Renowned Climate Scientists Warn Public: Green Agenda Based on ‘Hoax’

Two of the world’s most renowned climate scientists have spoken out to warn the public that the green agenda being peddled by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its globalist allies is based on a “hoax.”

As Slay News has extensively reported, governments around the world are scrambling to meet the “Net Zero” goals of the green agenda.

This destructive agenda is being led by the WEF and other similarly-aligned unelected bureaucratic organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The alleged goal of the green agenda is to fight the so-called “global warming/climate change/global boiling crisis.”

However, meeting these goals means ramping up taxes, stripping the public of basic freedoms, and drastically lowering the quality of life for the general population.

But as the corporate media continues to increasingly stoke fear in the public about the claimed “threat” from the “climate crisis,” actual experts are now starting to come forward to dispute the so-called “settled science.”

Democrat President Joe Biden’s WEF-aligned administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just introduced new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, to supposedly fight “climate change.”

Two prominent climate scientists are pushing back, however, warning in recent testimony that new EPA regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), have both gone on the record to warn that the claims made by Biden’s EPA are based on a “hoax” and only serve to advance the globalist green agenda.

Citing extensive data to support their case, Happer and Lindzen argue that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions, globalist narratives, and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Happer and Lindzen testified.

“None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”

“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated.