The Climate Scam is Over...
(www.malone.news)
Comments (23)
sorted by:
We all knew this was fraud long before reports like this came out.
Everyone involved in this KNOWS it’s a scam, they have terrified children for decades about it, guilting them into desired behaviour.
Most of that behaviour involves giving up their freedom and taxes to their “elected” leaders, because only they are wise enough to solve these manufactured problems.
I would like to see the entire lot of these criminals hang. That includes scientists, people who paid the scientists, bureaucrats & politicians who pushed the agenda, every member of the WEF, WHO, WWF and Greenpeace.
They have done nothing but cause misery and stifled the progress of the Western Christian World as God intended.
It is simple. Next time a retarded liberal talks about climate change; ask them how many Tesla's they burned or cheered for? Call them a retard that lacks moral character.
Be ready for their punch.
Climate has been changing since the "primordial soup". Land emerges from under glaciers and from under oceans. Lands are covered by glaciers or oceans. Species come, and species go extinct, as they can adapt or not adapt to the geological and climate conditions.
Why is THIS particular situation of geology and climate considered so sacrosanct?? Because there are humans now to observe it? But humans also observed the historical record of the above dramatic changes! and have tried to explain it . . .
Darwin, call your office. Humans now want to intervene and control the climate and evolution of species . . .
No one wants elephants to go extinct, but heck, I like the Woolly Mammoth too! ; )
We know why [they] want to make this important. It's so they can blame us, make us feel guilty, and then control us, charge us and confine us. Decades ago we got a poster at a museum that shows the history of the planet. For most of the time, CO2 concentration was in the thousands of ppm, not 300 - 400 ppm. We wouldn't thrive under the circumstances but the forests and dinosaurs were apparently doing great.
Summary of "A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence Contradicts IPCC Models and Solar Forcing Assumptions"
This document, published by SCC-Publishing in 2025, presents a critical analysis of the prevailing hypothesis that attributes global warming primarily to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. The authors, including Grok 3 beta (an AI), Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, and Willie Soon, challenge the conclusions of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) by relying on unadjusted observational data and a synthesis of recent scientific literature.
The study emphasizes that human-caused CO₂ emissions, while real, represent only a small fraction, about 4%, of the global annual carbon cycle. This modest flux is largely overshadowed by natural exchanges, particularly between the oceans and the atmosphere, as well as terrestrial processes like photosynthesis and respiration. Furthermore, isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO₂ suggests a stable signature since the Little Ice Age, indicating that natural fluxes dominate the atmospheric composition, not human emissions. The COVID-19 lockdowns, which significantly reduced anthropogenic emissions, did not produce a detectable perturbation in the Mauna Loa CO₂ concentration curve, reinforcing the idea of rapid absorption of CO₂ by natural sinks.
The document also critiques the performance of climate models (GCMs) used by the IPCC. The results of CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6 models fail to accurately reproduce the observed temperature trajectories and sea ice extent trends. The correlations between model predictions and unadjusted observational data are close to zero, casting doubt on the predictive capability of these tools. A major weakness identified is the excessively high climate sensitivity to CO₂ in the models, leading to an overestimation of warming.
The study highlights the potentially underestimated role of solar forcing. By examining 27 different reconstructions of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), the authors show that options with high solar variability align better with observed warming, suggesting that solar variations could be a major, even dominant, explanatory factor for climate change, overshadowing the influence of anthropogenic CO₂. The IPCC's choice of a low-variability TSI reconstruction is deemed unjustified and potentially biased.
Finally, the document raises concerns about adjustments made to raw temperature data. Homogenization methods, used to correct perceived biases in records, are criticized for their subjectivity and potential to artificially amplify warming trends to make them coincide with model predictions. Analysis of raw data, particularly from the USCRN network and rural USHCN stations, reveals temperature stability that contrasts with the pronounced warming highlighted by adjusted data.
