OLYMPIA'S SPEECH AT WEF DAVOS

1pm Wednesday 18th January 2023 - Episode 49 in the Lymp Duhdashian series

The new recruit’s face fell when Frank informed him that he was unable to obtain a new security lanyard for him. “Sorry man. I tried, but security here is top notch, you understand?” sympathised Frank, “You will have to keep yourself entertained elsewhere until the end of the conference. Don’t worry, I will cover for you. Why don’t you go skiing or something?”

At 12.30 pm on Wednesday, Frank and Khan officially escorted Olympia to the conference centre without incident. As soon as the introduction was complete, Olympia began to speak confidently on behalf of BP:

Are we living in an age actuated by science? Or in one ruled by authority and dogmas that cannot be questioned?

Here is how legitimate science works: A theory is proposed to explain a set of facts. This theory is then subjected to systematic questioning in an attempt to invalidate it. These questions are, in turn, answered by the proponents of the theory via experiment, research, information, and reasoning.

And it is through this question and answer dynamic, whether over a period of years, decades or centuries, that all good scientific theories are corroborated and strengthened. It’s also how weak theories are found to be wanting; and, if irredeemably flawed, discarded.

But if we’re not allowed to question a theory, if questions and challenges are deemed irrelevant because the “science” is said to be “settled”, then we’re no longer in the realm of science, but in the realm of authority and religion.

In other words: Believe this on our say-so.

I propose that we have an obligation to allow our scientific theories to be challenged.  Especially if we are proposing to change the entire world on the basis of them.

How is it possible that so many, present or represented here today, have seemingly forgotten how genuine science actually works?  Especially at a conference which prides itself on being deeply science-driven?

Perhaps the flood of pseudo-science during the past few decades has dulled your intellects to the difference between appeals to reason and appeals to authority?

Have you stopped asking questions and demanding answers?

We ought to imitate children in this respect, wouldn’t you agree?
Children who persist in asking disarmingly simple and even disconcerting questions.
Of course, this pestering can be unnerving to some adults, who prefer that their say-so be sacrosanct from questioning. Oddly, this reticence to face challenges seems particularly evident among contemporary scientists, their corporate employers and, sadly, economists like yourselves who, after all, ought to relish our questions!

Indeed, you have an obligation to permit your theories to be challenged.
Especially if you’re proposing to change the entire world on the basis of them.
I am, of course, referring to what was once called Global Warming, then Climate Change and now often referred to as Climate Instability.

But let’s put the slippery nomenclature aside for now.
Let’s call it Climate Change; and by this we mean Anthropogenic Climate Change.
We are assuming that the actions of human beings are catastrophically changing the climate of planet earth, are we not?

It is well understood that the world has been emerging from the “Little Ice Age” during the past couple of hundred years or so and we have experienced a warming trend during that time period.

Since you are proposing to change the entire world economy on the basis of the theory of Climate Change, the onus is on you to provide irrefutable evidence—that is, corroborated evidence that has survived a full and comprehensive vetting process—in support of this theory.

The onus is not on me or anyone else to disprove it.

Your evidence needs to demonstrate, not merely that the climate is changing (that has always been true) but that the changes are unusual and outside of normal deviations; are not sustainable because they are catastrophically damaging; most especially, are due to human activity, especially the use of fossil fuels.

I have prepared a few questions for this august community to consider:

1. Where is your irrefutable evidence?

(I hear you say that it is impossible to demonstrate your assumptions with certainty. I think so too. But it’s your theory, not mine.)

If you respond with a chart or graph from the IPCC simply showing warming or instability trends in temperature over the past 100 years or so, I would refer you to an interesting exposé by journalist, Donna Laframboise, explaining that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isn’t quite as scientific as you might wish.

I would remind you that the "97% of scientists" claim is total fabrication too.

It is now well known that in 2009 Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois in Chicago sent out a survey to 10,257 scientists. Only 3,146 bothered to answer. Of those, only 79 scientists claimed to be "Climate Scientists". The 97% claim is based on these 79 Climate Scientists answers, throwing out all the other 3049 responses.
76 of those 79 Climate Scientists agreed that there is climate change, there is global warming and humanity is the cause.
76 of 79 is 97% when in actuality it is 76 of 10,257 (.0094%) or 76 of 3,146 (.03%).
So either .0094% of scientists, or .03% of climate scientists, actually believe in man-made global warming according to the oft-quoted survey.

That is a splendid example of statistical manipulation, wouldn’t you say?

2. How do you determine the average temperature of the entire earth?

• How do you know your measurement is accurate?

• Compared to what?

