4.4.CLIMATE ACTIVISTS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND MALTHUSIANS

4.4. Climate Activists, Environmentalists and Malthusians

Climate activists, even though they have not even been to school as they are too busy teenagers testifying before the U.S. Congress or attending the UN Climate Action Summit, know better than scientists who have studied earth and planetary sciences, computer sciences and much more for their entire life and who dissent the «consensus». As unbelievable as it is, one must listen to Thunberg (2019) chastise world leaders and decide that science has been settled for more than 30 years. What does she know about science? Can someone tell me! Invited by the United Nations, Thunberg, born in 2003, has the gall when she has benefited of the best conditions of living that mankind has ever had these last 2 million years thanks to the hard work and intelligence of so many previous generations, she has the gall to declare to the world: «How dare you ? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words and yet I'm one of the lucky one, people are suffering, people are dying, dying ecosystems are collapsing, we are at the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money, the fairy tales of economic growth, how dare you continue to look away ? ... For more than 30 years the Science has been crystal clear, how dare you continue to look away, etc. » (Thunberg, 2019).

Of course, she understands science better than Einstein (1919) who knew «the truth of a theory can never be proven» and Thunberg has decided that the matter is crystal clear and settled! Who else would dare to oppose such a savvy analysis. What a difference one century can make! It is simply bewildering that so many public organizations, e.g. Swedish Parliament, United Nations, U.S. Congress, etc., demonstrate such a lack of discernment and have extended invitations to a clueless teenager that is to become the world fortune teller and reveal the new gospel as she does in Pearl Jam’s song “Retrograde” with a startling vision for an Earth ravaged by climate change (Cohen, 2020). It is simply inappropriate and morally indefensible to make use of a dysfunctional youngster suffering from Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism, a teenager who struggled with depression for three or four years before beginning a school strike, to promote the worst and totally baseless climate activist vision and this should be obvious to our leaders and to the media who have organized this saddening circus. This is too much like a setup to create any public trust in man-made climate change and will probably soon lead to a severe backlash as can be sensed from the comments left by the readers of the papers describing Thunberg achievements. Hopefully, the common sense of the people should not be underestimated.

Mike Hulme has probably been one of the first to have enlightened us about the looming dangers of a future environmentalist push to try to promulgate a climate state of emergency (Hulme, 2018). Unfortunately, it seems that he was overly optimistic at the time, stating that «Simon’s People’s Petition to the British Government seems unlikely to go very far. …. But it is the underlying political populist instinct at work here that is concerning. Publicly calling for climate emergencies to be declared on the basis of the fear induced by cliff-edge deadline-ism is not good psychology. Neither is it based on good science and nor does it lead to effective politics». Unfortunately, since Hulme’s warning the Welsh and Scottish governments have both already declared a climate emergency, along with dozens of towns and cities, including Manchester and London. The UK Parliament has also declared climate change emergency in April 2019 and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who tabled the motion, said it was "a huge step forward".

Later on, New York City officials declared a climate emergency in an effort to mobilize local and national responses to stall global warming. «The New York City Council passed the legislation Wednesday, calling for an immediate response to the global climate crises. The bill referenced several reports on the state of global warming and its impact, imparting that extreme weather events brought about by rising temperatures demonstrates that the planet is "too hot to be a safe environment» (Andrew and Ahmed, 2019).

The European parliament has followed suit and declared a global “climate and environmental emergency” as it urged all EU countries to commit to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (The Irish Times, 2019).

A spreadsheet of more than 670 governments in 15 countries having declared climate emergencies as of May 2020 is available from Innovation for Cool Earth Forum (ICEF, 2020). It is simply frightening as under these state of emergencies, likewise with the Covid-1984, all your most basic constitutional freedoms could be banned at their will. You will become slaves of their lunacies.

«If you see a disease as a political statement, as an opportunity to pursue your pre-existing misanthropic agendas, there is something very wrong with you. And they latch on to everything from bushfires to floods, from plagues of locusts to melting ice-caps, as signs from nature, lessons from a furious Gaia. When religious crackpots blame floods on gay marriage, claiming God is punishing us for losing the moral plot, we rightly mock them. Yet greens offer merely a secular version of such backward, apocalyptic claptrap». Joel Kotkin, (Kotkin, 2020)

«Like the rest of the country, although far less than New York, California is suffering through the Covid-19 crisis. But in California, the pandemic seems likely to give the state’s political and corporate elites a new license to increase their dominion while continuing to keep the middle and working classes down. Perhaps nothing spells the triumph of California’s progressive oligarchy more than Governor Gavin Newsom’s decision to off-load the state’s recovery strategy to a task force co-chaired by hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer. A recently failed presidential candidate, Steyer stands as a progressive funder. He is as zealous as he is rich. Steyer sometimes even found the policies adopted by climateobsessed former governor Jerry Brown not extreme enough for his tastes. Steyer’s failed, self-funded presidential run was full of extreme notions, such as imposing a “state of emergency” to address climate issues, essentially shutting down fossil fuels; and, as a kind of bonus for those who still can find work, promoting a $22 an hour minimum wage while offering alms for the soon-to-be-eliminated legions of miners and energy workers». Joel Kotkin, (Kotkin, 2020)

«This wartime analogy has long lurked on the deep-ecological fringes of the environmentalist movement. It crops up, for instance, in James 2009 broadside, The Vanishing Face of Gaia. He writes that surviving climate change ‘may require, as in war, the suspension of democratic government for the duration of the survival emergency (p. 95). Both express the key elements of today’s environmentalist script. The shrill tone. The end-is-nigh urgency. The act-now-or-else command. And underwriting this script, as ever, is the core idea of contemporary environmentalism — namely, the climate emergency. This is the idea that so imminent and ‘existential’ is the threat of climate change that world leaders need to act as if they are at war. They need to declare a state of emergency. There’s no time for deliberation or debate anymore, because, well, ‘our house is on fire’. In this state of emergency, all civil liberties and democratic freedoms can be suspended. All dissent and debate silenced». Tim Black, (Black, T., 2020)

«The Emergency Decree for the Protection of the German People, issued on 28 February 1933, permitted the suspension of the democratic aspects of the soon-to-disappear Weimar Republic, and legally sanctioned the Nazis’ suppression and persecution of political opponents. That, after all, is what states of emergency tend to entail: a clampdown on civil and democratic freedom in the interests of preserving the state against a perceived existential threat. And that is what the climate emergency entails, too». Tim Black, (Black, T., 2020)

Barbara Demeneix, second author of the paper «Let’s stop the manipulation of science» (Kortenkamp et al., 2016), is a good example of doing what she claims should not be done. As far as «endocrine disrupting chemicals» are concerned, subject which represents 99% of the content of the paper, I have no informed opinion and I would rather lean on Kortenkamp and Demeneix’s side for a host of reasons. But, the manipulation of science goes full steam when the authors proclaim «The petrochemical industry alone is the source of thousands of toxic chemicals and contributes to the massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that drives climate change. The battle for climate protection entered a new era with the 2015 Paris Agreement, bitterly opposed by skeptics despite widespread consensus among climate scientists committed to working for the public interest» This is obnoxious and despicable, it instrumentalizes science as if anything had ever been settled, resorts to the notorious infamous consensus and pretends that all those, be scientists or the public at large, who dare not think like them are working against «the public interest». Strangely enough, the authors believe that having to their side, just to name three, Paul R. Ehrlich who has always been consistently wrong during his entire career on all subjects, Michael Mann who will have a legacy as a dubious user of principal component analysis (McIntyre, 2006a), tree ring analysis (McIntyre, 2006b) and the strange ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2009; Wegman et al., 2006, 2010) and curious scientific ethic, i.e. climategate (Storch von, 2009; Costella, 2010; McIntyre, 2010; Montford, 2010), and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele who is the author of the infamous sentence «The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate» (IPCC, 1996) when nothing such has ever been proven rather the contrary, will reinforce their plea for controlling endocrine disruptor.

Their conclusion to resort to ever more supra-national bodies, led by international civil servants not elected nor controlled by the public «within the United Nations with the same international standing and charge as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change» is only to raise the utmost worries of all those who have to pay taxes for these people who are themselves exempt! The reader will not be surprised to see van Ypersele «team up» with Greta Thunberg (also a leading scientist as we’ve seen before) at the COP24 in Katowice in 2018. As one should never

renounce to honors and much more, on 2 April 2019 van Ypersele announced that he would again apply for the IPCC presidency (he failed to be elected during the 42nd IPCC Session, 2015). My friend István Markó who signed a petition with eight Belgian academics and opinion makers opposing van Ypersele candidacy as IPCC chair in 2015 is unfortunately dead349 and van Ypersele rantings will go full steam «countries should do everything possible to work towards the report's goal of reining in carbon emissions by 2030, at which point scientists say damage to the climate will be irreversible unless urgent action has been taken. Nobody, even the so-called superpowers, can negotiate with the laws of physics» with the same and worn out scare techniques. Unfortunately for van Ypersele, the laws of physics do not support at all his claims, nor any other science, e.g. geology, geochemistry, astronomy, etc. and even if van Ypersele will have lived as an important man during his lifetime, István Markó will be right at the end even though Wikipedia refers to him today as a «climate confusers» and mention that he produced a large scientific output in the field of organic chemistry, but not climatology – sure one can listen to Greta she knows better science and climatology than István! Shame on them.

The moral of the fable is that the public who had already learned hard at their expense how distrustful it should be of its great leaders and politicians especially the big government proponents such as communists, socialists and nationalsocialists over the course of history shall also have to learn to distrust its scientists when they produce a science to order, for politicians, and in collusion with them for their greatest temporal benefits. Science had been my dream as a youngster, a passion as a professional and a nightmare now as I anticipate its demise in the future when the public will become totally mistrustful as a consequence of having been deceived and manipulated by unscrupulous individuals who will have built entire and incredibly successful careers on fables. Shame on them.

Ypersele van (2019) in his latest presentation before the European parliament has made himself a fool and a cartoon of a scientist. Here is how he concludes his speech: « Given: - that the planet has a serious fever - that the "planetary plysicians" have diagnosed the cause: fossil fuel addiction - that climate confusion efforts by the fossil fuel and deforestation lobbies contribute to delay the implementation of the needed remedy (fast decarbonization) - that these efforts by climate confusers are similar to those by tobacco lobbyists and anti-vaccination charlatans - the role of social networks in spreading the "fake news" about climate science => The European Parliament will consider how to convince social networks of their responsibility in this regard, and how to lead them to stop spreading climate disinformation !»

It is good then to learn that Yann Arthus-Bertrand and Brice Lalonde are such great scientists that they deserve to "Préface" and "Postface" the latest book of van Ypersele «Une vie au coeur des turbulences climatiques» ! And cherry on top of the cake, the final slide is with the top scientist Greta referred to as "Well-informed young people speaking truth to power" and legend with @GretaThunberg at COP24 !

This presentation is totally miserable, has just a wrong causation (as we’ve seen before that the increase in CO 2 is the result of the increase in temperature and not the other way round) to put forward to confuse representatives of the European people and tries by all means to deceit the failure of so called "climate science" to prove anything so far after billions of taxpayers monies spent and propose to resort to massive censorship to avoid "climate confuser" disturbing his ranting and doomsday prophecies ! That «climate science» does not exist, let’s go back to physics, geology, geochemistry, astronomy, etc and I challenge Mr. Ypersele to try to convince me with scientific arguments - if this still makes sense to him – that he’s right. Shame on him to try to silence others not conforming with his apocalyptic and unfounded views. I am not funded by the fossil fuel or deforestation industries and I do not recognize the right to van Ypersele to silence me by force of law. Shame on him. No doubt that van Ypersele would probably be considered a good representative of Hayek’s constructivists (Hayek, 1978), (Diamond, 1980), (Williams, 1999), as he knows better than the others what’s good for them, for the planet and for the Universe!

Van Ypersele should know that we will all long be dead when the relevance of the work done will be assessed and that he will not get off Scot-free then. In the meantime, if science is so much settled and the consensus so well established and if everybody agrees with the catastrophic and coercive policies that he recommends, why would he need to beg EU

349István Markó (June 18, 1956 – July 31, 2017). https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/imcn/most/istvan-markobiography.html see also Gosselin (2017) in French https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/István_Markó

representatives to resort to full blown totalitarianism in order to silence other scientists350?. Why does he need to insult them by calling them names like «confusers»?. To the contrary, climate realists 351 are not confused as everybody can clearly see how one sided Van Ypersele is, how his career and interests, his contracts and laboratory depend on proving what he has not succeeded to do for decades, i.e. that the warming is man-made, this is the very mission of IPCC.

There cannot be more of a conflict of interest than to only work for an organization that has one and only one objective, proving the unprovable. The confuser is Van Ypersele with is flawed AGW theory 352 trying to deny the vast complexity of the geological, astronomical, physical and chemical problems we face with an ersatz of science (i.e. CO2 explains all - known as «climate science»), claiming that the 0.007% increase of a harmless trace gas – the gas of life (of which just 6% circulating in the atmosphere is anthropic as seen before) will lead to the demise of mankind. If he were honest he would say that nobody knows for sure what has caused the ongoing warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s, that this warming started long before any significant industrial release of CO2 in the atmosphere, that all we know is that climate has always been changing on all timescales considered and that physics does not support a major role for CO2, limited to a marginal radiative role (its spectrum being largely overridden by water vapor) with a logarithmic response to any further increase.

Ypersele should think twice to this statement by Morel353 (2013) «Contrary to the approach adopted by certain international bodies or institutions, the researchers' effort must first aim at convincing their peers in the scientific community of the veracity of their conclusions, a necessary step to grab the attention of the general public. Any other political or media shortcut is bound to fail in the face of the skepticism of citizens, skepticism justified by the scale and complexity of the physical phenomena involved as much as by the fragility of the human institutions responsible for remedying them».

Activists, environmentalists and scientists making their bread and butter of the ever going scare can count on the subservient mainstream media to relay their litany. Countless examples could be taken, but the tone of this article is well representative of so many others: “As emissions grow, scientists say the world is close to reaching thresholds beyond which the effects on the global climate will be irreversible, such as the melting of polar ice sheets and loss of rain-forests. This is the critical decade. If we don’t get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines, said Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University’s climate change institute, speaking at a conference in London. Reuters, Mar 26, 2012” (Chestney, 2012). Dr. Steffen's mission was terminated in September 2013 by Abbott's government with the dissolution of the corresponding commission and ANU (saving tax-payers monies). As always, sense of urgency to rush political decisions and cause always assumed and never demonstrated (man is responsible) are the tactics of the alarmists “The climate is warming, and many other changes to the climate system – patterns of precipitation, sea-level rise, melting ice, acidification of the ocean – are also occurring. It is beyond reasonable doubt that the emission of greenhouse gases by human activities, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels, is the primary cause for the changes in climate over the past half-century ” (Steffen and Hughes, 2013). Claiming that “it is beyond reasonable doubt, bla, bla” does not and will never represent a scientific proof.

The recent tactic of climate activists is to pretend that even if they know nothing about the science that governs these phenomena, by making these issues a political agenda and pointing the finger at designated culprits on moral grounds, it will bring them benefits. For example, the interview with Angelique Pouponneau as reported by McCarthy (2019) is telling: “It’s critically important to make climate change a political issue to the point where candidates are saying where they stand, and the electorate decides to elect a government that acts” then fortunately for Science and Oceanography Ms. Pouponneau has been scuba-diving for four years and let us know of her observations “ We’ve seen tremendous bleaching of our coral reefs. The last bleaching event had 90% mortality, and of course that affects biodiversity, I’ve been snorkeling and diving maybe four years ago, and what was once a rain-forest, is now like a desert

350This reminds of lysenkoism (Soyfer, 1994), eugenism and all other «ism» imposing their «science» or vision of society through the most brutal policies suffered in mankind history. 351https://www.climato-realistes.fr/ we are realists, not funded by any organization and scientists for the sake and beauty of science. 352Theory not based on classical physics but resorting to all sorts of «new» and magical wording and thinking like «forcing»,

«feedback», etc. Did anyone read these strange notions in any decent physics book before the invention of «climate science»? 353Pierre Morel is a theoretical physicist (Statistical quantum mechanics). He is the founder of the Laboratory of Dynamic

Meteorology (LMD) of Paris VI, ENS, CNRS, in 1968. Among other eminent functions, Pierre Morel was Director General of the

French Space Agency in charge of science and technology (1975-1982), then Director of the International Research Program on the Global Climate (1982-1994).

or a graveyard.” So, if things go that fast and “rain-forests” of corals rejoin the netherworld in four years, we should not have to wait for long to see how right she is. The terrible thing for her narrative, but fortunate for the world, is that we've heard this gibberish many times before to no avail. Then slowly comes the moral blackmail, asserting that “although the Seychelles are severely threatened by climate change as sea levels rise and storms become more extreme, the coastal nation has hardly released any greenhouse gas emissions compared to industrial countries ”, which is one more baseless affirmation that leads to the moral indictment of the wealthy WASPs, culprit of the world's curse, as Pouponneau adds “Slavery built a lot of what exists in a lot of developed nations, then colonization extracted more resources, and that caused climate change, which is now displacing everyone from where they live”. If one did not see clear enough the dire cynicism of these green postures of self-entitled world savers, Pouponneau concludes that the situation “reflects global imbalances and abuses of power”. All is said.

A puzzling example of the schizophrenia reached by the system is the nomination of Alice Larkin 354 who has been appointed in 2017 Head of the School (now Department) of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering (MACE) at the University of Manchester, and in 2019 became Head of the School of Engineering. She is so much entrenched into the GHG ideology that she provided expert-witness (Bows-Larkin, 2016) to the trial of the Heathrow 13 protesters from the Plane Stupid355 campaign group, who chained themselves to Heathrow Airport's Northern Runway to protest against the impact of climate change. Notice that the Head of the Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering Department avoids herself flying as she believes “that climate change experts should act as role models in curbing aviation growth” and testimonies at the same time to destroy the very industry she is supposed to train students for!

All that would not be so appalling if the arguments she puts forward for the defense of the protesters were not either plain wrong or simply just political, bearing no relationship with science. Bows-Larkin (2016) starts observing that “ The combined effect of these contributions to the amount of warming is uncertain and challenging to ascertain precisely.” which is just an honest acknowledgment of the magnitude of the unknowns that will starkly contrast with the peremptory attitude that will follow all along. For example, the point 4 of section 1.1 “ Sulphur oxides, sulphuric acid and soot lead to an increase in the cirrus cloud cover, again further increasing the climate warming impact of the aircraft” is just in total contradiction of what is known and observed of the action of volcanic eruptions and their impact on the climate (i.e. cooling) by the release of sulphuric acid in the high troposphere and low stratosphere. But when it becomes a plain deception is when Bows-Larkin (2016) asserts twice in a couple of pages that “the release of CO2 with a lifetime of >100 years”, and elaborates “Whilst recognising that these other emissions are important, it is also worth noting that the long-lived nature of CO2 means that if aviation growth were curtailed to zero (i.e. no additional flights each year), then the warming impact induced by the CO2 from the aircraft increases in importance compared with the sum of all the emissions over time. This is because most of the additional emissions will not accumulate as their lifetimes are so short, whereas CO2 lasts for >100 years. Again to my knowledge this is not contested”. This statement is a shame as contrary to all evidences (see section p. 19), and science is based on evidences, if to Bows-Larkin's knowledge her falsehood is not contested, it is just because she is victim of her own cognitive dissonances, using massively both rationalization and confirmation bias to avoid listening to all the dissenting voices that she has just decided to ignore from an IPCC ivory tower. Then it is interesting to observe how the discourse moves on slowly but steadily to a political structure as the arguments invoked have stopped bearing any relationship with science, i.e. demonstrations, irrefutable evidences, measurements, etc., but resort to opinions, sentiments having no role whatsoever to play in science, such as when she states “cumulative CO2 is widely recognised in the scientific community to have a direct relationship with future temperature change (Summary for Policymakers, page 8, IPCC 2014b).” and quotes the IPCC summary for policymakers which has never been written by scientists and is a well known piece of deception in itself having led many scientists to slam the IPCC door as their positions where so much distorted as to make them unrecognizable, that they were not caricatures but had become simply the opposite of what they had said (e.g. acknowledging the influence of man on climate when they had just said the opposite).

Wikipedia states that Bows-Larkin (2017) “is a theme lead in the EPSRC project Shipping in Changing Climates and develops models to predict climate-change across the world. These models inform how the shipping industry can prepare for the future. She proposed that the shipping industry use sails, biofuel and slow steaming”. These models are again just computer models356 that do not inform about anything or anyone, except those who have credence in them, and with people like her at the helm of the School of Engineering and Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering everybody can rest assured that planes will stop flying and being manufactured and the international

354https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Larkin 355https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_Stupid 356Do you remember of Neil Ferguson's Imperial College model, one of the most devastating software mistake of all time (Richards and Boudnik, 2020). You want more models, paid for with your taxes, to govern your lives?

maritime trade traffic will have to revert to sail-power and why not to row also to cross the oceans, making a backward move of several centuries. Mankind will have to return into the caves and the population should probably decrease fast under one billion to make all these delirious ideas an enticing future. How can things have turned so badly? All that for a trace gas that has a next to no influence on the climate and when so many other major stakes await to find better solutions, e.g. pollution, over-fishing, sanitation in so many countries, improved health and education, etc. How can baseless ideology derail brilliant minds in such a way as to make them useless for mankind progress? This is a puzzling question and I'll try to address it in the future with the help of friends of mine, proficient in philosophy, psychology, etc., because as one can see in plain light, science is not even any longer discussed, just arguments vaguely resorting to “widely recognized” but unfounded and unproven ideas in the “scientific community” and understanding better how psychological drivers operate to make these brains operate so wrongly is a truly worthwhile endeavor.

Bringing climate pseudo-science on track will not succeed by just sound scientific reasoning and obvious evidences, it will have either to wait for the climate to snap their face by going the opposite (but be prepared to ear that Cooling happens because they were right with the AG Warming theory and that it matches exactly what they said 357) or by better understanding how, a massive self-delusion based on attractive immediate rewards and funding, leveraged on mass-conditioning has managed to wipe off any scientific principles of decent reasoning. To conclude, based on broken science and no evidence but strong politically motivated arguments and a mindless Paris agreement engineered by bureaucrats, Bows-Larkin (2016) states “To conclude, options for expanding the aviation sector are at odds with the Paris Agreement, given that the language of ‘well below 2°C’ will require net zero CO 2 emissions from around 2050 (this is taken from the Agreement). This is because, without the widespread global adoption of negative emission technologies that are currently unproven at scale, ‘well below 2°C’ implies a phasing out of fossil fuels as sources of energy by around 2050. This is largely uncontested”. Notice again the argument of authority, which bears no relation with science; it is just one more proof of Bows-Larkin cognitive disorders and autism.

“All CO2 emitting sectors are damaging to human health through contributing to further warming, but particularly concerning are sectors that do not foresee a significant cut in CO2 going into the future.” Bows-Larkin (2016). Further warming, if it were to happen due to CO2 is more than dubious, and if it were to happen due to the continuation of the natural climate evolution occurring since the end of LIA, would be welcome. The only damaging action is that of people like Bows-Larkin who keep spreading fables devoid of the slightest scientific ground and keep misleading the gullible public and bamboozle journalists, judges and more. Their action is now to be considered as severely detrimental to the well being of our modern societies and their pernicious agendas and clueless motivations must be fought by all means if we hope to keep some reason and freedom. Their delirium is comparable to what struck societies with COVID-19 (UHP, 2020) and gives jitters in the back as people with these sort of mental obsessional disorders, i.e. targeting the gas of life as evil whereas it is the benefactor of this planet Earth and labeling it a pollutant, are now occupying major positions in the decision centers of our societies.

“The vast majority of academics working on climate change mitigation would agree that a rapid and significant reduction in the combustion of fossil fuels is needed in the coming decades…I am unaware of any analysis that can demonstrate how aviation could be an exception to this.” Bows-Larkin (2016). Since when Science is made by majority? Majority of whom? Of the climate-fantasists afflicted by major conflicts of interest as their salaries and laboratories depend on the continuation of the funding based on the climate scare strategy? Those that should shut up as their partiality is so obvious that it is obscene!

The next objective is just one little more step ahead and perfectly fills the Malthusian agenda: should we stop breathing or even living?

As each and every person on Earth exhales 1.0438 kg of CO2 per day on average (Palmer, 2009), 7.8 billion people (2020) breathing over a year releases 3.276 billion tons of CO2, i.e. 8.81% of the total 2018 emissions of 37.15 GtCO2 but Palmer (2009) immediately adds that “Experts are quick to point out that this figure is meaningless, since human respiration is part of a “closed loop cycle” in which our carbon dioxide output is matched by the carbon dioxide taken in by the wheat, corn, celery, and Ugli fruit that we eat”. As soon as an argument of authority is raised, the reader has now learned that he should raise his/her eyebrows and look twice. And here again, we're going to see that the experts are never thrifty of one more stupidity. First, the basics of a sound reasoning is that we make use of some carbon stored in a sink (be it short term like the wheat or the corn we eat or longer term like fossil fuels), that the carbon we use has always the same origin, i.e. photosynthesis, and that we are going to transform it into another form. If we were to apply

357This was exactly Al Gore's behavior on Jan 4, 2018, see section 4.6.“Deceptions, Manipulations and Frauds”.

the stupid reasoning of the experts we would say that when we cook or heat our houses burning wood it is matched by the carbon dioxide that was taken by the plants and the trees we have burnt, and that it should not be added to manmade carbon emissions as it is in “closed loop cycle”. How stupid. Second, the carbon we have used is transformed and has three main destinations: our body which is made of organic matter (a small part of our consumptions finally ends there), the excrements that we deject and the CO2 that we release, by exhaling into the air. These three destinations have different characteristics, obviously and the “closed loop” gibberish appears even more for what it is, a new deception. The only carbon that was released was the CO2 exhaled, the two other forms will have different life-cycle expectations but have just changed sink. The carbon we deject through excrements was calculated by Muñoz et al. (2010) who add “Human excretion contributes significantly to water polluting through providing organic matter and nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus... but that returning these waste waters to the environment is not a bad thing in itself, as they are nutrients, just like manure is reused as fertilizer in agriculture”. See also (FECYT, 2010)358 and effectively, this carbon has just joined another organic reservoir, mainly the soils after their most often transportation by water. The carbon stored in our body will remain there some decade and as observed by Richard Feynman, when a body will be cremated the ashes will show how little of us belongs to the Earth, the rest having vanished in the atmosphere (i.e. mainly CO2 and H2O).

The truth is that we are low sequestration carbon organisms and that most of the carbon we eat we excrete it, but to produce the energy we need for our metabolism we breathe consuming O2 and releasing CO2, and that produces net 3.276 billion tons of CO2 per year, i.e. 8.81% of the total 2018 emissions and that wherever the carbon we release came from, had we not been here on Earth, we would have left it into longer forms of sequestration and it would not have returned so quickly to the sewages (where it participate to the stock of organic matter in the soils) or to the atmosphere. Claiming that we operate as a closed loop and therefore that we are irrelevant to the carbon budget is not only a spurious argument, it is as what we can expect from the experts when they have an agenda, plain wrong. Would mankind have disappeared with the Toba eruption 75,000 years ago, 3.276 billion tons of CO ∼ 2 would not be released every year now in the atmosphere and the corresponding carbon would have remained in the sinks where it was originally trapped before we used it for our metabolism, i.e. in the plants (eventually decaying and the organic matter staying much longer into the soils) and in the animals we ate. The 3.276 billion tons of CO 2 we exhale are net man-made emissions that must, of course, be added to other sources. But I have a good news, it does not matter at all, CO 2 is the gas of life and mankind should more than welcome its presence and the recent slight increase instead of bemoaning in a clueless way.

But a broader perspective must be considered and producing food from animals, such as meat and dairy products, e.g. from farms raising cattle, creates the largest impact. Agriculture, livestock, fishing and the food industry are the greatest source of carbon dioxide water pollution, but in both cases the effects of human excretion (through breathing or due to waste water treatment) are next. One must also include the production facilities, i.e. industrial food processing, sale and distribution, preparation and cooking at home, solid waste treatment (food remains and packaging).

Shall we stop everything ? Are we too much on this planet ? Is Mankind adventure not worth it? Maybe the only species that ever managed to go to the Moon, to know its place in the Solar System, in the Galaxy, building the largest telescopes equipped with astonishing CCDs and sending them into orbit, and discovering all other planets over a couple of decades and orbiting or tele-driving rovers over them or plunging into their distant atmospheres, even bringing back rocks from asteroids, to discover the bewildering geological history of the Earth, etc., perhaps Mankind did not deserve it? Would the planet be better off with mountains of dinosaurs breathing and farting in our place?

This leads Malthusians who are congenital pessimists and do not hide to claim it in plain sight, to not only welcome a decrease of the global world population but to target the decrease into the more advanced countries, a perfect recipe for a global crash, and Socolow (2011) states “An average American emits at least ten times more greenhouse gases per year than an average Indian. So, reduction of population growth, from the perspective of climate change, is especially important in wealthy countries. Right now, women in some wealthy countries---including Japan, Italy, and Russia---are on average having fewer than two children, which over time will lead to falling populations”. Socolow does not say if he expects the US to keep brain-draining the developing countries of their most brilliant minds for their good so that they keep creating successful startups to pay for his retirement or if he has other plans for that. It is just suicidal at the scale

358FECYT (2010) adds that “human excrements have a net null effect on global warming, as they are offset by carbon fixation in photosynthesis. As a result, they do not contribute to increasing the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere” which is correct but this leaves breathing as a separate subject which produces 3.276 billion tons of CO2

of any society and is also sheer madness, as there is wealth only in Men (and of course women, the saying obviously uses the generic term/meaning), but it has the merit to show where those people want to drive us. Socolow, professor emeritus of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, also focuses on global carbon management and is the co-principal investigator of Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initiative and it seems that his brilliant intellect just cowered on carbon dioxide. As a typical Malthusian he states “A global population smaller by the end of the century than today is plausible---and a desirable objective if it can be achieved without coercion, pestilence, or war”. In fact these ideas are not new as in Harte and Socolow (1971) the authors already encouraged various essays in Section III , p.203 – dealing with “The Equilibrium Society (equilibrium population and Stationary-State Economy)”.

Now to give a feel of how distorted the facts can be, how far falsehoods can go, how deeply ingrained into the brainwashing dominant newspapers the ideology has gone, I am going to unveil how the vast network of media operate as an immediate relay to give massive coverage and visibility to a nonsensical study matching their agenda when searching just a little bit would have enabled to see how flawed and inconsequential the research was. Immediately after Mora et al. (2017) paper was published on-line, i.e. on 19 June 2017 359, titled “Global risk of deadly heat”, several co-ordinated articles appeared in the mainstream media on the very same day, showing an extraordinary alacrity, incredible no?, like the Guardian (Milman, 2017), The Washington Post (Harvey, 2017) and the day after on 20 June 2017 in the U.S. News (Trimble, 2017) and even the French speaking 'Le Figaro' (Cherki, 2017), and certainly so many more in local or regional languages, to launch a campaign of public intoxication aiming at convincing people that they will be in danger to die of future heat-waves.

So what did Mora et al. (2017) came up with so important as to be immediately relayed into the mainstream media? “We reviewed papers published between 1980 and 2014, and found 783 cases of excess human mortality associated with heat”. Therefore, based on 783 cases, Mora et al (2017) conclude “Our study underscores the current and increasing threat to human life posed by climate conditions that exceed human thermoregulatory capacity. Lethal heatwaves are often mentioned as a key consequence of ongoing climate change, with reports typically citing past major events such as Chicago in 1995, Paris in 2003, or Moscow in 2010 ”. The first thing to notice is that these heatwaves have nothing to do with GHG as acknowledged by many authors who studied these meteorological phenomenons and report them as examples of odd meteorological systems and second that they have not even been able to make a decent list of the proper references for a study that is entirely based on a bibliographical study, and the paper from Gasparrini et al., (2015) published just two years before in The Lancet. Based on that lousy research and shoddy bibliographical analysis, limited to 783 cases on 7.8 billion persons, we are told a massive falsehood, i.e. that “A third of the world now faces deadly heatwave”. How shameful, would they have read the paper from Gasparrini et al., (2015) based on more than 74 million persons, yes 74 225 200, not 783 (sic!), they would have learned that the cold kills 20 times more than the heat, and that climate-related deaths are people who died freezing, the excess mortality in winter being even extremely noticeable in rich countries and being aggravated by increasing cost of energy due to rogue energetic (read green) policies. The sad truth as reported by MacRae (2019) is that “cold, not heat, is by far the greater killer of humanity. Today, cool and cold weather kills about 20 times as many people as warm and hot weather. Excess Winter Deaths, defined as more deaths in the four winter months than equivalent non-winter months, total over two million souls per year, in both cold and warm climates”. See also D’Aleo and MacRae (2015).

Indoctrinated journalists and partisan mainstream media bear a sinister responsibility in the sting operations of disinformation of the public. They ignore evidence that is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada and give an immediate, coordinated and disproportionate light on a dubious study based on 783 cases making baseless forecasts for 2100. Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder than optimum for human survival, we are originally a tropical species with little adaptation to severe cold. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, lowers winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age increases winter mortality. These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national mortality statistics, but the journalistic waffles end saying the opposite of the most basic truth. Journalism is a noble profession, a beautiful job where, as for scientists, it is a primordial duty to seek the truth, to inform oneself as much as is necessary in order to advance only information in which it is possible to place a high level of trust. What a shame to see what has become of this profession under the thumb of the dominants. This profession is no longer even a shadow of its former self, just a vanishing specter.

359https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322

The special interest groups do not even hide any longer to manipulate and deceive the public with their shenanigans, their collusion is visible in plain sight; as soon as some researchers publish a shoddy “scientific” paper, for example in this case in “nature climate change”, they are given direct access and relays to the mainstream media, in the hours following the issuing of their dubious research in partisan scientific journals, beating loud the drum of the climate scare, trying to terrify the average citizen who has no way to separate the wheat from the chaff, tired enough when back home from work of having had to waste so much in taxes in order to support the massive deception scheme that work full time against him or her to run an agenda that will prove vastly detrimental to his own standard of living. This is of course further broadcast asap on all the Communists News Networks (CNN) of the world to ensure that no brain remain immune to the deception.

Know for what you wish, you are close to getting it! A massive economic disaster, a crumbling of the standard of living worldwide, a return of the poverty, a reduction of life expectancy, all that for a delirious whim.

“When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists. Selfish humans in rich, polluting countries were blamed for the warming and had to pay for past trespasses by providing material compensation to poor nations as penance. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions became the new holy grail. With a warm wind at their backs, these fundamentalists collected hundreds of billions of dollars from naive governments that adopted their faith on behalf of billions of people. No crusader was ever so effective.” Maurice Newman360 (2012b).

In the end all hope is not lost as even some well known activists turn their jackets as recently Shellenberger (2020) did with his “On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare” and his book “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All”.

360https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Newman