The Climate Fraud
by morton_h, the blogger
Due to a huge interest on this blog, a translation process from Danish to English began some time ago. This is one of the blogs. We choose to relaunch it rather than just adding to the old blog. You will find quite a few translated by now.
A story of politicized science
In 1988 the message the message for the World was: Now would we definitively have solved the puzzle of climate change. This was before the forming of IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel). Natural climate change was and is and will always be essential for human living conditions, so apparently this was an important step. But when the first reports came out on the Agenda, it was already derailed announcing that it was to be about man-made climate change, and thus the exclusion of all factors of natural climate change.
It surprised many researchers, since the research world was becoming highly aware that in Earth's history a number of crucial and sometimes violent climate changes had taking place. Studies in ice cores, seabed sediments and dendro-chronology was beginning to talk and confirm each other or play against each other. There was a lively, productive and constructive debate. In the 80s, however, entered a completely different and not very scientific agenda and began to mingle: politics. This agenda behaved in such an aggressive way, that in the course of a decade it completely took over the arena.
It was reported in the decade before and around the turn of the millennium the politicians of the discussion was over, that everything was now settled, and that the science now completely agreed that there was: consensus. But the problem then and today is a very significant problem: the debate is just beginning, that nothing has been resolved, and that science deeply disagree with itself. Science had 30 years ago and today has only just embarked on the study and understanding of the complex. Scientists did not reject that people had some kind of influence on the climate, but the forced and totalitarian consensus that suddenly arose, was never on their menu.
Consensus is an alien word for scientists. Science is never about negotiating or enforcing an aggreement. It is all about questioning, experimenting, testing, proving right or wrong. Until no more stones can be turned and no more questions can be made, there is no consensus, which would be utterly counter-productive. Theories and hypotheses are only intermediary steps and not the final. And the science, real science that is, does not talk about consensus but always about proven facts.
The topic of climate change is pretty unmanageable for people who have not obtained a minimal understanding of what creates such a huge phenomenon as climate. We understand that people who are in a small room with smoker in one corner, a person with a bad stomach that constantly escalated in the second, a brow that burns on in the third and windows that can not be opened in the fourth, can create inconveniences. We may need to understand the extent of smog and pollution in urban environments because they are in a kind of confined space, where we can feel the problem directly. But when it comes to something as gigantic as a global climate where the players are oceans, vast tundras, vast rainforests and incredible volcanoes, then we lose the overview. And totally, TOTALLY wrong it goes when you have to consider the earth's climate in a solar or cosmic context.
In 1988 the message the message for the World was: Now would we definitively have solved the puzzle of climate change. This was before the forming of IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel). Natural climate change was and is and will always be essential for human living conditions, so apparently this was an important step. But when the first reports came out on the Agenda, it was already derailed announcing that it was to be about man-made climate change, and thus the exclusion of all factors of natural climate change.
It surprised many researchers, since the research world was becoming highly aware that in Earth's history a number of crucial and sometimes violent climate changes had taking place. Studies in ice cores, seabed sediments and dendro-chronology was beginning to talk and confirm each other or play against each other. There was a lively, productive and constructive debate. In the 80s, however, entered a completely different and not very scientific agenda and began to mingle: politics. This agenda behaved in such an aggressive way, that in the course of a decade it completely took over the arena.
It was reported in the decade before and around the turn of the millennium the politicians of the discussion was over, that everything was now settled, and that the science now completely agreed that there was: consensus. But the problem then and today is a very significant problem: the debate is just beginning, that nothing has been resolved, and that science deeply disagree with itself. Science had 30 years ago and today has only just embarked on the study and understanding of the complex. Scientists did not reject that people had some kind of influence on the climate, but the forced and totalitarian consensus that suddenly arose, was never on their menu.
Consensus is an alien word for scientists. Science is never about negotiating or enforcing an aggreement. It is all about questioning, experimenting, testing, proving right or wrong. Until no more stones can be turned and no more questions can be made, there is no consensus, which would be utterly counter-productive. Theories and hypotheses are only intermediary steps and not the final. And the science, real science that is, does not talk about consensus but always about proven facts.
