Dr. John Clauser, Nobel laureate in Physics 2022, recently made a remarkable statement: the climate narrative is a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. My chest opened and filled with fresh relief as I read these words.
So right, Desmet, science has been corporate captured just like every industry, including the media, and most governments. This is due to the unjust "consensus" that allows private banks to create all our money as interest-bearing debt for profit. If all money is created as debt how does one pay off debt? You can't, so here we are with a 303 trillion dollar world debt with a money supply of only 82 trillion. Has humankind forgotten debt is slavery and control? Money is the governing factor. It is what determines our public policy. As director Chan of the WHO recently admitted, “those who fund the WHO decide what it will do. “ This is true of every government and institution in the world and while it should be obvious it apparently is not. Any scientific consensus motivated by profit and money is a fraud. "...it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
Some also justify the global warming argument in a sort of Pascal's wager: If there is even a 1 in 1,000 chance climate change turns out badly, we must act. But, even if there is a 1 in 1,000 chance of disaster, what are the potential harms of the "cure"? Are there other risks with a greater than 1 in 1,000 chance? Is it plausible we can even say the risk is 1 in 1,000 or is this just hand waving argument without any rational basis? Is it achievable to get worldwide compliance, and can global warming risks be mitigated with less harm through other measures? Is it plausible it can really be known how much warming will occur, if any, over a given period of time and what the effects of that warming will be? Is it possible the fear framing - disaster - is driving irrational behavior both in science, the media, and the public where we are irrationally driven to feel that we "must" act out of an "abundance of caution"?
I don't have much confidence in "the science" on this issue due to the complexity of the problem, because it is now a politically correct issue that has become politically useful to some, and given other conflicts of interests, including financial, that stand to profit substantially.
I agree with Mattias. I think the answer is to always seek truth: a dedication to honesty and thorough critical thinking is the way. Also, don't panic.
I've come across commentators who resort to the argument of "you're not an expert in this, stay in your lane," a refrain we vividly recall from the COVID vaccination campaigns. However I find this argument to be weak, primarily because I've undertaken the endeavor myself, and have uncovered noteworthy flaws in the climate narrative, which I've detailed in my own substack articles. They significantly challenge the dominant narrative, and I encourage others to embark on a similar investigation. It's not particularly daunting, on the contrary it's surprisingly easy.
Impressive article written by an impressive man whose book is almost a spiritual inspiration to me. However, ending the article by the gained insight on the steppe in Africa, reached by long haul air traffic available to the rich only including a relatively impressive ecological impact, sort of made the plea implode almost entirely to me...
"the climate narrative is a dangerous corruption of science"
This statement coming from a respected scientist confirms that what we once held as absolute truth has been subverted. We have also learned in the last 3 years that medicine and the medical establishment cannot be trusted. If we go through all disciplines of our civilization, including human sciences, art and music, we also see that subversion and corruption are omnipresent.
The globalist agenda is an open book and its reality is unfolding every day into our lives. The scope of their project is no longer hidden from us and we know now that, for them, any means justify the end.
The climate narrative, like all globalist narratives, especially those derived from Marxism, are also designed to keep us divided. While we keep arguing on technicalities, many people are still unaware that "technocracy" is only the tree hiding the "messianic" forest of their project. One of its main goals is to impose a global religion, to whose laws we will be subject and that includes the death penalty.
Doing something substantial about climate change. That's why BigOil and other International Corporations fund scientists like Clauser and all the other BigNames at CO2 Coalition - which seems to be an offshoot of Heartland Institute (BigOil, Koch Bros. et al.)
hello there, I am hungry for arguments against tha the present fascist pressure against the truth, but I just dont have the means to spend extra-money for the support of decent, not corrupted science because the greed and cynicism of our opponents makes it already difficult to live decently . Heinz Brettschneider
This appears to be a slippery road, venturing on thin ice, but it catches the complexity of our times… Thank you for taking this risk, as it’s worth thinking and exchanging about.
There is no doubt that this environmental crisis situation is being used by people, who seek implementation of a certain agenda : technocratic, economical or politic interests (against civil liberties)…
I personally don’t think that Mr Desmet is really talking about : « is the climate crisis a hoax or not ? »
Yet, it talks very clearly about the temptation to conform : for climate scientists, with quite obvious career reasons ; for the general public through the same system that drove the covid crisis (mass formation ?)
As an engineer working in environmental solutions in the building construction sector (in France, please forgive my mistakes in English), I have witnessed in colleagues a lot of good will, but also a despair about how much time and resistance the sector takes to evolve (and it definitely needs to evolve…)
Some fellow students of mine, now in their 40’s and working in legal institutions, shared their fears that small steps were not enough. As a matter of fact, we build today what we would have wanted to construct 10 to 15 years ago.
Thus the temptation and tendencies to push the change, through technocracy.
The good news are that some individuals begin to understand the potential threat for eco-fascism or even totalitarianism in all of this.
The bad news are that politicians and economical lobbies are aware of that too, and ready to use it for their benefits.
I happen to have done, in another life, a song about these questions. The lyrics are in French, but their evolution follows more or less this dynamic :
> young people have a lot of good will, but suffer from eco anxiety (which was given to them through the media constellation at an early age) ;
> they are (more or less) willing to accept sacrifices. A first danger at the corner is to be willing to sacrifice others in this holy quest ;
> some people already appear as missionaries, who are deaf and blind to any kind of discussion ;
> the refrain is stating that we are heading towards a potential hell of a society, where the solutions might be even worse than the initial problems. We might be witnessing a new movement, comparable in essence to “khmers rouge”, only green in its appearance ;
> the second verse talks about the use of this anxiety to political advantages : never let a good crisis go to waste ;
> the bridge gets more slippery 😅 : as we, people, get more and more disconnected from one another, and ready to live in an artificial life in a metaverse, we are probe to wait for an “augmented and corrected” human 3.0 (after the 2.0 dream of the aryan übermensh from the nazis or the homo sovieticus dream) ;
> the 3rd verse refers quite openly to the soviet society comparison, where you would have a ruling class “nomenklatura”, of people acceptable and necessary to the system (here climate scientists, politics, WEF and the media). It would obviously contradict the initial views and aspirations of a better world, but it’d be too late… (see also Orwell’s 1984) ;
> this upper class would lose touch with realities, thinking their new world order fantasy is truer than ever ;
> everyone would make believe that they have faith in this system : falling in line (in Mr Desmet article : this would refers to the science academism and “community”), but they would laugh about it secretly, in the intimacy or their kitchen or minds…
Nobel Prize Winner John Clauser: “Climate Discourse is Dangerous Corruption of Science”
I agree with Don. Well balanced and what journalism should be!
So right, Desmet, science has been corporate captured just like every industry, including the media, and most governments. This is due to the unjust "consensus" that allows private banks to create all our money as interest-bearing debt for profit. If all money is created as debt how does one pay off debt? You can't, so here we are with a 303 trillion dollar world debt with a money supply of only 82 trillion. Has humankind forgotten debt is slavery and control? Money is the governing factor. It is what determines our public policy. As director Chan of the WHO recently admitted, “those who fund the WHO decide what it will do. “ This is true of every government and institution in the world and while it should be obvious it apparently is not. Any scientific consensus motivated by profit and money is a fraud. "...it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
Some also justify the global warming argument in a sort of Pascal's wager: If there is even a 1 in 1,000 chance climate change turns out badly, we must act. But, even if there is a 1 in 1,000 chance of disaster, what are the potential harms of the "cure"? Are there other risks with a greater than 1 in 1,000 chance? Is it plausible we can even say the risk is 1 in 1,000 or is this just hand waving argument without any rational basis? Is it achievable to get worldwide compliance, and can global warming risks be mitigated with less harm through other measures? Is it plausible it can really be known how much warming will occur, if any, over a given period of time and what the effects of that warming will be? Is it possible the fear framing - disaster - is driving irrational behavior both in science, the media, and the public where we are irrationally driven to feel that we "must" act out of an "abundance of caution"?
I don't have much confidence in "the science" on this issue due to the complexity of the problem, because it is now a politically correct issue that has become politically useful to some, and given other conflicts of interests, including financial, that stand to profit substantially.
I agree with Mattias. I think the answer is to always seek truth: a dedication to honesty and thorough critical thinking is the way. Also, don't panic.
Dr Desmet, you are one of the sane voices that has helped me psychologically. Thank you. Write more!!
I've come across commentators who resort to the argument of "you're not an expert in this, stay in your lane," a refrain we vividly recall from the COVID vaccination campaigns. However I find this argument to be weak, primarily because I've undertaken the endeavor myself, and have uncovered noteworthy flaws in the climate narrative, which I've detailed in my own substack articles. They significantly challenge the dominant narrative, and I encourage others to embark on a similar investigation. It's not particularly daunting, on the contrary it's surprisingly easy.
Impressive article written by an impressive man whose book is almost a spiritual inspiration to me. However, ending the article by the gained insight on the steppe in Africa, reached by long haul air traffic available to the rich only including a relatively impressive ecological impact, sort of made the plea implode almost entirely to me...
"the climate narrative is a dangerous corruption of science"
This statement coming from a respected scientist confirms that what we once held as absolute truth has been subverted. We have also learned in the last 3 years that medicine and the medical establishment cannot be trusted. If we go through all disciplines of our civilization, including human sciences, art and music, we also see that subversion and corruption are omnipresent.
The globalist agenda is an open book and its reality is unfolding every day into our lives. The scope of their project is no longer hidden from us and we know now that, for them, any means justify the end.
The climate narrative, like all globalist narratives, especially those derived from Marxism, are also designed to keep us divided. While we keep arguing on technicalities, many people are still unaware that "technocracy" is only the tree hiding the "messianic" forest of their project. One of its main goals is to impose a global religion, to whose laws we will be subject and that includes the death penalty.
As for trusting experts:
We have just learned the hard way, over a period of three years, that it is not wise to trust medical experts who are funded by BigPharma.
Now, are we to believe climate experts who are funded by BigOil and other consumption-oriented growth forever corporations?
What threatens the world economy?
Doing something substantial about climate change. That's why BigOil and other International Corporations fund scientists like Clauser and all the other BigNames at CO2 Coalition - which seems to be an offshoot of Heartland Institute (BigOil, Koch Bros. et al.)
Here's the threat:
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/its-been-twenty-years
I dont have money to upgrade
hello there, I am hungry for arguments against tha the present fascist pressure against the truth, but I just dont have the means to spend extra-money for the support of decent, not corrupted science because the greed and cynicism of our opponents makes it already difficult to live decently . Heinz Brettschneider
Hello Mr Desmet and all readers.
This appears to be a slippery road, venturing on thin ice, but it catches the complexity of our times… Thank you for taking this risk, as it’s worth thinking and exchanging about.
There is no doubt that this environmental crisis situation is being used by people, who seek implementation of a certain agenda : technocratic, economical or politic interests (against civil liberties)…
I personally don’t think that Mr Desmet is really talking about : « is the climate crisis a hoax or not ? »
Yet, it talks very clearly about the temptation to conform : for climate scientists, with quite obvious career reasons ; for the general public through the same system that drove the covid crisis (mass formation ?)
As an engineer working in environmental solutions in the building construction sector (in France, please forgive my mistakes in English), I have witnessed in colleagues a lot of good will, but also a despair about how much time and resistance the sector takes to evolve (and it definitely needs to evolve…)
Some fellow students of mine, now in their 40’s and working in legal institutions, shared their fears that small steps were not enough. As a matter of fact, we build today what we would have wanted to construct 10 to 15 years ago.
Thus the temptation and tendencies to push the change, through technocracy.
The good news are that some individuals begin to understand the potential threat for eco-fascism or even totalitarianism in all of this.
The bad news are that politicians and economical lobbies are aware of that too, and ready to use it for their benefits.
I happen to have done, in another life, a song about these questions. The lyrics are in French, but their evolution follows more or less this dynamic :
> young people have a lot of good will, but suffer from eco anxiety (which was given to them through the media constellation at an early age) ;
> they are (more or less) willing to accept sacrifices. A first danger at the corner is to be willing to sacrifice others in this holy quest ;
> some people already appear as missionaries, who are deaf and blind to any kind of discussion ;
> the refrain is stating that we are heading towards a potential hell of a society, where the solutions might be even worse than the initial problems. We might be witnessing a new movement, comparable in essence to “khmers rouge”, only green in its appearance ;
> the second verse talks about the use of this anxiety to political advantages : never let a good crisis go to waste ;
> the bridge gets more slippery 😅 : as we, people, get more and more disconnected from one another, and ready to live in an artificial life in a metaverse, we are probe to wait for an “augmented and corrected” human 3.0 (after the 2.0 dream of the aryan übermensh from the nazis or the homo sovieticus dream) ;
> the 3rd verse refers quite openly to the soviet society comparison, where you would have a ruling class “nomenklatura”, of people acceptable and necessary to the system (here climate scientists, politics, WEF and the media). It would obviously contradict the initial views and aspirations of a better world, but it’d be too late… (see also Orwell’s 1984) ;
> this upper class would lose touch with realities, thinking their new world order fantasy is truer than ever ;
> everyone would make believe that they have faith in this system : falling in line (in Mr Desmet article : this would refers to the science academism and “community”), but they would laugh about it secretly, in the intimacy or their kitchen or minds…
Here is a link to the music, hoping that it would make one think : https://vimeo.com/789127808
Reliefing and brilliant 🎯
A superbly sensible and reasonable article! A breath of fresh air indeed! Thank you.
Clauser, Lindzen, Spencer, Happer, and many other "experts" on climate change are all in the denier camp at CO2 Coalition
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/CO2_Coalition
All associated with BigOil, the Koch Bros., and the Heartland Institute.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Heartland_Institute
The question is: are all these highly-degreed experts just completely nuts, or
In it for the BigBucks and research funding, or
Part of a clique that has the task of keeping the public calm and climate-change-doubting because they all know just how near we are to melt-down?
So well said!