principiascientificinternational--2020-10-12--Beware ‘The Great Reset’ For A Post-COVID World

A lasting side-effect of Covid-19 is the universal growth of state power .
Despite global death rates peaking last April and immunity building even without a vaccine , authoritarian leaders are clinging to their recently acquired powers .
No doubt they view individual freedom as an optional extra not an inalienable right and want their new powers to become a normal part of governing .
The Victorian government is legislating to that effect .
Ironically , it was their gross incompetence , or deliberate intent , which gave them the present commanding heights .
First , despite clear evidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Organisation kowtowed to Beijing by playing down the risks of infection .
Then , when the spread threatened the capacity of global medical resources , health authorities modeled catastrophic scenarios to frighten citizens into submission and to justify enforceable , draconian lockdowns imposed without regard for basic rights or economic cost .
Much of the ‘ expert ’ advice relied upon has since been exposed as politically biased , not scientifically based .
The response to COVID follows closely the approach taken by global warming activists .
But as Prince Charles puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change has been more gradual ( than the pandemic ) — but its devastating reality for many people and their livelihoods around the world , and its ever-greater potential to disrupt , surpasses even that of Covid-19 ’ .
He argues we have ‘ a golden opportunity to seize something good from the crisis ’ .
The World Economic Forum , a Geneva-based non-profit foundation whose ranks include Prince Charles and other climate-change crusaders like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg , together with the secretary-general of the United Nations , the president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the OECD , the managing director of the IMF , George Soros , world trade union leaders , chief executives of Big Tech and representatives of NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF , believes climate action must be top of the global agenda as we emerge from Covid-19 .
The Forum ’ s founder and executive chair , Klaus Schwab , also believes ‘ The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect , reimagine , and reset our world ’ .
‘ All aspects of our societies and economies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social contracts and working conditions.
’ He labels this the ‘ Great Reset ’ .
He points to uneven access to healthcare , education , economic opportunities , and social progress as well as to growing inequality among and within nations and racial and ethnic groups .
At the center of these multiple crises lies the tension between privilege and meritocracy .
Governments will need to intervene more , ( coerce ) to ensure ‘ better ’ and ‘ fairer outcomes ’ from private investments .
‘ In short , ’ he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of capitalism.
’ Much of the WEF ’ s agenda can be found in America ’ s radical Left ’ s Green New Deal , which addresses climate change and economic inequality .
It embraces the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s New Deal and the social and economic reforms that he introduced to lift the US out of the Great Depression .
However , unlike the New Deal , the Great Reset and the Green New Deal share a belief that the world is being governed by fundamentally wrong assumptions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a change of mindset ’ .
Already , Professor Schwab and his colleagues have started mobilizing vast networks of left-wing activists .
Indeed , the 2021 annual summit will include members of the WEF ’ s thousands-strong Global Shapers Community , youth crusaders located in 400 cities across the planet .
As Schwab says , ‘ The changes we have already seen in response to Covid-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible .
This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism ’ .
Those who scoffed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stalking horse for new world order should think again .
That reality is now in full view .
Come January 2021 , Professor Schwab ’ s Great Reset campaign will begin in earnest .
Should his ideological opponent , US President Donald Trump , not be re-elected , a major obstacle to achieving his societal and economic revamp will be gone .
Schwab is determined that a return to a post-COVID business-as-usual world ‘ will not happen ’ .
Indeed , the World Economic Forum , the United Nations , and its various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment , masked as it is by endless government support , together with renewed forecasts of apocalyptic climate change , to push for a ‘ more inclusive social contract ’ , a decarbonized economy and a ‘ control without ownership ’ business sector , where companies ‘ serve all stakeholders not just shareholders.
’ Intense pressure will be applied to parliaments everywhere to pass enabling laws and to abdicate more responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats in global institutions .
Crony capitalism is anathema to genuine market economies and , giving more leverage to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No surprise that some of the organizations behind the ‘ stakeholder capitalism ’ push are accused of corruption , sexual harassment , cover-ups , and general abuse of power .
Still , the WEF ’ s oligarchy derives much of its extraordinary influence and wealth from these same institutions and no one should doubt their Big Brother intentions .
Indeed , anyone who fears big government and values free speech , freedom to choose , and property rights should be terrified .
Yet , so far , political , business , and church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seem oblivious to the threat and turn blind eyes to the dictatorial abuses already perpetrated in the name of the pandemic .
There is even bipartisan support for policies which , two decades ago , would have been considered politically and economically unthinkable .
Stripped of the propaganda , the Great Reset is not new .
It ’ s another fascist experiment being pushed by controlling elitists .
Economic growth and social mobility must be subordinate to the collective .
Connections will be institutionalized and privilege perpetuated .
History demonstrates the children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to higher education and elite positions .
‘ Inclusion ’ and ‘ fairness ’ ?
Forget it .
Think inequality , serfdom , and misery .
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Beware ‘The Great Reset’ For A Post-COVID World
Written by Maurice Newman
A lasting side-effect of Covid-19 is the universal growth of state power. Despite global death rates peaking last April and immunity building even without a vaccine, authoritarian leaders are clinging to their recently acquired powers.
No doubt they view individual freedom as an optional extra not an inalienable right and want their new powers to become a normal part of governing. The Victorian government is legislating to that effect.
Ironically, it was their gross incompetence, or deliberate intent, which gave them the present commanding heights.
First, despite clear evidence of Covid’s virulence, the World Health Organisation kowtowed to Beijing by playing down the risks of infection.
Then, when the spread threatened the capacity of global medical resources, health authorities modeled catastrophic scenarios to frighten citizens into submission and to justify enforceable, draconian lockdowns imposed without regard for basic rights or economic cost.
Much of the ‘expert’ advice relied upon has since been exposed as politically biased, not scientifically based.
The response to COVID follows closely the approach taken by global warming activists. But as Prince Charles puts it,
‘The threat of climate change has been more gradual (than the pandemic) — but its devastating reality for many people and their livelihoods around the world, and its ever-greater potential to disrupt, surpasses even that of Covid-19’.
He argues we have ‘a golden opportunity to seize something good from the crisis’.
The World Economic Forum, a Geneva-based non-profit foundation whose ranks include Prince Charles and other climate-change crusaders like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, together with the secretary-general of the United Nations, the president of the European Central Bank, the secretary-general of the OECD, the managing director of the IMF, George Soros, world trade union leaders, chief executives of Big Tech and representatives of NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF, believes climate action must be top of the global agenda as we emerge from Covid-19.
The Forum’s founder and executive chair, Klaus Schwab, also believes ‘The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world’.
‘All aspects of our societies and economies must be revamped, from education to social contracts and working conditions.’ He labels this the ‘Great Reset’.
He points to uneven access to healthcare, education, economic opportunities, and social progress as well as to growing inequality among and within nations and racial and ethnic groups.
At the center of these multiple crises lies the tension between privilege and meritocracy. Governments will need to intervene more, (coerce) to ensure ‘better’ and ‘fairer outcomes’ from private investments.
‘In short,’ he says, ‘we need a Great Reset of capitalism.’
Much of the WEF’s agenda can be found in America’s radical Left’s Green New Deal, which addresses climate change and economic inequality.
It embraces the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and the social and economic reforms that he introduced to lift the US out of the Great Depression.
However, unlike the New Deal, the Great Reset and the Green New Deal share a belief that the world is being governed by fundamentally wrong assumptions and that ‘dramatic transformation is possible with a change of mindset’.
Already, Professor Schwab and his colleagues have started mobilizing vast networks of left-wing activists.
Indeed, the 2021 annual summit will include members of the WEF’s thousands-strong Global Shapers Community, youth crusaders located in 400 cities across the planet.
As Schwab says, ‘The changes we have already seen in response to Covid-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible. This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism’.
Those who scoffed at claims that climate change was a stalking horse for new world order should think again. That reality is now in full view.
Come January 2021, Professor Schwab’s Great Reset campaign will begin in earnest. Should his ideological opponent, US President Donald Trump, not be re-elected, a major obstacle to achieving his societal and economic revamp will be gone.
Schwab is determined that a return to a post-COVID business-as-usual world ‘will not happen’.
Indeed, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and its various agencies will use the current depressed economic environment, masked as it is by endless government support, together with renewed forecasts of apocalyptic climate change, to push for a ‘more inclusive social contract’, a decarbonized economy and a ‘control without ownership’ business sector, where companies ‘serve all stakeholders not just shareholders.’
Intense pressure will be applied to parliaments everywhere to pass enabling laws and to abdicate more responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats in global institutions.
Crony capitalism is anathema to genuine market economies and, giving more leverage to those who encourage it is simply fascistic.
No surprise that some of the organizations behind the ‘stakeholder capitalism’ push are accused of corruption, sexual harassment, cover-ups, and general abuse of power.
Still, the WEF’s oligarchy derives much of its extraordinary influence and wealth from these same institutions and no one should doubt their Big Brother intentions.
Indeed, anyone who fears big government and values free speech, freedom to choose, and property rights should be terrified. Yet, so far, political, business, and church leaders, along with the mainstream media, seem oblivious to the threat and turn blind eyes to the dictatorial abuses already perpetrated in the name of the pandemic.
There is even bipartisan support for policies which, two decades ago, would have been considered politically and economically unthinkable.
Stripped of the propaganda, the Great Reset is not new. It’s another fascist experiment being pushed by controlling elitists.
Economic growth and social mobility must be subordinate to the collective. Connections will be institutionalized and privilege perpetuated.
History demonstrates the children of the elites will receive preferential access to higher education and elite positions. ‘Inclusion’ and ‘fairness’? Forget it. Think inequality, serfdom, and misery.
Read more at Spectator AU
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-10-12--German Prof: Climate Science is Politicized ‘Fairy Tales’

German professor , a co-founder of the modern environmental movement , says climate science is exaggerated , filled with fairy tales , and believes the Paris Accord is “ already dead.
” In an interview with publicist Roland Tichy , Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt – one of the founders of Germany ’ s modern environmental movement – said we have in fact three generations time to revamp the world ’ s energy supply system to one that is cleaner and sustainable .
He rejects the Fridays For Future claim that there are only 12 years left .
In the interview , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago , a time when it was “ 3°C warmer than today ” and Vahrenholt responded by saying he expects civilization to continue for another seven thousand years .
There was no tipping point back then , why would there be one today ?
“ Warmth and moisture have always been good for mankind , ” said Vahrenholt .
“ Cold has been man ’ s worst enemy.
” The German professor also said that the claimed catastrophe “ is not taking place ” and that policymakers are trying to use “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to act.
” Much of the warming measured since 1850 is the result of natural warming taking place due to the end of the Little Ice Age , he explained .
Later the German professor of chemistry calls the belief that wind and sun are able to replace fossil fuels “ fantasizing ” and that Germany , with its 2.3 % share of global CO2 emissions , can rescue the global climate “ a fairy tale ” .
Meanwhile , the warming of the last 150 years is in large part caused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century , the sun was more active than at any time over the past 2000 years.
” Economically , Vahrenholt believes that a frenzied rush to renewables will lead to “ horrible ” economic consequences from European industrialization .
On the topic of a scientific consensus , the German professor says this is a claim made by the IPCC , which run by the UN with an agenda behind it .
Vahrenholt also believes electric cars powered by batteries is not a feasible technology , and that other experts quietly call it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t speak up for fear of losing research funding .
The vast majority of funding comes from the German government .
The professor of chemistry , co-author of a recent bestseller , also describes Germany as a country in denial when it comes to the broader global debate taking place on climate science , and declared the Paris Accord as being “ already dead ” .
“ The Accord is already dead .
Putin says it ’ s nonsense .
[ … ] The Americans are out .
The Chinese don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s all concentrated on a handful of European countries .
The European Commission is massively on it .
And I predict that they will reach the targets only if they destroy the European industries , ” said Vahrenholt .
He characterizes Europe ’ s recent push for even stricter emissions reduction targets to madness akin to Soviet central planning that is doomed to fail spectacularly .
Read more at No Tricks Zone PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

German Prof: Climate Science is Politicized ‘Fairy Tales’
Written by Pierre Gosselin
German professor, a co-founder of the modern environmental movement, says climate science is exaggerated, filled with fairy tales, and believes the Paris Accord is “already dead.”
In an interview with publicist Roland Tichy, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt – one of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement – said we have in fact three generations time to revamp the world’s energy supply system to one that is cleaner and sustainable.
He rejects the Fridays For Future claim that there are only 12 years left.
Climate catastrophe not taking place
In the interview, moderator Tichy reminded that civilization began 7,000 years ago, a time when it was “3°C warmer than today” and Vahrenholt responded by saying he expects civilization to continue for another seven thousand years.
There was no tipping point back then, why would there be one today? “Warmth and moisture have always been good for mankind,” said Vahrenholt. “Cold has been man’s worst enemy.”
Plenty of time to move rationally
The German professor also said that the claimed catastrophe “is not taking place” and that policymakers are trying to use “panic and fear to get the people to act.”
Much of the warming measured since 1850 is the result of natural warming taking place due to the end of the Little Ice Age, he explained.
Germany’s green fantasy
Later the German professor of chemistry calls the belief that wind and sun are able to replace fossil fuels “fantasizing” and that Germany, with its 2.3% share of global CO2 emissions, can rescue the global climate “a fairy tale”.
Meanwhile, the warming of the last 150 years is in large part caused by natural cycles. “In the 20th century, the sun was more active than at any time over the past 2000 years.”
Economically, Vahrenholt believes that a frenzied rush to renewables will lead to “horrible” economic consequences from European industrialization.
On the topic of a scientific consensus, the German professor says this is a claim made by the IPCC, which run by the UN with an agenda behind it.
Electric cars a “crackpot idea”
Vahrenholt also believes electric cars powered by batteries is not a feasible technology, and that other experts quietly call it “a crackpot idea”, and don’t speak up for fear of losing research funding. The vast majority of funding comes from the German government.
“Paris Accord already dead”
The professor of chemistry, co-author of a recent bestseller, also describes Germany as a country in denial when it comes to the broader global debate taking place on climate science, and declared the Paris Accord as being “already dead”.
“The Accord is already dead. Putin says it’s nonsense. […] The Americans are out. The Chinese don’t have to do anything. It’s all concentrated on a handful of European countries. The European Commission is massively on it. And I predict that they will reach the targets only if they destroy the European industries,” said Vahrenholt.
He characterizes Europe’s recent push for even stricter emissions reduction targets to madness akin to Soviet central planning that is doomed to fail spectacularly.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-10-13--The ‘Great Reset’: Rule by Unelected ‘Experts’

C.S .
Lewis : “ I dread government in the name of science .
That is how tyrannies come in.
” Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961 : “ We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
” Eisenhower : “ A government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity ” and “ the prospect of domination of the nation ’ s scholars by Federal employment , project allocations , and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ a Great Reset of capitalism ” due to COVID and to help fight climate change .
Klaus Schwab said the virus has given us an “ opportunity ” to pursue “ equality & sustainability.
” – “ The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies , from education to social contracts and working conditions , ” Schwab explained .
Thomas Sowell : “ Experts are often called in , not to provide factual information or dispassionate analysis for the purpose of decision-making by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover for decisions already made and based on other considerations entirely.
” “ A flu d ’ état.
” “ A takeover of our supposedly democratic political process by unelected & unaccountable administrative state medical bureaucrats.
” Peter Hitchens : “ All the crudest weapons of despotism , the curfew , the presumption of guilt and the power of arbitrary arrest , are taking shape in the midst of what used to be a free country.
” The COVID-19 lockdowns and suspension of liberties have only emboldened climate campaigners to achieve their progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives planned , monitored , and controlled for their “ safety ” — all in the name of “ science.
” The very real threat of oppressive rule by unelected experts in government is now threatening to engulf the world due to the ongoing COVID lockdowns and “ phased reopenings.
” “ If one lesson from the pandemic is that taking serious action in a timely manner is key – then shouldn ’ t this also be true in terms of climate change ?
” asked the Speaker of the House of Commons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meeting in 2020 .
Speaker Hoyle was amazed at how “ compliant ” the public was in accepting COVID lockdowns “ No-one could ever imagine that we would be wearing masks so readily and that we would all be so compliant , ” he said .
“ People were prepared to accept limitations on personal choice and lifestyle – for the good of their own family and friends.
” Hoyle claimed that the climate “ tragedy is that unlike the pandemic , the climate crisis is not simply an external threat , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear hand ” .
He said : “ In other words , it seems that we have brought this on ourselves .
