Letters from Vienna #202
Letter to Emanuel Pastreich V
False Alarm
A Book Review
Dear Emanuel,
I apologise for not getting back to you sooner but as you might well have guessed: I’ve been extremely busy of late.
I don’t recommend your reading the book “False Alarm” by Bjorn Lomborg as it’s full of inaccuracies but suggest you watch more informative, interesting and insightful videos by Dr Richard Lindzen[1], Denis Rancourt[2] & Dr J Christy[3] instead.
Lomborg takes a fundamentally false position and is quite simply wrong. He states: “I have been part of the global discussion on climate change policy for two decades, since writing “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. Throughout all this time, I have argued that climate change is a real problem.”[4] In this respect he errs: “climate change” isn’t a “real problem”, or more exactly: it’s largely beyond the realm and scope of our ability to determine (other than chemtrails and other forms of weather warfare, of course). Other, more pressing, issues such as the ever-increasing encroachments of the Globalists of the Deep State, the Genocide by Jab, ever-worsening inequality (the themes are all interlinked), and the threat of nuclear war need to be addressed, least of all: “climate change”.
“Contrary to what you hear,” Lomborg continues “the basic climate findings have remained remarkably constant over the last twenty years. Scientists agree that global warming is most caused by humans, and there has been little change in the impacts they project for temperatures and sea level rise.” Had he written: “thirty or forty years” he’d have arrived at a radically different result. The reason why “most scientists agree” is quite simple: those who don’t, don’t get any funding while those who do, do. What we’ve witnessed is a corruption of “science”.
In 1998 31,487 American scientists (including 9,029 with PhDs) declared: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”[5]
In 2007 Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon stated: “A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”[6]
In reality there is NO CONSENSUS. If anything, most scientists seem to disagree with the notion of “climate change.”
The Exposé recently reported[7]: “You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on the question of whether climate change is man-made, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer.”
“Only 0.3% of science papers state humans are the cause of climate change. And when surveyed, only 18% of scientists believed that a large amount – or all – of additional climate change could be averted.”
“There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the temperature change since 1900 was caused by humans. We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces.”
“The earliest attempt to document a “consensus” on climate change was a 2004 paper cited by Al Gore in his allegedly non-fiction book, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’– Gore attended natural science class at Harvard but got a D grade for it.”
“The author of the cited paper, Naomi Oreskes, asserted that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed on the question of climate change agreed with the “consensus” proposition favoured by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”): “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” None, she maintained, dissented from this line of reasoning.”
“The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Klaus-Martin Schulte, an eminent London surgeon, who had become concerned with the adverse health effects of his patients from their belief in apocalyptic global warming.”
“Professor Schulte decided to update Oreskes’ work. However, he found that only 45% of several hundred papers endorsed the “consensus” position. He concluded: “There appears to be little basis in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.”
“The primary paper that is often trotted out in support of the notion of “97% consensus” was written by John Cook and his merry band of climate extremists. Published in 2013, it is the most widely referenced work on the subject of climate consensus and has been downloaded more than 1.3 million times.”
“Cook runs a climate website that is a smorgasbord of climate fear rhetoric, specialising in attacks – often personal and spiteful in tone – on all who have proven effective in leading others to stray from the dogma of impending climate doom.”
“The project was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the website.” The team consisted of 12 climate activists who did not leave their climate prejudices at home. These volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had “reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate change or global warming, published over the 21 years 1991 – 2011, to assess the extent to which they supported the “consensus view” on climate change. As Cook’s paper said:”
“We analysed a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [climate change], published over a 21-year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).”
“The paper concluded:
Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. … Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
“The paper asserted – falsely, as it turned out – that 97% of the papers the reviewers examined had explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans are causing the majority of the warming of the last 150 years.”
“When one looks at the data, one finds that 7,930 of the papers took no position at all on the subject and were arbitrarily excluded from the count on this ground. If we simply add back all of the papers reviewed, the 97% claimed by Cook and his co-authors falls to 32.6%.”
“A closer look at the paper reveals that the so-called “97%” included three categories of endorsement of human-caused climate change. Only the first category amounted to an explicit statement that humans are the primary cause of recent warming. The second and third categories would include most sceptics of catastrophic anthropogenic warming, including the scientists of the CO2 Coalition, who accept that increasing CO2 is probably causing some, probably modest, amount of warming; an amount that is likely rendered insignificant by natural causes of warmer weather. Only by casting a wide net could Cook conclude that there is any type of “consensus.””
Yet in some respects Lomborg is right: “A 2016 poll found that across countries as diverse as the United Arab Emirates and Denmark, a majority of people believe that the world is getting worse, not better. In the United Kingdom and the United States, two of the most prosperous countries on the planet, an astonishing 65 percent of people are pessimistic about the future. A 2019 poll found that almost half of the world’s population believes climate change likely will end the human race. In the United States, four out of ten people believe global warming will lead to mankind’s extinction.”
“There are real consequences to this fear. People are deciding, for instance, not to bring children into the world. One woman told a journalist: “I know that humans are hard-wired to procreate, but my instinct now is to shield my children from the horrors of the future by not bringing them into the world.” The media reinforce this choice; the “Nation” wants to know:
“How do you Decide to Have a Baby When Climate Change is Remaking Life on Earth?”[8]
The Climate Change Scam is no different from the Covid Scamdemic: both are designed to curtail human life on earth.
Best,
Michael
[2]https://denisrancourt.ca/videos.php?id=58&name=2022_09_01_debunking_climate_hysteria_denis_rancourt_interviewed_by_michael_thiessen_of_lcc
[4] pp.5-6 False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg
http://www.petitionproject.org/
[6]http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
[7] https://expose-news.com/2023/04/21/less-than-1-scientists-agree-humanity-causing-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR08mwdab1WbUZLZFGfBL0DTySFI05_xOvAi-K3DVjK-4pAfkkg7urVdnsg
[8] pp.4-5 False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg