Source: email
Preventing Reality About Climate Change From Coming Out?
Erik Bye Oslo, Norway
August 8, 2025
Here, I try to shed light on the reasons why the truth about Climate Change is not coming out.
Reason 1: The climate debate is being blocked. CICERO refuses to debate with the Climate Realists, NRK (The Norwegian Broadcasting) refuses to allow dissenting opinions into the debates, and almost all MSM channels are closed to open debate. This is the terror of the opinion; freedom of expression is under pressure, and human rights are threatened.
How long will the people accept this?
Reason 2: The governments are indoctrinated. The UN and nearly 190 member states are in on the scam. The UN is a powerful organization. Behind this entire climate scam are organizations that want a new world order and a new world economy. Oil has been chosen as the factor that will hit those who have too much power. Oil is hit by CO2 being chosen as the villain. Even though Arrhenius is falsified, and the temperature changes before the CO2 level increases, contrary to all scientific documentation. The world is sleeping with its eyes open!
Where did the climate debate go? Now we are flooded with climate propaganda from the alarmists.
Where is the intelligent climate journalist?:
The destruction of society is described by WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/29/british-government-climateadvisors-demand-everyone-live-like-poor-people/
The Green Deal is a utopia.
Reason 3: The mass media is indoctrinated! In addition to the fact that the school system and the state are indoctrinated, the mass media are also exposed to the same knowledge pressure. Where everyone thinks alike, not much is thought.
The world is witnessing a terror of opinion, a freedom of expression put out of action, a threat to human rights, and a 4th state power that has abdicated. Why is no one in the Storting seeing this threat?
Where is the Helsinki Committee? Is it also a fool?
The Questions are the same:
Where is the climate debate? Where are the critical journalists? Why doesn't MSM have any knowledge about the climate questions?
Må sjekke linkene om Deter eng dok, f eks WUWT, som ved samfunnet rives ned.
Reason 4: Journalists are indoctrinated. In addition to the fact that the school system and the state authorities are indoctrinated, the mass media and their journalists are also exposed to the same knowledge pressure. Where everyone thinks alike, not much is thought.
The world is witnessing a terror of opinion, a freedom of expression put out
of action, a threat to human rights, and the 4th power of the state that has abdicated.
Imagine a journalist who is supposed to cover sports, law, economics or foreign affairs. Can they do it without knowledge of the case, the subjects, the background?
Where is the digging, questioning, investigating critical climate journalist? Has he gone home?
In this way, the people do not get an unbiased description of climate change. Recently, there has also been a question of whether the state is being subjected to disinformation, especially by groups that claim a different synopsis of climate change than the state likes. However, with the scientific documentation accumulating about the false climate narrative that the IPCC is conveying, it is the state that is disinforming the people. This is dangerous and not worthy of an open democracy.
Reason 5: The Universities are also indoctrinated! The indoctrination of society on the climate issue is almost complete, the state has 100% control. Universities make decisions in closed rooms about the climate view. Those who protest risk losing their jobs. Some tasks are lost, some are reassigned, and some lose funding.
Rector Klaus Mohn was invited to the launch of the journal SCC, to the Climate Realists. Instead of talking about the journal, he harassed academics who did not have the state's view on AGW:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/ V4.4_05_Solheim_Extract.pdf
Where is the academic freedom?
https://www.forskning.no/akademisk-ytringsfrihet-om-forskningpartner/forskere-den-akademiske-friheten-fortsetter-a-forvitre-i-europa/
Reason 6: The climate issue is about a new world order and a new world economy.
The climate issue has nothing to do with the climate at all. In order to change the balance of power in the world, the organizations attack oil production. Then they change the income level of the rich. CO2 gas has been chosen as the scapegoat, which will strangle oil and gas production. By reducing CO2 emissions, oil production must be throttled, and the replacement will be renewable energy, and the devastating green shift:
CO2 gas is vital for all life on Earth. How do those in official positions intend to continue cultivating the globe? With electrons in loose weight?
Is it a lack of knowledge about photosynthesis that makes those who are «power hungry» believe this false narrative? That the truth must be kept hidden is easy to understand!
