Discover more from Richard Moore In-Depth
The most dangerous gas in America
2022 Nobel Prize winner in Physics: Climate change orthodoxy is dangerous corruption of science
Of late the globalist warming crowd has targeted the poor cow for the cause of the earth burning up before our very eyes.
Along with humans, of course. We remain public enemy number 1–meaning we must be fugitives from ourselves, so let’s hope there’s a reward if we catch ourselves—but the lowly cow has become a target because of all that methane.
And many alarmists want to exterminate cows to put an end to it. So that sort of tells us what they think the solution to human pollution is.
But about that methane. Supposedly, it’s one of the most potent and dangerous of the greenhouse gases. I don’t know about that, as I am not a methane scientist or cow proctologist, but here’s what I do know: The most dangerous gas in America these days—and indeed in the western world—is the gaslighting of the people that is going on by international corporations, the corporate media, the emerging Unified World Government, and its court jester, George Soros.
Well, you know what they say. Nothing is absurd so long as everything is absurd. Or to put it another way, when the absurdity captures everything—media, financial institutions, governments, schools, civic organizations, Bam Bam’s Bowling and Strip Club—when there is nothing to pierce the veil of nonsense and to let truth in, the absurdity itself looks like truth.
In other words, there is consensus. There is settled science. And only heretics who are going to hell and crazy people who are also going to hell because they vote for conservatives or visit Bam Bam’s can possibly believe in an alternative narrative.
Of course, in the real world, there is no such thing as settled science, and scientific consensus was never meant to be taken as incontrovertible proof. Just the opposite. Scientific consensus is meant only to be a foundational starting point to begin testing that consensus and trying to undermine its foundations. It provides a pathway toward its own destruction.
Throughout history consensus has time and again been shattered in just such a way. Lavoisier destroyed the consensus that a fire-like element called phlogiston existed, and in the process he discovered oxygen; the idea that the sun revolved around the earth was another consensus fiasco that was knocked down, but not before disbelievers were condemned and even jailed.
Now, another consensus is in serious jeopardy, namely, that human-made climate change has plunged the earth into such a dire crisis of survival that we need to destroy ourselves and our standard of living to save ourselves. It’s an absurdity protected by the veil of the world’s elite, and it needs to be pierced no less than the absurdity that the earth was the center of the universe.
Thanks for reading Richard Moore In-Depth! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Now that you mention it …
Thankfully, that challenge is being taken up. For one, Nobel laureate John Clauser—whose Nobel came just last year—is trying to do just that by joining a growing group of scientific dissenters who say there is no climate crisis at all, at least not a human-made one. The number of prominent scientists breaking from the consensus continues to grow, with the 2022 winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics signing onto a World Climate Declaration decrying the existence of any climate emergency.
The declaration now sports the signatures of 1,609 scientists and experts, including that of Clauser, who won the Nobel Prize for his work in quantum mechanics.
Clauser has also joined the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition, which promotes what it says is the vital role carbon dioxide plays in the environment. In joining the coalition, Clauser said the anthropogenic climate change movement poses a serious threat to world economies:
The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills.
Clauser said the climate narrative has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists:
In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.
In June, the Nobel laureate continued his assault on climate change orthodoxy, delivering a withering assessment of the movement in a speech at Quantum Korea 2023, an international event sponsored by the Korean government looking into global trends of quantum ecosystem innovations. Clauser said he had been asked to make some brief remarks as inspiration to young Korean scientists, and he quickly wanted them to be aware of pseudosciences sweeping the world:
The current world I observe is literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation, and what I will call ‘techno-cons.’ Techno-cons are the application of scientific disinformation for opportunistic purposes.
Clauser said non-science business managers, politicians, politically appointed lab directors, and the like are very easily snowed by scientific disinformation, but that, in the end, good science is always based on good experiments and good observations. He called on young scientists to observe nature directly so that they could determine real truth:
Use the information gained from carefully performed experiments and research to stop the spread of scientific misinformation, disinformation and techno-cons. Well-educated scientists can help solve the world’s problems by acting as scientific fact-checkers.
Clauser then homed in on climate change, saying the Nobel Foundation had recently formed a new panel to address pseudoscience but in his opinion had made a big mistake by modeling the panel on the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC: “I think personally that they are making a big mistake in that effort because in my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.”
Clauser went on to say that the peer-review process whereby credentialed colleagues assess each other’s work—the previous system of scientific fact checking— had broken down. Often, Clauser said, there are “elephants hiding in the room in plain sight,” and yet peer-reviewers somehow do not see them.
One of those elephants is climate change orthodoxy, Clauser told the assembled scientists: “I believe that climate change is not a crisis,” adding that in climate change the dominant process has been misidentified by factors of 200.
Beware, Clauser advised the young scientists:
If you’re doing good science, it may lead you into politically incorrect areas. If you’re a good scientist, you will follow them. I have several I won’t have time to discuss, but I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.
But saying the climate crisis isn’t real can apparently cause people to be canceled: The International Monetary Fund promptly canceled a seminar Clauser was to give on climate modeling the following month, saying it was being postponed and reorganized into a panel discussion.
A declaration …
The World Climate Declaration that Clauser signed onto also proclaims in its lead that there is no climate emergency:
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
The Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases, the document continues, with the Little Ice Age ending as recently as 1850: “Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.”
