patrick.net

The indomitable Douglas Brodie argues that climate change is a politically motivated hoax designed to impose totalitarian control and redistribute wealth through flawed science and data manipulation.

He traces its origins to anti-capitalist ideologies and figures like Maurice Strong, criticizes the scientific basis for CO2-induced warming, and highlights manipulation by influential figures and organizations.

Doug contends that Net Zero policies are economically damaging and futile, urging skepticism towards the establishment and advocating for voting against mainstream political parties supporting climate policies.

Let’s not forget that DEATH VALLEY is currently a massive LAKE!

https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax

The indomitable Douglas Brodie argues that climate change is a politically motivated hoax designed to impose totalitarian control and redistribute wealth through flawed science and data manipulation.

He traces its origins to anti-capitalist ideologies and figures like Maurice Strong, criticizes the scientific basis for CO2-induced warming, and highlights manipulation by influential figures and organizations.

Doug contends that Net Zero policies are economically damaging and futile, urging skepticism towards the establishment and advocating for voting against mainstream political parties supporting climate policies.

Similar to Schrodinger’s cat, that was both dead and alive, the UK climate in May was apparently both hot and cold.

To us mere mortals, May was bloody freezing. I still had the central heating on and even wore gloves when I went for a run at one point.

But to the climate change, weather forecasting overlords, it was hot. According to the UK’s Met Office, provisional figures show May and spring were the warmest on record.

“Whilst it may not have felt like it” is excellent gaslighting. I’d rather trust my own empirical observations rather than some ever-changing, ideologically biased climate change models.

And to me it was cold and therefore I declare that May was not warm.

The world of climate science is in shock following extraordinary findings from a team of high-powered NASA scientists that suggest most of the recent global temperature increases are due to the introduction of draconian fuel shipping regulations designed to help prevent global warming. The fantasy world of Net Zero is of course full of unintended consequences, but it is claimed that the abrupt 80% cut in sulphur dioxide emissions from international shipping in 2020 has accounted for 80% of global warming since the turn of the decade. Although the extra heat is described as “transient”, the warming is extraordinary and is expected to rise during the 2020s at a rate of 0.24°C a decade, 20% higher than the claimed warming trend since 1980.

The news is likely to cause considerable concern among the mainstream climate hoaxers in media, academia and politics. They have had a field day of late by pointing to rises in temperature as evidence for their evidence-free prediction that the climate is in danger of imminent collapse. But the NASA scientists, working out of the Goddard Space Flight Centre, predict a trend of rising temperatures due to the IMO2020 regulations going forward, and state, “the 2023 record warmth is within the ranges of our expected trajectory”.

The science behind the NASA findings, which have been published in Nature, is simple. Fewer fuel particles injected into the atmosphere reduce cloud droplet density and this leads to clouds that reflect less solar radiation back into space. As the scientists note: “IMO2020 effectively represents a termination shock for the inadvertent geoengineering experiment through a reverse marine cloud dimming through reducing cloud droplet number concentration.” In the course of their work, the team calculated large particle reductions in major shipping routes in the North Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea and the South China Sea.

The European Space Agency even puts sensors on planes. With 40 million flights per year, tracked by radar and monitored by satellite, and reported by pilots as well, if there were trends in clear air turbulence on passenger planes, there would be a mountain of data, and we’d hear all about it. Instead all they have are modeled guesstimates and slightly worse conditions over the North Atlantic.

Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems
Andy May, Marcel Crok
First published: 29 May 2024

... Observations show no increase in damage or any danger to humanity today due to extreme weather or global warming (Crok & May, 2023, pp. 140–161; Scafetta, 2024). Climate change mitigation, according to AR6, means curtailing the use of fossil fuels, even though fossil fuels are still abundant and inexpensive. Since the current climate is arguably better than the pre-industrial climate and we have observed no increase in extreme weather or climate mortality, we conclude that we can plan to adapt to any future changes. Until a danger is identified, there is no need to eliminate fossil fuel use.

Further analysis of data from Berkeley Earth clearly indicates that climate change in the period 1860 to 2020 is driven by the sun ...