Reason 7: The Paris Agreement is losing support. After the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement, four major oil-producing countries are not participating: Libya, Yemen, Iran, and the US. There are rumors that Venezuela also wants to get out of the madness.
And, only 15 countries have reported new climate goals to the UN. All the countries that signed the Paris Agreement should have done so. Countries are withdrawing, but no one is talking about the underlying reasons. This is described by WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/21/only-15-nations-bothered-tosubmit-paris-climate-pledges-on-time/
What is the reason for this failure?
Reaksjon 8: The UN has received the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2007, the Norwegian Nobel Committee managed to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the UN Climate Panel, the IPCC, and Al Gore. Gore received it partly because of the film "The Inconvenient Truth".
The entire world has been frightened by the climate threat. I would like to see the one who goes against the UN's fight, and proclaims that the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was awarded for the wrong reasons!
Reason 9: Climate scientists refuse to accept normally accepted scientific counterarguments.
When the Arrhenius warming theory was rejected in 2009, many probably expected a scientific settlement on the climate issue. It did not come. The IPCC has completely overlooked this falsification.
In 2013, Humlum, Stordahl, and Solheim demonstrated that the temperature changed before the CO2 level. This work did not lead to any form of scientific reservations in the IPCC clan either:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0921818112001658
The Green Deal and the transition to renewable energy are based on the fact that global warming must be kept, first below 2˚C, then below 1.5˚C. There is no scientific documentation for these climate goals. The IPCC and climate scientists use these goals as if they were completely evidence-based. The IPCC has completely overlooked the lack of documentation.
From the first main report, AR1 (FAR), it has been emphasized that the CO2 hypothesis has no peer-reviewed documentation. The CO2-hypothesis has no observational data and therefore cannot be falsified. In addition, global temperature is a fiction; there is no such thing as a single temperature for the entire globe.
After years of claims that the IPCC climate models are wrong, time and time again, evidence was presented in 2024 that the climate models are flawed. Here, Roy Cark demonstrated that the models exaggerated the effect of the input data. The IPCC has not been affected by this documentation of the pure fraud either.
In AR3, the IPCC wrote that the climate could not be modeled:
«IPCC - TAR Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. G.2 Climate Processes and Modelling page 78:
«The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.»
This alone should be enough to ban climate change models. And in fact, it is not evidence-based models that are used. If projections are made, the result is different scenarios that researchers can choose between. Expert judgments are used when entering data, and expert judgment is used to select the most appropriate scenario. In such calculations, standard statistical methods cannot be used to estimate errors and error limits. This
means that the certainty that the climate scientists now claim to have is simply unscientific. When choosing the best scenario, it is almost like a show of hands up, which takes place. The scenario with the most hands is the winner!
One can ask oneself: What is necessary for the truth about the climate issue to come out?
Reason 10: Climate scientists and other key players have a hidden agenda.
This is a tenacious story that has proven difficult to document, perhaps not so difficult to understand.
It has been claimed that it is a pure conspiracy theory. This is neither difficult to understand, when climate scientists around the world believe they are fighting an honest battle against the micro amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere, 0.043%.
Many have come forward and admitted that climate change, the CO2 content, and oil production are just a cover-up. In that case, we have thousands of climate scientists who are being fooled. Does Guterres know what he is getting into? Does King Harald (in Norway) understand that he is helping to ridicule himself, the entire royal family, and the entire Kingdom of Norway, with the Government and the Parliament as apathetic sleepwalkers?
Here is a book on the topic:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/this-changes-everything-naomiklein/ 1119128098;jsessionid=E74F0AA4EB84985FA091F03E54F146C5.prodny_ store01-atgap01?ean=9781451697391
Naomi Klein is among those who claim that the climate issue is about something else than climate. A new world order, a new world economy.
Reason 11: The following issues are highlighted
I have now looked at 10 reasons why the truth about the climate is not coming out. I have pointed out and discussed the following reasons:
1. The scientific debate is blocked
2. The governments are indoctrinated
3. The mass media are indoctrinated
4. The journalists are indoctrinated
5. The R&D sector is indoctrinated
6. The climate issue is staged to promote a world order and a new economy.
7. Most UN member states support the Paris Agreement, but few respond
8. The UN has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
9. Climate scientists refuse to accept normally accepted scientific counterarguments
10. Climate scientists and other key players have a hidden agenda.
What is it that climate scientists will not admit? And why?
Since 1992, the IPCC has published six main reports on climate change, AR1 - AR6, spanning many thousands of pages. Most people would then think that the content is validated and accepted. However, the message of the IPCC is subject to considerable controversy. It is uncertain how large a proportion of the population supports the UN and the IPCC; some surveys have shown approximately 40-50%. If it is only 50%, the world community has a significant problem.
So, what are the findings that perhaps half of the population does not believe in the message? What scientific facts exist that climate scientists either overlook, do not report, or do not want to report? One of the reasons for this is that they have now defended the IPCC's climate message for so many years that the fall height associated with having to admit a serious error has become too large. What documentation is available that climate scientists, as scientists, should have accepted and taken as evidence? Evidence that the UN and the IPCC have been wrong for 35 years?
Something is absolutely fundamental to our scientific model.
Reaksjon 12: Philosophy of Science, Hypothetical Deductive Method. This includes: - hypothesis - observations - falsification and possibly a new hypothesis
The hypothesis
It all builds on the fact that we have a problem, that there is something we want to find out, something we want to investigate. An obvious example could be investigating whether an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere led to increased temperature.
Observations
Then we have to measure the temperature and CO2 levels at one point in time and then measure the same at a later time, when the CO2 level might have increased. The hypothesis was that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere would lead to increased temperature.
Falsification
Then it would just be a matter of determining a specific time and measuring again. But here it is not so simple, in connection with new measurements. The hypothesis of the climate panel said something about warming in 2100. But who can provide observational data that far ahead? The consequence is that the hypothesis is invalid, because it cannot be falsified with observational data until more than 190 years after the hypothesis was formed.
This is something that the researcher who works according to the hypothetical deductive method should be able to handle and deal with. Here, the climate panel fails:
- There is no peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal that documents the hypothesis
- The hypothesis cannot be falsified and must be rejected.
But the IPCC has not taken this into account; they have pretended that everything was perfectly fine, and of course did not say anything about this.
The entire scientific basis for the CO2 hypothesis collapses, and all talk of global warming should have ended immediately in connection with the presentation of AR1.
And thus began the long road of scientific fraud, with a long list of documents that the IPCC ignored.
Reason 13: Documents the IPCC doesn't care about
What kind of documentation are we talking about? Here are some examples:
- The CO2 hypothesis has no validated scientific documentation
- The CO2 hypothesis lacks observational data and cannot be falsified
- The Arrhenius heating theory is falsified
- Temperature changes before CO2 levels
- Climate sensitivity is calculated very close to 0˚C. Maybe it does not exist?
- Climate targets are political inventions
- Climate targets can be achieved without further ado
- CO2 is necessary for all life on Earth
- Electrification of the shelf is not a climate measure
- Climate quotas have no effect on the climate
- El Niño has no lasting effect on the climate
- CCS has no effect on the climate
- The Green Deal is destructive for society
- Removal of CO2 from the ocean and the atmosphere is impossible due to Henry's law
In addition to this highly unscientific attitude towards published work, there are also some social features that contribute to the secrecy:
The general obstacles:
A. All channels of debate are closed
B. Climate scientists do not participate in debates
C. The critical, inquiring journalist is missing
D. The entire society is indoctrinated about the climate.
E. The world community controls the economy
F. The entire world is being tricked
Concluding comments:
With this review, it is easy to see that the truth about climate change is almost impossible to uncover.
But we can not give up, and in the end, the truth will come through.
What will be the final proof that the UN, the IPCC, and the entire world are wrong about in connection with the supposed global warming, and refuse to admit?
No matter how much CO2 emissions are cut, it will not be noticeable in the “global” temperature.
The most important reason is that the temperature changes after the CO2 level.