A climate alarm article by Robert Hunziger appeared earlier this month on the Dissident Voice website. I intend breaking this piece of toilet trash down to show just how manipulative, untruthful and actually hurtful such lies and innuendo really are.
First, here is the article…
‘WMO Bright Red Alert’ – by Robert Hunziker / April 5th, 2024 on Dissident Voice
We’ll draw a line under that, and then proceed to give the real story.
Sorting the Crap From the Dung
Firstly, somewhere in the early ’70s, an awareness of the possibility of climate change having an impact on human activities or even human futures grew in academia. It was in 1972 that I undertook a Technology Foundation course with the newly founded Open University. A course text for that unit was the new book Limits to Growth. I was credited for that course as also for the Mathematics Foundation course the same year. I was not able to continue my studies toward a degree because I was in the military and was moved about a good deal over the subsequent eight years. A 30 year update sequel to Limits to Growth was published in 2005.
The original book, it should be noted, among all the relevant things it did say – many of which still hold good today, made no significant reference to climate change, and the 30 year sequel contained only 2 paragraphs actually about climate issues in the whole text. Science obviously did not consider this to be a serious threat.
The climate references made no mention of climate threats, only human threats – which, as it turns out, were over-estimates of the effect of human activity on the planet. They said, in 2005, a couple of things:
- It is certain that human activities, especially fossil fuel burning and deforestation, contribute to the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
Well, it is certain that any human activity and the burning of anything is going to contribute some effect to the atmosphere, but no proof is offered, and in fact there is none, or nothing which proves that such contributions are in any way excessive, nor that it is fossil fuels that are responsible. In fact it has been shown that human induced changes represent only 1% of all difference to atmospheric changes since they began. And, what is more important, all changes to the atmosphere are actually minuscule in nature, as are in fact the proportions of all climate related gases in the atmospheric makeup. They represent less than 1 percent of all atmospheric gases*. So, if less than 1% of atmospheric gas can have a climate effect and less than 1% of that 1% is human induced, then what is the problem? And if there is a problem, what is the size of it? Infinitessimally small, that’s what. The whole climate alarmist thing is a swindle and a hoax, not made by scientists in the main but by other associated parties, like big business, with government only recently catching on to the potential benefits to their coffers and personal fortunes of acquiescing to and aiding that hoax by appropriate propaganda efforts. The whole thing stinks of corruption and deception to high heaven. And many simple folk and those who should know better, have fallen for it.
* Note that 1 in 100 is 1 percent or 0.01 of the whole, an insignificant amount. I think everyone will understand that. But have you any idea what ‘500 parts per million’ – the so-called elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere – represents? It is 1 in 2000. So work out for yourself exactly what percentage 1 in 2000 represents. Ok, I’ll do it for you. It is 0.05 percent, or 0.0005 of the whole. A truly minuscule amount. And ‘they’ – the climate alarmists – want you to drive yourself into panic mode over it so that you are willing to accept any impingements to your life and wallet/purse ‘they’ – big business/government – wish to inflict on you. Are you going to take that laying down?
First let’s remove the illusion that Carbon Dioxide is ‘the prime greenhouse gas’. It is not. It may be, but it is not certain, that CO2 is the prime such gas emitted by humans. But we have already seen that human emissions are insignificantly small. The most damaging greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is Nitrous Oxide, but at 333 parts per billion (rising annually) – mostly from agricultural emissions) it is something around a thousand times less in atmospheric content than CO2, but it’s warming effect, weight for weight, is ‘265 times that of carbon dioxide’ – if you can believe anything put out by the US EPA.
- It is certain that the concentration of Carbon Dioxide (the prime greenhouse gas**) in the atmosphere is increasing exponentially. The CO2 component has been monitored for decades. Its historical concentrations can be measured from bubbles of air caught in layers of ice drilled from polar icecaps.
** An assertion already shown to be false.
Then, the highly charged but much misunderstood reference to ‘exponential growth’ is actually meaningless, irrelevant and largely false. All continual growth is exponential – which simply means that a numerical ‘exponent’ can be added to the end of the numerical representation of whatever the thing is, to indicate how fast, mathematically’, the ‘thing’ is growing. And that exponent can be positive or negative, large or small – including very small. There is nothing magical or menacing to it. It simply means that if something is growing (or shrinking) continuously and at a continuous steady rate (something which never occurs naturally, for very long), that ‘something’ will actually double (or half) its size, from some particular point in time, over nano-seconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, epochs, etc., etc., depending on the size and signage of the exponent, and keep on doubling or halving for as long as the stability of the growth persists. There. That’s exponentiality in a nutshell. Nothing to worry about.
OK, the book I was talking about (if you remember at this point) also says a few other things about climate change which are irrelevant, untrue, or simply the mental wanderings of an ignoramus or ill-intentioned journalist and can be safely ignored.
Well, I have said enough for now, I think, providing plenty to chew on, and I haven’t even begun to tackle the said article. I will proceed a little further with that here but may need to do a follow up post to complete the exercise, all the while wishing that people would stop spouting this nonsense as I have much better things to do.
Just to give some idea as to what that may unfold, I have redacted in red all the things I think are incorrect or inadmissible in the images of the Hunziker article below. representing about 70% of the text. Some things I found to be true, although not necessarily applying to the argument expressed. They are highlit in yellow. This was a quick scan so, if I were to read through more carefully, this assessment might change, just a little.
Dissecting The Hunziker Article
And now for the long haul of showing why Hunziker’s non-intellectual gibberish is just a continuation of the WEF’s climate hoax and scam.
Firstly, read the Hunziker article, and then… Oh fuck it, why should I waste my time trying to teach dummies anything? Believe what you want to believe. But know that you have been fooled. Read again the parts I have redacted in red in the previous images and try to figure out why I did that.
Then, read the World Climate Declaration signed by 1609 real scientists in August 2023. The important parts are contained in the two images below. The rest is just a page list of the signatories, mostly scientists, from many countries. I rest my case, well, after the next quotes.
“I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2 – it’s all a crock of crap, in my opinion.” – 2022 Nobel physics laureate Dr. John Clauser.
“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,” – Clauser said in a May 5, 2023 statement.
That’s me done for the time being.
Not Something Else 
Leave a comment