This article appears to be fraudulent, a commenter on another site posted this:
[–] dass 0 pt • (+0/-0) • 4h
I did a little digging and found this -
'Derek Knauss is a journalist/editor on the website Prepare for Change. You can see on that website that he posts articles regularly.
He is not a lab scientist or virologist.
From the fact check that Bram refers to in a commentary on April 11, it is clear that the universities of Stanford and Cornell themselves state that they have not filed charges against the CDC.
If they had, the name of the virologist would certainly have been known and the researcher who published this article was known.
It was at one point linked to a biochemist Rob Oswald of Cornell University. But he has denied that he or his university had anything to do with it.
Incidentally, it can be found on the internet that this text already existed on December 8, 2020.
See also: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/31/fact-check-post-falsely-claims-covid-19-another-flu-strain/4085132001/
Conclusion: this article is not based on truth and must be fraudulent!'.
My apologies.
[–] dass 0 pt • (+0/-0) • 4h
I did a little digging and found this -
'Derek Knauss is a journalist/editor on the website Prepare for Change. You can see on that website that he posts articles regularly.
He is not a lab scientist or virologist.
From the fact check that Bram refers to in a commentary on April 11, it is clear that the universities of Stanford and Cornell themselves state that they have not filed charges against the CDC.
If they had, the name of the virologist would certainly have been known and the researcher who published this article was known.
It was at one point linked to a biochemist Rob Oswald of Cornell University. But he has denied that he or his university had anything to do with it.
Incidentally, it can be found on the internet that this text already existed on December 8, 2020.
See also: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/31/fact-check-post-falsely-claims-covid-19-another-flu-strain/4085132001/
Conclusion: this article is not based on truth and must be fraudulent!'.
My apologies.
Yep:
At the recent 28th Conference of Parties (COP28), convened by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the British aristocrat, political lobbyist and climate activist, King Charles III, said:
I have spent a large proportion of my life trying to warn of the existential threats facing us over global warming, climate change and biodiversity loss. [. . .] The dangers are no longer distant risks. [. . .] How can we bring together our public, private, philanthropic and N.G.O. sectors ever more effectively, so that they all play their part in delivering climate action, each complementing the unique strengths of the others? Public finance alone will never be sufficient. [. . .] [H]ow can we ensure that finance flows to those developments most essential to a sustainable future.
Two things stand out from Charles’ speech: the warnings of the dire consequences of “global warming” and that his suggested solutions all having something to do with redirecting the investment strategies of a global public-private partnership.
Charles has long warned us of climate catastrophe. It was 14 years ago when he reliably informed us that we had just 8 years left to save the world.
Claimed justification for a new global economic model is, of course, why the people we might call the parasite class are so eager to push “climate alarm.” If we look at the alleged solution of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), they have far more to do with global economic, political, financial and social control then they do with addressing “climate change.” Among the gathered so-called “thought leaders” at COP28, Charles was one of many to declare that fighting climate change necessitates much more global governance.
The global transformation of pretty much everything is based upon the claim that global warming is leading to dangerous climate change and we must all collectively do something about it. Although it is equally clear that “we” doesn’t include aristocrats like Charles, or many of the other COP28 billionaire “climate activists” who each have carbon footprints comparable to small island states.
Nevertheless, even if we accept the selective, collective responsibility demanded of us, when we look at the scientific evidence there are many reasons to doubt the alleged basis for any of it. Not least, because the foundational, underlying theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is eminently questionable.
Broadly, AGW theory posits that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as methane (CH4), are being added to the atmosphere where they accumulate and supposedly reduce the rate that heat is radiated from the Earth. This allegedly causes additional warming in the lower atmospheric layer: the troposphere.
Burning so-called fossil fuels for energy has been identified as the primary culprit for humanity’s emission of alleged GHGs. Proponents of AGW theory add that this man-made warming is unprecedented and adversely affecting weather patterns to such an extent that life on Earth is in imminent peril.
Consequently, our use of energy, often referred to as the energy mix, is said to be leading us toward a “climate disaster.” When reported by the media, this causes widespread “climate alarm.”
Governments and many “climate scientists” strongly argue that we must change the energy mix toward a reliance upon alleged renewable energy, radically alter our consumption patterns and accept increasing restrictions. These measures form part of the United Nations’ “sustainable development” agenda.
The South African economist, Rob Jeffrey, achieved some brief fame after successfully gaining his PhD at the age of 80 years old. His remarkable final dissertation is one of the few published documents to collate a large body of scientific evidence questioning both AGW theory and the prevailing “climate alarm” narrative in one resource. This article series is partly based on some of his finding but cannot hope to do his work justice. Reading his paper is highly recommended.
We will discuss some of the many scientific and other empirical reasons to question AGW theory. For example, a recent statistical review of the historical temperature record published by the Statistisk Sentralbyrå—the Norwegian Statistics Bureau—considered the extent to which historical temperature change is driven by man-made GHG emissions. In the abstract, the researchers noted:
[. . .] [standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. [. . .] [T]he effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.
The article you are reading does not represent “climate change denial.” No one who seriously questions AGW theory, the claimed “climate crisis” or the resultant “climate alarm,” denies either that climate changes or that the planet is in a general warming phase. Nor do sceptics “deny” the potential for climate change to have a significant impact on the environment and the global population.
This article is not intended to be a rebuttal of the consensus AGW climate science. It is a reference to a small percentage of the science that questions the consensus climate science. Much, but not all of this evidence is cited by Rob Jeffrey in his thesis. The objective is to hopefully stimulate open, honest debate. That discussion should also consider the United Nations’ claimed justification for its sustainable development agenda…