It's long been my view that the United Nations buildings in New York City should be transformed into Trump hotels and a giant Chick-fil-A, and the more Antonio Guterres talks the stronger my opinion on that gets.
First off though I'll share one of my favorite quotes, and you might have seen it before, but Michael Crichton had the best rebuttal to anybody who talks about "a consensus of scientists" like the climate cultists do:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. 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. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
And yet "consensus of scientists" is considered a scientific argument from the Left, but last year John Stossel pointed out how that "consensus" is manufactured and meaningless:
World leaders gather in Dubai for #COP28, the UN climate summit. Expect the usual doom and gloom.
— John Stossel (@JohnStossel) November 30, 2023
It would be more productive if they all watched this video with climate scientist Judith Curry.
She reveals the “manufactured consensus” about climate change: pic.twitter.com/D8OSQYsjxn
Earlier this month the election of Donald Trump caused a panic on the Left, not just in the U.S. but around the world. Among those who's afraid the money spigot is going to be turned off is U.N. Secretary General Guterres, who laughably calls the transfer of wealth ostensibly to fight man-made global warming "climate finance." It couldn't get more Orwellian.
Climate finance is not a hand-out.
— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) November 22, 2024
It’s an investment against the devastation that unchecked climate chaos will inflict on us all.
It’s a downpayment on a safer, more prosperous future for every nation on Earth.#COP29
"Give us all your money and we'll make the weather better" is as culty as it can get. The fact that so many people fall for it is disturbing, but at least the U.S. woke up on election day.
"A surge in climate finance is essential":
We need a major push to get discussions at the climate conference in Baku over the finishing line.
— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) November 22, 2024
We need #COP29 to deliver an ambitious and balanced package on all pending issues, with a new finance goal at its heart.
A surge in climate finance is essential.
This guy needs to be told to eff off in the strongest possible terms. Some European countries and maybe some in the Western Hemisphere will agree to be fleeced as usual but at least the U.S. has an incoming president who won't perpetuate the scam.
Honest question. Does anyone at all trust this guy? https://t.co/iS4Yyc0mzQ
— HorseMeatIceCream 🐴🥩🧊🍨 (@Toky02) November 23, 2024
The only people who do are already in on the sham or clueless dupes.
This is pretty much my view as well:
Ha, good one
— Your Highness Chrispy (@candyisyummy333) November 23, 2024
DEFUND THESE BITCHES https://t.co/rhbj7kbl9h
When they're not focused on giving aid and comfort to terrorists, the U.N. is pushing climate change shams.
