Essential viewing for all !!

HAVE YOU SEEN ALL OF THE DOCUMENTARIES ON THE LIST BELOW?

THEY REVEAL WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT WHATS BEEN GOING ON IN THE CANCER INDUSTRY: GET CLUED UP NOW AND SAVE A LIFE!

(Scroll down for full-length FREE to watch documentaries)
.
--------------------------------------------------
- T R A I L E R S / P R E V I E W S:
--------------------------------------------------
.
CANCER is curable NOW •TRAILER• (2m19s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv3fiCbPrhc
.
• Cancer the Forbidden Cures •TRAILER• (3m32s)
http://youtu.be/EtjvbE9w58A
.
• One Answer To Cancer •TRAILER• (2m33s)
http://youtu.be/ogQwAxiQ2iU
.
• Cut Poison Burn •TRAILER• (3m33s)
http://youtu.be/SCmr2OGmMDQ
.
• ReThinking Cancer •TRAILER• (2m26s)
http://youtu.be/1egMi82eZew
.
• FoodMatters - The Gerson Therapy for Cancer Explained •TRAILER• (1m56s)
http://youtu.be/ShqKk3fasZA
.
• Healing Cancer from the Inside Out •TRAILER• (4m43s)
http://youtu.be/_xkyMAYmrQY
.
• Gerson •TRAILER• (3m37s)
http://youtu.be/uZ2hHv1_8sM
.
• The Gerson Testimonials •TRAILER• •(5m18s)
http://youtu.be/g_3YBJjvhCc
.
• The Beautiful Truth •TRAILER• (2m48s)
http://youtu.be/n2E_pL9EsMc
.
• The Beautiful Truth •TRAILER1• (3m41s)
http://youtu.be/bF7boUEKnOI
.
•Burzynski the movie •TRAILER• (3m03s)
http://youtu.be/-lXgnb6tdBY
.
•Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead •TRAILER• (5m24s)
http://youtu.be/Gv3vEXy_EwU
.
•Forks Over Knives-#1 •TRAILER• (2m11s)
http://youtu.be/O7ijukNzlUg
.
•Forks Over Knives-#2 •TRAILER• (2m55s)
https://youtu.be/vPJbYAYzP04
.
•Dying to Have Known •TRAILER• (10m29s)
http://youtu.be/OEPRoMGidNE
.
•Pink Ribbons, Inc. •TRAILER• (2m08s)
https://vimeo.com/147490969
.
-
----------------------------------------
Links to Free FULL Documentaries:
----------------------------------------
.
•CANCER is curable NOW •FULL Documentary• (1h49m)
https://youtu.be/0R7K3OhaYLs
.
•Cancer the Forbidden Cures •FULL Documentary• (1h13m)
https://youtu.be/BTGye7kA6rM
.
• One Answer To Cancer •FULL Documentary• (1h37m)
https://youtu.be/eyPSHzJDEqo
.
•Cured Too: A Cancer Story: A Film By David Triplett•(9m15s)
https://youtu.be/b6efiEBtWng
.
•Run From The Cure •FULL Documentary• (58m02s)
https://youtu.be/mQc_-myy4ts
.
•Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead •FULL Documentary •FULL Documentary• (1h34m)
https://youtu.be/V-WUP5psyuM
.
•Dying to Have Known •FULL Documentary• (1h19m)
http://youtu.be/xVeyHsC4P20
.
•Burzynski the movie •FULL Documentary• (1h47m)
http://vimeo.com/24821365
.
•The Gerson Miracle •FULL Documentary• (1h31m)
https://youtu.be/ZRIb7RzYOpA

•G. Edward Griffen: A World Without Cancer •FULL Documentary• (55m)
http://youtu.be/R3NNLs8llAY
.
•The Cancer Report •FULL Documentary• (1h19m)
http://youtu.be/WnaBG177VIw
.
•The Beautiful Truth •FULL Documentary• (1h31m)
https://youtu.be/jAlHt_bLESc


Follow Not On The Beeb for stuff the BBC forgot and join our NOTB chat group to add your comment.
 
www.notonthebeeb.co.uk

THE GUARDIAN: "Climate crisis"

"Heat denial: influencers question validity of high temperatures"

"Tweet viewed millions of times claimed ground temperature was being confused with air temperature"

"As thermometers creep upwards, it has become harder and harder to deny the reality of the climate crisis. Some, however, are questioning whether temperatures are being measured properly in the first place.

In a tweet seen millions of times, the influencer Robin Monotti said in July that media outlets were repeating a report from the European Space Agency (ESA) that confused air temperature with ground temperature, which is generally higher.

Commentators have also repeatedly attacked the weather maps themselves, saying the colours have been changed to make them more alarmist. Monotti calls them “psychedelic coloured psyops”, while another Twitter user posted a heatwave map of Spain with the caption: “Now they have to colour the map as if we were in hell itself.”

It is true that the UK’s Met Office has changed the colour scheme of its temperature maps in recent years, and the more vivid colours are intended to make the maps easier for those with colour-blindness and generally simpler to interpret.

But in other cases, people put maps from different European sources side by side to give the misleading impression that new, alarming colour schemes had been adopted. Versions of the claim have circulated in English, German, Spanish, French, Hungarian and Polish.

Asked to comment, Monotti reiterated that one of the Sardinian weather stations was not to WMO standards. “In the case of the Jerzu temperatures quoted, the station was positioned near a road, and photos of it showed overgrown wild grass growing very high right below it, which can trap heat and therefore is not according to WMO regulations.”

Monotti added that the most important factors for current warming were the eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai underwater volcano in January 2022, the Schwabe solar cycle of 11 years, and the Eddy solar cycle of 1,000 years.

He said: “CO2 has negligible effects on climate, as the main greenhouse gas is water vapour, accounting to 95% of all greenhouse gases and having the greatest effect on climate, and the cloud cover is the Earth’s self-regulating climate valve, and is what determines how much solar radiation reaches the surface.”

These statements do not accord with the reports published by the International Panel on Climate Change, which is composed of the world’s leading climate scientists."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/07/why-climate-deniers-are-wrong-validity-heat-measurements

6th September 2023
9:24 am

Hi,

I'm a London-based freelance writing a piece about the recent European heatwave for The Guardian newspaper.

I saw your Twitter comments on this and would be interested to hear what your views are now -

-do you think the high temperatures during the heatwave were overstated, and are there are specific cases you would like to highlight?

-you mention that temperatures of 40C were normal in Rome when you are growing up, was this an extreme summer high or was it a regular occurrence?

Any comments would be much appreciated, we would like to run the piece today to it would be good to hear back by 2 pm.

Many thanks,
David Hambling.  



6th September 2023
13:11

Hi David

Please see replies below:

-The peak temperatures I questioned came from relatively new randomly placed agricultural stations in Italy, specifically in Sardinia. Not World Meteorological Association approved stations. This is important for two reasons: the first is that many of these agricultural stations are not regularly maintained, and are not carefully positioned according to WMO regulations. In the case of the Jerzu temperatures quoted, the station was positioned near a road, and photos of it showed overgrown wild grass growing very high right below it, which can trap heat and therefore is not according to WMO regulations. The second reason is that to claim a highest temperature you need a station with a long track record. If a relatively new station is positioned in a very hot location, let’s say a location where heat gets trapped, a claim of highest recorded temperature has no validity, because there is no previous recorded temperature in the same exact location to compare it with. This applied to many of the readings which claimed a highest temperature ever, especially the Jerzu one in Sardinia, but others too.

-A few examples: highest recorded temperatures in WMO approved Roma Urbe station in any month are: June: 1982 with 40.5, July: 1983 with 40, August 2000 with 40.4. So you can see we had at least two consecutive years with highest recorded temperatures in the 40s in 1982 and 1983.

The most important factors for current warming are:
1. The eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga underwater volcano in January 2022, sending 10% extra water vapour in the stratosphere, which is the most significant single addition of greenhouse gases to the stratosphere in recorded history.
2. The Schwabe solar cycle of 11 years, leading to a peak of solar activity in 2024, when the sun’s magnetic poles will flip, and solar activity will start decreasing.
3. The Eddy solar cycle of 1,000 years, which is in a warming cycle phase. This cycle started in 700 AD for the Medieval Warming Period, and in around 1700 for the Modern Warming Period.

CO2 has negligible effects on climate, as the main greenhouse gas is water vapour, acounting to 95% of all green house gases and having the greatest effect on climate, and the cloud cover is the Earth’s self regulating climate valve, and is what determines how much solar radiation reaches the surface.

In terms of temperatures, a survey in the US found that 95% of weather stations do not fulfil WMO requirements, mainly because of the urban heat island effect, the stations are positioned in urban centres which trap heat.

Please note I am a qualified architect specialized in biourbanism and sustainability..

Best regards

Robin

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1699793453155230004

Over 44,000 Extra Deaths Now Registered in England and Wales in 2023 vs 2019 - Data is Per ONS - Data includes Week 1 to 34 (week ending 25th August 2023)

Almost 200 extra people dying per day.

Over 200 extra people under the age of 64 years now dying per week

Table shows extra deaths by age group

Link to ONS Data:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

This ONS data was released on 5th September 2023

Previous update: https://t.me/lawyersoflight/12158

Deaths Registered to date in England and Wales in 2023 versus the equivalent 5 year average.

Data includes Weeks 1 to 34 (up to and including the week ending 25th August 2023) and is produced by ONS

Table shows what the ONS defines as "excess deaths" i.e. almost 25,000 "excess deaths" (7% increase) registered in 2023 over and above the 5 year average.

Overwhelmingly more of these "excess deaths"are occurring at home but deaths in every setting are higher.

Link to ONS Data:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

This ONS data was released on 5th September 2023

Last update :https://t.me/lawyersoflight/12166

With Ma$k mandates and overall Covid madness returning, it might be a good time to revisit one of our first banned YouTube montages from 2021 in this clusterchaos of the COVID coup d'etat.

Next time around speak out louder and longer because the censorship is about to escalate and the tyrants will be bolder with their boots in our faces if we comply.


The video had a disclaimer but YouTube still banned it, because Google is actually a mental gulag.

Pursue HEALTH
Resist TYRANNY
@freedomtirade

My climate heresy that got me labelled as a "heat denier" 🤷‍♂️ in today's Guardian. IPCC not happy.

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1699870427546272209

Robin Monotti on The Freeman Report with James Freeman - 7 September 2023

https://tntradiolive.podbean.com/e/robin-monotti-on-the-freeman-report-with-james-freeman-7-september-2023/

I talked to James Freeman about the New Zealand release of River of Freedom film, and about why we should keep our focus on the issue of freedom and human rights, rather than get sidetracked by arguments which will only give ammunition to those who already suspect us of being irrational conspiracy theorists who can't hold a rational conversation which covers all sides respectfully.

"FAO Dr. Jonathan Engler (HART)

There seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding about my letter of which I would like to clarify. Admittedly, after re-reading the message sent to HART quoted below, I sense how you may have got the impression that I was "still trying to misrepresent our position" as stated in your reply.  

"However, more recently I've been very concerned with the organisations move towards 'no virus/no viruses' theories and proponents, within the contents of articles, posts, interviews etc. and in particular, some of the views from co-chair Dr. Jonathan Engler."      

My apologies, I should have been more specific there. My concern is not that HART members or yourself hold 'no virus/no viruses' positions, as you had already made it very clear that personally you don't, and in fact to be fair within the first paragraph of the letter I have directly referred to that:

"Thanks for summarising your personal views, the nuances and details of your groups position*, and for pointing out the members mentioned have not made 'no virus' claims"
 
Specifically, what I meant by concerns about "the organisations move towards 'no virus/no viruses' theories and proponents" is HART's Twitter post of your 'The Illusive Pandemic' interview with Patrick Henningsen  and a prior post on Sars-Cov-2 genetic sequencing retweeted via his account.

https://twitter.com/21WIRE/status/1690738882826915840
https://twitter.com/hartgroup_org/status/1689340284910325760

It's not my intent to misrepresent you or HART of holding 'no virus/no viruses' positions. Although I do think it is necessary to highlight these cases as I believe HART needs to be careful about the possible negative outcomes of associations with 'no virus/no viruses' proponents as often featured in Patrick Henningsen's radio programs, website and social media with guests, articles and videos etc.

Incidentally, please note I have sent a letter to Patrick Henningsen raising various questions on 'no virus/no viruses' issues and his position that was posted on Robin Monotti's Twitter account, and have yet to receive a reply. I will also add that I've been a follower of Patrick Henningsen's media work for years and have agreed with much of his reporting and analysis during Covid. However, I was very surprised by his wholesale move into 'no virus/no viruses' camps, when I would argue a more balanced approach as a facilitator would be appropriate. Also, recent comments attempting to discredit medical freedom figures/groups with vague accusations has been a big disappointment.  

I would again like to emphasise that I have the up-most respect for all of the campaign and media work HART has done, as essentially my main concern is how the good reputation it has built-up could potentially be damaged and affect this work. Because let's be honest, MSM and social media generally over-simplify, ignore nuances, and make accusations using 'guilt by association' and 'labelling' tactics. News reports, posts etc. are often framed in 'black and white' terms, perhaps even more so since Covid. I know that HART experienced similar tactics with a previous 'hacking' incident. Therefore, please be fully aware of the realistic expectation that your reputations could be discredited by being conflated with 'no virus/no viruses' views, and so I urge caution on this matter.


In his 'Notice To The No Virus Theorist's' post, Robin outlined scenarios of how associations with 'no virus/no viruses' theories could be used by authorities to shut down other MFM groups during a future incident, providing examples of possible outcomes that I am asking HART members and yourself to consider. Not to cause alarm, but raise awareness so these situations can be avoided.

Unfortunately, your reply with claims of "straw manning" and "mis-characterisation" misread the target audience and aims, but comments since seem to confirm this misunderstanding. However, I hope it's now clear that Robin's and my intention is not to misrepresent your position or HART's.

Other than the points already addressed, the intentions of the letter are summarised as follows:

1. Point out that a person referenced in your reply, Dr. Mike Yeadon, has made 'no virus/no viruses' conclusions. Also, to point out that Prof. Denis Rancourt, influential with similar 'no pandemic' data analyses, has made 'no virus/no viruses' conclusions also. I say 'conclusions' for their work is often presented as definite conclusions, not scientific hypotheses, as was quoted in the examples given. The purpose here was to highlight the views of these influential persons and ask for your opinions.

2. Focus your attention on the analytical error that such over-simplistic conclusions have noticeably excluded key evidence of numerous MD's and patient reports, and also the distinct pathophysiology and symptoms of Sars-Cov-2. Arguing for proponents to acknowledge this solid medical evidence. I asked for your assessment of this situation and the scientific/medical supporting evidence given.

3. Similarly, I focused on the 'disconnect' between MD's with extensive experience and knowledge of treating Covid, and those excluding, under-estimating and denying evidence who likely do not. Included were links to two informative articles by an MD reporting on his experiences of Covid in context of the 'no virus' debate. Again it was my purpose to ask for your opinions on these issues.

As a side note, regarding your post requesting evidence before Spring 2020, can I ask why you are asking for evidence on Twitter, have you not conducted research with experienced doctors directly?    

https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/1692109495248343422
   
4. Raise the issue that 'no virus/no viruses' conclusions could have serious 'real-life' consequences and implications by influencing health decisions, affecting preparedness for future incidents and public health generally. Arguing for those making such claims to act more responsibly. As a medical and legal professional, the aim here was to ask you for both perspectives on this important issue.  

On this point, Robin and myself have sought to highlight a central lesson to be learned from Covid, that being the essential need for public preparedness with early/home treatments. These truly safe and effective protocols were a global success story by reducing illness, hospitalisations and deaths. Many more lives could have survived, recovered and have symptoms lessened if these doctors were not censored and treatments suppressed for the criminal intents of 'creating demand' and 'preparing populations' for mass vaccinations. These criminals need to be held to account, and there is lots of evidence, such as being openly caught-out with the 'Surgisphere' scandal. So rather than discredit early treatments and the 'real progress' of the doctors who developed them, as yourself and others including Patrick Henningsen have tried, instead focus on the blatant criminality of what occurred. Contact and question doctors directly before the assumptions, claims and casting doubts in public posts, interviews etc. The discrediting of others may be seen as an attempt to appear more credible.

5. Unfortunately, the questionable behaviour of various 'no virus/no viruses' groups and their influence of other MFM groups has become a problematic issue that needs to be resolved. Robin and myself have addressed this by arguing these tactics are counter-productive by dividing MFM groups into opposing camps, undermining 'real progress' made to counter medical tyranny and totalitarianism, while wasting valuable time, energy and attention that could be better used on urgent, higher priority and shared goals. Also, the overall strategy is unlikely to 'win the argument' and convince the majority, especially with such polarising, antagonistic and aggressive behaviour. To the extent, Robin and myself suspect if this 'debate' has also been co-opted to destabilise the 'freedom movement' via 'cognitive infiltration' methods, as observed with past events such as 9/11 and now with Covid, as insiders have revealed tactics used on groups, journalists and the public.

To be clear though, I believe those I've mentioned have the right intentions, but are generally too certain in their conclusions. With that said, the questions in the letter were to ask for your opinion and possible concerns about this situation and its affects in your work and groups such as HART. You make criticisms of others positions on Twitter, so do you have any criticisms on this subject?  

6. Question the conclusions of 'no virus/no pandemic' figures such as Prof. Denis Rancourt and others who under-estimate or negate the existence of Sars-Cov-2 as a bio-agent and bio-warfare capabilities/strategies generally. Arguing that an advanced knowledge of this field is essentially required before any informed conclusions can be reached. There is an acceptance by 'no virus' groups to consider vaccines as bio-weapons, but not in regards to Sars-Cov-2, when for example shared characteristics such as pathogenic Spike Protein related symptoms and side-effects exist.

Yes I agree, there are still many unknowns and questions about how Sars-Cov-2 and 'variants' have spread unlike the 'official narratives' and 'typical respiratory diseases'. Regarding the 'lab leak' narratives, perhaps that is a 'red herring' as you suggest, and it is more useful to reframe this into a wider 'lab origins' concept with possibly multiple locations including the 'variants'. Also, there is evidence the timeline of circulations globally could possibly go back to early 2019 or before that. My point is to focus on what is known using the Spike Protein similarity as an example, rather than discard this evidence as it does not fit with various theories on what is at present largely unknown.

Frankly, I believe most people cannot know to a high level of certainty about advanced bio-warfare research or capabilities and so under-estimating the risks is not useful and can lead to greater risks via a 'false sense of security' and lack of preparedness. I completely understand the points you and others have made on the need to reduce levels of fear, as that is a central part of the perpetrators strategy. However, there are still things needed to be vigilant about and prepared for, and by raising awareness of potential risks, fear is then reduced by the ability to recognise and respond to them. The exploitation of ignorance due to a lack of awareness via media disinformation tactics and so on as evident in the suppression of early treatments, while forcing vaccines as the 'only way out' to regain 'freedom' from authoritarian policies, was a central part of the criminal strategy also. These criminals are still at work, so I argue that vigilance is crucial to prevent any further crimes planned.

Returning to the letter, I notice you have commented on questioning the role of Sars-Cov-2 as a bioweapon, so again my intention was to raise these points and ask for your opinion on them.  
 
7. Finally, the letter aimed to convey what I believe is a different and useful way of thinking about the 'pandemic' in terms of looking beyond arguably over-simplistic binary 'real vs fake' conclusions, and examining a more complex array of both 'real and fake' aspects occurring. Relating to this concept, I will refer to and comment on your summary of the 'establishment pandemic narrative':
         
"The establishment pandemic narrative is that:

(1) a NOVEL and (2) LETHAL virus (3) EMERGED FROM WUHAN, (4) SPREAD ACROSS THE WORLD thereby (5) DIRECTLY causing (6) MORE DEATHS than the usual mix of respiratory pathogens.

Either what we were told is true or it isn't.  For it to be true, every part has to be true. There's no half-way house here.

If any of the 6 parts of the story are false, we need to look elsewhere when trying to write the history of what happened in 2020.

You seem to want to discourage people from doing that, which I don't understand.

As for the interrogation about other people's views, please ask them.  I have set out my view - including the limits of what I think we know and don't know."

Regarding the main points, I think I've explained my views towards these generally, though there is of course many more aspects that could be discussed in greater depth and detail. On the 'what we were told is true or it isn't' question, my quick answer is - of course it's not all true, it's mostly 'fake'! Mixed with elements that are 'real'. Covid has been one of the biggest, if not the biggest propaganda operation in history! Brought to you by the producers of 9/11 and the 'War on Terrorism'. Flipping the script from the spectre of ISIS to the 'bond movie' like villain WEF frontman Klaus Schwab who is overtly open about the conveniently timed plans to transform societies towards 'technocracy' agendas via the Covid operation. Blackrock's 'Going Direct' financial strategies, corporate sector and Big Tech gains, 'wealth transfer' and the economic warfare of lockdowns were a key part also.

These presentations provide far more details in the context of 9/11 as a useful frame of reference:

Parallels between 9/11 and Covid – Kevin Ryan
https://www.bitchute.com/video/sibEg8S9KU8i/

Richard Gage: 9/11, COVID9/11, & Crime Scene to Courtroom
https://rumble.com/v2t6b8u-richard-gage-911-covid911-and-crime-scene-to-courtroom.html

Paul Schreyer: Pandemic simulation games – Preparation for a new era?
https://wissen-ist-relevant.de/vortrage/paul-schreyer-pandemic-simulation-games-preparation-for-a-new-era/

Of course the threats of infection, lethality and fatalities etc. were massively exaggerated by media disinformation, data manipulation and so on to ramp up the fear levels to extremes, force through authoritarian lockdowns, policies and 'create demand' for the vaccines, of which were the second phase and main target of the operation. The first phase being the Sars-Cov-2 bio-agent, of which knowledge of the lab origins, timelines, circulations etc. as was touched upon is limited at present.

This was further exploited by co-ordinated 'catalytic events' such as in NYC, Bergamo, Madrid etc. that were needed to launch the planned 'global response', as 'Event 201' event set the stage for along with a number of other previous 'simulations'. In very broad terms, the 'real' effects of Sars-Cov-2 provided the necessary scientific/medical basis, though again events were manipulated of course. However, there were significant public health impacts in various countries, further compounded by the impacts of lockdowns, medical mistreatment and suppression of early treatments. Also, on top of this were many pre-planned 'fake' aspects such as mass-testing and data manipulation that played a central role in inflating fatality and 'case' numbers for creating false perceptions of a 'pandemic'.

As you well know there are of many more angles and details to cover, but I hope that's enough to give you an outline of the hypothesis I am proposing, also in regards to explaining the concept of analysing both 'real' and 'fake' aspects. So yes I agree, the 'establishment narratives' are mostly misleading and false, as are the aims of psychological propaganda operations, and yes there is a 'need to look elsewhere', while thinking about the overall situation differently as I have argued.  

I am not 'discouraging people' people to consider your views, but I am questioning them as in the spirit of proper investigative journalism, scientific enquiry and public debate, of which is not often practiced in the media. I'm not going to simply agree with everything and ask 'softball' questions, but ask difficult and important questions than need to be discussed for getting closer to the truth, raising public awareness and ultimately preventing these crimes from happening again in future.
   
I have copied in a number of relevant professionals to encourage wider public debate on the issues.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Hall"

There’s an anonymous person calling themselves “Transcriber B”, who selects what they judge to be important interviews or statements & does their best to create a readable written version.
Thank you, Transcriber B!
Readers will notice that only a year ago, I held different views than I now do about the alleged virus.
It doesn’t change the thrust of the piece, because the criticisms of official responses would, if anything, be much more robust today than say back in 2022.
We’ve all been lied to and then intentionally harmed and some killed by the alleged vaccines.
There’s a zero % chance that this is sheer bad luck.
No. It’s intentional. I have no doubt whatsoever about that.
In the unlikely event that anyone is on the fence & might be persuaded by written argument, please consider sending them this.
With best wishes
Mike

https://transcriberb.dreamwidth.org/32387.html

I don’t know whether you can read this article, hence the meat of it is copied below.

Best wishes
Mike

Dr Brown warned that climate scientists often used irrelevant metrics to create “eye-popping numbers” or used time periods that are not relevant to modern societies.

And he said he had discovered it was “taboo” to mention that global warming was often mitigated by changes in technology and resilience.

“The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative,” he said.

“Why did I focus exclusively on the impact of climate change? I wanted the research to get as widely disseminated as possible, and thus I wanted it to be published in a high-impact journal.

“When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula I outlined here, my papers were promptly rejected out of hand by the editors of high-profile journals without even going to peer review.”

He added: “This type of framing, where the influence of climate change is unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers.

“It is standard practice to calculate impacts for scary hypothetical future warming scenarios that strain credibility while ignoring potential changes to technology and resilience that would lessen the impact.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230907092122/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/06/global-warming-climate-change-scientist-unrealistic-nature/