Crisis or Hoax? Climate Change in Science, Media and Politics by Jules de Waart (Bookbaby, 372 pages)
In a recent article entitled 'The Devil’s Algorithm: Unplugging from the Climate Matrix', I wrote:
The world is trapped in a digital Matrix, not unlike the one depicted in the iconic 1999 film (The Matrix) where Morpheus offers Neo a choice: take the blue pill and remain in a comforting illusion or the red pill and confront the unsettling truth. The blue pill, in our case, is the dominant narrative on climate change, peddled relentlessly by mainstream media, tech giants like Google, social media sites like YouTube and artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT. This narrative — man-made global warming, caused by fossil fuel use, is an imminent existential threat — has achieved near-total dominance, suffocating dissent and sidelining credible scientists who dare question it.
One such credible scientist is Dr Jules de Waart. Born in Amsterdam, he studied physical geography with climatology as a minor at university. In 1971, he obtained his doctorate with a thesis on the landscape development of southern France over the last 60 million years. In the 70s, he worked as an exploration geologist in Uganda and Congo for several years, then returned to the Netherlands and became a civil servant at the Ministry of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene. He was politically active, a member of the Labour Party and served as spokesman for the environment and for development cooperation.
He published Crisis or Hoax? Climate
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Climate Change started out as some observations and turned into a belief system and a means of gaining control over wealth, resources and people. It didn’t begin as fraud or a scam but gradually became one. Ordinary weather events began to be interpreted as evidence of impending doom and catastrophe. Then started the education, and manipulation of public perception that every extreme weather event was because of them, and that only by allowing politicians and bureaucrats to control every aspect of their lives could this “crisis” be averted. We are told to “follow the science” but what we are actually following is Computer Model Projections full of assumptions, speculations and guesses, that so far have all failed to match what is happening in the real world. So the goal posts get moved and the projections that failed are pushed back just far enough into the future to allow for more of the climate politics to be imposed on the public (Net Zero)
Once you frame something as a “crisis” then everything is on the table. —Taxation, Regulation, Surveillance and control of all behaviours. People are coerced into fearing not just the “crisis” itself but the fear of not complying. By… Read more »
Agree with you wholeheartedly, and would add the models are riddled with omissions too as they cannot model all the factors influencing the weather.
Exactly correct, models that are not fully open cannot be falsified and are therefore invalid in themselves. So each parameter of the model must be individually analysed and tested for voracity. If this can’t be done then the models are worthless.
Yes and no. Fraud has been an essential part of the narrative for the past forty years. Remember that James Hansen admitted that when he presented to members of Congress in the late eighties (1988?) it was at the height of summer in DC, and summer in DC gets very warm to say the least. He and a fellow “accomplice” prepared the room the day before; all the windows were closed, the air conditioning turned off. The room during the meeting was uncomfortably warm, the perfect setting to talk about a future of an increasingly warming climate. Once you start down that path of delusion and fraud it becomes very difficult to stop. De Waart is a standout to have thrown off the cloak of delusion.
What do you mean NO——Hansen’s shenanigans with opening all the windows so the air conditioning would not work combined with the scheduling of that hearing on what was likely to be one of the hottest days of the year in mid summer was all part of how the FRAUD got going. —–So the answer to my post is YES. ——NO doesn’t come into it.
A very appealing article, as I’ve said before the peddlers of climate alarmism deal in soundbites, so as said in this piece and to summarise,
Consensus is not proof.
Doubt is not disinformation.
Scepticism is not heresy.
This is all similar to the article on Amelia, dissent is treated as disinformation. So to the above can be added,
Dissent is not disinformation.
These should be used in reply to the nonsense peddled by the left. As far as I can see it is possibly the only way that people at large will begin to understand what is being inflicted upon them.
Good comment on an excellent article. I shall be putting your short summary into my armoury – always helpful in online debates to bring down the climate alarmists.