C: Zena Flarini / Shutterstock

We have a censorship crisis not a climate crisis

The censorship of a speech from Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Dr. John Clauser, because he was about to critique one of the sacred cows of the media and political class, is a perfect microcosm and a metaphor for the biggest problem of our age.

Clauser recently expressed a view that there is no climate crisis, and when he was about to deliver a presentation to the IMF criticizing the usefulness and accuracy of today’s climate models, he was quickly cancelled.

John Clauser

Therein lies the crux of the climate problem, and indeed many of society’s problems: an elite managerial class, who don’t actually understand the subjects which are often very complex, have decided with extraordinary hubris to make the discussion of the matter taboo.

The attack on Clauser’s ability to discuss what the media will tell you is one of the primary issues of our times is a scandal, and it is one that leaves humanity in the dark while simultaneously accepting unproven hypothesis as articles of faith.

How are we to know whether claims regarding the climate have any veracity, if it is forbidden to question them or point out perceived logical and scientific flaws?

The main stream media are the main allies in this censorship regime. The Irish Times has a permanent “Climate Crisis” slot which can be filled with fear porn daily. (A similar tactic was tried during Covid).

But we have a problem with the narrative that there is a “scientific consensus” on this climate thinge and that only the “disinformationists” and “conspiracy theorists” disagree.

Nobel Prize winning Physicist, Dr. John Clauser, is about three standard deviations more qualified to speak about complex systems, and science in general, than most of commentators in the Irish media, yet these mediocre hacks would likely argue that someone like Dr. Clauser should be kept away from the public because of his “dangerous” ideas.



Clauser’s case is a perfect microcosm of the censorship regime that controls the public perception of the climate issue.

Gript readers might remember John Gibbons, in his habitual shrill way, denouncing Michael Fitzmaurice (notable because he is a rural TD and has an idea of what will happen to food supplies and rural life if the crazy policies of the hysterical green elite are implemented) and proclaiming “no flat earthers, no climate deniers. Full stop.”

Would this group of luddite “climate deniers” include Clauser – a Nobel prize winning physicist who proved, experimentally, the theory of quantum entanglement, thus adjudicating between Einstein and Niels Bohr on the nature of matter, and establishing once and for all who was correct?

Yet, in the upside-down world of climate alarmism, his scientific might is likely considered less important than the self-important virtue-signalling of journalists and editors the Irish commentary sphere.

Clauser clearly has a level of scientific comprehension and raw intelligence that towers above anybody commenting on science in the Irish establishment media, so why do these mediocrities assume they have the right to disbar Clauser’s contribution to this scientific discussion?

Clauser is not alone by the way. There are many eminent scientists – mainly established scientists well past the age where they fear for their career – with a deep understanding of the many theories that contribute to the catchall term “climate science,” who reject the premise of the “climate emergency”.

There are also multiple examples of scientists who dispelled specific falsehoods of the climate narrative, who were subsequently cancelled by their scientific funding institutions, from their universities, and from their careers.

People such as Susan Crockford (who disproved that favourite of climate hysterics falsehoods –that the polar bears are going extinct because of climate change), and Dr. Peter Ridd (the oceanographer and former head of physics of James Cook University, Australia, who was fired for noticing the discrepancies and sheer shodiness in coral reef research).

At the risk of boring the reader with tautology it’s worth hammering this point home. Surely a person who has solved the problem of quantum entanglement, and proved it experimentally, is worth listening to when he chimes in on the AGW (Anthropegenic Global Warming) debate.

However that is not how the IEO (International Evaluations Office, a subsidiary of the IMF), organisers of a zoom conference thought, when they cancelled a presentation which Dr. Clauser had been booked to give on July 27 this year.

Clauser was set to give a presentation which he titled “Howe Much Can We Trust IPCC Climate Predictions”. In a flyer for his presentation he said he “will explain why the science on global warming is far from settled and argue that extreme caution may be warranted when settling economic policy on over simplified views of the Earth’s climate system..”  (my emphasis)



That highlighted piece is very salient. The simplification of complex theory – which chaotic fluid dynamics (related to climate systems) most assuredly is – for public digestion, has given the spin doctors the opportunity for catastrophising the climate threat.

If you were to read, as I have read, chapters from the (2018) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC reports) and then read the ‘Summary For Policy Makers’ chapter, and then read the press release, you might be surprised by how the claims in the press release are constructed.

Having read the documents, I know the distance in exaggeration and hyperbole that comes between the IPCC report itself and the “red Letter” warnings that are eventually distributed to the public. Contributors to the IPCC reports frequently make this point.

A former lead author of one of these IPCC reports, Richard Lindzen, in a conversation with Jordan Peterson, explains how this happens. It’s a convoluted process of crafted political messaging.  I have serious doubts that most of the Irish media writing fear-mongering headlines bothered to actually read the IPCC’s reports.

And if we investigate who cancelled Clauser’s “dangerous” talk, the result is quite revealing.

According to a spokesman from the CO2 Coalition, of which Clauser is a member, his talk was cancelled by the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, after he had read the above flyer.

So who is Moreno and what has he contributed to the knowledge of science? If we look at his resume it all becomes clear. He is an administrative manager, the perfect candidate to manage conformity within a bloated bureaucracy.

For people such as this, the most viable and profitable career path is as an administrator in one of the network of corrupting bureaucracies that manage the meta-narratives of global governance. This is a career best suited perhaps, not to extraordinary talent, but extraordinary conformity. It’s not unlike the intellectual conformity that characterises a career path in the various elite bubbles that run Ireland Inc.

This is a major component of the censorship industrial complex. Other components include “science educators” such as the goonish ‘Bill Nye The Science Guy’, who seems happy to consider imprisonment of those who criticise the climate cult.

It is because the managerial class, including their allies in the MSM, are playing their part in the censorship regime that there exists the illusion that there is “scientific consensus” on a “climate emergency”.

This is the biggest falsehood in the climate discussion created by the “censorship industrial complex” – a term coined by environmentalist Michael Shellenberger after his uncovering of the massive levels of censorship collaboration between the US state and multinational big tech corporations when he looked into the back end of the twitter files.

The main stream presses job in this unholy alliance between the managerial class, the quasi-global government, and the captured institutions is to create this illusion of consensus.

But in what fevered and delusional universe, are climate alarmists qualified to pull rank on Clauser and denounce his scientific knowledge? This is the universe of censorship they inhabit. None of these hacks or bureaucrats have contributed landmark discoveries to the scientific understanding of nature. Clauser has. The argument on who has a right to speak and be heard should end there!

Serious scientists know that claiming to be “scientific educators” is often the refuge of those those unable to contribute any significant insight. In this case all they are doing is spinning and censoring. A little epistemic humility on their part would not go astray.



What is very obvious from what I have discussed above is that there is no consensus on climate. The “consensus” that we are constantly assured of is an illusion created by the censorship in which the media are willing participants.

It is a web of careerists who understand that compliance is the guaranteed way to forge a career when you lack the ability to contribute unique insight to the advancement of knowledge.

Institutional capture is part of the method that makes sure that the narrative is not contested within the funded institutions; and the means of communication is the other half. Much of the main stream media, it is increasingly obvious, are nothing but a modern Pravda.

It is no wonder they are dying and clamouring for public funding to keep them afloat. They may get it too, because how else can an illegitimate regime maintain itself without a propaganda arm. After all, as every corrupt regime knows, the ministry of truth has to be funded.

Clauser understands this. In his Quantum 2023 presentation he said of the actors within the censorship complex: “To such a promoter, perception of truth is truth. If you can sell it, it must be true. If you can’t sell it, it must be false. Perception of truth is also malleable. If you can sell it, if you want to sell it, and you can’t sell it, that’s easy, you change it. You can change truth. You can claim false observations if necessary.”

But his advice to young scientists was edifying

“Beware. If you’re doing good science, it may lead you into politically incorrect areas. If you’re a good scientist, you will follow them. I have several I won’t have time to discuss, but I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.”

Now that might cause the likes of Moreno and the fleet street crew to blanch, but if they or the media had a shred of integrity they would counter with their arguments instead of trying to cancel the speaker.


Share mdi-share-variant mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-printer mdi-chevron-left Prev Next mdi-chevron-right Related Comments Members can comment by siging in to their account. Non-members can register to comment for free here.
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Do you agree with the Government's plan to reduce speed limits?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...