The Climate Change Hoax & its Deceptive Apocalyptic Prophecies

Are the apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change a hoax?

Yes, say a growing number of internationally recognized scientists and professionals experienced in climate science and related fields.

Most recently, Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser challenged prevailing climate models, which he says have ignored a key variable—one that is there for everyone to see every day of the year.

Just what is this variable? I’ll get to that. But first, a little about Clauser. In 2022, he jointly won a Nobel Prize in physics with two other scientists for their work on quantum mechanics. Recently, Clauser joined another Nobel laureate and more than 1,600 scientists and professionals in signing the World Climate Declaration (WCD) organized by Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL).

Nobel Laureate John Clauser

The declaration asserts that there is no “climate emergency,” that climate change science is not conclusive, and that the earth’s history over thousands of years shows a consistently changing climate that is not impacted significantly by human activity or fossil fuels.

Clauser is not just another so-called “climate denier.” He holds degrees from Caltech and Columbia University. He worked at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the University of California, Berkeley. In 2010, he was honored with a portion of the Wolf Prize in Physics.

So, what is the “key variable” that Clauser refers to?

He and other WCD scientists say current climate models overemphasize the impact of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

The WCD declaration further notes that both natural and human activities contribute to climate change, and the actual warming observed is less than predicted by the climate models, revealing our incomplete understanding of climate change.

The fact is, climate change and its long list of other names (Global warming, Climate variability, Greenhouse effect, and yes, Global cooling) seem to have moved from science to a religion that is proselytized by politicians, journalists, and pseudo-scientists in order to achieve a political agenda and to appease the manic environmental special interest lobby.

In a recent interview with the Epoch Times, Clauser said he believes he has identified a significant oversight in prevailing climate models. A portion of that interview follows.

“I believe I have the missing piece of the puzzle that has been left out in virtually all of these computer programs,” he says. “And that is the effect of clouds.”

While many theories of anthropogenic climate change focus primarily on the impact of human-produced CO2, Clauser argues that these models overlook the significance of cloud dynamics.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society emphasize the role of CO2 but miss the mark on the critical role of clouds in the climate system, Clauser says.

He referenced a 2003 National Academy report, which, he said, “totally admitted” its lack of understanding about clouds and made “a whole series of mistaken statements regarding the effects of clouds.”

In Al Gore’s film, “The Inconvenient Truth,” Mr. Clauser notes, “[Gore] insists on talking about a cloud-free earth.”

According to Clauser, this cloudless portrayal of the earth reflects a common approach taken by many in the climate science community.

“That’s a totally artificial Earth,” Clauser says. “It is a totally artificial case for using a model, and this is pretty much what the IPCC and others use—a cloud-free earth.”

Clauser points out that satellite images consistently show wide variances in cloud cover, which can span anywhere from five to 95 percent of the Earth’s surface.

“The cloud cover fraction fluctuates quite dramatically on daily weekly timescales. We call this weather. You can’t have weather without having clouds,” he says.

Clouds play a paramount role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, serving as a “cloud-sunlight-reflectivity thermostat” that “controls the climate, controls the temperature of the Earth, and stabilizes it very powerfully and very dramatically,” Clauser says.

The impact of clouds has a far more significant impact on climate change than human activity or the use of fossil fuels. The “thermostat” mechanism of clouds has a vastly greater influence on Earth’s temperature than the effect of CO2 or methane, and preliminary calculations suggest that the impact of this cloud-reflectivity mechanism might overshadow CO2’s influence by more than 100 or even 200 times.

Clauser adds that the drive to address human-induced climate change is increasingly shaping political agendas and influencing the strategic direction of entire nations.

“The whole world is doing all of this. A lot of the pressure is actually coming from Europe, all of these various world conferences,” Clauser says, speculating that much of this push might have its roots in Mr. Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” which he says has incorporated inaccurate science.

Gore’s film claims that humanity is triggering a dire climate crisis that necessitates global action. But Clauser contends: “‘Climate change’ is actually very dishonest disinformation that has been presented by innumerable politicians.”

Amen, Professor Clauser.

About ten years ago, the words “global warming” were replaced by “climate change” because, as the climate zealots insisted, “it’s really more than just warming.”

For example, the myth of changing weather patterns and an increase in extreme weather events has been rolled into climate change dogma.

That’s another area where Clauser and the 1,600 other scientists and climate experts disagree with the high priests of climate change.

“Not only are these extreme weather events NOT increasing, but our ability to mitigate them has increased. So they’re just not as much of an issue,” Clauser insists. “This worry about CO2, the worry about methane, the worry about global warming, is all a total fabrication by hoodwinked journalists and dishonest politicians.”

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

A few years ago, a global network of 500 scientists experienced in the area of climate and related fields sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency–the wild hysterics of Greta Thunberg notwithstanding.

The letter listed these salient points:

Natural and anthropogenic factors cause warming.

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted.

The world has warmed at less than half the originally predicted rate and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models.

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters.

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts, and such natural disasters or making them more frequent. However, CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times and throughout the world.

And yet, the beat goes on. Humans are destroying our planet. Temperatures are rising. Temperatures are falling. The earth is getting warmer. The earth is getting colder. Fossil fuels are killing the planet. We must ban gas stoves and ovens. We must ban the internal combustion engine. We must ban ceiling fans. We must stop raising cattle because of cow farts. We must stop drilling for oil and natural gas. We must shut down all coal mines. We must ban hydrofluorocarbons such as Freon produced by refrigerator coolants. We must ban beef.

And the most recent item that needs to be banned? Rice. Yes, rice–a grain that keeps some 3.5 billion people worldwide from starving to death.

Why rice? Because flooded rice paddies create fermented plants that then produce too much methane—perhaps as much as 10 percent of global emissions of the gas, climate clerics say.

Never mind that rice has been cultivated worldwide for thousands of years, and stopping its production would result in the starvation of millions, if not billions, of people.

I guess the sacrifice of a billion or so people is acceptable collateral damage in the left’s fanatic mission to force all of us to adhere to the ecclesiastical church of climate change.


[If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to ForeignCorrespondent and tell your friends to subscribe. IT’S FREE! WHAT A DEAL! If you’ve received this from a friend and would like to be added to our distribution list for future blog posts, please enter your email address in the sign-up for notifications box at You can also find my commentaries on Substack at and the American Free News Network at And please feel free to comment. WE LOVE COMMENTS!]












About Ronald E. Yates

Ronald E. Yates is an award-winning author of historical fiction and action/adventure novels, including the popular and highly-acclaimed Finding Billy Battles trilogy. Read More About Ron Here

4 thoughts on “The Climate Change Hoax & its Deceptive Apocalyptic Prophecies”

  1. If it were not for “climate change” nearly all of North America would still be covered in ice hundreds of feet thick -or- the treeless Arctic Tundra of Alaska’s North Slope would still be a vast temperate forest. Both conditions have occurred in the earth’s history throughout the eons. And NONE of the changes have been the result of human activities whatsoever!

  2. Epoch Times just posted an article today about this “farce.” It has made our kids anxious believing they can do something to change Mother Nature and has given even more power to billionaires and world leaders. Where is common sense?


Leave a Comment