• Even now, let alone for thousands of years past?

• Up to what level in the atmosphere?

• Down to the surface of the ocean and earth? Or below?

• How good are we at predicting the local and transient “weather”?

• Why is that so difficult to do even days, if not hours, ahead?

• What does that say about our ability to determine the average temperature of the entire earth?

• How about hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago?

Is the word “absurd” occurring to you at this very moment? If not, why not?

3. Are models reality?

• Is it valid to treat a model as evidence?

• What is the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness?

• Who is Alfred North Whitehead and what did he say about the widespread confusion wrought by this logical fallacy?

Surely none of us have forgotten the damage done by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London and his horrific Covid19 models?

4. What exactly is “settled science”?

• How much of science can be said to be truly “settled,” beyond some very basic facts, such as the boiling point of water, given certain conditions?

• Is such truly settled science still researched?

• Do we still research, for example, the boiling point of water?

• Why then are we still pouring billions of dollars into Climate Change research if the science is actually, as you say, “settled”?

Oh, it isn’t “settled”? I see. So why are we coercively remoulding, if not forcibly revolutionising, the entire world on the basis of it?

5. Is science a consensus?

• Is consensus even remotely a scientific concept?

• If not, why do you keep referencing it?

• Since when does any truth depend upon consensus?

• Isn’t the term “consensus” much like “settled science” simply marketing language?

Instead of these manipulative and misleading phrases, why not just provide the irrefutable evidence asked for in Question 1?

Where do you get this claim of “consensus” from anyway? Did someone conduct a poll? Was it scientifically performed? Where is it? Because as far as I know, no one has ever produced anything in support of this alleged “consensus”!
(NB: counting only those who join professional Climate Change societies, and/or who publish in their journals, is simply laughable; and really just further calls from the public to question the scientific credibility of those who make this claim.)

Is science historically moved forward by people who conform to the “consensus”?
Or by sceptics who question the group-think?
Who was Dr. Joseph Lister?
Should he have conformed to the consensus and settled science in the nineteenth century? The consensus-mongers ridiculed him, ejected him from professional societies, and so on…. (sound familiar?) but Dr. Lister was right; and the “settled science” was completely wrong with horrific and fatal consequences.

How often is this pattern repeated in history?

6. Is there a normal climate of the earth?

Whether you realise it or not, the theory of climate change necessarily presupposes a climate norm. How do you know what “normal” is?

The planet has always undergone temperature changes. According to ice core data from Greenland, these changes have been more rapid and larger than we see in recent history. Care to explain this? Is your data wrong? Or is your theory flawed?

Moreover, these changes appear to be completely independent of CO2 levels. Did the nature of CO2 change?

Is this where you usually change the subject to polar bears?

7. If we cannot find correlation between CO2 and temperature in data from ice cores over millions of years, how can we confidently assert that there is a correlation now?

• The question isn’t why we’ve had climate change over the past 100 years, is it?

• The real question is this: Why has the climate over the past 10,000 years been relatively stable in comparison with millions of years prior?

Records show that there were tropical plants in Greenland, millions of years ago. Was that due to human activity or fossil fuel use? Natural causes, you say? OK. Why were there vineyards all over southern England in the Middle Ages? (Chaucer wrote about them. Was Chaucer an alt-right operator sent from the future to play havoc with your theory?) Was this apparent warming trend caused by human activity or fossil fuel use? Natural causes, you say? OK. What about all those other warm periods (prior to the 20th century, of course)? Natural causes too, you say? OK.

8. According to our host, Sir Klaus Schwab, Climate Change theory makes the “Great Reset” necessary. If there’s no climate crisis, does that mean this entire expensive conference charade is no longer necessary?

Is it a coincidence that every “crisis” you’re hyperventilating about also happens to be trumpeted in the media 24/7/365 days a year? Or that, oddly enough, every one of these crises somehow seem to require the exact same thing:
That the entire world population relinquishes their freedoms, their wealth and even their lives, and accepts an emerging global, technocratic totalitarianism? One that is run by a tiny minority who won’t have to give up anything?
When a pattern is repeated over and over again, do we still call it coincidence?

9. Where does most electric energy come from?

(And while we’re at it: exactly how much fossil fuel goes into creating, from start to finish, windmills and solar panels? Do they generate enough energy even to recoup that initial expenditure of fossil fuel?)

If electric infrastructure cannot even handle the use of air conditioners during summer months, how will it handle widespread use of electric cars? Even with a relatively low percentage of electric ownership, so-called “Flex Alerts” advising citizens not to charge their electric vehicles for days at a time, are already becoming common during heat waves in California.

