Even from the algore Global Warming debacle circa 20 years or so ago. , this thing has been a left wing political red herring. The 10% of competent climatologist spoke first against the scam, were derided, and made pariahs. The rest saw that, and cowered in fear, and thus drank the koolaid.
We are only now starting to get details of what amounts to a false flag left wing operation, whose whole goal in the first place was wealth redistrubiton to the 3rd world.
I was one of the signatories to the Petition Project
http://www.petitionproject.org/ back when the Kyoto Accords were being considered.
The petition and the signatories were attacked in the media, even though there were over 31,000 of us, the lies about "consensus" and "97%" persisted in the media. Those of us who are scientists know that a majority does not determine who or what is correct; I have been the only person in the room with the right answer a few times. It is a difficult place to be, but sticking to your guns is the only way to prevail.
The 'new' element to all this is a media element driven by a profit based cabal which included the investors in the Midwest Carbon Exchange (Maurice Strong, George Soros, and Al Gore, et. al.), who stood to make trillions off speculation in 'carbon credits' IF laws were passed requiring industry to purchase those to offset emissions. In the meantime, farmers out this way gleefully cashed the checks for their 'carbon credits'...
Thankfully, that (The M.C.E.) fell through, but other ways were found to make 'going green' a lucrative goal, and there was plenty to fund the sorts of 'studies' which would indicate that that was not just the preferred action to take, but to fund a media driven effort to present that option as the only response to an anthropogenic existential threat--one which could be reduced or eliminated if you just sent your $19.00 per month and you even got the fuzzy toy or t-shirt (made by slave labor in a faraway place) to virtue signal with.
Finally, after decades, the lid is getting peeled back. 'peer review' is being reviewed, and the penumbra of censorship is being lifted as the 'alternatives' show themselves to be less than reliable when the energy is needed to be consistent--a far more imminent and greater existential threat, especially in winter, than the threat of being inundated by .01 mm/year of sea level rise.
