On this site, in several articles over the years that I have been writing, it has been one of my greatest battles to explain the eugenic, political, religious, economic fundamentals, on the part of the elites, in making people believe that we have a climate apocalypse. Of the need to save the earth from the clutches of “savage capitalism”, and that it is affected by human activity.

Admitting this possibility we need to tax and give up procreating, consuming, we the people, because the elites are as it were safe from these obligations and supposed needs, on the way to let the planet go its normal way.

In addition to these messianic ideas that the elites want to impose on us, I have left out in my articles the scientific issue that essentially concerns climatologists, geographers, atmospheric physicists, among others.

So, several times I am questioned by beliefs and specific issues that have to do with extremely complex problems that science can’t explain, however, as the greta fans say, “we have to listen to science”… this is what made me bring here the scientists’ quotes. In the end, whoever has read them can be left with no doubts, or at least the certainty that anthropogenic global warming has no consensus, no certainties, and that in the face of doubt, it would be better to stop these projects, taxes, reproductive control of the population and intervention in the market, the result has been disastrous, it makes it impossible for the poor to have cheap energy to develop their economies and even in the first world, it pushes millions of Europeans and South Americans into poverty

Faced with the question that I do not hear these claims from science, and that I lend myself only to “religious” questions, I decided to transcribe some quotations taken from the book “Environmentalist Psychosis” produced by the Environmental Studies Commission of the Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira Institute.

I want to remember that we live in dark times, the demonstration valid here for anthropogenic global warming is replicable for the covid hoax and that the same amount of climate skeptics are found in relation to covid, because these agendas, are fabricated by the same ones, the same corruption in climate is present in the health industry, it so happens that in the covid issue I have not yet gathered everything in the same article, but it is an exercise that I propose to do soon.

If you understand the climate agenda you understand the covid agenda more easily.

You want science and scientists here they are:

Prof. Ivar Giaever is among the most prominent scientists cited in the 2007 Minority Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (updated in subsequent years through 2010). He is a professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, and the University of Oslo, and the 1973 Nobel Prize winner in Physics. He is among the 400 “dissident scientists” who have denounced the “global warming” myth in a manifesto (the number of such scientists dissenting from the myth has now risen to over 1000).

He was also one of more than 100 signatories to the March 30, 2009 letter to President Barack Obama, criticizing his stance on global warming.

Prof. Giaever claims that “global warming” and “the evils of deforestation” have become the “dogmas” of radical ecology:

“Global warming has become a new religion.” One often hears about the large number of scientists who support this new religion, but he says that the number doesn’t matter, what matters is whether the scientists are right.

He adds that not many catastrophic prophecies, such as acid rain 30 years ago, the ozone hole 10 years ago, and deforestation, have been verified. In fact nobody knows what the real effect of human activity on global temperature is.

In 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official position that human activities are changing the Earth’s climate: “The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is happening. If no mitigating action is taken, significant disruptions to the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, to social systems, and to human health and safety are likely. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions starting now.

Prof. Giaever emailed Kate Kirby, head of APS, explaining that he “did not share such a statement” because global temperature remains “surprisingly stable”: “The claim that the Earth’s temperature has gone from 288.0 to 288.8 degrees Kelvin [from 15° to 15.8°C] in about 150 years, if true true, it means that the temperature has been surprisingly stable, and human health and happiness have arguably improved over this warming period.”

He denounced that at APS all scientific topics can be discussed, except one that is taboo, therefore untouchable. And he inquires, “Should global warming be treated as indisputable evidence?”

On September 13, 2011, Prof. Giaever resigned from APS as a way of condemning the association’s official position on global warming. The contestation of many others to global warming and its adherents goes much further.

For example, meteorologist William Gray, a pioneer in hurricanes, declared, “Global warming is a hoax! In 15-20 years, we will look back and see that it was a hoax.”

Prof. Ivar Giaever and meteorologist William Gray are not the only voices disagreeing with what is being claimed about global warming:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the near future cause, catastrophic warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and destabilization of the Earth’s climate.”

The statement is categorical, and was signed by no less than 31,478 American scientists and included as an appendix to the report Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). In its 868 pages, it has 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries. It is the most comprehensive and objective compilation of climate change published, of the science on climate change. This report goes further in that it denounces that the media in general hides these dissenting opinions from the UN government panel. For the reader to appreciate the great fraud that is being committed, imposed on the public opinion in the name of environmentalist dogma, here are some authoritative statements from personalities in the scientific world, compiled by the blog Green: the new color of communism.

Here I have to make an aside and remind the most forgetful of how many times they read and hear in the press about consensus in science, when most of them do not know that 31,471 scientists not only accuse the UN of false information but of purposeful manipulation of information, and evidently contest the hoax of anthropogenic global warming. The event alone contradicts and belies the UN and the press, if 31,471 scientists made this appeal, it is obvious that there is no consensus, the UN does not intend to follow the science, as it has political agenda behind it.

Let’s continue with considerations of science and scientists:

Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Finland’s Abo Akademi University: “So far, real-world measurements give no basis for worrying about future catastrophic warming.”

Bob Carter, professor of geology at James Cook University, Australia: “Over the past few years, cooler than usual climate signals have been recorded around the world, leading many scientists to question the long outdated fashion for global warming alarmism.”

Prof. David Bellamy, naturalist: “Global warming – at least in the latest modern nightmare view – is a myth. I’m sure of that, and so do a growing number of scientists. But what is truly worrying is that politicians and policy-makers don’t think so.”

Richard Keen, climatologist at the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Colorado University: “The Earth has been cooling since 1998, in defiance of the predictions of the UN IPCC. The global temperature in 2007 was the coldest in a coldest in a decade and the coldest in the millennium. Perhaps that’s why ‘global warming’ has come to be called ‘climate change’.”

Luiz Carlos Baldicero Molion, Prof. of Meteorology at the Federal University of Alagoas: “When I say that we are most likely in a cooling process, I do so based on data. They invented the story that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, and the formula is the same now: climate terrorism, like this global warming.

Dr. Harrison ‘Jack’ Schmitt, geologist and former astronaut: “It’s ridiculous to talk about ‘consensus’ around the idea that humans are causing ‘global warming’ when experience, geological data, history, and current cooling all point in the opposite direction. ‘Consensus’ simply means that there is no definitive knowledge.”

Prof. John Christy, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama: “I often hear that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the problem of global warming, and that man is in the process of causing a catastrophic change in the climate system. As a scientist, like many others, I think this is absolutely not true.

Stanley B. Goldenberg, hurricane expert at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: “There is a blatant lie being spread by the media that only a fringe of scientists don’t believe in man-made global warming.

Friedrich-Karl Ewert, geologist, at the UN convention on climate change in Bonn (07-09-10): “The German climatological service has measurements dating back to 1701. They show almost the same cooling and warming tendencies. From the point of view of global temperature, the change is so small that it can best be described as temperature stability. Contrary to computer model scenarios, anthropogenic CO2 is meaningless because its influence is not recognizable.

Dr. Will Happer (photo 2), professor of physics at Princeton University: “I am convinced that the current alarm over CO2 is wrong. Fears of anthropogenic global warming are unwarranted and not based on good science. based on good science.

Dr. Arthur Douglas, former chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University: “Whatever the climate is, it is not being caused by global warming. If it can be said that something is happening, it is that perhaps a cooling period is beginning”.

Prof. José Joaquim Delgado Domingos, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon: “Currently, none of the reference databases show a global increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1998, or of the upper ocean layer.”

Prof David S. Gee, Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden: “How many more years must the planet cool down before we start hearing that the planet is not warming? For how many more years must the current cooling continue?

Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor at the University of Ottawa, abandons climate alarmism: The movement of anthropogenic climate change is nothing more than a “phenomenon more than a “corrupt social phenomenon. It is rather a social psychological phenomenon, and nothing more than that.”

Philip K. Chapman, geophysicist, astronaut engineer, former astronaut, physicist of MIT: “All those who demand to reverse the curve of global warming urgently need to urgently need to turn off their blinkers and come up with some thoughts on what we should do if, instead of global warming, we were facing global cooling. were facing a global cooling. The greenhouse effect has not been scientifically proven”

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, Vice Dean of the Institute of Science and Technology, Chubu University, Japan: “CO2 emissions cause absolutely no problem. Any scientist knows this, but he is not paid to say so.

Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans sitting in their cars, and those in developing countries walking barefoot.”

Dr. Miklós Zágoni, global warming expert, who has abandoned the defense of the Kyoto Protocol: “Nature’s regulating instrument is water vapor: more CO2 decreases the humidity in the air, keeping the overall ratio of ‘greenhouse gases’ at the necessary equilibrium conditions.”

Geoffrey G. Duffy, professor at the University of Auckland, New Zealand: “Even if the CO2 level doubled or tripled, this would have virtually little impact, since water vapor and water condensed to particles in the clouds dominate the scene worldwide, and always will.

Timothy Ball, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, Canada: “CO2 is not a pollutant gas. It actually has positive consequences. The higher its concentration in the atmosphere, the more plants grow. The activity of the sun is the main factor that affects the climate on the planet, but it is hardly mentioned. Experts are afraid to speak out, they are accused of receiving money from the oil industry. I myself have been the target of personal attacks.

Dr. Guy LeBlanc Smith, former head of research at CSIRO, Australia: “I have yet to see credible proof that CO2 is causing climate change, or that only man-made CO2 is causing it. There is a lack of atmospheric. There is a lack of atmospheric data, and the ice-core data refutes that hypothesis. When will we collectively wake up from this deceptive delusion?”.

Prof. Andrei Kapitsa, University of Moscow, pioneering the discovery of subglacial lake Vostok: “The Kyoto theorizers have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that raises CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Observatory: “Global warming alarmists have confused cause and effect. As solar radiation warms the Earth, CO2 is released into the atmosphere by the world’s oceans.”

Geologist Anderson C.R. Soares, in Global Warming – Reality and Fantasy: “The policy of the so-called environmentalists, unaware of Geology, is in fact a policy of collective suicide. Geologically speaking, CO2 emissions are not a problem, but a solution for a better life here on Earth.”

Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Solar Climate Research, Space Denmark: “Those who think it is absolutely certain that the temperature increase is is due exclusively to CO2 have no scientific justification. It is pure conjecture.”

Yuri A. Izrael, IPCC Vice Chairman: “There is no proof of a relationship between human activity and global warming”.

Prof. Nir Shaviv, Institute of Racah Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “There is no direct evidence linking global warming in the 20th century with anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”

Prof. Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “We can’t say that CO2 is going to drive climate change, and it certainly never has in the past.”

Prof. Robert Essenhigh, PhD, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Ohio State University: “We can certainly try to control and stop the production of carbon dioxide, but this seems to have a cost between very high and catastrophic. And to what end, if it is not a problem? I am not alone in this position, but many in power do not want to hear it. So is this science? Or is it just politics?”.

Prof. Henrik Svensmark, Technical University of Copenhagen, Denmark: “Actually global warming has stopped and a cooling is starting. No climate model has predicted this cooling of the Earth, quite the opposite. This means that projections of future climate are not trustworthy.”

Don J. Easterbrook, geologist at Western Washington University, Bellingham, USA: “An analysis of warming and cooling trends over the past 400 years shows an ‘almost exact correlation’ between all known climate changes of the period and the transmission of solar energy to the Earth; and at the same time, that they had no relationship to CO2.”

Prof. Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia: “Who says that CO2 is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century has not seen the most elementary figures.

Prof. Tom Victor Segalstad, Head of the Geology Museum at the Museum of Natural Sciences, University of Oslo, Norway: “The search for a mythical CO2 train wreck to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model is what leads to show that burning an impossible amount of fossil fuel is warming the atmosphere.”

Dr. Patrick Frank, chemist, author of more than 50 scientific papers: “There is no guaranteed scientific basis for claiming that warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases, because current physical theory is grossly inadequate to define any cause whatsoever.” Harry Flaherty, head of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Canada: “We are not seeing negative effects on the polar bear population that are caused by so-called ‘climate change’ or ice contraction. ice contraction. Polar bears are very smart, they have adapted to climate change over many thousands of years. When we hear that polar bears are on the verge of extinction, we smile to ourselves.”

Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, in The Guardian, 9-11-09: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening to Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added that some glaciers are shrinking, at a “historically non-alarming” level, and contradicted the IPCC’s 2007 report that they “could disappear completely by the year 2035, if not sooner.”

Gilberto Câmara, director of the National Institute for Space Research (In: “This figure of 20% [of the planet’s CO2 emissions due to deforestation], released by the G8, is a ‘guessed’ number that is circulating around the world. And Brazilian science has so far not taken the trouble to check this data. The G8 must be mistaken and have based itself on weak data.

Prof. Nils Axel Mörner, former chairman of the International Commission on Sea Level Change: “The sea level is not growing, and has not grown at all in the last 50 years.

Prof. Philip Stott of the University of London’s Department of Biogeography: “The current view presents warming as bringing apocalyptic consequences. But every time we look at medieval climate warming, we see it associated with wealth. . Everywhere in London there are small traces of the vineyards that grew during the medieval warm period. It was a wonderfully rich era of great prosperity.

Distortions or fraud in IPCC reports

James Peden, an atmospheric physicist who worked at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh: “Climate models don’t belong to science, they are computerized toys that you can build anything you want with. People can build whatever they want.”

Dr. John Theon, former head of NASA’s Climate Research Program: “There is no rational justification for using climate prediction models in setting public policy.

Hajo Smit, Dutch meteorologist, former member of the Dutch Committee to the IPCC: “Al Gore urged me to carry out in-depth scientific research, and this led me quickly and solidly into the camp of the skeptics. Climate models, at best, can serve to explain climate change after it has happened.

John Zyrkowski, president of Lean Techniques, LLC, wrote the book. It’s the sun, not your 4×4. CO2 will not destroy the earth, where he claims the IPCC reports are hopelessly skewed.

Victor M. Velasco Herrera, researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the Autonomous University of Mexico: “The models and predictions of the UN IPCC are not correct, because they are only based on mathematical models and present results and scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.”

Open letter from 100 scientists to the UN Secretary-General (13-12-2007):

“It is impossible to stop climate change. The IPCC has published increasingly alarmist conclusions about the climate influence of man-made CO2, a non-polluting gas that is essential for photosynthesis. The IPCC’s conclusions are absolutely unjustified. It is futile to try to stop the climate from changing.”

Kelvin Kemm, South African nuclear physicist and director of Stratek Business: “Will the Copenhagen climate conference continue to suppress scientific truth, and trying to hold back African economic development?”

Dr. Philip Lloyd, South African nuclear physicist, one of the IPCC coordinators: “The volume of CO2 we produce is negligible, in terms of natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am preparing a detailed study of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policymakers, identifying the way in which these summaries have distorted the science.

Prof Andrei Kapitsa, University of Moscow, pioneering the discovery of the Vostok subglacial lake: “Large numbers of critical documents submitted to the 1995 UN Conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. Result:

only one side remained, the discussion suffered a heavy bias, and the UN declared that global warming was a scientific fact.”

Dr. Arun Ahluwalia, geologist at Punjab University, director of International Year of the Planet: “Currently the IPCC has become a closed circuit: it doesn’t listen to others. It has no open mind. I am really surprised that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC based on scientifically incorrect conclusions.

Prof. Claude Allègre, scientist, geologist, and former French Minister of Education, Research, and Technology: “The proclamations of the greenhouse gas fanatics consist of denouncing man’s part in the climate without doing anything except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.

Freeman Dyson, US National Academy of Sciences and Princeton professor emeritus of physics: “The real world is murky, complicated, and full of things we don’t yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to get dressed up in proper clothes and go out and measure what is really happening outside, in the swamps and in the clouds. This is why climate model experts end up believing their own models.”

Gerald Warner, columnist (The Telegraph, 26-11-2009): “At this rate, Copenhagen will turn into a comedy convention, with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount the mass resistance to the tyrants and hit them where it hurts: in the pocket. Digging deeper, there may be criminal prosecutions in many countries of the people who falsified data to obtain financing and impose potentially disastrous tax restrictions on the world as a result of a fraud. There is a new world out there, and as Al Gore may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.”

Environmentalism, media campaign based on hoax or fraud

Dr. Kiminori Itoh, physicochemical environmentalist, IPCC member: “The widespread fears about global warming constitute the worst scientific scandal in history. When the public realizes the truth, they will feel disillusioned with science and scientists.

William Gray, pioneering hurricane meteorologist (Ken Kayes Storm Center, 02-04-09): “I’ve told you a hundred times: global warming is a hoax! This panic will run its course. In 15 to 20 years, we will look back and see that it was a hoax.

Martin Keeley, Professor of Petroleum Geology at University College London: “Global warming is, moreover, a hoax perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but who urgently need to take courses in geology, logic, and the philosophy of science.”

Prof. Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute, Paris: “We think we live in an age of reason, and the alarm over global warming sounds like science; but it’s not science, it’s propaganda.

Prof. Eduardo Tonni, Head of the Department of Paleontology at the University of La Plata, Argentina: “Global warming alarmism is justified by the fact that it is something that generates funds [for research]. Regrettably, it is yet another market product.”

Lord Monckton of Brenchley: “The greens have been caught red-handed.”

Dr. Joanne Simpson, Atmospheric [Physics] Scientist: “Since I have stopped being part of any organization and receiving any [research] funding, I speak quite frankly: as a scientist, I remain skeptical.”

Environmentalism, universal propaganda of a neo-communist sect

Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of Exchequer and former Secretary of Energy for Great Britain: “The left has been greatly disoriented by the manifest failure of socialism, and even more so of communism as it was implemented. As a result, they have had to find another way to channel their anti-capitalism.”

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: “The other reason environmental extremism arose was the failure of world communism. The wall came down, and a lot of pacifists and political activists migrated to the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them. They learned to use ‘green language’ in a very clever way, to disguise programs that actually had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with ecology or science.”

Prof. Frederick Singer (photo 18), former director of the US Weather Satellite Service and IPCC reviewer: “CO2 is clearly an industrial gas linked to economic growth, to transportation, to the car, to what we call civilization. And there are forces in the environmental movement that are purely and simply against economic growth, which they consider intrinsically bad.”

Prof. Philip Stott of the University of London’s Department of Biogeography: “Global warming has been manipulated to legitimize a number of myths that existed previously: anti-car, anti-growth, and above all against the great satan, which is the United States.”

Dr. Pal Brekke, solar physicist at the Norwegian Space Centre in Ohio: “Anyone who pretends that the debate is closed, and that the conclusions are final, takes a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most burning issues of our time.”

Prof Ivar Giaever, 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics: “I don’t believe in global warming. It has become a new religion.”

Roger Pielke Jr, Professor of Environment, University of Colorado-Boulder, on extreme weather 2010: “On the issues of extreme weather events and climate change, the science of the IPCC is on a similar level to that of the interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calendars.”

Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide, Australia: “Anthropogenic [human-linked] global warming is the biggest, most dangerous and most ruinously expensive scam in history. It is the new religion for the urban population that has lost faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are its prophets.”

Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, former NASA astronaut and geologist: “The ‘fear of global warming’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over Americans’ lives, incomes and decision-making.”

Prof. José Joaquim Delgado Domingos, from Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon “To make the fight against CO2 emissions a priority, invoking climate catastrophes without convincing scientific basis, is to forget the more global context. One of the most serious consequences of this reductionism is the promotion of highly centralizing and perverse solutions.”

