Ongoing hijack of “Science” by “Consensus” in Environment-Health: The Climate Change Narrative

 The twin subject of Environment-Health is the ultimate tool for pushing society in line.   Health must be everyman’s priority, and when the physical environment is perceived to constitute a threat to human health, virtually everybody in the community is anxious to cooperate in resolving the issue.

       This anxiety can understandably open people up for all manner of manipulations.  For instance somebody can come out with a “scientific model” predicting doom and gloom for our health unless we unquestioningly follow some unpalatable prescriptions.  This could include “emergency” actions entailing abrupt curtailment of fundamental human rights and privileges. 

       We saw this scenario play out point-blank during the COVID pandemic.  Not many were willing to put to test the solemn prediction by Mr Bill Gates and associates, that if dire emergency actions recommended by them were not taken immediately, people will be “dying like flies” on the streets of Africa!

      All these of course turned out to be somewhat exaggerated

     An attending major, but novel development in the COVID case was the rise of “consensus” Science in which some central authority determines what is  the “consensus” opinion of experts, and this becomes the “science” which no one may question.  Nobel Prize winner in Medicine (2008), Luc Montagnier was just one among thousands of well-credentialed scientists repeatedly rubbished by the emergency fact-checkers scientists on Youtube for daring to go against the official narratives.[See section IV of the Position Paper by the Nigeria Covid Response Alliance for details of this – this paper keeps “disappearing” from the internet!  I can send you copies on request].

      Well the same scenario is currently playing out in the Environment arm of the Environment-Health sector.  2022 joint-Nobel prize winner for Physics, John F. Clauser is the latest being derided for daring to say he doesn’t believe there is a cause for alarm on climate change.  Formerly daubed global warming, the new doctrine of “climate change” says CO₂, methane and other greenhouse gases being emitted by man, are the principal cause of the elevated global temperature of recent decades; and that unless drastic actions are taken, the whole planet will soon go under.

      Dr John F Clauser., with at least one other Nobel Prize laureate, are among over 1,500 credentialed scientists who have come out with the World Climate Declaration (WCD) which asserts that there is no "climate emergency," that climate change science is not conclusive, and that the earth's history over thousands of years shows a consistently changing climate. According to the WCD the current increase in global temperature (which is much less than what is predicted in climate models) is better explained in terms of natural events, not man’s activities such as industries and cars emitting CO₂.  Condemning the official IPCC model on which the UN-demanded multi-trillion dollar intervention is based, Clauser cited the bestseller by Steve Koonin, science adviser to former President Barack Obama, which had noted “the inconsistency of the IPCC's 40 computer models, and their inability to explain the past century's climate”.  More critically, Clauser points out a contradiction noted in Mr. Koonin's book: just a 5 percent rise in cloud cover can largely counterbalance the temperature effect of doubling atmospheric CO₂. Despite such nuances, according to Dr. Clauser, the IPCC's models persistently assume constant albedo, and ignore the vast cloud cover variations.  

      In the same vein, a 2021 peer-reviewed paper produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, had noted that the contribution of the sun to global warming has not been accurately (or even honestly) captured in the IPCC report. The paper accused the authors of the IPCC of “systemic bias” and cherry-picking data that support climate-change narrative.  “Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, told The Epoch Times in a video interview. The Epoch Times further reports:

“When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions.

And yet, for reasons that the study authors say are murky at best, the UN chooses to ignore the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.”

When contacted by the Epoch Times, the UN claims ignorance of the thousands of peer-reviewed research backing this alternative position.  A spokeperson suggested these studies might be considered in the next review of the position, due to come up in 5 years’ time!

     On her part, the US government (the driver of the climate change consensus narrative) though apparently turning a blind eye to these points, surprisingly is suggesting them as basis for even more outlandish actions to tackle climate change. One of these, Solar radiation modification (SRM), also known as solar geoengineering, is aimed at preventing sunlight from accelerating the warming of the planet.  One of the methods proposed (stratospheric aerosol injection) entails boosting the amount of aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect sun rays away from the earth.   Not to worry, the US government has no intention of actually trying these out.  In a recent statement, the White House said the report “does not signify any change in policy or activity by the Biden-Harris Administration.” Instead, “this report fulfills a Congressional mandate, and there are no plans underway to establish a comprehensive research program focused on solar radiation modification.” It however acknowledges that the research program could help the United States prepare for a “possible deployment” of SRM through public or private actors.

     And right on cue, some “private actors” are already working out that concept. Last year, a startup called Make Sunsets launched weather balloons capable of releasing reflective sulfur particles into the earth’s atmosphere, which theoretically is believed to potentially cool down the planet.

      What should be our response to all these? LivingScience counsels that we all wake up, wise up, and begin to ask critical questions.  We should also encourage channels such as the LivingScience Foundation who are bringing up these critical and immensely important topics for discussion in the public domain.