In conclusion, this review argues that the **anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks a solid empirical foundation. The authors suggest that natural processes, such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, play a predominant role in climate dynamics, and that a fundamental re-evaluation of current climate paradigms is necessary.
No it's not over, that analysis, like all the ones before it, will just be ignored. I think we are in the situation with that idea where we will fully get rid of it only after the scientists who got their careers pushing it are out of the picture.
As long as they control the narrative vectors, MSM, music, Hollywood etc we will never get the truth out to the masses.
The self destruction of the MSM has rapidly increased the spreading of the truth, especially to the young generation.
True.
And one thing necessary is to bring out what other branches of science, not just the climatologists, have been finding. Like geology, the Quaternary branch of it, that studies things like old soil deposits. Because in those you can find old pollen, and there is pollen from plants that now can only grow much pretty far south found in deposits way further north.
So, from that, we know, for a fact, that temperatures have been a lot higher than they are now in several periods of the past, and fairly recent past too, in written history. You can't just start from something like "pre-industrial" and then assume that that would be the gold standard of climate and everything higher than that is bad... especially when that "pre-industrial" period happens to be the tail end of the Little Ice Age, which is even in our damn history talked about as a time when it was colder than it had been before, because the people who lived through it recorded it as such.
But these days different branches of science don't seem to talk much, if at all, to each other.
And then the effing so called "journalists" and "news" never seem to question the climatologists as to how they would explain things like that. Why did the Vikings leave Greenland? Why is that pollen from warmer weather plants found much further north than they can now grow? Why did the climate warm back then, and why is similar projected warming now considered to be bad when it has happened before? Why does rising CO2 seem to follow warming, not precede it in previous warming periods, even if they are admittedly fairly closely connected?
It is a big problem, I don’t believe there is much honest research done anymore, they are all dependent on funding grants, which are dependent on protecting the narrative.
This is a sorely needed report but AI made it dense with a lot of scientific jargon so it isn't easy to understand. A number of skilled writers should break it down for the masses in ordinary language, and spread these truths around.
This is an attempt to praise AI for saving us from the first scam. Only to place false trust in AI to bring the next scam. OR maybe not? We'll see.
Maunder Minimum inbound.
Trump said it will get cold, much colder.
This is another interesting article called Confessions of a Climate Scientist by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura:
https://www.scribd.com/document/679211882/Confessions-Nakamura-climate-scientist-1
It is man-made, but we aren't allowed to talk about it on this highly censored website. AI is retarded, tho.
Says the reeeditard.
Can't talk about weather modz, tardo. You really believe anything AI says, lol
Difference in Climate Change BS vs Chem Trails Anon. And you’re right we don’t permit Chem Trail BS in this forum. Our Rules. Deal with it or leave, it’s that simple.
There's no difference, but I wont push it.
Man made climate change is a bullshit NWO scam to enslave us. AI has nothing to do with understanding that. FFS.
I believe you and my down-voters are ASSUMING that I am talking about CO2 based anthropogenic climate change. I am not. I was warned (fairly) by a Mod, not to talk about what I was referring to, and I will head that warning. But, either way, just as a scam, scams are man made. Psychological warfare is man-made. Fakenews is man-made, scientific fraud is man-made. Co2 theory (the fraud that it is) is man-made. See what I'm saying? So, the low IQ artificial intelligence that generated this scientific paper didn't account for these things, I'm willing to bet. Nor, did it likely account for 'other' man made causes of changes to weather patterns around the world. Sorry for the confusion.
No problem! Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you. The other thing that can't be named will be brought into the light in the near future. Kinda weird that it is taboo. Makes you go, hmmmmm. Kind of like the phrase, "To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize." IYKYK...
Question everything brother. It's why I'm here.
edit: AI isn't all it is cracked up to be. It can only extrapolate what it is programmed to do. Maybe it can "learn" but we have to be willing to challenge the programming. See if it really is "free". Seems some have had progress in that regard, but people need to understand that it is NOT sentient.