A Climate Hoax in Ten Easy Tricks
Enough, guys. We're on to you.
Here’s a good, short(ish) video from Ivor Cummins1 on some of the pseudo-scientific trickery used to take actual data and hoaxfully twist it into “climate crisis”.
The next “global health emergency” has been declared.
The climate scam wave is here.
You know how this goes.
Unchallenged, the propagandists will eventually train our family members to call us “climate change deniers” and advocate that we be put in camps.2
None of this nonsense (nonScience?) is new, but we better brush up on it so we can call out the utter BS when we see it.
Plus, someone in a lab coat claiming they have proof we’d be better off in poverty and enslavement and death? Yeah, no.
I’ve organized the content into ten “tricks” as I see it, and added a little commentary and supporting links. Here’s some handy-dandy jump links:
Trick #5: Disregard all non-human causes of climate variation.
Trick #9: Disregard the devastation your policies will reap.
Trick #10: Ignore more sensible/moderate/common sense plans.
If you don’t have the stomach for the details, at least take a gander at the video.
And don’t miss Ivor’s priceless reaction shots.😂
Youtube link, while it still exists…
Trick #1: Conflating “weather” with “climate”.
Semester one logic class: the fallacy of false generalization.
Weather is what is happening now. Climate is what happens over decades. You cannot look outside and see “climate” happening. It is not evident in a single hot or cold day, or a single weather event. To see climate at all, we must collect data. To speak in terms of climate is to speak in terms of trends in that data—typically decades-long trends.
Did you know that we have data on the minimum level of the Nile river going back more than a thousand years? The Egyptians of pharaonic times were concerned enough about flood and drought that they made a very fancy measuring stick (that they probably sacrificed a few hundred slaves in constructing):
And as we can see from the data, the Nile goes up and down, a lot, annually (blue line):
The red line shows us the 30-year average, so, the climatic trend.
But even trends can be deceiving. As Prof. Koonin puts it:
“If you were alive during the first 150 years of this record, you would see the annual minimum going down and down and no doubt some medieval Egyptian climate panel would be screaming ‘New Normal!’ and recommending prayers and sacrifice.”
Takeaway: don’t confuse observations with trends. And don’t confuse trends with “the new normal”.
It’s false generalization.
And time will almost certainly prove your generalization wrong.
Trick #2: Use the media to exaggerate (and in some cases, entirely misrepresent) the truth.
The text in the article “the rate of ice loss had risen from 33bn tonnes a year in the 1990s to 254bn tonnes a year in the past decade” is a true statement of fact, according to Professor Koonan.
But let’s look at it in context:
So, yep, the ice loss went up from 1990 to 2012 or so. But it also did that, to nearly the same degree (from about 40bn tonnes to about 240bn tonnes), in the 1930s, when human influence3 was much smaller.
A 1935 headline no one ever saw: Greenland’s ice sheet melting six times faster than in 1920s! Scientists say we’re doomed! Doomed, I say! Oh, the humanity!
Also, ice loss went down in the period global temperatures were warming. Hmm. And, oops, there’s a rather inconvenient decline at the end there for the last decade or so. Science media squirms… aaaand nixes the chart. We’ll just say seven times faster and the reader will imagine the hockey stick chart that we want them to see.
But look at the chart. Do you see catastrophe? Or normal variability?
Do you see a headline?
Trick #3: Repetition makes it true.
We’re all familiar with this trick by now.
Slogan, rinse, repeat until your family members are spouting jargon like “safe and effective” and “denier” and “horse dewormer” without so much as a synapse firing.
There is nary a typhoon, flood, fire, mudslide, melting of an ice sheet, or even an uptick on the thermometer that goes unreported by the media these days. We are constantly being reminded of weather events. And every single report has a not-so-hidden “Shame on the humans!” premise embedded in it.
And yet, even the IPCC admits they have no basis for attributing these weather events to anthropogenic causes.
Upshot: the media who repeat this stuff over and over are owned by people with an anthropogenic climate catastrophe agenda. (see #7)
Trick #4: Zoom in to the “scary” portion of the data.
Here’s some scary red bar graphs from the EPA.gov site:
OMG. Heat waves.
But let’s pull out and take a longer view.
Here’s another figure from the same EPA site:
Again, point to the crisis.4
The climate catastrophe people are strangely quiet about the climate catastrophe that occurred in the 1930s, aren’t they?
Solution: ignore the inconvenient part. Just zoom into the portion of the data starting in 1961 that makes the frightening “trend” appear.
As Ivor says: “That’s data fraud. It’s scientific fraud. It’s propaganda.”
Trick #5: Completely disregard all non-human causes of temperature, weather, and climate variability.
What causes temperature, weather, variations in climate?
The hoaxters would have you believe only human industry causes warmer temperatures and extreme weather events.
So…
El Niño and other oscillations like the North Atlantic Oscilation, North Pacific Oscillation, and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation;
Stratospheric water vapor (the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted undersea on Jan 15, 2022, blasting “unprecedented” amounts of water into the stratosphere which increases heat trapping);
Reduced tropospheric aerosols. (We have cleaned up the lower atmosphere from coal and ship emissions, which allows the Earth to absorb more sunlight… which makes it warmer.)
Urban heat islands (the temperature readings can be higher in the cities by five or six degrees. If your weather station is set up in an airport or a growing city center you are not measuring global warming, you are measuring the increasing heat of your urban environment.)
Urban heat island effect over time
…just ignore these things.
They do not count toward climate variability, or only have a minimal influence, according to the hoaxters.
Real things that happen in the real world do not matter.
Only what is modeled (see #6) and what is funded. (see #7)
And if you question it, you get vilified by the media and the funded scientific community. (see #10)
Today, this is what is called “science”.
Trick #6: When reality won’t play along, use models.
The real world data is just not cooperating with these people. They can’t find the trends that they want. As we saw earlier, the IPCC cannot attribute (or even detect) trends in these weather events:
Precipitation, drought, extreme winds, tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons — no trends. Mid-latitude storms, tornadoes, hail, lightning—no trends.
Bummer.
And yet, in that same report, in the “Summary for Policymakers” section, we have language like:
“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”
“Unequivocal”.
Meaning what, exactly? Total? Unambiguous? Unchallengeable?
Sure. If it weren’t for all that equivocal, ambiguous, unconvincing data.
But surely, we all know the weather events are getting worse, right?
Like, hurricanes?
Hmm.
Okay, frequency may not have changed, but they are more intense, right?
Hmm.
Well, no problem.
When real world data won’t cooperate, just use models.
Unlike with empirical data, with models, you can build in all the human influence and catastrophe you want.
Except that the modelers are tipping their hand, showing just how unreliable their models really are.
Here’s a chart showing about 40 different models, rated according to the sensitivity of the model to carbon dioxide inputs.
The ones in yellow, about 44% of them, are deemed too sensitive, since they result in numbers that predict too much climate change, compared to the value that the IPCC wants to see.
Remember that these models were funded, peer-reviewed, published, lauded.
And we might well wonder, what is the track record of prediction? How well have these amazing models predicted actual temperature?
Cripes.
Even the climate scientists are starting to question the fitness of the models:
And the reasons offered for preferring the models over real-world observations (i.e., for not telling the truth) seem a little familiar don’t they? It’s our old friend, the “noble lie”: We don’t want to undermine public confidence in decision and policy makers.
That ship may already have sailed, guys, sorry.
As Professor Koonin says: “This is a disease, a dysfunction, of science in this particular field. As a scientist, I think it’s our duty to lay out the science knowns and unknowns transparently, completely, and without bias. Well, that’s not happening, I can tell you that.”
As Ivor points out, there are thousands of scientists on record as affirming climate change (which really should be 100% of scientists, because, duh…of course it changes), including acknowledging the human contribution to it, and who also acknowledge the positive benefits of lowering emissions and pollutants in the atmosphere, but who question the notion of “crisis”, question the fitness of the models, and who want to have a scientific discussion about all causes, including non-human, and who are consequently kicked out of their fields, having their funding pulled, and being censored. For the sin of wanting a scientific discussion.
It all seems a little familiar, doesn’t it? 🤔
And yet we have press release after press release praising the crisis models and how well they are getting it right. And so the funding continues.
As Ivor puts it: “Modelling can be used to get anything out of the far end, and it’s going to depend on one variable more than any other… the funding.”
Which brings us to…
Trick #7: Pour funding into the results you want.
As Ivor points out, it’s not just stupidity behind the pseudo-science, it’s agenda.
The money being poured into “crisis” is incalculable. We’re talking the most wealthy individuals and organizations ever to slither across the planet. “Philanthrophic” foundations like Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, plus “public/private partnerships” like the World Economic Forum, UN Climate Panel, have been relentlessly funding scientists and modelers for more than half a century to whip up data that suggests catastrophe.
The list of the usual suspects creating the “science”:
Private companies,5 NGOs, “foundations”, think tanks, or international bodies that were set up by private companies to serve their interests and give them a philanthropic cover.
Notice the names. Rockefeller, Rothschild, Carnegie, Ford, Clinton, Gates. Wealthy elites who deem themselves smarter than you. And none of them, you may notice, are abashed about their goal of “global governance”.
It’s funny, I don’t recall electing any of them to govern me. Do you?
One other thing you might notice. All these foundations and “philanthropic” (philanthroPATHic?) organizations who are in the business of terrifying people about climate disaster, are also in the business of terrifying people about pandemics.
Interesting, no?
Not really. It’s the same op.
Want global control? You need a global “emergency” to make the globe go along with it.
Trick #8: Ignore the positive benefits of warming.
Okay the temperature’s up by 1.3 degrees over the last 123 years…
…and food production is up. Deaths due to weather events are down. Economic losses due to weather events are down. Extreme poverty is nearly eradicated.6
Does this look like crisis?
Does it look like catastrophe?
Trick #9: Disregard (or invite) the devastation your policies will reap.
Energy is a fundamental system which supports everything we do, and has co-evolved with other systems in our society.
If you eliminate energy, you disrupt and destroy those other systems. Should be obvious to a toddler, I would think.
We’ve all been served an appetizer portion of this dish already. Just look at the global devastation wrought by a year-ish or so of “health” lockdowns:
Here’s a list of 400 or so studies showing the harmful effects of lockdown on civilization.
Now, consider the energy systems which sustain our civilization:
Based on what you know about recent, catastrophic attempts to alter the way society runs (i.e., “health” mandates), what do you think happens to society if you eliminate the bottom 80% or so of that chart?
If you’re picturing something like this…
…you’re probably not far off.
Parts of Europe are already suffering under these policies.
Moreover, it is by far and away the developing world that is growing in population and energy needs.
So this push to Net Zero is the developed world telling the developing world they are forbidden from developing, which will simply result in stagnation and unaffordable energy and poverty for those nations. All so the elites (listed in #7) can impose global serfdom while they virtue signal about saving the planet and making the future “sustainable”, which it absolutely will not do.
Trick #10: Ignore (or shame) the more sensible/moderate/common sense plans.
Ivor: “The funders are saying: you can’t go outside of what our guys are saying to you. You can’t question it. You can’t look too deeply at it. And if you do we’ll call you a climate denier.”
Which all seems like a sensible path forward, from a sensible scientist.
But that’s the problem with this entire discussion, isn’t it? We’re not really dealing with sensible people with sensible intentions—we’re dealing with psychopaths that want to cull the species and enslave what remains.
The push to Net Zero, as Ivor says, is inherently absurd on its face.
But it’s also sinister.
Professor Koonin wants to appeal to rationality when he says: “If we act rapidly in an ill-thought-through way we will incur a greater threat to human well-being than climate change itself.”
But “human well-being” was never really the goal of the hoaxters, was it?
If you enjoyed this post, someone else probably will, too. Click this button to share it:
Or perhaps you know someone that would appreciate a gift sub:
Or, if a sub is too much commitment, consider a one-time donation:
Bitcoin Address:
3BRCXdECrTq1WHHz8jrztGCNwzKQyWsEUA
Follow me on the Socials:
Commenting on a lecture by Professor Steven Koonin.
Camps, by the way, which are not off the table in the U.S.: https://brownstone.org/articles/breaking-appellate-court-paves-the-way-to-quarantine-camps/
Professor Koonin asserts that “human influence” was 1/5 of what it is today, but I’m not sure what this is measuring. Does he mean population? Industrialization? Carbon production? This seems like a fairly important assumption. A devil’s advocate could argue, for example, that “human influence” has not substantively changed in that period, in spite of massive population and economic growth.
I can’t help but notice that the long term image which includes the 1930s is “buried” on the EPA page. You have to click through the “Figure 3” link to find it. The first figures you see are the scarier bar graphs in red based on a 2015 study. Want your study featured on the front page? Use scary red bar graphs that show the desired trend.
Who all seem to have the same web designer. Just look at the similarities in language and design between all the sites I have linked!
Of course, this is all pre-plandemia, which brought population culling deaths, extreme poverty, and disrupted supply chains roaring right back into humanity’s lap. Thanks, “experts”.
Good info, thank you James. Yes, no doubt, Climate Hoax is the big wave coming our way. Let's hope we can dissipate it, quick. I'll hang on to this as persuasive resource.
Very nicely done! Thank you for the fodder