Stossel: Your movie suggests this world government conspiracy, that they want to rule us. But I think they are genuinely concerned and they want to save us. Morano: Their vision of saving us is putting them in charge. Stossel: And if they’re in charge says the movie, they will destroy capitalism. Guardian columnist George Monbiot: We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.
Rossiter: How do we know that Climate Feedback is alarmist and partisan? Because it was founded and funded by long-time climate alarmist Eric Michelman for the express purpose of promoting the climate crisis narrative. Indeed, Climate Feedback is tech mogul Michelman’s third foray into shutting down a debate that he said, well before he created Climate Feedback, “is settled.”
Professor Michael Levitt, who won the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 2013, was due to be the keynote speaker in December at a virtual conference on his areas of special expertise – computational biology and biodesign.
But the First International Biodesign Research Conference withdrew his invitation – according to Levitt because they had received ‘too many calls’ from other speakers ‘threatening to quit’ because of his views on Chinese coronavirus. He has long maintained that the threat is overblown and that ‘we’re going to be fine.’
Morano comment: "Climate change skeptics have seen this type of crushing of dissent for decades when it comes to 'climate change.' Whether you support COVID lockdowns equates to whether you support the UN Paris Pact or Green New Deal in the climate world. If you oppose mandatory masks, that is like not believing in the alleged '97% consensus' on climate. Can the government 'control" a virus equates to can government 'control' the climate. The COVID/Climate connection runs deep."
“When the media says ‘listen to the science, what they really mean is ‘listen to the science that we didn’t censor from social media,'” explained Dr. Simone Gold about the censoring of views that diverge from the official public health stance about COVID-19 and lockdowns.
CDC October 14, 2020: "At No Time Has CDC Guidance Suggested that Masks Were Intended to Protect the Wearers."
Huh? CDC Director Robert Redfield MD - September 14, 2020: "I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because it may be 70%. And if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me," Redfield said. "This face mask will."
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ...
"So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."
Christopher Monckton: "At long last, following the warming effect of the El Niño of 2016, there are signs of a reasonably significant La Niña, which may well usher in another Pause in global temperature, which may even prove similar to the Great Pause that endured for 224 months from January 1997 to August 2015, during which a third of our entire industrial-era influence on global temperature drove a zero trend in global warming. ... As we come close to entering the la Niña, the trend in global mean surface temperature has already been zero for 5 years 4 months.
However, the new Pause is at a surface-temperature plateau 0.3 C° above the old Pause."
Scientists continued defying the “unprecedented” global warming narrative by publishing nearly 150 papers in 2020 that show large regions of the Earth (a) haven’t warmed in recent decades, (b) were as-warm or warmer within the last several centuries, and/or (c) were 1-7°C warmer than today just a few millennia ago.
Greanpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "What a farce the IPCC Paris Accord and all previous 'agreements' to reduce CO2 emissions have been. If only the collective billionaire-class would recognize that CO2 is entirely beneficial we could get on with making the world a better place."
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "Get ready for more futility as the Green New Deal will continue meaningless 'climate action.'"