“Climate Change” Hoax Needs to Be Removed From All U.S. Education Books

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don't think you're Ish......

I don't think Truk is Pax either...

Rebel5Soul or whatever is Ish. He’s been banned on all his other names.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Yep, Rebel5soul is Ishtard, and Politruk is KingOrfeo.

And it amuses to no end how Ishtard simps for Jordan Peterson. He's not even a particularly mainstream psychologist, fer chrissake. Appealing to Jungian archetypes in modern research? Fuck me.

 

[Politruk]

You're full of shit. All of the science has been lost in the politics.

See post #165. What politics?

 

[Rightguide]

Prominent climate scientists challenge catastrophic warming claims, argue net zero policies are unjustified
05/03/2025 // Willow Tohi // 310 Views

• Physics shows CO2's warming effect diminishes as concentrations increase, making current levels (420 ppm) nearly saturated. Net Zero policies would lower temperatures by just 0.06°F to 0.5°F – far less than exaggerated model projections.
• 
  
• Extreme weather events, like 1930s U.S. heatwaves, occurred long before rising CO2 levels. Climate models inflate warming predictions by 30-50 percent, undermining their policy relevance.
• 
  
• Banning fossil fuels would devastate fertilizer production, triggering food crises. Higher CO2 levels (e.g., 800 ppm) could increase crop yields by 60 percent, but policies ignore this benefit.
• 
  
• Trump should enforce scientific rigor, rejecting flawed climate models like those the EPA excluded. "Net Zero is a suicide pact" – energy policy should follow markets, not political agendas.

The rest here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-05...ts-challenge-catastrophic-warming-claims.html

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Prominent climate scientists challenge catastrophic warming claims, argue net zero policies are unjustified
05/03/2025 // Willow Tohi // 310 Views

• Physics shows CO2's warming effect diminishes as concentrations increase, making current levels (420 ppm) nearly saturated. Net Zero policies would lower temperatures by just 0.06°F to 0.5°F – far less than exaggerated model projections.
• 
  
• Extreme weather events, like 1930s U.S. heatwaves, occurred long before rising CO2 levels. Climate models inflate warming predictions by 30-50 percent, undermining their policy relevance.
• 
  
• Banning fossil fuels would devastate fertilizer production, triggering food crises. Higher CO2 levels (e.g., 800 ppm) could increase crop yields by 60 percent, but policies ignore this benefit.
• 
  
• Trump should enforce scientific rigor, rejecting flawed climate models like those the EPA excluded. "Net Zero is a suicide pact" – energy policy should follow markets, not political agendas.

The rest here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-05...ts-challenge-catastrophic-warming-claims.html

When their data was reviewed by climate scientists what did the climate scientists say?

 

[ll74]

Prominent climate scientists challenge catastrophic warming claims, argue net zero policies are unjustified
05/03/2025 // Willow Tohi // 310 Views

• Physics shows CO2's warming effect diminishes as concentrations increase, making current levels (420 ppm) nearly saturated. Net Zero policies would lower temperatures by just 0.06°F to 0.5°F – far less than exaggerated model projections.
• 
  
• Extreme weather events, like 1930s U.S. heatwaves, occurred long before rising CO2 levels. Climate models inflate warming predictions by 30-50 percent, undermining their policy relevance.
• 
  
• Banning fossil fuels would devastate fertilizer production, triggering food crises. Higher CO2 levels (e.g., 800 ppm) could increase crop yields by 60 percent, but policies ignore this benefit.
• 
  
• Trump should enforce scientific rigor, rejecting flawed climate models like those the EPA excluded. "Net Zero is a suicide pact" – energy policy should follow markets, not political agendas.

The rest here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-05...ts-challenge-catastrophic-warming-claims.html

What makes them prominent?

 

[Politruk]

Prominent climate scientists challenge catastrophic warming claims, argue net zero policies are unjustified
05/03/2025 // Willow Tohi // 310 Views

• Physics shows CO2's warming effect diminishes as concentrations increase, making current levels (420 ppm) nearly saturated. Net Zero policies would lower temperatures by just 0.06°F to 0.5°F – far less than exaggerated model projections.
• 
  
• Extreme weather events, like 1930s U.S. heatwaves, occurred long before rising CO2 levels. Climate models inflate warming predictions by 30-50 percent, undermining their policy relevance.
• 
  
• Banning fossil fuels would devastate fertilizer production, triggering food crises. Higher CO2 levels (e.g., 800 ppm) could increase crop yields by 60 percent, but policies ignore this benefit.
• 
  
• Trump should enforce scientific rigor, rejecting flawed climate models like those the EPA excluded. "Net Zero is a suicide pact" – energy policy should follow markets, not political agendas.

The rest here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-05...ts-challenge-catastrophic-warming-claims.html

NaturalNews:

NaturalNews.com[note 2] and its sister sites are run by Michael Allen "Mike" Adams, B.S.[3] (1969 or 1967–)[4] (the self-labeled "Health Ranger") which promotes alternative medicine and related conspiracy theories.[5] The site particularly specializes in vaccine denial and the alleged vaccines-autism link,[6] AIDS/HIV denialism,[7] quack cancer treatments,[8] and conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma".[9] If there's an alternative medicine or alternative medical treatment out there, you can guarantee that NaturalNews has one article singing its praises to the sky and one more bashing the stupid "skeptics". A lot of the website's growth is due to its exposure on Facebook, where it had over 3.5 million followers[note 3] until it was banned (not for any of its content, mind you, but because it was violating Facebook's policy on spamming).[10]

Reviewing NaturalNews' vast ecosystem of websites shows that Adams has way too much money and spare time and wants to attract both left-wing moonbats interested in a "natural" lifestyle and right-wing wingnuts interested in guns and survivalism. Reading through Adams' discourse on a non-NaturalNews affiliated goldbug forum shows that Adams's personal allegiances are mainly with the latter,[1] which taken in totality indicates some level of disingenuousness since he's grifting both ends but only sympathizes with one end enough to speak frankly.

On Wikipedia, NaturalNews is not merely a deprecated source, never to be used for anything ("There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including a large number of conspiracy theories."),[11] but is actually on the spam blacklist.[12]

In short: if you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong, as this website is so bad, so unreliable, and so dead-faced wrong that even other quacks think it's a quack site,[13] a feat of stupid that truly takes talent.

 

[Politruk]

Prominent climate scientists challenge catastrophic warming claims, argue net zero policies are unjustified
05/03/2025 // Willow Tohi // 310 Views

• Physics shows CO2's warming effect diminishes as concentrations increase, making current levels (420 ppm) nearly saturated. Net Zero policies would lower temperatures by just 0.06°F to 0.5°F – far less than exaggerated model projections.
• 
  
• Extreme weather events, like 1930s U.S. heatwaves, occurred long before rising CO2 levels. Climate models inflate warming predictions by 30-50 percent, undermining their policy relevance.
• 
  
• Banning fossil fuels would devastate fertilizer production, triggering food crises. Higher CO2 levels (e.g., 800 ppm) could increase crop yields by 60 percent, but policies ignore this benefit.
• 
  
• Trump should enforce scientific rigor, rejecting flawed climate models like those the EPA excluded. "Net Zero is a suicide pact" – energy policy should follow markets, not political agendas.

The rest here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-05...ts-challenge-catastrophic-warming-claims.html

On April 28, atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT) and physicist Dr. William Happer (Princeton) released a groundbreaking paper dismantling the foundational premise of global climate policy: that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary driver of catastrophic warming.

Richard Lindzen:

Richard Lindzen (1940–) was an atmospheric physicist at MIT until May 2013;[1] as expected, he is now a "Distinguished Senior Fellow" at the Cato Institute.[2] He is also affiliated with the industry shill front group Heartland Institute.[3]

Lindzen has had a long career in climatology and worked on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. However, he became infamously embarrassing for MIT over the last decade as a member of the Bjørn Lomborg "It's not that bad!" school of global warming. Though Lindzen fully accepts anthropogenic global warming, he claims that predictions made by other climatologists' models are "alarmist" and that temperatures will increase by less than one degree Celsius. He maintains this position[4] even though the one degree barrier has already been broken. Managing to incorrectly predict the past is, in a bizarre way, quite an impressive feat for any scientist.

The Nutty Professor[edit]​

While Lindzen was once merely 'skeptical' of the anthropogenic GHG effect's results, he appears to have become increasingly unhinged with age. Despite once considering those who dispute the anthropic GHG effect 'nutty', Dick wrote in the wingnut publication Merion West[17] in April 2017, attempting to discredit basically all widely accepted tenets of climate science. Not too different from his usual WSJ ramblings. Too bad he forgot to disclose his thoughtful gifts from Peabody.[18] Lindzen’s move towards outright wingnuttery also includes shacking up with Dennis Prager's “Prager University” (PragerU) YouTube channel for a 2016 climate change denial video.[19]

 

[Politruk]

What makes them prominent?

See above. Richard Lindzen is a prominent climate scientist like Kent Hovind is a prominent evolutionary biologist.

William Happer is no less of a crank.

 

[ll74]

See above. Richard Lindzen is a prominent climate scientist like Kent Hovind is a prominent evolutionary biologist.

William Happer is no less of a crank.

I didn't ask you, dipshit

 

[Fuzzy1975]

^forgot which account he was posting from.

lol, accusing me of an alt......tff

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

 

[Politruk]

View attachment 2535444

That matters no more than climate-change activists attending conferences via airplane, that is, not at all.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Prominent climate scientists challenge catastrophic warming claims, argue net zero policies are unjustified
05/03/2025 // Willow Tohi // 310 Views

• Physics shows CO2's warming effect diminishes as concentrations increase, making current levels (420 ppm) nearly saturated. Net Zero policies would lower temperatures by just 0.06°F to 0.5°F – far less than exaggerated model projections.
• 
  
• Extreme weather events, like 1930s U.S. heatwaves, occurred long before rising CO2 levels. Climate models inflate warming predictions by 30-50 percent, undermining their policy relevance.
• 
  
• Banning fossil fuels would devastate fertilizer production, triggering food crises. Higher CO2 levels (e.g., 800 ppm) could increase crop yields by 60 percent, but policies ignore this benefit.
• 
  
• Trump should enforce scientific rigor, rejecting flawed climate models like those the EPA excluded. "Net Zero is a suicide pact" – energy policy should follow markets, not political agendas.

The rest here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-05...ts-challenge-catastrophic-warming-claims.html

Exactly. The entire 'climate change' debate swerved from science to politics quickly enough and is now bordering on a religious cult with far too many.

NOTHING the government does is going to make a bit of difference in the climate, the plans, if allowed to be carried out, will only result in societal devastation.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Exactly. The entire 'climate change' debate swerved from science to politics quickly enough and is now bordering on a religious cult with far too many.

NOTHING the government does is going to make a bit of difference in the climate, the plans, if allowed to be carried out, will only result in societal devastation.

Exactly what??
It never occurred to you that what vette posted isn’t from a scientific journal?

Every scientist who studies this says you’re wrong. Governments can enact policies to limit greenhouse gases and promote renewable energy, and no, fossil fuels are not renewable energy.

 

[Politruk]

Exactly. The entire 'climate change' debate swerved from science to politics quickly enough

See post #165. What politics?

 

[HisArpy]

Exactly what??
It never occurred to you that what vette posted isn’t from a scientific journal?

And? People aren't allowed to have opinions?

Every scientist who studies this says you’re wrong. Governments can enact policies to limit greenhouse gases and promote renewable energy, and no, fossil fuels are not renewable energy.

1. Not true.
2. Yes they can, to no effect unless every government does it and enforces it. Without that one gross polluter can still emit greenhouse gasses in large quantities.
3. True but not the whole story. As usual. There is NO "renewable energy" that is indefinite and perpetual.

 

[Politruk]

3. True but not the whole story. As usual. There is NO "renewable energy" that is indefinite and perpetual.

Solar is. It's just not enough.

 

[HisArpy]

Solar is. It's just not enough.

Except the sun will eventually go nova. Hence not infinite or perpetual.

What I wonder is how you think the planet is going to survive if we remove all the vegetation on the surface to install fields and fields of solar panels. Can you say "no oxygen"?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

And? People aren't allowed to have opinions?



1. Not true.
2. Yes they can, to no effect unless every government does it and enforces it. Without that one gross polluter can still emit greenhouse gasses in large quantities.
3. True but not the whole story. As usual. There is NO "renewable energy" that is indefinite and perpetual.

People can have all the opinions they want. We’re not talking about opinions, we’re talking about science.

1. You have a link to a published paper from a climate science that says human have nothing to do with the rapidly changing climate? Let’s see the link.
2. Any country that adopts those policies would change how much greenhouse gas there is, and that would have an effect.
3. Solar isn’t indefinite and perpetual?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Except the sun will eventually go nova. Hence not infinite or perpetual.

What I wonder is how you think the planet is going to survive if we remove all the vegetation on the surface to install fields and fields of solar panels. Can you say "no oxygen"?

Holy shit you actually said it. So what happens to Earth, in 5 billion years, when there are no humans, when the Sun goes nova???

 

[Politruk]

Except the sun will eventually go nova. Hence not infinite or perpetual.

It will last a lot longer than our fossil fuel supply -- billions of years longer.

What I wonder is how you think the planet is going to survive if we remove all the vegetation on the surface to install fields and fields of solar panels. Can you say "no oxygen"?

Space-based collection facilities. The only real problem there is how to transmit the power to Earth. In SF, they usually use microwave lasers -- but if the beam goes even a little off-target, you could cook a city.

 

[HisArpy]

It will last a lot longer than our fossil fuel supply -- billions of years longer.

Space-based collection facilities. The only real problem there is how to transmit the power to Earth. In SF, they usually use microwave lasers -- but if the beam goes even a little off-target, you could cook a city.

If you need a system that large, the population will be so huge that there won't be any space left on the surface for plants or animals.

 

[Politruk]

If you need a system that large, the population will be so huge that there won't be any space left on the surface for plants or animals.

Oh, no, we could make good use of a space-based solar-power collector now, if it existed.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh, no, we could make good use of a space-based solar-power collector now, if it existed.

Is this the same argument as "we'll figure it out eventually" after you already banned fossil fuels and plunged the planet into an energy-less existence?

Which begs the question on what the scientists are going to use while they "figure it out."