I wonder if it's a coincidence that both professors are retired and don't have to give a flip about their careers or being politically correct. "Give me liberty or give me death!" Free speech is worth fighting for!
I began delving into the Climate debate back in the mid-2000's and immersed myself in the research and studies for several years. Anyone who sought the truth and legitimate science knew that there was a massive scam being promulgated upon the world through government laws and regulations. The methods utilized to promote the narrative and censor contradicting evidence were honed and perfected in time for the COVID-19 scam, and many of us recognized the methodology immediately for what it was.
Ironically, I just recently decided to revisit the earlier literature and legal cases surrounding the Climate debate, as I'm truly attempting to understand how we got here to this level of madness and absolute junk science. It's easy to just say, "Follow the Money!", but there's more to it. For example, despite pressure from environmental activist groups and liberal states in the early 2000's, the EPA "refused" to regulate CO2 emissions or declare greenhouse gasses as "pollutants." It wasn't until SCOTUS ruled in "Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al." 2007 (No. 05-1120) that the EPA was essentially forced to move in this direction.
It was during the Obama Administration that a huge shake-up occurred throughout the Federal agencies that moved the government culture towards a Progressive administrative state that we see the shift towards heavy-handed policy supported by shoddy "science" and academia while simultaneously silencing any dissent. That has continued and led us to where we are today.
I'm continuing to go back through the research and cases, but that is what I have come to realize so far.
A vastly unappreciated fact is that the more varied (but independent) solution paths lead to the same conclusion, the more likely that conclusion is to be true. Two of them make it very likely, find three and the concept is almost certainly true. The reason this works is that reality has many different facets to it. We divide reality into separate fields to make the study of it more limited and therefore more manageable, but the totality of reality demands that these disparate fields be reconciled. For a video example of this, view (if you can) the brett weinstein/ steve kirsch/ robert malone discussion from a few years ago. Late in the discussion Dr. Malone and Mr. Kirsch reach the same conclusion via different solution paths, Mr. Weinstein immediately recognizes this and points it out.
This applies to disparate fields as well. I once proved a thermodynamics expert wrong on a thermodynamics concept using mathematics. As you may (or may not) be aware, the God hypothesis has been garnering more attention in recent years because mathematic probabilities have proven long held evolutionary concepts to be next to impossible.
Indeed, multidisciplinary approaches are a powerful tool for separating the wheat from the chaff, especially for differentiating what is possible from what is not. I wish we made more use of them.
This is great. All this data in that concise report. The one problem. If the only places this is to found is on Epoch Times (I like Epoch Times so this is not a snipe at it) and Substack, it will never reach the hundreds of millions in this country and the billions world wide that need to see this. Until and unless, everyone in the so-called main stream media is suddenly replaced by real journalists I fear the hill we need to climb is still very steep.
I read the cover letter last month & am interested in seeing the rest of what they have provided. My greatest fear was that the EPA would ignore what they had to say, & that mainstream media would fail to mention it. After all, none of it aligns with the "Green" narrative that is being crammed down everyone's throat, whether we like it or not. Remember too, that federal grant money is heavily dependent upon agreeing to all of the nonsense that is being generated & promoted by the global elitists. The same was true of most of the hospitals in this country during covid, which is why so many were willing to employ the deadly remdesivir/ventilator protocol. As someone recently said, "I tried to follow the science, but it kept leading me to the money". In this case, it's money + power.
its the way they are doing it thats so evil & cunning & desguting and disasterous & double standards.!! not that climate or environmemt isnt important to anyone with a mind soul brain or heart! becauase it plainly is! But its the sick twisted duplicitious way they are implementing their climate scam with media and tesla (for instance) and the davos big boys club - the biggest hyporcrotes and poluters, profitteers, virtue signalleres lecturing the whole world hypocritucallaug and like biden or dnc gestapo legalaties, what rule is good for you is bad for me etc. But its far far greater. Its tied to roboticisation of human beings. The murderers of JFK and so many others must be laughing at us alongside their well paid abators. its Tied with human control, censorship , and distopian covidhoax future they have been plotting for, the wars (theyve alwsays got enough money for their fake wars - ukraine for eg), ! peodophiles friends', 3 letter agency crime coverers. abolute insincere thieves and abusers. The whole world knows now & they are a filthyy disgusting abusive joke (except to jobsworth myopics , liars, complicits or the very impressionable young/lab rats).
I just signed up with the CO2 coalition.org - it will be nice to have a little stack of real data next time I am embroiled in a “climate change” conversation. So many people have NO idea how dangerous to all of us on the planet it would be to reduce C02.
IMO, Humans have been on this Earth, as compared to how long the Earth has been in existence, the equivalent of a gnat fart. Meaning, we have barely existed at all, and I find it impossible to believe that we meager humans could cause the entire climate of this planet to change (for the worse of course). From what I have read and seen, the Earth has gone through many many environmental changes over the millennia, good and bad, before Humans "took charge". Climate Change is a total Fake and was designed for certain people to make money, and control the population as an added benefit.
From Red Pill Realsville (Empiricism) it’s like this:
I don’t accept the destructive Marxist premise that warming is an ontological certainty, it’s all man-made, and it’s bad.
I ask: what is the Delta between the optimal Earth temperature and the current earth temperature and why is that optimal? The follow up questions self-cascade - what is the acceptable rate of change? The history of optimal temperatures, Etc. Please show your work.
Hint: poor polar bear thingy (Impecunious Ursus Maritimus Resy) isn’t a number with a unit.
Going down the phylogenetic pathway, Animals troop, herd, flock, swarm, and school - a simple compression algorithm for survival - do what the guy next to you is doing.
Happily, a contagious number are turning to face the predator as we have our own (civilized) predatory aggression. Cf Cape buffalo turning the tables on lions.
It is not normal human living that threatens the health of our world. We should, however, be good stewards. Strip mining and Cobalt mining, in particular, seem rather irresponsible both ecologically and humanly.
Not only is climate change disastrous for America, it’s anti-human for the world
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-climate-change-is-wrong-dangerous
And it’s nothing more than another reason for the rich to steal and plunder from the earth
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-hidden-profits-of-climate-change
I wonder if it's a coincidence that both professors are retired and don't have to give a flip about their careers or being politically correct. "Give me liberty or give me death!" Free speech is worth fighting for!
Thank you for this substack Dr Malone.
A more condensed version of Happer and Lindzen's testimony is here for those who haven't the time.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-hoax
Please note and download the excellent graphs and charts. They say it all.
Not even shocking anymore.
By cutting CO2 emissions we are cutting our oxygen. Plants take in CO2 to produce oxygen.
I began delving into the Climate debate back in the mid-2000's and immersed myself in the research and studies for several years. Anyone who sought the truth and legitimate science knew that there was a massive scam being promulgated upon the world through government laws and regulations. The methods utilized to promote the narrative and censor contradicting evidence were honed and perfected in time for the COVID-19 scam, and many of us recognized the methodology immediately for what it was.
Ironically, I just recently decided to revisit the earlier literature and legal cases surrounding the Climate debate, as I'm truly attempting to understand how we got here to this level of madness and absolute junk science. It's easy to just say, "Follow the Money!", but there's more to it. For example, despite pressure from environmental activist groups and liberal states in the early 2000's, the EPA "refused" to regulate CO2 emissions or declare greenhouse gasses as "pollutants." It wasn't until SCOTUS ruled in "Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al." 2007 (No. 05-1120) that the EPA was essentially forced to move in this direction.
It was during the Obama Administration that a huge shake-up occurred throughout the Federal agencies that moved the government culture towards a Progressive administrative state that we see the shift towards heavy-handed policy supported by shoddy "science" and academia while simultaneously silencing any dissent. That has continued and led us to where we are today.
I'm continuing to go back through the research and cases, but that is what I have come to realize so far.
A vastly unappreciated fact is that the more varied (but independent) solution paths lead to the same conclusion, the more likely that conclusion is to be true. Two of them make it very likely, find three and the concept is almost certainly true. The reason this works is that reality has many different facets to it. We divide reality into separate fields to make the study of it more limited and therefore more manageable, but the totality of reality demands that these disparate fields be reconciled. For a video example of this, view (if you can) the brett weinstein/ steve kirsch/ robert malone discussion from a few years ago. Late in the discussion Dr. Malone and Mr. Kirsch reach the same conclusion via different solution paths, Mr. Weinstein immediately recognizes this and points it out.
This applies to disparate fields as well. I once proved a thermodynamics expert wrong on a thermodynamics concept using mathematics. As you may (or may not) be aware, the God hypothesis has been garnering more attention in recent years because mathematic probabilities have proven long held evolutionary concepts to be next to impossible.
Indeed, multidisciplinary approaches are a powerful tool for separating the wheat from the chaff, especially for differentiating what is possible from what is not. I wish we made more use of them.
Can't wait to watch. With the exception of Substack, the Epoch Times is my main news source.
This is great. All this data in that concise report. The one problem. If the only places this is to found is on Epoch Times (I like Epoch Times so this is not a snipe at it) and Substack, it will never reach the hundreds of millions in this country and the billions world wide that need to see this. Until and unless, everyone in the so-called main stream media is suddenly replaced by real journalists I fear the hill we need to climb is still very steep.
I read the cover letter last month & am interested in seeing the rest of what they have provided. My greatest fear was that the EPA would ignore what they had to say, & that mainstream media would fail to mention it. After all, none of it aligns with the "Green" narrative that is being crammed down everyone's throat, whether we like it or not. Remember too, that federal grant money is heavily dependent upon agreeing to all of the nonsense that is being generated & promoted by the global elitists. The same was true of most of the hospitals in this country during covid, which is why so many were willing to employ the deadly remdesivir/ventilator protocol. As someone recently said, "I tried to follow the science, but it kept leading me to the money". In this case, it's money + power.
its the way they are doing it thats so evil & cunning & desguting and disasterous & double standards.!! not that climate or environmemt isnt important to anyone with a mind soul brain or heart! becauase it plainly is! But its the sick twisted duplicitious way they are implementing their climate scam with media and tesla (for instance) and the davos big boys club - the biggest hyporcrotes and poluters, profitteers, virtue signalleres lecturing the whole world hypocritucallaug and like biden or dnc gestapo legalaties, what rule is good for you is bad for me etc. But its far far greater. Its tied to roboticisation of human beings. The murderers of JFK and so many others must be laughing at us alongside their well paid abators. its Tied with human control, censorship , and distopian covidhoax future they have been plotting for, the wars (theyve alwsays got enough money for their fake wars - ukraine for eg), ! peodophiles friends', 3 letter agency crime coverers. abolute insincere thieves and abusers. The whole world knows now & they are a filthyy disgusting abusive joke (except to jobsworth myopics , liars, complicits or the very impressionable young/lab rats).
Wow! Thank you for this treasure trove of information Doc! Really great sources!
I just signed up with the CO2 coalition.org - it will be nice to have a little stack of real data next time I am embroiled in a “climate change” conversation. So many people have NO idea how dangerous to all of us on the planet it would be to reduce C02.
IMO, Humans have been on this Earth, as compared to how long the Earth has been in existence, the equivalent of a gnat fart. Meaning, we have barely existed at all, and I find it impossible to believe that we meager humans could cause the entire climate of this planet to change (for the worse of course). From what I have read and seen, the Earth has gone through many many environmental changes over the millennia, good and bad, before Humans "took charge". Climate Change is a total Fake and was designed for certain people to make money, and control the population as an added benefit.
Powerhouse info, as always Good Sir!
From Red Pill Realsville (Empiricism) it’s like this:
I don’t accept the destructive Marxist premise that warming is an ontological certainty, it’s all man-made, and it’s bad.
I ask: what is the Delta between the optimal Earth temperature and the current earth temperature and why is that optimal? The follow up questions self-cascade - what is the acceptable rate of change? The history of optimal temperatures, Etc. Please show your work.
Hint: poor polar bear thingy (Impecunious Ursus Maritimus Resy) isn’t a number with a unit.
Going down the phylogenetic pathway, Animals troop, herd, flock, swarm, and school - a simple compression algorithm for survival - do what the guy next to you is doing.
Happily, a contagious number are turning to face the predator as we have our own (civilized) predatory aggression. Cf Cape buffalo turning the tables on lions.
It is not normal human living that threatens the health of our world. We should, however, be good stewards. Strip mining and Cobalt mining, in particular, seem rather irresponsible both ecologically and humanly.