Peer-Reviewed Study Nobel Scientists Say CO2 CANNOT Cause Climate Change
Summary
Transcript
The study says that carbon emissions cannot cause global warming. Cannot cause it. A bombshell new peer reviewed study has provided conclusive scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide emissions cannot cause global warming. Doctor Jan Kubicki. Or maybe it’s Jan. He’s from Poland. J A n led a group of world renowned polish scientists to study the impact of increases in CO2 emissions on the earth’s global temperatures. However, not only did they find that higher levels of CO2 made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.
The emperor has no clothes. Or I guess we could say the emperor has no cause. The emperor has no cause of for this stuff. And so you don’t have any justification for any of this stuff. The emperor has no cause. And by the way, we pointed this out before, along with their failed predictions along, you know, dire things about there’s not going to be any more snow and the glaciers are going to disappear.
And all the stuff that you’ve been hearing from Al Gore, from RFK junior all these years, and from people like Michael Mann, with all these lies that are out there, one of the key things was when you look at things like Michael Mann’s fake and false projection with a hockey stick and everything, they had a correlation where as CO2 was increasing, temperature would increase. And yet now that these models and things like that are several decades old, what we’ve seen is that CO2 has increased, but there was no increase in temperature.
They were not correlated to each other. That’s what these people are saying. But they’re saying a lot more than that. They’re giving you an explanation as to why CO2 is not, why the temperature is not tied to CO2. Kubiki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that the earth’s atmosphere is already saturated with carbon dioxide. He said the saturation means that even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the greenhouse gas will not cause temperatures to rise.
Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, around 418 parts per million. But the scientists state that past 400 parts per million and we’re past that, the CO2 concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature, so it’s saturated from the standpoint of having an effect on temperature. The saturation of CO2 is the hypothesis that dare not speak its name in mainstream media politics. All we hear from these people is carbon, carbon, carbon, carbon, carbon.
They don’t even fill in the finish, the rest of it. And I’ve seen so many times reporters who refer to carbon monoxide. Yeah, we don’t want to fill the atmosphere with carbon monoxide. That happens when you have the car running and you shut the garage door, and that’s. That’s fatal. But it’s. There’s a big difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, but they don’t even make the distinction.
And since it’s so confusing to these reporters and politicians, they just say carbon, especially because, you know, we get carbon on our hands. It’s black. It’s like it’s soot or something. Oh, we got to get rid of all that stuff. The World Economic Forum’s net zero collectivism agenda is doomed without the constant fear mongering of a so called climate crisis. So this is key, folks. The saturation hypothesis is complex, but in simple terms, it can be described of the example of insulation in the loft of a house.
For example, after a certain point, doubling the insulation that you put up in the roof is going to have little effect since most of the heat trying to escape through the roof has already been trapped. That’s what they’re saying. The thing, we got so much insulation in the roof, we don’t need to add more stuff. And, well, if we do add more stuff, it isn’t going to make any difference to our heating bill.
Right. That’s what they’re saying. It’s just that simple. And that’s one of the reasons why, perhaps if they’re right, sounds like they are, because we have not seen a correlation between additional CO2 and any warming. Just like you would not see any benefit in terms of insulation if you add it past a certain point. Carbon dioxide traps heat only within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum. Levels of the gas have been up to 20 times higher in the past without any sign of runaway global warming.
And they know this because they have gone through and taken ice core samples and, you know, looked at geological records and things like that. They know that we’ve had 20 times the amount of CO2 that we do right now, and the planet did not boil. And so these people don’t want you to know that. And they cherry picked their temperature, and that’s the other part of it, you know, you look at all of the ghost it weather stations that they got places where they’ve just shut them down, you know, they’re not worried about this stuff or they’d be putting more of these stations up.
But they don’t have a historical record, they don’t have an accurate current record for this stuff. They’ve changed where and how they’re taking the temperature measurements and they don’t have that much anyway. You know, people were not keeping temperature records all over the planet, you know, for more than about a century or so. Many other scientists are attracted to this saturation hypothesis because it provides a more plausible explanation to fit what we see in the climate.
Last year, three scientists, led by atmospheric professor Yi Hwang of McGill University, stated transmission in the CO2 band center is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated. Despite over 50 years of trying, climate modelers and scientists in the anthropogenic camp, that means man made climate change camp, are no near putting a temperature rise on doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere estimates from a half a degree centigrade up to about six degrees centigrade.
Well that would tell you that they really don’t know, right. If it varies by a factor of twelve, they have absolutely no idea. These models are all over the place with some outliers as high as ten degrees c. So again, varies by a factor of 20, not twelve as little more than guesses. And yet they form the scientific bedrock, you know, keep hearing there’s a scientific consensus, is there? You got metal models that say that it’s going to cause the temperature to go up by half a degree centigrade and you got some models that say ten degrees centigrade.
Do you have a scientific consensus? No, you don’t. It’s not even close. And by the way, science is not decided by consensus. Science always advances when somebody questions the consensus. The figures are too wild, too imprecise to make any reasonable scientific predictions. But that’s not what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to push fear, just like with the bird fluid. So the polish authors of this thing are concerned, they said, about the recent push to rely on modeling, computer modeling, and to rely on assumptions about co two’s capacity to drive changes in global temperatures rather than observational evidence.
That’s real science. Now we’re getting rid of doing real science, and this is happening in the drugs as well. You know, they talk about in vitro, that means in the glass petri dish, right? And so they can do experiments in vitro. So you can have in vitro fertilization or you can have, you can take some bacteria or something and you can put silver in the glass vial and you can see it dies.
And people say, yeah, but does that work when the bacteria is in your body and you, and you ingest silver? Something like that. So to test that, you do, you do a different test in the person. And now they’ve got, they just go to models. It’s like, well, I don’t really care about testing my hypothesis in glass or in the body. I will just do it instead of doing it in the glass, instead of doing it in the living thing.
I will do it in a computer model. And they call that in silica. And so I’ll test it in silicon. And they’re doing that with drugs now. And that’s what they’re doing with their climate modeling. They’re just doing it in silicon. So they have certain assumptions about how things work. And we go back to that simulation that Locke, that Fauci and Birx apparently gave Trump, and he said, well, two very smart people gave this to me.
This is what’s going to happen. Well, they didn’t have, as part of their assumption, they didn’t have the, they didn’t have Fars curve, the curve that we’re going to flatten. There wasn’t a curve. So they had a false assumption and then they had a bad implementation of it. And that’s what you wind up with. So they rely on modeling and they rely on assumptions. And sometimes the assumptions are false, like it was with that Imperial College of London assumption about COVID which was not a pandemic even at that time.
So they do that instead of observational evidence. And that’s what real science is. That’s why I’ve said for a long time, you look at the American Meteorological Society, they will have people come in and do their weather prediction. Here’s the factors that we’re looking at. Here’s how we think they’re going to interplay with each other. So this is our model. And then we went out and we did observations.
Were we able to predict what’s going to happen with the weather? And so everybody was doing that, trying to get better and better. But they were able to do observational evidence. These people know, but now we can do observational evidence of their stuff. We can now see that they were lying to us because we got, you know, they were 50 years out, 54 years out from this stuff.
And we know these people were lying about everything, everything failed. So this unequivocally suggests the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on the earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact. It’s a hypothesis that’s been proven false, just like the COVID McGuffin emeritus Professor William Happer of Princeton is another leading proponent of the saturation hypothesis. Remember I played the clip for you the other day of a movie, climate.
The movie had several people comment and say it’s an excellent film. I haven’t seen the whole movie yet. It’s an excellent trailer. Martin Durkin did climate the movie, and happer. Professor William Happer of Princeton was featured in it. In the film, he responds to current quote unquote science that enforces the World Economic Forum’s net zero agenda. In the film, he said he could live with the descriptive suggestion of hoax, although he preferred the word scam.
Well, I could live with hoax, but I think it’s more of a scam. In the 2022, Nobel physics laureate doctor John Clauser blasted the climate narrative in no uncertain terms. He said, I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2. It’s all a crock of crap in my opinion. Okay, so hoax, scam, crock of crap. It’s pure Bolshevik because they’re using it for Marx’s reasons.
So Klauser is highly respected. I mean, he just won the Nobel Prize in physics, a modern science giant. He has also signed a declaration asserting what he just said about these climate predictions. He joined over 1600 scientists from around the world, including another Nobel Prize winner, by signing a declaration stating that claims of a, quote, climate emergency, unquote, are a hoax. The massive group of scientists signed the World Climate Declaration, which declares there is no climate emergency.
That says climate science should be less political while climate policies should be more scientific. I like that scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations and their predictions of global warming. It says, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of the policy measures. Wouldn’t that have been nice during COVID for example, what are the real costs of your lockdowns and business closures and face masks and your remdesivir and your ventilators and all the rest of this stuff versus your imagined benefits? They stress there is no statistical evidence to support these claims.
There’s no climate emergency. Therefore there is no cause for panic and alarm, say the scientists. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050 during a separate speech, Klauser warned the public that the climate crisis narrative being pushed by the global elite and their allies in the corporate media is a hoax. He was also awarded the 2010 Wolf Prize in Physics, the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel Prize, and he’s won both of them.
And he warns that fear mongering climate science is nothing more than, listen to this, quote, massive shock, journalistic pseudoscience, unquote. He said the popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well being of billions of people. This is why people like Bill Gates wants to push the the essentials of two plus two equals five. That’s why he wants to say that math is racist.
And he’s got all these other things to dumb people down. They deliberately want to dumb people down. They want to say that math is racist, that science is racist, and so forth. They don’t want any critical thinking whatsoever. And that is going to be even more destructive than what they’re doing to destroy our society, our energy infrastructure, our transportation, our food, everything. We won’t be able to rebuild it, quite frankly, if they’re successful, the David Knight show is a critical thinking super spreader.
If you’ve been exposed to logic by listening to the David Knight show, please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask, take your vaccine, don’t ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It’s the David Knight show. .
See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.
