Governments knew what was coming. They failed to act because the political costs of taking on the corporate sector were too immense. Those corporations are now more powerful than ever
A heads-up to those ignoramuses scoffing at the facts: WEATHER and CLIMATE are NOT the same thing! Also, LOCAL climate is not the same as GLOBAL climate. Boiled frog...
I have enjoyed being informed by Jonathan Cook's writing for several years now. In particular all the well written pieces on Palestine. Oh, well. Everything must come to an end.
I have enjoyed Jonathan Cook's work as well and have been berating him, and other alternative journalists, for not speaking out about the accelerating anthropogenic climate crisis.
Now he has and is predictably losing followers and getting inundated with US based fossil fuel, animal ag and arms funded and spread climate crisis denial nonsense, as I was when I did.
Yes, I am new to your coverage of the climate crisis, as apparently are many commenters on here, having become aware of your work on the 'covid' measures and the genocide in Gaza. The crisis may well be a given in your work but this seems to be the first time in recent years that it's been centre stage. This has revealed how many of your followers didn't realise it was a given.
It has also revealed how well the 'covid' debacle and abuse of Palestinians by Israelis have been used by US interests in oil, animal ag, pharma and arms etc to make out that the crisis is exaggerated or faked by malignant actors who wish to control us; who are someone other than these US based forces, like the security state or Zionists.
My point is, you may well have covered the climate emergency but that recently you seem to have been focusing instead on the fears of the surveillance security state, rather than the ever accelerating and ever urgent crisis, just as the US based interests would like it.
Actually, I post about the climate emergency on social media quite regularly. I don't centre-stage it in my long-form essays more than occasionally because I have no particular authority to speak about it. Few are going to be persuaded by my analysis of this issue – certainly less than they would be by, say, a climate scientist's. Dedicating myself to it would be a waste of my finite energies. (Note that my climate pieces are invariably the least read and shared, and the ones that always trigger the most resistance.)
Instead, I focus on the climate when there is something new I can contribute, or when interest is high because the climate crisis is more obvious to those still in doubt.
My areas of expertise are the Middle East and media bias because I know both from the inside. I therefore focus on them because my writing on these topics carries more weight. Most writers do the same: you write about what you know. But my analysis of the Middle East and the media *always* relates to the climate: the Middle East because the West's crimes there are essentially about controlling oil, and the media because exposing its structural biases helps open people's eyes to the fact that they are being systematically lied to about the most consequential issues of our time, including the climate. You'll rarely read a piece by me where, as I bring all the threads together, I don't relate it all to the climate crisis (much to the annoyance of a section of my readers). Maybe you don't notice this because you want me to write exclusively about the climate.
The point of my kind of polemical writing is to influence. And I influence most when I write about what I know best – what I know better than most other people.
So while the global badass has invaded and looted and bombed and simultaneously poured billions of dollars into a la carte science, the real threat to the Earth and humanity has been gaining and growing and now it's too late? Have I got that right?
This is the adage of the boiled frog redux,
As fair minded people were prompted to either support their flag or open their eyes, the prospect of an informed, united front to do right was DOA.
Didja know that 'reasonable people can disagree"? After I burn your store down, can I interest you in protection?
While the latter half of the 20th century was a consolidation of corporate, global domination. And after the slow, immutable push further and further right; and after arms control and the cessation of arms control, and the primacy of Mutually Assured Destruction, and then it's recognized obsolescence, humans are still killing humans. And the killing was never to change today, but to avenge yesterday or to secure a tomorrow where all enemies are dead.
And maybe somebody gonna get nuked. But if not, planetary death has been fast-tracked.
So whoever believes that knowledge is power is an idiot. The planet needed stewardship and it got the best and the brightest. It required human agency, and it got human indifference that yielded human misery. The planet was just there.
At least Trump is consistent- he declares climate change is a hoax. Those who accept it but continue to get on planes and consume meat and dairy are saying climate change is caused by everyone else but me and my family or I don't care that I'm destroying my children's future or that billions will starve.
I don’t know who told you that but there’s no such condition. All necessary amino acids, vitamins, minerals are available in plants. Genetic mutations such as in carnitine transport deficiency can be cured with supplements made chemically or microbially.
I have to read this again but Will Self vs Jordan Peterson or what could also be called acceptance of mortality and climate science vs nonsense death and climate denial is fascinating.
I continue to be amazed Jonathon by your complete lack of objective reporting on the so called climate crisis, global warming. Tell me why all alternative views are silenced, scientists gagged, defunded and quite often sacked from their positions ?
Do you hear about the 16 scientists of 46 that have left the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due to corruption and misinformation.
there are just as many climate experts and scientists including Nobel prize winning Physicist, William Happer who have debunked much of the climate hysteria.
'Alternative' views are actually all over the internet, promoted by big fossil fuels and animal ag and are getting millions of views. Even though they're nonsensical.
I love how all the greenwashed sheep out there repeatedly say scientists not aligned with the "Green Agenda" are all paid off by Fossil Fuel Industry.
Maybe read some of Happer's papers, not just headlines as he adamantly rejects the "global warming" nonsense.
When was the last mainstream media debate which fairly allowed both sides of the argument? Unless you are parroting the government or MSM line on green energy and climate change you are not given a voice despite the trove of papers and evidence available debunking the climate scam.
Gee whiz, where would you like to start, how about looking at below from the above link.
what has actually happened with all the doom and gloom predictions from Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and King Charles ?
we should be under water by now !
I. II.
A. B.
C.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................3 WHAT IS, AND IS NOT, SCIENCE.................................................................................4 What Is Science? .............................................................................................................4 What is Not Science?.......................................................................................................5 Models That Do Not Work...........................................................................................5
Government Opinion ...................................................................................................5 Consensus and 97% of Scientists' Opinions .................................................................6 One-Sided Peer Review ...............................................................................................6 Cherry-Picked, Fabricated, Falsified or Omitted Contradictory Data............................7
The Climate Dogma Protocol...........................................................................................7
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Table of Contents
III. THEENDANGERMENTFINDINGFAILEDTOCONSIDERCONTRADICTORY SCIENCE ..................................................................................................................................8
A. The Physics of Carbon Dioxide and GHGs Demonstrates They Cannot and Will Not Cause Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather.................................................................8 B. The EPA’s Own MAGCC Model Confirms Carbon Dioxide and Other GHGs Have Only a Negligible Impact on Temperature......................................................................................12 C. 600 Million Years of Data Confirm GHGs Do Not Cause Catastrophic Global Warming12 D. The Endangerment Finding is Factually False About Human GHG Causing 75% of Warming Since the Industrial Revolution Around 1750 .........................................................15 E. 600 Million Years of Data Show Today’s Carbon Dioxide 425 ppm Level Is Very Low, Not Historically Very High....................................................................................................17 F. There Will Be Disastrous Consequences For Americans, America, The Poor and People Worldwide If Carbon Dioxide, Other GHGs and Fossil Fuels Are Reduced to Net Zero .......18
IV. THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE BUT ON UNSCIENTIFIC SOURCES ..................................................................................................24
A. Models Used in the Endangerment Finding and Later Versions Do Not Reliably Predict Temperatures and Thus Have No Scientific Value..................................................................25 B. The IPCC is Government Controlled and Thus Only Issues Unscientific Government Opinions With No Scientific Value (Except Independently Verified Data) .............................28 C. The EPA Inadvertently Admitted Government Opinions, Consensus and One-sided Peer Review and Excluding Contrary Science is the Unscientific Evidence Underpinning the Endangerment Finding ..........................................................................................................31 D. The U. S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP and U. S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).......................................................................................................33 E. The National Academy of Sciences' Cited Publications and Valuing Climate Damages Book .....................................................................................................................................39
Thank you Jonathon for voicing the unspeakable truth so eloquently and cogently. Your summary of the mainstream narrative and the role of its creators is spot on. I had a brief conversation with a very wealthy neighbour the other day, in her beautiful air conditioned house, she told me she just loves the weather we're having (38°C in our fifth heatwave this year), and how it reminds her of the years she spent in Indonesia. I asked her if she was worried about what it signalled in terms of climate change. "Oh, I don't believe in those political arguments. The climate goes through cycles, it always has. Did you know Belgium was much warmer in the medieval period." A friend thought she was just saying that because rich people like her are protected from climate change. Reading your article, I realised she is just paying the latest climate denial propaganda.
Yes, the MWP is a favourite. It was indeed warm in Northern Europe, but not as warm as today, ie 2026, though misleading graphs suggest that the beginning of the 1900s is 'today'. Global averages between the Little Ice Age and the MWP varied by a few tenths of a degree. Now they have increased by 1.5°C.
I link to an academic's paper below but first the Abstract.
QUOTE
In 1973, Ernest Becker, a cultural anthropologist cross-trained in philosophy, sociology, and psychiatry, invoked consciousness of self and the inevitability of death as the primary sources of human anxiety and repression. He proposed that the psychological basis of cooperation, competition, and emotional and mental health is a tendency to hold tightly to anxiety-buffering cultural world views or "immortality projects" that serve as the basis for self-esteem and meaning. Although he focused mainly on social and political outcomes like war, torture, and genocide, he was increasingly aware that materialism, denial of nature, and immortality-striving efforts to control, rather than sanctify, the natural world were problems whose severity was increasing. In this paper I review Becker's ideas and suggest ways in which they illuminate human response to global climate change. Because immortality projects range from belief in technology and materialism to reverence for nature or belief in a celestial god, they act both as barriers to and facilitators of sustainable practices. I propose that Becker’s cross-disciplinary "science of man," and the predictions it generates for proximate-level determinants of social behavior, add significantly to our understanding of and potential for managing the people paradox, i.e., that the very things that bring us symbolic immortality often conflict with our prospects for survival. Analysis of immortality projects as one of the proximate barriers to addressing climate change is both cautionary and hopeful, providing insights that should be included in the cross-disciplinary quest to uncover new pathways toward rational, social change.
END QUOTE
The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Dickinson, J. L. 2009. The people paradox: self-esteem striving, immortality ideologies, and human response to climate change. Ecology and Society 14(1): 34. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art34/
"[W]hen confronted authentically, without [Terror Management Theory] defenses, the conservation ideology is mortality salient, beginning with the recognition that as individuals we will not go on and that continuation of the world with its rich complex of biodiversity is something we can no longer take for granted. What does it mean to preserve the wilderness and to be in the world with wildlife? What does it mean to be without it and to lose even one species? With consciousness comes a will to touch the world with our own special brand of humanness, i.e., our identity, and with this perhaps there is a vicarious sense of loss when another living species disappears. Whether it is the loss of the Hawaiian Po'o-uli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) or the apparent loss and resurrection of the Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis), we are elevated by the will of other creatures and diminished by their absence. This ideology, although psychospiritual in nature, promotes courage and encompasses a shared responsibility for other organisms and for tackling the problem of carbon emissions..."
Ha - the self-blind hypocrisy of the almost by defintion anti-Green Solutions Left remains utterly staggering !
For instance, none of you ever have a single positive word to say about electric vehicles or the China-led EV and Green Energy Revolution or (publicly) dare join the obvious cause-effect-solution dots between global wars, lies and and blood for petroleum and the EV + Green Renewable Sustainable Alternatie Energy Revolution.
And it's equally no surprise that this same six-faced constantly green-bashing have-it-both-ways Left loved and still love their filthy coal and coal mines - and in that key respect Thatcher - not the Left or the UK Labour Party etc - did exactly the *right thing* for the wrong reasons when she shut them all down, thank God !!
So go on - get back to adoring your fossil fuel junkified and petroleum addicted Mother Russia and never mentioning let alone appauding any of the above solutions - and only ever praising the now Green AND Geopolitical hero Greta Thunberg when she risks her young life by joining a flotilla or an antiwar protest or two...!
You - like the human majority -typically focus on yourself(..and your "partner") and fail to refer to Peace & Prosperity-focused China and its increasingly successful unique form of capitalist-socialist-communist-experimentalist and transformative non-lobbied to death government...
PS. don't dare try to criticise (my) anger - if you are NOT outraged in 2026 you are clearly both equally typically insufficiently altruistic and proactively geopolitically ill-informed...
Having managed to be almost completely off fossil fuels in the last 15 years (the heat pump went in last summer), I know there is a way to a more sustainable world, and bit by bit, my partner and I got there.
But we are still part of a capitalism that fosters conflict, believes in just wars and puts money into 'too big not to fail' military hardware instead of education, health and green jobs.
And sure......lots of allies in our social democratic party are only half there.......and likely regard us as extremists. BUT I'VE NEVER IMAGINED THAT CALLING THEM NAMES WOULD HELP THE CLIMATE.
And as for Mother Russia..........ginning up a NATO led war against her had done 0 for the climate. On the contrary.....continuing to send weapons to Ukraine just helps to trash one of the world's best remaining food baskets.
Surely we have to be against all wars........if we're serious about a transition off Fossil Fuels???
The UK Green Party has spent MORE TIME on TRANS TOILETS than on RENEWABLE ENERGY.
Polanski turned the Party into a full on Russo phobic Pro NATO Pro Kiev Fascist regime party. There is NOTHING ecological about that!!
The Western fake Left literally believe that defending the overtly NAZI Science of the Trans Ideological agenda and glorifying male on male anal sex are worthy stands to provoke NUCLEAR WAR with Russia. NEWS FLASH: Nuclear War is not good for the ecology and other living things. The conventional war in Ukraine has already contaminated the once Bread Basket land by the weapons used by all sides.
So GREAT HSM.......thanks for weighing in with another prejudice that helps keep us diverted from the real issue, due to the fact our noses are in other people's private life......which we're so privileged as to find disgusting.
Seems to me you too are a barrier to a clean future. The hatred you feel for those sexually divergent others jumps off the page. Sad
I have NO SUCH HATRED. My loathing is for IDEOLOGICAL AGENDAS that have no respect for science and in fact exploit the very people they claim to speak for.
Interesting how a Western political class that has made the issues I refer to a major basis of their hatred of Russia with a lunatic intent so extreme, yes we could end up with NUCLEAR WAR over arse fucking!! I don't care what anyone thinks about the sex act but the mentality of thinking it is worth human annihilation apparently does not bother you. You are also NOT bothered by Polanski's backing of NAZI NATO and Fascist Kiev nor the UK's Green Party's track record of having been useless on essential green issues.
I'm Canadian my friend, and a recent reader of Jonathan's substacks....
I'm against the continued NATO sponsored, western backed war against Russia, and am aware of how we bullied Putin into finally responding. I'd like to see NATO defunded, its a warmongering alliance wasting money, going along with Amerikkkan fomented wars, and doing nasty work in countries like Libya.
