Climate “denialism” is a “security threat” now — because they are losing the argument, as the predictions keep failing. By Joanne Nova.
Look out. Climate “Denialism” is a “security threat” now
As the Net Zero fantasy crumbles and the political tide shifts, the Blob has up’d the ante and pressed the red hot “security threat” button. Climate deniers are now such a mortal threat (to the sinecures of the Blobcrats) they must be contained.
As David Archibald says “When they have lost the argument, they change the rules.”
Countries seal landmark declaration at COP30 — marking first time information integrity is prioritized at UN Climate Conference Drafted in collaboration with civil society members of the Global Initiative Advisory Group, the Declaration has been endorsed by ten countries so far — Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay.
“Climate change is no longer a threat of the future; it is a tragedy of the present,” said President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Belém. “We live in an era in which obscurantists reject scientific evidence and attack institutions. It is time to deliver yet another defeat to denialism.”
Oh, the horrible obscurantists! Humanity will be saved, but only if governments can rule without having to answer difficult questions.
The UN must be feeling fragile because the term “denialism” is decidedly unscientific — it is the language of political and religious struggle, not of atmospheric physics. …
They couldn’t call it the Ministry of Truth again, so the new catchword of censorship is “information integrity”. The question the UN hopes you won’t ask is “who defines integrity?” for they be the Kings.
The scare over carbon dioxide is all due to a poor assumption about convection, made by early climate scientists who had an exciting new radiation model in 1963 but knew little about convection. “No problem, we’ll forge ahead anyway!”
Inherent problem: we still cannot simulate convection. On all scales, convection models fail. Convection is turbulent and chaotic, and the data required to run any realistic model must include the distribution of cloud condensing nuclei (CCN) — which are microscopic and cannot be measured anywhere near adequately by any current technique.
TL;DR: The carbon dioxide scare is based on single a faulty assumption about convection, we still can’t model the atmosphere accurately, and the evidence that the current warming is part of a trend that predates industrialization is overwhelming (though partly erased and hotly contested by the current generation of politically selected scientists).