Este es el episodio No 40 y el duodécimo de la segunda temporada de nuestro podcast en la que me refiero a lo que considero han sido dos grandes fraudes científicos: la declaración del DDT como un producto altamente tóxico y de gran peligrosidad para el ser humano, que llevó a la prohibición de su uso, y las manifestaciones de la existencia de un cambio climático peligroso, causado por el ser humano.
El material presentado aquí es el producto de una investigación del tema que realicé durante 5 años y que tengo consignado en mi libro: Los dos grandes fraudes científicos de los siglos XX y XXI.
En este episodio voy a tratar de presentar las posibles razones de por qué los promotores del paradigma del calentamiento global producido por el ser humano nunca se han mostrado dispuestos a revisar y discutir sus propuestas en una discusión abierta y honesta, a pesar de la gran cantidad de evidencia científica que las cuestiona.
El contenido central de lo presentado en este episodio se encuentra debidamente referenciado en mi libro: Los dos grandes fraudes científicos de los Siglos XX y XXI. A continuación presento algunas citas adicionales.
LA VERDAD SOBRE EL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO_EL NEGOCIO DE LA ONU
https://www.independentsentinel.com/scientist-admits-key-metric-used-to-terrorize-us-of-climate-catastrophe-is-just-a-symbol/
Lo presentado actualmente y lo que presentaré en el futuro, pueden encontrarlo de manera más detallada en mi libro: LOS DOS GRANDES FRAUDES CIENTIFICOS DE LOS SIGLOS XX y XXI. Este lo pueden adquirir como libro físico, o como ebook haciendo click en uno de los enlaces anteriores, según sea el caso.
Los invito a suscribirse a mi sitio web donde podrán acceder a nuestro podcast y a mucha otra información de interés. Este lo pueden encontrar también en los directorios de Apple podcast; de spotify y todos los mayores directorios de podcasts.
Pueden enviar sus comentarios y observaciones a través de mi sitio web, así como a mi correo electrónico estebanmoralesvk@gmail.com
presentation and introduction 0:00
As usual, before I start on climate change, I'll update a few things on COVID.
I believe that listeners are already well aware of what was revealed to the European Commission, by the Pfizer representative herself, regarding the absolute lack of knowledge about the efficacy of their product at the time it began to be applied to the world population. Well, actually this is not new.
Already since 2021, whistleblowe or hidden witnesses had denounced the deficiency and fraud related to clinical trials; a US Senate commission has since also revealed numerous serious drug effects, including deaths; prestigious scientists had denounced the company's miscalculation of efficacy; Epidemiological studies after another indicated and continue to indicate the increase in serious illness and deaths among the vaccinated, rates that are higher than in the unvaccinated; the effect of lowering the immune capacity in vaccinated people had been proven; etc. But finally, some studies had already proven the lack of efficacy in preventing the transmission of the disease.
What is new is that the company has already had to accept it.
What is also new is that the rest of the world is already knowing all this, and that those who had been denouncing it, practically in hiding, including my podcast humbly, are no longer alone.
It should be clarified that all these deficiencies do not belong only to Pfizer's vaccines, but to all mRNA vaccines, since they all have the same mechanism of action.
Let's now turn to the climate change fraud
Hello, welcome to the 40th episode of our GREATEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUD podcast, and the twelfth of our second season.
I am your host, Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.
In the previous 4 episodes I described in simple terms the works carried out by eminent scientists where they question with powerful scientific evidence the "paradigm of global warming caused by human beings". This, surprisingly, has never induced the promoters of the paradigm to review and discuss their proposals in an open and honest discussion, but rather continue to cling to their findings despite the large amount of scientific evidence that questions them. In this episode I will try to present the possible causes of this.
The dogma of climate change 3:28
In episode 36 I quoted the words of Patrick Moore, one of the founders of the Green Peace movement, who referred to the man-made global warming paradigm as a scare campaign carried out by corrupt scientists. He also defines it as a scam. This is a scientist who earned his prestige for his training and his work.
This paradigm, as I have already explained, has been based on computer calculations and projections made before the advancement of work on artificial intelligence that, using the technology called artificial neural network, has advanced exponentially the quality and precision of the data showing us what we could expect in the future, based not on predictions using static mathematical variables, but on dynamic data of a reality that occurred in the past, which reflects the natural behavior of climatic dynamics.
Still, common sense tells us that the future cannot be predicted with complete certainty. This obvious thing, and the great accumulation of new scientific evidence, makes me wonder how it is possible that on the part of those who affirm so passionately that science must be believed, persist so dogmatically in their theories obtained by computational calculations with outdated technologies.
science means inquiry 5:24Doesn't the good faith on which the scientific spirit of the constant search for truth is based lead to the constant revision of hypotheses in the light of technological advances?
Why is there a stubbornness in closing the discussion and the search for new evidence, especially when the measures that are generated from these old theories put our economy and the socio-economic development of our populations at risk?
The defenders of the paradigm attack a lot saying that science must be followed, they insult those of us who propose other theories, telling us that we believe that the earth is square.
That is precisely what it is all about, following science means constantly inquiring and presenting new hypotheses in the light of new evidence. The scientists who initially advocated that the earth was square were notable scientists who presented their theories in light of the evidence at the time, and later, the presentation and analysis of the new evidence that was presented by virtue of new technologies that appeared, led to the correct finding.
Conclusions and farewell 7:04
My only explanation for this dilemma is that there is really no good faith because there are other agendas, which are not so hidden anymore.
Chilean environmental engineer Douglas Pollock refers to this. Let's listen.
Recording
Not available
In this quest for power, as Eng. Pollock describes it, they have no qualms about using others, especially the most vulnerable. This is the case of the Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg. A young woman with deep emotional problems, medically diagnosed, and whose condition makes her susceptible to manipulation. This young woman, who has been erected as a symbol against climate change, has managed to mobilize an important portion of the youth, which has been tremendously beneficial for the environmental movement, given the great sympathy that this age group tends to arouse in the population. . But in the meantime, this young woman has been put at enormous medical risk.
One thing I can say with certainty is that, given the weight of the evidence, the advocates of the aforementioned paradigm find it increasingly difficult to maintain it. But the reaction is the adoption of a cynical behavior.
Jeff Berardelli, weather specialist and meteorologist for the CBS news company. In an interview he said that in the next 5 years a T° of 1.5 ° C would be reached, which would be temporary, since it would occur because other natural phenomena would be added and then it would drop. But this would not suddenly lead us to a cataclysm. that this marker (1.5°C) would simply be a symbol indicating that things were not being done well and that things would get worse in the future.
Then the interviewer asks him why he says that this T° would be a symbolic marker and without any cheekiness he then admitted that the key measure that scientists use to warn about the dangers of climate change, which is set at 1.5 ° C, is not testable science. It is arbitrarily chosen. they just chose him, he ended by saying.
Not only is the behavior cynical, but it moves further and further away from the very science that they have claimed to be its apostles.
In the interim, in addition to the depression caused in people and young people like Greta Thunberg, a lot of suffering is being caused, especially in less developed countries by forcing them to sacrifice their economic development for the sake of a fallacy. I will talk about this economic impact later in another episode.