The bureaucrats have outdone themselves this time. Having failed to win the war of ideas, they’ve now decided to outlaw dissent — politely, of course, wrapped in the usual bureaucratic gauze of “integrity,” “trust,” and “information ecosystems.” The “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change” signed at COP30 in Belém reads like something George Orwell would have rejected for being too on-the-nose.
“Recognizing that the urgency of the climate crisis demands not only decisive action by States, but also the broad engagement of all segments of society…”
The document opens with this predictable invocation of “urgency,” that tired incantation meant to suspend reason and justify whatever comes next. Then, in a breathtaking act of cognitive dissonance, it demands the “broad engagement” of everyone — right after announcing that only one kind of engagement will be tolerated: the kind that affirms the “accurate and evidence-based” line approved by the United Nations and its friends at UNESCO.
That phrase — “accurate and evidence-based” — appears repeatedly, as if repetition alone could substitute for the messy, disputatious process of actual science. The authors claim they are:
“Concerned by the growing impact of disinformation, misinformation, denialism, deliberate attacks on environmental journalists, defenders, scientists, researchers and other public voices…”
Translation: anyone who asks awkward questions about climate models, data uncertainties, or policy failures is now guilty of “denialism” — a term borrowed straight from the lexicon of religious heresy.
If this were merely another puff of diplomatic hot air, it would be laughable. But this Declaration goes further. It openly calls on governments to:
“Create and implement policies and legal frameworks… that promote information integrity on climate change, and respect, protect and promote human rights, including the right to freedom of expression…”
A breathtaking contradiction — the kind that only international bureaucrats can deliver with a straight face. How do you “promote freedom of expression” while crafting laws to decide which expressions are acceptable?
It even instructs technology companies to:
“Assess whether and how platform architecture contributes to the undermining of climate information ecosystem integrity, providing researchers with access to data to ensure transparency and build an evidence base.”
This is not science. It’s surveillance with a moral halo.
The Declaration also proposes that funders:
“Donate to the Global Fund for Information Integrity on Climate Change, administered by UNESCO on behalf of the Initiative.”
The same UNESCO that has spent decades producing feel-good propaganda about “education for sustainable development” will now sit atop a global information czardom, deciding which facts are fit for public consumption. You could not invent a better parody of bureaucratic overreach if you tried.
Of course, every tyrant claims to be acting in defense of “truth.” The Inquisition burned heretics for the purity of the faith. The Soviet Union jailed scientists for questioning Lysenkoism — all in the name of protecting “scientific integrity.” Today’s climate clerisy is no different. They’ve simply replaced the cross with the IPCC logo and the rosary with a PowerPoint deck of emissions charts.
It’s hard not to laugh when the Declaration solemnly pledges to:
“Promote the integrity of information… in line with international human rights law, including freedom of expression standards.”
The authors seem blissfully unaware of the contradiction — or perhaps perfectly aware, and confident no one will call them on it. After all, “freedom of expression” is easy to promise when you’ve already defined “wrong expression” out of existence.
The whole effort reeks of insecurity. If the science were as “settled” as claimed, why this obsession with silencing critics? Why the endless campaigns to “enhance public trust” and “reinforce confidence in climate science”? Genuine science welcomes skepticism; propaganda demands belief.
And make no mistake — this is propaganda. The repeated invocation of “trust” and “integrity” is the language of control, not inquiry. Real trust is earned through openness, debate, and evidence — not imposed by decree. You don’t need a UNESCO-managed “information ecosystem” to tell people that water boils at 100°C. You only need censorship when your “facts” are too fragile to withstand scrutiny.
Perhaps the most infuriating part of this whole charade is its paternalism. The Declaration calls on governments to:
“Promote campaigns on climate change and support initiatives that promote literacy and the public’s right to access reliable information on the matter.”
In plain English, that means: fund propaganda that tells citizens what to think, while labeling opposing views as “unreliable.” It’s the intellectual equivalent of serving baby food to adults — spoon-fed, pre-chewed, and flavorless.
The signatories — Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay — should be ashamed. These are nations that once prided themselves on open inquiry and democratic debate. Now they’ve joined hands in an effort to codify orthodoxy and punish deviation.
The irony, of course, is that the so-called “climate disinformation” they’re desperate to eradicate often turns out to be inconvenient truth. It was “misinformation” once to question the “hockey stick” graph, until it collapsed under scrutiny. It was “denialism” to point out that climate models have consistently over-predicted warming. It was “dangerous” to note that renewable mandates drive up energy costs and destabilize power grids — until blackouts forced even sympathetic governments to reconsider.
Now, instead of correcting their errors, the climate establishment is doubling down — shifting from persuasion to coercion. Their message is simple: believe, or be silent.
The real danger here isn’t to the climate — it’s to freedom itself. When governments, media, and supranational bodies conspire to determine which opinions may be voiced, science ceases to exist. In its place arises a bureaucratic priesthood — fluent in the language of “sustainability,” “integrity,” and “evidence-based policy,” but utterly blind to its own authoritarianism.
This Declaration, signed under the tropical humidity of Belém, should go down not as a milestone in “information integrity,” but as a monument to intellectual cowardice. Unable to compete in the free marketplace of ideas, the climate establishment has chosen to shut down the market altogether.
They call it “information integrity.” Let’s call it what it is: climate totalitarianism with a smile.
The pathetic sheep in Europe have surrendered to CCP style censorship with wrong think getting jail time. If Republicans don’t remain in power this is what you can expect for America.
The whole purpose of the Co2 scam is to dismantle rights,sovereign countries,free speech and whatever is in the way of a centralized UN.
You will own nothing, no rights,not even your children,nor the mobile in your hand which will become the only way to buy or sell things from the unconditional basic income you will get.
So unconditional that you won’t get it if you don’t follow the rules of the one thing called political correctness, hate speech and information integrity.
The full blown evil meme is “climate information ecosystem integrity”. Watch for those words and similar variants. Such as the “integrity of Creation” which a famous religious leader uses to justify starving the poor.
“climate information ecosystem integrity ”
can’t succeed as meme as it is too long, does not rhyme,no alliteration,
therefore expect a 2 word meme or at best 3 short ones.
That’s right. The Biden administration was well on its way to imposing censorship on anyone who opposed them, and if we elect more Democrats, they will just resume the effort.
Radical Democrats are all about political power. Censorship is one of their weapons.
“Censorship is one of their weapons.”
Censorship is the only way they can maintain their ideological disconnects from how things work in the real world. None of their ridiculous beliefs can survive critical examination. False narratives and false assumptions define them.
Unfortunately, bad actors and nuts like Nick Fuentes, RFK Jr, and Alex Jones empower the would-be censors, both in government and in powerful institutions like Google. Bad behavior generates the motivation for oppressive laws and policies.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. Conversely, when men act like devils oppressive government is the inevitable result.
Ironically, the same bad actors who empower censors typically pretend to be defenders of free speech. They are just the opposite. They are the abusers of free speech, whose irresponsibility builds support for those who would censor us all.
Freedom is difficult to keep. Historically every free society has eventually become unfree. America became free because it was a self-governing frontier society and didn’t have a native hereditary aristocracy. But as demonstrated by COP30, freedom is fragile and easily lost.
Is it only Europe? What I mean by that is, have you ever attempted to have a sensible climate discussion with a 15 or 16 year old?
Hence I believe the problem is going to become considerably worse than we could possibly imagine, including in the US – there are undoubtedly far more than 50% of school age children everywhere who have deliberately been frightened out of their wits, having literally been brainwashed and, in the process, they’ve largely been taught to be stupid . . . by very stupid people.
“What I mean by that is, have you ever attempted to have a sensible climate discussion with a 15 or 16 year old?”
I started those discussions with my kids about that age. My daughter won’t discuss the subject with me anymore because she’s an environmental sciences major in college and good grades depend on not knowing the truth. She knows she is in an echo chamber and acknowledges noble cause corruption as the rational for belief.. Her go to when the facts refute her indoctrination.
97% of the posters and commenters on WUWT will get a badge (petroleum-based) saying they promote disinformation, misinformation, and denialism regarding melting glaciers, boiling oceans, and Carbon Dioxide.
– ( we have a consensus! )
The climate issue has only ever had just two legs to stand on: “science consensus” and “you must not listen to what industry-paid heretic skeptic scientists say!” Just as Anthony suggests, “information integrity” is little more than one form or another of censorship of dissent, and the leaders of the climate issue figured out early on in the 1990s that they needed to install that censorship effort by any means possible. Back in 1994, ABC News’ Ted Koppel was one of the last legacy news media figures who called out that problem, when Al Gore attempted to call Fred Singer a shill of the fossil fuel industry. Ever since that time, the virtual gun aimed at news reporters has been “Thou Shalt Not Question the Orthodoxy of Thy Climate Crisis … or else!“
I was permanently banned from the Seattle Times comment section a year ago for posting climate disinformation. I had empirical data and peer reviewed papers backing up all of my posts. They couldn’t refute a single point I made or accept the clarifications I made on their misunderstandings of what constituted disinformation. The real reason they made the ban permanent… Their false narratives couldn’t survive validated empirical scientific evidence.
Back when CNN still allowed comments, I got banned. They’d quoted the IPCC on something, gotten it completely backwards, I pointed it, gave them the exact right quote and where to fine it. I was being helpful. They deleted my comment and banned me.
NOAA (specifically Rebecca Lindsey and Tom DiLiberto) did the same thing to me, on NOAA’s NOAAClimateGov facebook page, for essentially the same reason.
For CNN to do it is unethical. For NOAA to do it is both unethical and blatantly illegal. It violates a legal principle called the Public Forum Doctrine, which they were fully aware of. It is illegal “Viewpoint Discrimination” by a federal government agency. They didn’t care. (I still have the emails.)
To this day, this is what I see when I visit https://www.facebook.com/NOAAClimateGov/
Even worse, IMO, because of its larger effects, is the pervasive censorship by Google/YouTube. They are insidious.
Try to find information which you recall seeing on WUWT using a Google search, without explicitly directing it to WUWT. You’ll certainly see how they skew the search results.
Or post a comment on a youtube video, with hard data or DOI references contesting climate quackery. Then look for your own comment while logged into a different account or in an “Incognito” window, and see how often your comment has been shadowbanned. Google/YouTube shows YOU your comments, when you’re logged into your own account, or when you view it via a link directly to it. But nobody else will see it.
I asked ChatGPT, “Why is shadowbanning unethical?” Its reply is excellent:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68fa789f-7bb0-8009-9b33-c850742a4905
Google/Alphabet/YouTube used to have an unusual corporate motto: “Don’t be evil.” But under the leadership of Sundar Pichai they seem to have economized by dropping the first word.
This has been going on for a long time. Links that refute propaganda are disappeared. NASA is doing the same thing. A link to their data that showed a declining all sky down-welling LWIR trend during the modern warm period was terminated after I started posing it in comment sections.
I’m Spartacus!
There is one standard. Speech is either free or it is not. All other choices are ‘denialism’.
It starts with “You cannot shout ‘fire’ in a theater!”
Free speech is a fragile commodity that hardly exists today.
You can shout fire in a theater. But if there is harm as a result, you will have to suffer the consequences.
One is always responsible for the consequences one’s speech. Who would think otherwise.
Years ago I was impeded by a climate protest and so I asked the protestor a question. What if you’re wrong? Wouldn’t you be happy about that? The answer was “of course not!”
