“The Manufacture of Evidence Towards the Climate Change Hoax”, and we ought to begin with some context, in particular the events reported in the months of May and June. First, Mount Lewotobi Laki-laki in Indonesia has been erupting as of June 17th. The first eruption was HUGE and sent ash 10,000 plus meters into the air! In addition, Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano shot lava 1,000 feet in the air in its latest eruption on May 25th. Mount Etna also erupted on June 2nd, unleashing lava fountains and a rare pyroclastic flow near Catania, in Sicily. But, even as early as February this year, there have been reports that three volcanoes in the US are going to erupt this year, namely: Kilauea (in Hawaii), Great Sitkin (in Alaska), and Mount Spurr (also in Alaska) were all showing signs of “heightened unrest” – and one of them, being Kilauea has already erupted. Here is the footage from the eruption we’ve referenced today.

WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS CLAIM ABOUT VOLCANO ERUPTIONS

As you can expect, climate alarmists are attributing the successive eruptions to the vaguely defined climate change factor. But, let’s first consider what causes volcanoes to erupt. In essence, volcano eruptions are primarily caused by the movement and melting of rocks beneath the Earth’s surface, leading to the accumulation and release of magma and gases. This process is often linked to plate tectonics, where the movement of these plates creates pathways for magma to rise and erupt. The composition of the magma and the presence of trapped gases also play a crucial role in determining the explosivity of an eruption.

In more detail, when we speak of Magma Formation and Movement, it is worth noting that deep within the Earth, extreme heat causes rocks to melt, forming magma. Magma, being less dense than the surrounding solid rock, rises towards the surface. It then accumulates in magma chambers, reservoirs beneath the volcano. And gases dissolved in the magma also contribute to its buoyancy and upward movement. Then, regarding Plate Tectonics and Volcanoes, in essence, the earth’s crust is composed of these tectonic plates that constantly move and interact. Most volcanoes are located at or near plate boundaries, where these plates converge, diverge, or slide past each other. At what are called subduction zones, one plate slides beneath another, then the descending plate melts, generating magma that rises to the surface. At mid-ocean ridges, plates diverge, allowing magma to rise and create new crust. Some volcanoes, like those in Hawaii, are formed over hotspots, where plumes of hot mantle material rise from deep within the Earth. And so, generally, this is what is promulgated as the essence of volcano eruptions.

Well, climate alarmists are promulgating their message as well, as far as volcano eruptions are concerned. They state that climate change is altering geological systems, including volcanic eruptions. Melting glaciers, for example, they say can cause magma to rise to the surface, while rising sea levels can reduce magma production at depth. Over time, certain volcanic regions are said to expect an increase in eruptions and secondary hazards.

Well, let’s directly respond to this. Now, on the one hand, the nuance that is being downplayed by climate alarmists is that volcano eruptions are not a new phenomenon, and because of the magnitude or nature of certain eruptions, those volcanic eruptions have actually contributed organic changes to weather conditions. And the reason that this is often downplayed is because it undermines the whole anthropogenic factors of climate change, through which climate alarmists place blame for (often organic) changes in weather on human activity. For instance, the 2022 Hunga Tonga underwater volcano eruption injected unprecedented water vapor into the atmosphere — which many said actually fueled the levels of extreme heat that were experienced in 2023. While researchers highlight this impact, the dominant narrative from climate alarmists continues to downplay natural variables from such eruptions in favor of anthropogenic explanations!

HOW CLIMATE ALARMISTS DEFINE CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS ANYTHING CAN BE EVIDENCE OF IT

The second response to the claim from climate alarmists on climate change causing more volcano eruptions is that it is difficult for them to make a clear argument on this because what is defined as climate change is always relative to the devastation they attribute to it. This is to say, they will claim climate change causes hot weather that results in more forest fires, while simultaneously arguing parts of Europe are experiencing the coldest winter there has ever been because of climate change. And so, this gets a bit ridiculous because it sounds like the definition and evidence of climate change is based on circular reasoning; while any weather event with a destructive capacity can conveniently fit the vague and almost all-encompassing definition of climate change. And this is not a new tactic. It is a means of concealing the fact that there is no objective scientific evidence that proves most if not all of their claims, and therefore, they have shifted their focus to manipulating more dramatic events in nature for their cause – because they make for better optics, and the events can spread fear without climate alarmists ever having to make a concrete argument on whether there is evidence for climate change.

