This is probably the most controversial book review I’ve written in the 12 years that I’ve been doing my ‘Book of the Month’ reviews’. And yet, it really shouldn’t be controversial at all.

Nonetheless, I am going to issue an upfront WARNING for you about this book review:
Even though I am only presenting facts, data and opinions of highly qualified scientists (no theories or opinions from myself), you may find this book uncomfortable reading, because you may have to come to terms with the fact that so many scientists, who have breath-taking climate science credentials, and thousands of other scientists like them, completely disagree with the narrative we been told for years by the mainstream media, that ‘There is a Climate Emergency!’.
The compelling extensive scientific evidence that these scientists present exposes that this statement is simply NOT true!

Because of how shocking some readers may find this, I have included an extensive ‘Additional Information section‘ at the end of this book review, referencing videos and other information from a selection of over scientists who are not the authors of this particular book, but like them have equally impressive credentials in the field of climate science, including numerous university professors, hands on scientists and even Nobel Prize winners.
None of the nearly 2,000 scientists including the authors of this book, received any payments for signing a public Declaration, these highly credentialed scientists have risked their careers and future funding by disagreeing with the mainstream narrative and signing a public declaration known as the ‘The Clintel Declaration’ which states categorically “There is no Climate Emergency”! 
The fact is that the majority of people reading this post will not have heard about ‘The Clintel Declaration’, and the credentials of the nearly 2,000 scientists who have signed it, illustrates how deliberately under-reported it has been by both government authorities and by the legacy mainstream media. This post is not about any conspiracy theories about ‘why we have been lied to?’ it is about FACTS and evidence presented by the thousands of scientists whose position is that “There is no climate emergency”!

I care really deeply about our environment and have previously done voluntary work for organisations who are focused on cleaning the oceans. I believe first and foremost that we have a ‘toxicity crisis’ in our world, a crisis that is being drastically under-reported due to the fact that we are experiencing a generational period of ‘leadership crisis’.
As well as plastics and other toxic waste in our oceans we have toxic land fill sites, we have more litter in our countrysides, we have industrial scale dumping of toxic chemicals, we have pesticides sprayed on our foods, we have unprecedented numbers of people consuming unprecedented volumes of drugs (both legal and illegal) we have highly processed foods with dangerously toxic chemicals, we now have unprecedented levels of ‘radio activity’ including wi-fi and 5-G. The legacy mainstream media say very little about this undeniable growing soup of toxicity that we are all bathed in everyday, meanwhile we have an explosion of neurodegenerative disorders, allergies and numerous other health conditions with plummeting birthrates and fertility levels in many countries that is generally proportionate to toxicity levels.  In some parts of the world in the name of ‘dimming the sun’ some governments have declared that they are going to pump vast amounts of unspecified, undisclosed chemicals into our skies!

The 300 to 1 reporting ratio of the mainstream media ‘Climate Emergency v Toxicity Crisis’
It begs the question: “Why does the legacy mainstream media have around 300 articles or news reports about ‘the dangers of manmade CO2 being released into our environment’ for every ONE article or news report about the dangers of man-made toxins being released into our environment?”
This item is covered in more detail in the additional information section at the end of this book review.
I have found a similar 300 to 1 ratio in many government funded environmental agencies and authorities. I will leave you to speculate as to what the answer to this question is, I want to focus on the facts, data and conclusions provided by some of the best qualified climate scientists you are likely to encounter.

Dr Patrick Moore PhD Forest Biology and Co-founder of Greenpeace
“My mission is to turn on it’s head the idea that CO2 is a pollutant and somehow dangerous when in fact it is critical component of all life on earth and without it this would be a dead planet. I say not only is CO2 good, it is essential and it is a good thing that we (humanity) are putting some MORE CO2 into the atmosphere because it was running low before we came along!” (This quote from Patrick Moore is taken from a recent video (the link to this video is in the last section of this article ‘Additional Notes, Resources & Videos’).

