Are The Flaws in the Climate Agenda Deliberate Or Incompetence?
“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people” – physicist John F. Clauser
Remember PCR test inventor Dr. Kary Mullis’ video where he says climatology is a joke?
Well, a little-known scientific article written by the physicist Dr Ferenc Miskolczi that you won’t see in the media confirms it yet again. It is titled ‘Greenhouse Gas Theories and Observed Radiative Properties of the Earth’s Atmosphere’.
Here is just one quote from his article that effectively cancels the entire climate change agenda.
It is also shown, that the Earth-atmosphere system is in radiative equilibrium with a theoretical solar constant, and all global mean flux density components satisfy the theoretical expectations. The greenhouse effect predicted by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is inconsistent with the existence of this radiative equilibrium. Hence, the CO2 greenhouse effect as used in the current global warming hypothesis is impossible.
The greenhouse effect itself and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing. Planet Earth obeys the most fundamental laws of radiation physics. https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Miskolczi-2023-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory.pdf
Perhaps many people are unaware of the Arrhenius greenhouse theory, which serves as the foundation for the pseudo-‘green’ agenda. First and foremost, theory means something that has not been proven scientifically, so ruining everyone’s life on the basis of it is despicable.
Second, it was criticized early on.
Knut Ångström and his assistant, Herr J. Koch, performed an experiment showing that the smaller amount of carbon dioxide could absorb as much infrared radiation as it is capable of absorbing.
This is contrary to Arrhenius’s claim that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would cause more absorption and more warming. Ångström’s results had been “destructive” to Arrhenius’s theory. https://academic.oup.com/columbia-scholarship-online/book/23386/chapter-abstract/184390742?redirectedFrom=fulltext
As you can see, Ferenc Miskolczi was not the first to criticize Arrhenius’ greenhouse theory; in fact, many other scientists did, so the claim that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on ‘climate change’ is a lie.
The mainstream media peddle the claim that 97 percent of (climate) scientists believe in man-made Global-Warming and that, therefore, there is no debate to be had on the subject. This is false and irrelevant. To get the 97 percent figure, they basically counted people who had mentioned Climate-Change in an abstract or heading of a scientific paper. Dr Legates* has reviewed the work and shows that, in fact, only 0.3 percent of the papers claim that ‘man had caused most post-1950 warming’. https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/666002/21b43e1b155051227ef2981acd52c254/19-16-292-C-Corbyn-data.pdf
The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills.
It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science
John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
Climate scientist Judith Curry has testified that the “overwhelming scientific consensus” is that the so-called climate crisis is a “manufactured scam.”
As Willie Soon and his coauthors found, “Our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate system does not allow us to determine reliably the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, let alone whether this change will be for better or for worse.”
There was and still is quite strong opposition to the ‘climate change’-global warming theory, but it has recently gained financial support and power because it is an easy way to control the general population while making more money through lucrative contracts with governments whose high-ranking officials are bribed by the same corporations.
When you receive another ‘green’ tax or told that you are causing ‘climate change’, contact the government agency, cite these articles, and insist on a response.
You, the taxpayer, pay these government employees, and they should explain why they are asking for more money and implementing policies that are not based on real evidence but on a flawed theory and math models.
I am sure you can draw a parallel with COVID because the so-called ‘pandemic’ is also based on flawed study, and the founder of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, whom I mentioned earlier, stated that PCR cannot be used for diagnostics because it can detect anything.
Another “coincidence” is that the pandemic masters employed the same flawed mathematical models.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
Trackback from your site.