THE UNBELIEVABLE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE!
Erik Bye
September 25, 2025
I have previously published a dialogue with a friend of mine, Stig, an MD, made on Facebook.
I would like to force him to clarify the way he understands the climate question. He admitted that he does not have enough knowledge to read scientific papers, and he just believes in the message of the IPCC.As an academic with responsibility to manage people’s health, it is dangerous to rely on other scientists in this difficult and complex topic. Particularly since the prime question about man-made Climate Change is a controversial issue.
Here is the communication with Stig, on Facebook:
Introduction
Hello Stig
With a PhD in physical chemistry, 35 years of research experience, professorial competence in occupational chemistry, first author of 35 scientific articles, and now 15 years of work on the climate issue, I assume that my competence is equivalent to yours in your field of expertise. It is then natural to repeat my main viewpoints. You protest, based on your professional knowledge of drug treatment, and I do the same about climate change. How you, without scientific knowledge about the climate, simply reject my positions is quite strange. Disagreement should be based on knowledge, not belief. It is a challenge to believe in others, without being able to thoroughly understand the matter and then reject others with relevant knowledge.
Even with my knowledge of opioids, the effects of methadone and the endogenous effects of endorphins, I would be reluctant to dispute your message, even if it was repeated. But we agree here.
In the climate issue, it is striking that people like you, with an academic background but without knowledge of the climate, trust the opinions of others. There are kilos of scientific documentation that says that man-made climate change does not exist, that the CO2 hypothesis is completely wrong, and that the IPCC
models are built on a wrong basis. The models exaggerate the effect of CO2, and this has been exposed as the Nobel scandal of 2021: "The Nobel Fraud".
Regrettably, you cannot familiarize yourself with this scientific documentation. It would have made this so much more fun and interesting. This will be obvious to the whole world in a while.
Stig:
I don't doubt your competence, but your conclusion is undeniably contrary to what the UN climate panel has pretty much unanimously reached and which was the basis for, among other things, the ParisAgreement on climate. So, do you belong to a small minority? But according to Ibsen, that does not mean you are wrong. But we must be able to discuss this. Even if we are not "experts"?
Me:
How do you discuss drug treatment methods with someone who has no professional medical background?
Stig: I use ordinary language and avoid internal technical terms.
Me:
And do you experience this as a professional discussion? What will be your professional output?
Stig:
You are the one who brings in the competence requirements to participate in a discussion. It is great that ordinary people discuss both climate issues and drug policy.Are you a supporter of an autocracy?
Me:
This is what I call talking together. I have nothing against that. But without knowledge of the topic, the yield is meagre, I suppose?
Me: You write:
"So you belong to a fairly small minority?" Where did you get this? How many do you think we are in total?
Stig:
That is my impression. But you are welcome to correct me!
Me:
Of course, I do not have an exact number, but there are thousands of us. Without knowledge and competence in the climate field, I wonder how you get an "impression"?
Stig:
Well, I've certainly followed the discussion about the climate for more than 30 years, so I'm not completely without knowledge.
Me:
The most important opposition debate to the IPCC has taken place and is taking place in the scientific media. If you're not there, you completely miss the evidence that is presented about all the mistakes and shortcomings of the IPCC. In Norway, almost all public channels and MSM are closed to counterarguments against the IPCC.
Stig: Why are they closed to counterarguments?
Me: Because the public sector in Norway, including NRK, (The Norwegian Broadcasting), believes that the IPCC owns the truth. Both NRK and journalists have decided that they will support the IPCC and The Green Deal, and not allow opponents to get in. CICERO (a Norwegian Climate research Institute) has decided that the researchers there will not discuss with climate realists. Norwegian
Newspapers such asAftenposten, Dagbladet and VG, as well as forskning.no do not accept counterarguments. Even Facebook deletes posts that they perceive as too strong an opposition to the specific, correct view. The Norwegian National EducationAuthority has incorporated this into the school curricula. Students must learn to counteract man-made climate change.
This is the official Norwegian position on the climate issue. Is it strange that it is pointed out that human rights are being violated?
My comments:
He admits that he didn’t know about the missing climate debate and that freedom of expression is threatened. This is a very big problem in Norway now. What kind of «following» he has been involved with for 30 years is a bit questionable.
Another astonishing detail is that Stig was a political candidate during the Norwegian election for the Parliament. (September 8th). He was fighting for a seat, without knowing about the catastrophic situation of the missing climate debate and that nearly all channels for freedom of expression are closed for opinions against the IPCC's messages.
He claims that he has followed climate questions for 30 years, without catching the critical social situation. This is even worse than not being able to understand Climate Science.
Stig failed to obtain a seat in Parliament.
I have disseminated climate questions to politicians and official organization members for many years. My main task has been to ensure that the representatives should not be allowed to answer: «I do not know. » I have been told, time after time, that my dissemination was wasted. The representatives will not understand. That is acceptable, but they should be informed! Thus, the question raised toward Stig is just about that. «You are not allowed to be uninformed. »
This is what Stig revealed, quite extraordinarily. His lack of knowledge is sensational.