#Climategate

[alienfocus]

FrankenSkies documentaire onthult de chemtrail-agenda en de effecten ervan op het leven op aarde - Frontnieuws

Klimaatverandering is op zichzelf al controversieel, maar als het over geo-engineering gaat kan het nog controversiëler worden. Sommige klimaatveranderingsalarmisten houden vol dat het nemen van extreme maatregelen zoals het sproeien van chemicaliën in de lucht om het klimaat van de aarde af te koelen de enige manier is om ons te redden, terwijl vele anderen […] Bron: FrankenSkies documentaire…

[us-cj]

Environmentalism has been rebranded into climate change and is nothing more than a sales pitch for politicians and wealthy industrialists betting on the new trend. Recall, the “Climate Gate” scandal broke on November 17th 2009. But by now there are several associated issues, such as “Glacier Gate” (1) and “Amazon Gate” (2), and it is time to figure out what it all means.

Climate Gate was the release (by a hacker or an insider) of thousands of e-mails and commented source codes from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU). There is enough fascinating material to write books about it (3), but one of the e-mails that have attracted most attention is one from November 1999 where Phil Jones of CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes (the authors of the famous “hockey stick” graph that suggested unprecedented warming during the last century) saying: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” By itself, that could mean anything, but the source code of the related computer program makes abundantly clear that they substitute Keith Briffa’s original tree ring temperature proxy with Hadley’s instrumental record from 1961 onwards in order to hide the apparent decline in temperatures indicated by the tree-ring data (4).

The general impression that one gets from reading the material is that a small group of generously funded researchers have been torturing the temperature data from all over the globe to get it to show a 0.8ºC increase over the last 150 years, and, amazingly, they (together with Al Gore, MSM, IPCC and others) have managed to convince most people that such an increase is unprecedented, caused by human CO2 emissions, and disastrous for all life on the planet.

One of the other main issues in the climate gate scandal is that the Hadley Climate Research Unit has resisted releasing data and methods, so that other researchers could verify their results. The scientific method in general requires researchers to make their data and methods available for independent replication, and the British Freedom of Information Act specifically requires publicly funded institutions to do so, but the hacked e-mails make clear how the involved climate researchers have resisted and evaded legal and reasonable information requests.

Glacier Gate, on the other hand, is the debunking of the claim in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”. This statement has proven to be completely unfounded, and one glaciologist, Professor Cogley at Ontario Trent University, believe the IPCC has misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350. The IPCC has now officially retracted the statement (5), but what makes it particularly embarrassing is that the IPCC chairman had ridiculed Indian scientists who refuted the claim, calling their work “voodoo science” (6).

Amazon Gate is another example of the flimsy evidence on which the IPCC have based their claims of climate calamities. In the Working Group II report of 2007 they state that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” on the basis of a non peer-reviewed WWF report whose lead author, Andy Rowell, is a free-lance journalist. If you follow the reference used by WWF, it leads to a 1999 article in Nature about the impacts of logging. IPCC could have used that reference, as it is at least peer-reviewed, but the problem may have been that the Nature-article mentions nothing at all about climate change (2).

However, by now it doesn’t matter much what the evidence shows or does not show. The Climate Change Train is going at full speed and it is difficult to get off. Many institutions, which jumped on the climate change bandwagon before the Copenhagen summit, have committed themselves and their budgets to climate change activities instead of their usual activities, and now find it difficult to backtrack...

SOURCE: This is "The Runaway Climate Train", by Lykke Andersen. Lykke Andersen is the Director of the Center for Economic and Environmental Modeling and Analysis (CEEMA) at INESAD.

---------------------------------------

(1) See summary at The Sunday Times “World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown” https://web.archive.org/web/20100124015736/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

(2) See summary by James Delingpole at the Daily Telegraph “After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate” https://web.archive.org/web/20100213010322/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/

(3) That has already been done. See, for example, “Climategate: Caught Green-handed” by Christopher Moncton [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf] or “Climategate: The CRUtape Letters” by Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller [https://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264982554&sr=1-1]

(4) See analysis by Steve McIntyre https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483

(5) See The Times: https://web.archive.org/web/20111007072623/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

(6) See The Guardian: https://web.archive.org/web/20130908063242/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

[godisarepublican]

The average American uses the equivalent to about 2.5 gallons of oil each day. Bill Gates' private jet uses about 500 gallons per hour. Funny how all the "Carbon" laws penalize you and not him.

[rassilon6]

I posted this link on Facebook. It was immediately removed as spam. It’s not like this is a hard science article (which would be bad enough). It’s actually a discussion of how science and emotion are related (right or wrong). Sure, it mocks the accepted narrative, but it’s an opinion piece. Apparently, opinions aren’t allowed! https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/29/the-oppressed-scientist-when-emotions-replace-objectivity-in-climate-research/

[darkmaga-returns]

The Met Office cannot identify the sources of temperature data for 103 non-existent or defunct weather stations, undermining the reliability of its climate records. Independent investigations revealed cases like Scole (operational 1971-1980) reporting data from 1959-2020.

Critics argue the Met Office’s reliance on unverified "regression analysis" to fill gaps breaches scientific standards. Without transparent sourcing, the data’s credibility is questioned, impacting climate models and policies.

The issue mirrors past climate data scandals, such as the 2009 "Climategate" emails and NOAA’s alleged fabrication of U.S. station data. Skeptics compare "ghost data" to using unsupported evidence in policymaking.

Leaked discussions reveal Met Office scientists prioritizing climate models over raw data, with experts calling models "convenient fictions." If foundational data is unreliable, trillion-dollar policies like Net Zero may lack scientific rigor.

Despite pressure, the Met Office avoids disclosing data sources, fueling skepticism. Investigators demand accountability, warning that climate action without verifiable evidence risks being "wishful thinking."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin In The Morning:

On Friday, numerous conservative accounts and news sources promoted headlines that the "American College of Pediatricians" had issued a statement against transgender care. A video accompanied the announcement featuring Dr. Jill Simons, who, wearing a white lab coat, states that there must be an end to "social affirmation, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones" for transgender youth. Despite the official-looking attire and name, the organization's name serves to mislead observers into thinking they are the much larger American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents tens of thousands of pediatricians. In reality, the ACP is a hyper-conservative Christian group of doctors created in 2002 to oppose gay parenting. In the announcement released on Friday, Simons called for an end to social transition and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. One video, which went viral, begins with a statement that the organization has released a "declaration" authored by the American College of Pediatricians, along with "hundreds of doctors and healthcare workers," opposing transgender care. It references the highly-politicized Cass Review from the United Kingdom, whose author controversially blames pornography for being transgender, as well as the Climategate-style leak of the “WPATH Files” to support the statement.

The video, which was viewed over 51 million times on Twitter, cuts off just before the next speaker is introduced: Dr. Andre Van Mol, who represents the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. Van Mol serves on the board of the Bethel Church of Redding, which made headlines in 2019 for attempting to pray a dead child back to life. He is followed by representatives from several other Christian medical organizations that also support banning transgender care. The website promoted at the event lists signatories to the statement, including the Catholic Medical Association, Genspect, The National Catholic Bioethics Center, the Family Research Council, and the Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes intelligent design over evolution in schools.

The American College of Pediatricians has been hugely influential in the promotion of anti-trans policy in the United States, relying in part to its misleading name. Members of the organization testify in state houses and courtrooms across the United States, misleading legislators into thinking they are the much larger American Academy of Pediatrics, the professional society that represents 67,000 pediatricians in the United States. In 2023, the organization inadvertently left a Google Drive public, leading to the leak of a massive trove of files showing their extremist roots. According to these documents, the group received significant donations from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing organization that has played a large role in the passage and defense of anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the United States. It also received free video production from Family Watch International, a group of Christian fundamentalists opposing homosexuality, birth control, abortion, and sex education. The American College of Pediatricians itself has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2012, when the group’s leader stated that “homosexuality poses a danger to children” and that the group was “essentially a Judeo-Christian values organization.”

[...] Despite the widespread misinformation, every major medical organization in the United States supports gender-affirming care. In February, the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological association in the world, released a policy resolution stating that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and saves lives. The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends that transgender youth have access to gender-affirming care tailored to their unique needs. The Advocates for Trans Equality maintains a list of over 30 of the largest U.S.-based medical organizations that support transgender care, including the Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association.

Anti-trans extremists such as X owner Elon Musk and numerous right-wing and anti-trans pundits and websites are touting a video from American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) Dr. Jill Simons issuing a statement opposing gender-affirming care for trans children.

In contrast to radical right-wing whacko group ACPeds, mainstream medical organizations support gender-affirming care as a medically necessary.

ACPeds is a radical right-wing medical group that is opposed to abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and transgender rights, and has trafficked in COVID denialism and anti-vaxxer extremism.

[trukker94gurl]

[PREMIERING 8PM ET] Climategate: Released Emails Show Blatant Censorship in Climate Journals | Facts Matter

[PREMIERING 8PM ET] Climategate: Released Emails Show Blatant Censorship in Climate Journals | Facts Matter https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/epochtv/climategate-released-emails-show-blatant-censorship-in-climate-journals-facts-matter-5525900?utm_source=andshare

[geekysciencemom]

The Decline of Trust in Science - Where did the interest go?

In the 1940s and 1950s, scientists were seen as celebrities. Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, Glenn Seaborg, Enrico Fermi, and Jonas Salk were all well-known scientists. They were respected in their fields.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the science fiction genre saw authors like Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, Ursula K. Le Guin, Frank Herbert, and Philip K. Dick emerge, creating a "New Golden Age" of science fiction books and short stories that connected to real world scienceand made predictionsfor the future. Mr. Wizard began airing on television in 1951–1965 and then again 1971–72. Science processes and explanations could be watched in every home that had a television.

The Space Race and the nuclear age brought new awe and curiosity into the world. Apollo 8 introduced the world to the now iconic photo of the Earth rise above the Moon. The environmental movement was born. In the 1980s, Carl Sagan and Bill Nye were welcomed into our living rooms through our televisions. Science was trusted and people were excited about discovery!

Then something changed in the 1990s.

The thinking behind intelligent design (another name for creationism) started in 1984, but it was popularized in 1996 with the publication of "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. Intelligent design was developed as an explicit refutation to the theory of biological evolution.

Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific argument that undermines science education and has no credibility. Yet, proponents argued that it should be taught in schools as a legitimate alternative theory to evolution. Intelligent design was used to push religion into science classrooms.

Wakefield published his fraudulent study linking autism to the measles vaccine in 1997. Antivaxxers always existed, but Wakefield opened the flood gates and gave these willfully ignorant people legitimacy.

Autism Speaks began in 2005 and promoted the false claim that vaccines causes autism. They also promoted their fearmongering film commercial "I Am Autism" which depicted an ominous voice claiming to steal away children and depicted autistic people as useless burdens destorying their families and society.

Climate change warnings by scientists have been going out and known since 1959. In 1989, US industry groups established the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying group that challenged the science on global warming and delayed action to reduce emissions. Exxon, Shell and BP join between 1993-1994.

In 1990, Exxon funded two researchers, Dr Fred Seitz and Dr Fred Singer, who disputed the mainstream consensus on climate science. Seitz and Singer were previously paid by the tobacco industry and questioned the hazards of smoking.

In 1998, the US refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol after intense opposition from oil companies and the GCC. In 2009, US senator Jim Inhofe, whose main donors were in the oil and gas industry, lead the “Climategate” misinformation attack on scientists on the opening day of the crucial UN climate conference in Copenhagen, which ended in disarray.

According to Jeremiah Bohr, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, "Many of the political tactics mainstreamed by Donald Trump and the populist right around 2015–2016 seemed familiar. Attack the experts. Launch personal attacks on opponents. Frame an email scandal to maximize political gain. Delegitimize mainstream media sources. Cast yourself as the savior of traditional American life.

Climate change deniers practiced these tactics years before the Republican Party transformed from a Reagan coalition of social conservatives and small-government libertarians to a party of the populist right. While arguing against scientific consensus will always present an uphill battle, the organizers of climate change denial repeatedly prove their ability to strategically adapt to their political environment, seamlessly shifting between narratives of “climate change is not happening,” “climate change is happening but humans are not driving it,” and “climate change is happening but it is nothing to worry about.”'

By the time COVID-19 hit in 2020, there had already been three decades of anti-science rhetoric, anti-intellectualism, pseudoscientific arguments, alternative medicine arguments, false claims that educated people are elitist, false claims that experts cannot be trusted, and conspiracy and fraudulent claims being pushed on the American people as well as those abroad.

During the height of the pandemic, approximately 28% of American adults qualified as being scientifically literate.

According to Peter J. Hotez, Scientific American, "Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Antiscience is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and political gains. It targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them."

Anti-science trends were particularly exacerbated during COVID-19 in the United States, and reported to have originated from far-right extremism. The anti-science movement within the Republican Party resulted in mass deaths during the pandemic.

Peter J. Hotez explained, "Beginning in the spring of 2020, the Trump White House launched a coordinated disinformation campaign that dismissed the severity of the epidemic in the United States, attributed COVID deaths to other causes, claimed hospital admissions were due to a catch-up in elective surgeries, and asserted that ultimately that the epidemic would spontaneously evaporate."

At least three surveys from the Kaiser Family Foundation published in the journal Social Science and Medicine, and the PBS News Hour/NPR/Marist poll each point to Republicans or white Republicans as a top vaccine-resistant group in America. At least one in four Republican House members refused COVID-19 vaccines. 

Antivaxxers found growing support amongst the Republican Party through the Trump White House disinformation campaign. QAnon conspiracy, which originated in 2017, also took root within far-right extremism with Trump as their savior.

QAnon's core beliefs are that the world is controlled by a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping child molesters, Trump is secretly battling to stop them, and Q reveals details about the battle online. The cabal is thought to cover up its existence by controlling politicians, mainstream media, and Hollywood. Q's revelations imply that the cabal's destruction is imminent but also that it will be accomplished only with the support of the "patriots" of the QAnon community.

Fear, scientific illiteracy, isolation, the feeling of the lack of control, disillusionment, large scale disinformation campaigns, easily spreadable misinformation and conspiracy theories, propoganda, increased access to the internet, the rise of Christian nationalism, evangelical beliefs, cognitive biases, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect all played into a cluster f*ck of distrustful, paranoid, angry, fearful people.

They are anti-science, anti-expert, anti-mainstream medicine, anti-vaxx, and they have no real understanding of how to determine if a source is credible or not. They live in these tight echo chambers that feed their disillusionment and cognitive bias. The algorithm bombards them with the same information that solidifies their beliefs to the point of developing dogmatic thinking and they never question it! They can't handle it when someone questions their beliefs. These folks are not critical thinkers. They seem to have lost that sense of wonder and awe of scientific discovery.

How in the hell are we, as a country, going to address this situation??

People have to want to change. They have to want to break out of their echo chambers. They have to want to stop being willfully ignorant. That takes time, effort, and deprograming. This can be a lonely process. People have found communities within these echo chambers which have of strengthened the echo chambers.

This is an incredibly difficult problem to address. The longer this problem remains, the harder it will be to address it. Our country's wellbeing will continue to decline as long as this problem remains.

[yo-sostenible]

Negar esta realidad no solo es irresponsable, sino que pone en riesgo la posibilidad de un futuro sostenible para las generaciones venideras. Imagen :Cubaperiodistas En un mundo cada vez más consciente de los desafíos ambientales, el negacionismo climático sigue siendo una postura peligrosa que obstaculiza los esfuerzos globales para combatir el cambio climático. A pesar del consenso científico abrumador que respalda la existencia del calentamiento global y su origen antropogénico, hay quienes insisten en negar esta realidad, ya sea por intereses económicos, ideológicos o desconocimiento. Este artículo explora las raíces del negacionismo climático, sus implicaciones y por qué es crucial superar esta barrera para garantizar un futuro sostenible. ¿Qué es el negacionismo climático? El negacionismo climático es la postura que rechaza o minimiza la evidencia científica sobre el cambio climático, particularmente la que atribuye este fenómeno a las actividades humanas, como la quema de combustibles fósiles, la deforestación y la industrialización. A diferencia del escepticismo científico, que cuestiona de manera constructiva para fortalecer el conocimiento, el negacionismo se caracteriza por ignorar o distorsionar los datos científicos para apoyar una agenda particular. Las raíces del negacionismo El negacionismo climático no surge en el vacío. Sus raíces están profundamente entrelazadas con intereses económicos y políticos. Durante décadas, industrias como la del petróleo, el gas y el carbón han financiado campañas de desinformación para sembrar dudas sobre el cambio climático. Un ejemplo emblemático es el caso de ExxonMobil, que, a pesar de conocer desde los años 70 los efectos de sus actividades en el clima, invirtió millones en negar públicamente esta realidad. Además, el negacionismo se ha convertido en una bandera para ciertos grupos ideológicos que ven las políticas ambientales como una amenaza a la libertad económica o un pretexto para aumentar la regulación estatal. Esta postura se ha visto reforzada por la polarización política, donde el cambio climático se ha convertido en un tema partidista en lugar de una preocupación universal. Las tácticas del negacionismo Los negacionistas climáticos utilizan una variedad de tácticas para socavar la credibilidad de la ciencia del clima. Entre las más comunes se encuentran: Selección sesgada de datos: Presentar información fuera de contexto o enfocarse en anomalías temporales para sugerir que el calentamiento global no es real. Ataques a los científicos: Cuestionar la integridad de los investigadores climáticos, como ocurrió con el llamado “Climategate”, donde correos electrónicos de científicos fueron sacados de contexto para acusarlos de manipulación. Promoción de falsos expertos: Dar visibilidad a personas sin credenciales científicas relevantes para que cuestionen el consenso climático. Desviar la atención: Argumentar que otros problemas, como la pobreza o la inestabilidad política, son más urgentes que el cambio climático. Las consecuencias del negacionismo El negacionismo climático tiene consecuencias graves y de largo alcance. Al retrasar la acción climática, contribuye a agravar los impactos del calentamiento global, como el aumento del nivel del mar, los fenómenos meteorológicos extremos, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la escasez de recursos. Además, socava la confianza en la ciencia y dificulta la implementación de políticas públicas necesarias para reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. En el ámbito social, el negacionismo alimenta la división y el conflicto, ya que enfrenta a quienes buscan soluciones basadas en la ciencia contra quienes priorizan intereses a corto plazo. Esto es particularmente preocupante en un momento en que la cooperación internacional es esencial para abordar un desafío global como el cambio climático. Superar el negacionismo: un camino hacia la acción climática Para combatir el negacionismo climático, es fundamental fo...

[korrektheiten]

Klimawandel-Fake: Die britische Met Office fabriziert Temperatur-Daten

ScienceFiles:»Fast, dass man denken könnte, wir haben Climategate 2.0. Climategate haben wir in einem eigenständigen Beitrag gewürdigt, aus dem die folgende Passage stammt: Im November 2009 gelangte eine große Zahl von eMails aus der Climate Research Unit (CRU) der University of East […] http://dlvr.it/TG2Vrq «

[nicdevera]

-gate: watergate, gamergate, climategate etc

afaik the only augmentative suffix in English is -zilla.

[darkeagleruins]

BREAKING: UK climate agency is found to have fiddled with the historic global temperature record in the exact way planned in the leaked 'Climategate' emails to exaggerate global warming

[bunkerblogwebradio]

A agenda por trás do catastrofismo das mudanças climáticas

Os democratas no Capitólio estão pressionando o governo Biden a declarar emergência climática, expressando suas previsões apocalípticas de que, sem ação imediata para conter e, finalmente, acabar com nossa dependência de combustíveis fósseis, "o planeta" e, por implicação, todos os seres vivos que o habitam, morrerão. "Se realmente não começarmos a reduzir as emissões, este planeta não terá chance", disse o deputado Alan Lowenthal, democrata da Califórnia. "Temos apenas alguns anos e pronto. O planeta está morrendo". Essa avaliação terrível e o aviso apocalíptico ecoam o livro e documentário de Al Gore de 2006, An Inconvenient Truth, e suas declarações subsequentes de que a inação climática causaria o derretimento completo do gelo do Polo Norte até 2013.

Mesmo que previsões ridículas como a de Gore tenham sido apresentadas e tenham se provado falsas, parece que, graças à ascensão do "capitalismo de stakeholders " e do Índice Ambiental, Social e de Governança (ESG), o apogeu do catastrofismo das mudanças climáticas finalmente chegou. Torna-se necessário, portanto, abordá-lo diretamente. Isso não significa, necessariamente, rejulgar a ciência das mudanças climáticas, já que outros fizeram bem em submeter a narrativa a críticas e desmascaramentos. Os críticos levantaram as seguintes questões com o catastrofismo das mudanças climáticas:

As "crises" anteriormente propagadas de resfriamento global, chuva ácida e esgotamento da camada de ozônio, que se mostraram infundadas;

A completa rejeição dos benefícios do uso de combustíveis fósseis;

O fracasso em reconhecer que as tecnologias movidas a combustíveis fósseis mitigam significativamente os efeitos das emergências climáticas;

O fato de que as mortes por eventos climáticos extremos diminuíram durante a chamada emergência climática;

O fato de que as tecnologias de energia solar e eólica, após mais de cinquenta anos de desenvolvimento, estão longe de ser capazes de substituir os combustíveis fósseis;

O uso dissimulado do período mais frio do Holoceno como ponto de partida para medir o aumento das temperaturas;

A manipulação das leituras de temperatura da superfície para combater as leituras de satélite, que não mostram aquecimento recente significativo;

A síntese exagerada de estudos científicos pelo Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC) e o exagero adicional na divulgação de resultados sintetizados ao público por "especialistas" designados e pela mídia;

O IPCC escondendo seus dados brutos e metodologia, seu bloqueio de investigações externas que tentam replicar seus resultados e seu bloqueio de cientistas céticos em relação às mudanças climáticas de publicar suas descobertas em revistas revisadas por pares ("Climategate");

