This Book by a Dissenting Climate Scientist is the Perfect Red Pill for the Curious
Crisis or Hoax? Climate Change in Science, Media and Politics by Jules de Waart (Bookbaby, 372 pages)
In a recent article entitled ‘The Devil’s Algorithm: Unplugging from the Climate Matrix’, I wrote:
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A very appealing article, as I’ve said before the peddlers of climate alarmism deal in soundbites, so as said in this piece and to summarise,
Consensus is not proof.
Doubt is not disinformation.
Scepticism is not heresy.
This is all similar to the article on Amelia, dissent is treated as disinformation. So to the above can be added,
Dissent is not disinformation.
These should be used in reply to the nonsense peddled by the left. As far as I can see it is possibly the only way that people at large will begin to understand what is being inflicted upon them.
Good comment on an excellent article. I shall be putting your short summary into my armoury – always helpful in online debates to bring down the climate alarmists.
Climate Change started out as some observations and turned into a belief system and a means of gaining control over wealth, resources and people. It didn’t begin as fraud or a scam but gradually became one. Ordinary weather events began to be interpreted as evidence of impending doom and catastrophe. Then started the education, and manipulation of public perception that every extreme weather event was because of them, and that only by allowing politicians and bureaucrats to control every aspect of their lives could this “crisis” be averted. We are told to “follow the science” but what we are actually following is Computer Model Projections full of assumptions, speculations and guesses, that so far have all failed to match what is happening in the real world. So the goal posts get moved and the projections that failed are pushed back just far enough into the future to allow for more of the climate politics to be imposed on the public (Net Zero) Once you frame something as a “crisis” then everything is on the table. —Taxation, Regulation, Surveillance and control of all behaviours. People are coerced into fearing not just the “crisis” itself but the fear of not complying. By… Read more »
Agree with you wholeheartedly, and would add the models are riddled with omissions too as they cannot model all the factors influencing the weather.
Exactly correct, models that are not fully open cannot be falsified and are therefore invalid in themselves. So each parameter of the model must be individually analysed and tested for voracity. If this can’t be done then the models are worthless.
Yes and no. Fraud has been an essential part of the narrative for the past forty years. Remember that James Hansen admitted that when he presented to members of Congress in the late eighties (1988?) it was at the height of summer in DC, and summer in DC gets very warm to say the least. He and a fellow “accomplice” prepared the room the day before; all the windows were closed, the air conditioning turned off. The room during the meeting was uncomfortably warm, the perfect setting to talk about a future of an increasingly warming climate. Once you start down that path of delusion and fraud it becomes very difficult to stop. De Waart is a standout to have thrown off the cloak of delusion.
What do you mean NO——Hansen’s shenanigans with opening all the windows so the air conditioning would not work combined with the scheduling of that hearing on what was likely to be one of the hottest days of the year in mid summer was all part of how the FRAUD got going. —–So the answer to my post is YES. ——NO doesn’t come into it.