While this is again sobering , surely , it is in our hands to rescue it , if we have got the will to do it ?
” The “ will to do it ” means the public has to prepare for climate lockdowns since they were so “ compliant ” in accepting the COVID lockdowns .
A compliant public and ambition politicians and bureaucrats are a grave threat to liberty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by climate activists across the spectrum as a model for the coming climate lockdowns .
Former Secretary of State John Kerry noted that “ the parallels [ between COVID-19 and climate change ] are screaming at us , both positive and negative.
” “ You could just as easily replace the words climate change with COVID-19 ; it is truly the tale of two pandemics deferred , denied , and distorted , one with catastrophic consequences , the other with even greater risk if we don ’ t reverse course , ” Kerry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning citizens to stay confined to their homes during COVID-19 lockdown , urged : “ We must all limit the number of people with who we ’ re in contact with every single day .
Scientists say so.
” And the reason ?
Because “ scientists say so.
” The COVID lockdowns and the attempt to impose a Green New Deal upon the USA herald another step into what is being called “ scientism ” that is leading us to a technocracy .
“ Technocracy ” can be defined as the public ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an elite cadre of unelected technical experts who are positioned to call the shots and manage society .
“ The lockdown and its consequences have brought a foretaste of what is to come : a permanent state of fear , strict behavioral control , massive loss of jobs , and growing dependence on the state , ” German Economic Professor Antony P. Mueller explained in August 2020 .
“ This coming technocracy involves close cooperation between the heads of the digital industry and of governments .
With programs such as guaranteed minimum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new kind of governance combines strict societal control with the promise of comprehensive social justice , ” Mueller wrote .
“ Earlier totalitarian regimes needed mass executions and concentration camps to maintain their power .
Now , with the help of new technologies , it is believed , dissenters can easily be identified and marginalized .
The nonconformists will be silenced by disqualifying divergent opinions as morally despicable , ” Mueller detailed .
Mueller added , “ Under the order envisioned by the Great Reset , the advancement of technology is not meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the people but to submit the individual to the tyranny of a technocratic state .
‘ The experts know better ’ is the justification.
” As C.S .
Lewis warned decades ago : “ I dread government in the name of science .
That is how tyrannies come in.
” Lewis explained : “ I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects .
Let scientists tell us about sciences .
But government involves questions about the good for man , and justice , and what things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on these a scientific training gives a man ’ s opinion no added value.
” Teen school skipper Greta Thunberg has urged the world to “ start listening to the science ” and “ unite behind the science.
” But just which scientists and what “ science ” should we be listening to ?
In the age of COVID lockdowns and a pending Green New Deal , author Thomas Sowell ’ s insights are more valuable than ever .
“ Experts are often called in , not to provide factual information or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by responsible officials , but to give political cover for decisions already made and based on other considerations entirely , ” Sowell wrote .
Or another name for it is : Science manipulated to support preconceived policies .
We were warned about being ruled over by scientists and experts .
In President Dwight D. Eisenhower ’ s Farewell Address in 1961 , he bluntly warned that “ public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
” Eisenhower explained that “ a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nation ’ s scholars by Federal employment , project allocations , and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded.
” “ We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite , ” Eisenhower added .
President Eisenhower continued : “ Today , the solitary inventor , tinkering in his shop , has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields .
In the same fashion , the free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas and scientific discovery , has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research .
Partly because of the huge costs involved , a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
” 2020 became the year that Eisenhower ’ s warning about a “ scientific-technological elite ” became a very obvious reality in America .
COVID and climate morphed into two sides of the same coin as COVID lockdowns achieved many of the same goals the climate movement has strived for : central planning , loss of individual freedom , economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakened national sovereignty – all happening in a virtual blink of the eye .
Health care journalist Peter Barry Chowka was blunt , calling the COVID/Climate “ solution ” linkage “ a flu d ’ état.
” “ A takeover of our supposedly democratic political process by unelected & unaccountable administrative state medical bureaucrats , ” Chowka warned , noting that all of the COVID solutions were virtually the same as the Green New Deal “ solutions ” to the purported climate “ crisis.
” “ Overnight , our society is doing what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and her fellow Green New Deal fanatics have demanded : An almost total end to air travel ; personal automobile travel down to a trickle ; promises of free health care for all quickly becoming the new status quo ; and the ability of people to sit at home without working and receive a paycheck from the government .
The Democrats want that to continue indefinitely , ” Chowka wrote .
The U.S. is entering into a new phase where the “ danger of letting lab coats run the world ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by now that most of the world ’ s leaders were stampeded over the lockdown cliff like so many lemmings .
What caused the stampede is even more remarkable : a tiny coterie of obscure , soft-spoken epidemiologists in white lab coats playing with numbers…the aim was to cause panic , ” wrote Bill Dunne in American Thinker .
“ We were plunged into the grandest of experiments in authoritarian paternalism , whereby we plebeians — i.e.
, those without government jobs — are deemed incompetent to judge if it ’ s safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a walk in the woods .
We can , though , crowd into a Walmart or the local supermarket , ” Dunne wrote .
Former UK Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption explained this well in 2020 : “ Do we really want to be the kind of society where basic freedoms are conditional on the decisions of politicians in thrall to scientists and statisticians ?
Where human beings are just tools of public policy ?
” Sumption asked .
“ To say that life is priceless and nothing else counts is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the avoidance of death , ” he added .
“ To say that there are no limits is the stuff of tyrants .
Every despot who ever lived thought that he was coercing his subjects for their own good or that of society at large , ” he added .
“ A society in which the Government can confine most of the population without controversy is not one in which civilized people would want to live , regardless of their answers to these questions .
Is it worth it ?
” Sumption explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without doubt , the greatest interference with personal liberty in our history.
” Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski also slammed the COVID lockdowns and ripped the “ scientific studies ” funded to support government policy .
“ Shutting down schools , driving the economy against the wall – there was no reason for it , ” Wittkowski explained in a YouTube video .
For his honesty , Wittkowski was promptly banned from YouTube as were almost all lockdown dissenters on social media platforms .
“ Governments did not have an open discussion , including economists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear different voices .
In Britain , it was the voice of one person – Neil Ferguson – who has a history of coming up with projections that are a bit odd .
The government did not convene a meeting with people who have different ideas , different projections , to discuss his projection , ” Wittkowski said .
Echoing the words of President Eisenhower in 1961 , Wittkowski said : Or another name for it is : Science manipulated to support preconceived policies .
Eisenhower has been proven correct .
The public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become political lobbying organizations and they are using “ the science ” to support the preferred policies .
No researcher looking for government-funded research money would put their name on a study that was against the politically accepted views on COVID or climate .
In 2020 , the UN IPCC chief Hoesung Lee admitted — while discussing how “ the COVID-19 pandemic tells us that everything is connected ” — that the UN climate panel is all about using science to lobby for political goals .
“ Our [ IPCC ] assessment findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policymakers for immediate and concrete actions , ” Lee said on June 1 , 2020 .
Or another name for it is : Bending science to support the policy .
[ Also see : Watch : Gore admits UN IPCC report was ‘ torqued up ’ to promote political action – ‘ How else do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world ?
’ ] A bumper sticker promoted by progressives reads : “ Science is not a liberal conspiracy.
” German Economic Professor Antony P. Mueller explained how China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations .
“ This new world order of digital tyranny comes with a comprehensive social credit system .
The People ’ s Republic of China is the pioneer of this method of surveillance and control of individuals , corporations , and sociopolitical entities , ” Mueller wrote .
“ It is , in short , a type of social engineering which is the opposite of a spontaneous order or of development .
Like the mechanical engineer with a machine , the social engineer—or technocrat—treats society as an object .
Different from the brutal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the modern social engineer will try to make the social machine work on its own according to the design , ” Mueller analyzed .
[ Also see : UN climate chief Christiana Figueres steps down – Lamented U.S. democracy as ‘ very detrimental ’ – Sought ‘ centralized transformation ’ – Lauded one-party ruled China for ‘ doing it right ’ on climate & DELUSIONAL NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE GOES FULL POLITICAL & FASCIST – CALLS FOR TRUMP TO BE VOTED OUT & PRAISES CHINA ’ S LOCKDOWN ’ S AS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hitchens warned about the lockdowns from the onset .
