The Climate Crisis Lie Is About Money And Power
In the early 1970s, I was a disaffected youth. I began working at the nonprofit Zero Population Growth. We promoted the idea that exploding human population would soon make the world uninhabitable.
The president of our organization went on the Johnny Carson television show. Sacks of mail, often with checks, arrived. The psychological effect was intoxicating.
One of our directors, a college professor, suggested that vending machines could sell suicide pills as a method of reducing the population.
We did everything possible to shut that bad idea down. Not for moral reasons but to protect the organization.
We wanted more members, more influence, and more money. Our motivation had changed from saving the Earth to getting more money and power.
Everything that Zero Population Growth promoted turned out to be wrong.
The “population bomb” was a dud. There were no famines. People became better nourished even in the poorest countries.
Rather than exponentially growing population, population growth slowed and even crashed in the richer countries. I learned a lifelong lesson of skepticism.
Thirty years later I retired from my work as an engineer and began what became a ten-year study of climate change. I went to scientific conferences and worked hard at making friends with climate scientists.
I realized that the science predicting future doom from emissions of carbon dioxide was wildly speculative. Individual climate scientists did good work but accurately predicting the future climate was not realistic.
I could not help but notice a climate of fear that prevented scientists from opposing the climate doom narrative. The labs and universities that employed scientists did not want any dissident voices who might torpedo the flow of money from Washington.
This was all predicted in the 1961 farewell address by President Eisenhower. He was worried that the scientific establishment, which he called the scientific-technical elite, would warp science to influence government policy for its own benefit.
Dwight Eisenhower was a greatly underestimated President. His practical insight into human nature is illustrated by the fact that he made loads of money playing poker while in the Army.
He also graduated first in his class out of 240 senior officers at the Army War College. Although President Eisenhower was usually depicted as a lightweight by the media, his insights were uncannily accurate.
Today’s ‘climate crisis’ is a modern example of public policy being ruined by the self-interested scientific-technological elite. World governments are spending trillions to avoid an imaginary climate crisis.
Bizarrely, the methods selected to avoid the crisis — windmills and solar panels — can’t possibly accomplish much, even if the crisis were real.
Climate scientists think they are engaged in one of the hard sciences. But climate science is actually a soft science because its conclusions depend on the statistical analysis of noisy and dubious data using complicated and opaque computer models.
It is the perfect setup for confirmation bias, the tendency for scientists to arrive at conclusions that support their preconceived prejudices. Worse than confirmation bias is lying and fakery in the pursuit of money and power, also not unknown.
There are plenty of climate scientists who have doubts, but they have to keep their doubts hidden. They are employees of large institutions and they have families and mortgages.
The scientists that speak out are either retired or have impregnable positions due to exceptional scientific accomplishment.
Among professional climate scientists, public opposition to the climate doom theory is rare, but it does happen — I know of one climate scientist that forged a successful career as a ‘denier’, running over his opponents with raw courage and entrepreneurial talent.
Much of the opposition to the climate-doom narrative comes from amateur scientists [aka citizen scientists]. These are typically politically savvy individuals with scientific backgrounds.
Their credibility is limited by their lack of official professional qualifications, but they are immune to the establishment’s retaliations. Usually, they are retired, have their own businesses, or are wealthy.
The Internet makes it possible for them to speak to the world. They are reviving a tradition of amateur scientists that was dominant prior to the twentieth century.
Here are some examples of amateur scientists: Stephen McIntyre a retired Canadian mining expert runs the website climateaudit.org.
Tony Heller, an electrical engineer, runs the website realclimatescience.com. Anthony Watts, a television meteorologist, runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. There are many more.
Rogue science could not have built the climate crisis empire without the help of the environmental movement. The environmental movement is always looking for an environmental “crisis” to which they can hitch their wagons.
The movement attracts disaffected youth looking for meaning in life as well as those from the political left that see the movement as a path to a socialist utopia.
Some of these non-profit organizations have great political influence and big budgets. They are driven by money and power. They lie shamelessly, hiding behind a façade of earnest concern.
Patrick Moore, a genuine scientist and one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, had an epiphany and left the climate change movement.
His book, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom, should be read by everyone with an open mind.
Greg Wrightstone, a geologist, wrote: Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know. The book is an accessible and powerful indictment of the ‘climate crisis’.
The MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist who made important discoveries, exposed the reality of climate science and environmentalism from an insider’s viewpoint in his profound essay: Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
Donna Laframboise exposed the unbelievable corruption within the supposedly authoritative United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with her book: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate expert.
Many dislike the term “climate denier” because it is intended as a smear against anyone who even questions the climate crisis. My own feeling is that it is better to wear this label as a badge of honor and thus play jiu-jitsu with the climate establishment’s organs of propaganda.
We live in an age encapsulated by Romans 1:22: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
Formerly respectable medical institutions are trying to change boys into girls and vice versa with drugs and surgery.
Most big media present the ‘climate crisis’ as if it is a solid scientific finding. They depict ‘denier’s as crackpots or paid spokesmen for oil companies. This is the arrogance of people who think they know everything but live in a sea of ignorance.
The real investigative reporters work for minor, independent media without the vast money-laden resources of big media.
Establishment climate science has become infatuated by its own imagined expertise and importance. Like many things in human history, arrogance is nothing new.
We should remember the persecution of Galileo for suggesting that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
There is another Eisenhower quote that is also relevant to today – “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, is futility, its stupidity”. Politicians are a shadow of what they used to be and none more than the Americans.
Reply
Geraint HUghes
| #
My new larger experiment should be out next year, cant wait.
Reply
Tom
| #
Akin to the germ theory lie…money and power and control.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
“There are plenty of climate scientists who have doubts, but they have to keep their doubts hidden. They are employees of large institutions and they have families and mortgages.” That should not be enough to stifle honest debate. As Fats Waller once advised (“The Joint is JJumpin’.”), “Don’t give your right name, oh no.”
Pseudonymous publication can be a very effective shield against the risks of voicing honest opinion. A few years ago, a paleo-climatologist, using the pen name “Javier” on Judith Curry’s “Climate etc,” published a very influential 240 page paper in 10 parts on theories of the succession of ice ages and interglacials. Each section stimulated copious written comment and discussion of views on this subject, which “Javier” creditably answered and monitored, lending gravitas not only to his “nom de travail” but to his theory and its very able spokesman (could even be spokeswoman).
It may be worth considering the value and further use of pseudonyms for politically sensitive scientific debate in order to separate uninhibited opinion from personalities. Other than for establishing proprietary reputation, names are not necessary.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Mr. Norman Rogers,
Thank you for a fine and sensible article.
Obviously, none of this ‘Climate Crisis’ is neither real nor man-made.
If one has minimal schooling in Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer, they will realize cold gases, any gas, in our atmosphere has zero ability to warm the surface. Radiational heat transfer follows the same rules as conductive and convective heat transfer. I.E. – Heat/energy only can flow from warmer to cooler.
I did not write the Laws of Thermodynamics, however, like gravity, they are always consistent and correct.
‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ is equivalent to teaching children that chocolate milk comes from brown cows…
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kevin,
The radiative transfer of energy and the transfer of energy by convection/conduction do not follow the same rules. With radiative transfer the rate and flow is determined by the difference in energy resulting in a continually slowing transfer. With convection/conduction (collisions) the transfer is instantaneous and follows the law of conservation of momentum. Energy flows from higher to lower, regardless of the masses of the objects. Since temperature is a function of both mass and energy an object with higher energy (v^2) can transfer energy to an object with less energy but greater mass, even if that object has more kinetic energy (temperature).
The laws of thermodynamics deal with the flow of energy, not temperature (energy and mass) and should be called the laws of energydynamics.
Herb
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
So Herb,
Can freezing cold nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapor, or CO2 at the top of the Matterhorn, at 15,000 feet, possibly ‘warm’ the surface of land or ocean?
Answer: No.
Stop being an annoying retard. If you need attention or hugs, then post your dumb comments on YouTube or TikTok.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
As I understand it, solar insolation warms the earth’s surface by causing its molecules to vibrate. We sense the vibration as heat. The earth’s 99.96% of major non-radiant gases N2 and O2 pick up surface vibration by conduction. This molecular heat as vibrational energy then flows to by convection to lower energy cooler molecules, usually at higher altitudes and latitudes. At the same time surface water soaks up solar energy by evaporation to be released by phase change with condensation at higher altitudes.
It is also my understanding that the surface dipolar and multi-polar vibrations establish an earthly electromagnetic field (EMF) through which photons of radiant energy flow at the speed of light to appropriate radiant gas molecules and terrestrial absorbing/emitting surfaces. Mechanical transfer by conduction and convection is far slower than radiant transfer but predominates here in the thick lower troposphere, where at sea level non-radiant molecules collide at about 6.92 billion times a second – both with each other and with radiant molecules, quenching their radiant energy emissions though at a declining rate as the atmosphere thins with altitude).
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
According to the laws of thermodynamics there is no such thing as a no-radiant gas. All matter absorbs radiated energy and also radiates energy. In the case of the N2 and O2 they absorb radiated energy from the ultraviolet spectrum and convert it into kinetic energy (IR). Do you really believe that a gas with a concentration of .0001 % (ozone) can absorb 95% of the UV coming from the sun with no effect, while the 5% that reaches the Earth will burn your skin off?
Herb
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Hello Herb,
I stand corrected and am reminded of a certain radiant ubiquity. Ozone’s characteristics are astonishing. I seem to recall that Blair Macdonald’s results concerned raman laser radiation. I referred, of course, to the atmospheric irradiation that is causing all the fuss.
And you are right, UV light is higher energy and 11% of the sun’s spectrum, with irradiance varying over the solar cycle from 0.15% to 0.80% of the total, while IR radiation hovers around 0.22%. Still, radiant emission in the troposphere is significantly reduced by the activity of N2-O2’s “mechanical” conductive and convectional activity, pushing “catastrophic” radiant energy transmission to the thin upper atmosphere and space.
The mean free path at sea level for IR radiation absorbed by water vapor is reportedly only 8 m and that for carbon dioxide is 47 m. The absorption-to-emission lifetime of CO2’s 15 μm radiant energy absorbing band is about 0.08 s. The radiative lifetime of the water vapor absorption band at 6.3 μm is about 0.05 s and that for ozone at 9.6 μm is about 0.08 s. These times are more than 100 million times greater than the time between collisions. A notable burden on free passage. I do not have figures for UV radiation. They would be interesting to glance at.
Reply