And the fact is, there really isn;t scientifically sound evidence for climate change. What has been taking place for years, is that climate alarmists have quite literally manufactured evidence towards their claims. For example, Dr Moore, exposes how climate alarmists actually make up the evidence used to justify their claims. He says that the so-called climate alarmists “build a computer model that gives them the answer they want, and then tell you that they’ve got evidence that this is going to happen in the future.”

CLIMATE ALARMISTS ALSO HAVE A TENDENCY TO MANUFACTURE CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS

But, it’s not just evidence that is manufactured. It is also the claim of consensus. You’ve probably heard the claim that “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change”, or as Norah O’Donnell put it, the scientists agree that the earth is warming up at unprecedented levels. But, here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick. (1) What exactly do the climate scientists agree on? And usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real” or “the earth is warming up”- which, by the way, is a response that lacks credibility and substance.

The second question to ask is (2) How do we know the 97% agree? In fact, how was that even proven? What you’ll discover is that almost NO ONE who refers to the 97% claim has any idea of whether this claim was proved. And in our previous discussions we’ve discussed that among the studies that were used to justify the lie behind the 97% consensus claim, the popular one which was a paper authored by a John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, which is a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. In the paper, Cook was able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). And what this really means is that there is no quantifiable 97% consensus among climate scientists.

CLIMATE ALARMISTS ARE ALSO WRONG ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS 

But, let’s also zoom in on the claim of anthropogenic factors fueling climate change. So, climate alarmism is built upon the four part theory that: (1) Firstly, CO2 levels were in equilibrium (at around 280-300 ppm); (2) secondly the use of fossil fuels (and steel, cement & aluminium production) increases CO2 levels; (3) thirdly, increases in global CO2 concentrations increases average global temperature; and (4) finally, that an increase in average global temperatures is bad, and causes more bad weather.

Well, this theory has been destroyed by a paper which demonstrates that CO2 levels (using an analysis of 979 technical papers reporting from 1,901 air samples) have actually not been in equilibrium and in fact rose to 383 ppm in the early 1940’s  (thus corresponding with temperature increases at that time) and then fell.

CO2 levels have been measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii since 1960 – but prior to that, CO2 measurements relied upon proxy data from Antarctic ice samples which have been found to be highly questionable given a great deal of selection bias that was uncovered.

In more detail, the late Dr Ernst-Georg Beck spent years compiling an exhaustive chemical database of the CO2 levels measured in air samples from across the globe. Analyzing 979 technical papers reporting from 1,901 air sample measurement stations, Beck’s CO2 measurement data was published in a scientific paper entitled “Reconstruction of Atmospheric CO2 Background Levels since 1826 from Direct Measurements near Ground” after his death in 2022.

The 60,000 global-scale chemical measurements compiled between 1930 and 1950 using data from 25 authors and locations assessed that between 1939 and 1943 global atmospheric CO2 rose to 383 ppm – the same concentration again achieved in 2007. After the early 1940s, the chemical measurements indicate CO2 plummeted  to 310 ppm by the late 1940s.

Well, these fluctuations are consistent with variations in sea surface temperatures and temperature-dependent soil respiration processes, thus suggesting that temperature is the driver, and CO2 variations are the effect. But, ultimately, this proves that the major driver of CO2 levels are natural temperature variations, and not human activity.

Furthermore, the analysis reveals that of the 90 ppm rise in CO2 since1958 (the Mauna Loa era), not more than 12 ppm could be said to have derived from fossil fuel emissions. And when the CO2 rose to 383 ppm in the early 1940s, the impact from anthropogenic emissions “can be largely excluded.” This means that climate  alarmism is once again exposed to be a scam. Simply, CO2 variations happen outside of anthropogenic factors, thus meaning that schemes to reduce fossil fuel use are also a vain and diabolical effort.

So, given that this theory on anthropogenic factors is so obviously wrong, why was it pushed? The answer is control. Former US government insider, Marc Morano, summarises how unelected globalists are using the “human-induced climate change” hoax as a pretext to deliberately collapse the food supply, so people will have no choice but to eat insects and lab-grown “meat”. And this is further evidenced by the fact that Climate grifter extraordinaire, John Kerry, announces the need for a war-like effort to collapse the global farming industry, under the pretext of tackling the “human-induced climate change” hoax.

THE REAL “INCONVENIENT TRUTH” IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE ALARMISTS ARE ALWAYS WRONG

You’d recall that Al Gore presented a film titled “An Inconvenient Truth”, and it portrayed sea level rises as such that they’re going to be 20 feet in a few decades. Well, it appears that the real so-called inconvenient truth is that climate alarmists are often wrong; especially considering that this was nowhere in any science at all, even the most extreme, far-fetched projections.”