October 28, 2021


Daily Global New Media

THE CONSENSUS FRAUD part 1 – Climate of Freedom Series

1 min read

47 thoughts on “THE CONSENSUS FRAUD part 1 – Climate of Freedom Series

  1. Keeping this simple… scientific consensus only comes after hypothesis and experiment followed by publishing and peer review. During peer review experimental scientists attempt to replicate the findings, others attempt to address the findings from a different perspective and method. The ideal best experiment of peer review is a rival of yours, someone from another university, someone who would benefit from proving your incorrect. Of course that rival of yours cannot just publish a lie because his review would also be peer reviewed and if he was found to have falsified his results, he wouldn't get funding.

    If your findings are found to be incorrect during peer review, those experiments are also peer reviewed. If you are found correct, and peer review of those experiments are found to be correct, that then adds to the scientific consensus.

    This peer review and peer review of the reviews is what leads to a widely accepted scientific consensuses. Additionally, new grad students come along every year and replicate those experiments. Post grad students will create their own new experiments and crunch the data as well. Each time the same conclusion is obtained it adds to scientific consensus.

    Scientific consensus is not a popularity contest, it is not a 'show of hands' as to who likes of dislikes an hypothesis, experiment, or theory.

    No one walks into a room of scientists and asks, "who thinks climate change is manmade and real?" Then after a show of hands, it is proclaimed, "hence forth let the record show that 97 out of 100 raised their hands, case closed, let's move on to the Flat Earth, anti-vaccine, and 5G!" That does not happen.

    If this one "scientist" with whom you found to make a video is correct, let him publish in any one of a dozen scientific journals. Let him publish his evidence and prove it with math.

  2. Naomi Seibt is paid, media-trained and arranged for interviews with right-wing media by the US CO2 (gas/oil/coal) & tobacco (!) lobby group "Heartland Institute". 
    This CO2 lobbying firm Heartland also does intensive press work for her and organizes interviews with her on right-wing television stations worldwide.
    A good research about Seibt can be found at Wikipedia.

  3. Judging by the amount of non-sense in this video, these two have their own agendas: the young woman became "climate sceptic" as her choice of career, maybe getting a proper scientific education was above her level and the old man needs a little bit of extra cash to his pension. That's what must be the reason why they would waste theirs and everyone else's time with these absurdities.

  4. I'm happy to tell you that I use an adblocker, so that people like you don't get a money from my view. But I guess you're sponsored by shell anyway, live witht the trash you put out in the world, witch

  5. If only we could round you all up in a pit of some sort and let you word salad each other until you start realizing how stupid and baseless you all sound (also Id love to hear what a gaggle of those horrific posh accents would sound like ?, I image it would sound similar to setting of one of those bins of "screaming chicken" toys lol)

  6. No more videos with Lord Monckton ? Please make more videos about climate change lies.Since WHO director said corona is only can be cleared if we take climate change seriously.

  7. Sorry, you are very well misinformed. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Stop spreading this misinformation because you are doing harm to society.

  8. Just wondering which scientific papers you have read? I have been interested in climate change for many years. Because of that interest, I have read numerous papers on a range of topics within the area of climate change – papers written by scientists with years, usually decades of experience in their field. Why would I get my information from the main stream media? That would be the last place I'd start. Furthermore, I wouldn't dare make a video on climate change as I my knowledge is nowhere near enough to speak with any authority on the topic. I can't believe you had the audacity to do so. I guess it is a very good example of Dunning-Kreuger.

  9. This video has 3k likes and 600 dislikes. How is that possible. Scientific consensus is not a head count. It is when many scientists look at evidence and come to the same conclusion. It can be the same evidence or different evidence. Scientific consensus is just the percentage of scientists that came to the same conclusion. Also in this video there were no facts disproving the globe. And to finish off scientists don’t care about money. Scientists don’t actually get paid much. So why do they dedicate their whole lives to it? Because they enjoy science. If this conspiracy was correct it would mean that millions of people who have dedicated their ENTIRE LIVES to science would have to be in on it. That is not statistically possible.

  10. You literally have given nothing to disprove any of the data given by these scientists. Seriously, can you explain anything that these scientists have said? Do you even have a bachelor degree? A high school diploma, even?

  11. There were FOUR reports of a 97% consensus. In one of the reports, only 26.3% of the "scientists" questioned (via mail) answered. So, 26% supported the Al Gore theory of doom. HOWEVER, co2 only exists at LESS THAN 1/2 of 1% of the Troposphere, meaning that 1/2 of 1% of an atmosphere cannot drive the other 99.5% of it. Furthermore … co2 has three different emissions of RADIATIVE FORCING, depending on co2's polarity position. That is something known as Dipole Moments. When the oxygen atoms of a co2 molecule move asymmetrically, the co2 molecule is incapable of capturing infrared radiation. This is why there easily was an Ice Age during Ordovician Period, even though co2 comprised 4,000 ppm of the Troposphere. There was ten times more co2 in the air at that time than today. At best, co2's radiative forcing is 3.7 watts per meter squared. That's a nightlight. Plus …

    … cirrus clouds have far more IR (infrared radiation) capturing capacity than co2. Now, methane has 28 times more IR capturing capacity than co2. However, methane only exists at 1.886 parts per million in the Troposphere. All in all, refer to the 2009 Climategate emails, and rest assured that the climate hype was a deliberate fraud … costly fraud in terms of US taxpayer dollars paid-out to scientists, in grant applications & funding requests. Those scientists took BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. So, do the math as to the reliability of the Climate Scare.

  12. oh dear……..you use Monckton, a man with no education in science and a man who promotes nonsense refuted by scientists, aswell as some pretty shitty political beliefs to reinforce your ignorant and childish assertion that climate change is not real. The consensus amongst scientists is very real and Monckton is not the man to discredit that. Pure ignorance.

  13. Could you please for once in your damn life provide sources, the "only 0.3%" is an extremely bold claim and i'd love to see where you got it from. Please provide evidence for your claims.

    If your 7th grade english teacher wouldnt let you make a claim without evidence why would the entire rest of the scientific community.

  14. Explain to me again why the opinions of a YouTuber and a journalist/politician of any interest? Any scientific papers that you can point us to that support your opinions?
    Of course science isn't an appeal to popularity, scientists are keenly aware of this.

  15. I would like you to know the arguments of two masters who destroy environmental terrorism: Luiz Carlos Molion; and Ricardo Felício. Try to get someone to translate their videos into English. They have fantastic arguments; including the non-existence of the ozone layer. Watch and draw your conclusions.

  16. Yes, let's not trust "experts" – let's trust a journalist and someone without any work in anything. That'll do! Just don't be too full of yourself?

    Oh, and let's turn this around: Your so famous denier said that only 0.3% of the articles were in consensus. Well, then, by your own theory, we should be following them, not the majority? Or does that only work if it supports your argument?

  17. People like this disgust me. What sucks is that propaganda out there generated by people stuck in the past is taught to naive younger people. The whole intent is to keep the current system so they can enjoy being fat and rich, not have to change. People like this youtuber and ‘expert’ disgust me.

  18. Just one more point, this is the kind of child who would say something dumb like:

    "The Earth is flat"
    "The Moon is a light source and it's light is cool"
    "Morning dew falls from the sky"
    "Science and Technology are not connected"
    "5G causes Covid 19 and Cancer"
    "We never wen't to the Moon"
    Stop teaching WW2 in school as it upsets me"
    "You shouldn't wear Mexican hats as that is cultural misappropriation"
    "Doctors prescribe medicine for the cash, no medicine actually works and it's all placebo"

    I'm stopping there but you get the idea.

  19. Experts are people who devote their lives to their chosen subject. They have spent years going through Schooling and University and afterwards publishing peer reviewed papers. They are the ones who are trustworthy regarding the subject matter and the ones you should trust. Or lets put it another way:
    Would you trust a car mechanic to fix you car, or your friend who has watched videos on Youtube? You know the answer to that and it is relevant when applied to to everything else, even when you do not understand the subject matter.

  20. How come you are somehow qualified for commenting the climate change? Aren't you funded by an institute which is known for rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change? At least tell truthfully, that you are paid for making these claims and that you have no knowledge of subject matter whatsoever.

  21. What both sides fail to do is question how accurate the ‘evident’ data really is. 97%/0.3% agree in MM CC. But they never tell you w h o these ‘scientists’ are. Is the data we are reviewing really that trustworthy? How can we truly trust science if the division of acceptance or denial blur, failing to see if there is a bigger picture going on here.

    I honestly can't wrap my head around on what's true and what's a lie anymore.

    What i s the real truth?

    – Climate Centrist

  22. 'Lord' Monckton is known as a fraud and a liar. He is not a Lord and never has been.
    His degree is in the classics, with a diploma in journalism. His knowledge of science is minimal.

Leave a Reply to proud gypsy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 − 6 =