(SARS)CO(V)2 – Lockstep of Corona and Climate Alarmism


by Tylor Tao


"This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It's
February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists. They're world leaders.“ (Maurice
Strong, co-founder of the World Economic Forum, describing his idea for a novel in 1990)

The first part of this essay discusses two core personalities of the Great Reset
movement, Maurice Strong and his disciple Klaus Schwab, the latter being the
head of a global network (World Economic Forum = WEF) that many suspect
of steering current and future policy globally and with far-reaching
effectiveness. Particular attention is paid to their networking with other
important figures of the global elite, which seems to be coordinated by Strong
and even more so by Schwab toward the goal of global governance or even
world government in the wake of an economic, political and cultural ´Great
Reset´ in green disguise. A dual strategy seems to be used, Corona and climate
alarmism, in order to steer the societies of at least 150 affected countries in this
direction. In the title of this essay, I illustrate this strategy with the synthesizing
formula "(SARS)CO(V)2".
In the second part it is shown in both contexts that disagreeable opinions are
suppressed in favor of a manipulatively constructed scientific consensus, which
in both cases again seems to serve the interests of the WEF. To this end,
manipulative measures are demonstrated in detail with two examples: the
Antilab-leak Open Letter in the Lancet Journal in February 2020, orchestrated by
Peter Daszak, and a set of influential statistical studies NASA has used to
bolster the narrative of scientific consensus on the climate issue.
The third part addresses the problem of computer-aided forecasting models,
which can lead, and have already led to erroneous assessments in both fields. It
is fatal that politicians often base their measures on such questionable
recommendations, especially in the spring of 2020, when an extremely flawed
forecast by a British institute served as the basis for the controversial lockdown
policy of several governments.
The fourth part analyzes statements by internationally renowned climate
experts (Al Gore and Club of Rome member Hans Joachim Schellnhuber) who have
sporadically formulated their view of the Corona crisis and come to misleading and
downright amateurish conclusions, which does not at all contribute to the credibility of their
climate-related argumentation. After all, how high is the probability that someone would
come to naïve and obviously ideological conclusions about mainstream Corona politics, the
inconsistencies of which are easy to see through even for scientific laymen, but in another
field, the climate issue, assess the situation objectively and unideologically? Very low in this
case, since the statements of said experts correspond exactly to the respective
doctrine of the WEF, which pursues a specific political program to which its
doctrines are aligned. Thus, a demonstration of ideological bias in the Corona
statements would strengthen a suspicion of ideological bias in the statements of
the same individuals on the climate issue.


PART 1
Among critics of Corona alarmism, there is a growing tendency to reject
climate alarmism because the obvious nexus of these campaigns appears to be a
double strategy in which the same proponents are at work. Thus a suspicion has
arisen among critics that, in the final instance, a political goal is at stake, the

realization of which is the actual purpose of those campaigns. Could this
purpose be to turn a non- or even anti-democratic agenda which the UN and its
partner organizations Club of Rome and World Economic Forum have made
their mission, into political reality under the psychologically favorable
conditions of allegedly dramatic climate and health crises? There is widespread
agreement in the Corona-critical scene that this purpose is the implementation
of the 'Great Reset' proclaimed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) i.e., the
transformation of global civilization into a new kind of socio-economic system
that is supposedly more humane and environmentally friendly than the
neoliberalism of recent decades. Too clearly visible is the both programmatic
and coordinating role of this organization in the process of political
transformation of much of the Western world which we have been witnessing
since Spring 2020. Leading politicians of North America (Biden, Trudeau), of
New Zealand (Jacinda Ardern) and Europe are very well connected to the WEF
and its head Klaus Schwab, in some cases even trained by the WEF as ´Global
Leaders´ (Merkel, Macron, Ardern, Kurz, Spahn, Baerbock, Blair, Brown,
Barroso, Juncker, Sarkozy, etc.). Likewise, the Big Techs, who increasingly
exercise censorship against critics of Great Reset measures, are closely
networked with the WEF and partly trained as Global Leaders (Facebook's
Zuckerberg and Sandberg). Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki, responsible for the
increasing censorship activities of this platform against Corona critics, is not a
WEF global leader, but equally well connected to the WEF. That vaccination
pope Bill Gates as well as Amazon´s Jeff Bezos and Google´s Larry Page, to
name just a few of the more than 1,000 other Global Leaders, also underwent
WEF training, as did Jeffrey Zients, Biden´s Coronavirus Response
Coordinator, and the media stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Bono (both active
climate propagandists and the latter also a vaccination propagandist), rounds off
the picture of the World Economic Forum as a cadre for global political
overturn - or „Reset“, as it is expressed more diplomatically.
It all started around 1970 with two foundings, of think tank Club of Rome in
1968 and of the World Economic Forum in 1971. Of greater outreach was first
the Club of Rome through its worldwide sensational publication "The Limits of
Growth" in 1972, in which a gloomy picture of an apocalyptic future was
painted and substantiated by supposedly dangerous population growth and
resource shortages, which would lead to a major crisis because the reserves of
petroleum would only last until 1992, of natural gas until 1993 and of

aluminum until 2021. However, these raw materials are still far from being
exhausted, so these predictions, based on computer models, were just silly talk
and a foreshadowing of those alarmist climate forecasts that will be discussed
below. Nevertheless, to this day this think tank plays, mainly behind the scenes,
an important role in the global environmental campaign, the focus of which was
shifted to the supposed CO2 problem in the late 1980s.
The other founding, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos/Switzerland,
which is a think tank and a global elitist network simultaneously, soon outgrew
the significance of the Club of Rome, but only came into the public
consciousness through the Corona crisis and the publication of its German
chairman Klaus Schwab: "COVID-19: The Great Reset" (2020), whose close
association of pandemic and economic-political turnaround in the title clearly
reveals a political instrumentalization of the virus, which, in the eyes of many
critics, seems factually to be implemented through the Corona measures in
international political practice. In the book Schwab describes the pandemic 6
times as a great "opportunity" to thoroughly transform the economic conditions
in the planetary society, which raises the suspicion that the virus may not have
come into the world just by chance. By the way, Schwab's and his followers´
frequent use of the term "transformation" has turned this hitherto neutral
expression into a battle cry that requires the highest levels of caution and
mistrust.
Of great importance for both organizations was the Canadian entrepreneur
Maurice Strong, perhaps the biggest name in the environmental movement and,
according to WEF boss Schwab, his intellectual teacher. So we should take a
closer look at him. As a member of the Club of Rome and co-chairman of the
WEF board in its early days, he was the personified lockstep of these
organizations. Because of the historical importance of both personalities
(Strong for the global climate campaign and Schwab for the current Great Reset
revolution) I quote part of what Schwab says in his obituary of Strong (died
2015):
„He deeply incorporated the World Economic Forum’s mission of improving
the state of the world into everything he did. He was a great visionary, always
ahead of our times in his thinking. He was my mentor since the creation of the
Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor; and, for many years, a member
of our Foundation Board. Without him, the Forum would not have achieved its
present significance. I am grateful to him for his guidance and partnership. I

will always remember the hundreds of hours where we exchanged ideas.“
What is remarkable, though not surprising, is the self-image of these people,
who live in the equally firm and megalomaniac belief that they are actually
improving the world, which is even more dangerous in the case of Schwab than
it is in Strong's case. Schwab now sees himself as the architect of mankind´s
future and even has the power to perform this role. It would be naïve to assume
that for multi-billionaires or multi-millionaires (Strong, Schwab) with
missionary zeal and relevant political influence, the idea of making the
realization of their plans independent of democratic consent would not be
tempting. Rather, it is almost certainly true that such people always seek to use
their power surreptitiously to impose their ideas on the general population by
circumventing democratic decision-making processes. In this sense,
subterranean "conspiracies" are certainly the rule in politics and publicly
transparent undertakings the exception. But the crazy thing is that such a
conspiracy can now even be carried out quite openly under the pretext of
fighting the Corona pandemic, since via media panic propaganda it is presented
as a "transformation" (that manipulative battle cry) that seems to be necessary
and without alternative for the supposed minimization of future risks. The same
applies to climate policy measure based on apocalyptically exalted fear
fantasies and faked consensus claims (see further below).
If we consider Strong's work primarily in the environmental field, where he
chaired the 1972 UN Conference on the Environment in Stockholm and
subsequently led the UN environmental organization UNEP, then co-organized
the Agenda 21 conference (the root of Schwab´s later Great Reset program) and
created the magic term „sustainability“, then organized the notorious Kyoto
conference in 1998 (Wall Street Journal calls him Godfather of the Kyoto
treaty), and if we then consider Schwab's work as an organizer and trainer of a
considerable part of the global political and economic elite ("Global Leaders",
see further below) as well as the designer of the current Great Reset (to which a
lot of his prominent „global leaders“ are strongly contributing), then we are
facing a duo that either has decisively shaped the political history of the 21st
century (Strong) or is in the process of doing so even more (Schwab).
As to Schwab, he is one of the hardliners in respect of Corona policy, from
which his Great Reset project benefits quite excellently. As said, in his book he
emphasizes several times that the pandemic is a unique opportunity to
implement his ideas. This is understandable since it is a wonderful

legitimization for the formation of a totalitarian state which can put Klaus
Schwab's abstruse transhumanist fantasies into practice by creating a
consciousness in the population for obedient subordination and permanently
chain them up through several control mechanisms such as, to name a few
examples, vaccination cards, ID2020 cards and Internet censorship, with three
WEF people working on its realization: WEF board member Marc Benioff (vax
card), WEF global leader Bill Gates (ID2020) and WEF global leader Mark
Zuckerberg (Facebook censorship). We'll see below what embarrassing
contortions the Facebook censor strategy is capable of.
One particularly untrustworthy commonality between the wannabe-green duo is
their sympathy for CCP's China, which one might suspect could be reflected in
their respective agendas in a more or less covert way. Strong had an emotional
attachment to China in general and close ties to the CCP in particular, which
was naturally favorable to his business interests in China. His Chinese
inclination was initiated or at least strengthened by an aunt who had a great
influence on his intellectual development by her texts on China, which he read
as a young man: the American journalist Anna-Louisa Strong, who, as a
convinced communist, was friends with Lenin and Trotsky and then settled in
China, where she cultivated a friendship with brutal dictator Mao Zedong and
Premier Zhou Enlai, who even shed tears at her funeral in Beijing in 1970,
which he had organized. Strong later owed the good relations that opened up for
him in China in part to his aunt's reputation.
Another questionable influence on Strong came from his wife Hanna, who had
a considerable spiritual inclination and claimed to speak with angels and
remember past lives and in the 1980s tried to create a spiritual center
synthesizing all the religions of this world on their huge ranch Baca to
counteract the impending downfall of civilization. This downfall had been
prophesied to her in 1978 by a mysterious man named Glenn Andersen, who
recommended that she found a spiritual community that would create a new
planetary order to prevent the calamity. Apparently, Maurice, a big shot at the
UN long by this time, was infected by this nonsense, especially the idea for a
new world order, which in a way was yet enshrined in the genes of the UN.
Pseudo-spiritual stuff like that can increase an already virulent megalomania
into a missionary mania in spiritually immature persons with considerable
worldly power, such as Maurice Strong. If one moreover considers the
phantasied plot, which Strong had designed for a planned own novel and told

journalist Daniel Wood in an interview in 1990 (a group of members of the
World Economic Forum (!!!), which he of all people co-founded as mentor to
its head, is planning to wreck the world economy in order to facilitate an
environmentally friendly rebuilding of the world order).
"This group of world leaders," he tells Wood, "form a secret society to bring
about an economic collapse. It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't
terrorists. They're world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the
world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to
stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent
the world's stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire
mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The
markets can't close. The rich countries..."
One naturally wonders whether this fantasy, which was presumably known to
his friend Schwab, is not meanwhile being turned – even if heavily modified -
into reality by the favorable circumstances of the Corona crisis, so that Strong,
even if only as a would-be novelist, could actually be considered the godfather
of Schwab´s New-World-Order a.k.a. Great-Reset plan. From today's
perspective, Strong´s idea complements well with the statement of his then
associate Prince Philip Mountbatten in 1988 that "in the event that I am
reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to
solving overpopulation.” (Remember that overpopulation was a major concern
of the Club of Rome). Prince Philip had founded the Wildlife Fund in 1960
together with Dutch ex-SS officer Prince Bernard, who later founded the
ominous Club 1001 to finance this fund, whereby Strong was a central member
of this club. The coincidence of both fantasies so close time from people so
closely associated does indeed make you think.
That New World Order (NWO) had in politics not often been used as a
programmatic term until the end of the Cold War, mostly by political
commentators after World War II to describe the new balance of power
including the new institution 'UN'. Then Bush sr. and Gorbachev took it up to
describe the cooperation of the former Cold Warriors under new conditions.
From this time on, the use of this expression is interesting for us especially in
the case of those who are somehow connected with Klaus Schwab and/or
Maurice Strong. First of all, there is Henry Kissinger, who taught Schwab
Public Administration during his student days at Harvard University and who,
during his time as an agent of David Rockefeller, got to know Strong, who also

worked closely with Rockefeller. Kissinger said in 1994:
"Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to
change its perceptions."
Later, Kissinger, who is still alive at the age of nearly 100, became a staunch
supporter of the WEF Great Reset and also guest at several WEF meetings in
Davos. In matters of conspiracy on a grand scale, this comrade-in-arms of
Schwab and Strong is an experienced expert. For example, in 1970, at
Kissinger's instigation, Chilean Army General René Schneider was kidnapped
(and then murdered, with or without Kissinger's consent) because he stood in
the way of the plan to overthrow socialist president Allende, who was a
nuisance to U.S. economic interests. In 1973, according to U.S. journalist
Friedrich Engdahl (see his book "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil
Politics and the New World Order", 2004), Kissinger was a participant in a
Bilderberg meeting at which David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski (later
security advisor to Jimmy Carter) and George Ball (of Lehman Brothers) were
present. They discussed a strategy for massively increasing the oil price of in
the interests of the United States. Months later, Kissinger, by virtue of his
excellent relations with Israel and Egypt, incited both nations against each
other, which led to the Yom Kippur War and, as a consequence, to the oil
embargo including the desired oil price increase. Those who think this
interpretation is overly conspiracy-theoretical are referred to Sheikh Ahmad
Zaki Yamani (longtime petroleum minister of Saudi Arabia), who said of Engdahl's book:
"This is the only accurate account I have seen of what really happened with
the price of oil in 1973. I strongly recommend reading it."
So this was the man who taught Klaus Schwab Public Administration at
Harvard and remained a good friend of his and a supporter of his plan to
"improve" the world. Other people in WEF context who have talked about a
New World Order are the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair
(graduate of a WEF Global Leader course), and, especially frequently, Gordon
Brown, former Prime Minister of GB and before that Blair's finance minister,
also a WEF Global Leader. In 2007 Blair joined the WEF´s Foundation Board,
which according to the WEF website "serves as the guardian of the World
Economic Forum’s mission and values". It goes without saying that Blair´s and
Brown´s NWO statements must be seen against the background of the ideas of
the WEF, and that this NWO cannot be a result of democratic processes, but on

the contrary aims to marginalize such processes even more than they already
are - of course, as all NWO protagonists claim and some of them perhaps even
believe themselves, only for the good of mankind. According to the proven
wisdom 'By their fruits you shall know them' we see, however, due to the
irrationality of the present and probably also future Corona politics pursued by
the WEF guided global elite, that this pious wish is not to be taken seriously at
all.


PART 2
Now to the topic of the alleged 97 percent consensus of scientists on the manmade nature of climate change. Unfortunately, a lot of evidence suggests that
this consensus is only the result of selective statistics, which do not represent
the real opinion proportions on the subject in the scientific community. The
tendency of climate alarmists to defame or completely suppress counteropinions has a tradition that goes back to the beginnings of climate propaganda
in the 1980s. This strategy is reminiscent of the tendency in totalitarian systems,
whether political or religious, to devalue opinions as heretical and pernicious
that deviate from the dominant dogma and, if possible, to banish them from
scientific discourse altogether.
Before I give some examples on which even NASA's climate alarmism is
based, it is worth pointing out parallels in Corona alarmism, where the tendency
to exclude counter-opinions is even more blatant through political measures that
even partially ostracize the representatives of counter-opinions - I refer to
vaccination skeptics - from social life. These attempts to persuade skeptics to
vaccinate, which attack the freedom of opinion enshrined in the Basic Law, are
known to everyone and need not be further substantiated here.
On the scientific level, there was a case in the Corona field in February 2020
that showed particularly clearly the censorship of scientific media against noncompliant opinions. It´s about the open letter statement in support of the
scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China
combatting COVID-19 in the scientific journal 'The Lancet', which was signed
by 27 scientists, among them Christian Drosten. One of the initiators was Peter
Daszak (head of EcoHealthAlliance), who worked for years with the Chinese
virologist Shi Zenghli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, for which he had
procured a $600,000 grant from Fauci´s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy

and Infectious Diseases, part of the NIH = U.S. National Institutes of Health),
for the purpose of Coronavirus research which certainly included to a large
extent dangerous gain-of-function research, in which a virus is artificially given
new properties in order to be able to study it under more dangerous conditions,
e.g. for the development of future vaccines.
When the first suspicions arose that the virus could have escaped from this or
another laboratory (lab leak theory), Daszak came up with the idea of
countering these assumptions with a public letter, in whose final version it says:
„We strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not
have a natural origin.“
To this end, he sent on February 6, 2020, 3:44 pm, to several colleagues,
including Ralph Baric who was also heavily involved in virus reseach in
Chinese labs, this email:
"I have been following the events around the novel Coronavirus emergence in
China very closely and have been dismayed by the recent spreading of rumors,
misinformation and conspiracy theories on its origins. These are now
specifically targeting scientists with whom we have collaborated for many
years, and who have been working heroically to fight this outbreak and share
data with unprecedented speed, openness and transparency. These conspiracy
theories threaten to undermine the very global collaborations that we need to
deal with a disease that has already spread across continents."
First, the term „conspiracy theories“ is completely nonsensical in the case of lab
leak theories, since a lab leak is not a conspiracy but an accident. This rhetoric
is here, as in countless other examples when critics of Corona or climate
propaganda are attacked, a popular and psychologically effective means to
ridicule unwanted views in public. Second, it is clear that Daszak, as a longstanding participant in corona research in the WIV, would be suspected of being
partially responsible for the alleged outbreak of the virus through negligence.
So he couldn't help but organize a campaign against these assumptions. Because
his involvement in this research was known, however, he decided not to sign
the letter, which he had mainly planned and written himself, so that he would
not be accused of a blatant conflict of interest.
So Daszak wrote this email to Ralph Baric on February 6, 2020, 3:16 pm,
shortly before he sent the email cited above:
"I spoke with Linfa last night about the statement we sent round. He thinks, and
I agree with him, that you, me and him should not sign this statement, so it has

some distance from us and therefore doesn t work in a counterproductive way.
Jim Hughes, Linda Saif, Hume Field and I believe Rita Colwell will sign it,
then I`ll send it round some other key people tonight. We`ll then put it out in a
way that doesn
t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an
independent voice.
Later at 4:01 pm, Baric replied:
„I also think this is a good decision. Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose
impact.“
So the three to be excluded from the signing were Daszak as well as Ralph
Baric and Linfa Wang, who had also conducted research on coronaviruses at the
Wuhan laboratory together with Shi Zhengli and would therefore have had to
fear the accusation of a conflict of interest, which, as all three rightly feared,
would put the propagandistic "impact" at risk. Later Daszak changed his mind
and added his name to the list of signatories. However, he remained
unidentified as initiator and author of the letter. Baric and Linfang remained
completely unmentioned. In an e-mail to four signatories on the same day at
10:23 pm, Daszak explained his strategy:
"Please note that this statement will not have EcoHealth Alliance logo on it and
will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person, the idea
is to have this as a community supporting our colleagues."
One of the signatories, Linda Saif, asked him whether it would be helpful to add
just one or 2 statements in support of why nCOV is not a lab generated virus
and is naturally occuring? Seems critical to scientifically refute such claims!“
But Daszak replied:
"I think we should probably stick to a broad statement."
This obviously manipulative PR action, which served to avert damage to the
image and to clear the air of possible complicity of certain researchers,
especially Daszak (and Fauci in the background), in the emergence of the virus,
also - and more importantly - confirmed the narrative of dangerous impending
pandemics that had been cultivated for years, fueled above all by the allpowerful vaccination pope Gates. The Lancet letter dominated public opinion
on the subject of virus origin for more than a year, and came only in dubious
light when it became known that Daszak's organization, EcoHealth Alliance,
had financially supported the WIV. This also shook the message of the letter, so
that the lab leak theory gained sympathy and conspicuously persuaded some
who had previously rejected it to turn back. At this point, it should be noted that

there is a rarely openly advocated theory that goes beyond the lab leak theory
by assuming a deliberate release of the virus. I published in Spring 2021 an
essay of my own with this hypothetical premise (´The Corona Triumvirate - Xi
Jinping, Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates´), which in Germany und internationally
has not gone entirely unnoticed. The most prominent proponent of this theory is
exile Chinese virologist Li-Meng Yan, who, however, is hardly noticed outside
her and Steve Bannon's followership due to her connection to her current
promoter, bogeyman Bannon, which is regrettable considering her extensive
research on the possible artificiality of the virus.
Anyway, since March 2021 an attitude arose, even in WHO´s Tedros and then
Biden, that the question of origin should be approached in an open-ended way.
Until June 2021, Facebook users could even expect to be censored if they
doubted the theory of natural origin in favor of the lab theory. Then this
censorship policy was ended. This shaky behavior seems quite absurd. Finally,
in September 2021, the Lancet journal was willing to print a new statement by
other scientists in which the lab leak theory was considered as a possibility to
be explored. However, journals such as The Lancet and Nature had consistently
refused to publish scientific articles that did not harmonize with the natural origin 

doctrine or other Corona-related authority-conforming doctrines since the
beginning of the so-called pandemic. One central motive which the journal
editors seem to take strictly to heart, was certainly that many scientists who
experiment with viruses, often in the gain-of-function sector, and who receive
large research funds for this purpose, have no interest in getting a reputation as
playing with fire and possibly losing the state subsidies. So even renowned
authors who positively dealt with the lab leak theory in articles had to switch to
other media for publication, where official peer reviewing (i.e. confirmation by
other scientists) is not possible. Funnily enough, this gave advocates of the
natural origin theory the argument that these were just meaningless pre-prints
instead of "serious" peer-reviewed studies. In this way, the impression arose
that there is a scientific "consensus" on this issue, when in fact this supposed
consensus was only the result of censorship.
Whether political pressure for censorship weighed on these journals can only be
speculated. At any rate, it is worth considering whether the mentioned egoistic
and money-oriented motive was supported by additional political pressure
exerted on editorial offices. The lab leak theory certainly did not seem
politically opportune to many authorities during the first lockdown, as it would

have weakened the willingness of the population to submit to the lockdown
dictates and would have created political hatred against China, which provided
the officially praised model for the lockdowns, while the NIH / NIAID and US
health pope Fauci, as sponsor of the coronavirus research in Wuhan, would
have looked very foolish.


Let us now turn to similar proceedings in the field of climate propaganda. It is
not possible within the framework of this essay to present the debate about
climate change from a scientific point of view, because this is here just as little
a topic as the scientific debate about the so-called pandemic. While the latter,
however, is clearly easy to cast doubt on because of the questionable political
measures associated with it, a decision from the view not only of laymen and
even scientifcally educated people is difficult to make unequivocally. This is
because too many factors are involved in the problem, which are weighted and
interpreted differently by the various factions. To reduce it to the simplest
questions:
Has there been global warming since pre-industrial times, as claimed by
alarmists? Are increasing CO2 emissions since that time causal, and if so, to
what extent relative to other possible causes? Would an increase of the
atmospheric CO2 content and a surface warming up to 2 or 3°C be a
catastrophe in the long run, as claimed by the alarmists, or, conversely, even
beneficial for nature and mankind (apart from sea level rise, against which,
however, there would be useful measures), as some alarmist-critical researchers
claim? These include prominent economist and climate expert Richard Tol of
the University of Sussex, who served as coordinating leading author for the
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2014) of Working Group II (summary
team), but then dropped out because of overly alarmist tendencies of other
authors. For example, according to Tol a temperature rise of 2.5°C above 

pre-industrial times could well have a positive impact on societies, but would lead,
according to other authors of the AR5 summary, to problems in the food chain
and a decline in general economic performance, which Tol disputes. In 2015,
1,5°C (more precisely: well below 2°C, preferably not more than 1.5°C) was
determined as not-to-be-exceed upper limit in the Paris Agreement, which had
been signed by 197 states.
But the main questions are: If there is a global warming, has mankind (since the
industrial revolution) contributed to it by CO2 emissions fully, or partially, but
decisively, or partially, but negligibly?

According to several studies, which statistically evaluate the percentage of
scientists who assume a decisive man-made contribution, a supposed consensus
of about 97 percent has been found in favor of this view.
I will show here, based on the research of Idso/Carter/Singer in 'Why Scientists
Disagree About Global Warming' (2016), how 4 statistical studies, to which
NASA also refers positively on its website, have arrived at the assessment of a
supposedly overwhelming consensus through unobjective methods. NASA is
not only a spaceflight agency, but also an geoscience institution that provides
most of the funding in the U.S. for climate science research projects. So nonalarmist projects have no chance of funding by NASA, no matter how
substantiated their approach may be. On their climate page, the agency
introduces the topic this way:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journal show that 97
percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate warming 

trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human
activities.“ Then it says: "In addition, most of the leading scientific
organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position".
Since the "most" is not quantified any further, this reference to the endorsing by
several institutes is not really conclusive, because even if a quarter or a third of
the institutes would represent alternative views that would be a severe blow to
the claim of a "consensus" on such an important issue.
The first study on the NASA list, from 2004, is by Naomi Oreskes, at that time
Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California in San
Diego and later at Harvard. Her awards are more numerous than the hair on
some men's heads, and of course she is an 'Agenda Contributor' to the
omnipresent World Economic Forum and was a guest on a panel at Davos in
2017. One would think that her often referenced research on the consensus
theme would stand up fairly firmly to critical scrutiny. Unfortunately, the
opposite is true. Not only did she practice simply reading tea leaves, but even
prepared the tea leaves beforehand. Her procedure was to search 928 research
papers from the years 1993-2003 from the database of the Institute for
Scientific Information using the keywords 'global climate change', of which she
only read the abstracts. Without any scientific training, she concluded from
these abstracts that about 75 percent of the authors implicitly or explicitly
supported the IPCC's view that human activities were responsible for most of
the global warming during the previous 50 years, while none of the other

abstracts (the remaining 25 percent) contradicted this. Oreskes' article is the
first to claim the alleged tiny minority of climate skeptics and is cited in Gore's
Oscar-winning 'An Inconvenient Truth' and in his book of the same title. Based
on that paper Gore dares to make this statement:
„There is as strong as consensus as science ever had.“
So for Gore this consensus is not less strong than e.g. the consensus about the
revolving of the earth around the sun. With this he betrays how little scientific
and how much political his concern is, since Oreskes' method of determining a
consensus is anything but scientific. Grotesquely, on closer examination, it turns
out that she did not distinguish between abstracts that claim a human
contribution of more than 50 percent according to the IPCC dogma, and
abstracts that claim a contribution of less than 50 percent, or even far below.
Many of the abstracts make no quantitative claim at all and were included by
Oreskes nonetheless. But many articles by climate skeptics, including John
Christy, Sherwood Idso, and Richard Lindzen, were not included by Oreskes in
any way. Oreskes' fundamental error (if indeed it was an unintentional error)
was to try to interpret abstracts reliably as a non-expert, and also not to consider
that abstracts do not always adequately reflect the content of the corresponding
study. In a Nature article from 2014, Park et al stated about this general problem
that there is "a mismatch between the claims made in the abstracts, and the
strength of evidence for those claims based on a neutral analysis of the data,
consistent with the occurrence of herding." Unfortunately, Oreskes had made
other methodological errors in her study, but these need not be shown here
because the questionability has already been sufficiently demonstrated.
Another NASA-listed paper by Doran and Zimmerman (a student) from 2009
concludes that 97 percent of climate scientists believe that temperatures have
risen since the 18th century due to a significant human contribution. This time,
the procedure consisted of a 2-minute online survey of 10,257 Earth-related
scientists (geologists, oceanographers, geochemists, etc.) at universities and
government research institutions. Of these, 3,146 responded, however, of the
survey group contacted, all other specialist scientists had been excluded, i.e.,
solar scientists, physicists, meteorologists, etc., which logically extremely
limited the likelihood of anyone attributing the warming to solar activity. About
1000 of the addressees had neither a Ph.D. nor a master's degree. Only 5
percent of the respondents, that is, 77, described themselves as climate
scientists. Of these, 75 answered the following questions (the content of the

survey) with "Yes":
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global
temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
However, these questions are not relevant with regard to the issue of mainly
man-made global warming with harmful consequences (because this is what the
general debate is about). The first question would be answered in the
affirmative by any skeptic, since alone the influence of growing cities on
atmospheric warming is undeniable. Moreover, a "yes" vote here does not
necessarily mean confirmation of the fear that global warming has harmful
consequences, because some experts see it differently, see, as mentioned,
Richard Tol. Moreover, other causes than CO2 (which is also always at issue in
the general debate), e.g. solar activities, could also play a role. In the second
question, the term "significant" is much too vague. It is surely meant to mean
"decisive" or "dominating", which however does not always correspond to the
scientific practice, where also 10 or 20 or 30 percent can be considered as
"significant", as an internet search quickly shows (e.g. "a significant 10 percent
increase" or "a significant 10 percent share").
Thus, using the 75/77 calculation, the authors arrived at the result of a 97
percent consensus. As shown, this figure from a quantitatively very small
sample set without revelance to the crucial questions in the climate debate. The
questions clearly lacked the necessary sharpness and clarity. A suspicion even
arises that the questions were intentionally formulated in such a vague way in
order to achieve a desired consensus result. So one can hardly disagree with
Idso/Carter/Singer when they call it "fraudulent". Nevertheless,
Doran/Zimmerman
s paper is listed by NASA on its homepage as proof of a
scientific consensus on the dangerousness of a current man-made global
warming.
In any case, that questionable paper from 2009 marked the birth of the 97
percent myth that persists to this day.
Another paper ("Expert credibility in climate change" from 2010) on the NASA
list then
surprise! - confirms this 97 percent. Like Oreskes, William Anderegg
et al also rely on abstracts, this time 908 in number, and comes to the result of a
consensus of "97-98 percent". Again, the question of whether the opinion
expressed in the abstract about global warming implies harmful consequences is

not considered. Interestingly, Anderegg discovers that skeptics as individuals
publish significantly fewer papers than alarmists, who, so to speak, pound out
paper after paper on this topic. According to Idso/Carter/Singer, the reasons are
that alarmist studies attract more attention than skeptical ones and that the U.S.
government, which has adhered to alarmist dogma since the 1980s,
overwhelmingly prefers to fund alarmist projects rather than skeptical ones.
From 2010-2013 alone, the government doled out $64 billion to scientists
explicitly researching causes of harmful climate change. The corresponding
flood of alarmist papers is then naturally reflected in the consensus statistics.
The main problem with Anderegg´s paper, however, is the lack of
differentiation between authors who believe climate change is dangerous and
those who do not.
Another paper ("Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
in the scientific literature") on the NASA list comes from John Cook et al
(2013) and concludes from examinations of 11,944 abstracts of peer reviewed
papers from 1991-2011 an alarmist consensus of - another surprise! - 97
percent. However, critics of this study, such as IPCC leading author Tol (2013)
and climate skeptic Montford (2013), demonstrated its unscientific approach.
Tol found that the results of the study were "incorrect, invalid and
unrepresentative. Most of the papers used were not about climate change,
including papers on carbon taxes, which naturally assumed that carbon
emissions were causing global warming, which Cook et al counted as scientific
confirmation of dangerous climate change. Montford (2013) even found that
Cook et al were "marketing" the research results before the research was even
done (hence, of course, the usual "97 percent").
Despite the criticisms, NASA continues to list these works. A sufficient reason
for this is probably that the state-supported narrative of harmful climate change,
which is politically very useful in various ways, e.g. by levying carbon taxes
that put a lot of money in the pockets of indebted states, which, according to
some skeptics, was even the main reason why that narrative and the IPCC
embodying it were created in the 1980s.


PART 3
“Prediction is difficult, especially about the future” (unknown provenance)
Now a look at prognostic modeling by computer programs that have led to
policy decisions in both the Corona and climate fields, without reasonable
assurance of the reliability of such predictions. One reason for this is the
different assumptions scientists make when programming, which may be based
on different scientific assessments, but may also be based on associated
political intentions of which scientists may not necessarily be aware.
A spectacular case of politically consequential misjudgment is the February
2020 Corona pandemic modeling by London's Imperial College, led by Neil
Ferguson. Now, the Imperial College has close ties with the Chinese
Communist Party and, by its own admission, even strives to maintain a
particularly good relationship with China. Thus, on the occasion of a visit by
CCP boss Xi Jinping to Imperial College in October 2015, IC President Alice
Gast said, addressed to the British Finance Minister who was present:
"Chancellor, you have said that you aim to make the U.K. 'China's best partner
in the West.' Imperial College London strives to be just that, China's best
academic partner in the West."
It is not surprising, then, that the results of the pandemic modeling, which was
intended primarily to examine the question of the need for lockdowns,
harmonized splendidly with the interests of the CCP. Here I follow the research
of Michael P. Senger, who has plausibly laid out the methods by which the CCP
foisted its Wuhan-tested lockdown policy on Western governments in the spring
of 2020. One means, according to Senger, was Imperial College's overdramatic
prediction that without lockdown, over 500,000 people would die from Covid-
19 in the UK by October 2020, and 2.2 million people in the US. In fact,
according to official figures, 37,000 people died in the U.K. and 230,000 in the
U.S. by the end of 2020. Of course, these are official figures, and we know very
well by now that great caution is needed with such figures because no
distinction is made between "on Covid" and "with Covid." Interestingly, as
Senger points out, at the same time the numbers of other common types of
death were declining, such as heart disease or cancer. Either way, Ferguson's
modeling was grossly exaggerated, which was fine with the CCP, because
several European countries and the U.S. decided in March, on the basis of the
Imperial College study, to subject their populations to the restrictive measures
recommended by the College, modeled on China´s Wuhan lockdown.
However, the gross error rate of this modeling does not seem to be a unique
case in the history of the Imperial College, or better: of Neil Ferguson.

According to Winsberg et al (How Government Leaders Violated Their
Epistemic Duties during the SARS-CoV-2 Crisis, 2020), "Neil Ferguson, the
famous epidemiologist behind the ICL model, has often overestimated disease
dangers." In 2001, for example, he said, based on his computer modelling in
2000, in a New York Times article that mad cow disease would cause about
136,000 human deaths. In fact, it has been less than 200 to date. In 2005, he
told the Guardian that up to 200 million people would die from bird flu. In fact,
only 455 people have died since 2003. The professor did not even need his
computer to make these extremely rough errors, but calculated like a schoolboy 

in his head:
"Around 40 million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak. There are six
times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200
million people probably.“
One may ask, why he estimated the 5-fold number of deaths, although there
were 6 times more people. But we are talking about Neil Ferguson, who juggles
with numbers like a trickster. In 2020, when the world press reported that
Ferguson himself had broken the lockdown rules he had recommended by
receiving a visit of his beloved, Elon Musk, a critic of excessive Corona
measures, made public his contempt for this pseudo-scientist on Twitter, calling
him a "tool“ and adding: „This guy has caused massive strife to the world with
his absurdly fake science.“
The credibility situation in climate modeling is not quite as dramatic as in the
extreme example of Ferguson (who of all people has gained such a massive
importance), but still very controversial to the point that skeptics accuse the
alarmist modelers of the tendency to exaggerate up to fraud. It came to a
scandalous climax in 2009 (known as „Climategate“), when, as a result of data
piracy of private emails of several climate researchers of the Climatic Research
Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, it became apparent that influential
members of this institute privately agreed on how rival opinions that did not
concur with their own alarmist view could be suppressed, i.e. censored, on the
public perception. This is very reminiscent of the machinations of Daszak &
Co. in the case of the Lancet letter and, more generally, of the strategy of
leading scientific journals not to accept for publication virological studies that
deviate from the official natural origin narrative. In this case, the famous
hockey stick graph by Mann, Bradey & Hughes (1999), cited in the IPCC's
2001 Third Assessment Report as evidence of the escalating climate situation,

was the point of contention. This graphical temperature curve illustrates the
alleged findings of these scientists that the Earth's temperature over the last
1000 years has been significantly cooler than the 20th century the 1990s was
the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in that entire period. The
exaggerated way of presenting a relatively uniform temperature over almost
1000 years until a visually dramatic increase of about 1°C from the beginning
of the 20th century makes the graph look like a hockey stick. Since there were
no temperature measurements before the 19th century, the values used for the
centuries before are based on proxy measurements, i.e., estimates of
temperature via tree rings, ice cores, sub-fossil pollen, and so on. Now said
hacked emails show how CRU staffer Phil Jones and hockey stick author
Michael Mann exchanged views on ways to censor non-alarmist studies in
connection with a very field hockey stick-critical study by Balunias & Soon
(Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) published in the journal
"Climate Research" in 2003. Balunias & Soon had reviewed over 200 climate
studies and concluded from these that the 20th century was neither the warmest
century nor the century with the most extreme weather in the last 1000 years.
The Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 CE) and the Little Ice Age (1300-1900
CE), trivialized by alarmists, would have been global phenomena and not
limited to Europe and North America, as alarmists claim. The Medieval Warm
Period would have been even warmer than the 20th century. Such statements
naturally pull the rug out from under the alarmist dogma.
Jones reacted with corresponding indignation when, in a circular e-mail to
colleagues on March 11, 2003, he said of the study in all seriousness: "Best to
ignore probably, so don't let it spoil your day. I've not looked at it yet." So he
recommended to ignore the work, even though he had not looked at it yet, so he
did not know the reasoning in detail. A striking example of (un)scientific bias
and dogmatism! In another email the same day, Jones wrote after having
„briefly“ read part of the study: "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm
having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome
editor. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get
dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch." So he wanted to call on
the journal publishing the unpopular study to fire the editor responsible for its
acceptance and assigned to it by climate scientist Hans von Storch, to whom
Jones attributes a closeness to climate skepticism, and regretted that a CRU
member in the journal was not in charge for the admission. For Jones, the

coexistence of skeptical and alarmist studies in the same journal was
intolerable. This corresponds to the strict censorship attitude of Schellnhuber
and Daszak and many science journals and scientists on the Corona origin
issue.
Let's see what Mike Mann, the hockey stick author, had to say about it. He
wrote back to Jones:
“The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review
process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility - that the peerreview process
at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board
(...) The skeptics appear to have staged a “coup” at Climate Research (it was a
mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite
“purpose”).”
So he implied that the despicable study would not have passed a real peer
review process at all and only got published because the journal had been
"hijacked" by a few climate skeptics and now only serve the purpose of being a
mouthpiece for skeptics - because of a single skeptical study! One may wonder
about the objectivity of the research of such scientists, considering that they
almost panicked when a counter-voice in the previously one-sided alarmist
Climate Research journal became public. But Mann goes even further:
“I told Mike MacCracken that I believed our only choice was to ignore this
paper. They've already achieved what they wanted-the claim of a peer-reviewed
paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to
do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on
the whole (...) It is pretty clear that the skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup,
even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board.”
How great must be the inner uncertainties about one's own scientific position
when a single opposing study triggers such defensive reflexes? If these people
were really sure of themselves, their reaction would have been more relaxed.
The next year, on July 8, 2004, Jones wrote in an email to Mann with the same
intention of suppressing non-alarmist studies that had also appeared in Climate
Research:
“The other paper by McKitrick and Michaels is just garbage - as you knew (...)
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC Report. Kevin and I
will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
literature is!"
The second paper was by E. Kalnay and Min Cai. Since Jones then was for the

first time a lead author of a chapter in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, he
believed he had the inquisitorial right and power to keep disagreeable studies
out of a mention in that report. The mentioned Kevin E. Trenberth later clarified
in an interview that Jones had overstepped the mark with this presumption (both
papers, incidentally, were mentioned later in the Report): "(Jones') comment
was naive and sent before he understood the process."
This brief look at Climategate should clarify just a little how the personal
thinking and behavior of too many climate scientists, exemplified by two
renowned alarmist authors (Phil Jones and the very influential Mike Mann) is
able to manipulate the attitude and course of politics and public opinion in their
favor. Something very similar is also taking place, as we saw to some extent, in
the Corona area.
Finally, a brief look at the latest IPCC Assessment Report No 6, which was
published in August 2021 and provides the scientific basis for decisions taken at
the 26th UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow 2021 (COP26), to which
400 participants traveled in massively CO2-emitting private jets to set an
example for climate protection. The report is, according to the basic guidelines
of the IPCC, alarmist oriented and is, like all IPCC reports before, of course
now used as scientific legitimation for green-disguised restrictive policies,
which in the future could lead to lockdown-like restrictions in the tradition of
Corona lockdowns, in both cases certainly welcomed by the World Economic
Forum.
In 2020, two studies independently examined the climate models predominantly
referenced in the IPCC`s AR6, Mitchell et al: "The vertical profile of recent
tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal
variability", and McKitrick/Christy: "Pervasive warming bias in CMIP6
tropospheric layers". The focus was to examine the CMIP6 series climate
models most included in AR6 in terms of how accurately they were able to
reconstruct Earth's atmospheric temperatures compared to real temperature
processes since 1979. According to McKitrick, both studies found that the tropospheric temperature values used in these models were overstated by the scientists, leading the calculations to inappropriate conclusions, which in no way strengthens the confidence in these models that they can plausibly forecast future developments. Mitchell states:
We find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we
show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature (these models

simulate an unrealistically large global warming) (...) Throughout the depth of
the troposphere, not a single model realization overlaps all the observational
estimates (...) Focusing on the CMIP6 models, we have confirmed the original
findings of Mitchell et al. (2013): first, the modeled tropospheric trends are
biased warm throughout the troposphere (and notably in the upper troposphere,
around 200 hPa) and, second, that these biases can be linked to biases in surface
warming. As such, we see no improvement between the CMIP5 and the CMIP6
models. McKitrick then sums up the problem in ´New Confirmation that
Climate Models Overstate Atmospheric Warming´ (August 2021):
"I get it that modeling the climate is incredibly difficult, and no one faults the
scientific community for finding it a tough problem to solve. But we are all
living with the consequences of climate modelers stubbornly using generation
after generation of models that exhibit too much surface and tropospheric
warming, in addition to running grossly exaggerated forcing scenarios (e.g.
RCP8.5)."
Back in 2005 in the first report of the then-new US Climate Change Science
Program, Karl et al. pointed to the exaggerated warming in the tropical
troposphere as a potentially serious inconsistency. But rather than fixing it since
then, modelers have made it worse. Mitchell et al. note that in addition to the
wrong warming trends themselves, the biases have broader implications
because atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature
gradients. In other words when the models get the tropical troposphere wrong, it
drives potential errors in many other features of the model atmosphere. Even if
the original problem was confined to excess warming in the tropical midtroposphere, it has now expanded into a more pervasive warm bias throughout
the global troposphere.
One possible and even likely explanation for the IPCC modelers' habit of
overstating temperatures, lamented by McKitrick, lies in the reason for the
IPCC's existence, which was created as an institution to combat supposedly
harmful climate change. Expert opinions that run counter to this raison d´etre
are therefore not to be expected in the conclusions and recommendations of
IPCC reports. The same alarmist paradigm also dominates politics, professional
journals, and universities, as indicated above. Funding for climate research
projects logically goes preferably to those who base their research on this
paradigm. All this is underpinned by "studies", which, as shown in chapter 2

above, in a questionable way pretend a scientific consensus in favor of
alarmism.
The scenario RCP8.5 mentioned by McKitrick, which is one of the worst case
scenarios, plays a decisive role in the alarmistic IPCC reporst. Another worst
case scenario is SSP5-8.5. Middle scenarios are RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and SSP2-4.5.
Realistically, such scenarios of climate development are to be expected if things
do not go well according to the alarmists' expectations. In the new report, the
IPCC even classifies the two worst scenarios as little likely. Nevertheless, in
August 2021, after the publication of the AR6, the Secretary General of the
United Nations, Antonio Guterres, was carried away by the idiotic statement
that there was:
(...) a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is
irrefutable: greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation
are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk."
In the IPCC report AR6, however, there is no mention of such an "immediate"
risk for billions of people. Even the infamous worst case scenario RCP8.5,
which was announced in the previous report AR5 (2013) as a very likely event
without effective climate policy measures, is now qualified as little likely, even
if it is over-proportionally frequently mentioned. That the UN Secretary
General nevertheless speaks of a dire threat to humanity clearly shows how
climate science, which to a high degree serves politics for decades anyway, is
bent by politicians to suit their purposes when the forecasts are not satisfactorily
catastrophic enough.


PART 4
First, Gore's participation in the Great Reset agenda of the World Economic
Forum is to be noted. The WEF has a Board of Trustees, of which Gore is a
member, so he is part of the leading body of this immensely important and, in
the view of its critics, very dangerous organization, which is in the process of
forming something like a supra-national world government with branches in
Washington, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Rome etc. Other members of the Board of
Trustees are, to name a few, Christine Lagarde (European Central Bank), Larry
Fink (BlackRock, largest investment company in the world), Kristalina
Georgieva (IMF managing director) and Marc Benioff (Salesforce), ex-CEO of
the CIA-offspin Oracle. Al Gore's statements and deeds are therefore always to

be seen under the aspect that they serve the goal of the Great Reset, the
political-economic-technological transformation of global society into an
totalitarian system modelled on CCP
s China, with whose leader Xi Jinping
WEF leader, in 2020 a guest in Davos, Schwab has a good relationship.
Of course, the Gore-supported WEF is a staunch voice of climate alarmism and
is also very alarmist on the Corona issue. As proof, it is sufficient to refer to the
WEF recommendation (on its homepage) that "(w)earing two masks may offer
better protection against the new coronavirus variants than one, according to
health experts (...) In certain contexts, like walking the dog, one mask may be
sufficient but in busy, indoor places, greater protection is needed to keep
everyone safe."In this context, reference is made to U.S. Vice President Kamala
Harris as a model worthy of imitation, who, according to the WEF, has been
seen wearing a double mask.
So what does climate pope Gore, interviewed by Seth Meyers, want us to
believe about the alleged commonalities in a video (July 2020) entitled ´Al
Gore Explains What COVID-19 and Climate Change Have in Common´. He
states:
"It's connected to climate in this sense that the scientists who warned us about
the pandemic included the very best epidemiologists and virologists in the
world, and they warned us for a pandemic that was almost exactly like the one
we are struggling with. So when we hear the climate scientists arguing for even
longer that we need to do something to stop the onrushing climate crisis the
lesson seems clear that it's best to listen to them."
The statement is problematic in several respects. First, Gore takes a random
event (the current pandemic) as a kind of proof for the correctness of the
climate catastrophe forecast, which according to the warnings must occur
without countermeasures. The suggestive trick here is that the factual
occurrence of the pandemic (whose designation as a pandemic is quite
controversial) seems to confirm that it is "best" to believe warnings from
scientists. However, Gore, and this is the second problem, starts from the
questionable premise that the pandemic (I provisionally call it that) would have
emerged naturally, to which the predictions had certainly referred. Until spring
2021, it was considered official doctrine (in a The Lancet article in February
2020, see also further below) that the virus had spread to humans through
animal vectors. Then, thanks mainly to studies of the DRASTIC virologists
group, it became increasingly assumed that the virus had been bred up at the

Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and had escaped from there. Since the risky
Coronavirus research in the WIV was supported by US-American funds, as
mentioned above, the narrative of the prediction of a catastrophic natural event
(transmission by animals) is no longer tenable without reservation because of
an alternative theory of origin which finds more and more recognition to the
indignation of the CCP and many western people in science and politics,
including, of course, Fauci and Daszak.
Some statements of the 'Climate Reality Project' run by Gore can also be
described as propagandistic eyewash. On its website, for example, it states:
"One of the many tragedies of this pandemic is how it deepens inequality across
society, hitting poor families and frontline communities the hardest. For those
facing very real hardships and struggles as a result and those waiting anxiously
for a loved one in a hospital bed, our hearts are with you."
This rhetoric is a common ploy of Corona alarmism: restrictive government
policies are attributed to the virus, as if it had ordered the lockdowns that
"deepen(ed) inequality" and "hit poor families". But it was governments,
influenced by anything but unbiased scientists, who, following the CCP
lockdown propaganda by Xi Jinping (see Michael P. Senger
s "China s
Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign"), paralyzed Western societies to a
great extent from March 2020 and, by dooming large numbers of people to
unemployment and partially ruining the middle-class retail sector, dramatically
exacerbated that "inequality across society" that Gore (net worth 200 million)
finds so "tragic." The usual alarmist argument that without lockdowns
everything would have ended in disaster doesn't count at all in light of the
experience of U.S. states that did not have worse outcomes without lockdown
than those with lockdown. Also, Gore calls the historian Naomi Oreskes his
"friend", who in 2004 published an influential but very misleading study on an
alleged scientific consensus on the climate catastrophe, to which Gore refers in
his film. This study, which is also valued by NASA, has been examined more
closely for its weaknesses in the second part of this essay. So we see what shaky
logic and one-sided premises Al Gore uses in the Corona context to get his
message across. This in no way strengthens the confidence in his statements
about the risks of climate change.
Now to another expert, the German professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a member of the Club of Rome, in contrast to Gore a real expert, who is one of the most renowned climate researchers in the world and was appointed by Chancellor Merkel at the
beginning of her term as climate advisor to the German government. Until 2018 he was director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which he founded and which enjoys an excellent reputation worldwide. The
2011 ban on nuclear power, to be implemented by 2022, was advised to the
German government by Schellnhuber. In 2015 he contibuted to the encyclical
Laudato Si by Pope Francis on issues of environment protection and
presented it, together with a cardinal and a metropolitan, officially to the public.
One would think that such a mind would know how to express himself at least
halfway sensibly on the Corona issue. If not, it would not cast the climate
alarmism he represents in any less of a bad light than Gore's. But let's not get
our hopes up too much.
In the video "Climate & Corona: Die Geschichten zweier Krisen (The Tales of
Two Crises, all quotes from it translated from German by me)" from April
2021, Schellnhuber claims that in the course of the Corona crisis "the reputation
of science - as surveys show - has grown enormously." That in Germany this is
solely due to the mass media penetratingly pushing certain scientists into the
foreground, who confirm and further fuel the government narrative, of course
goes unmentioned, just as the opinions of these scientists on the Corona issue
are anything but uncontroversial. However, counter-opinions are systematically
oppressed or defamed in these media, which is reflected accordingly in polls. In
addition, "science" in the Corona context has fallen into an extremely
questionable reputation in wide circles of the population, because precisely the
representatives who are overrepresented in the media are suspected by many of
being lackeys and dogsbodies of government ideology. One of them, Christian
Drosten, has even been awarded a Federal Cross of Merit by the German
President. Unfortunately, it was Drosten who strongly pushed the vaccination
propaganda with the much under-tested vaccine 'Pandemrix' against swine flu in
2009, which later led to more than 5,000 heavy side effects for which he bears
partial responsibility. Now he is pushing the Corona vaccine campaign, and the
mass media and his numerous fans are celebrating him for it.
Said misleading statement about the view of science is still trivial. Things
become grotesque shortly afterwards when the professor, after admitting that
there have been much worse pandemics in human history than the Corona
pandemic, goes as far as to say:
"If you encounter another human being who may not follow the rules of
hygiene, then he is a threat to you, just like a terrorist who is not recognized."

Equating a person, no matter if infected or not, who for a moment does not
comply with the Corona hygiene rules with an unrecognized terrorist is a
demagogic excess of the worst kind. We leave it undecided whether this is
intended to include critics of the government's Corona narrative, but in any case
he hypes up the infectiousness of the virus, which only involves an extremely
small part of the population symptomatically. Coming from a world-renowned
climate scientist, this sounds extremely fear-mongering and does not inspire
much confidence in what he is saying about the dangers of climate change.
Since similar propaganda has been systematically spread in the media for a year
prior to this interview, Schellnhuber can rightly point out that fear-driven
people, in their majority, practice the behaviors that they are expected:
"People feel an immediate threat, and that's why they want to do almost
anything to get this pandemic back under control, good behavior, they even
would be willing to give up civil liberties for a short time."
That people "feel" the "immediate threat" only because they are showered with
Corona alarmism 24 hours a day, the professor seems to be unaware of. Fifteen
minutes later, he drifts back into totalitarian waters when he calls for censorship
of critical opinions on both climate and Corona crisis:
"We have actually seen in the climate crisis for 30 years that the media try not
to take sides, which is commendable in itself. But the effect has always been
that in a talk show, in an argument, basically the so-called climate deniers or
climate skeptics have been invited and heard with equal weight, that they were
given the same framework as the academia of science, the people who have
spent 40 years studying the physics of climate, so that the most abstruse
theories were conveyed to the public with the same weight as what the best
scientists in the world have found out about it. The term 'false balance' was
coined at some point. And now imagine that in the Corona pandemic you
always place renowned virologists together with Corona skeptics who put
forward the most abstruse theories, and they would always come out evenly
weighted - of course, that doesn't happen, fortunately -, but that's what
happened to us for decades with the climate."
As to the вenowned virologists, he certainly includes Drosten, who, see above,
defamed (co-signatory of the Lancet open letter, see further below) the lab leak
theory, which a year later was brought up as interesting even by Biden and not a
few formerly skeptical mainstream scientists, and who created the questionable
PCR test and was dramatically wrong with regard to swine flu vaccination,

which Schellnhuber should know, but of course ignores.
It is unclear which climate skeptics Schellnhuber is referring to and whether
they were really all not climate experts in the TV shows, but it is doubtful,
considering his several statements cited above, which are ludicrously lacking in
objectivity. And this once again addresses a core point of my argumentation:
how credible can one consider statements of political importance by a scientist
who repeatedly and openly violates logic and decency in his arguments?
According to a SPIEGEL report from 2010, Schellnhuber agreed at that time to
discuss with the climate-sceptic scientists of the EIKE Institute (European
Institute for Climate and Energy), but rejected a public debate on the grounds
that the audience would then get the impression that two parties would sit on an
equal footing with each other. Grotesquely, he adds:
"Imagine Einstein had to defend the theory of relativity in the talk show of
Maybritt Illner: he wouldn't have the slightest chance."
So much arrogance makes one suspect that the professor is afraid to deal
publicly with opposing opinions. Anyone who feels confident in his cause and
has the knowledge and rhetorical ability of a Schellnhuber should not have to
worry about not finding the right words in front of an audience of millions to
prevail against supposed fools. But that's exactly what he shied away from at
the time and he rejects still in 2021.
In any case, Schellnhuber openly advocates media censorship against critics of
mainstream opinions on climate and Corona, which can only be described as
totalitarian and undemocratic. The alleged professional incompetence of critics
is a lie, as there are numerous experts in both fields who belong to the critical
factions. He should at least be aware of this in his own field, but he does not
mention them in the video, but rather puts it as if the critical faction consisted
only of wackos.
On the subject of Greta Thunberg, the professor once again reveals an
ignorance coupled with wishful thinking that is astonishing for a scientific
authority of his rank. He says without referring to the backstory that Greta sat
down "with a cardboard sign alone on the steps of the parliament in Stockholm
and initated thereby a world-wide movement", as if this had been her own idea.
In fact, however, it was activist Bo Thoren from "Extinction Rebellion" who
organized an environment essay contest in a Svedish newspaper and gave
second winner Greta the idea for a school strike, and it was activist Ingmar
Rentzhog, one week earlier informed by Thoren on that planned action, who

shot photos of Greta in front of the parliament, put them on Twitter and thus
made Greta known worldwide. That the school strike, after all the trigger of
Greta's popularity and the emergence of Fridays For Future, did not come from
Greta, but from an otherwise unknown activist, is concealed by Professor
Einstein or not even known. If climate skeptics would allow themselves similar
intellectual mishaps, however, he would be the first to defame them as
oversimplifying things to get their false ideas cross.
In another place, he talks about the future of humans, in which they would "live
in harmony with nature," and continues: "This sounds pathetic, but it is
basically what makes people happy."
This provides opportunity to shed light on Schellnhuber's relationship to the
World Economic Forum. First, one can very much question the claim that
harmony with nature is the greatest source of happiness for people of the 21st
century. Second, and this is more relevant here, considering that he previously
spoke of the transformation (a typical WEF term) of neoliberal economy into a
circular economy, which is clearly part of the WEF Great Reset program, and
that Schellnhuber is an official ´Agenda Contributor´ to the WEF and has
participated in public events in Davos, this statement also seems like misleading
propaganda against better judgment. He ought to know that the WEF aims to
transform humans into a hybrid of biology and technology, including genetic
engineering, what is part of their transhumanism agenda. This is light years
away from being in harmony with nature, because the Great Reset, at least
according to the agenda, is supposed to save earthly nature, but denature
humans to excess. So once again the professor is in contradiction to the
scientific objectivity he has claimed for himself. Instead, he offers an idealized
view of the human need for happiness and the future of society, which can only
be described as ideological misleading in favor of his fear-mongering of Mother
Nature's downfall.
Then, however, Schellnhuber strikes a more pessimistic note when it comes to
the question of how likely he thinks it is that the climate targets defined by the
Paris Agreement will be achieved, and brings up an example that, after the
factual pessimism, turns into demagogic alarmism:
"I would put the probability of stopping global warming at 1.5 degrees at maybe
5 percent, the probability of stopping global warming at 2 degrees at maybe 20
percent. That sounds pitiful, but you have to remember, it's all at stake. I'll give
you an example: If you take your child which is clearly in great discomfort to

the hospital, and the doctor says we could save the child by emergency surgery,
but the probability is 20 percent, would you turn around and say, that's not
worth the money to me? Meaning, if everything is at stake, and global warming
is below 2 degrees to stop, then even a 20 percent chance is good."
To compare the relationship between mankind and the warming earth's
atmosphere with that between a mother and a terminally ill child is misleading
and unscientifically emotionalizing. Whether and to what extent the earth is
"ill" is by no means settled by real consensus among scientists, but
Schellnhuber conceals this or even does not accept it, because skeptics are
automatically fools for him.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Corona Triumvirate - Xi Jinping, Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates