Oxford scientists’ nightmare prediction’: ‘The world will end in 25 years, humanity will die and towns will become slaughterhouses: – ‘Multiple existential threats’ including ‘rampant climate change’ – Warnings from ‘from highly respected scientists, not kooky doom-sayers’
https://archive.ph/OqFmv#selection-549.0-549.128 By CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, TV CRITIC Excerpt: In a game of Russian roulette with a standard Colt revolver, the chances of instant death are one-in-six. Terrifyingly, that’s the same as the odds of humanity being wiped out within 75 years – everyone dead in a cataclysmic and total breakdown of civilisation, according to Oxford University futurologist Toby […]
UN’s differing definitions of ‘climate change’ at odds with the ‘scientifically-accurate definition’: ‘The Bad Science & Bad Policy at the Heart of the Climate Movement’: ‘Sitting in plain sight for more than 30 years’
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-bad-science-and-bad-policy-at By ROGER PIELKE JR. Excerpt: Remarkably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-FCCC, 1992) use different definitions of “climate change.” The IPCC defines climate change as: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the […]
Two New Studies find ‘most warming this century may be due to air pollution cuts’ — NOT CO2 – ‘Reducing pollution is thus an obstacle to achieving’ UN climate goals
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-bad-science-and-bad-policy-at By ROGER PIELKE JR. Excerpt: According to Peter Cox of the University of Exeter, most of the planet’s warming this century is not due to greenhouse gases, but reductions in air pollution, mainly sulfur dioxide: “Two-thirds of the global warming since 2001 is [sulfur dioxide] reduction rather than [carbon dioxide] increases” … Climate Depot […]
Interview with Atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on climate change: ’50 years will pass. There will be no climate catastrophe’ – Talks fraud of 97% ‘consensus’ & debunks extreme weather claims
Lindzen: “What happens if I get rid of about 60-65% of the CO₂ in the atmosphere? … We’ll die. We’ll die of starvation. At 160 parts per million, virtually no plant will survive. No plant survives, there’s no food.”
…
We hear it more and more nowadays. That there is now a 97 per cent consensus.
Oh, that’s fake! How should I put it? It always depends on the question. So, for instance, if you asked a question if doubling CO₂ is more likely to warm than to cool the Earth, I would think you’d get 100% agreement. But that’s not the same as saying it’s a serious problem. So, at that level, if you ask the right question and put a funny interpretation on the answer, you can say all scientists agree. You just haven’t said what they agree with.
In 1988, you had a Senate hearing in the US, and you had a man called James Hansen (US climatologist – HS) testifying. He came there and said that increasing CO₂ was going to cause a lot of warming. And Newsweek had a cover showing the Earth on fire, and it had a label: “All scientists agree”. And that was very interesting, because at that time, almost no scientists were working on this. People were told all scientists agree. Now, think of that from a propaganda point of view. You don’t know science, you haven’t studied it, most people haven’t studied it. Even among the people who studied the science, for this problem, a big part of the problem is fluid mechanics. Almost no physicist ever studies fluid mechanics. So you have something that hardly anyone has studied. And you’re saying: “What am I going to do? I don’t understand this.” You are told all scientists agree. This is a source of comfort. You don’t have to understand it. If all scientists agree, you can agree, too.