Scientists are “generously rewarded if they say there’s an apocalypse”

NTD News
October 23, 2021

NTD spoke with Craig Rucker, co-founder of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow on what’s left out of the climate change discussion.

Leave a Reply

9 thought on “Selling the Climate Change Agenda”
  1. What troubles me is not the critique about the elites doubleplay of gaining profits behind the cover of concern for climatechange. But the often occurring opinion about the nonreality of carbondriven global warming.
    Since that opinion implies that nothing needs to change on our part.
    Therefore the scientists have legitimate reasons for pointing out the inconsistency in the political proclamations vs the actual effect of the concommitent policies.
    If they get more funding in the process could mean two different things:
    1) that the scientists like the rest of us fear the change in comfort when we face lack of freedom. And that therefore money would induce them to step out of the Comfort zone.
    2)that they are corrupted as if taking bribes

    But the scientific verdict is that carbondriven climatechange is real.
    So the responsible thing to do is to make plans about a suitable timetable and to suggest quantitative aims. If the politicians then make bold declarations in conflict with what is actually being done it is the duty of the scientists to expose it.

  2. I’m reposting this comment I made from another blog site I’m on .
    It’s has always been a globalist scam and nothing to do with saving the planet or the biodiversity of certain endangered species.
    I was born in one of the most beautiful and third wealthiest country in the Western Hemisphere. And everyone and their dog wants to live or visit The Bahamas . And islands and rocks are still for sale daily. I could get into the geographical dynamics of the Bahamas but I won’t. Hurricanes are natural creations but most of them in the past 50 years have not been due to geo-engineering. Dean Pena says it best about the banking industry and beach front land ownership in Florida.
    A must watch video with adult language.

  3. Edward L says
    “It has always been a globalist scam and nothing to do with saving the planet or the biodiversity of certain endangered species.”
    True if by ‘It’ one means the official statements. They have ulterior motives.
    But carbondriven global warming is nonetheless a reality.
    And the wisest thing to do is to organise science and technology so it may be countered in due time.
    Technological developments to that effect will result in some new opportunities while denial will not.

  4. “ True if by ‘It’ one means the official statements. They have ulterior motives.
    But carbondriven global warming is nonetheless a reality.
    States : PeterG.
    1. Where is your research/white paper on theory?
    2. Are you referring to V.P. Al Gore claims or shadow written book on this subject ?
    “Technological developments to that effect will result in some new opportunities while denial will not.”
    1. Are you referring to geo engineering or cloud seeding? Or do you mean GMO food sources thru Biotechnology?
    I don’t know your professional background but your narrative is incorrect about carbon driven global warming.
    My professional background is varied but I’m a botanist by profession that came to the USA on a HB1 visa. FDA,Farm Bureau, DOD, OIG and OXFAM.
    I’m leaving you some videos and links to educate yourself and others of this nefarious well planned agenda and technology will not be our saving grace. Oh and my last profession was in data analytics with a graduate certificate in Computer science. David Martin on CRISPR and patent law. Part 1&2
    Rosa Koire website and get her book if you can. I met her 10 years or so ago in Washington D.C. at a presentation of her book and findings. Amazing lady. And James excellent documentary on the history of the global warming scamdemic.

    1. I am referring to for example the skepticalscience blog which has debunked all the erroneous ideas skeptics are repeating without ever considering the science.
      The sources you quote are telling.
      Sorry but the skeptics are plain wrong about the science.
      However they are right in critisising many current policies.
      Just because the elites hook on to a factbased subject doesnt mean they got the priorities right.
      In my younger years I got a solid physics education and am quite capable to understand the basic physics of CO2 as a warming greenhouse gas.
      Earlier today I actually did post a comment on Canadian Patriot (under About) with a short yet irrefutable physics explanation/proof of how CO2 warms.
      You are not by any chance party to the people there – I think I saw mentioned someone with your signature.

      Concerning technologies I was actually thinking more of innovations like those Craig Venter was discussing a decade ago. CO2 munching bacteria.
      And more generally to create fuels from carbon hydrates which Venter was thinking of.
      Not sure about risks with that but nature keeps inventing new creatures and it would be odd if we could invent some bacteria which destroyed the biosphere.
      And I was also thinking about the storing of liquid CO2 below the deep seas bottom since CO2 is heavier than water at depths below about 3kms
      But generally I wanted to put the emphasis on innovation and to inspire people to solve the problems in a positive way not by strangling the economy.

      1. Thanks for the reply PeterG.
        I find it so funny that you mention Craig Venter. Whom I happen to admire at one time and had a opportunity to meet in Washington D.C. he has a office in Rockville,MD. And when I when out to California I visited his lab out there. He was US Navy Corpsman (Marine Corps unit) in Vietnam and I was OIG/OEF Corpsman. And I think I still have a signed copy of his autobiography.
        Craig once worked for NIH and did extensive research on mRNA and bumped head with Fauci. In fact Judy Mikovits mentioned this a interview a year ago about the patents fights regarding ‘Gain of function’ research. It was sort of an Easter eggs clue, but most non raw science folks didn’t get it. David Martin whom I shared his two videos with you provides raw data on this concepts.
        Anyway long story short… I’m not a fan of his anymore. He like so many others that I worked with on Capitol Hill for 7 years have a god complex and they all play god thru their research. He is not immune to controversy and the same applies to the Human Longevity project. And the talk about using children’s bio plasma. …, the rabbit hole is sick and twisted. And technocrats always scream or whisper that they can save the world.

        1. But Venter seems to have been reigned in was my angle. Prevented from going for it.
          If some see themselves as Gods it would be the malthusians who want to depopulate the world.
          Thus would have a motive to prevent innovations.
          If he has bold ambitions like finding new ways to counter GW I dont care how he views himself
          The only aspect that I would be worried about if he went for it is unwanted sideeffects.
          Another angle you bring up: prolonging life yes that is an additional reason why depop is an issue..
          You bet!

Leave a Reply