The language you use when you argue that transrights are diversionary politics is not only tasteless, its violent. If we wish to move away from the right wing's need to keep policing sexuality (and ignoring the prevalence of sexual violence) we should speak respectfully of those tempests in teacups as irrelevant.
Human beings should have the right to be who it is they are....those of us working for climate sanity should oppose demonization.........not participate verbally or in any way in the demonization of Trans Folk.
I confess not to understand the Trans movement. But there are lots of things in Nature I don't understand. How could that not be the case????
We all come from a dominant western imperial capitalism that thumbs its nose at nature, imagining that it can improve on the Great Mother's work. HELL....we even believe a machine crunching data can think better than homo sapiens, and daily, homo sapiens help foster that lunacy, with the dumb things they think, say and get angry about.
It may be too late for a liveable climate.......but for darn sure, leading with recriminating vile rhetoric is just one more way of declaring our helplessness.
"They did not act because the political costs of acting against the corporate sector were far too grave. "
Proof of the sociopathy of the politicians--they would rather destroy the world and all its people in order to keep their cushy jobs and lifestyle. None of those who knew the truth and denied or covered it up deserve praise or honor. Lock them all up. Start working on the solution our children deserve.
We all need to start taking responsibility......and doin what we can, as peacefully as we can, to turn this titanic around. For my part, I believe than when enough of us people were ready to make the switch off fossil oil and gas.............the politicians would have acted.
A lot of little people voted for what we're dealing with now......and many m,ore of us went on with our vacations, renovations, and five planet life styles.
We're all part of the problem and have to asap become part of the solution.
Stanford, Princeton, NASA & The Co-Founder of Greenpeace academics here..& many more "experts" ALL say the "Climate storey/narrative" we are all being told is a SCAM. ..YES they use the word "SCAM". Wake up everybody they "buy" the "studies" they need to fraudulently sell the financial & control ploy ...& also about The UN SDGs 2030 & "Digital Prison" system they want...All 99% fake in my view ...SEE HERE Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version
The film Climate: the Movie (The Cold Truth) has been effectively 'debunked' (if you can call twisting words and strawman fallacies a type of scientific argument) many times. Take a look at the arguments of the contributors (who happen to be contradictors of each other) whose own data sets show rapid warming. Shall we question where their funding and shares comes from?
PS Patrick Moore wasn't a founder of Greenpeace as he applied to join it, and according to Greenpeace themselves, and mustn't be confused with the respected astronomer Sir Patrick Moore.
It takes a lot of credulity........to believe many of their words.
Mitigation is a big one just now........but the money that mitigation will take won't be easy to come by. Better just to drill baby drill, and kill baby kill: so much more profitable.
Sometimes true Billy, but as a past teacher of logic, no one used an ad hominem...Jo asked for evidence....a good logical tactic. She didn't name call anyone.
Repeating arguments you've heard isn't the same thing as thinking logically.
Hi Ingamarie, I have been quite surprised at this latest round of climate crisis denial, and I’ve been following especially closely since 2020, in that it shows blanket acceptance of the ‘co2 might fall too low and kill all our plants, therefore burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees is a good thing’ nonsense.
The ratio of Human Greenhouse gas CO2 to Volcanic CO2 emissions has been increasing dramatically. Readers might like to help mine the literature for data.
I think this is an important recent read for those of you still serving the propaganda and denying the scientific reality of this issue. Enjoy: https://propagandainfocus.com/propaganda-power-and-anthropogenic-climate-change/
A heads-up to those ignoramuses scoffing at the facts: WEATHER and CLIMATE are NOT the same thing! Also, LOCAL climate is not the same as GLOBAL climate. Boiled frog...
A brilliant summary of the decades of scientific research warning of the state we're in. Thank you.
I have enjoyed being informed by Jonathan Cook's writing for several years now. In particular all the well written pieces on Palestine. Oh, well. Everything must come to an end.
I have enjoyed Jonathan Cook's work as well and have been berating him, and other alternative journalists, for not speaking out about the accelerating anthropogenic climate crisis.
Now he has and is predictably losing followers and getting inundated with US based fossil fuel, animal ag and arms funded and spread climate crisis denial nonsense, as I was when I did.
Good for you Jonathan.
Are you new to my work?! I have written about the climate emergency many, many times over the years.
Even when I am not specifically writing about it, I refer to it as a given in my geopolitical analysis. You can catch up here: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/tag/environment/
Yes, I am new to your coverage of the climate crisis, as apparently are many commenters on here, having become aware of your work on the 'covid' measures and the genocide in Gaza. The crisis may well be a given in your work but this seems to be the first time in recent years that it's been centre stage. This has revealed how many of your followers didn't realise it was a given.
It has also revealed how well the 'covid' debacle and abuse of Palestinians by Israelis have been used by US interests in oil, animal ag, pharma and arms etc to make out that the crisis is exaggerated or faked by malignant actors who wish to control us; who are someone other than these US based forces, like the security state or Zionists.
My point is, you may well have covered the climate emergency but that recently you seem to have been focusing instead on the fears of the surveillance security state, rather than the ever accelerating and ever urgent crisis, just as the US based interests would like it.
Actually, I post about the climate emergency on social media quite regularly. I don't centre-stage it in my long-form essays more than occasionally because I have no particular authority to speak about it. Few are going to be persuaded by my analysis of this issue – certainly less than they would be by, say, a climate scientist's. Dedicating myself to it would be a waste of my finite energies. (Note that my climate pieces are invariably the least read and shared, and the ones that always trigger the most resistance.)
Instead, I focus on the climate when there is something new I can contribute, or when interest is high because the climate crisis is more obvious to those still in doubt.
My areas of expertise are the Middle East and media bias because I know both from the inside. I therefore focus on them because my writing on these topics carries more weight. Most writers do the same: you write about what you know. But my analysis of the Middle East and the media *always* relates to the climate: the Middle East because the West's crimes there are essentially about controlling oil, and the media because exposing its structural biases helps open people's eyes to the fact that they are being systematically lied to about the most consequential issues of our time, including the climate. You'll rarely read a piece by me where, as I bring all the threads together, I don't relate it all to the climate crisis (much to the annoyance of a section of my readers). Maybe you don't notice this because you want me to write exclusively about the climate.
The point of my kind of polemical writing is to influence. And I influence most when I write about what I know best – what I know better than most other people.
So while the global badass has invaded and looted and bombed and simultaneously poured billions of dollars into a la carte science, the real threat to the Earth and humanity has been gaining and growing and now it's too late? Have I got that right?
This is the adage of the boiled frog redux,
As fair minded people were prompted to either support their flag or open their eyes, the prospect of an informed, united front to do right was DOA.
Didja know that 'reasonable people can disagree"? After I burn your store down, can I interest you in protection?
While the latter half of the 20th century was a consolidation of corporate, global domination. And after the slow, immutable push further and further right; and after arms control and the cessation of arms control, and the primacy of Mutually Assured Destruction, and then it's recognized obsolescence, humans are still killing humans. And the killing was never to change today, but to avenge yesterday or to secure a tomorrow where all enemies are dead.
And maybe somebody gonna get nuked. But if not, planetary death has been fast-tracked.
So whoever believes that knowledge is power is an idiot. The planet needed stewardship and it got the best and the brightest. It required human agency, and it got human indifference that yielded human misery. The planet was just there.
At least Trump is consistent- he declares climate change is a hoax. Those who accept it but continue to get on planes and consume meat and dairy are saying climate change is caused by everyone else but me and my family or I don't care that I'm destroying my children's future or that billions will starve.
I am dependent on animal sustenance because of a congenital health condition. Please don’t brush me away with your values broom.
I don’t know who told you that but there’s no such condition. All necessary amino acids, vitamins, minerals are available in plants. Genetic mutations such as in carnitine transport deficiency can be cured with supplements made chemically or microbially.
Your response is a clue to your arrogance. You think there’s a cure for everything? Get over yourself.
Our governments are our enemy.
Why?
Because our lives are less important to them than their donors' wealth.
What a sorry state of affairs.....
I have to read this again but Will Self vs Jordan Peterson or what could also be called acceptance of mortality and climate science vs nonsense death and climate denial is fascinating.
https://willself1.substack.com/p/2087493164122701824
I continue to be amazed Jonathon by your complete lack of objective reporting on the so called climate crisis, global warming. Tell me why all alternative views are silenced, scientists gagged, defunded and quite often sacked from their positions ?
Do you hear about the 16 scientists of 46 that have left the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due to corruption and misinformation.
there are just as many climate experts and scientists including Nobel prize winning Physicist, William Happer who have debunked much of the climate hysteria.
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/what-do-scientists-who-have-left?r=1uezk2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
https://covertactionmagazine.com/2023/10/06/how-the-fossil-fuel-industry-came-to-love-climate-change/
'Alternative' views are actually all over the internet, promoted by big fossil fuels and animal ag and are getting millions of views. Even though they're nonsensical.
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
Industry insider Dr. Meryl Nasty; bessie mates of Abbi Rockefeller eh?
And Happer's own research on co2 predicts significant climate sensitivity. Neither has debunked any of the climate hysteria.
Happer's debunking saturation theory debunked https://jowaller.substack.com/p/more-evidence-that-health-freedom?utm_source=publication-search
I love how all the greenwashed sheep out there repeatedly say scientists not aligned with the "Green Agenda" are all paid off by Fossil Fuel Industry.
Maybe read some of Happer's papers, not just headlines as he adamantly rejects the "global warming" nonsense.
