5 Comments

Changing the climate through satellites and huge radar weather stations:

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/satattack

Weaponization of environmentalism and health to reduce farming area and surface, to slo-starve us:

Occupy fertile land, even agricultural or forrests with wind and solar energy farms. Solar panels leak lead and cadmium telluride1, ruining the environment. There's no recycling of solar panels and wind towers and turbines!

Bill Gates, raunchy rancher

The plan? slo-poison us!

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/bill-gates-raunchy-rancher

Water poisoning

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/water-poisoning-they-drink-perrier

War on food

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/war-on-food

Why is food poisoning legal?

How Rumsfeld forced the approval of Aspartame.

Artificial sweeteners, MSG, PFAS, Glyphosate ... go organic!

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/why-is-food-poisoning-legal

Best scientific sources to debunk carbon climate action:

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/best-scientific-sources-to-debunk

Killing me softly with green songs:

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/killing-me-softly-with-green-songs

Carbon reparations:

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/carbon-reparations

Climate deaths:

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/climate-deaths

Expand full comment

Well as I wrote initially, this talk by Plimer was very interesting and mad e think about things. I basically view almost everything written and spoken as propaganda in one way or another, and interpreted as a mixture of fact and representing those facts to support a viewpoint. I would like to see all vested interests to be declared ( like in a publication) in talks, not just as yours. You could have a short summary of the speakers possible financial and political views before the talk. There may be a good reason that the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is supporting the existence and risks of global warning is that they are right (this is not the same as the emphasis in politicains on CO2). There were a minority of scientists who opposed the evidence on the risks of cigarettes but they were wrong. Most good and original thinking in science comes from mavericks, but most mavericks are wrong

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, Ian! I very much appreciate and value your comments and can always at least partly agree with the points you put forward as in this comment, e.g. about declaring interests, etc.. And this is also well said that 'Most good and original thinking in science comes from mavericks, but most mavericks are wrong'. But regarding climate science, I have to point out that the research that claims 99% of climate scientists agree on man-made 'global warming', 'climate change' or even 'climate catastrophe', is simply flawed. The claim is based on a research done by Mark Lynas, an environmentalist and a journalist and his co-authors. And their claim and research have been debunked: https://www.freedom-research.org/i/138786542/anthropogenic-global-warming-really-the-consensus-among-more-than-of-climate-scientists If you look at the IPCC reports, you actually do not find the kind of language we are used to hear all the time in them: "However, we do not find a definition of this arguably existential threat to humanity in the expected concentrate of current climate science, i.e. the reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On the contrary, the latest Assessment Report AR6 (from 2021), prepared by the Scientific Basis for Climate Change Working Group (WG1), a 2,409-page volume entitled "Climate Change 2021. The Physical Science Basis",1 points out that the media's treatment of climate change has moved away from the neutral position, adopting and promoting terms like "climate crisis", "global heating" and "climate emergency ". https://www.freedom-research.org/p/climate-models-catastrophe-scenarios?utm_source=publication-search

Expand full comment

Thank you for an interesting interview. I did consider and think about and follow up things that I was uanaware of previously. I agree CO2 probably plays a minor role and EV vehicles are a political nonsense. There are 3 things I would say.

Firstlly, I remain convinced that the planet is in deep s**t, and that warming is one of the main causes of this. This opinion comes originally from my own observations of visiting for over 50 years the high mountains in the world, as well as changes in my own garden flora and fauna.

Secondly, I am convinced about the arguments about tipping points as temperature increases, especilly methane release from the Arctic and reversal of thermal-hyoline ocean currents. The climate would enter a positive feedback loop.

Thirdly, like many of youir interviewees, Plimer has hidden conflicts of interest, having spent his carreer working in the extractive mining companies. He has had to take what I refer to as the ‘Wille Soon’ defence – “yes my work is funded by oil/gas/coal/mining comp[anies, but of course this never affects my judgement”. You would never accept this statement from a scientist working for a pharmaceutical company, and the same constraint must apply to those whose views you wish to agree with. You would rigthly be the first to point ot conflicts of interest on the ‘other side’ and you cannot have it both ways.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you for an interesting comment, Ian! I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that professor Plimer has hidden conflicts of interest, because my understanding is that he has never hidden his connections to mining companies. We address it during the talk as well. And would it not be to his benefit to declare that we needed a 'green transition' yesterday already when he wants to make money mining? He is from Australia and the Australian government can understand very well that they need to quadruple mineral extraction to serve the 'green transition' and is very anxious to do so regardless of what it does to the planet: https://www.freedom-research.org/i/135964882/australia-plans-to-more-than-quadruple-mineral-extraction-for-climate-change

By the way - do you know what these companies that professor Plimer is connected to have been involved in excavating and would these minerals be of any good to 'green transition' tech?

And of course I have never failed to address and report on a conflict of interest if I see one, but please, everyone can be the judge of that. If someone comes and tells me that Dr. William Happer is not reliable as a scientist because he accepted 8000 USD from a coal company back in the days for some work he did as the well known DeSmog (PR-)blog presents it, this seems a bit strange. Willie Soon who has had more support is a different story and everyone can make up their mind how much they want to trust his assessments. But as you point out and as I have said to you as well - the problem is the correct one and you have to consider these conflicts always. And here the problem is actually the other way around. You know about Soon's funding but you do not see and read discussions about conflicts of interest of mainstream 'climate science' side. Does this mean there are none? Of course not. And you have to add that there is even a culture of silence in the academia on the topic - I have talked to younger scientists who say that of course this all 'green deal' and 'net zero' is serving business interests, they do not consider themselves part of the CO2 cult, etc. But they do not openly say it because they want to get published and funded. They would get ostracised for declaring anything that contradicts the mainstream and there is your real problem. No scientific discussion and only ad hominem arguments that a geologist is not a climate scientist and by the way - he has been involved with mining companies that extract copper.

Expand full comment