This analysis provides further evidence that it is solar activity that is the dominant driver of the climate change seen during the period 1860 to 2020. The “fingerprint”, trend and influence of the 11 year solar cycle activity is obvious (Fig 1) and the monthly temperature anomaly variations (Fig 2 a & b) are clear evidence that the sun’s cycles and orientation are highly influential. My previous article highlighted the temperature changes over the entire period as attributable to the Milankovitch cycles. I had failed to identify that there are other solar cycles, specifically the 11 year cycle. The hypothesis offered by Professor Henrik Svensmark offers a plausible explanation of why these solar cycles are a key component of climate change. Factors that impact short term trends of the earth’s climate are probably far more complex than identified here.

In conducting a literature search on this subject, I came across an article from a NASA climate modeller (6). This article highlighted the various failures to find evidence in the temperature record of the 11 year solar cycles. Consequently, anthropogenic global warming was alive and well. Well, it turns out the solar cycle signal was loud and clear as they were just looking in the wrong way and the wrong place.

The good news for mankind is that the impact of carbon dioxide at the current levels, and therefore the burning of fossil fuels appears to be almost “nett zero”.

A collection of 85-year-old photographs reveal “growth and stability” of the East Antarctic ice sheet.

In case you were wondering, since the temperature hasn’t been getting much coverage this summer, overall June has been cooler than last year. The Telegraph ran a muted story yesterday headlined, “June temperatures at half the level of this time last year.” They were hoping for something much hotter.

The extreme weather is creating fertile ground for theories about the cause, since nobody’s offering a coherent explanation. Of course, they keep barking “climate,” but they aren’t even trying anymore to attach logic to the claim. I found the best example yet of what passes for science these days in one of the articles I reviewed:




See? No evidence, no problem! That is, so long as your theory is an approved narrative. So just remember to use the probable explanation exception the next time somebody tells you there was “no evidence” of widescale cheating in the 2020 elections.

A similar pattern over time is exhibited by contemporaneous number of geophysical disasters – volcanoes, earthquakes, dry landslides – which, by their nature, are not significantly influenced by climate or anthropogenic factors. We conclude that the patterns observed are largely attributable to progressively better reporting of natural disaster events, with the EM-DAT dataset now regarded as relatively complete since ∼2000. The above result sits in marked contradiction to earlier analyses by two UN bodies (FAO andUNDRR), which predicts an increasing number of natural disasters and impacts in concert with global warming. Our analyses strongly refute this assertion as well as extrapolations published by UNDRR based on this claim.

The Mirror goes mega-viral for saying UK will be “blasted” by 78°F “heatwave”

Just 4 percent of voters attach enough priority to climate change issues to be described as “climate-first” voters, dwarfed by the ranks of voters most concerned about lowering costs and reducing inflation. This mighty 4 percent of voters supports Biden by 96 points (!), a margin that would have made a Soviet Politburo candidate happy back in the day. Doesn’t seem like these voters, unlike the economy-first voters, are really in play.

No wonder Trump thinks he can effectively slam Biden and the Democrats on their climate change approach. They are leaning into an issue and devoting considerable resources to a cause that is fundamentally boutique in nature. Sentiment about electric vehicles has been trending negative and most in the working class now say they would not even consider buying one. Voters are strongly opposed to measures and regulations that would limit the future availability of gasoline-powered cars. And somewhat cluelessly the Biden administration has recently doubled down on doing just that.

Voters of course hate being told what car they must drive, how they must heat their homes, cook their food, etc. And they really, really hate high prices. Rather than fighting climate change, their strong preference is for cheap, reliable, abundant energy. No wonder that, when asked whether they would support paying something extra on their monthly utility bill to combat climate change, working-class voters opposed even paying an extra one dollar. And if the toll was raised to $10, these voters were opposed by a massive 38 points.

Above all, Democrats should keep in mind the “iron law of climate policy” as originally articulated by Roger Pielke Jr: When policies focused on economic growth and the cost-of-living confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth and the cost-of-living that will win out every time.

The U.S. is an all-of-the-above energy superpower! But Biden and the Democrats never talk about that. Maybe they should. Greenlash is here and coming for them, unless they change course and unapologetically connect to the concerns of ordinary voters, rather than to the tiny group of climate-first voters. Carrying those voters by 96 points will be cold comfort if Trump rides the massive group of economy-first voters into the White House. And right now that looks very possible.