The topic of climate change is pretty unmanageable for people who have not obtained a minimal understanding of what creates such a huge phenomenon as climate. We understand that people who are in a small room with smoker in one corner, a person with a bad stomach that constantly escalated in the second, a brow that burns on in the third and windows that can not be opened in the fourth, can create inconveniences. We may need to understand the extent of smog and pollution in urban environments because they are in a kind of confined space, where we can feel the problem directly. But when it comes to something as gigantic as a global climate where the players are oceans, vast tundras, vast rainforests and incredible volcanoes, then we lose the overview. And totally, TOTALLY wrong it goes when you have to consider the earth's climate in a solar or cosmic context.
The money men
Amidst this tangled box of understanding arrived there people with quite a lot of money in their back pocket, and they were certainly not afraid to use them. The major investments were made. Science was basically bought to produce results and statements that could support an already planned conclusion: that it was more or less human beings that controlled the cosmos and the climate! A completely unbelievable statement, if you think about it - and we often do not think but tend to refer to people that claim to have thought! The solar system was parked in a cryptisized and thus irrelevant field. The UN Convention on Climate Change, which preceded the IPCC, presented their plan: to reduce the research committee for the purpose of the study of anthropogenic climate. Exit Cosmos, exit Nature, intro politics.
This shift of 'debate-climate' was a very smart and very inflamed move. People who allowed themselves to advance the now non-politically correct view that human primary responsibility for global climate perhaps could and even should be questioned, were exposed as wasteful. These statements suddenly and strangely enough came out of the mouths of people who before had condemned all talk about environment and pollution. There arose a weird kind of confusion where the public discourse flipped 180 degrees. Simultaneously, environment and pollution in general was washed out of the debate now almost exclusively to be about: climate. While talking about climate, there was to be a constant emotional and moral taste and smell of guilt, shame, debt and correctness in opinion. The alert listener and reader might here note a pattern that has been seen quite a few times in history. An 'operating system' materializes. Science with a magical artificial trick had turned into religion. Knowledge was washed out of the tub, and faith was poured in, faith in the sense of lack of knowledge forming a vacuum now filled up with a prefab system of belief.
The content of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.3% of the Earth's atmosphere. In man's industrialization period, we have increased concentration of 80-90 ppm. There are so researchers who have allowed themselves to ask if this is significant or as claimed even disastrously, but their cautious question was run over with buldozer strenth by IPCC, which also claimed that the C02 in the atmosphere before industrialization had been stable over 100,000s of years.
Consensus - what a glorious word!
Now it just so happens that science not at all about consensus. We may repeat ourselves here, but this is so important. Science is not democratic, it is not about servicing the majority and certainly not about wiping out differences and nuances. True science is only about full respect of doubt, differences unresolved issues and nuances. Science is about curiosity. The more, the better. It is politics and religion, which is about consensus. Science is about critical thinking, and the word consensus is totally meaningless in this context.
IPCC, and we must give them that, had summoned a huge panel of scientists who worked on a huge range of issues on climate. But when you read their reports, there is immensely little consensus. Consensus itself, in contrast, suddenly appears in the summaries organized by bureaucrats and presented to politicians and decision makers. Here they were told what should be read by this, what should be concluded and extracted by this and most importantly: what should be decided based upon this! Here comes the inflamation. That was the first report. In the next report the summary was even published beforethe real report, meaning that they had written their politician-synopsis months before the report came out, and then demanded that the report should be aligned with the summary!
This kind of prefabricated consensus is a genuine Agenda 21 concept. It is advisable to study Agenda 21 and political correctness. Without a basic piece of homework it is actually hard to comprehend what is going on. NGOs also play an important role in this mega-spin. Agenda 21 is a very comprehensive and very well prepared piece of social-mental-ideological engineering and crowd-management.
Facts
Human industries each year send 5.5 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. It sounds like a lot, but it must be related to the soil surface in itself delivers 1,500 gigatons of CO2 every year, the atmosphere itself is 750 gigatons of CO2, the plant world produces 610 gigatons of CO2 the oceans store 38,000 gigatons of CO2, and that sea sediments save about 100,000,000 gigatons of CO2. How has so much carbon dioxide ended there? The reason is that our age is abnormally cold compared to previous periods in Earth's history. The content of CO2 in the air has been 10 times as high in periods (Zenosoic, Mesosoic) and vegetation then was overwhelmingly fertile, which the study of plants and their segmented debris clearly has shown.
There are extremely detailed data on the composition of the atmosphere for the last 200 years. These data are documented in solid pier-reviewed literature that is fully accessible. When Al Gore as a representative of the 'agenda' did his show 'Inconvenient Truth', ALL these data were excluded. This led to a comprehensive protest and a document signed by 31,000 scientists calling the show for abuse and falsification of scientific data - this in itself being one 'inconvenient truth' that returned like a boomerang. But no one discovered it, the media aspirated and choked the story. The media were complicit through their ownership. The same who 'owns' science also owns the media.
But ownership of the media of the Western World is a huge story in itself deserving its own blogpost.
 |
| An inconvenient thruth is, that fraud probably will not be sufficient for surviving a new Ice Age in bare ass. |
Climategate
Then came the weird affair, the big leak in two rounds consisting of 1000s of emails circulating in a group of researchers from East Anglia University in England, which confirmed that the data were distorted and scientists and research were manipulated. The statement that the temperature in the course of 10 years had increased in a manner that was unique in the 1000s of years revealed a highly selective use of data which are not adequate with real science.
Temperature measurements are based on three factors:
- ground-based measurements, meteorological stations, airports
- weather balloons
- satelites
The ground-based measurements show an increasing temperature in a 30 years span. The satellite measurements, which is considered the most accurate, show no increase. On the other hand they show a slight cooling in the last 10 years. The American continent, for example. had unusually harsh winters the last few years.
IPCC climate panel based their statements on pre-industrial measurements exclusively on ice cores and very little on dendrochronology and seabed sediments. They build their conclusions mostly on ground-based measurements in the age of industrialization. These measurements are the main problem is that they are composed of many forms of pollution, especially from urban sites.
The inconvenient truth of leaked emails from East Anglia University shows a deliberate effort to hide the fact that the recent climate did not cooperate with the predictions, namely that the curve would rise disastrously and that Doomsday was in sight. The landscape did not behaved according to the map. All the predictions well into the 21st century were based on the fact that this curve was waterproof. But water went through the hull.
However, heavy political decisions were already taken, taxes were implemented, lots of jobs and careers were created in this new 'industry'. The train was running and it had its own inertia. It would now be a big loss of prestige to align theories and statements with the realities and match the map with the landscape. And even worse than that, it would be a disclosure of lying and manipulating science, which by written law in all Western countries is considered a criminal offense. In the emails, the group discussions of certain researchers from East Anglia reveals - and lets just bluntly use the c-word - a conspiracy of how they through statistics could hide their miscalculations. Or their pre-defined results, because it is difficult to say exactly whether it was the chicken or the egg, that arrived here first.
Especially one scientist, Phil Jones, shines through. He was one of the leading climate scientists at East Anglia and provided the IPCC with most of their material. Independent researchers who were not under Phil Jones' supervision and control, had for years called for the raw data, upon which he and his circle based their conclusions. But in vain, for the data were never put forth. In the University's internal mail was revealed the discussion on how to directly avoid The Freedom of Information Act, so that other researchers would not have access to see the raw data. Phil Jones said directly in an interview: 'Why should I give my data to someone who is just out to disprove that I am right?' Well this is not what the whole concept of 'pier review' and scientific integrity criterion is all about?
The whole story is embarrassing for Science as a whole. It is embarrassing when people, who at first are anxious to get as many papers out for pier reviewing in order to promote their career and prestige and to get them funded later are whimping and whining as they turn out to be shit scared of actually being pier reviewed. And now comes the really embarrassing part: as Phil Jones and co. finally had to drop their data, these data had ... disappeared!
We could procede with stories of all the threatened scientists, and all the heads of university departments for climate research, that were fired for just expressing doubts about the inflammatory mechanisms in academia, but it's just too sad, and we shall not go there.
IPCC climate panel based their statements on pre-industrial measurements exclusively on ice cores and very little on dendrochronology and seabed sediments. They build their conclusions mostly on ground-based measurements in the age of industrialization. These measurements are the main problem is that they are composed of many forms of pollution, especially from urban sites.
The inconvenient truth of leaked emails from East Anglia University shows a deliberate effort to hide the fact that the recent climate did not cooperate with the predictions, namely that the curve would rise disastrously and that Doomsday was in sight. The landscape did not behaved according to the map. All the predictions well into the 21st century were based on the fact that this curve was waterproof. But water went through the hull.
