Nobel Prize Winner Rejects Climate Change Mania By James Reed
We have mentioned in a post last week the news that Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Dr John Clauser, had rejected the claim that climate change is an existential threat, and has said that this is a corruption of science, and itself, a threat to civilisation. This generated an intense backlash, and moves to cancel his speaking events, with some being cancelled. Notable theorist of modern medical technocracy and totalitarianism, Mattias Desmet, has followed this issue, as detailed below. The latest development is that Dr Clauser has signed the World Climate Declaration of Clintel with its central message “there is no climate emergency.” He is not backing down.
I have covered at the blog today other scientists, including leading climate scientists, who have now broken rank with the climate change black magic cult. This issue is important to us all given that the climate change threat is being used as the next step on the road to creating a totalitarian one world government of the New World Order, and if one values freedom, that needs to be opposed.
https://mattiasdesmet.substack.com/p/nobel-prize-winner-john-clauser-climate
“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.
It's not that I think we should wallow in unrestrained comfort and luxury, flying to Barcelona to get our hair cut. The silence of nature is worth more to me than a Bugatti. I love the fresh mountain air more than the most delicate perfume; the teeming light of dusk more than the glitz and glory of all the world's cities combined.
And it’s not that I don't know there are a thousand other scientists for every John Clauser. Nobel laureate or not, John Clauser is an exception. Opposing him is the consensus of the academic community.
But what is that consensus actually worth? Is it the product of genuine passion for knowledge? Or is it rather the result of rampant mass formation among academics, fear of stigmatization (“climate denial”), the thirst for research resources, and perhaps even some pleasure in spreading the doomsday message?
In addition to these phenomena, there is undoubtedly also the ideological dominance of globalist institutions such as the United Nations. The climate narrative is largely a product of the propaganda with which these institutions push their technocratic agenda. Aided by their army of “digital first responders,” the UN censors any voice that criticizes their ideological program.
Academic consensus eventually comes about as follows: those who do not endorse the dominant narrative are removed from the “A List” of scientists who have clout, credentials, and funding, until it can be said that “all scientists” endorse the dominant narrative. Ask yourself: how likely is it that tens of thousands of scientists around the world all agree? Such a consensus could only be a curated consensus.
Where has this kind of pseudo consensus led us in recent year? Well, among other unfortunate places, to a widespread belief that the coronavirus would kill more than 80,000 people in Sweden by the end of May 2020 if the country did not go into lockdown and that the vaccine would prevent transmission of the virus. And if the woke discourse continues to gain momentum, the consensus will soon be that there is no biological difference between a man and a woman.
Real science comes from an individual's courage to break through the consensus, not from false deference to "the consensus." John Clauser performed the highest political act a human being can perform: exposing himself to the risk of social exclusion by speaking sincerely in public space. And indeed, the backlash, and the frenzy to cancel him, began immediately after he spoke up.
Dissenting opinions are dismissed with rhetoric such as “most scientists agree that things are this or that, why would that lone exception be correct?”. But we can also reason the other way around: only a commitment to the truth will give you the courage to risk the ostracism of your peers, and even your entire professional standing.
Moreover, what masquerades as “climate science” is increasingly taking the form of propaganda. I frown upon the relentless media coverage that portrays every hot day as a climate apocalypse, and that presents man-made wildfires and even the sudden increase in miscarriages and blood clots as the result of global warming.
Beginning next year, you can even pursue a master's degree in “climate psychology” at Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. You will learn how to get the population involved in the climate story. I can, of course, somewhat understand the logic by which well-intentioned people might pursue such a degree: given man’s insatiable thirst for comfort and luxury, the masses will drive the world straight to ruin; so there is no other option than to manipulate the masses back on track.
The choice of propaganda is therefore understandable in a sense, but nevertheless extremely problematic for a number of reasons. First, its excessive use to save humanity is internally contradictory. The backbone of the human being, the fiber of the social fabric, is honest and trustworthy speech. A society based on propaganda is, by definition, the end of humanity.
Second, those who believe they must manipulate the masses are no better off morally than the masses themselves. Remember the hundreds of private jets and super-yachts at the climate conferences . . . where solutions were supposedly being sought for the climate problem?
Third, the ecomodernist solution to “the climate problem” that runs throughout the discourse of the UN is not the solution to the problem- it is rather the cause of it. Concentrating humanity in uniform housing units in 15-minute cities, detonating nitrate bombs in the stratosphere to block sunlight, banning farmers from working their land, switching to insect meal and lab-printed food, planting artificial trees to filter CO2 from the air – doesn’t all that seem more dangerous than eating a steak, especially from an animal raised by a small local farmer, and driving a diesel car? Insofar as there are real problems with nature, it’s this rationalistic hubris, which pursues a world as artificial as possible, that is the cause rather than the solution .
So, just keep doing what we’re doing? As I said above: I do think that we must be concerned about human impact on nature. For example, I believe that the problem of microplastics and plastic soup in the oceans is real, that industrial farming destroys the soil and that industrial fish farming threatens life in the oceans. And when I'm on the steppe in Africa and I feel a sacred silence palpable in the air, a rending realization overwhelms me that, in our “progress,” we have lost the essence of life.
This is the real task we face: to distinguish false problems from real problems and to find real solutions to the real problems, beyond ecomodernism. That is the best way to render propaganda powerless and secure a livable future for life on earth and future generations.
“John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum mechanics, has decided to sign the World Climate Declaration of Clintel with its central message “there is no climate emergency”. Clauser is the second Nobel Laureate to sign the declaration, Dr. Ivar Giaever was the first. The number of scientists and experts signing the World Climate Declaration is growing rapidly and now approaching 1600 people.
Clauser has publicly distanced himself from climate alarmism and this year he also joined the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition. In the announcement by the CO2 Coalition, Clauser was quoted in the following way:
“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. It 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.”
IPCC is spreading dangerous misinformation
In July Clauser gave a talk at the event Quantum Korea 2023. He warned the audience about the growing amount of pseudoscience and misinformation.
“Now I am not alone in observing the dangerous proliferation of pseudoscience. Recently, The Nobel Foundation has formed a new panel to address the issue called the International Panel on Information Environment. They plan to model it after the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, the 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. What I’m about to recommend is in furtherance of that, of the aims of that panel. […]
I have a second elephant in the room that I have recently discovered regarding climate change. I believe that climate change is not a crisis. […]
Beware. 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.”
As Clintel demonstrated in its recent book The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, the IPCC indeed made serious errors in its latest report. Shortly after his talk in Korea the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cancelled a scheduled talk by Clauser about climate models. In an interview with the Epoch Times, Clauser said with respect to climate science: “We are totally awash in pseudoscience”.
Guus Berkhout, emeritus professor of geophysics at the TU Delft and president of Clintel, very much welcomes Professor Clauser to the Clintel Community.
“It’s very encouraging when high profile scientists such as Dr Clauser are willing to speak out about the glaring corruption of science by the climate establishment. We aim to make Clintel a full-fledged counterpart of the IPCC. The more excellent scientists in the Clintel network, the stronger our position in the debate with the IPCC as well as the leaders of supranational policy organisations.”
The Clintel World Climate Declaration was published in 2019, the year Clintel was founded. The strength of the declaration is its accessibility and its powerful message: there is no climate crisis. This holds true regardless of whether you believe in a large or small contribution of CO2 to the warming in the past 150 years. Scientists and experts who want to sign the declaration can submit their request here.”
Comments