In 2009, the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was compromised, and hackers made off with 160mb of data, 3,000 documents, and more than 1,000 emails.
The fraud has been on display for quite a while, and the only reason wider members of the scientific community haven't exposed it sooner is because they all want a cut of that gravy train grift from the government.
We've got documented cases of arsonists.
We've got historical records showing there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
We've got the obviously political implementation of population controls in response to what has been consistently proven bunk nonsense.
None of the climate shills ever comes back from a debate when presented with evidence, they will just point blank lie and deny that it exists.
Every single person involved in this climate grift is a scammer. Period.
Trying to find something wrong with the data is precisely how peer review works. The data must be assumed fraudulent until they release the data proving otherwise. No evidence = did not happen.
Something that consoles me a great deal is that most people I speak to are aware that the climate crisis is a scam whereas they were and, mostly, still are unaware of the covid scam. That being said, TPTB are still organising society and stealing our tax money on the basis of this ‘science’ and it needs to stop.
Indeed. They are the same scam! (Problem - Reaction - Solution) but with a different costume worn over the top.
(I'll explain for anyone else reading who still doesn't get it)
A threat narrative is created. The alleged threat can only be detected and understood by the official experts (so we are told). Various policies, wealth transfers and other measures are required in order to fight the threat and save the planet/ ensure public health.
It's all about establishing a kind of Free Energy Machine for the ruling classes, where the machine is powered by public fear/ shame/ guilt.
The 'gas pedal' is the MSM who boost the threat narrative (or shame non believers) to generate more fear and compliance whenever it is needed.
Computer modelling allows the (so called) 'science' behind the threat narrative to be completely detached from reality (nature) and transferred over to the digital realm where there are no limitations.
Plus, the reliance on technology (super smart algorithms and fancy equipment) makes most people more likely to accept the claims being made. The gamification of compliance (vax passports, green ticks, smartphone track and trace apps, carbon credit / carbon offsetting etc) also helps people to enjoy their compliance with being robbed and ensalved.
People have forgotten that 'science' is much closer to philosophy (reason, evidence, critical thinking) than it is to technology. Pointing a 'sacred stick' at someone and declaring them to be "possessed by evil spirits" is 100% technology. The PCR 'test' and its 'positive cases' was no more science-y than than any other kind of 'sacred diagnostic stick'.
Covid was all digital. Digital virus, digital tests, digital modelling, digital genomes, digital climate models, digital vaccines...... climate lockdowns, covid lockdowns..... TomAYto / Tomaahto :)
Hannah Fry (celebrity TV mathematician who claims to have helped 'get us out of lockdowns') admitted on TV "We are all living under the lockdown because of decisions based on modelling".
I had to figure this stuff out for myself and now a veteran of twitter climate stuff, no one could explain without some fraught feedback diagram nor would they clarify my simple questions. In the end I just had to read the actual science report of the IPCC and figure out that the summaries were not closely related to them, second cousins likely. Then I hit the Cook et al. 97% consensus paper. I couldn't even finish the abstract because of the implications of their math.
I thought it remarkable to be able to argue the many and various LLM's to the ground and make them admit to what your research vets. But, if you go back the next day you are immersed in "consensus" again. How's a normie to cope?
Crichton hit the nail on the head, consensus is a political word not a science word. That is 'consilience'. All else follows.
That 'climatologist' with the medieval warm period erasure hockey stick did more to bring science into disrepute than any 10 retracted papers because of the consequences of a former Vice President getting a new good paying shtick to leave off and go away.
Doctrine and dogma are the reason so many foundational institutions are now failing over having become calcified edifices. Victims of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
Super article - I've written about Climategate before, but have always had to compress it down as backdrop for a separate piece. This goes in deep - and is far, far more damning. Well done & thank you. A very useful reference!
Are you aware of Mike Hulme? He was one of the minor players in the controversy, and is - looking into his writing in more detail - arguably one of the most 'sceptical warmists', to the extent that he sounds almost like a genuine rational human being. Have you come across his work, or any one else in this comments section? See https://mikehulme.org/climategate-2pm-on-19-november-2009/.
Just watching the weatherman weeping at the Hurricane Milton . Its climate change he says. My guess from the early days of the CO2 theory was that it was partly about finding ways to cope with a high population of settled humans facing natural weather changes , and partly about our own altering of rivers and forests etc .. all this simplified down into a carbon tax ? So even if we 'prove' them wrong on the CO2 theory we still have to solve the various problems of climate changing ??
Average surface temperature calculations are easily manipulated - with two examples outlined in above.
But I address this in one of the next articles - in short, the 1970s alone make it really rather obvious what they were doing. There's absolutely no way it's legit. Read up on the Belgrade Charter, for starters.
The fraud has been on display for quite a while, and the only reason wider members of the scientific community haven't exposed it sooner is because they all want a cut of that gravy train grift from the government.
We've got documented cases of arsonists.
We've got historical records showing there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
We've got the obviously political implementation of population controls in response to what has been consistently proven bunk nonsense.
None of the climate shills ever comes back from a debate when presented with evidence, they will just point blank lie and deny that it exists.
Every single person involved in this climate grift is a scammer. Period.
Trying to find something wrong with the data is precisely how peer review works. The data must be assumed fraudulent until they release the data proving otherwise. No evidence = did not happen.
Great work! Thank you for sharing it with us.
Something that consoles me a great deal is that most people I speak to are aware that the climate crisis is a scam whereas they were and, mostly, still are unaware of the covid scam. That being said, TPTB are still organising society and stealing our tax money on the basis of this ‘science’ and it needs to stop.
Indeed. They are the same scam! (Problem - Reaction - Solution) but with a different costume worn over the top.
(I'll explain for anyone else reading who still doesn't get it)
A threat narrative is created. The alleged threat can only be detected and understood by the official experts (so we are told). Various policies, wealth transfers and other measures are required in order to fight the threat and save the planet/ ensure public health.
It's all about establishing a kind of Free Energy Machine for the ruling classes, where the machine is powered by public fear/ shame/ guilt.
The 'gas pedal' is the MSM who boost the threat narrative (or shame non believers) to generate more fear and compliance whenever it is needed.
Computer modelling allows the (so called) 'science' behind the threat narrative to be completely detached from reality (nature) and transferred over to the digital realm where there are no limitations.
Plus, the reliance on technology (super smart algorithms and fancy equipment) makes most people more likely to accept the claims being made. The gamification of compliance (vax passports, green ticks, smartphone track and trace apps, carbon credit / carbon offsetting etc) also helps people to enjoy their compliance with being robbed and ensalved.
People have forgotten that 'science' is much closer to philosophy (reason, evidence, critical thinking) than it is to technology. Pointing a 'sacred stick' at someone and declaring them to be "possessed by evil spirits" is 100% technology. The PCR 'test' and its 'positive cases' was no more science-y than than any other kind of 'sacred diagnostic stick'.
Covid was all digital. Digital virus, digital tests, digital modelling, digital genomes, digital climate models, digital vaccines...... climate lockdowns, covid lockdowns..... TomAYto / Tomaahto :)
Hannah Fry (celebrity TV mathematician who claims to have helped 'get us out of lockdowns') admitted on TV "We are all living under the lockdown because of decisions based on modelling".
https://odysee.com/@CoronaStudies:3/SMART-HEIST:7
"Because in terms of climate prediction, the truth is that no-one knows."
I know.
Where I live, there are four seasons: spring, summer, autumn, winter.
Has been since the birth of Christ, and 10,000 years before.
There is no sign that the climate is changing.
Wow a lot of information to go through here. Thank you for assembling such a comprehensive database of information.
I had to figure this stuff out for myself and now a veteran of twitter climate stuff, no one could explain without some fraught feedback diagram nor would they clarify my simple questions. In the end I just had to read the actual science report of the IPCC and figure out that the summaries were not closely related to them, second cousins likely. Then I hit the Cook et al. 97% consensus paper. I couldn't even finish the abstract because of the implications of their math.
I thought it remarkable to be able to argue the many and various LLM's to the ground and make them admit to what your research vets. But, if you go back the next day you are immersed in "consensus" again. How's a normie to cope?
Crichton hit the nail on the head, consensus is a political word not a science word. That is 'consilience'. All else follows.
That 'climatologist' with the medieval warm period erasure hockey stick did more to bring science into disrepute than any 10 retracted papers because of the consequences of a former Vice President getting a new good paying shtick to leave off and go away.
Doctrine and dogma are the reason so many foundational institutions are now failing over having become calcified edifices. Victims of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
Super article - I've written about Climategate before, but have always had to compress it down as backdrop for a separate piece. This goes in deep - and is far, far more damning. Well done & thank you. A very useful reference!
Are you aware of Mike Hulme? He was one of the minor players in the controversy, and is - looking into his writing in more detail - arguably one of the most 'sceptical warmists', to the extent that he sounds almost like a genuine rational human being. Have you come across his work, or any one else in this comments section? See https://mikehulme.org/climategate-2pm-on-19-november-2009/.
Excellent write up!
Just watching the weatherman weeping at the Hurricane Milton . Its climate change he says. My guess from the early days of the CO2 theory was that it was partly about finding ways to cope with a high population of settled humans facing natural weather changes , and partly about our own altering of rivers and forests etc .. all this simplified down into a carbon tax ? So even if we 'prove' them wrong on the CO2 theory we still have to solve the various problems of climate changing ??
Average surface temperature calculations are easily manipulated - with two examples outlined in above.
But I address this in one of the next articles - in short, the 1970s alone make it really rather obvious what they were doing. There's absolutely no way it's legit. Read up on the Belgrade Charter, for starters.
so those 2 huge hurricanes are not unusual in the longer term ? I have wondered if the extra water from that undersea volcano has added to this .