Dr Sircus

Natural Medicine
Author of 20+ books on CO₂, O₂, magnesium & healing

On Substack:
📬 Subscribe free to get new posts by email
💥 Paid: exclusive content

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

And I would pump in hydrogen and oxygen gas, with an inhalation machine, and a separate system to pump in to his body CO2 gas. I am just finishing writing a book on Carbon Dioxide - The Perfect Medicine. I hope somehow Tulsi gets this message and I am available to help with his recovery. Here is something I published today.
https://t.co/LJAVyd6wO2

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@DrCatharineY You are too in love with vaccines thus with modern pharmaceutical medicine.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

https://t.co/BYpxb5DaLc

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@TheDemocrats Yes they shot two hysterical Americans.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@Babywwir You look a bit white to me and no, what does color of the skin have to do with anything?

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@mazemoore Yes so clear his insanity here, his madness, hysteria and don't know what else to call it. Certainly stupid.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@SenSanders Maybe if we cut the US government down to size and temperament on both sides of the political spectrum the kids would stand a chance.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

I really doubt that this is really a UN account. Even they are not that stupid.
The IPCC Dissenters
The public was sold a slogan.

Thousands of scientists agree. The science is settled. The debate is over.

Then came the hundreds of dissenting scientists.

To list a mere fraction:

Robert Balling. Lucka Kajfez Bogataj. John Christy. Rosa Compagnucci. Richard Courtney. Judith Curry. Robert Davis. Willem de Lange. Chris de Freitas. Oliver Frauenfeld. Peter Dietze. John Everett. Eigil Friis-Christensen. Lee Gerhard. Indur Goklany. Vincent Gray. Mike Hulme. Kiminori Itoh. Yuri Izrael. Steven Japar. Georg Kaser. Aynsley Kellow. Madhav Khandekar. Hans Labohm. Andrew Lacis. Chris Landsea. Richard Lindzen. Harry Lins. Philip Lloyd. Martin Manning. Steven McIntyre. Patrick Michaels. Nils-Axel Morner. Johannes Oerlemans. Roger Pielke Sr. Paul Reiter. Murry Salby. Tom Segalstad. Fred Singer. Hajo Smit. Richard Tol. Tom Tripp. Gerd-Rainer Weber. David Wojick. Miklos Zagoni. Eduardo Zorita. William Happer.

Climatologists. Meteorologists. Oceanographers. Glaciologists. Geologists. Atmospheric physicists. Disease specialists. Economists. Statisticians. IPCC authors. IPCC reviewers. IPCC contributors. Former insiders.

Chris Landsea, a NOAA hurricane specialist, withdrew from the IPCC process in 2005: “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Judith Curry, former chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, refused to keep endorsing the process: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC, because I think I don’t have confidence in the process.”

Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, attacked the consensus slogan: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous.”

Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric physicist and former IPCC lead author, stated the real dispute: “Most scientists working on climate dynamics would agree that increasing levels of carbon dioxide should have some impact on climate. The real argument is over whether the impact will be significant.”

William Happer, Princeton physicist and former director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy, said: “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken.”

Paul Reiter, a disease specialist formerly with the CDC and later the Pasteur Institute, rejected the “settled science” line: “As for the claim that the science is ‘settled’, I find that a disgrace.”

Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, said: “I get an involuntary gag reflex when someone says the science on this is settled.”

The model critics were direct.

John Christy, atmospheric scientist and former IPCC lead author, has repeatedly argued that climate models run too hot against atmospheric observations.

Patrick Michaels, climatologist and former Virginia state climatologist, argued that observed warming rates had undermined the IPCC model suite.

Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, attacked the exclusion and downplaying of satellite temperature data.

Steven Japar, atmospheric scientist, pointed to the missing tropical mid-tropospheric hot spot predicted by many models.

Robert Davis, climatologist, criticized the mismatch between model projections and measured temperature change.

Tom Segalstad, geologist and IPCC reviewer, argued that the IPCC carbon-cycle model was not supported by observed data.

Peter Dietze, physicist, argued that the IPCC underestimated future CO2 uptake by the oceans.

Oliver Frauenfeld, climatologist, warned that “much more progress is still needed” in climate understanding and modelling.

The natural-variability critics hit the CO2-only story.

Eigil Friis-Christensen, Danish solar physicist, criticized the IPCC for neglecting solar influence.

Rosa Compagnucci, Argentine climate researcher, argued that solar activity was a key driver of climate change.

Kiminori Itoh, Japanese environmental chemist, said that considering greenhouse gases alone was “nonsense and harmful.”

Yuri Izrael, former IPCC vice-chair and Russian climatologist, rejected the panic: “There is no serious threat to the climate.”

Hajo Smit, Dutch meteorologist and former IPCC reviewer, pointed to a clear Sun-climate link and strong natural variability across historical timescales.

Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist, said he was “absolutely convinced” that the theory of human-caused global warming was incorrect.

Lee Gerhard, geologist and former state geologist of Kansas, said his review of the literature led him to conclude that the dominant warming claims were incorrect.

Gerd-Rainer Weber, German meteorologist, warned: “Most extremist views on climate change have little to no scientific basis.”

The critics pointed to solar activity, oceans, clouds, natural cycles, internal variability and unresolved feedbacks.

The sea-level, ocean and glacier critics exposed the same exaggeration.

Robert Balling, climatologist at Arizona State University, pointed to IPCC material stating that “no significant acceleration in sea level rise was observed in the 20th century.”

Willem de Lange, coastal and ocean scientist, objected to being counted among scientists supporting claims he rejected: “I did not.”

Nils-Axel Morner, Swedish sea-level specialist, rejected sea-level alarm: “If you go around the whole world, you see no sea level rise anywhere.”

John Everett, ocean and fisheries scientist formerly with NOAA, said: “It’s time for a reality check.” Oceans and coastal areas, he argued, have been much warmer and colder than the scenarios imply.

Georg Kaser, glaciologist and IPCC lead author, attacked the IPCC’s glacier error: “This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude.”

Johannes Oerlemans, glaciologist at Utrecht University, warned that the IPCC had become too political.

Sea level changes. This is permitted. Glaciers move. Oceans warm. Oceans cool.

The dissenters objected to exaggeration, missing context and certainty where the evidence was weaker than the headline.

The impact critics attacked the alarm.

Indur Goklany, policy analyst and former U.S. Interior Department official, argued that climate change was unlikely to be the most important environmental problem of the 21st century.

Madhav Khandekar, Canadian meteorologist and former Environment Canada scientist, rejected many predicted climate impacts as exaggerated and unsupported.

Tom Tripp, IPCC reviewer and industrial chemist, said: “There is so much natural variability in the weather that it is difficult to reach a scientifically substantiated conclusion that global warming is caused by humans.”

David Wojick, science and energy policy analyst, attacked alarmism driven by computer models and interest groups.

Richard Courtney, energy and climate analyst, said the empirical evidence indicated that the human-caused warming hypothesis was wrong.

Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and long-time IPCC reviewer, called the IPCC climate statement “an orchestrated litany of lies.”

The process critics attacked the machine.

Steven McIntyre, statistician, called the popular “consensus of thousands of scientists” claim exaggerated and misleading.

Richard Tol, economist and former IPCC author, criticized the IPCC for attracting political actors and allowing activist influence.

Roger Pielke Sr., climate scientist and former IPCC contributor, said his comments were ignored without response.

Eduardo Zorita, climate scientist at the Helmholtz Centre, warned that alternative studies and interpretations were being pressured and intimidated.

Aynsley Kellow, political scientist and IPCC reviewer, said the process had a fatal flaw: there was no realistic chance that a flawed chapter would ever be rejected.

Martin Manning, climate scientist and former IPCC technical support head, warned that government delegates could distort or contradict lead authors in the Summary for Policymakers.

Philip Lloyd, energy researcher and IPCC reviewer, said he had found examples where the Summary for Policymakers claimed the opposite of what the underlying science said.

Hans Labohm, economist and former IPCC reviewer, called the Summary for Policymakers a product of “spin doctoring.”

Andrew Lacis, NASA climate scientist and IPCC reviewer, no skeptic of greenhouse warming, still condemned summary language as having “no scientific value whatsoever.”

The public was told there was no dispute.

There was.

The public was told thousands spoke with one voice.

They did not.

The public was told the IPCC was science.

It was science filtered through government approval.

The consensus was sold as a wall.

These names show the cracks.

Credit to Electroverse

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@SenRonJohnson The American government committed crimes against its own people.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@RWMaloneMD @HighWireTalk Kissing cousins with chlorine dioxide.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@femalebodybuil6 99

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@_josephine0_ Not nice to reduce women to their pussies.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@Maga4liberty Smart

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@AntiWokeMemes medical/pharmaceutical terrorism

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@SenSanders Burnie you get the right to speak such things if you stick your neck out and help put a stop to the mass murder of Americans with mRNA shots. Until then you are a hypocrit.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@ABridgen So true, and they are guilty of mass murder. What a wonderful world we live in.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@TrumpsHurricane Yeah and get rid of the whiteness in your eyes.

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

https://t.co/kIyv63VVcs

[Dr Sircus @drsircus]

@TheSGEM Good for you Ken, there is too little love in our world.