Five Key Messages - Professor Plimer Debunks Climate Alarmism
A throwback to our interview with Professor Ian Plimer: Much of the climate debate is not science, but propaganda.
In an interview with Freedom Research, Professor Ian Plimer stated that if there’s one thing he has learned as a scientist, it is to be skeptical of everything—and climate science is no exception. According to him, much of the climate debate is not science but propaganda. History, he argues, debunks the climate crisis narrative, revealing that cooling—not warming—has been the true cause of famine, disease, and war. Yet, we are told we are in an "unprecedented crisis." Are we being misled for the sake of control?
Real scientists question, revise, and challenge—even their own work. Science thrives on skepticism, not blind obedience. Yet today’s climate narrative punishes dissent. Is this about science or control?
Science is based on evidence, not belief. When leaders use terms like “global boiling,” they aren’t informing—they’re manipulating. Fear bypasses critical thinking. Real scientists question, analyze, and revise.
Renewable energy? More like renewable subsidies. Without taxpayer funding, wind and solar wouldn’t survive. Meanwhile, they contaminate soil and water with toxic chemicals—Bisphenol A, Cadmium Telluride—while turbines and panels pile up as waste. Is this really “green”?
The green agenda isn’t about the environment—it’s about control. Unelected elites profit while forcing unreliable energy, crippling economies, and silencing dissent. The science is flawed, but questioning it gets you branded a “denier.” This is about freedom.
Check out the full interview, or read the article based on it here.
Appreciate Professor Plimer's assured stance and invaluable voice in debunking the *actual* "crisis", the (captured) political crisis. - liked and shared
"Much of the climate debate is not science, but propaganda."
Exactly! And if you ask someone who has spent their lifetime working, and making money from mining and coal companies, propaganda is likely what you will get. I read large numbers of medical articles as part of my work, and if I read a paper coming from a pharmaceutical company, then I 'parked' the information until it could be verified or refuted. The same should apply here.