Or is that rather the point? Do you anticipate fewer people or fewer vehicles or both?

10. If the seas are rising, or will rise, why is it that so many climate change enthusiasts among you either own or have recently purchased ocean-front property?

• Where do they get all that money? 

• Where do Carbon Taxes go?

• Who manages these funds?

• Where is the formal accounting?

If fossil fuel is causing climate change, why do Al Gore and so many others among you, live in massive houses that use 20 times the power of the average home? 

11. Why do you, the proponents of Climate Change concern, always fly to these conferences on private jets?

Don’t they use far more fossil fuel than commercial airliners or trains?
Based on the distances flown to and from Davos and the type of aircraft, researchers at CE Delft calculated how much CO2 was emitted for the conference in 2021. In the week of the conference, this amounted to 9.7 kilotonnes. That’s equivalent to the emissions of 35,000 average cars driving from Paris to Davos and back. In average weeks, the combined emissions of private jets using the seven local airports amount to about 2.3 kilotons.
Why don’t you use Skype, Zoom or Facetime like normal people?

12. If fossil fuel should be banned because it creates carbon dioxide gas, shouldn’t we ban dihydrogen monoxide too?

After all, dihydrogen monoxide produces Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas (water vapour) and is responsible for most of earth’s greenhouse effect.

Why do the IPCC choose to avoid mentioning this?

THE CLIMATE CHANGES Part 2

13. Isn’t carbon dioxide a normal, even vital, part of the earth’s environment?

All plants depend upon carbon dioxide. Do you want to kill off all the trees and plants? I thought you were also advocating a plant-based lifestyle! Don’t human beings depend upon oxygen produced by plants? Do you want to kill off humans too?

(Come to think of it, what makes you think the earth is overpopulated? Who told you that?)

14. Finally, does it bother you that some corporations, militaries and stakeholders among you have been deploying geo-engineering and weather-modifying technology globally at least since WWII?

These are military weapons seeding clouds, poisoning vegetation and enemy combatants. The UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has been tracking weather modification projects for more than 50 years. NASA has been planning and managing a weather modification program at least since 1966. And there is an online comprehensive resource called Weather Modification History that documents all we need to know.

If you are not concerned about this, why not?

Ironically, asking critical questions and even full-scale criticism — the essence of the scientific methodology — is now called “science denial.” And just as bizarre, whatever does not conform to your narrative is labelled “misinformation.” (So voilà, by coercion, all the experts conform to the narrative and agree that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real.)

This fabrication of “consensus”— including the silencing of anyone outside of it — occurs at the highest levels of corporate business and academia. It is fed down to all of us via the media and education establishments, even down to playschools.

Maybe the most egregious of your behaviours is the absolute secrecy around Fusion Energy. We know you have developed it. We know you have the Fusion Torch which puts an end to scarcity completely. We also know WHY you prevent the public from knowing about this hopeful technology.

There is a list of quotes revealing the source of all this deception and I recommend you familiarise yourselves with the link I have provided within the transcript of this speech:

THE CLIMATE CHANGES

When you recover from your shock, can we expect to hear a blast of stock-responses repeated ad tedium? Will you claim “undeniable reality of climate change” or begin each sentence with “you can no longer deny” or will you cling to “the science is settled…” or the “consensus of scientists”.…. none of which are actual scientific arguments. Bizarrely, we hear them repeated as if they are - by people who evidently understand very little about science and even less about logic.

PEOPLE LIKE YOU STAKEHOLDERS AND PROFITEERS.

It is apparent that all you care about is:

• Demanding unquestioning obedience to your proclamations.

• Censoring and silencing all questions and challenges.

• Branding “unbelievers” as heretical deniers.

• Controlling all resources and industries.

• Forcing us to confirm your erroneous belief that the Emperor is wearing a nice suit of clothes.

Well, allow me to assure you. You have failed. Your conference is redundant.

Your Emperor is NAKED.

Olympia took off her reading glasses, folded them into their case and waited, staring into the packed but silent auditorium. Frank and Khan mounted the stage, approached the podium and escorted her from the room in silent dignity.
You could hear a pin drop. Nobody moved until they were out of sight.

Wending their way as fast as possible, Frank and Khan gave all onlookers the impression that they had arrested Olympia. They reached the queue of parked limousines and hijacked the first one, flashing their security passes at the driver who immediately sped away from the venue as soon as the last passenger had slammed his door.

No clues about the following video….. go there and see for yourselves, while our heroes drive to Saint Malo in Brittany, France…. a journey sure to take at least 12 hours, with bathroom breaks! Ciao honeys! xx