Scientists warn: Climate madness will throw half of the world’s population into hunger

Scientists warn: Climate madness will throw half of the world’s population into hunger

These scientists claim that the “consensus” on human-caused climate change due to CO2 emissions is a lie and constantly challenge this narrative, pointing to missing and questionable evidence for the CO2 theory.

Physicists prof. William Happer from Princeton University and prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT and geologist Gregory Wrightstone have long specialized in climate research and wrote a research paper for the CO2 Coalition that refutes the arguments of the climate cult and warns of the devastating consequences of increasingly radical climate policies.

In their work, scientists come to several conclusions:

Proponents of net zero regularly claim that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe as a result of climate change, even though there is no evidence of an increase – and in some cases a decrease – of such events.
The computer models that underpin every government net-zero scheme and trillions of dollars in subsidies for renewable energy and electric cars, trucks, appliances and many other products do not work.
Scientific research and studies that do not support the “consensus” on harmful human-caused global warming, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment, are routinely censored and excluded from government reports.
Government bureaucrats are rewriting the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that contradict the story of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels for public reports to support the bogus story of zero co2 in the atmosphere.
Many of the benefits of moderate warming and rising carbon dioxide are systematically eliminated or minimized in government reports.
Abolition of fossil fuels and the implementation of zero-consumption policies and measures means the abolition of nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides derived from fossil fuels, which will leave approximately half of the world’s population without enough food. Many will literally starve.
The net-zero assumption is a rejection of the overwhelming scientific evidence that there is no danger of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels and CO2.

The authors openly claim that “net zero Co2” violates the principles of the scientific method that has underpinned the progress of Western civilization for over 300 years.
All points are explained in detail in the article and supported by data. An aspect that deserves special attention is the inevitable famine as a result of radical climate policy: not only do professors explicitly point out that more CO2, so demonized, leads to plants producing more food for humans and animals. They also warn that the widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers since 1950 has led to a sharp increase in crop yields. Abandoning this fertilizer is therefore likely to lead to a significant drop in crop yields again – an effect unlikely to be offset by people in Western civilizations adding insects to their diet.

The professors criticize the ignorance and censorship of unwelcome facts that could weaken the CO2 narrative, noting that the alleged climate consensus propagated by the IPCC is ultimately a government opinion, not science. The approach of politics and bought science, of which citizens suddenly became more aware in the aftermath of the Corona crisis, has thus long been commonplace in the climate change debate:

Therefore, in our scientific opinion, any governmental or other analysis that advocates “net-zero” regulation, policy or otherwise is scientifically invalid and fatally flawed if it:
A. omits negative data that contradict her conclusions, for example extreme weather events such as heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and droughts.
B. relies on models that do not work and should therefore never be used in science.
C. relies on the IPCC’s findings, which are government opinions, not science.
D. ignores the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels.
E. is silent about the catastrophic consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 to “net zero”.
F. rejects the scientific evidence that shows that there is no risk of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels and CO2. – Source

Finally, the scientists make the following demands:

We call on all government agencies involved in net-zero regulations, policies or other actions, including the USGCRP in its final version of the 5th National Climate Assessment, to adhere to the scientific method and

reject any reliance on government-audited IPCC findings and citations;
reject any reliance on CMIP models and other models unless they are proven to work;
reject any reliance on methods other than the scientific method, such as peer review and consensus;
capturing and analyzing the huge social benefits of CO2;
record and analyze the enormous social benefits of fossil fuels;
halt all efforts to phase out fossil fuels to avoid mass starvation in the future. – Source.

Podijeli članak: