Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

🔬 𝐄𝐗𝐂𝐋𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖: 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐀𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 — 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟. 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 Dr. Judith Curry—renowned climatologist and Georgia Tech professor emeritus—describes how climate research has been overtaken by politics, funding incentives, and academic pressure to conform. Honest debate is discouraged. Climate models are treated as infallible.... show more

Freedom Research

8,206 subscribers

97,798 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Kommentare

Profilbild von Kevin McArdle

Kevin McArdlevor 1 Jahr

One of the most decent, knowledgeable and honourable scientists in the climate debate. Always worth listening to despite the efforts of the lunatic alarmist fringe to paint her as some kind of odious ‘climate denier’.

Profilbild von J Martin

J Martinvor 1 Jahr

Well said @curryja!

Profilbild von Jim Bowers

Jim Bowersvor 1 Jahr

$600 an hour oil consulting job encouraging her lying

Profilbild von A.G Davies

A.G Daviesvor 1 Jahr

I suspect the fresher scientists are driven by the ideology drilled into them at school. Just as many of the older generation of scientists still believe in some form of God. We always seem to underestimate the power of indoctrination or as Richard Dawkins put it, child abuse!

Profilbild von DeMercks

DeMercksvor 1 Jahr

And how do you get rid of carbondioxide, Trees!!! Yet they are still burning and cutting down the Rain Forests.

Profilbild von Playbay 🇻🇦

Playbay 🇻🇦vor 1 Jahr

Not surprised at all

Profilbild von Andrew Cranswick

Andrew Cranswickvor 1 Jahr

Correction Many do not agree that carbon dioxide acts to warm the planet That's a severe misrepresentation of a non existent "concensus" As Bertrand Russell illustrated, "a false preposition implies any proposition" Furthermore, science is not about consensus

Profilbild von Stephen Luongo

Stephen Luongovor 1 Jahr

Correct

Profilbild von John Tintera

John Tinteravor 1 Jahr

impressive scientist.

Ähnliche Videos

🔥𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐂𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞? — 𝐃𝐫. 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐔𝐧𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐚𝐦𝐞 Renowned climatologist Dr. Judith Curry pulls back the curtain on the climate establishment’s addiction to alarmism: Extreme emissions scenarios are like crack cocaine for climate scientists. Without them, the models don’t deliver the drama. Even the UN has quietly dropped these implausible predictions (like a 600% rise in coal use) — but the climate-industrial complex keeps pushing them. Why? Because fear sells. Dr. Curry exposes how exaggerated models fuel media hysteria, political control, and billion-dollar climate agendas — all while silencing legitimate scientific scrutiny. 🌍 This isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about preserving a narrative. 🎥 Full interview in the reply — don’t miss it. Judith Curry James Melville 🚜 Bjorn Lomborg

🔥𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐂𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞? — 𝐃𝐫. 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐔𝐧𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐚𝐦𝐞 Renowned climatologist Dr. Judith Curry pulls back the curtain on the climate establishment’s addiction to alarmism: Extreme emissions scenarios are like crack cocaine for climate scientists. Without them, the models don’t deliver the drama. Even the UN has quietly dropped these implausible predictions (like a 600% rise in coal use) — but the climate-industrial complex keeps pushing them. Why? Because fear sells. Dr. Curry exposes how exaggerated models fuel media hysteria, political control, and billion-dollar climate agendas — all while silencing legitimate scientific scrutiny. 🌍 This isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about preserving a narrative. 🎥 Full interview in the reply — don’t miss it. Judith Curry James Melville 🚜 Bjorn Lomborg

Freedom Research

19,319 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

SCIENCE HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED - AND PEOPLE ARE PAYING THE PRICE LindellTV's Cara Castronuova was at the MAHA institute’s “Weaponization of Science” Roundtable, where experts are exposing how science is being distorted, censored, and used as a political weapon. “Patients are being harmed by commercial and political interests. Science is no longer about truth, it’s about control.” Panelists described how academic literature has been turned into corporate marketing, how peer-reviewed papers are retracted under pressure from pharma and government, and how vaccine injury data is silenced to protect narratives instead of people. One speaker broke down how the 95 percent efficacy claim from Moderna and Pfizer was built on manipulated definitions and selective data. The message was clear: industry capture of government institutions has created a climate where real research is punished, and truth is treated as a threat. “We must de-weaponize science and take back our institutions,” one expert said. “Until then, the system serves power, not the people.”

SCIENCE HAS BEEN WEAPONIZED - AND PEOPLE ARE PAYING THE PRICE LindellTV's Cara Castronuova was at the MAHA institute’s “Weaponization of Science” Roundtable, where experts are exposing how science is being distorted, censored, and used as a political weapon. “Patients are being harmed by commercial and political interests. Science is no longer about truth, it’s about control.” Panelists described how academic literature has been turned into corporate marketing, how peer-reviewed papers are retracted under pressure from pharma and government, and how vaccine injury data is silenced to protect narratives instead of people. One speaker broke down how the 95 percent efficacy claim from Moderna and Pfizer was built on manipulated definitions and selective data. The message was clear: industry capture of government institutions has created a climate where real research is punished, and truth is treated as a threat. “We must de-weaponize science and take back our institutions,” one expert said. “Until then, the system serves power, not the people.”

LindellTV

37,118 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

𝗗𝗿. 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗼𝗻: 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗪𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 | 𝗪𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗣𝗼𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁 #𝟱 The fifth episode of the Wide Awake Media podcast features leading geoscientist and astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, in a hard-hitting critique of the man-made climate change narrative and its consequences for energy security, economic stability, and human progress. Soon argues that carbon dioxide has been falsely branded a pollutant despite being the primary driver of global greening. He explains how climate models, not real-world data, now dominate policy—and why seasonal cycles, solar influence, and measurement bias are systematically ignored to sustain the narrative. Drawing on decades of experience inside elite scientific institutions, Soon exposes how funding pressure, enforced consensus, and career intimidation have reshaped climate research—silencing dissent and rewarding predetermined conclusions. He warns that while the world fixates on overheating, the real existential threat may be global cooling—and humanity is dangerously unprepared. 00:00 - Introduction to Dr. Willie Soon 02:08 - What Is the Man-Made Climate Change Narrative? 05:16 - Why the Sun Drives Earth’s Climate 11:02 - Urban Heat Islands and Flawed Temperature Records 13:51 - CO₂ Is Plant Food and Global Greening 18:07 - Climate Politics, Al Gore, and Media Authority 20:01 - Funding Pressure and the Corruption of Science 26:06 - The IPCC and Enforced Climate Consensus 31:40 - Big Oil, Green Energy, and Perverse Incentives 38:17 - Geoengineering, Solar Dimming, and Environmental Risk 40:13 - Agriculture, Livestock, and the Push for Fake Meat 44:41 - Ice Ages, Solar Cycles, and the Real Climate Threat 53:29 - Closing Words

𝗗𝗿. 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲 𝗦𝗼𝗼𝗻: 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗬𝗼𝘂’𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗪𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 | 𝗪𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗣𝗼𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁 #𝟱 The fifth episode of the Wide Awake Media podcast features leading geoscientist and astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, in a hard-hitting critique of the man-made climate change narrative and its consequences for energy security, economic stability, and human progress. Soon argues that carbon dioxide has been falsely branded a pollutant despite being the primary driver of global greening. He explains how climate models, not real-world data, now dominate policy—and why seasonal cycles, solar influence, and measurement bias are systematically ignored to sustain the narrative. Drawing on decades of experience inside elite scientific institutions, Soon exposes how funding pressure, enforced consensus, and career intimidation have reshaped climate research—silencing dissent and rewarding predetermined conclusions. He warns that while the world fixates on overheating, the real existential threat may be global cooling—and humanity is dangerously unprepared. 00:00 - Introduction to Dr. Willie Soon 02:08 - What Is the Man-Made Climate Change Narrative? 05:16 - Why the Sun Drives Earth’s Climate 11:02 - Urban Heat Islands and Flawed Temperature Records 13:51 - CO₂ Is Plant Food and Global Greening 18:07 - Climate Politics, Al Gore, and Media Authority 20:01 - Funding Pressure and the Corruption of Science 26:06 - The IPCC and Enforced Climate Consensus 31:40 - Big Oil, Green Energy, and Perverse Incentives 38:17 - Geoengineering, Solar Dimming, and Environmental Risk 40:13 - Agriculture, Livestock, and the Push for Fake Meat 44:41 - Ice Ages, Solar Cycles, and the Real Climate Threat 53:29 - Closing Words

Wide Awake Media

84,249 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

Michael Shellenberger

66,361 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

I would never send my kids to many of today’s Ivy League and elite universities. In this clip, I break down what I see as a broken higher education system—where families across America are spending a fortune, taking on massive debt, and in return getting ideological indoctrination instead of true education. From campuses in Cambridge to New Haven and beyond, I explain how the culture inside these institutions has shifted—where students feel pressure to conform, where dissenting views are discouraged, and where academic freedom is being replaced by groupthink. I also raise serious concerns about the climate in certain classrooms, particularly around issues like the Middle East, where simply expressing a different viewpoint can lead to intimidation or worse. This isn’t just about politics—it’s about the future of your kids, your money, and the values being taught in America’s most influential institutions. Parents, students, and anyone concerned about the direction of higher education need to hear this. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

I would never send my kids to many of today’s Ivy League and elite universities. In this clip, I break down what I see as a broken higher education system—where families across America are spending a fortune, taking on massive debt, and in return getting ideological indoctrination instead of true education. From campuses in Cambridge to New Haven and beyond, I explain how the culture inside these institutions has shifted—where students feel pressure to conform, where dissenting views are discouraged, and where academic freedom is being replaced by groupthink. I also raise serious concerns about the climate in certain classrooms, particularly around issues like the Middle East, where simply expressing a different viewpoint can lead to intimidation or worse. This isn’t just about politics—it’s about the future of your kids, your money, and the values being taught in America’s most influential institutions. Parents, students, and anyone concerned about the direction of higher education need to hear this. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

Mark R. Levin

23,644 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Conformity Over Credentials: Why Are Our Top Experts Being Silenced? Of all the societal shifts emerging from the pandemic, one of the most profound is the realization that we all live in specialized silos. As noted by Dr. Robert Clancy, this isolation within our fields—whether health, climate science, or education—has caused us to miss a broader, disturbing pattern. In conversations with top experts across various disciplines—founding immunologists, senior paediatricians, leading climate scientists—a unified frustration is evident. These eminent figures, the very architects of their fields, report being silenced. They are compelled to follow a mandated narrative rather than being permitted to contribute their expert, nuanced opinions. Dr. Clancy observes that those now speaking out are often from an older generation, at or near retirement. They are senior professionals with little left to lose—immune to the career pressures that silence younger colleagues still navigating the professional escalator. This phenomenon spans issues from pandemic response to the sexualization of children in education and climate change policy. In every silo, the story is the same: established science is being overshadowed by rigid agendas. The most qualified voices are sidelined, not on the basis of evidence, but for refusing to conform. It begs the question: if our most experienced minds are not allowed to think critically, what does that mean for the future of expertise and honest debate?

Conformity Over Credentials: Why Are Our Top Experts Being Silenced? Of all the societal shifts emerging from the pandemic, one of the most profound is the realization that we all live in specialized silos. As noted by Dr. Robert Clancy, this isolation within our fields—whether health, climate science, or education—has caused us to miss a broader, disturbing pattern. In conversations with top experts across various disciplines—founding immunologists, senior paediatricians, leading climate scientists—a unified frustration is evident. These eminent figures, the very architects of their fields, report being silenced. They are compelled to follow a mandated narrative rather than being permitted to contribute their expert, nuanced opinions. Dr. Clancy observes that those now speaking out are often from an older generation, at or near retirement. They are senior professionals with little left to lose—immune to the career pressures that silence younger colleagues still navigating the professional escalator. This phenomenon spans issues from pandemic response to the sexualization of children in education and climate change policy. In every silo, the story is the same: established science is being overshadowed by rigid agendas. The most qualified voices are sidelined, not on the basis of evidence, but for refusing to conform. It begs the question: if our most experienced minds are not allowed to think critically, what does that mean for the future of expertise and honest debate?

Camus

15,353 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The easiest way to manufacture a consensus is by silencing scientists who don’t agree with a pre-approved storyline by threatening to blacklist them from employment, cutting their funding opportunities and/or trying to get their current employers to fire them by organizing pressure campaigns. It is just professional cancel culture. That’s why most scientists who speak out against the sounding climate change alarm are nearing retirement age or are already retired. Most just play the game for 30-40 years until they are financially secure enough to risk it all. I know quite a few academics in my field who privately agree with my efforts, but pretend not to and play the game until they too inch closer to retirement. As a prime example, Dr. Judith Curry was once hailed as a hero in the science “community” because of a paper she co-authored that happened to be published in Science Magazine less than two weeks after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 which found that tropical cyclone frequency and intensity had increased globally over the preceding 35 years, and linked it to more favorable thermodynamics caused by global warming. 🔗 (open access here: After the Climategate email leaks from the University of East Anglia in 2009, she got to see firsthand — as did everyone else — the sausage-making that went into manufacturing scientific consensus on global warming. More specifically, the emails revealed how lead IPCC authors conspired to avoid FOIA requests, withhold their data from researchers who had questioned their research findings and methods, and conspired to exclude studies from their synthesis review of the literature that contradicted messaging IPCC authors wanted to adhere to. Many atmospheric scientists, Dr. Curry included, began to question consensus and the IPCC’s process, and performed their own audits of the broader science by dipping their fingers into areas beyond their narrow focus of expertise to familiarize and educate themselves on it. She then reevaluated her position, like any good scientist would, and ever since has been treated as a heretic by jerks in the scientific community who are lauded by professional institutions as “leading experts” on the cutting edge of science. Other scientists have been subject to academic bullying including my friend Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. (who is the smartest meteorologist I know); his son Pielke, Jr.; my dear friend Dr. William Happer, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. John Christy, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Cliff Mass and the late Dr. William Gray. While I’d say that a majority of “climate scientists” are good people — at least I’d like to think they are — most of them just keep their heads down and go along with the storyline of doom because they know what they have to say to get funded, get published in prestigious journals, collect accolades for their work at, say, AGU, and have lucrative careers in academia at major universities with six figure salaries. While they may be good people, those who play the game lack integrity in calling out the bullying that goes on behind the scenes and on social media. And, that is a major problem.

The easiest way to manufacture a consensus is by silencing scientists who don’t agree with a pre-approved storyline by threatening to blacklist them from employment, cutting their funding opportunities and/or trying to get their current employers to fire them by organizing pressure campaigns. It is just professional cancel culture. That’s why most scientists who speak out against the sounding climate change alarm are nearing retirement age or are already retired. Most just play the game for 30-40 years until they are financially secure enough to risk it all. I know quite a few academics in my field who privately agree with my efforts, but pretend not to and play the game until they too inch closer to retirement. As a prime example, Dr. Judith Curry was once hailed as a hero in the science “community” because of a paper she co-authored that happened to be published in Science Magazine less than two weeks after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 which found that tropical cyclone frequency and intensity had increased globally over the preceding 35 years, and linked it to more favorable thermodynamics caused by global warming. 🔗 (open access here: After the Climategate email leaks from the University of East Anglia in 2009, she got to see firsthand — as did everyone else — the sausage-making that went into manufacturing scientific consensus on global warming. More specifically, the emails revealed how lead IPCC authors conspired to avoid FOIA requests, withhold their data from researchers who had questioned their research findings and methods, and conspired to exclude studies from their synthesis review of the literature that contradicted messaging IPCC authors wanted to adhere to. Many atmospheric scientists, Dr. Curry included, began to question consensus and the IPCC’s process, and performed their own audits of the broader science by dipping their fingers into areas beyond their narrow focus of expertise to familiarize and educate themselves on it. She then reevaluated her position, like any good scientist would, and ever since has been treated as a heretic by jerks in the scientific community who are lauded by professional institutions as “leading experts” on the cutting edge of science. Other scientists have been subject to academic bullying including my friend Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. (who is the smartest meteorologist I know); his son Pielke, Jr.; my dear friend Dr. William Happer, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. John Christy, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Cliff Mass and the late Dr. William Gray. While I’d say that a majority of “climate scientists” are good people — at least I’d like to think they are — most of them just keep their heads down and go along with the storyline of doom because they know what they have to say to get funded, get published in prestigious journals, collect accolades for their work at, say, AGU, and have lucrative careers in academia at major universities with six figure salaries. While they may be good people, those who play the game lack integrity in calling out the bullying that goes on behind the scenes and on social media. And, that is a major problem.

Chris Martz

87,277 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

For the past decade, the Left treated climate change not merely as an environmental concern, but as the looming catastrophe around which all politics, morality, and policy had to revolve. The media described climate change as an existential emergency, a threat not just to polar bears and coastlines but to the very survival of civilization. Democrats and the Left halted pipelines. They banned gas stoves. They mandated electric vehicles. They reshaped global financial markets around emissions. President Joe Biden’s $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act was sold as a historic turning point in the global fight to cut emissions. In 2019, teenagers filled city squares and blocked traffic across continents. Greta Thunberg stood before the United Nations, her voice trembling with fury: “How dare you?” she asked world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has dismantled nearly every major federal climate initiative. He pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrapped core funding for green subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Trump ended ESG influence over federal pensions, shut down federal climate research programs across multiple agencies, halted new NOAA climate modeling projects, and redirected funding away from academic climate partnerships. He reinstated permitting reforms to speed up infrastructure projects, including pipelines and refineries. Trump’s second-term climate agenda represents the most sweeping regulatory rollback in American history. And yet, climate protests against Trump have been nearly nonexistent. No national marches have filled the streets of Washington, as they did when 200,000 joined the People’s Climate March in 2017, or when the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg, mobilized more than 7 million people across 150 countries in a week of coordinated strikes. No occupations of bank lobbies or fossil fuel headquarters. No die-ins, no chain-yourself-to-the-gate stunts, no mass arrests outside congressional offices. The kinds of actions that defined the climate movement just a few years ago, from gluing hands to paintings to dumping milk in supermarket aisles to camping out at pipeline construction sites, have vanished. Social media feeds that once overflowed with fiery rhetoric, countdown clocks, and images of burning forests now scroll silently past Trump’s climate rollbacks with barely a word. The teenagers who shut down traffic in 2019 are now in their twenties and have moved on. The sense of emergency, once performed with almost religious intensity, has dissipated without explanation. It’s not that nothing has happened. Groups have issued statements. Al Gore recently compared Trump to Hitler. A few marches have taken place, and some climate organizations, like the Sunrise Movement, have released critical press releases or participated in multipurpose protests. Environmental advocates continue to push for action at the state and local levels. Greta Thunberg briefly appeared at a climate rally in Amsterdam. And within elite policy circles, there has been handwringing about the rollback of climate policy. But compared to the fervent climate activism of just a few years ago, the current response to Trump’s sweeping policy reversals has been practically non-existent. There is no climate protest movement in America today with even a tenth of the energy of the ones that existed under Trump’s first term, or under Obama. No one is blocking freeways with banners or lying down in traffic dressed as dying polar bears. No serious attempt has been made to shut down the Capitol or surround congressional offices with sit-ins. CNN isn’t running wall-to-wall coverage of melting glaciers. Late-night hosts aren’t mocking oil executives or sounding alarms about extinction. The celebrities who once posted weepy, black-and-white Instagram monologues about climate breakdown have disappeared. Even Thunberg, whose blank-eyed fury once symbolized the climate movement’s moral clarity, no longer holds a cardboard sign on Fridays; she’s now focused on protesting Israel’s war with Hamas. Why would a movement that claimed the fate of the Earth was at stake quietly abandon its core issue? Why would its most famous faces stop organizing around what they once called humanity’s final warning? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, to read the rest of the article, and to watch the full video with psychologist and narcissism expert, Professor Sam Vaknin !

For the past decade, the Left treated climate change not merely as an environmental concern, but as the looming catastrophe around which all politics, morality, and policy had to revolve. The media described climate change as an existential emergency, a threat not just to polar bears and coastlines but to the very survival of civilization. Democrats and the Left halted pipelines. They banned gas stoves. They mandated electric vehicles. They reshaped global financial markets around emissions. President Joe Biden’s $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act was sold as a historic turning point in the global fight to cut emissions. In 2019, teenagers filled city squares and blocked traffic across continents. Greta Thunberg stood before the United Nations, her voice trembling with fury: “How dare you?” she asked world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has dismantled nearly every major federal climate initiative. He pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrapped core funding for green subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Trump ended ESG influence over federal pensions, shut down federal climate research programs across multiple agencies, halted new NOAA climate modeling projects, and redirected funding away from academic climate partnerships. He reinstated permitting reforms to speed up infrastructure projects, including pipelines and refineries. Trump’s second-term climate agenda represents the most sweeping regulatory rollback in American history. And yet, climate protests against Trump have been nearly nonexistent. No national marches have filled the streets of Washington, as they did when 200,000 joined the People’s Climate March in 2017, or when the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg, mobilized more than 7 million people across 150 countries in a week of coordinated strikes. No occupations of bank lobbies or fossil fuel headquarters. No die-ins, no chain-yourself-to-the-gate stunts, no mass arrests outside congressional offices. The kinds of actions that defined the climate movement just a few years ago, from gluing hands to paintings to dumping milk in supermarket aisles to camping out at pipeline construction sites, have vanished. Social media feeds that once overflowed with fiery rhetoric, countdown clocks, and images of burning forests now scroll silently past Trump’s climate rollbacks with barely a word. The teenagers who shut down traffic in 2019 are now in their twenties and have moved on. The sense of emergency, once performed with almost religious intensity, has dissipated without explanation. It’s not that nothing has happened. Groups have issued statements. Al Gore recently compared Trump to Hitler. A few marches have taken place, and some climate organizations, like the Sunrise Movement, have released critical press releases or participated in multipurpose protests. Environmental advocates continue to push for action at the state and local levels. Greta Thunberg briefly appeared at a climate rally in Amsterdam. And within elite policy circles, there has been handwringing about the rollback of climate policy. But compared to the fervent climate activism of just a few years ago, the current response to Trump’s sweeping policy reversals has been practically non-existent. There is no climate protest movement in America today with even a tenth of the energy of the ones that existed under Trump’s first term, or under Obama. No one is blocking freeways with banners or lying down in traffic dressed as dying polar bears. No serious attempt has been made to shut down the Capitol or surround congressional offices with sit-ins. CNN isn’t running wall-to-wall coverage of melting glaciers. Late-night hosts aren’t mocking oil executives or sounding alarms about extinction. The celebrities who once posted weepy, black-and-white Instagram monologues about climate breakdown have disappeared. Even Thunberg, whose blank-eyed fury once symbolized the climate movement’s moral clarity, no longer holds a cardboard sign on Fridays; she’s now focused on protesting Israel’s war with Hamas. Why would a movement that claimed the fate of the Earth was at stake quietly abandon its core issue? Why would its most famous faces stop organizing around what they once called humanity’s final warning? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, to read the rest of the article, and to watch the full video with psychologist and narcissism expert, Professor Sam Vaknin !

Michael Shellenberger

80,277 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Michael Shellenberger

114,237 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:

Chris Martz

112,060 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

A stunning revelation from renowned oncology Professor Angus Dalgleish. He describes a climate of scientific censorship so profound that senior colleagues would phone him simply to shout him down, citing journal articles as unquestionable gospel. His account reveals two critical failures in our scientific institutions: 1. The Illusion of Consensus. He exposes how a "perfectly safe and effective" narrative was enforced not by robust debate, but by pointing to papers in prestigious journals like The Lancet. Dalgleish argues these papers are often planted by Big Pharma, signed by a chorus of voices, and accepted without critical thought. This, he states, is the reduction of scientific inquiry to mere quoting. 2. The Manufactured "Settled Science." He details the specific case of the lab-leak theory. Dr. Fauci, he claims, orchestrated a paper to definitively state a natural origin for the virus—a paper Dalgleish found deeply flawed. Crucially, he alleges the authors were subsequently rewarded with "massive grants," and journals like Nature actively suppressed criticism, deeming it "not in the public interest." This powerful testimony paints a picture of a scientific establishment that prioritizes narrative over truth, using manufactured consensus to shut down dissent and propel multi-billion dollar agendas. The question is no longer about a single virus or vaccine, but about the very integrity of the institutions we are told to trust.

A stunning revelation from renowned oncology Professor Angus Dalgleish. He describes a climate of scientific censorship so profound that senior colleagues would phone him simply to shout him down, citing journal articles as unquestionable gospel. His account reveals two critical failures in our scientific institutions: 1. The Illusion of Consensus. He exposes how a "perfectly safe and effective" narrative was enforced not by robust debate, but by pointing to papers in prestigious journals like The Lancet. Dalgleish argues these papers are often planted by Big Pharma, signed by a chorus of voices, and accepted without critical thought. This, he states, is the reduction of scientific inquiry to mere quoting. 2. The Manufactured "Settled Science." He details the specific case of the lab-leak theory. Dr. Fauci, he claims, orchestrated a paper to definitively state a natural origin for the virus—a paper Dalgleish found deeply flawed. Crucially, he alleges the authors were subsequently rewarded with "massive grants," and journals like Nature actively suppressed criticism, deeming it "not in the public interest." This powerful testimony paints a picture of a scientific establishment that prioritizes narrative over truth, using manufactured consensus to shut down dissent and propel multi-billion dollar agendas. The question is no longer about a single virus or vaccine, but about the very integrity of the institutions we are told to trust.

Camus

69,780 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Throughout history, students have stood at the forefront of national liberation and democratic change. From the Soweto Uprising in South Africa 🇿🇦 where students challenged the apartheid system to movements across Africa and the world 🌍. Young people have consistently refused to accept oppression as destiny. Their courage has often awakened entire nations. Uganda 🇺🇬 is not different or exceptional. Today, students across our universities and institutions of learning are witnessing a deep national crisis. A country once hopeful has been dragged into 40 years of dictatorial rule, marked by shrinking democratic space, economic hardship and destruction of public education. Universities and schools 🏫 are underfunded, strikes are ignored, student leaders are harassed and academic freedom is treated as a threat rather than a pillar of national development. More alarming is the broader human rights situation. Opposition voices are silenced through arrests, abductions, detention and intimidation. Political leaders and activists are imprisoned on widely disputed charges sending a message to any citizen who dares to question power. Dr. Kizza Besigye’s continued detention in Luzira Prison under controversial circumstances stands as a painful reminder of how dissent is criminalized instead of debated. Students cannot remain neutral in the face of injustices. History teaches us that silence only empowers dictatorship(M7 government). We reject and condemn the attempts by the regime to divide or compromise students with short term incentives while the future of our country is being sacrificed. No scholarship, allowance or appointment can replace freedom, dignity and justice. An education system that trains young people to fear authority rather than think critically is not education but rather control. As patriotic students following the political direction of our country, we have taken a clear and principled position. We have endorsed HE. Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (bobi wine) as the next President of the Republic of Uganda 🇺🇬 because He represents a generational shift, constitutionalism and the aspirations of millions who yearn for accountable leadership. Should those in power attempt to subvert the will of the people through electoral fraud, intimidation or manipulation, we affirm our readiness to respond through peaceful protests 🪧 , public assemblies and to demand that our voices be respected. These dictators have the same blood 🩸 as ours , and they were also students like us so they're not so special to the extent of being untouchable. No gun is stronger than a revolutionary message and when citizens rises. If our grandparents ( not educated) fought for our independence against the whites and neo colonialists, then what about us the elites? Ugandan students must rise with unity, truth and courage. The future belongs to those who are brave enough to claim it. They may kill us but we shall die as heroes and we will be remembered in the history of Uganda 🇺🇬 as the way students in South Africa 🇿🇦 ( Soweto uprising) are still remembered. For God and our country 🙏🇺🇬 #ANewUgandaNow

Throughout history, students have stood at the forefront of national liberation and democratic change. From the Soweto Uprising in South Africa 🇿🇦 where students challenged the apartheid system to movements across Africa and the world 🌍. Young people have consistently refused to accept oppression as destiny. Their courage has often awakened entire nations. Uganda 🇺🇬 is not different or exceptional. Today, students across our universities and institutions of learning are witnessing a deep national crisis. A country once hopeful has been dragged into 40 years of dictatorial rule, marked by shrinking democratic space, economic hardship and destruction of public education. Universities and schools 🏫 are underfunded, strikes are ignored, student leaders are harassed and academic freedom is treated as a threat rather than a pillar of national development. More alarming is the broader human rights situation. Opposition voices are silenced through arrests, abductions, detention and intimidation. Political leaders and activists are imprisoned on widely disputed charges sending a message to any citizen who dares to question power. Dr. Kizza Besigye’s continued detention in Luzira Prison under controversial circumstances stands as a painful reminder of how dissent is criminalized instead of debated. Students cannot remain neutral in the face of injustices. History teaches us that silence only empowers dictatorship(M7 government). We reject and condemn the attempts by the regime to divide or compromise students with short term incentives while the future of our country is being sacrificed. No scholarship, allowance or appointment can replace freedom, dignity and justice. An education system that trains young people to fear authority rather than think critically is not education but rather control. As patriotic students following the political direction of our country, we have taken a clear and principled position. We have endorsed HE. Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (bobi wine) as the next President of the Republic of Uganda 🇺🇬 because He represents a generational shift, constitutionalism and the aspirations of millions who yearn for accountable leadership. Should those in power attempt to subvert the will of the people through electoral fraud, intimidation or manipulation, we affirm our readiness to respond through peaceful protests 🪧 , public assemblies and to demand that our voices be respected. These dictators have the same blood 🩸 as ours , and they were also students like us so they're not so special to the extent of being untouchable. No gun is stronger than a revolutionary message and when citizens rises. If our grandparents ( not educated) fought for our independence against the whites and neo colonialists, then what about us the elites? Ugandan students must rise with unity, truth and courage. The future belongs to those who are brave enough to claim it. They may kill us but we shall die as heroes and we will be remembered in the history of Uganda 🇺🇬 as the way students in South Africa 🇿🇦 ( Soweto uprising) are still remembered. For God and our country 🙏🇺🇬 #ANewUgandaNow

Akiso Benjamin Oppressed🇺🇬

15,753 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

One of the most incredible things I’ve learned in 30+ years of research is this: Your body can create some of the purest, most powerful stem cells on the planet from within you. 🤯 I’ve studied how the human body regenerates, detoxifies, and protects itself with its own built-in defense system when given the right inputs. And one of the most controversial areas of that research? Urine therapy. 💧 Not because it’s new. Because it’s ancient. For thousands of years, cultures have understood that the body doesn’t randomly create waste. It creates intelligence. Biological feedback. Signaling compounds. So why are people paying tens of thousands of dollars for regenerative treatments 💰 while ignoring what the body naturally produces every day? Because we’ve been programmed and brainwashed into believing our urine is gross and waste. These are the beliefs we’re going to challenge at the Urine Summit. If you want to understand the history, the science, and the debate around these claims, join me and my colleagues: ✨ TROY CASEY - PRESIDENT OF PLANET EARTH — Longevity authority and natural health pioneer 🎥 Jonathan Otto — Investigative filmmaker uncovering global healing traditions 🔬 Maria Crisler — Clinical research scientist exploring immune and cellular mechanisms 📚 Megan Macdonald, PhD — Expansion Healing Founder of the Urine Therapy Research Initiative We’re not asking you to blindly believe anything. We’re examining the biology, the metabolites, the immune components, and the historical use of urine therapy through both ancient tradition and modern investigation. 📖✨ 📅 Tuesday, February 24th | 10am–12pm CDT 📍 Hosted by Dr. Edward Group, DC — Live on Zoom 💲 FREE to join ⏳ Replay available for 7 days 👉 Below are links to join the summit and as well as watch my full, uncensored interview 📹 about this with INSPIRED Register for free: Interview: You’re not crazy. I promise. Blessings, Dr. Edward Group, DC

One of the most incredible things I’ve learned in 30+ years of research is this: Your body can create some of the purest, most powerful stem cells on the planet from within you. 🤯 I’ve studied how the human body regenerates, detoxifies, and protects itself with its own built-in defense system when given the right inputs. And one of the most controversial areas of that research? Urine therapy. 💧 Not because it’s new. Because it’s ancient. For thousands of years, cultures have understood that the body doesn’t randomly create waste. It creates intelligence. Biological feedback. Signaling compounds. So why are people paying tens of thousands of dollars for regenerative treatments 💰 while ignoring what the body naturally produces every day? Because we’ve been programmed and brainwashed into believing our urine is gross and waste. These are the beliefs we’re going to challenge at the Urine Summit. If you want to understand the history, the science, and the debate around these claims, join me and my colleagues: ✨ TROY CASEY - PRESIDENT OF PLANET EARTH — Longevity authority and natural health pioneer 🎥 Jonathan Otto — Investigative filmmaker uncovering global healing traditions 🔬 Maria Crisler — Clinical research scientist exploring immune and cellular mechanisms 📚 Megan Macdonald, PhD — Expansion Healing Founder of the Urine Therapy Research Initiative We’re not asking you to blindly believe anything. We’re examining the biology, the metabolites, the immune components, and the historical use of urine therapy through both ancient tradition and modern investigation. 📖✨ 📅 Tuesday, February 24th | 10am–12pm CDT 📍 Hosted by Dr. Edward Group, DC — Live on Zoom 💲 FREE to join ⏳ Replay available for 7 days 👉 Below are links to join the summit and as well as watch my full, uncensored interview 📹 about this with INSPIRED Register for free: Interview: You’re not crazy. I promise. Blessings, Dr. Edward Group, DC

Dr. Edward Group, DC

32,443 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

"The pattern is clear. The funder of the study determines the outcome. If the result isn't what they want, they squash it. They aren't selling truth; they're selling a narrative that serves power. It's time we stop buying it." This is the hard-earned conclusion Jimmy Dore has reached after the defining events of recent years. He breaks down how the COVID era shattered any remaining illusion of a trustworthy establishment. "We were told it was 'The Science'—a monolithic, unanimous consensus. But it was a curated, enforced orthodoxy. Doctors and scientists who dared to criticize were silenced. The Great Barrington Declaration was buried. Question the lab leak? Slandered as racist. Debate lockdowns, masks, or natural immunity? Pushed to the margins by a media bought and paid for by Big Pharma." The corruption, he notes, goes to the very source we're told to trust. "The medical journals themselves, like The Lancet, are funded by the same corporations selling the 'solutions.' The crisis creators are the product sellers." This experience, alongside Russiagate, has been transformative. "Nothing has changed me more. I don't believe a word the establishment says anymore. Not on pandemics, not on politics, and certainly not on climate change. The pattern repeats. It's all a funded narrative." The only solution is radical skepticism.

"The pattern is clear. The funder of the study determines the outcome. If the result isn't what they want, they squash it. They aren't selling truth; they're selling a narrative that serves power. It's time we stop buying it." This is the hard-earned conclusion Jimmy Dore has reached after the defining events of recent years. He breaks down how the COVID era shattered any remaining illusion of a trustworthy establishment. "We were told it was 'The Science'—a monolithic, unanimous consensus. But it was a curated, enforced orthodoxy. Doctors and scientists who dared to criticize were silenced. The Great Barrington Declaration was buried. Question the lab leak? Slandered as racist. Debate lockdowns, masks, or natural immunity? Pushed to the margins by a media bought and paid for by Big Pharma." The corruption, he notes, goes to the very source we're told to trust. "The medical journals themselves, like The Lancet, are funded by the same corporations selling the 'solutions.' The crisis creators are the product sellers." This experience, alongside Russiagate, has been transformative. "Nothing has changed me more. I don't believe a word the establishment says anymore. Not on pandemics, not on politics, and certainly not on climate change. The pattern repeats. It's all a funded narrative." The only solution is radical skepticism.

Camus

25,867 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

.David Sacks is questioned about the congressional testimony of the Presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT and whether students should be able to march around campus chanting phrases like "from the river to the sea" and "intifada"? "I have a very high bar for free speech. So I would allow almost everything. The problem that these university presidents have is that's not their position. They're trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of freedom of speech and academic freedom, but that has not been their practice on campus for many years. On a previous program, we talked about the FIRE survey, which polled students about how free they feel to express opinions on campus. The results were dismal for the Ivy League... And in fact, remember that Harvard got the Blutarsky, a zero point zero. The students there reported that speakers were shouted down, they weren't even invited, and they weren't allowed to continue and finish their speeches. So, Harvard has an abysmal record on freedom of speech. So it's hard to believe the President of Harvard when she claims that she's standing up for freedom of speech. And if you were to apply that same standard to other groups... Imagine if representatives at that hearing had said to the President of Harvard, are you allowed to advocate for genocide of black people or trans people? I mean, would the answer have been the same? I think absolutely not. So the question is, why are Jews being treated differently than these other groups? And I think this all goes back to woke identity politics, where in the woke ideology, certain groups are victim groups, and certain groups are oppressor groups. And if you're in a victim group, you get special protections. And if you're in an oppressor group, then it's just assumed that you can't really suffer discrimination or injustice in that same way. And I think that Jews have basically been put in an oppressor group. They basically are being placed in the same group as all white people. And I think this has come as a great surprise to a lot of donors to these university campuses, who I think we're okay with woke identity politics to some degree when they believed that Jewish people were a potential victim group and that antisemitism was being treated as real. And lo and behold, they found out that no, they're an oppressor group, and they're not protected. And even very explicit cases of antisemitism are not being recognized by these universities. Because, again, it doesn't match up with this woke ideology. It would have been a lot better for a lot of these donors to realize that woke identity politics was a cul de sac. It was something that they should have wanted to avoid participating in. But I think they're now waking up to the realization that in this, again, oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, they're on the wrong side of that." Via The All-In Podcast:

.David Sacks is questioned about the congressional testimony of the Presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT and whether students should be able to march around campus chanting phrases like "from the river to the sea" and "intifada"? "I have a very high bar for free speech. So I would allow almost everything. The problem that these university presidents have is that's not their position. They're trying to wrap themselves in the cloak of freedom of speech and academic freedom, but that has not been their practice on campus for many years. On a previous program, we talked about the FIRE survey, which polled students about how free they feel to express opinions on campus. The results were dismal for the Ivy League... And in fact, remember that Harvard got the Blutarsky, a zero point zero. The students there reported that speakers were shouted down, they weren't even invited, and they weren't allowed to continue and finish their speeches. So, Harvard has an abysmal record on freedom of speech. So it's hard to believe the President of Harvard when she claims that she's standing up for freedom of speech. And if you were to apply that same standard to other groups... Imagine if representatives at that hearing had said to the President of Harvard, are you allowed to advocate for genocide of black people or trans people? I mean, would the answer have been the same? I think absolutely not. So the question is, why are Jews being treated differently than these other groups? And I think this all goes back to woke identity politics, where in the woke ideology, certain groups are victim groups, and certain groups are oppressor groups. And if you're in a victim group, you get special protections. And if you're in an oppressor group, then it's just assumed that you can't really suffer discrimination or injustice in that same way. And I think that Jews have basically been put in an oppressor group. They basically are being placed in the same group as all white people. And I think this has come as a great surprise to a lot of donors to these university campuses, who I think we're okay with woke identity politics to some degree when they believed that Jewish people were a potential victim group and that antisemitism was being treated as real. And lo and behold, they found out that no, they're an oppressor group, and they're not protected. And even very explicit cases of antisemitism are not being recognized by these universities. Because, again, it doesn't match up with this woke ideology. It would have been a lot better for a lot of these donors to realize that woke identity politics was a cul de sac. It was something that they should have wanted to avoid participating in. But I think they're now waking up to the realization that in this, again, oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, they're on the wrong side of that." Via The All-In Podcast:

KanekoaTheGreat

2,119,324 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

We've just been passed the BBC's response to a complaint after Good Morning Scotland concealed an academic's links to Labour during an interview about the winter fuel payment and a warning from Age Scotland. We've reproduced the complaint and response below. We've also included the full interview. There's something untoward at play here. The complaint: Good Morning Scotland conducted an interview with professor June Andrews. The interview centred around the cut to the winter fuel payment and had been prompted by criticism by Age Scotland of the UK Labour Govt's decision to cut the benefit. The charity had claimed that cutting the benefit would see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. The interview was conducted by Laura Maxwell who introduced the academic as follows "Well Professor June Andrews is an expert in the care of older people." The academic challenged Age Scotland's claims and backed Labour's decision to cut the benefit. Professor Andrews views were later used on the programme to challenge Scottish Govt minister Ivan McKee. The academic was presented as someone with no political allegiances or viewpoints. This was far from the truth. Professor June Andrews is a Labour supporter and party activist who makes no attempt to hide her political allegiance. A quick glance at her social media profile - publicly available at the time of the interview - makes this clear, with post after post promoting tweets from senior Labour party figures. The academic tweeted an image during the recent general election campaign showing her with other Labour party activists as they campaigned for Labour candidate Gregor Poynton. Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines states 'We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.' Professor June Andrews was far from unbiased. Good Morning Scotland should have told listeners that the academic was a Labour party activist and supporter. In failing to do so the programme breached Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines. A public apology is merited. The response: We note your comments regarding Good Morning Scotland on 28 October and the interview with Prof June Andrews. As you mention, Prof Andrews was introduced as an “an expert in the care of older people” and was being interviewed for her view in this capacity, following Age Scotland’s claim that the cutting of the universal winter fuel benefit for pensioners will see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. Prof Andrews, given her area of expertise, has been a contributor on a number of occasions to items regarding the care of older people and was again introduced in this context, with a range of views on the subject heard within the wider programme – this included hearing directly from Scottish Government minister Ivan McKee, as you say. While we wouldn’t agree with a suggestion that simply holding any political views was a requisite for such an introduction, given the capacity in which Prof Andrews was invited onto the programme to speak, we would suggest that the conveyance to listeners of any political views that a contributor may hold is not limited to how a guest is introduced; for example, there is the opportunity within the line of questioning and by any political points being scrutinised and challenged – accepting that, in a live interview, in keeping the interview and programme on track, it isn’t always possible to challenge a guest on every point they’ve made and that it may be a subsequent interview or similar piece of our output that provides for other views and points to be put across. We note your call for a public apology but don’t believe it is merited here. We would, however, remind our teams of the merit of identifying and challenging, there and then, political points made during interviews. Thank you again for getting in touch.

MSM Monitor

28,722 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Bill Gates’ Climate Flip: A Masterclass in Elite Hypocrisy For years, Bill Gates was the oracle of climate doom. His 2021 book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, painted a world on the brink—unless we embraced radical net-zero policies, geoengineering schemes (like spraying dust into the stratosphere), and the wholesale abandonment of fossil fuels. He warned of civilization’s collapse, funded alarmist research, and helped silence dissent as “climate denial.” Governments, banks, and institutions fell in line, cutting off funding for anything but “green” energy, while children were taught their future was a wasteland of fire and flood. Now? Gates sings a different tune. In a stunning reversal, he admits we won’t hit 1.5°C or even 2°C targets. Climate change, he now says, is serious but not existential—just a problem for the world’s poorest. Innovation, not degrowth, is the answer. Human welfare—vaccines, poverty reduction, adaptation—must take precedence over temperature targets. Energy use, he concedes, is good for human progress. The man who once pushed solar geoengineering as a last-ditch survival tactic now calls it a distraction. What changed? The monologue from Glenn Beck cuts to the heart of the matter: power, control, and a failed globalist agenda. Gates’ epiphany isn’t scientific—it’s political. His vision of top-down global governance, championed by the WEF and UN, is crumbling. Donald Trump’s rise dismantled the climate industrial complex’s grip on policy. The “useless eaters” (as elites allegedly see the masses) are no longer so easy to manage. With Trump dismantling the Paris Accord, defunding the WEF’s pet projects, and prioritizing energy abundance, Gates’ playbook is obsolete. This isn’t humility. It’s survival. Gates’ foundation bankrolled the fearmongering that demonized skeptics, stifled debate, and funneled trillions into unproven tech while real human needs—like vaccines and economic growth—were sidelined. Now, as AI and quantum computing demand more energy (not less), he pivots. Suddenly, fossil fuels aren’t the enemy. Suddenly, “climate deniers” (a term he helped weaponize) were right all along: you can’t save the planet by destroying humanity. But let’s be clear: this isn’t redemption. It’s a tactical retreat. The same elites who terrified a generation into believing the world would end by 2030 now shrug and say, “Well, maybe not.” No apology. No accountability. Just a smooth pivot to the next narrative—because the goal was never the climate. It was control. The question remains: Who decides your future? The technocrats who cried wolf for decades, or a world that rejects their steel cage of fear and scarcity? Gates doesn’t get a pass. Neither do the institutions that amplified his alarmism. The damage is done: careers ruined, economies weakened, children traumatized. If the science was ever settled, it’s settled now—the elites were wrong. And their sudden “reasonableness” is just another move in the game. Wake up. Stay angry. Demand better.

Bill Gates’ Climate Flip: A Masterclass in Elite Hypocrisy For years, Bill Gates was the oracle of climate doom. His 2021 book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, painted a world on the brink—unless we embraced radical net-zero policies, geoengineering schemes (like spraying dust into the stratosphere), and the wholesale abandonment of fossil fuels. He warned of civilization’s collapse, funded alarmist research, and helped silence dissent as “climate denial.” Governments, banks, and institutions fell in line, cutting off funding for anything but “green” energy, while children were taught their future was a wasteland of fire and flood. Now? Gates sings a different tune. In a stunning reversal, he admits we won’t hit 1.5°C or even 2°C targets. Climate change, he now says, is serious but not existential—just a problem for the world’s poorest. Innovation, not degrowth, is the answer. Human welfare—vaccines, poverty reduction, adaptation—must take precedence over temperature targets. Energy use, he concedes, is good for human progress. The man who once pushed solar geoengineering as a last-ditch survival tactic now calls it a distraction. What changed? The monologue from Glenn Beck cuts to the heart of the matter: power, control, and a failed globalist agenda. Gates’ epiphany isn’t scientific—it’s political. His vision of top-down global governance, championed by the WEF and UN, is crumbling. Donald Trump’s rise dismantled the climate industrial complex’s grip on policy. The “useless eaters” (as elites allegedly see the masses) are no longer so easy to manage. With Trump dismantling the Paris Accord, defunding the WEF’s pet projects, and prioritizing energy abundance, Gates’ playbook is obsolete. This isn’t humility. It’s survival. Gates’ foundation bankrolled the fearmongering that demonized skeptics, stifled debate, and funneled trillions into unproven tech while real human needs—like vaccines and economic growth—were sidelined. Now, as AI and quantum computing demand more energy (not less), he pivots. Suddenly, fossil fuels aren’t the enemy. Suddenly, “climate deniers” (a term he helped weaponize) were right all along: you can’t save the planet by destroying humanity. But let’s be clear: this isn’t redemption. It’s a tactical retreat. The same elites who terrified a generation into believing the world would end by 2030 now shrug and say, “Well, maybe not.” No apology. No accountability. Just a smooth pivot to the next narrative—because the goal was never the climate. It was control. The question remains: Who decides your future? The technocrats who cried wolf for decades, or a world that rejects their steel cage of fear and scarcity? Gates doesn’t get a pass. Neither do the institutions that amplified his alarmism. The damage is done: careers ruined, economies weakened, children traumatized. If the science was ever settled, it’s settled now—the elites were wrong. And their sudden “reasonableness” is just another move in the game. Wake up. Stay angry. Demand better.

Camus

62,569 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten