The strong case for climate change alarmism being a hoax!!!
This is an extract from a newspaper in Canada… expect more of the truth on climate change to be exposed as we pursue reality in our national politics.
A brief filed with the court of appeals in The Hague in November by three eminent, American climate-related academics, Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Steven Koonin of New York University, the Hoover Institute, and former climate adviser to President Obama, challenged the finding of a lower court and held that scientific analysis, as opposed to an aggregation of “government opinion, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data,” shows that “Fossil fuels and CO2 will NOT cause dangerous climate change, there will be disastrous consequences for people worldwide if fossil fuels in CO2 emissions are reduced to net zero, including mass starvation.”
They assert that the poor, future generations, and the entire West will suffer profoundly from any such policy. which “will undermine human rights and cripple the realization of the first three UN sustainable development goals — no poverty, zero hunger, and good health and well-being.”
The three experts warn against equating “the state of climate science with the reports of the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change,” which “have no value as science, because the IPCC is government-controlled and represents only government opinions, not science.” It also denounced the lower court verdict that “dangerous climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels ... We demonstrate that these conclusions are contradicted by the scientific method, and only supported by the unscientific methods mentioned.
Hundreds of research papers confirm the highly beneficial effects of the increased concentration of atmospheric CO2, especially in dry farming areas.”
They go on to represent the CO2 as essential to food, and thus to life on earth, and that the more there is of CO2, the more food there will be, especially in drought-stricken areas. They also make the case that greenhouse gases prevent us from freezing to death, that there are “enormous social benefits to fossil fuels and that net zero will expand human starvation by eliminating nitrogen fertilizer.”
This highly recondite and meticulously documented paper states that “600 million years of carbon dioxide in temperature data contradict the theory of catastrophic global warming being caused by high levels of CO2, and that the atmospheric CO2 is now heavily saturated, which means that more will have little warming effect.” Up until recently, the zealots pretended that such opinions are held only by the uninformed, or the paid lobbyists of the oil industry, but they are not going to be able to get away with this much longer. The ranks of the critics are swelling every week with aggrieved members of the voting public distressed by completely unnecessary skyrocketing costs generated by the fearmongering climate zealots.
With any luck, the tide of logical evidence will wash away the climate lunatics of this country before the damage becomes irreparable.
Extract from National post Conrad Black 27 Apr 2024
I like how, when asked why billionaires and large corporations should pay a climate tax, Duflo said simply, "First of all, they have the money." We're in a crisis. They should at least be paying their fair share.
I am in full support of this idea, I just worry about the implementation; how do you prevent grift as the money leaves the richest and the corporations and arrives into the accounts of the poorest individuals facing an imminent climate crisis? There are some countries in this world where the people would really need this but the government is not know for their lack of corruption.
Always a joy to read a HEATED interview, so thank you Arielle!
My questions would be how does a carbon tax fit into this and is there a concern that other domestic demands for spending could make implementing this a challenge?
I think if there is any sort increase in taxes among the wealthy there would be overwhelming demand for that to be spent domestically instead of elsewhere. It is even mentioned how fiscal responsibilities make sending money elsewhere difficult. I'm just not clear in why specifically these taxes need to linked to spending elsewhere instead of a carbon tax?
To be clear I'm of the general mindset we need to be spending a lot more not just on climate mitigation but also directly to other countries to make up for our past failures to deal with the climate crisis, and direct cash is an idea I have always liked, just unclear on a couple things.
I will have to read their work in more depth, so thank you for highlighting it with this interview!
Great article and an awesome idea. I hope this continues to gain traction. A small correction - Bezos Earth Fund only has $10 billion, not $100 billion (though certainly wish it were more!). If it was only spending $1 billion a year out of $100 billion that would be outrageous.
Looks like misplaced and misinformed virtue signaling, and transferring wealth from the west to the rest is already at danger level through trade globalization. And we should cancel the UNs ideas to continue this wealth transfer for a climate emergency that does not exist.
Many more people die from cold than heat by a factor of 6 to 8 times and the only way to adapt to extremes of local climate is with the increased use of fossil fuels.
As long as we have our own citizens living in tents and our children undernourished, we should forget these Marxist ideas…
We should be taxing global corporatism much more as they are great at tax evasion at the national level.. let’s fix that first.
The strong case for climate change alarmism being a hoax!!!
This is an extract from a newspaper in Canada… expect more of the truth on climate change to be exposed as we pursue reality in our national politics.
