Ever since Al Gore won an Academy Award in 2007 for his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” Hollywood has been rewarding virtue signalling and ignoring facts, the opposite of what Al Gore’s “facts are stubborn things” slide show requested.
New developments suggest that the globe has never been healthier, and that some of the green new policies are endangering the very planet we all seek to protect.
Consider:
Nobel Prize winner John Clauser recently signed a World Climate Declaration asserting there is “no climate emergency.” A graduate of Caltech and Columbia, who studied quantum mechanics at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and UC Berkeley, argues prevailing climate models ignore a key variable. He suggested that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial to the planet. He also said that the actual warming observed is less than is predicted by the climate models.
“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.,” said Clauser. “Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.” No Oscar for that!
Patrick Brown, an environmental researcher, recently wrote an op ed in the Free Press with the headline: “I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published.” The subhead: “I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.” The paper he self-censored, “Climate Warming Increases Extreme Daily Wildfire Growth Risk in California,” was published in Nature. Brown said he left academia a year ago because “I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted. These days, he said, researchers must produce findings “that the effects of climate change are pervasive and catastrophic and that the way to deal with them is not through practical measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes — or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines — but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” He sees this corruption of real science everywhere.
“In another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: heat-related deaths have been declining, and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world has succeeded in some areas despite climate change—which, the thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions.”
"It's a manufactured consensus," agreed climate scientist Judith Curry, In a new video, she said scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk for “fame and fortune.” Curry should know — she was embraced by the environmental alarmists after she published a paper on an uptick in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. “I was treated like a rock star,” Curry recounted. “Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.” They embraced her research to preserve the myth.
But several critics had pointed out gaps in her research, which failed to factor in the many years with low hurricane events. So, “like a good scientist, I investigated.” What she found is that critics were right — she had neglected to factor in natural climate variability. After she published her results, the green lobby that once lauded her slammed her. On reflection, she believes the green movement was fueled by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, created in 1988 by bureaucrats she said were anti-capitalists who saw the global warming myth as a way to attack the the oil industry. “The IPCC wasn't supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC's mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change,” she said. “Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding…assuming there are dangerous impacts.”
This corruption of science has also affected the medical profession, which now embraces vaccines that are neither safe nor effective and encourages medical groomers of children as young as three years old to change genders.
Several doctors have recently come forward to tell their stories of how the profession attempted to silence them for practicing what they think is good medicine.
Here is Yale surgeon Dr. Dwight Lundell. During his training, he said medical journals were gospel. Now, he said, there’s a website called retractionwatch.com, which regularly publishes retraction notices from reputable journals for everything from fictional authors to faulty research errors. He saw as a physician that the more doctor-prescribed “blockbuster” meds people took, the sicker they got. Their insides would eventually be overtaken by “red, fiery inflammation.” He believes that 250,000-400,000 patients each year are killed by similar medication errors.
Pediatrician Paul Thomas was slammed by the Oregon Medical Board for offering parents of his young children alternatives to the one-size-fits-all schedule of vaccines recommended by the CDC. Challenged by the board to produce peer-reviewed evidence of the validity of his approach — based on reducing the cumulative levels of neutro-toxic aluminum the children are exposed to — Dr. Thomas published a paper showing that children born into his practice who were unvaccinated had significantly less incidence of diagnoses and office visits for a broad range of ailments. His ad vise to other doctors: “You have to be very observant at every well-child visit and you stop vaccinating if you see any problems.”The doctor’s journey is detailed in a new book by Jeremy R. Hammond, The War on Informed Consent: The Persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas by the Oregon Medical Board. Spoiler alert: His medical license was revoked in 2020.
There are many stories like his throughout the COVID pandemic.
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, medical ethicist at UC Irvine, was fired after he refused to take the jab. He argued he had natural immunity form an earlier infection. His book, The New Abnormal: The Biomedical Security State, argues passionately for a return to the Hippocratic Oath and its moral compass of informed consent.
Dr. Peter McCullough had to mount a huge fight against the American Board of Internal Medicine for threatening to revoke his certifications in internal medicine and cardiovascular disease. Why? Because of “public statements” about the dangers of, or lack of justification for COVID vaccines.” McCullough, widely recognized as one of the most esteemed cardiologists in the world, author of 677 articles published in scientific peer-reviewed journals, was stripped of his role as Editor-in-Chief of the Cardio-renal Journal and had all his board certifications revoked.
There is no sign of any end to the hypocrisies involved in a medical profession that persecutes doctors trying to administer good medicine, even as it sanctions grooming of young children. The University of Arizona Nursing School recently conducted a seminar in which it instructed graduating nurses to say to children as young as 3 years old, during annual wellness checks: “Some kids feel like a girl on the inside, some kids feel like a boy on the inside, and some kids feel like neither, both, or someone else. What about you? How do you feel on the inside? There’s no right or wrong answer.”
Neither is there likely to be any let up in the ironies of the green hysteria.
Sasha Luccioni worked with two other scientists to map the lifetime carbon footprint of a machine-learning model that used Artificial Intelligence. What they found: AI is a gas guzzler. The energy used in training models how to use AI “wound up being so significant they doubled total emissions,” she said. The Wall Street Journal also explained AI is very thirsty, with Google using a million liters just to train the computer to teach languages. Shaolei Ren, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of California Riverside, says ChatGPT-3 consumes a 500-milliliter bottle of water for a basic conversation of 20 to 50 inquiries, depending on where the electricity is generated. ChatGPT-4 consumes more.
This comes after researchers in Belgian recently reported that those “eco-friendly” paper drinking straws contain more 'forever chemicals' than plastic. They tested 39 brands of straws for the group of synthetic chemicals known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These chemicals are potentially harmful to people, wildlife, and the environment, especially since they break down very slowly. “Straws made from plant-based materials, such as paper and bamboo, are often advertised as being more sustainable and eco-friendly than those made from plastic,” says researcher Dr. Thimo Groffen, of the University of Antwerp. “The presence of PFAS in these straws means that’s not necessarily true.”
I guess all of this suggests is that all of us need to be critical thinkers. Maybe that’s why the people pushing green hysteria and medical conformity no longer teach it.
Great article. Ideology corrupts everything it touches! Whatever you read, whatever you hear, if the argument has political implications, be suspicious, very suspicious, especially if it emanates from the entertainment industry or anything related to it.
Unfortunately many scholars, “scientists” included, are as stupid as any virtue signaling Hollywood actor or actress.
Alexandra. Maybe you should start a substack blog on marketing’s role in all this. It’s easy to do. Xoxox