Dr. Evaristo Eduardo de Miranda, general chief of Embrapa’s National Center for Satellite Monitoring: “A dangerous trend is to treat the subject in an apocalyptic way. Only bad things are predicted with climate change. It is necessary to bring other points of view. For example, the disappearance of the polar ice cap will generate unbelievable fuel savings, because it will shorten navigation paths. It is necessary to bring a little rationality to the issue, especially when it is an unverifiable hypothesis. It is curious how scientists, lords of reason and atheists, adopt a totally religious language at this time. They speak of the whole theology of the end of time, of catastrophes, of man victimized and punished with the flood, like Noah”.

Walter Cunningham, physicist and former astronaut: “NASA should be on the front lines, gathering scientific evidence and dismantling the current ‘anthropogenic global warming’ hysteria. Unfortunately, it is turning into yet another agency that has fallen for the politics of global warming; or, even worse, politicized science.”

Dr. João Corte-Real, Professor of Meteorology at the University of Évora: “There will be no catastrophe. And if we are, in fact, experiencing climate change on a planetary scale, we will know how to find solutions to

face this situation. To talk about catastrophe is not scientific, it’s not humane, it’s a primitive way of presenting the issues”.

Dr. Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic: “As a person who has lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity today is environmentalism, not communism. The environmentalist ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous development of humanity with a kind of central planning that is now called global.”

Press Manipulations

Prof. Robert M. Carter, geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia: “Since the early 1990s, newspapers and magazines around the world have carried rivers of alarmist letters and articles about hypothetical man-made climate change. These articles are truffled with terms such as ‘if,’ ‘could,’ ‘might,’ ‘probably,’ ‘perhaps, ‘predicted’, ‘projected’, ‘modeled’, and others that presuppose a profound fantasy, or else an ignorance of facts and scientific principles bordering on the absurd. The problem is not climate change, but the sophisticated ‘brainwashing’ that is being done on the public, bureaucrats and politicians.”

Nigel Calder, former director of New Scientist, a respected international science magazine: “The most basic principles of journalism seem to have been abandoned. We have a new generation of reporters: environmental journalists. And if their work is thrown in the trash, they lose their jobs! So the reporting has to be more and more hysterical, because unfortunately there are still disabused directors who ask: ‘You know, what you said five years ago… Well, it’s much worse now! The seas may rise maybe 2.5 meters next Tuesday – and things like that. So the journalist is constrained to be more and more and more alarmist.”

Prof. David Deming, geophysicist and assistant professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma: “There is an overwhelming distortion in the press today when it comes to global warming. In the last two years, this bias has grown to the point of irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that happens now is linked to global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. The result of this is that the public is largely uninformed about this and other environmental issues.” Prof. Deming has been punished by university authorities committed to alarmism because of this and similar statements.

R. Austin and W. Happer, professors of physics at Princeton; L. Gould, professor at Hartford University; R. Lindzen, at MIT, etc.: “The sky is not falling. The Earth has been cooling for ten years. The present cooling has NOT been predicted by alarmist computer models. The best meteorologists in the world cannot predict the climate two weeks in advance, and do not even dare to predict that of the rest of the century. Can Al Gore do it? Can John Holdren? We are being inundated with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, and that we must act immediately. But in fact THERE IS NO SUCH PROOF, THERE IS NOT.”

Dom Fuas Roupinho

Translate by Luiz Fernado Rodrigues ([email protected])

Follow us on Telegram https://t.me/Farroupim_Blog

We are not funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates or Harriman foundation, we do not receive any help from the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford, or the Oppenheimer family, we are not sponsored by any political group or party, we do not know George Soros, we do not have unlimited time, we have to work and earn our living, information has costs, books, data, etc. We also do not receive any grants from the state.

Bitcoin: bc1qhft2res6nwl74kflm95htds2tg7dtw8mcmve70