In times of ever-evolving technological advancements, a growing number of environmental activists and researchers are now voicing concerns that “big oil” companies are clandestinely funding the anti-climate crisis narrative.
This accusation isn’t new but has gained traction in recent years. The narrative suggests that major oil companies are investing in campaigns and research aimed at downplaying the severity of the climate crisis or outright denying its existence. This strategy, if true, seems designed to protect their business interests against the growing demand for sustainable and renewable energy sources.
The alleged strategy mirrors a familiar pattern; one reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s past efforts to obscure the health risks associated with smoking. In the case of the oil industry, the goal appears to be to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change and its anthropogenic origins. By funding think tanks, lobbying groups, and even scientific research that challenges or underplays the reality of the climate crisis, these corporations could significantly influence public opinion and policy.
This tactic of manufacturing ambiguity and uncertainty delays decisive action on climate change. It parallels the lack of clarity seen in some business contracts, like the software license agreement between the City and Safe Software Inc. Just as ambiguous clauses in contracts can lead to misinterpretation and disputes, the deliberate obfuscation of climate science can lead to inaction and policy gridlock.
Furthermore, the assertion involves jurisdictional concerns similar to those in legal agreements. The global nature of both the climate crisis and the oil industry means that actions taken by corporations in one country can have repercussions worldwide. This interconnectedness demands a unified, international response to the climate crisis and the alleged disinformation campaigns.
In conclusion, while the City of Some City engages in clear-cut contracts for technological advancement with companies like Safe Software Inc., the global community faces a more nebulous challenge. The alleged funding of anti-climate narratives by big oil companies underscores the need for transparency and integrity, not just in business but in our approach to the existential threat of climate change. Addressing this issue is not just about countering misinformation; it’s about securing a sustainable future for the planet.
As we delve into the intricate world of technology agreements, like the one between the City of Some City and Safe Software Inc., a parallel and equally complex narrative is unfolding in the realm of environmental activism. Mark Ruffalo, an environmental activist, is spearheading a movement that is stirring debate in the climate change discourse.
Ruffalo’s movement aims to label and censor those who question the efficacy and sustainability of green solutions such as electric vehicles (EVs) and wind farms, branding them as “new deniers” of climate change. This development echoes a broader trend in environmental discussions, where dissenting voices are often met with swift opposition.
This controversy has been fueled by a report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which accuses various channels, including Redacted News, of being funded by Big Oil to spread “climate hate.” This term is used to categorize skepticism about green solutions, such as questioning the environmental impact of EVs or the harm caused to wildlife by wind farms. The report alleges that 70% of the 12,000 YouTube channel transcripts analyzed fall into this category of “new denial.”
However, the hosts of Redacted News have refuted these claims, asserting they have no ties to Big Oil. They stress the importance of discussing and critically evaluating all proposed solutions to climate change, rather than accepting them without question. The channel emphasizes a balanced approach, highlighting the need to consider the real-world impacts of green solutions. For instance, they point out the environmental and human costs associated with EV production, including pollution and exploitation in cobalt mines in Congo, and the inefficiency and ecological impact of wind farms.
Let’s talk about certain environmental groups and activists for allegedly exaggerating the impacts of climate change to advance their agendas. Historical data is brought into the discussion to challenge current narratives about climate change. The hosts reference major storms in the early 20th century, well before the widespread industrial use of fossil fuels, to argue that extreme weather events have always been a part of our natural history, not solely a consequence of recent human activities.
This unfolding debate highlights a crucial aspect of the climate change conversation: the need for rational discussion and analysis of potential solutions. The call is for a transparent and open debate, free from censorship and suppression, on these critical issues. Just as clarity and transparency are vital in legal agreements like software licenses, they are equally essential in discussions about our planet’s future.
The controversy surrounding the funding of anti-climate narratives by Big Oil and the pushback from various media channels underscores the complexity of the climate change debate. It emphasizes the necessity for a nuanced and balanced approach to understanding and addressing environmental issues, much like the careful negotiation and drafting of a software license agreement. In both realms, clarity, honesty, and open discourse are key to navigating through these challenging and often contentious waters.
Nobel Laureate Dr. John Clauser Criticizes Green Agenda
Dr. John Clauser, a Nobel Physics prize co-winner and authority on quantum mechanics, has vehemently criticized the green agenda advocated by WEF-controlled countries. He labels this as a “dangerous corruption of science,” posing a threat to the global economy and the well-being of billions. Dr. Clauser denounces the man-made climate change narrative as a hoax, allegedly propagated by governments and media under the influence of global elites. He contends that this narrative is being used to advance a goal of depopulation and reduce the quality of life globally.
Clauser asserts that there is no real climate crisis but acknowledges the challenges in providing a decent standard of living amidst an energy crisis, which he believes is worsened by flawed climate science. He isn’t alone in this view; the World Climate Declaration, signed by numerous scientists, also denies a climate emergency. Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore has similarly called the man-made climate change narrative a “dangerous hoax.”
At the “Quantum Korea 2023” event, Clauser criticized the Nobel committee for awarding a prize for global warming prediction models, which he argues ignore the temperature-stabilizing effect of clouds. He has developed his own climate model, accounting for this effect, which he claims is significantly underestimated in mainstream climate science.
Despite his credentials, Clauser’s opinions have been met with skepticism and dismissal, particularly from those supporting mainstream climate change narratives. Some accuse him of lacking expertise in climate science and having ties to the fossil fuel industry. Nonetheless, Clauser, backed by his Nobel Prize, remains a vocal critic of what he sees as a political, rather than scientific, movement in climate science.
Let’s dig a little deeper into these flawed climate models. The discussion surrounding the accuracy and reliability of climate models has gained attention, especially in light of recent critiques by experts in the field. Gavin Schmidt, a key programmer of NASA’s climate model, claimed in a 2021 Spectator article that models dating back to the 1970s have successfully predicted climate trends. However, this statement has been met with skepticism and criticism, particularly concerning NASA’s GISS Model E, which consists of around 441,668 lines of FORTRAN code from circa 1983.
Concerns have been raised about certain features in these models, such as water not freezing and the concept of “negative” cloud cover, leading to doubts about their claims of being physics-based. This has drawn comparisons to the Hollywood practice of labelling movies as “based on a true story,” as noted by the Daily Sceptic.
Willis Eschenbach, an experienced computer programmer, conducted an in-depth analysis, published by Net Zero Watch (NZW) under the title “Climate Models and Climate Muddles.” Andrew Montford of NZW discussed this paper in the Daily Sceptic, emphasizing the significant role climate models play in global warming debates and their link to Net Zero project warnings.
Montford raised a pivotal question about the fundamental accuracy of these models, with Eschenbach’s research suggesting serious flaws. Eschenbach argues that the current set of climate models is insufficient for guiding public policy, pointing to a history of inaccurate and flawed predictions. He cautions against over-reliance on these models, criticizing them for potentially exaggerating fears based on the assumptions they are built upon.
Eschenbach points out the difficulty climate models have in replicating the climate system’s inherent stability. The iterative nature of these models means errors can be perpetuated and amplified, potentially leading to unrealistic scenarios. He cites examples of how NASA’s model handles anomalies, such as non-freezing polar water and the concept of “negative” clouds, as evidence of their limitations.
Furthermore, Eschenbach suggests that the credibility of climate models began to wane about 25 years ago, coinciding with the rise of global warming as a political issue. He also refers to Gavin Schmidt’s observation that most model outcomes depend more on general trends than on specific model details, supporting the view that models often reflect the biases and misunderstandings of their programmers.
The debate over the reliance on computer models for extreme measures like global de-industrialization is intensifying. Recent claims, such as the record-breaking global temperatures reported by various media outlets, including the BBC, have been questioned. Climate journalist Paul Homewood has highlighted the physical implausibility of a 0.22°C rise in global temperatures within just three days, suggesting that such claims are based more on computer modelling than empirical evidence. This aligns with Eschenbach’s thorough research, raising further questions about the reliability of computer models in climate science.
The debate surrounding the use of computer models in climate science represents a crucial juncture in our understanding and response to climate change. While these models are invaluable tools for predicting future scenarios, their accuracy and reliability remain subjects of intense scrutiny and debate. The recent challenges to high-profile temperature reports underscore the importance of balancing computer-generated projections with empirical evidence. As we navigate the complexities of climate change, our strategies must be grounded in a holistic approach that incorporates robust scientific analysis, transparent data interpretation, and a readiness to critically evaluate all sources of information. The pursuit of this balance will not only enrich our understanding of the climate but also ensure that our responses are effective, sustainable, and rooted in reality. As we move forward, the ongoing discourse will undoubtedly contribute to refining our models and strategies, guiding us toward a more informed and adaptive approach to addressing the multifaceted challenges of climate change.
marksdeepthoughts.ca 
Leave a comment