while I don’t know the future, I suspect it will kick into full gear in 2028, when Trump is retired and a suitable replacement is enthroned by the presidential selection process. The means of achieving their ends remain, as always, coercive and violent, though a velvet glove is currently in use.
Dr. John Clauser won the Nobel physics prize in 2022, sharing the prize with others for work in “entangled photons.” First, since the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore in 2007, around the time of the infamous Hockey Stick, and also to Barack Obama in 2008 for the mere act of getting his sorry ass (s)elected, the Nobel Prize has been sullied in my mind, making all selections suspect. Perhaps physicists are held to higher standards than those receiving the politicized Peace Prize. Secondly, I do not know what “entangled photons represent. Reading AI, it tells me that untangling them leads to very good encryption.
I cannot pretend to understand all of that, but have a vague suspicion that it is not politicized gobbledygook. Cryptography seems a key, and I recall a time when messages among countries were delivered by messengers with brief cases padlocked to their wrists and flown first class. Then came a time when messages, as is done now, can be encrypted on one end, and unencrypted on the other, without the need for a decrypting guide on the receiving end. I read a book about this long ago, The Code Book, by Simon Singh, and no longer have it or any record of it. It came out in 1999, so that probably explains why I don’t have it on hand.
All of this is to add support to Clauser’s words:
- “I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2 – it’s all a crock of crap.”
That sums up my view on the matter pretty well, except that I’m more inclined to say “crock of shit.” Clauser is 83 years old, and so has academic freedom to speak his mind. Most scientists who are also ‘deniers” are retired, and exempt from financial ruin for the act of disobedience. The Climatistas have but one response, that “deniers” are financed by “big oil”, also a crock of shit. “Big oil” is the dog that does not bark in this affair.
Two things that bother me:
- In May of 2013, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” was published in the journal Environmental Research letters. In it Australian John Cook contended that there was a 97% consensus among climate scientists that humans were the cause of “global warming”, or AIG as is currently named, based on a survey of 11,977 published scientific works. Cook has a PhD in cognitive science, and not climate, by the way. (Not that “Climate Scientists” are any better at science.)
The 97% figure is part of the crock of shit. Cook manipulated numbers, or cooked the books. It really amounts to outright lying to come up with his figure. A closer analysis by better minds reduced the 97% down to 0.357%, or 41 papers out of the 11,977, enough to assert that perhaps those 41 were mere outliers. It was a 271% exaggeration. But that does not matter, and it is easily apparent that Cook was a hire, instructed to use any means to offer some “scientific” backing to the notion that there is a “consensus” among scientists so that the rest of us should stop thinking. That’s standard propaganda, given a comic twist by the Kids in the Hall years ago.
- That same year, 2013, President Barack Obama tweeted that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.” The crock of shit was placed on top of the credibility of the office of President of the US, a stinging insult to the office and a transparent lie on Obama’s part.
That’s an example of the power behind the Climate Change movement, that when they say Jump!, POTUS says “Yas mastah.” I long ago lost faith in Obama, but that is besides the point. He’s a poseur, not a scholar or juris doctor, just another Reaganesque actor reading lines. He’s a very good actor, by the way. I rate his skill as on a par with Tom Hanks.
And at the end of the day, that’s all “Climate Change” is, propaganda. But it has teeth – do not imagine that because most people see through it, that it is not achieving its goals. The schools are indoctrinating kids at all levels, the media is completely under control, and controlled experiments as in Britain as showing us our own future.
In 2022 four Italian scientists, at least one a physicist, published a paper in Nature, once regarded as a rock solid and authoritative source on scientific matters. The scientists, lead by Giancula Alimonti of Milan University, concluded that data produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not support the notion that we are having a crisis. No matter their prestige and integrity, the article upset alarmists and their closeted friends, and the (real) scientists were forced to withdraw the article. “Nature” complied with the command. How it got through in the first place is interesting, a leak in the dike. Accidents like that are quickly repaired.
Climate “science” is nonexistent.
I can remember my first year of chemistry graduate school 1998 where some big shot in the field of atmospheric chemistry, back when climate “science” existed within actual science departments, continually making a reference to “poking the Bear with a stick” by not reducing carbon emissions immediately. Then he had a bunch of Greenland ice core data that suggested the temperature could change by 20 celcius, up or down, within a decade. Looking back, these guys might have been looking at noise in the data, and following the trend of where the grant money was going – towards wild alarmism.
Climate change is like the other big ol tired psyop of nuclear weapons- which was rebranded several times to sound more scary – A bombs, H bombs, nuclear winter, MAD doctrine- until the whole idea ran out if gas, you can’t just keep saying the sky is falling fir 80 years. And if people had any clue they would realize the fake nuclear weapons they believe in are a much greater threat to humanity than climate change- yet i never hear anyone talking about dismantling the nuclear arsenal, which would be so simple compared to strangling the global economy so the earth doesn’t warm a few degrees the next hundred years. I mean can anyone think critically or do they just parrot the shit the press tells them is important because 97% of scientists agree climate change, which used to called global warming, then previously the coming ice age.
LikeLike
And the bear that was being poked was the Earth/climate. Even my liberal friend many years ago wisely intuited that environmentalism , which is now reduced to obsessing over climate change, is the new replacement religion for the masses for Christianity and other old religions.
LikeLike
There was even this supposed really great up and coming physical chemist assistant professor who recruited me to the department, and was on the committee that got me a fellowship whom i had regular mentor meetings our first year. He was cranking out dozens of papers a year claiming all these breakthroughs in laser technology. Turns out he was cooking the data – i talked to some of his grad students about it who were pissed and somewhat scared because if caught, which i don’t believe he ever was, would indicate them also. The way it worked was the grad students would send him all their data, which they admitted was often crappy, and he would clean it up, do all the plots and then write the publications. This was ostensibly to get tenure, and the way I believe the large majority of academics get ahead – by following the money and faking data on trendy topics.
LikeLike
That’s kind of a “bombshell” claim at the end there, would love to hear more about your thoughts on that.. Even the mainstream writes articles about the non-reproducibility crisis in science, fraud and pushed data, etc. But the level you suggest there would be even beyond what they admit to..
Fakeologist had a link recently to a guy who was claiming science was a giant fraud back to the beginning. I didn’t listen to all of it, maybe I will. It seemed a little too sweeping. “Science” has yielded applied technologies in many areas, there seems to be some there there..
LikeLike
Its not necessarily that its straight out fake non-fiction, its that most of science is governed by theories that are theories- and theres probably millions of them. And the research is done by graduate students, who i wouldn’t trust to make a cup of coffee right. Meaning the people doing the research are often completely incompetent, or stupid, or will do anything to finish their degree and just get put from under their advisors. When you add it all up i can say theres no university research i would trust on any topic. Private firms doing actual engineering, which as Mark has said correctly is a much more serious and real discipline as compared to what people call science.
LikeLike
I don’t think you ever posted this – the best comedic take i know of on global warming
LikeLike
That’s great, the panic and running away, followed by stillness and silence. Is South Park a lone beacon of truth in this mad mad world of climate alarmism?
I have a meeting this week with our home insurers … I told him I have records here back to 1918 of Colorado temperatures, precipitation, and that during that time, nothing had changed. We are in no more danger of wildfires now than decades ago. He said our insurer, State Farm, was reacting to information that our area was in grave danger, and that they had a choice between leaving the area or jacking up prices as they have. I told him that SF is grifting, nothing more. Silence, as that word is lead-heavy. He said that State Farm is a mutual company and that it returns all profits to policyholders. I told him that in five years, I had not once received a penny in rebate. He did admit that the biggest claims were for hail, like always, and it strikes more often at lower elevations and not at ours. So set wildfires aside, State Farm is using it as a lever to jack up prices to cover hail damage in populated areas, like Denver down below, and not us. We are subsidizing them.
As to State Farm being “mutual”, as a retired CPA I am familiar with the term “cooking the books.” I remember James Garner, who starred in Rockford Files and who was contractually entitled to a share of profits from it … he had to sue, and won a few million … it turned out that the company that produced the show was very good at pulling in expenses from all around the world to charge Garner’s show, so that there was no profit to share. I suspect that State Farm, a mutual company, does the same. Our agent said that SF is only using home insurance as a hook to gain access to auto, which is its true profit center. Indeed SF is paying a small rebate this year on auto, though we’ve yet to see it.
With auto insurance, SF is more expensive than competitors. However, if we look for a break by shopping auto around, SF will penalize us to the tune of a $3,000 increase on homeowners. I complained about this to the CO insurance “regulators”, and received not a letter back, but instead, a phone call, meaning not on record. I was told that the practice was “dishonest, but legal.” I’ve had three agents now and complained to them all about this corrupt practice, and they are all like sock puppets saying “You gotta understand, home and auto are different LINES of business!” They all use that word, meaning they all attended the same conference. If indeed the lines are different, why do they not operate independently of one another? Why do they punish one line if we leave it for a better deal by using the other “line” as a hammer?
Sometime, as you are a smart guy, look up the term “regulatory capture”. It is part of monopoly capitalism, and is described as a natural corrupt practice that happens when powerful companies supposedly regulated by government authorities capture control of the regulators. It is more common than corruption in sports betting, and is the case in every industry in every state. So-called “capitalism” is indeed. better system than most in this corrupt world, but it is no shining city on the hill.
Anyway, climate alarmism is grift writ large, but also a manifestation of misanthropy, the ruling classes wanted to rid the planet of useless eaters, themselves unable to gaze in a mirror.I guess I am rehearsing for the coming meeting.
LikeLike
Check out this new book on climate change propaganda… written from the POV that it’s all from the oil company and “denier” side, against the poor beleaguered science believers.. Meanwhile her hardcover book is published by Bloomsbury, a sizeable global publisher, and blurbed by Adam McKay, director of heavily promoted pics..
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2026/09/qa-amy-westervelt-on-the-corporate-poisoning-of-the-information-aquifer-and-how-to-undo-the-harm.html
It does look interesting though, even though it’s only half a book, or maybe a third of a book.. if you look at the debate around climate through a thesis- antithesis- synthesis lens, probably the oil companies do fund a lot of the “antithesis” side of the debate. Maybe someday someone will write the full book.
LikeLike
Oil companies are part of the backdrop, and are too well informed to imagine that their existence is threatened by Climate Change. The movement got underway in the late 1980s, when 80% of our energy came from fossil fuels. That number is pretty much the same today, as we cannot run industrial economies on renewables. Steel mills, auto manufacturing, all of construction, relies on oil and gas and some nuclear to mine, transport, and supply our infrastructure. But the Climate Change movement is backed by powerful forces, hidden, and the oil companies, which appear threatened on the surface, know to shut up. That is why they are, in Sherlock Holmes terms, the dog that did not bark. They are not going anywhere they are not threatened.
LikeLike
That’s true, they’re very entrenched and powerful, fundamental to society and the economy.. but certainly they are concerned about PR and shaping the “information environment” as she describes in the interview. I don’t think she has the whole picture, but it sounds like a good book for getting that part of the picture, for anyone trying to see the whole system clearly-
LikeLike
“It was a 271% exaggeration”
You were very lenient.
What you meant is that 97 is 271 times bigger than 0,357.
A 100% increase doubles the initial figure.
100:2=x:271
x=13,550
Expressed in terms of percentage a 271 times increase is a 13,550% exaggeration.
LikeLike
I was a CPA and people assume we are good at math. But most of my job was arithmetic. So of course you are right! Thanks.
LikeLike