However, heavy political decisions were already taken, taxes were implemented, lots of jobs and careers were created in this new 'industry'. The train was running and it had its own inertia. It would now be a big loss of prestige to align theories and statements with the realities and match the map with the landscape. And even worse than that, it would be a disclosure of lying and manipulating science, which by written law in all Western countries is considered a criminal offense. In the emails, the group discussions of certain researchers from East Anglia reveals - and lets just bluntly use the c-word - a conspiracy of how they through statistics could hide their miscalculations. Or their pre-defined results, because it is difficult to say exactly whether it was the chicken or the egg, that arrived here first.
Especially one scientist, Phil Jones, shines through. He was one of the leading climate scientists at East Anglia and provided the IPCC with most of their material. Independent researchers who were not under Phil Jones' supervision and control, had for years called for the raw data, upon which he and his circle based their conclusions. But in vain, for the data were never put forth. In the University's internal mail was revealed the discussion on how to directly avoid The Freedom of Information Act, so that other researchers would not have access to see the raw data. Phil Jones said directly in an interview: 'Why should I give my data to someone who is just out to disprove that I am right?' Well this is not what the whole concept of 'pier review' and scientific integrity criterion is all about?
The whole story is embarrassing for Science as a whole. It is embarrassing when people, who at first are anxious to get as many papers out for pier reviewing in order to promote their career and prestige and to get them funded later are whimping and whining as they turn out to be shit scared of actually being pier reviewed. And now comes the really embarrassing part: as Phil Jones and co. finally had to drop their data, these data had ... disappeared!
We could procede with stories of all the threatened scientists, and all the heads of university departments for climate research, that were fired for just expressing doubts about the inflammatory mechanisms in academia, but it's just too sad, and we shall not go there.
What happened to substance?
However, there is a strange phenomenon in the whole debate that we have to observe. When someone who cares seriously about the matter tries to produce something that has substance, something that has to do with actual knowledge and facts, then another strange something happens. The propagandists for anthropogenic climate completely avoid discussions with substance. They run all sorts of spurious arguments that critics are 'paid by the oil industry' that 'a conspiracy' that they are 'mental disturbed dreamers'. Al Gore called critique 'a form of racists' drawing the typical neo-trotsyist (= neo-con), culture marxist political-correctness card.
The propagandists will use all the classic logical fallacies ad Hominem as their favorite. Dagbladet Information, the Danish former critical and independant newspaper (now just an organ for political correctness), and their climate propagandist, Jørgen Steen Nielsen, said when the second major leak (these people do not get it, do they?) from East Anglia got out that 'the opponents are very well organized in their propaganda'. He called them 'climate deniers' and other politically correct epithets meant to belittle them, and very important: by never getting into substantive facts. One logical fallacy after another will be flying through the air.
As statistician Bjørn Lomborg published his careful and extensive calculations, his opponents never spoke of substance. Especially the political-correctness-infected left neither dared nor were capable of that. They demonized and ridiculed him - typical of culture marxist manipulation tactics - while at the same time avoiding substance. It ended up in the most vicious form of populism and manage back-slapping, and you bewitness the Danish intelligentsia spitting out their sarcasms over a glass of red wine by the dinner parties. Lomborg became a scapegoat and was even accused formally of 'scientific unreliability'. When his accusors had to withdraw the accusation, which in itself was disingenuous, it was swept under the carpet and he was never given a proper redress so that the doubt would hang onto him and not onto them.
It is argued that there are $ 200 million a year donated by the oil industry as support for climate research. Fair enough, it gives reason to look more closely at whether the research sticks to the subject. That does not prove anything, but it says that you have to keep an eye on a possible bias. What apparently does not count for bias is the arrival each year of 30 billions from governments for climate research (American figures, globally it is much larger), and it is apparently not considered a reason to look for an agenda. And politicians have otherwise plenty of those agendas. When made socalled intelligent people stop thinking?
Wonderful Copenhagen
16,000 delegates flew to the beautiful city in the small state where according to Shakespeare something is rotten. They arrived on first class and in private jets, emptied the entire capitol for limousines, caviar and expensive call girls. And as part of the standard concept the asphalt was cooking, and the parliament of the street including completely random passersby were run in armed vans to the local Guantanamo, an intermediary detention camp in Valby, Cph. NSA tapped into all that they could get close to, we now know. The whole matter was and is so deeply politicized that it makes you vommit wishing for a political detox, an ideological cold turkey in order to get back to real science. Global warming today is a hijacked science.
