By Michael Ippolito ~
OXON HILL, Md.—The Earth is warming, and while many worry about the potential consequences of the change, it is not unprecedented or dangerous, and will be a net benefit for humanity, Vijay Jayaraj said.
Numerous figures in the mainstream media have pushed “climate alarmism,” but Jayaraj, a research associate at the nonpartisan, nonprofit CO2 Coalition, debunks the claim, calling it a new form of colonialism.

Vijay Jayaraj, a research associate at the nonprofit CO2 Coalition, warned of the rise of what he regards as climate “colonialism” in a recent interview with The Daily Signal. (Photo: Virginia Allen/The Daily Signal)
“There is a growing sentiment among the leaders in the developing world about imperialism and reemergence of colonialism, in which they see an enforcement of restrictive energy policies from the Western leaders,” Jayaraj told The Daily Signal during an interview at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this month. “So, it’s in a form of an imperialism and climate alarmism, which is now infringing upon the rights of the poor people and dashing their hopes about having a future where they can have reliable energy access.”
The consensus of the climate change narrative is not being determined by scientists, but by “unelected political leaders” who use climate policies as “the Bible for policymaking,” he said.
“And we have a fair number of people in the conservative movement who do embrace, or are sympathetic towards, these reports,” said Jayaraj, who holds a master’s degree in environmental science. “And that is a problem, because this is a war against human well-being, not only in the developing world, but also in the developed West.”
He discussed the benefits of using nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, and how even evidence from the meltdowns at Fukushima and Chernobyl have not been as “detrimental to human health,” but “the left runs with the idea.”
Fighting back against the set climate narrative is difficult due to the potential for professors and scientists to lose their funding “or position,” Jayaraj warned. “So, it’s unfortunate, but we do have a lot of peer-reviewed scientific journals that are not talked about in the mainstream media,” Jayaraj emphasized. “And all people have to do is access Google Scholar and search for the terms that they’re interested in, their wide range of articles and scientific publications that do not agree with the current dominant climate narrative.”
Jayaraj thinks the American people are unfortunately in the grip of the mainstream media, which push the exaggerated climate crisis to those who do not have the time to look more closely at those issues.
“So, if you don’t have time to look into facts and read for yourself, you are just going to look at the headlines, and you are just going to assume that that is true because it’s on every leftist media,” he laments. “And you go, ‘Well, I think that’s the consensus, and I’ll go with that.’ But we do know that science is not based on consensus.”
“Science is based on scientific methodology, where you refute and challenge whichever theory is being put forward,” Jayaraj said. “And I think that’s all the more reason for media groups like yours to educate people on this.”
Jayaraj thinks the best way forward is to be more “people-centric,” in a way that “enables people to flourish.”
“So, that’s a way forward. I believe there are a lot of lawmakers in the conservative party who are very good at this, and I hope the tide turns in the coming years, and they are elected, and they can come forward with sensible energy policies,” Jayaraj concluded.
Michael Ippolito is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation . http://www.heritage.org/,
Read more informative articles at The Daily Signal http://dailysignal.com/
catweazle666
Sat 03/18/2023
Here is a classic example from Dr Youba Sokona (UCL Science & Technology Studies) and Chukwumerije Okereke of Reading University:
“Opinion: Africa has vast gas reserves – here’s how to stop them adding to climate change
The question of whether Africa should be allowed to exploit its gas reserves…”
Patronising or what!
As if it was up to Dr Youba Sokona – or any other Western “academic” milking a very good living from the AGW hoax come to that – what the Africans are allowed to do with their own resources!
However, the Africans appear to be fighting back.
“African nations tell COP27 fossil fuels will tackle poverty”
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/african-hosted-climate-talks-give-fossil-fuel-voice-2022-11-10/
“African nations expected to make case for big rise in fossil fuel output”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/01/african-nations-set-to-make-the-case-for-big-rise-in-fossil-fuel-output
In any case, this will all become irrelevant within the near future as the effects of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation’s switch to its negative start to become apparent, note that when it switched to its positive phase around 1980 the alarmist climate scientists smoothly segued from alarmism over the coming Ice Age due to human emissions particle reducing the Sun’s warming effect to the current AGW hoax, beautifully exemplified by this paper:
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
The same “climate scientists” in the same institutions changed tack overnight.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nick Anaxagoras
Sat 03/18/2023
Like caloric and phlogiston “net”, “back” & “radiative forcing” concepts purportedly explain GHE’s warming mechanism w/o which GHE fails.
Per GHE theory CO2 absorbs LWIR upwelling from the surface and then re-emits said energy in all directions.
The energy radiated back towards the surface creates a deficit at ToA which violates LoT 1. Ping-ponging among multiple concentric shells doesn’t help.
Energy radiating from cold troposphere back toward warmer surface w/o addition of work violates LoT 2. If this were possible there would be reefers w/o power cords. I have not seen any. You?
Not that it matters.
LWIR originates by upwelling a theoretical, “What if?” S-B BB calculation at the surface temperature which fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio.
It is not real & has no place in the balance calculation & is “extra” & appears out of thin air & if real would violate LoT 1.
No, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure power flux directly, they measure a calibrated, referenced, comparative temperature and infer power flux by assuming an emissivity.
Assuming 1.0 for the Earth’s surface is assuming wrong.
There is no “extra” upwelling LWIR & no downwelling LWIR & any “measurements” of either are illusions.
No GHE, no GHG heating, no CAGW.
LikeLiked by 3 people
whatyareckon
Sat 03/18/2023
Reblogged this on whatyareckon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
HiFast
Sat 03/18/2023
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
LikeLiked by 2 people