World’s Top Climate Scientists Declare ‘Green Agenda Is a WEF Depopulation Scam’

Two of the world’s top climate scientists have spoken out to warn the public that the green agenda being promoted by the World Economic Forum and the globalists are part of an elaborate hoax to depopulate the planet.

As The People’s Voice has previously reported, globalists are working in cahoots with world leaders to meet the arbritary ‘Net Zero‘ goals of the green agenda.

This anti-life agenda is being led by the WEF and other globalist organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The publicly stated goal of the green agenda is to fight “global boiling” by severely limiting people’s basic freedoms and lowering the quality of life for normal people.

However, two of the world’s top climate scientists are pushing back against the globalists, warning in recent testimony that the move towards implementing the WEF agenda “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

Slaynews.com reports: William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), have both gone on the record to warn that the claims made by Biden’s EPA are based on a “hoax” and only serve to advance the globalist green agenda.

Citing extensive data to support their case, Happer and Lindzen argue that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions, globalist narratives, and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Happer and Lindzen testified.

“None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”

“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated.

“The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Happer warns.

However, such fearmongering data serves well when it comes to pushing the public to comply with unpopular policies.

“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said.

“I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”

He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.

Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine.”

The argument is that the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress.

Happer and Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack.

They argue that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated.

The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued that “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or whim.”

According to Happer and Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two.

They also argue that current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.

“The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they stated.

In addition, the scientists’ testimony to the EPA stated that the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider the fact that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.

“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they stated.

“Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”

More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they argued.

In addition, synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the world’s food production today.

“Net zero” goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year, reducing the food supply proportionally, they said.

In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated that the EPA’s emission rules and the “global warming” narrative that has been used to justify them are based on a hoax.

In addition to teaching physics at Princeton, Happer’s decades of work in physics has focused on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric turbulence, and his inventions have been used by astronomers and in national defense.

“Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists,” Happer said.

His expertise, he said, “involves much of the same physics that’s involved in climate, and none of it is very alarming.”

The “global warming” narrative argues that as people burn fossil fuels, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere, which absorbs sunlight and creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the Sun’s radiation and warming the Earth.

But Happer warns that one aspect of CO2 emissions that “global warming” models fail to take into account is a phenomenon called “saturation,” or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.

“At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away,” Happer said.

“So that’s enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the Earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the Earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.”

“But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only one percent,” Happer said.

“Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space.

“That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well-known for a century.”

In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations.

In some cases, Happer and Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Happer said.

“If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.

“If you look at the data today, that is no longer true,” he said.

“People in charge of that data, or what the public sees, have gradually reduced the temperatures of the ‘30s, then increased the temperature of more recent measurements.”

Misleading data is often used by the EPA as proof of “global warming,” Happer and Lindzen note.

According to the renowned climate scientists, the government uses data that appears to show “daily temperatures.”

However, the EPA is actually showing a “ratio” of daily record highs to lows.

The use of this data in fearmongering charts is “designed to create the impression that temperatures are steadily rising,” they warn.

By contrast, the scientists confirm that historical data indicates significantly higher temperatures in the 1930s versus today.

Proponents of the global warming narrative often state that it is “settled science” and that nearly all scientists agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.

According to an official NASA statement, “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists—97 percent—agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

“Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.”

A report by Cornell University states that “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

But Happer argues that consensus is not science.

Happer cites a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

“Science has never been made by consensus,” Happer said.

“The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.

“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said.

“And that’s the situation with climate models.

“They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”

The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said, “Consensus is the business of politics.”

“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world,” Dr. Crichton said.

“In science, consensus is irrelevant.

“What are relevant are reproducible results.”

“The initial predictions of climate disasters had New York flooded by now, no ice left at the North Pole, England would be like Siberia by now,” Happer said.

“Nothing that they predicted actually came true.

“You have to do something to keep the money coming in, so they changed ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’”