When was the last mainstream media debate which fairly allowed both sides of the argument? Unless you are parroting the government or MSM line on green energy and climate change you are not given a voice despite the trove of papers and evidence available debunking the climate scam.
https://substack.com/redirect/233d891f-e0a7-4faa-b884-34b4db10dbbe?j=eyJ1IjoiMXVlemsyIn0.p_HrDlxeEG-O7CndFG2rfu2wBXaMfpTntSwcMOw8nik
Both sides of the argument? Are you mad? There is no argument only misrepresentation. 'Trove' of papers; you've lost the plot mate.
I look at every single supposed debunking here; if you have any more to add please let me know.
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
Gee whiz, where would you like to start, how about looking at below from the above link.
what has actually happened with all the doom and gloom predictions from Al Gore, Greta Thunberg and King Charles ?
we should be under water by now !
I. II.
A. B.
C.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................3 WHAT IS, AND IS NOT, SCIENCE.................................................................................4 What Is Science? .............................................................................................................4 What is Not Science?.......................................................................................................5 Models That Do Not Work...........................................................................................5
Government Opinion ...................................................................................................5 Consensus and 97% of Scientists' Opinions .................................................................6 One-Sided Peer Review ...............................................................................................6 Cherry-Picked, Fabricated, Falsified or Omitted Contradictory Data............................7
The Climate Dogma Protocol...........................................................................................7
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Table of Contents
III. THEENDANGERMENTFINDINGFAILEDTOCONSIDERCONTRADICTORY SCIENCE ..................................................................................................................................8
A. The Physics of Carbon Dioxide and GHGs Demonstrates They Cannot and Will Not Cause Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather.................................................................8 B. The EPA’s Own MAGCC Model Confirms Carbon Dioxide and Other GHGs Have Only a Negligible Impact on Temperature......................................................................................12 C. 600 Million Years of Data Confirm GHGs Do Not Cause Catastrophic Global Warming12 D. The Endangerment Finding is Factually False About Human GHG Causing 75% of Warming Since the Industrial Revolution Around 1750 .........................................................15 E. 600 Million Years of Data Show Today’s Carbon Dioxide 425 ppm Level Is Very Low, Not Historically Very High....................................................................................................17 F. There Will Be Disastrous Consequences For Americans, America, The Poor and People Worldwide If Carbon Dioxide, Other GHGs and Fossil Fuels Are Reduced to Net Zero .......18
IV. THE ENDANGERMENT FINDING IS NOT BASED ON SCIENCE BUT ON UNSCIENTIFIC SOURCES ..................................................................................................24
A. Models Used in the Endangerment Finding and Later Versions Do Not Reliably Predict Temperatures and Thus Have No Scientific Value..................................................................25 B. The IPCC is Government Controlled and Thus Only Issues Unscientific Government Opinions With No Scientific Value (Except Independently Verified Data) .............................28 C. The EPA Inadvertently Admitted Government Opinions, Consensus and One-sided Peer Review and Excluding Contrary Science is the Unscientific Evidence Underpinning the Endangerment Finding ..........................................................................................................31 D. The U. S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP and U. S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).......................................................................................................33 E. The National Academy of Sciences' Cited Publications and Valuing Climate Damages Book .....................................................................................................................................39
Hellooo, I have looked at Happer's work, he doesn't reject global warming, though he erroneously predicts 1 degree of warming from co2 doubling (and that is still a lot. Take a look at the serious problems with his saturation theory. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/more-evidence-that-health-freedom?utm_source=publication-search
here's your trove !
https://keihatsu.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-climate-change?r=1uezk2&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
A little bit more light reading......
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/dr-edwin-berry-nature-controls-climate?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Thank you Jonathon for voicing the unspeakable truth so eloquently and cogently. Your summary of the mainstream narrative and the role of its creators is spot on. I had a brief conversation with a very wealthy neighbour the other day, in her beautiful air conditioned house, she told me she just loves the weather we're having (38°C in our fifth heatwave this year), and how it reminds her of the years she spent in Indonesia. I asked her if she was worried about what it signalled in terms of climate change. "Oh, I don't believe in those political arguments. The climate goes through cycles, it always has. Did you know Belgium was much warmer in the medieval period." A friend thought she was just saying that because rich people like her are protected from climate change. Reading your article, I realised she is just paying the latest climate denial propaganda.
Yes, the MWP is a favourite. It was indeed warm in Northern Europe, but not as warm as today, ie 2026, though misleading graphs suggest that the beginning of the 1900s is 'today'. Global averages between the Little Ice Age and the MWP varied by a few tenths of a degree. Now they have increased by 1.5°C.
I link to an academic's paper below but first the Abstract.
QUOTE
In 1973, Ernest Becker, a cultural anthropologist cross-trained in philosophy, sociology, and psychiatry, invoked consciousness of self and the inevitability of death as the primary sources of human anxiety and repression. He proposed that the psychological basis of cooperation, competition, and emotional and mental health is a tendency to hold tightly to anxiety-buffering cultural world views or "immortality projects" that serve as the basis for self-esteem and meaning. Although he focused mainly on social and political outcomes like war, torture, and genocide, he was increasingly aware that materialism, denial of nature, and immortality-striving efforts to control, rather than sanctify, the natural world were problems whose severity was increasing. In this paper I review Becker's ideas and suggest ways in which they illuminate human response to global climate change. Because immortality projects range from belief in technology and materialism to reverence for nature or belief in a celestial god, they act both as barriers to and facilitators of sustainable practices. I propose that Becker’s cross-disciplinary "science of man," and the predictions it generates for proximate-level determinants of social behavior, add significantly to our understanding of and potential for managing the people paradox, i.e., that the very things that bring us symbolic immortality often conflict with our prospects for survival. Analysis of immortality projects as one of the proximate barriers to addressing climate change is both cautionary and hopeful, providing insights that should be included in the cross-disciplinary quest to uncover new pathways toward rational, social change.
END QUOTE
The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Dickinson, J. L. 2009. The people paradox: self-esteem striving, immortality ideologies, and human response to climate change. Ecology and Society 14(1): 34. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art34/
Shorter link https://tinyurl.com/4662fntm
Dr Janis Dickinson writes (in the paper):
"[W]hen confronted authentically, without [Terror Management Theory] defenses, the conservation ideology is mortality salient, beginning with the recognition that as individuals we will not go on and that continuation of the world with its rich complex of biodiversity is something we can no longer take for granted. What does it mean to preserve the wilderness and to be in the world with wildlife? What does it mean to be without it and to lose even one species? With consciousness comes a will to touch the world with our own special brand of humanness, i.e., our identity, and with this perhaps there is a vicarious sense of loss when another living species disappears. Whether it is the loss of the Hawaiian Po'o-uli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) or the apparent loss and resurrection of the Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis), we are elevated by the will of other creatures and diminished by their absence. This ideology, although psychospiritual in nature, promotes courage and encompasses a shared responsibility for other organisms and for tackling the problem of carbon emissions..."
Ha - the self-blind hypocrisy of the almost by defintion anti-Green Solutions Left remains utterly staggering !
For instance, none of you ever have a single positive word to say about electric vehicles or the China-led EV and Green Energy Revolution or (publicly) dare join the obvious cause-effect-solution dots between global wars, lies and and blood for petroleum and the EV + Green Renewable Sustainable Alternatie Energy Revolution.
And it's equally no surprise that this same six-faced constantly green-bashing have-it-both-ways Left loved and still love their filthy coal and coal mines - and in that key respect Thatcher - not the Left or the UK Labour Party etc - did exactly the *right thing* for the wrong reasons when she shut them all down, thank God !!
So go on - get back to adoring your fossil fuel junkified and petroleum addicted Mother Russia and never mentioning let alone appauding any of the above solutions - and only ever praising the now Green AND Geopolitical hero Greta Thunberg when she risks her young life by joining a flotilla or an antiwar protest or two...!
(Paul G)
You - like the human majority -typically focus on yourself(..and your "partner") and fail to refer to Peace & Prosperity-focused China and its increasingly successful unique form of capitalist-socialist-communist-experimentalist and transformative non-lobbied to death government...
PS. don't dare try to criticise (my) anger - if you are NOT outraged in 2026 you are clearly both equally typically insufficiently altruistic and proactively geopolitically ill-informed...
(Paul G)
I have to wonder what all the anger is about???
Having managed to be almost completely off fossil fuels in the last 15 years (the heat pump went in last summer), I know there is a way to a more sustainable world, and bit by bit, my partner and I got there.
But we are still part of a capitalism that fosters conflict, believes in just wars and puts money into 'too big not to fail' military hardware instead of education, health and green jobs.
And sure......lots of allies in our social democratic party are only half there.......and likely regard us as extremists. BUT I'VE NEVER IMAGINED THAT CALLING THEM NAMES WOULD HELP THE CLIMATE.
And as for Mother Russia..........ginning up a NATO led war against her had done 0 for the climate. On the contrary.....continuing to send weapons to Ukraine just helps to trash one of the world's best remaining food baskets.
Surely we have to be against all wars........if we're serious about a transition off Fossil Fuels???
The UK Green Party has spent MORE TIME on TRANS TOILETS than on RENEWABLE ENERGY.
Polanski turned the Party into a full on Russo phobic Pro NATO Pro Kiev Fascist regime party. There is NOTHING ecological about that!!
The Western fake Left literally believe that defending the overtly NAZI Science of the Trans Ideological agenda and glorifying male on male anal sex are worthy stands to provoke NUCLEAR WAR with Russia. NEWS FLASH: Nuclear War is not good for the ecology and other living things. The conventional war in Ukraine has already contaminated the once Bread Basket land by the weapons used by all sides.
So GREAT HSM.......thanks for weighing in with another prejudice that helps keep us diverted from the real issue, due to the fact our noses are in other people's private life......which we're so privileged as to find disgusting.
Seems to me you too are a barrier to a clean future. The hatred you feel for those sexually divergent others jumps off the page. Sad
I have NO SUCH HATRED. My loathing is for IDEOLOGICAL AGENDAS that have no respect for science and in fact exploit the very people they claim to speak for.
Interesting how a Western political class that has made the issues I refer to a major basis of their hatred of Russia with a lunatic intent so extreme, yes we could end up with NUCLEAR WAR over arse fucking!! I don't care what anyone thinks about the sex act but the mentality of thinking it is worth human annihilation apparently does not bother you. You are also NOT bothered by Polanski's backing of NAZI NATO and Fascist Kiev nor the UK's Green Party's track record of having been useless on essential green issues.
I'm Canadian my friend, and a recent reader of Jonathan's substacks....
I'm against the continued NATO sponsored, western backed war against Russia, and am aware of how we bullied Putin into finally responding. I'd like to see NATO defunded, its a warmongering alliance wasting money, going along with Amerikkkan fomented wars, and doing nasty work in countries like Libya.
The language you use when you argue that transrights are diversionary politics is not only tasteless, its violent. If we wish to move away from the right wing's need to keep policing sexuality (and ignoring the prevalence of sexual violence) we should speak respectfully of those tempests in teacups as irrelevant.
Human beings should have the right to be who it is they are....those of us working for climate sanity should oppose demonization.........not participate verbally or in any way in the demonization of Trans Folk.
I confess not to understand the Trans movement. But there are lots of things in Nature I don't understand. How could that not be the case????
We all come from a dominant western imperial capitalism that thumbs its nose at nature, imagining that it can improve on the Great Mother's work. HELL....we even believe a machine crunching data can think better than homo sapiens, and daily, homo sapiens help foster that lunacy, with the dumb things they think, say and get angry about.
It may be too late for a liveable climate.......but for darn sure, leading with recriminating vile rhetoric is just one more way of declaring our helplessness.
Highly recommend Jeremy Lent's book Ecocivilisation and his Substack.
"They did not act because the political costs of acting against the corporate sector were far too grave. "
Proof of the sociopathy of the politicians--they would rather destroy the world and all its people in order to keep their cushy jobs and lifestyle. None of those who knew the truth and denied or covered it up deserve praise or honor. Lock them all up. Start working on the solution our children deserve.
We all need to start taking responsibility......and doin what we can, as peacefully as we can, to turn this titanic around. For my part, I believe than when enough of us people were ready to make the switch off fossil oil and gas.............the politicians would have acted.
A lot of little people voted for what we're dealing with now......and many m,ore of us went on with our vacations, renovations, and five planet life styles.
We're all part of the problem and have to asap become part of the solution.
Stanford, Princeton, NASA & The Co-Founder of Greenpeace academics here..& many more "experts" ALL say the "Climate storey/narrative" we are all being told is a SCAM. ..YES they use the word "SCAM". Wake up everybody they "buy" the "studies" they need to fraudulently sell the financial & control ploy ...& also about The UN SDGs 2030 & "Digital Prison" system they want...All 99% fake in my view ...SEE HERE Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI
Fake Science my friend..........fake science. But stay tuned. The Great Mother is sending us her reactions to that science........daily.
The film Climate: the Movie (The Cold Truth) has been effectively 'debunked' (if you can call twisting words and strawman fallacies a type of scientific argument) many times. Take a look at the arguments of the contributors (who happen to be contradictors of each other) whose own data sets show rapid warming. Shall we question where their funding and shares comes from?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQlEAL6N80g&t=126s
More on Koonin https://www.youtube.com/@JustHaveaThink
More on Heller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pa3nVZskFo
More on Happer https://jowaller.substack.com/p/more-evidence-that-health-freedom?utm_source=publication-search
More on Spencer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29QDGEJC1fg
PS Patrick Moore wasn't a founder of Greenpeace as he applied to join it, and according to Greenpeace themselves, and mustn't be confused with the respected astronomer Sir Patrick Moore.
Just remember scam is the word they use
Any word can be used.....easily.
It takes a lot of credulity........to believe many of their words.
Mitigation is a big one just now........but the money that mitigation will take won't be easy to come by. Better just to drill baby drill, and kill baby kill: so much more profitable.
This is hilarious- they well use the word scam but what is their evidence for doing so?
If you have to resort to ad hominem you lose the argument
Sometimes true Billy, but as a past teacher of logic, no one used an ad hominem...Jo asked for evidence....a good logical tactic. She didn't name call anyone.
Repeating arguments you've heard isn't the same thing as thinking logically.
Hi Ingamarie, I have been quite surprised at this latest round of climate crisis denial, and I’ve been following especially closely since 2020, in that it shows blanket acceptance of the ‘co2 might fall too low and kill all our plants, therefore burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees is a good thing’ nonsense.
The algorithm is strong in these ones.
I did not do so; I only commented on their these gentlemen's statements and feasible motives.
Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) Multiplier
The ratio of Human Greenhouse gas CO2 to Volcanic CO2 emissions has been increasing dramatically. Readers might like to help mine the literature for data.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-co2