CO2-commerce is now a derivative industry. It is deeply linked with the 'sub-prime interest rate-industry'. Global warming is the financial industry undertaking an yet another investment. They spit part of their endless billions into trade and reap the ten fold. Did we forget to say that they have themselves pressed their billions (quantized easing)? The day they are revealed - which is happening right now - they vanish from the Earth's surface and in the process of fabricating a new piece of scam. Lack of water, for example, and it is already on the way. They know that they will not be held accountable, for they are 'too big to be prosecuted', just as banks are 'too big to fail'. The CO2 predators have positioned themselves as a gigantic intermediary who pulls 'green taxes' out of this artificially applied trade field.
Al Gore and co. like the sub-prime interest credit industry created a milking machine, that according to this industry does not produce anything other than a trained magician produces on stage: illusion and amazement. The concept is parasitic. Financial Industry produces nothing but feed on all other producing something. It's a crafty industrial cancer, a parasite, a vampire. These people are incredibly rich, but the climate change that a branch of their finance industy on, will not take place - and this is one of the never-discussed facts - by CO2 creating climate change. Climate change and rising temperature creates as a side effectmore CO2 content in the atmosphere. Al Gore deliberately swapped around the curves for the sake for establishing the guilt complex.
The 'stable' climate
Let's walk-the-talk and get into more facts about global climate. The statement that the climate has been resistant, but then suddenly have changed can very easily be rejected, and quite categorically! If you want to see an example of natural global warming, then study the abrupt shift that happened at end of the last ice age. Here you can, my foot, talk about global warming! In the early Middle Ages, there was even so hot in Europe that you could grow wine close to the Scottish border. A few hundred years later, we see echoes of the Ice Age called 'Little Ice Age', where people could walk across the English Channel. The CO2 fart that was spewed out of Hekla a few years ago and stopped air traffic across northern Europe, delivered more CO2 than the entire planet's total industry makes in 10 years! In light of these tough facts, it must be noted that the term 'climate denial' which the propagandists heap upon, gets quite a self-target-like significance. They in fact are denying essential facts about climate and the causes for its constant change.
The end of the ice age shows severe fluctuations in temperature. It would rise by as much as 15 degrees in just three years, then fall again, and rise again and so on. And it was hardly because there were a bunch a stack of cave men down in Central Italy frying wild boar over an open fire, while they farted and belched. Nature is immense and often violent. The arrival of the ice ages have been equally abrupt. Ice core drilling in Greenland show that all ice ages in the past 250,000 years has arrived over at least 20 years and sometimes over three years! There are even examples of large animals like. mammoth has been snap frozen. Their bodies are caught in motion, they are not just fallen on old age. Some of them still stand up with food in their mouths! If you freeze slowly cell changes and spoilage will occour, but these bodies are so fresh that even the dogs eat them if they are fed. They were simply surprised by a sudden icing combined with intense volcanic activity. * 2 Heat and cold have a close relationship. Science paleo-climatology shows again-and-again that the earth's climate has been extremely dynamic. In the past 2.5 million years the earth has shifted from an almost full-icing to a habitable climate around 40 times. We repeat right again: 40 times!
Volcanic activity on Earth is recognized by science to its full extent. There are a number of, approximately 20, so-called 'super-volcanoes' scattered over the ground. If just one of these went by, there would be a great ice age in the course of a few months. So volcanism, dust, lava, warming would cover the sun, and an ice age would occur immediately. Yet another reason to shake your head listening to these commercial ravings about CO2 and global warming. The situation is 100% completely opposite!
The activity of sunspots is today very low, althougt recently some rising activity has been observed. Talking about the sun as having no importance for the Earth's climate is absolutely frivolous and junk scientific, so we will simply ignore that. There is a close link between the Sun and what is happening on the Earth. A glacial scenario is much more likely than a heating period. And none of these have anything to do with human activity. Exept for the sum of geo-ingeneering and weather modification projects, that the same cabal that has trumpeted the climate fraud is up to, and that draw strange streaks across the sky these days filled with barium, strontium and aluminum. The organizers of this particular form of deliberate anthropogenic climate are very reluctant to tell us about it.
There are many misconceptions about what an ice age is, and what creates the kind. Most people think that it is something that it is just the weather being goddamn shit cold. Not so. It takes only about five degrees colder than average, before the spring grows longer and the autumn shorter and there will be a gradual buildup of ice. There will be more precipitation in the winter and will gradually be lying. The disastrous will not consist in human beings freezing to death in the streets, but more in the fact that we can not get seeds in the soil in the spring, and the cold sets in, before they can reap. We would starve rather than freeze.
Set back in the history of civilization, the mini-ice ages would last about 125 years, been synonymous with civilization's downfall. The Roman Empire fell at such a mini-ice age. Genghis Khan moved free in such a time. Sumer coincided in such a time. What would be the Empire bound to fall this time?
What happened to the environment?
Simultaneously with this curious fraudulent smokescreen the World is floating with serious environmental problems: rivers flowing with poison and shit, the air is crowded with irrelevant stuff, wars in the Middle East resulting in large areas of land flowing with depleted uranium (and no, you do not hear about it on TV ...). The food we eat contains tons of irrelevant products from the petrochemical industry. Fracking destroying underground and fresh water, and endless list of sad, sad calamities. And what is being debated? Climate, CO2-poisoning (as if CO2 actually was a poison), global warming, guilt, shame, debt, taxes, 'carbon-trade'. The politicized junk-science has delivered a huge distraction - on purpose? You don't organize a huge spinn project without it being a multi-pronged maneuver. The environmental movement never saw what hit them, and their naive acolytes did not notice that they were deceived. The immediately adopted climate change adapting to the priorities of the concept. How smart was it not? How convenient un-truthful was it not? Environmental movements allowed themselves willingly to be corrupt and disarmed. Exit environmental debate.
What is very sad is, that the subject of natural climate change meaning EVERYTHING in all of human history for the lives as humans on Earth now is disappearing from our view due to some greedy and petty political agenda, so that we are rendered totally helpless when and if it occurs. Or rather: not if, but when. When the trend goes in the opposite direction, and a new ice age starts, the industrialists will begin to waffle on this being 'due to global warming', and we would be witnessing the sickest of pseudo logics. In fact, they have already started this logic, so take a deep breath.
If you have to describe the living conditions of people in Northern Europe, North America and most of northern Asia 13,000 years ago, the nearest comparison: Antarctica around the South Pole. So take the soil surface, you see today with cities, trees, streams, forests and fields covered with a layer of ice two miles! In approximately 1000 years, which is equal to nothing in the geological history, this ice in the Northern Hemisphere completely disappeared. Speaking about global warming!
Real science is not in any way that stupid and arrogant politicians demand us to agree on. Challenge: if you or someone belonging from the group that has manipulated the minds of millions of people seducing or threatening them to confess to climate religion, then spend 2-3 months out of your life to seriously and unprejudiced studying what science has in fact learned in the last 30 years about the Earth's climate. And then let us hear how confident and dogma-sure you or they will be. It will prove that the problem is far more complex than the mainstream media has presented it.
The above blogpost is based on an interview with Stephen Thomas from realitySandwich.com and Randall Carlson * 1:
ClimateChangeInterview_01
ClimateChangeInterview_02
ClimateChangeInterview_03
ClimateChangeInterview_04
* 1
The blogger is a student of Randall Carlson.
I have carefully chosen him because of his huge and incorruptible knowledge of what he is commenting. Another good bet would be to listen to Robert Felix. Both 'renegate'-researchers happen to be architects. The undersigned blogger has strangely enough worked for architectural firms doing CAD drawing. Keeping in mind not to fall into the ditch of religion on the other side of the road. Follow the clues, follow the links, cross-check, verify, think-think-think! You will find lots of references here to the big boys in serious climate research.
* 2
The blogger has as Flash designer had a two-year professional collaboration with the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute, where I programmed and visualized the extensive knowledge-site isarkiv.dk (Danish text only) working in particular with a younger researcher and center coordinator at the department and a geographer from former Danish Polar Center. As the agenda of global warming arrived, I asked one day what the Niels Bohr Institute's position was, and they said, 'We do not want to comment. We are doing research, not politics, and we do not want our opinions to be twisted and abused by journalists and politicians'.
Kommentarer
Send en kommentar