Now I’m not even sure the protestor knew what they were protesting, but this is where its gotten too with the climate crazies. They can smell the power and they want it. Being wrong means we’re all saved from the climate crisis while spending not one cent on it.
They can’t relinquish their grip on the gravy train and they are intoxicated with the lust for power. They’ll lose their grip on both if they are wrong. So they will make it a crime for them to be wrong.
But they are on the right side of wrong. The one that takes money from you and gives money to them. It is the essence of big government. It has become the reason for the UN to exist. To take your money without any accountability to you.
The leeches have invaded the press and control the story. It does not matter if their fairy tale is wrong as long as they can keep taking your money.
Australia is now largely a society of leeches. Leeches get rewarded. The highly principled who have stuck to their guns are a dying breed.
The one glimmer is that One Nation is rising in the polls.
Rick, right on with the money angle. I asked a hard-core tipping point warrior what the difference in cost was, between remediation and adaptation, and they glared at me and went away.
They probably went in search of their handler to ask what the response should be.
As Greta would say when asked such a question, How dare you. has she copyrighted that phrase yet. I would love to be the official at the Patent/copyright office to respond when her request comes in, with, How dare you!
They lost their grip with reality long ago. Ideology has replaced reason which is why reason doesn’t work on them.
Countries don’t sign documents, people do.
This announcement is deliberately vague, I’d like to know precisely who the signatories are by name and who they purport to represent.
Of course it has to be vague.
The more vague the better it can be abused.
They made the mistake to be a bit specific at the beginning of the scam by calling it global warming as this only covered 50% of the spectrum.
The other 50%(cooling) could be used against them by the deniers whenever a cold-anomaly happened.
So they changed the name from global warming to climate change.
Climate is more of an abstract thing and change means whatever they want to – warming, cooling,and everything else – including cold weather events and more snow.
They monopolized all anomalies in their favor.
And the most interesting thing is – once they switched from global warming to climate change
the other countries followed like dogs and started to use the new term..
And they did it successfully, in spite of the fact that the only thing they measure (the arithmetic average of thermometer readings) has naught to do with “climate”, local or global.
But if you analyse the rhetoric, it is still all about Global Warming. The MSM populated with arts students with no scientific background are simply brainwashed
Attorneys likely draft the documents, and do so without clear meaning so that the parties may sue. Then the courts decide – and then the next higher court decides, etc. When the ADA act was passed, it was deliberately vague with respect to many aspects that could have been clearly specified. Surgeons, accountants, engineers, and many other professions would be rightly taken to task for producing products that were subject to such defects. Solving the problem is not the goal – it is all about administering “solutions” to the problem. Grift that keeps on giving.
It’s not only about not solving the problem but the fact that they use the problem to create more problem, so that they can administer even more solutions.
Besides the grift such a Kafkaesque scenario is great to keep outsiders out and demoralize the plebs.
We skeptics are told that they are many and we are few, in which case they fear the curiosity of the few beyond all reason. To descend to blatant propaganda and censorship to stifle the voices and ideas of dissent simply shows their weakness and insecurity.
If the Climate Alarmists had any real evidence to support their claims, they wouldn’t have to censor critics because the critics would be silent.
The fact that the Climate Alarmists want to impose censorship on their critics just shows how shaky their position really is.
You don’t need bribes to make people tell the truth.
You don’t need Epstein Island or Diddy Parties to blackmail people to tell the truth.
Truth is for free.
The former Soviet Union used to imprison dissenters in mental hospitals and treat them with the usual apparatus of shock and anti-psychotic drugs. The reasoning was simple: the truth of Marxism-Leninism was so obvious that only mental illness prevent someone seeing it, in which case clearly they must be helped.
Several studies in recent years into the psychology of ‘climate denialism’ have shared that original premise and attempted to diagnose exactly what it could be that is causing the spread of this disorder and the new and dangerous public health crisis it is causing.
In rather the same way, we know that trans women are just women, so anyone doubting this must be suffering from trans-phobia, a most crippling condition. If these sick people oppose handing out puberty blockers on demand…. Well, no punishment or treatment will be too severe for them.
We also know that people voicing unmentionable views about illegal migration into Europe and the UK must be suffering from xenophobia, racism and denial. It is obvious from looking at asylum seekers and their talk and behavior once arrived that they are all genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution who seek only to work hard and benefit their newly adopted country.
We know that various institutions are systemically racist, so anyone denying that must themselves be racist.
And Islam by the way is obviously true, a religion of peace and a force for good in the world, so if you doubt this you must be suffering from the rather sinister disorder of Islamophobia which is, unusually, in fact uniquely, a mental disorder that the UK Government is considering banning by law. That will be a first!
And so on. Maybe there is a pattern here?
The pattern is very simple.
Every truth you are forced to believe in (= a massively disproportionate response awaits you in response if you question it)
is a lie and usually the opposite is right or true.
Always question these things and as soon as you do the research you will find a dirty abyss below the polished protected surface.
Even the biggest mandatory truth of all that we are being told fails the most basic math test once you look closer into it.
Yes.
Look no further than the base levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs pyramid to see how human behaviors compel so many to resist the instincts to fend for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Pretty simple – just print lots of signs saying “Stop climate change”.A multitude of the ignorant and gullible can wave the signs furiously – maybe this will stop the climate from changing.
Who knows?
In quite a few countries that what is suggested would be against current law. They would need to go the next step and declare all “deniers” as terrorists to be able to implement that rubbish.
That is actually one of the most dangerous things to come out of any COP meeting and it should be treated as such … those who created and sponsored that should be held to account.
It smacks of recent a Australia Senate enquiry when a greentard Peter Wish-Wilson was basically suggesting news outlets should be censored. He is ignores the fact there has to be a market for the news outlets otherwise they would tune out so really he is seeking to censor everyone.
I see that the venue has gone on fire.
I wonder if this blast of hot air caused the ignition.
From the article: “The signatories — Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay — should be ashamed.”
So that means that 183 countries did *not* sign this declaration.
Do these ten countries think they speak for everyone?
They thought that they spoke for everybody when they tried to lure the Russians in Ukraine to join them. Wrong again, at a terrible cost. Geoff S
This is the “Whole Free World ” – argument.
Whenever you see this when they try to make this point,
the Whole Free World ” is western countries + some lackey states,
while usually the rest of the world has a different opinion.
Note that seven of the signers of this declaration are NATO allies in Europe and Canada. Is this what we in the U.S. are in the NATO alliance for? To silence climate dissent? Any dissent? How many billions of $$$ do we spend in Europe every year because of our commitment to NATO?
If the Trump admin was smart, they would launch a campaign that presents the science of dissent from the climate scare to the American people and the world public. I’ve suggested this many times in the past, and it is still needed today with the issuing of this U.N. shut-them-up! declaration. Trump’s UN statement that the scare is a con job is a start, but it is not enough IMHO. For all I know, his statement may have motivated this declaration.
The Trump admin need to issue and pose a set of questions to academia and the UN climate scaremongering bureaucracy backed up by the dissenting climate science to justify the questions. It needs to be made clear that these questions should be the basis for debating the validity of the climate alarmist narrative. The questions need and deserve answers.
Although I acknowledge that the alarmist narrative may be slowing dying, it is still in need of a major shakeup of the type I am proposing here. The issuance of this idiotic declaration demonstrates that. The spirit of witch-hunting and witch trials from Salem in 1692 are still with us. The only thing missing are the witch-burning stakes in the ground.
Trump was a putz to not allow Happer to do a Red team/Blue team debate about climate. The fraud would have been exposed along with alarmists being outed as the actual climate deniers.
Whatever Trump’s reason or reasons are for not challenging the alarmism and debating it, the alarmists on both sides of the Atlantic should consider it a blessing that he isn’t.
Especially in the UK and Europe.
Question 1: What is the optimum climate?
Question 2: How do we measure climate change – specific metrics and tests.
Question 3: Are we moving towards or away from the optimum climate?
The questions are automatically invalid since there is no single global climate.
I’ve been asking Question 1 for years. Still no answer.
The fact is, apparently, the 183 (or so) “other countries” did not issue a press release—let along their own declaration—denouncing the COP30-proclaimed “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change”. Shame on them, all of them, for their acquiescence and silence in this matter.
They sure as hell would like to!
The Climate Cult is dictatorial at its core.
Charles Rotter,
You have again expressed the essentials if the argument with clarity and logic. It is hard to understand why those who used to differ are not by now converted. They seem choose to march to the sound of a different drum. I don’t know what more can be done short of starting RICO actions that require a sugar daddy with money and drive and knowledge that financial hurt lies at the end of The Establishment path. Geoff S
Believe, or else.
“The beatings will continue until morale improves”?
Japanese style..
I don’t see any change in their stance on supressing dissenting voices. This isn’t a change for the cult of climate crazies; they have always tried to silence dissenters. At best, this is only saying the quiet part out loud.
Science says the earth is currently in an interglacial period of an ICE AGE. Of course we should be worrying about the earth getting warmer. /s
Good points here!
All the more reason for skeptics of climate alarm to refute the core “warming” claim using the confirmed dynamics of energy conversion within the general circulation. The claim is that sensible heat gain MUST be expected down here from the incremental IR absorbing power of a rising concentration of CO2. Incorrect. The influence of even 2XCO2 is vanishingly weak in the proper context of atmospheric motion. Lorenz described the concept. ERA5 computes it. We can plot values of the hourly parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion” and quickly see the problem with the core claim about “warming” and the “trapping” of heat energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDurP-4gVrY
(Stop the video to read the text description.)
Or go here for a complete explanation. Start with the Readme document.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
In simple terms, the “energy conversion within the the general circulation” depends almost entirely on the water cycle. Any change in heat energy transport by non-condensing GHGs is trivial compared to the vast energies of evaporation and condensation that occur daily in the water cycle. If you throw in even the slightest change in albedo from cloud formation (part of the water cycle), the relative importance of a few extra molecules of CO2 and CH4 is as a flea on the back of the elephant in the room!
Please consider that I am using the definition of the specific parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion” for ERA5 given here.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/162064
I note that the four forms of atmospheric energy are: internal, potential, kinetic, and latent energy, as stated here.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/162061
Condensation converts latent energy to internal energy, but that step is not being computed directly for the “vertical integral of energy conversion” parameter.
So yes, the water cycle is a very big deal! But conversion of [internal energy + potential energy] to/from [kinetic energy] is an even more consequential concept concerning the general circulation of the huge mass of the non-condensing compressible atmosphere.
So that we are talking about the same forms of energy, I’ll accept “internal” (heat), “potential” (gravity), “kinetic” (velocity), and “latent” (phase-change).
Starting at the surface, with a latent energy close to zero, liquid water absorbs internal and kinetic energy from its surroundings in the isothermal process leading to evaporation. Considering that the “huge mass” of the atmosphere is roughly 2-4% water vapor, and that the latent energy of a gram of water vapor is roughly equal to the internal energy of a one K change in a kilogram of dry air, this energy cannot be ignored in any study of atmospheric energy transport. I can’t help it if the IPCC idiots ignore anything that can’t be measured by an arithmetic average of thermometer readings, that’s not the way the world works!
Now, if we follow this newly-evaporated (lighter than dry air) water vapor as it rises in said “vertical column”, trading some internal and latent energy for potential and possibly kinetic, it arrives at a set of external conditions (mainly temperature and pressure) appropriate for condensation. But this is a very complex process. Although it involves the transfer of latent energy to surrounding gas as internal energy, it remains an isothermal process. That means that it must not raise the surrounding temperature, which would shut down the condensation, nor can it lower the temperature, which would speed up condensation– chain reaction–bad! What happens when, say, 4% of a volume of air suddenly collapses into a raindrop? Well, the remaining air suddenly expands into the void, lowering its pressure and temperature at the same time that it is receiving energy from the condensation! Aha! In order for the condensation process to continue isothermally, the energy of condensation must be transferred to surrounding air at a rate that the surrounding air can absorb and/or pass on without increasing its temperature. But these same IPCC idiots, whose only tool is a thermometer, cannot measure anything happening, so it must not be important!
Each day, the water cycle gathers energy from the surface, uses it to lift a trillion tons of water miles high, transports that water thousands of miles, and releases that energy in clouds that precipitate back to the surface. Meanwhile, “scientists” study energy changes that may produce 0.05K in a few decades in the arithmetic average of global thermometer readings!
Enough for now. We’ll still have to thrash out “kinetic energy” one of these days.
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m “all in” on the power and significance of evaporation, condensation, freezing, thawing, precipitation, energy transport via latent energy, etc. You don’t need to convince me of anything in that respect.
But energy conversion as described by Lorenz and as defined and computed within ERA5 is what I am posting about. Properly understood, it directly refutes the core claim that a “warming” result must be expected from the incremental IR absorbing power effect of rising pCO2.
So look, more power to you in making the argument that the water cycle and energy transport should answer the false claims. Agreed! I have made the same points myself. But there’s more to it to grasp “energy conversion within the general circulation” and its implications.
Heat is not energy.
Heat is the transfer of energy via kinetic molecular interactions from a higher kinetic energy level (hotter) to a lower kinetic energy level (colder).
The left has spent decades declaring that freedom of speech does not cover hate speech.
The left also defines hate speech as anything they hate to hear.
This would be far better with a slight alteration…
Their message is simple: believe, or be
silentsilenced.“Assess whether and how platform architecture contributes to the undermining of climate information ecosystem integrity, providing researchers with access to data to ensure transparency and build an evidence base.”
Phil Jones: Why would I give our data when your aim is to find something wrong with it?
Also Phil Jones: Even if we have to re-define what peer review is…
Mikey Mann’s “censored” folder.
McIntyre trying repeatedly to obtain data for countless studies that should have been archived with the study.
There are numerous cases of the establishment refusing to do any of the things in that COP statement.
Isn’t it a core tenet of Marxism/Communism/Socialism/ Leftism that you should always accuse your adversaries of doing what you yourself routinely do.
Yes, it is.
Concerned by the growing impact of
disinformation, misinformation, denialism, deliberate attacks on environmental journalists, defenders, scientists, researchers and other public voicealternative media to disseminate reams of evidence that contradicts the claims of climate alarmists…The “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change” coughed up by delegates to, and even signed by representatives of a few major nations at, the UN-sponsored COP30 in Belém . . . just one more prime reason for the USA to get out of the UN NOW!
Since Germany, one of the signatories to this declaration, has a history of being fond of thought/speech control, they would be the ideal country to host UN headquarters.
What a development . . . what an embarrassment!
I did a page search on “out of” – thank you for saving me from having to make a full sized comment on the subject.
Only got 10 signatories ?
So, technically, most people posting on this site could be arrested, on sight, in all signatory countries?
Just stupid.
Any problems these scoundrels have with skeptics can easily be addressed by showing us your science. Prove to us with proper science that CO2 is the control knob for earth’s temperature. Prove to us that added CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Prove to us that the runaway global warming will bring an end to life on earth as we know it. You claim you own the science, that the science is settled and so on. Show us so we can also believe. You can’t, you know you can’t so all that is left for you is to lie, cheat, threaten and scare the hell out of people. You are shameless bullies.