A brief filed with the court of appeals in The Hague in November by three eminent, American climate-related academics, Richard Lindzen of MIT, William Happer of Princeton, and Steven Koonin of New York University, the Hoover Institute, and former climate adviser to President Obama, challenged the finding of a lower court and held that scientific analysis, as opposed to an aggregation of “government opinion, consensus, peer review, and cherry-picked or falsified data,” shows that “Fossil fuels and CO2 will NOT cause dangerous climate change, there will be disastrous consequences for people worldwide if fossil fuels in CO2 emissions are reduced to net zero, including mass starvation.”
They assert that the poor, future generations, and the entire West will suffer profoundly from any such policy. which “will undermine human rights and cripple the realization of the first three UN sustainable development goals — no poverty, zero hunger, and good health and well-being.”
The three experts warn against equating “the state of climate science with the reports of the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change,” which “have no value as science, because the IPCC is government-controlled and represents only government opinions, not science.” It also denounced the lower court verdict that “dangerous climate change and extreme weather are caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels ... We demonstrate that these conclusions are contradicted by the scientific method, and only supported by the unscientific methods mentioned.
Hundreds of research papers confirm the highly beneficial effects of the increased concentration of atmospheric CO2, especially in dry farming areas.”
They go on to represent the CO2 as essential to food, and thus to life on earth, and that the more there is of CO2, the more food there will be, especially in drought-stricken areas. They also make the case that greenhouse gases prevent us from freezing to death, that there are “enormous social benefits to fossil fuels and that net zero will expand human starvation by eliminating nitrogen fertilizer.”
This highly recondite and meticulously documented paper states that “600 million years of carbon dioxide in temperature data contradict the theory of catastrophic global warming being caused by high levels of CO2, and that the atmospheric CO2 is now heavily saturated, which means that more will have little warming effect.” Up until recently, the zealots pretended that such opinions are held only by the uninformed, or the paid lobbyists of the oil industry, but they are not going to be able to get away with this much longer. The ranks of the critics are swelling every week with aggrieved members of the voting public distressed by completely unnecessary skyrocketing costs generated by the fearmongering climate zealots.
With any luck, the tide of logical evidence will wash away the climate lunatics of this country before the damage becomes irreparable.
Extract from National post Conrad Black 27 Apr 2024
The response paper submitted to the court…
PDF Render | Friends of Science
https://friendsofscience.org/pdf-render.html?page=2954
I like how, when asked why billionaires and large corporations should pay a climate tax, Duflo said simply, "First of all, they have the money." We're in a crisis. They should at least be paying their fair share.
I am in full support of this idea, I just worry about the implementation; how do you prevent grift as the money leaves the richest and the corporations and arrives into the accounts of the poorest individuals facing an imminent climate crisis? There are some countries in this world where the people would really need this but the government is not know for their lack of corruption.
Always a joy to read a HEATED interview, so thank you Arielle!
My questions would be how does a carbon tax fit into this and is there a concern that other domestic demands for spending could make implementing this a challenge?
I think if there is any sort increase in taxes among the wealthy there would be overwhelming demand for that to be spent domestically instead of elsewhere. It is even mentioned how fiscal responsibilities make sending money elsewhere difficult. I'm just not clear in why specifically these taxes need to linked to spending elsewhere instead of a carbon tax?
To be clear I'm of the general mindset we need to be spending a lot more not just on climate mitigation but also directly to other countries to make up for our past failures to deal with the climate crisis, and direct cash is an idea I have always liked, just unclear on a couple things.
I will have to read their work in more depth, so thank you for highlighting it with this interview!
Great article and an awesome idea. I hope this continues to gain traction. A small correction - Bezos Earth Fund only has $10 billion, not $100 billion (though certainly wish it were more!). If it was only spending $1 billion a year out of $100 billion that would be outrageous.
Thank you for catching that extra zero!
Looks like misplaced and misinformed virtue signaling, and transferring wealth from the west to the rest is already at danger level through trade globalization. And we should cancel the UNs ideas to continue this wealth transfer for a climate emergency that does not exist.
Many more people die from cold than heat by a factor of 6 to 8 times and the only way to adapt to extremes of local climate is with the increased use of fossil fuels.
As long as we have our own citizens living in tents and our children undernourished, we should forget these Marxist ideas…
We should be taxing global corporatism much more as they are great at tax evasion at the national level.. let’s fix that first.