A alteração dos relatórios do IPCC – depois que os cientistas escreveram e aprovaram os textos finais – para remover o ceticismo em relação às alegações de que as atividades humanas estão tendo um grande impacto no clima e no aquecimento global;

O período de quinze anos (1998-2013) sem aquecimento significativo, apesar de um aumento de 7% nos níveis de CO2 atmosférico;

A taxa de aquecimento global desacelerou desde 1951, apesar de um aumento de 26% nos níveis de CO2;

O fato de que as reconstruções de temperatura do passado mostram temperaturas tão altas quanto as temperaturas recentes em algumas regiões (a Anomalia Climática Medieval);

As estimativas recentes do IPCC sobre a resposta climática transitória (TCR, ou a estimativa climática para o restante do século XXI) estão dentro da faixa de variação climática natural dos últimos seis milhões de anos;

Pesquisas não mostram aumentos nas secas ou na atividade de ciclones tropicais nos últimos quarenta anos;

A extensão do gelo do Mar Antártico aumentou entre 1979 e 2012, contrariando os modelos de circulação global (GCMs);

A modelagem climática falhou em prever com precisão as tendências climáticas;

A forte probabilidade de que o aquecimento não seja necessariamente negativo, mas pode, de fato, ser positivo;

A conhecida ecologização do planeta devido ao aumento dos níveis de CO2 e aos benefícios daí decorrentes, incluindo para a agricultura e o esfriamento;

O fato de que não há uma temperatura global ideal ou "natural" conhecida, mesmo que as temperaturas globais pudessem ser medidas com precisão, o que é duvidoso.

Este é apenas o esqueleto de um conjunto de razões para concluir que o catastrofismo das alterações climáticas é exagerado e hiperbólico, se não baseado em pura fraude. Como S. Fred Singer, David R. Legates e Anthony R. Lupo observaram:

Ao contrário de alguns relatos da história do debate científico, não há um "consenso" gradualmente emergindo sobre o papel humano nas mudanças climáticas. Em vez disso, a política rapidamente ultrapassou a ciência, pois os defensores do meio ambiente e outros grupos de interesse reconheceram a utilidade da questão das mudanças climáticas no avanço de suas próprias agendas.

Por que, então, o establishment está tão empenhado em impulsionar o catastrofismo climático? E quais são essas agendas?

É claro que o catastrofismo climático não é principalmente sobre o clima. Se assim fosse, como observou Rupert Darwall em Green Tyranny, a Alemanha, que enfrenta o aumento das emissões de CO2 desde a implementação da Energiewende (transição energética), não teria apressado o fechamento de suas usinas nucleares, a única fonte confiável de eletricidade com emissão zero além das hidrelétricas, que os ambientalistas também abjuram. O mesmo vale para Califórnia e Nova York.

Filosoficamente, como Alex Epstein deixou claro em Fossil Future, o catastrofismo climático é alimentado por uma "estrutura anti-impacto", que prejudica a humanidade ao tentar eliminar completamente o impacto humano no meio ambiente. É anti-humano na base. Coloca o bem-estar do "meio ambiente" acima do florescimento humano, ao mesmo tempo em que nega que os seres humanos façam parte do meio ambiente.

O resultado necessário do catastrofismo das alterações climáticas é a redução do crescimento econômico. Isso é irônico porque as elites globais no Fórum Econômico Mundial (WEF) regularmente sugerem que um de seus objetivos é alcançar "justiça" para as pessoas em países subdesenvolvidos. Até o momento, essa "justiça" envolveu transferências de riqueza dos países desenvolvidos para o mundo em desenvolvimento que equivalem a subornos para conter o desenvolvimento.

O catastrofismo climático se resume a renunciar e eliminar energia barata e confiável e enriquecer alarmistas climáticos como Al Gore – tudo no interesse de promover uma agenda política globalista. Mais importante, o catastrofismo das mudanças climáticas tem a ver com a alardeada "solidariedade", "inclusão" e "cooperação internacional" – os meios que o WEF, as Nações Unidas, corporações favorecidas e seus representantes no governo consideram necessários para mitigar a suposta crise. Essas palavras-código representam um regime totalitário sob o qual um coletivismo recém-renovado revogará os direitos individuais e restringirá enormemente a liberdade humana. Como se vê, os meios para mitigar as mudanças climáticas são os fins buscados pelos catastrofistas climáticos.

Michael Rectenwald