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing, the document continued, while the gap between the real world and the modeled world shows that science is far from understanding climate change:
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
Perhaps most important, the document asserts, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant:
It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth.
What’s more, the document contends, there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent, but there is ample evidence that carbon dioxide mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly:
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
Critics of the declaration point out that not all of its 1,609 signatories are scientists or climate experts. That’s true but it’s also true that most are such scientists and experts, including another Nobel laureate, Dr. Ivar Giaever, as well as Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at MIT; and Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, a professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from 1998 until 2007; and many others.
Like Clauser, Giaever has been vocal in his dissent from climate change orthodoxy and even resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) because of its climate change agenda. Giaever said:
In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
A rising tide …
Clauser’s dissent is the loudest and the latest, but the numbers are spiraling upward.
At least Clauser is trying to be loud. Most people do not know he exists because the corporate media ignores—and the regime tries to cancel—all those who upset the approved narrative. Instead, the media continues us to gaslight us with horror stories of record temperatures, super hurricanes, melting polar ice caps, and death by cow farts.
Poor maligned cows.
To prove the point, right on cue as I was writing this, the Washington Post has published a story with this alarmist headline: “A new era of climate-linked disease threatens humanity”! If only we had a nickel for every time humanity has been so threatened. It’s all bunk, and the truth is out there if only people will look for it. Granted, it’s hard to find sometimes.
But what about this year’s record global heat?!
Well, the EPA’s data for 1,066 weather stations across the United States shows that 81 percent reported either a decrease or no change in the number of unusually hot days since 1948, while only 19 percent reported an increase in the number of unusually hot days.
That’s not to say we haven’t been heating up at all. But, as scientist Judith Curry, the former chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, reports on her blog, this year’s heat, part of a warming trend since 2015, is mostly due to natural variability, that is, an increase in absorbed solar radiation “driven by a slow decline in springtime snow extent, but primarily by a reduction in reflection from the atmosphere driven by reduced cloudiness and to a lesser extent a reduction in atmospheric aerosol.” (In 2020 there was a change in ship fuel regulations that reduced the amount of sulfate particles in the atmosphere and made low clouds less reflective, she wrote): “Any increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing CO2 (which impacts the longwave radiation budget) is lost in the noise.”
Then, too, though global warming was as pronounced in the first half of the 20th century (1910-1945) as in our time (remember the Dust Bowl), it was not due to carbon dioxide, as Curry has reported. On her blog, she noted that in 1910 the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was estimated to be 300.1 parts per million; in 1950 it was only 311.3 ppm; and in 2018 it was 408 ppm:
So, the warming during the period 1910-1945 was associated with a CO2 increase of 10 ppm, whereas a comparable amount of warming during the period 1950 to 2018 was associated with a 97 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration—almost an order of magnitude greater CO2 increase for a comparable amount of global ocean warming. … Clearly, there were other factors in play besides CO2 emissions in the early 20th century global warming.
But what about those melting ice caps?!
On her blog, Curry reports that in 2023 the Arctic sea ice is healthy, with sea ice extent for July being only the twelfth lowest on record and with snow mass balance (accumulation minus melt) for July above average relative to 1980-2010. And while the Antarctic sea ice is seriously thin, it’s not because it’s warming there. In fact, Curry reports, Antarctica has a significant cold anomaly, running 3oC below average. Rather, there was an early seasonal start to the Antarctic ozone hole, she reports, that, for complex reasons, are bringing winds that are breaking up the sea ice.
But what about all those supersized hurricanes?!
The data don’t support that they exist in any greater effect than back in the day. That there are more numerous, more powerful hurricanes is a myth. Funny enough, but Curry was herself once a climate alarmist, and particularly so on hurricanes, as she reported in one her studies.
“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” Curry told John Stossel in an interview last month, adding that she became a climate alarmist rock star after the study. But then, she said, some researchers pointed out serious flaws in her work, and, as Stossel wrote in Reason:
“‘Like a good scientist, I investigated,’ says Curry. She realized that the critics were right. ‘Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.’”
She went on to discover a climate change industry that rewarded climate alarmism, or, as Stossel framed it, “a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex.”
The good news is, more and more scientists are catching on to the reality of that complex, kicking at its walls to crack them and to let the light of truth expose its absurdity. It’s only a matter of time.
It would help if presidential candidates would give these truth-telling scientists a hand. Right now only Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy have told the truth that anthropogenic warming is fake and that the climate change agenda is a pretext for radicals to control of all society.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is close behind. While he believes the climate crisis is real, he also says the climate change movement has been co-opted by totalitarians to impose ever more control over society. He opposes the climate movement’s “obsession with carbon” and would end all energy subsidies and let the market determine winners and losers, rather than the government.
As for the rest of the candidates, they simply flunk the test. They need to have the courage to stand up and call out the climate change movement for what it is, an ideological movement for authoritarian control by elites. And they need to say it loud and clear: The climate change crisis is a manufactured crisis to scare people into submission, just like the Covid crisis. No doubt it won’t be long before The Washington Post publishes another story about how the climate is threatening humanity in one urgent way or another.
If Nobel laureates can stand up and say the truth, so can presidential candidates.
All of us are waiting for them to step into the fight. They should do it for us, and, oh yeah, they should do it for all the the poor maligned cows.
Their moos are on the line, too.
A version of this article appeared first in The Lakeland Times.