According to NASA data, Earth is 20 % MORE green than it was 30 years ago!
We are almost overwhelmed with stories telling us that how bad CO2 is, even though no published evidence exists to indicate that the CO2 found in our atmosphere is in any way toxic to any life form. As confirmed by the scientists who co-authored this book … CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of our atmosphere of which 97% is produced by nature and only 3% by human activities and the mainstream narrative is that somehow it is CO2 levels that are causing ‘a climate emergency’!?  Yes CO2 levels have risen marginally in recent years, but historically the earth has had vastly higher levels of CO2 than today, including periods on human habitation. According to one of the co-authors Professor Ian Plimer ‘CO2 is absolutely essential food for plants!’  And according to NASA satellites the Earth is 20% MORE GREEN than it was 30 years ago!  An astonishing fact that few people are aware of, because the mainstream media and the authorities and agencies pushing the climate emergency narrative, so rarely mention it!
Please send me any contrary evidence
Please email or message me if you find any of the facts or data stated by the scientists in the book, or mentioned in this review or under the below section ‘Additional Notes, Resources & Videos’ to be inaccurate and please share your evidence source and who funded them. According to co-author Professor Ian Plimer a couple of months ago, none of the scientists who co-authored this book had received any payments for doing so, there are no large organisations funding them for presenting this evidence and many of these scientists have risked their carers and have lost work and work opportunities because the they have presented scientific evidence does not fit the mainstream climate alarmist narrative.

The Co-authors and their credentials
I have listed the names and impressive credentials of the 16 co-authors of this book in the last section of this review titled “Additional Notes Resources & Videos”. 
Because of the fact that this book completely dismantles most of what we have been hold about Climate Change, particularly as it relates to CO2,  I am taking the unusual step of listing all of the co-authors of this book as well as several other esteemed climate scientists and a group of 1,992 scientists who have signed the Clintel Agreement, because their credentials are vitally important to the credibility of a book, which exposes that much of what we are told by the mainstream media and mainstream authorities about climate change to be catastrophically untrue!

“97% of all scientists agree that there is a manmade climate emergency!” – REALLY!??
Co-author Christopher Monckton, who as the former science  press advisor to Margaret Thatcher authored a paper that completely dismantles the well quoted study by a guy called John Cook (2013) that concluded that  ‘97% of scientists agreed there is a man-made climate emergency’.  In his paper about this study he exposes the statistical survey ‘smoke and mirrors’ used to facilitate this completely false conclusion!!   In reality is was 0.5 percent of scientists agree with this statement which is the entire basis for destructive net zero policies!
In the video provided under the last section of this article ‘Additional Notes’ there is a Facebook video where Ralph Ellis explains how by slight of hand step by step the John Cook study turned 0.5% into 97%!
-Of 12,000 climate papers collected 66% expressed NO opinion at all on the causes of climate change, so these were discarded!
-Of the remaining 3 percent explicitly rejected global warming!
-Only 24 percent of papers actually stated that there is global warming happening (regardless of cause)!
-Only 8% implicitly endorsed some degree of anthropogenic global warming!
-Only 0.5% agreed with the IPCC version of anthropogenic global warming!

“It is the IPCC definition of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming that is driving all current global net zero policies! That only 0.5% of Climate Papers agree with NOT 97%!”
John Ellis

Of course there IS Climate Change! There always has been and always will be and more than 97% of scientists (probably would agree with this, but to to say that 97% agree that there is a climate emergency has no substance or evidence whatsoever! The ‘97% lie’ also becomes in more obvious when you simply take time to check out the credentials of some of the 1,992 scientists who have (so far) signed the Clintel Agreement ((See below in Additional Notes). These 1,992 scientists constitute the majority of published climate scientists in the world (a hell of a lot more than 3 %) meaning that the 97% of scientists quote is at best a blatant lie and at worst fraudulent!

The journey that led me to find and read this book is contextually more significant than providing you with a summary of it’s contents, so please excuse me if this book review is a little different to my usual book reviews both in topic and in style. If you’re looking for clear, understandable scientific data and facts about climate change—presented by some of the most accomplished scientists in the world—then this book is a must-read. I’m not going to speculate on why such voices are often ignored or censored by mainstream media; I’ll simply let the evidence and facts in the book speak for themselves.

This brings to mind the famous quote of philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

The Censorship of Science
Without speculating as to why scientists are censored, I would like to share just one critical and undeniable example, of many I could chose from, an example that was a big part of my own ‘awakening’ journey.  This significant example involves a Nobel prize winning scientist called Luc Montagnier that that proves how true Schopenhauer’s quote is.  From 2020 onwards,  until recently the mainstream media and government and public health authorities positions were that ‘the covid-19 virus’ evolved in nature. For several years the many people who even suggested that ‘the covid-19 virus may have been made in a lab’, were completely vilified and labelled as ‘conspiracy theorists’.
As I write this review, the White House has just held a press conference hosted by President Trump, RFK and head of the NIH Jay Bhattacharya PhD, where they officially acknowledged in a statement, that ‘the COVID-19 virus was definitely created in biological laboratories’—some located in Ukraine—and funded through ‘gain-of-function research’ secretly conducted by various U.S. government agencies, including those involving Dr. Anthony Fauci. The fact that this news is ‘hard to find’ on many mainstream media channels is another interesting FACT.

Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier
Back in April 2020, Nobel Prize-winning virologist Luc Montagnier publicly stated in 2 interviews featured on mainstream French television after having studied the viral genetic sequence of covid-19, that had just been released by Chinese scientists. In the interviews (see the video link here ) Luc who unfortunately passed away in February 2022, but not before he had tried to shout from the rooftops his conclusions. In these 2 mainstream appearances Luc stated that he was “100% certain the COVID-19 virus could only have been created in a lab!”  This was because of his expertise for which he won the Nobel prize , for identifying the ‘viral sequence of the HIV virus’, so he was without doubt the most qualified scientist possibly in the history of science to make such a claim! After Luc’s two mainstream media interviews, he was never invited back. Those interviews can still be found on Rumble (see the video link here and posted below), though they’ve been scrubbed from other platforms.
As of yesterday, Luc’s claims have now been officially confirmed by the US government: the COVID virus was indeed engineered in a lab and the mainstream media and various authorities lied to us, covered up the truth and censored scientists like Luc who presented science that disagreed with their narratives around covid, labelling them as ‘conspiracy theorists’, de-platforming them, de-funding them and censoring them, all things that late, great Luc Montagnier experienced prior to his very abrupt death.

Numerous Historical Facts That Completely Contradict The ‘CO2 Climate’ Crisis Computer Model Narrative
i) How did the Romans grow so many grapes in the North of England?
These now absolutely proven false mainstream narratives that we were told about the origins of covid-19 and a bunch of other lies, led me to question the Climate Change narrative, by investigating the censored scientists!  So, when it comes to climate change science, my personal journey to reading this book is more meaningful than the review itself. The book is full of data and analysis by highly credentialed scientists. One catalyst for my curiosity was learning that during Roman times, one of the most productive vineyards in Europe was located in York, in the north of England. Today, we can barely grow grapes even in southern England. This historical fact, which is also mentioned in the book’s introduction, raises an important question: how could grapes thrive in northern England 2,000 years ago without a substantially warmer climate?

ii) Why are there Viking Farmers found in the permanent permafrost of Greenland?
How comes there are Viking Farms, farmers and farm equipment that have been discovered in Greenland in places that have been permanently frozen for the last 300 years!

iii)  What happened in the 1800s to The Frozen Solid River Thames of most winters from the 1600 to 1700s?
Again before weather stations and Met offices existed in the 1600’s Samuel Pepys’ Diaries and other records state how the River Thames was frozen solid for months almost every winter, such that “Most people would walk across the river, rather than use the bridge!”. The river Thames stopped freezing most winters in the early 1800s!
Watch this clip as Physicist Professor William Harper (also referenced in the Additional Information section below this book review) explains “Global warming started in the 1800s BEFORE the industrial revolution!”

Out of curiosity, I asked ChatGPT a simple question: if climate change is real and unprecedented, how could Roman Britain have had a climate warm enough to support highly productive vineyards in the north? After some lengthy explanations, ChatGPT eventually acknowledged that, “yes, the average temperature in Roman Britain was likely 4 to 5°C warmer than today!”—suggesting a Mediterranean-like climate in Roman Britain. No one was burning fossil fuels or driving diesel-powered machines.
And, importantly, there was no climate emergency back then. People adapted. Interestingly, this historical point is also referenced in the book. The book also highlights how Viking settlers once farmed parts of Greenland that are now found under permanent permafrost, where today, farming is completely impossible—again, indicating a very significantly warmer past. Just like in Roman Britain, there was no crisis. People lived, farmed, and adapted.

Who keeps funding these flawed computer models?
In the ‘Why Climate Models Fail’. Monkton presents the facts and data that explain the fundamental flaws in all the climate models which constitute ‘the defining evidence’ of almost every scientific study that concludes there is ‘climate emergency’!

Epidemiological Computer Models, like Climate Change Models are loaded with many fundamental assumptions to make globally complex predictions that have many more influencing variables than the experts know about and that the models are capable of factoring in. The Epidemiological Computer Models that predicted that 65 million people would die globally from Covid, back in March 2020, stated by Neil Ferguson, which included his prediction that half a million in the UK alone would die from covid-19. This led me to investigate 20 years of Neil Ferguson predictions which included up to 65,000 deaths In the 2009 swine flu pandemic, but in reality just 457 people succumbed to the virus. Likewise, only 178 people died from mad cow disease caused by infected beef, despite claims it could kill 136,000, his prediction caused a massive over-reaction and the unnecessary slaughter and cremation of hundreds of thousands of animals. If Neil Ferguson was a football manager he would have a 100% Loss ratio over 20 years and be completely unemployable!  These facts led me to investigate “Who is continually funding and employing these epidemiologists / computer modellers, despite their disastrous record of predictions?”  Over 20 years, in every single case their epidemiological computer models predicted numbers that were always exaggerated massively upwards and never approximately correct or below the actual numbers that transpired, always creating more fear in the general public and justifying more extreme actions and over-reactions by authorities.

My investigation led me to discover that many of the same people who funded the Epidemiological Computer Modellers like Neil Ferguson, also directly or indirectly fund most of the Climate Change Modellers, organisations such as The Welcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Many of the most accomplished, experienced and the most published climate scientists in history such as Judith Curry (referenced below under ‘Additional Notes and Resources’) now struggle to get funding. Despite her incredible experience and credentials she explains (in the video below) how she and many colleagues now find it very difficult and sometimes impossible to get funding for their work, ‘because their data does not agree with the mainstream narrative’!

Conclusions!
Hopefully, now you can appreciate why ‘my journey that led me to read this book’ is such an important part of this book review! Among this book’s authors are some of the most credible scientists in the world. I’ll leave it to you to check their credentials and read their analysis and judge for yourself. In this review I’m not promoting any theories whatsoever, conspiracy or otherwise—I’m simply presenting facts. These facts stand on their own merit.

The scientists  listed in the ‘Additional Notes’ below who have co-authored this book, stand alongside 1,992 esteem scientists who have all signed a declaration called “The Clintel Declaration”, (https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/) which (also listed in ‘Additional Note’ below) includes, Nobel Prize winning scientists, geologists, climatologists, physicists, chemists, and cosmologists. Their conclusion and their declared statement is …
“There is no climate emergency.”

Here is a summary of the reasons behind this statement by the 1,992 scientists who have signed the Clintel Declaration, points that were stated after their major conference meeting in November 2024 in the Czech Republic, I have decided to include (below) the collective 18 conclusions stated by the Clintel scientists as ‘data and fact based conclusions’, because these conclusions  are very much aligned with the evidence and data presented in this book:

1. The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.
2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
4. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
5. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual.
6. Climate models are inherently incapable of telling us anything about how much global warming there will be or about whether or to what extent the warming has a natural or anthropogenic cause.
7. Global warming will likely continue to be slow, small, harmless and net-beneficial.
8. There is broad agreement among the scientific community that extreme weather events have not increased in frequency, intensity or duration and are in future unlikely to do so.
9. Though global population has increased fourfold over the past century, annually averaged deaths attributable to any climate-related or weather-related event have declined by 99%.
10. Global climate-related financial losses, expressed as a percentage of global annual gross domestic product, have declined and continue to decline notwithstanding the increase in built infrastructure in harm’s way.
11. Despite trillions of dollars spent chiefly in Western countries on emissions abatement, global temperature has continued to rise since 1990.
12. Even if all nations, rather than chiefly western nations, were to move directly and together from the current trajectory to net zero emissions by the official target year of 2050, the global warming prevented by that year would be no more than 0.05 to 0.1 Celsius.
13. If the Czech Republic, the host of this conference, were to move directly to net zero emissions by 2050, it would prevent only 1/4000 of a degree of warming by that target date.
14. Based pro rata on the estimate by the UK national grid authority that preparing the grid for net zero would cost $3.8 trillion (the only such estimate that is properly-costed), and on the fact that the grid accounts for 25% of UK emissions, and that UK emissions account for 0.8% of global emissions, the global cost of attaining net zero would approach $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ global annual GDP.
15. On any grid where the installed nameplate capacity of wind and solar power exceeds the mean demand on that grid, adding any further wind or solar power will barely reduce grid CO₂ emissions but will greatly increase the cost of electricity and yet will reduce the revenues earned by both new and existing wind and solar generators.
16. The resources of techno-metals required to achieve global net zero emissions are entirely insufficient even for one 15-year generation of net zero infrastructure, so that net zero is in practice unattainable.
17. Since wind and solar power are costly, intermittent and more environmentally destructive per TWh generated than any other energy source, governments should cease to subsidize or to prioritize them, and should instead expand coal, gas and, above, all nuclear generation.
18. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.

My Personal Conclusion
I am deliberately NOT going to speculate or present any THEORIES as to WHY the mainstream media and mainstream authorities are presenting completely different (and frightening) information on climate change that is disputed by thousands of credible scientists, or why they are not providing a platform for the thousands of highly accomplished scientists (mentioned above) that disagree with their narrative.
I will leave it with you to read this book, and if you wish to check out the Additional Notes, Resources and Videos to watch, listed below to make you own mind up and come up with your own theories!
Please feel free to email me to challenge any of the evidence presented here in in the book, with your own counter-evidence, including the sources for this evidence and who funds that source.

Additional Notes, Resources & Videos 

The Clintel Declaration signed by 1,992 scientists who state “There is no climate emergency!”
Visit their website and check out the immense credibility of the scientists who have signed this statement!
Click here to visit the Clintel Declaration website!

Clintel Ambassadors include:
Nobel Laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, Norway and USA Professor Guus Berkhout, The Netherlands Dr. Kees Lepair, The Netherlands Professor Reynald Du Berger, Francophone Canada Terry Dunleavy, New Zealand Viv Forbes, Australia Professor Jeffrey Foss, Anglophone Canada Jens Morton Hansen, Denmark Sotiris Kamenopoulos, Greece Ferdinand Meeus, Dutch Speaking Belgium Professor Richard Lindzen, USA Henri A. Masson, Francophone Belgium Professor Ingemar Nordin, Sweden Jim O’Brien, Republic Of Ireland Professor Ian Plimer, Australia Douglas Pollock, Chile Dr. Blanca Parga Landa, Spain Professor Alberto Prestininzi, Italy Professor Benoît Rittaud, France Dr. Thiago Maia, Brazil Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, Germany The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom Dušan Bižić, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro

Professor Ian Plimer Co-author of ‘Climate Change The Facts’ speaking about the book at The Institute of Public Affairs

The Co-authors of this book:
In addition to Christopher Monckton who is mentioned at the beginning of this book review, the other 15 co-authors are:
John Abbot PhD, MSc Chemistry, Bio-tech and Natural Systems. Michael Asten PhD Geophysics, specialist in Natural Cycles of Climate Change. Petr Chylek PhD Physics, over 100 first authored papers on remote sensing, atmospheric radiation and climate change. (Robert) Arthur Day PhD Volcanology. Hermann Harde PhD Physics, specialist in atomic science and influence of the sun on temperature, factors influencing atmospheric carbon levels and the greenhouse effect. Scott Hargreaves Climate Change Law and policies. Aynsley Kellow PhD Climate Change Politics and policies. William KininMonth PhD Meteorological Science. David R Legates PhD Climatologist and Emeritus Professor at Delaware University. Jennifer Marohasy PhD Natural History and long-term weather forecasting.  Antero Ollia PhD, specialist in Process Dynamics and has several published papers on climate change. Professor Ian Plimer, Former Head of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne who is featured in the video below where he says the profound words “we’re living in an age where feelings are far more important than facts!”. Tom Quirk, nuclear physicist. Jan-Erik Solheim, Emeretirus Professor at the Artic University of Norway and former chief editor for the international science journal Science of Climate Change.   

Luc Montagnier Nobel Prize winning virologist. Here he is appearing on France’s Channel CN before he was censored, shut-down and de-platformed by the mainstream.
Luc won the Nobel Prize for discovering the genetic viral sequence of the HIV virus that causes AIDS. His stated position in April 2020 was absolutely definitive, the genetic viral sequence of covid-19 could not possibly have evolved in nature and he was 100 percent certain that covid-19 was created in a lab! Despite him being the most qualified scientist in history in the specialised science of ‘genetic viral sequences’ this interview and another one, were scrubbed from most other media platforms at the time!  Unfortunately, Luc did not live to see the public admission by the US government that his analysis was indeed correct.

The Great Global Warming Swindle – Full Documentary
A story of scientists being censored and intimidated from speaking the truth.
Featuring some of the 1,300 plus scientists who have signed the Clintel Declaration which states “There is no climate emergency!’

Professor Judith Curry (one of the most published climate scientists in history)“Climate science is far from settled, there is no climate emergency!”
“The climate scientists who get funded, appear to be the ones who agree with the climate change narrative (otherwise they probably wouldn’t get funded).”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmdqRYf86c

Matt Ridley (Globally acclaimed Scientific Writer) on The Corruption of Science
Interviewed here by Konstantin Kosis about how science has been corrupted, supported by narrative based scientific funding and a narrative-driven mainstream media:
1) Mainstream science continues to deny that covid came from a lab leak, even though the CIA and FBI have recently admitted in government senate hearings that covid WAS developed in a labs funded unwittingly by the US taxpayer.
2) Climate change is happening and has always happened, in the 1970s global temperatures were falling and the mainstream narrative (that many have forgotten) was that we were entering an Ice Age that was an existential threat to humanity. Then in the 1980s we entered a period of moderate global warming and the mainstream media have now reversed their story to say that there is a global warming crisis, forgetting to mention previous decades where they ran headlines that we were entering a global cooling crisis!

3) Ridley explains that the fundamental cause of the current scientific corruption crisis, is something he describes as ‘monopolistic funding’, which has led to immeasurable damage to the public trust in scientific studies’!

Freeman Dyson (Recognised as one of the greatest scientists in history)
“I don’t need to guess people’s motives are for believing that CO2 emissions are causing climate change, but this is simply a belief system, that is not based on science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI

Professor William Happer (Professor of Physics at Princetown University – specialist in CO2)
In the context of greenhouse gases CO2 is one of the most inefficient gases. We are light years away from doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere and even if we did there would only be a 1.1 percent increase in global temperatures due to CO2.
The climate of the planet is always changing, there is no clear evidence that the temperature increases over the last 100 years are man-made.
There is very little evidence  “I have studied CO2 extensively …. CO2 is more, good than bad! … Plants need more CO2 in the atmosphere! There is no downside to CO2.”
The models showing that CO2 increases atmospheric temperatures is built on false premises.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs

Professor John Christy (Climate Scientist and climate data expert)
“We have examined trends with hurricanes and storms and there has been no significant change in the last 100 years!”
“The real data, invalidates these climate change models”
“The planet has been warming by 1.5 degrees every 100 years consistently for the last 500 years (well before the industrial revolution).”
Note: Carbon dioxide is a trace element, 97 percent of carbon emissions are produced naturally (e.g. from volcanoes), only 3 percent of carbon emissions are man-made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpGDnuz308

See Professor John Christy’s testimony to the US Government here …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz45fETw078

Dr Richard Lindzen –
Prof of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.
“Independent science is under threat! The evidence that CO2 has anything more than an extremely moderate impact on global temperatures is only found in flawed computer models, models found in studies where your funders expect your study to support the lie that CO2 causes significant global warming, otherwise you don’t get funded.”   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjYaQRXRRnE

Professor David Bellamy, OBE – The late great Botanist, TV Presenter and Relentless Environment Campaigner who stated at the cost of his career that “CO2 being bad for the environment and bad for people and plants is ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK!”, since he first said this 30 years ago, according to NASA data, the Earth is 20 percent MORE green.
“AV2 – Professor David Bellamy OBE – Challenging Orthodoxy”

Ralph Ellis – Dismantling, step by step the mainstream statistical misrepresentation that ‘97% of Scientists Agee with Anthropogenic (Man-made) Global Warming  https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1F5bhYEBh2/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Also from Ralph Ellis “Net Zero Nonsense!” https://rumble.com/v6r9uiy-ralph-ellis-net-zero-nonsense-tom-nelson-pod-289.html

Dr Patrick Moore (Ecology scientist & Co-founder of Greenpeace)
CO2 is completely non-toxic and it is food for plants!
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been in decline for centuries, plants need MORE CO2 not less!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlmFr4FMvI

And in this video Dr Patrick is speaking outside the UK Parliament about the fact that CO2 is NOT causing a climate emergency and that we need MORE CO2 – not less, for life to flourish!

Senator Gerard Rennick speaking in the Australian Parliament in November 2022
“A Real Lesson in Climate Science”, including:
1) The hidden astronomical environmental and economic costs of ‘renewable energy’
2) How the laws of Thermodynamics mwan that CO2 can not possibly be responsible for increasing global temperatures!
.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC6V5ahsJNg

The fake Establishment Narrative Exposed with one simple data set that you can check yourself!
Here is some data based evidence produced by Chat GPT that demonstrates the Legacy Mainstream Media and mainstream authorities do not care at all about the environment….
There is an undeniable human health crisis, proven by all the published data that we have skyrocketing levels of allergies, autism and a vast array of neuro-degenerative disorders which are proven to be linked with toxins, food toxins, pharmaceutical toxins and of course ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS. Anyone with eyes to see can visit our oceans and observe that we clearly have a global toxicity crisis of monumental proportions. So you would think that if the people creating the mainstream news articles and choosing which scientists to fund, really cared there would be at least as much coverage and focus on the global toxicity crisis and there is on the ‘highly debatable CO2 related climate change’.   But according to chat GPT the ratio is not ‘1 to 1’. Here is the question I asked ChatGPT
…. “Please can you find out an approximate ratio for the number of mainstream news articles that are about “CO2 related Climate change” versus the number of mainstream news articles that are about “excessive toxins in the environment”? Thank you”

and here is the astonishing answer provided by CHatGPT …

📊 Estimated Coverage Ratio – Conclusive evidence of the mainstream media’s priorities about ‘the environment!

Given the numbers:

• Climate change / CO₂ articles: ~6,000+ per month, widely covered.

• Environmental toxins articles: ~10–20 per month, occasionally featured.

Estimated ratio:
~300:1 — in plain terms, for every 300 climate‑focused pieces, you’ll find about 1 article on environmental toxins.

Even with generous rounding:

• Conservative estimate: 100:1

• Likely reality: 200–500:1

  So whilst anyone can tell with their 5 senses that there are massive environmental toxicity issues all around us, for every one mainstream article on this undeniable environment toxin crisis there are 200 to 500 articles on the ‘CO2 climate change narrative’ that as illustrated above the vast majority of credible scientists completely disagree with.  If the people producing this news (propaganda) actually really gave a shit about the environment, this reporting coverage ratio would be reversed!

The 7 Great Climate Change Myths …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fChyXPgj0

Energy Consultant Kathryn Porter interview … “Net Zero is not science it’s an ideology!” …
How the TOTAL blackout of the whole grid of Spain and Portugal 28th / 29th April 2025 was CAUSED by ENTIRELY by renewable energies plugged into their grid and how renewable more renewables are guaranteed to destabilise the entire grid to cause more frequent and more serious grid blackouts! …..  This clear connection is completely covered up by the legacy mainstream media …

The REAL Cause of Climate Disasters They’re Hiding | Paul Bean on Geo-engineering

Look up! Chemtrails are NOT vapour trails! These criss-cross patterns in our skies are becoming more and more prevalent around the world!
No permission, no regulation and no transparency about these unkown chemicals are being regularly dumped on us!

The Movie ‘The Dimming’ – Over 26 Million Views on YouTube alone!

“The evidence presented in this full length movie will leave most people flabbergasted!”  

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf78rEAJvhY

Who is behind the climate change narrative?

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1037197911834796

 

Sun Dimming Is An Environmental Disaster | Dr Rob Williams