Lockdowns are “ the biggest state takeover of life and work ever attempted by non-Communists , ” Hitchens wrote “ All the crudest weapons of despotism , the curfew , the presumption of guilt and the power of arbitrary arrest , are taking shape in the midst of what used to be a free country , ” Hitchens wrote about the COVID lockdowns .
“ Even Vladimir Putin might hesitate before doing anything so blatant frightening series of restrictions on ancient liberties and vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Hitchens explained .
But he lamented that the UK citizens were so willing to “ surrender centuries-old liberties in an afternoon ” and “ seem to despise our ancient hard-bought freedom and actually want to rush into the warm , firm arms of Big Brother.
” “ Imagine , police officers , forcing you to be screened for a disease , and locking you up for 48 hours if you object .
Is this China or Britain ?
” Hitchens added .
“ How long before we need passes to go out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other banana republic ?
” he asked .
Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs rejected the entire approach to COVID using lockdowns and mask mandates .
“ Raise your hand if you ’ re tired of hearing from ‘ experts , ’ ” , Briggs wrote .
“ Stay Inside Or Die !
” Briggs mocked , while noting that “ Ver are your paperz !
comes to the good ol ’ USA.
” Former Prime Minister of the UK Gordon Brown called on world leaders to create “ a temporary form of global government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This is not something that can be dealt with in one country , ” Brown said .
“ There has to be a coordinated global response.
” Briggs replied : “ Brown wants international organizations like the WHO and the UN to be given executive powers that would supersede national sovereignty as part of a new system overseen by world leaders and health experts.
” By ‘ temporary ’ Brown likely meant ‘ in perpetuity.
’ But seriously , who could have figured elites would use a crisis like this to increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preside over the U.S. economy The Trump administration initially allowed the health bureaucracy and their failed COVID models to dictate the national policy narrative which led to the lockdowns .
Trump economic advisor Larry Kudlow said in April 2020 that it is “ up to the health people ” when the economy would reopen .
“ How much longer ?
I don ’ t really want to forecast .
That is up to the health people.
, ” Kudlow said on Fox News .
Joe Biden said he would listen to the scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown to fight COVID .
“ Asked specifically whether he ’ d push to shutter economic activity if scientists said it was necessary , Biden replied : ‘ I would shut it down , ” ABC News reported .
The “ listen to the science ” narrative has been a very effective strategy because it has bullied Republican politicians , conservatives , and many dissenting scientists into silence or submissiveness when it comes to challenging COVID lockdown or climate change claims .
If you accept “ the science ” determines whether or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart person , or an evil science denier who deserves to be jailed and silenced according to our mainstream media , government officials , academia , and social media censors .
This “ listen to the science ” litmus test for climate change will be used to bully politicians into climate and COVID-19 policies .
As the controversy over the COVID lockdowns grew , questions about the cost/benefit of lockdowns were raised .
Economist Sanjeev Sabhlok , resigned from his job in the Department of Treasury and Finance in Victoria Australia in September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of liberty ” due to the COVID lockdowns .
“ Australia ’ s bureaucracy has performed as badly as the world ’ s worst bureaucracy during this pandemic .
No one offered any independent advice .
Comprehensive groupthink and incompetence have prevailed , ” he explained .
Scientists and politicians are “ panting like a mad monster in the excitement of their total power over the people , ” he added .
“ This is like a mass scale bombing of one ’ s own economy , ” Sabhlok said , referring to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate supporters and Green New Deal proponents have endorsed the concept of “ planned recessions ” and economic “ degrowth ” for climate change .
The COVID lockdowns achieved those goals almost overnight .
“ The problem with science today is that it is effectively just another branch of government , ” Sabhlok explained .
“ 25 million Americans became unemployed in 5 weeks…Many people want this insanity to continue .
As far as I know , it has never happened in the history of civilizations that the bulk of a large enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was kept at home for several months , ” Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl wrote .
“ The precautionary principle has only been promoted as a meme since the 1970s when it appeared as the ‘ Vorsorgeprinzip ’ in German discussions about deforestation and sea pollution .
The precautionary principle is an extremely dangerous fallacy whose purpose is to make an absolutely irrational assumption – namely that some risks must be considered infinitely more critical than all other risks – sound more intelligent or maybe even scientific .
You are ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually make the public health conditions worse , ” Motl added .
Sabhlok believes Western nations need to build in civil liberty protections against future lockdowns .
“ This pandemic should lead to the rewriting of all textbooks in epidemiology and should lead to a law ( like they have in Sweden ) that governments must require court orders for each individual , to restrain them at home for quarantine or lockdown , ” Sabhlok wrote .
Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com warned that the government response and suspension of liberty during COVID revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health bureaucracy…wants to create a precedent for permanent control of society via ‘ public health.
’ ” “ As with education , conservatives abandoned public health as a profession decades ago .
I don ’ t know any conservatives with expertise in public health .
We are now paying the price , ” Milloy wrote .
“ We have ceded the field ( of public health ) to leftists who have only one tool — government crackdown .
All public health bureaucrats are Democrats and worse sorts of leftists , ” Milloy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distance ’ without devolving into a police state or destroying the economy.
” COVID and Climate Policy Following the Same Playbook “ Climate and COVID share the commonality of government control .
From electric car and fuel efficiency mandates to the entire economy busting Green New Deal , the ‘ benevolent ’ government seeks to control all aspects of our lives , ” wrote Denver-based physician Dr. Brian C. Joondeph .
“ One can see numerous parallels between COVID and climate policy .
Both create fear , to a frenzy level , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and destruction , all due to a warming planet or an aggressive flu virus , ” he explained .
“ Question the dogma of either the virus or climate movement and prepare to have your life , if not disrupted , then ruined .
There is only one politically correct viewpoint on both issues.
” Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The ‘Great Reset’: Rule by Unelected ‘Experts’
Written by Marc Morano
C.S. Lewis: “I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.”
Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961: “We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Eisenhower: “A government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” and “the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded.”
The World Economic Forum has called for “a Great Reset of capitalism” due to COVID and to help fight climate change. Klaus Schwab said the virus has given us an “opportunity” to pursue “equality & sustainability.” – “The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions,” Schwab explained.
Thomas Sowell: “Experts are often called in, not to provide factual information or dispassionate analysis for the purpose of decision-making by responsible officials, but to give political cover for decisions already made and based on other considerations entirely.”
“A flu d’état.” “A takeover of our supposedly democratic political process by unelected & unaccountable administrative state medical bureaucrats.”
Peter Hitchens: “All the crudest weapons of despotism, the curfew, the presumption of guilt and the power of arbitrary arrest, are taking shape in the midst of what used to be a free country.”
By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot – October 13, 2020 11:18 AM
Climate Depot Special Report
The COVID-19 lockdowns and suspension of liberties have only emboldened climate campaigners to achieve their progressive vision of having “the masses” lives planned, monitored, and controlled for their “safety” — all in the name of “science.” The very real threat of oppressive rule by unelected experts in government is now threatening to engulf the world due to the ongoing COVID lockdowns and “phased reopenings.”
‘Complaint’ public is a grave danger to liberty
“If one lesson from the pandemic is that taking serious action in a timely manner is key – then shouldn’t this also be true in terms of climate change?” asked the Speaker of the House of Commons Sir Lindsay Hoyle at G7 Speakers’ Meeting in 2020.
Speaker Hoyle was amazed at how “compliant” the public was in accepting COVID lockdowns “No-one could ever imagine that we would be wearing masks so readily and that we would all be so compliant,” he said. “People were prepared to accept limitations on personal choice and lifestyle – for the good of their own family and friends.”
Hoyle claimed that the climate “tragedy is that unlike the pandemic, the climate crisis is not simply an external threat, but one in which we have had a clear hand”. He said: “In other words, it seems that we have brought this on ourselves. While this is again sobering, surely, it is in our hands to rescue it, if we have got the will to do it?”
The “will to do it” means the public has to prepare for climate lockdowns since they were so “compliant” in accepting the COVID lockdowns. A compliant public and ambition politicians and bureaucrats are a grave threat to liberty. The COVID lockdowns are being hailed by climate activists across the spectrum as a model for the coming climate lockdowns.
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “If you like living under the coronavirus fears and government-mandated lockdowns, then you’ll love living your life under a ‘climate emergency’.”]
Former Secretary of State John Kerry noted that “the parallels [between COVID-19 and climate change] are screaming at us, both positive and negative.”
“You could just as easily replace the words climate change with COVID-19; it is truly the tale of two pandemics deferred, denied, and distorted, one with catastrophic consequences, the other with even greater risk if we don’t reverse course,” Kerry said.
French President Emmanuel Macron while warning citizens to stay confined to their homes during COVID-19 lockdown, urged: “We must all limit the number of people with who we’re in contact with every single day. Scientists say so.”
And the reason? Because “scientists say so.”
COVID-19(84)
The COVID lockdowns and the attempt to impose a Green New Deal upon the USA herald another step into what is being called “scientism” that is leading us to a technocracy. “Technocracy” can be defined as the public’s acquiesce to a governing body composed of an elite cadre of unelected technical experts who are positioned to call the shots and manage society.
“The lockdown and its consequences have brought a foretaste of what is to come: a permanent state of fear, strict behavioral control, massive loss of jobs, and growing dependence on the state,” German Economic Professor Antony P. Mueller explained in August 2020.
“This coming technocracy involves close cooperation between the heads of the digital industry and of governments. With programs such as guaranteed minimum income and healthcare for all, the new kind of governance combines strict societal control with the promise of comprehensive social justice,” Mueller wrote.
“Earlier totalitarian regimes needed mass executions and concentration camps to maintain their power. Now, with the help of new technologies, it is believed, dissenters can easily be identified and marginalized. The nonconformists will be silenced by disqualifying divergent opinions as morally despicable,” Mueller detailed.
Mueller added, “Under the order envisioned by the Great Reset, the advancement of technology is not meant to serve the improvement of the conditions of the people but to submit the individual to the tyranny of a technocratic state. ‘The experts know better’ is the justification.”
As C.S. Lewis warned decades ago: “I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in.”
Lewis explained: “I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value.”
Teen school skipper Greta Thunberg has urged the world to “start listening to the science” and “unite behind the science.”
But just which scientists and what “science” should we be listening to? In the age of COVID lockdowns and a pending Green New Deal, author Thomas Sowell’s insights are more valuable than ever. “Experts are often called in, not to provide factual information or dispassionate analysis for the purpose of decision-making by responsible officials, but to give political cover for decisions already made and based on other considerations entirely,” Sowell wrote.
Or another name for it is: Science manipulated to support preconceived policies.
Eisenhower’s Technocracy Warning
We were warned about being ruled over by scientists and experts. In President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address in 1961, he bluntly warned that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Eisenhower explained that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” and “the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded.”
“We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite,” Eisenhower added.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
President Eisenhower continued: “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”
2020 became the year that Eisenhower’s warning about a “scientific-technological elite” became a very obvious reality in America. COVID and climate morphed into two sides of the same coin as COVID lockdowns achieved many of the same goals the climate movement has strived for: central planning, loss of individual freedom, economic pain, obedience to authority, and weakened national sovereignty – all happening in a virtual blink of the eye.
‘A flu d’état”
Health care journalist Peter Barry Chowka was blunt, calling the COVID/Climate “solution” linkage “a flu d’état.” “A takeover of our supposedly democratic political process by unelected & unaccountable administrative state medical bureaucrats,” Chowka warned, noting that all of the COVID solutions were virtually the same as the Green New Deal “solutions” to the purported climate “crisis.”
“Overnight, our society is doing what radical leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and her fellow Green New Deal fanatics have demanded: An almost total end to air travel; personal automobile travel down to a trickle; promises of free health care for all quickly becoming the new status quo; and the ability of people to sit at home without working and receive a paycheck from the government. The Democrats want that to continue indefinitely,” Chowka wrote.
‘Lab coats run the world’
The U.S. is entering into a new phase where the “danger of letting lab coats run the world” is palpable. “It should be clear by now that most of the world’s leaders were stampeded over the lockdown cliff like so many lemmings. What caused the stampede is even more remarkable: a tiny coterie of obscure, soft-spoken epidemiologists in white lab coats playing with numbers…the aim was to cause panic,” wrote Bill Dunne in American Thinker.
“We were plunged into the grandest of experiments in authoritarian paternalism, whereby we plebeians — i.e., those without government jobs — are deemed incompetent to judge if it’s safe to take a dip in the ocean or a walk in the woods. We can, though, crowd into a Walmart or the local supermarket,” Dunne wrote.
Former UK Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption explained this well in 2020: “Do we really want to be the kind of society where basic freedoms are conditional on the decisions of politicians in thrall to scientists and statisticians? Where human beings are just tools of public policy?” Sumption asked.
“To say that life is priceless and nothing else counts is just empty rhetoric…There is more to life than the avoidance of death,” he added. “To say that there are no limits is the stuff of tyrants. Every despot who ever lived thought that he was coercing his subjects for their own good or that of society at large,” he added.
“A society in which the Government can confine most of the population without controversy is not one in which civilized people would want to live, regardless of their answers to these questions. Is it worth it?” Sumption explained adding, “The lockdown is, without doubt, the greatest interference with personal liberty in our history.”
Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski also slammed the COVID lockdowns and ripped the “scientific studies” funded to support government policy.
“Shutting down schools, driving the economy against the wall – there was no reason for it,” Wittkowski explained in a YouTube video. For his honesty, Wittkowski was promptly banned from YouTube as were almost all lockdown dissenters on social media platforms.
“Governments did not have an open discussion, including economists, biologists, and epidemiologists, to hear different voices. In Britain, it was the voice of one person – Neil Ferguson – who has a history of coming up with projections that are a bit odd. The government did not convene a meeting with people who have different ideas, different projections, to discuss his projection,” Wittkowski said.
Echoing the words of President Eisenhower in 1961, Wittkowski said:
“They have the scientists on their side that depend on government funding. One scientist in Germany just got $500 million from the government, because he always says what the government wants to hear. Scientists are in a very strange situation. They now depend on government funding, which is a trend that has developed over the past 40 years. Before that, when you were a professor at a university, you had your salary and you had your freedom. Now, the university gives you a desk and access to the library. And then you have to ask for government money and write grant applications. If you are known to criticize the government, what does that do to your chance of getting funded? It creates a huge conflict of interest.”
Or another name for it is: Science manipulated to support preconceived policies.
Eisenhower has been proven correct. The public health bureaucracy and the climate community have become political lobbying organizations and they are using “the science” to support the preferred policies. No researcher looking for government-funded research money would put their name on a study that was against the politically accepted views on COVID or climate.
In 2020, the UN IPCC chief Hoesung Lee admitted — while discussing how “the COVID-19 pandemic tells us that everything is connected” — that the UN climate panel is all about using science to lobby for political goals. “Our [IPCC] assessment findings will strengthen the political will of the policymakers for immediate and concrete actions,” Lee said on June 1, 2020. Or another name for it is: Bending science to support the policy. [Also see:Watch: Gore admits UN IPCC report was ‘torqued up’ to promote political action – ‘How else do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?’]
Is ‘Science’ becoming a liberal conspiracy?!
A bumper sticker promoted by progressives reads: “Science is not a liberal conspiracy.”
Marc Morano in 2019 interview: “Oh yes, it is. Yes, it can be and much of science is. Here is where that bumper sticker is wrong. When the regulatory state — the Environmental Protection Agency, the United Nations, the U.S. federal government, the UN, the EU — when they want to regulate, they look for justifications — that’s the natural state of any government. So essentially the regulatory state is using the climate scare now to achieve its ends. The science must support the government policy and the network of government and academic funding, peer-pressure is designed to ensure ‘the science’ ends up supporting the politicians’ favored policy. Any dissenters have to face intimidation and censorship.”
Chinafication of the West
German Economic Professor Antony P. Mueller explained how China’s methods are being employed in Western nations. “This new world order of digital tyranny comes with a comprehensive social credit system. The People’s Republic of China is the pioneer of this method of surveillance and control of individuals, corporations, and sociopolitical entities,” Mueller wrote.
“It is, in short, a type of social engineering which is the opposite of a spontaneous order or of development. Like the mechanical engineer with a machine, the social engineer—or technocrat—treats society as an object. Different from the brutal suppressions by the totalitarianism of earlier times, the modern social engineer will try to make the social machine work on its own according to the design,” Mueller analyzed. [Also see:UN climate chief Christiana Figueres steps down – Lamented U.S. democracy as ‘very detrimental’ – Sought ‘centralized transformation’ – Lauded one-party ruled China for ‘doing it right’ on climate&
DELUSIONAL NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE GOES FULL POLITICAL & FASCIST – CALLS FOR TRUMP TO BE VOTED OUT & PRAISES CHINA’S LOCKDOWN’S AS ‘EFFECTIVE” ]
UK columnist Peter Hitchens warned about the lockdowns from the onset. Lockdowns are “the biggest state takeover of life and work ever attempted by non-Communists,” Hitchens wrote
“All the crudest weapons of despotism, the curfew, the presumption of guilt and the power of arbitrary arrest, are taking shape in the midst of what used to be a free country,” Hitchens wrote about the COVID lockdowns.
“Even Vladimir Putin might hesitate before doing anything so blatant frightening series of restrictions on ancient liberties and vast increases in police and state powers,” Hitchens explained. But he lamented that the UK citizens were so willing to “surrender centuries-old liberties in an afternoon” and “seem to despise our ancient hard-bought freedom and actually want to rush into the warm, firm arms of Big Brother.”
“Imagine, police officers, forcing you to be screened for a disease, and locking you up for 48 hours if you object. Is this China or Britain?” Hitchens added. “How long before we need passes to go out in the streets, as in any other banana republic?” he asked.
Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs rejected the entire approach to COVID using lockdowns and mask mandates. “Raise your hand if you’re tired of hearing from ‘experts,’”, Briggs wrote. “Stay Inside Or Die!” Briggs mocked, while noting that “Ver are your paperz! comes to the good ol’ USA.”
Former Prime Minister of the UK Gordon Brown called on world leaders to create “a temporary form of global government” to fight the coronavirus outbreak. “This is not something that can be dealt with in one country,” Brown said. “There has to be a coordinated global response.”
Briggs replied: “Brown wants international organizations like the WHO and the UN to be given executive powers that would supersede national sovereignty as part of a new system overseen by world leaders and health experts.” By ‘temporary’ Brown likely meant ‘in perpetuity.’ But seriously, who could have figured elites would use a crisis like this to increase their power?”
Unelected health bureaucrats preside over the U.S. economy
The Trump administration initially allowed the health bureaucracy and their failed COVID models to dictate the national policy narrative which led to the lockdowns. Trump economic advisor Larry Kudlow said in April 2020 that it is “up to the health people” when the economy would reopen.
“How much longer? I don’t really want to forecast. That is up to the health people.,” Kudlow said on Fox News.
Joe Biden said he would listen to the scientists and go along with a second national lockdown to fight COVID. “Asked specifically whether he’d push to shutter economic activity if scientists said it was necessary, Biden replied: ‘I would shut it down,” ABC News reported.
The “listen to the science” narrative has been a very effective strategy because it has bullied Republican politicians, conservatives, and many dissenting scientists into silence or submissiveness when it comes to challenging COVID lockdown or climate change claims. If you accept “the science” determines whether or not you are a good person, a smart person, or an evil science denier who deserves to be jailed and silenced according to our mainstream media, government officials, academia, and social media censors.
This “listen to the science” litmus test for climate change will be used to bully politicians into climate and COVID-19 policies.
‘Mass scale bombing of one’s own economy’
As the controversy over the COVID lockdowns grew, questions about the cost/benefit of lockdowns were raised.
Economist Sanjeev Sabhlok, resigned from his job in the Department of Treasury and Finance in Victoria Australia in September 2020 “to protest the outrageous violations of liberty” due to the COVID lockdowns. “Australia’s bureaucracy has performed as badly as the world’s worst bureaucracy during this pandemic. No one offered any independent advice. Comprehensive groupthink and incompetence have prevailed,” he explained. Scientists and politicians are “panting like a mad monster in the excitement of their total power over the people,” he added.
“This is like a mass scale bombing of one’s own economy,” Sabhlok said, referring to lockdowns and phased reopenings. Many UN climate supporters and Green New Deal proponents have endorsed the concept of “planned recessions” and economic “degrowth” for climate change. The COVID lockdowns achieved those goals almost overnight.
“The problem with science today is that it is effectively just another branch of government,” Sabhlok explained.
‘A triumph of the precautionary principle’
“25 million Americans became unemployed in 5 weeks…Many people want this insanity to continue. As far as I know, it has never happened in the history of civilizations that the bulk of a large enough nation, let alone the world, was kept at home for several months,” Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl wrote.
“The precautionary principle has only been promoted as a meme since the 1970s when it appeared as the ‘Vorsorgeprinzip’ in German discussions about deforestation and sea pollution. The precautionary principle is an extremely dangerous fallacy whose purpose is to make an absolutely irrational assumption – namely that some risks must be considered infinitely more critical than all other risks – sound more intelligent or maybe even scientific. You are ‘obliged’ to do even things that actually make the public health conditions worse,” Motl added.
Sabhlok believes Western nations need to build in civil liberty protections against future lockdowns. “This pandemic should lead to the rewriting of all textbooks in epidemiology and should lead to a law (like they have in Sweden) that governments must require court orders for each individual, to restrain them at home for quarantine or lockdown,” Sabhlok wrote.
Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com warned that the government response and suspension of liberty during COVID revealed “the incompetent, corrupt and politicized public health bureaucracy…wants to create a precedent for permanent control of society via ‘public health.’”
“As with education, conservatives abandoned public health as a profession decades ago. I don’t know any conservatives with expertise in public health. We are now paying the price,” Milloy wrote.
“We have ceded the field (of public health) to leftists who have only one tool — government crackdown. All public health bureaucrats are Democrats and worse sorts of leftists,” Milloy wrote. “We can still ‘social distance’ without devolving into a police state or destroying the economy.”
COVID and Climate Policy Following the Same Playbook
“Climate and COVID share the commonality of government control. From electric car and fuel efficiency mandates to the entire economy busting Green New Deal, the ‘benevolent’ government seeks to control all aspects of our lives,” wrote Denver-based physician Dr. Brian C. Joondeph.
“One can see numerous parallels between COVID and climate policy. Both create fear, to a frenzy level, of the world ending, massive death and destruction, all due to a warming planet or an aggressive flu virus,” he explained. “Question the dogma of either the virus or climate movement and prepare to have your life, if not disrupted, then ruined. There is only one politically correct viewpoint on both issues.”
Read more at www.climatedepot.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-10-13--What The Pandemic Has Taught Us About Science

What The Pandemic Has Taught Us About Science The Covid-19 pandemic has stretched the bond between the public and the scientific profession as never before .
Scientists have been revealed to be neither omniscient demigods whose opinions automatically outweigh all political disagreement , nor unscrupulous fraudsters pursuing a political agenda under a cloak of impartiality .
Somewhere between the two lies the truth : Science is a flawed and all too human affair , but it can generate timeless truths , and reliable practical guidance , in a way that other approaches can not .
In a lecture at Cornell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feynman defined the scientific method .
First , you guess , he said , to a ripple of laughter .
Then you compute the consequences of your guess .
Then you compare those consequences with the evidence from observations or experiments .
“ If [ your guess ] disagrees with experiment , it ’ s wrong .
In that simple statement is the key to science .
It does not make a difference how beautiful the guess is , how smart you are , who made the guess , or what his name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people started falling ill last winter with a respiratory illness , some scientists guessed that a novel coronavirus was responsible .
The evidence proved them right .
Some guessed it had come from an animal sold in the Wuhan wildlife market .
The evidence proved them wrong .
Some guessed vaccines could be developed that would prevent infection .
The jury is still out .
Seeing science as a game of guess-and-test clarifies what has been happening these past months .
Science is not about pronouncing with certainty on the known facts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unknown by testing guesses , some of which prove wrong .
Bad practice can corrupt all stages of the process .
Some scientists fall so in love with their guesses that they fail to test them against evidence .
They just compute the consequences and stop there .
Mathematical models are elaborate , formal guesses , and there has been a disturbing tendency in recent years to describe their output with words like data , result , or outcome .
They are nothing of the sort .
An epidemiological model developed last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by politicians as hard evidence that without lockdowns , the pandemic could kill 2.2 million Americans , 510,000 Britons , and 96,000 Swedes .
The Swedes tested the model against the real world and found it wanting : They decided to forgo a lockdown , and fewer than 6,000 have died there .
In general , science is much better at telling you about the past and the present than the future .
As Philip Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania and others have shown , forecasting economic , meteorological , or epidemiological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues to prove frustratingly hard , and experts are sometimes worse at it than amateurs , because they overemphasize their pet causal theories .
A second mistake is to gather flawed data .
On May 22 , the respected medical journals the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine published a study based on the medical records of 96,000 patients from 671 hospitals around the world that appeared to disprove the guess that the drug hydroxychloroquine could cure Covid-19 .
The study caused the World Health Organization to halt trials of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that the database came from Surgisphere , a small company with little track record , few employees , and no independent scientific board .
When challenged , Surgisphere failed to produce its raw data .
The papers were retracted with abject apologies from the journals .
Nor has hydroxychloroquine since been proven to work .
Uncertainty about it persists .
A third problem is that data can be trustworthy but inadequate .
Evidence-based medicine teaches doctors to fully trust only science based on the gold standard of randomized controlled trials .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases ( though one is now underway in Denmark ) .
In the West , unlike in Asia , there were months of disagreement this year about the value of masks , culminating in the somewhat desperate argument of mask foes that people might behave too complacently when wearing them .
The scientific consensus is that the evidence is good enough and the inconvenience small enough that we need not wait for absolute certainty before advising people to wear masks .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precautionary principle , which holds that uncertainty about possible hazards is a strong reason to limit or ban new technologies .
But the principle cuts both ways .
If a course of action is known to be safe and cheap and might help to prevent or cure diseases—like wearing a face mask or taking vitamin D supplements , in the case of Covid-19—then uncertainty is no excuse for not trying it .
A fourth mistake is to gather data that are compatible with your guess but to ignore data that contest it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ You should test the proposition that all swans are white by looking for black ones , not by finding more white ones .
Yet scientists “ believe ” in their guesses , so they often accumulate evidence compatible with them but discount as aberrations evidence that would falsify them—saying , for example , that black swans in Australia don ’ t count .
[ … ] As this example illustrates , one of the hardest questions a science commentator faces is when to take a heretic seriously .
It ’ s tempting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dismiss reasonable challenges , but not every maverick is a new Galileo .
As the astronomer Carl Sagan once put it , “ Too much openness and you accept every notion , idea , and hypothesis—which is tantamount to knowing nothing .
Too much skepticism—especially rejection of new ideas before they are adequately tested—and you ’ re not only unpleasantly grumpy but also closed to the advance of science.
” In other words , as some wit once put it , don ’ t be so open-minded that your brains fall out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the device that guides us away from unreliable heretics .
A scientific result is only reliable when reputable scholars have given it their approval .
Dr. Yan ’ s report has not been peer-reviewed .
But in recent years , peer review ’ s reputation has been tarnished by a series of scandals .
The Surgisphere study was peer-reviewed , as was the study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield , the hero of the anti-vaccine movement , claiming that the MMR vaccine ( for measles , mumps , and rubella ) caused autism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfunctory rather than thorough ; often exploited by chums to help each other , and frequently used by gatekeepers to exclude and extinguish legitimate minority scientific opinions in a field .
Herbert Ayres , an expert in operations research , summarized the problem well several decades ago : “ As a referee of a paper that threatens to disrupt his life , [ a professor ] is in a conflict-of-interest position , pure and simple .
Unless we ’ re convinced that he , we , and all our friends who referee have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who have so far qualified for sainthood , it is beyond naive to believe that censorship does not occur.
” Rosalyn Yalow , the winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine , was fond of displaying the letter she received in 1955 from the Journal of Clinical Investigation noting that the reviewers were “ particularly emphatic in rejecting ” her paper .
The health of science depends on tolerating , even encouraging , at least some disagreement .
In practice , science is prevented from turning into a religion not by asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by getting them to challenge each other , sometimes with gusto .
Where science becomes political , as in climate change and Covid-19 , this diversity of opinion is sometimes extinguished in the pursuit of a consensus to present to a politician or a press conference , and to deny the oxygen of publicity to cranks .
This year has driven home as never before the message that there is no such thing as “ the science ” ; there are different scientific views on how to suppress the virus .
[ … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

What The Pandemic Has Taught Us About Science
Written by Matt Ridley
The Covid-19 pandemic has stretched the bond between the public and the scientific profession as never before.
Scientists have been revealed to be neither omniscient demigods whose opinions automatically outweigh all political disagreement, nor unscrupulous fraudsters pursuing a political agenda under a cloak of impartiality.
Somewhere between the two lies the truth: Science is a flawed and all too human affair, but it can generate timeless truths, and reliable practical guidance, in a way that other approaches cannot.
In a lecture at Cornell University in 1964, the physicist Richard Feynman defined the scientific method. First, you guess, he said, to a ripple of laughter. Then you compute the consequences of your guess. Then you compare those consequences with the evidence from observations or experiments.
“If [your guess] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make a difference how beautiful the guess is, how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is…it’s wrong.”
So when people started falling ill last winter with a respiratory illness, some scientists guessed that a novel coronavirus was responsible. The evidence proved them right.
Some guessed it had come from an animal sold in the Wuhan wildlife market. The evidence proved them wrong. Some guessed vaccines could be developed that would prevent infection. The jury is still out.
Seeing science as a game of guess-and-test clarifies what has been happening these past months.
Science is not about pronouncing with certainty on the known facts of the world; it is about exploring the unknown by testing guesses, some of which prove wrong.
Bad practice can corrupt all stages of the process. Some scientists fall so in love with their guesses that they fail to test them against evidence. They just compute the consequences and stop there.
Mathematical models are elaborate, formal guesses, and there has been a disturbing tendency in recent years to describe their output with words like data, result, or outcome. They are nothing of the sort.
An epidemiological model developed last March at Imperial College London was treated by politicians as hard evidence that without lockdowns, the pandemic could kill 2.2 million Americans, 510,000 Britons, and 96,000 Swedes.
The Swedes tested the model against the real world and found it wanting: They decided to forgo a lockdown, and fewer than 6,000 have died there.
In general, science is much better at telling you about the past and the present than the future.
As Philip Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania and others have shown, forecasting economic, meteorological, or epidemiological events more than a short time ahead continues to prove frustratingly hard, and experts are sometimes worse at it than amateurs, because they overemphasize their pet causal theories.
A second mistake is to gather flawed data.
On May 22, the respected medical journals the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine published a study based on the medical records of 96,000 patients from 671 hospitals around the world that appeared to disprove the guess that the drug hydroxychloroquine could cure Covid-19. The study caused the World Health Organization to halt trials of the drug.
It then emerged, however, that the database came from Surgisphere, a small company with little track record, few employees, and no independent scientific board.
When challenged, Surgisphere failed to produce its raw data. The papers were retracted with abject apologies from the journals. Nor has hydroxychloroquine since been proven to work. Uncertainty about it persists.
A third problem is that data can be trustworthy but inadequate. Evidence-based medicine teaches doctors to fully trust only science based on the gold standard of randomized controlled trials.
But there have been no randomized controlled trials on the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases (though one is now underway in Denmark).
In the West, unlike in Asia, there were months of disagreement this year about the value of masks, culminating in the somewhat desperate argument of mask foes that people might behave too complacently when wearing them.
The scientific consensus is that the evidence is good enough and the inconvenience small enough that we need not wait for absolute certainty before advising people to wear masks.
This is an inverted form of the so-called precautionary principle, which holds that uncertainty about possible hazards is a strong reason to limit or ban new technologies.
But the principle cuts both ways. If a course of action is known to be safe and cheap and might help to prevent or cure diseases—like wearing a face mask or taking vitamin D supplements, in the case of Covid-19—then uncertainty is no excuse for not trying it.
A fourth mistake is to gather data that are compatible with your guess but to ignore data that contest it. This is known as confirmation bias.
You should test the proposition that all swans are white by looking for black ones, not by finding more white ones.
Yet scientists “believe” in their guesses, so they often accumulate evidence compatible with them but discount as aberrations evidence that would falsify them—saying, for example, that black swans in Australia don’t count. […]
As this example illustrates, one of the hardest questions a science commentator faces is when to take a heretic seriously.
It’s tempting for established scientists to use arguments from authority to dismiss reasonable challenges, but not every maverick is a new Galileo.
As the astronomer Carl Sagan once put it, “Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesis—which is tantamount to knowing nothing. Too much skepticism—especially rejection of new ideas before they are adequately tested—and you’re not only unpleasantly grumpy but also closed to the advance of science.”
In other words, as some wit once put it, don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
Peer review is supposed to be the device that guides us away from unreliable heretics. A scientific result is only reliable when reputable scholars have given it their approval.
Dr. Yan’s report has not been peer-reviewed. But in recent years, peer review’s reputation has been tarnished by a series of scandals.
The Surgisphere study was peer-reviewed, as was the study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the hero of the anti-vaccine movement, claiming that the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) caused autism.
Investigations show that peer review is often perfunctory rather than thorough; often exploited by chums to help each other, and frequently used by gatekeepers to exclude and extinguish legitimate minority scientific opinions in a field.
Herbert Ayres, an expert in operations research, summarized the problem well several decades ago: “As a referee of a paper that threatens to disrupt his life, [a professor] is in a conflict-of-interest position, pure and simple. Unless we’re convinced that he, we, and all our friends who referee have integrity in the upper fifth percentile of those who have so far qualified for sainthood, it is beyond naive to believe that censorship does not occur.”
Rosalyn Yalow, the winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine, was fond of displaying the letter she received in 1955 from the Journal of Clinical Investigation noting that the reviewers were “particularly emphatic in rejecting” her paper.
The health of science depends on tolerating, even encouraging, at least some disagreement. In practice, science is prevented from turning into a religion not by asking scientists to challenge their own theories but by getting them to challenge each other, sometimes with gusto.
Where science becomes political, as in climate change and Covid-19, this diversity of opinion is sometimes extinguished in the pursuit of a consensus to present to a politician or a press conference, and to deny the oxygen of publicity to cranks.
This year has driven home as never before the message that there is no such thing as “the science”; there are different scientific views on how to suppress the virus. […]
Read rest at WSJ ($)
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-10-13--Shock Study: CO2 Climate Theory Exposed During COVID Lockdown

New study , relying on official data during the global COVID19 ‘ lockdown , ’ exposes an apparent flaw in the climate relationship of atmospheric CO and temperature and reveals an unexpected “ chicken-or-egg ” problem .
The paper ‘ Atmospheric Temperature and CO : Hen-or-Egg Causality ?
( Version 1 ) ‘ was prompted by observation of an unexpected real-world experiment that contradicts a key claim of the greenhouse gas theory .
During the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020 , despite unprecedented decrease in human carbon emissions ( ) , there was increase in atmospheric CO concentration , which followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( ) .
Figure 1 : Shows massive drop in human emissions of CO2 in 2020 Figure 2 Atmospheric CO concentration measured in Mauna Loa , Hawaii , USA , in the last four years .
Figure 2 shows CO2 levels for 2020 in lockstep with previous years despite a 17 percent fall in human emissions during lockdown .
The consensus greenhouse gas theory tells us that rising human emissions of carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the planet and must be reduced .
But the ‘ lockdown ’ data proves that despite a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintained their monotonous , slow and steady increase .
If the UN consensus greenhouse theory is correct , then such a drastic drop in human emissions should impact overall atmospheric levels .
It didn ’ t “ Indeed , according to the IEA [ 1 ] , global CO emissions were over 5 % lower in the first quarter of 2020 than in that of 2019 , mainly due to an 8 % decline in emissions from coal , 4.5 % from oil and 2.3 % from natural gas .
According to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is even higher : the daily global CO emissions decreased by 17 % by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels , while for the whole 2020 a decrease between 4 % and 7 % is predicted .
Despite that , as seen in , the normal pattern of atmospheric CO concentration ( increase until May and decrease in June and July ) did not change.
” The authors discuss the proven long-term relationship between temperature and CO concentration from the geological record : The study juxtaposes a time series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several sources , covering the common time interval 1980–2019 .
In our methodology .
The paper shows it is the timing , rather than the magnitude , of changes that is important , being the determinant of causality .
The authors are at pains to point out that they examine the relationship of global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration using the most reliable global data that are available—the data gathered from several sources , covering the common time interval 1980–2019 , available at the monthly time step .
The results of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directions exist , with → CO being the dominant , despite the fact that the former CO → prevails in public , as well as in scientific , perception .
Indeed , our results show that changes in CO follow changes in by about six months on a monthly scale , or about one year on an annual scale .
They note that the increase of soil respiration , reflecting the fact that the intensity of biochemical process increases with temperature , leads to increasing natural CO emission .
Thus , the synchrony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive feedback loop .
This poses challenging scientific questions of interpretation and modelling for further studies .
In our opinion , scientists of the 21st century should have been familiar with unanswered scientific questions , as well as with the idea that complex systems resist simplistic explanations .
For those growing number of scientists who dispute the CO2-driven radiative greenhouse gas theory the above paper is further compelling evidence that consensus science ( and international policy makers ! )
has made a grave error in wrongly claiming this trace gas is our climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Shock Study: CO2 Climate Theory Exposed During COVID Lockdown
Written by John O'Sullivan
New study, relying on official data during the global COVID19 ‘lockdown,’ exposes an apparent flaw in the climate relationship of atmospheric CO 2 and temperature and reveals an unexpected “chicken-or-egg” problem.
The paper ‘Atmospheric Temperature and CO 2 : Hen-or-Egg Causality? (Version 1)‘ was prompted by observation of an unexpected real-world experiment that contradicts a key claim of the greenhouse gas theory. During the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020, despite unprecedented decrease in human carbon emissions ( ), there was increase in atmospheric CO 2 concentration, which followed a pattern strikingly similar to previous years ( ).
Figure 1: Shows massive drop in human emissions of CO2 in 2020
Figure 2 Atmospheric CO 2 concentration measured in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, USA, in the last four years.
Figure 2 shows CO2 levels for 2020 in lockstep with previous years despite a 17 percent fall in human emissions during lockdown.
The consensus greenhouse gas theory tells us that rising human emissions of carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the planet and must be reduced. But the ‘lockdown’ data proves that despite a massive cut in emissions, CO2 levels maintained their monotonous, slow and steady increase.
If the UN consensus greenhouse theory is correct, then such a drastic drop in human emissions should impact overall atmospheric levels. It didn’t
As the authors, Demetris Koutsoyiannis & Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, state:
“Indeed, according to the IEA [1], global CO 2 emissions were over 5% lower in the first quarter of 2020 than in that of 2019, mainly due to an 8% decline in emissions from coal, 4.5% from oil and 2.3% from natural gas. According to other estimates [2], the decrease is even higher: the daily global CO 2 emissions decreased by 17% by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels, while for the whole 2020 a decrease between 4% and 7% is predicted. Despite that, as seen in , the normal pattern of atmospheric CO 2 concentration (increase until May and decrease in June and July) did not change.”
The authors discuss the proven long-term relationship between temperature and CO 2 concentration from the geological record:
“by revisiting intriguing results from proxy data-based palaeoclimatic studies, where change in temperature leads and change in CO 2 concentration follows. Next, we discuss the data bases of modern (instrumental) measurements, related to global temperature and atmospheric CO 2 concentration, and introduce a methodology to analyse them.”
The study juxtaposes a time series of global temperature and atmospheric CO 2 concentration from several sources, covering the common time interval 1980–2019. In our methodology. The paper shows it is the timing, rather than the magnitude, of changes that is important, being the determinant of causality.
“While logical, physically based arguments support the “hen-or-egg” hypothesis, indicating that both causality directions exist, interpretation of cross-correlations of time series of global temperature and atmospheric CO 2 suggests that the dominant direction is T → CO 2 , i.e., change in temperature leads and change in CO 2 concentration follows.”
The authors are at pains to point out that they examine the relationship of global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration using the most reliable global data that are available—the data gathered from several sources, covering the common time interval 1980–2019, available at the monthly time step.
The results of the study support the hypothesis that both causality directions exist, with T → CO 2 being the dominant, despite the fact that the former CO 2 → T prevails in public, as well as in scientific, perception. Indeed, our results show that changes in CO 2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale, or about one year on an annual scale.
They note that the increase of soil respiration, reflecting the fact that the intensity of biochemical process increases with temperature, leads to increasing natural CO 2 emission. Thus, the synchrony of rising temperature and CO 2 creates a positive feedback loop. This poses challenging scientific questions of interpretation and modelling for further studies. In our opinion, scientists of the 21st century should have been familiar with unanswered scientific questions, as well as with the idea that complex systems resist simplistic explanations.
For those growing number of scientists who dispute the CO2-driven radiative greenhouse gas theory the above paper is further compelling evidence that consensus science (and international policy makers!) has made a grave error in wrongly claiming this trace gas is our climate’s ‘control knob.’
Read the full paper at www.mdpi.com
****
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19 About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book. **** PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related