A Message to the Environmental Movement [HD]

11/24/201528 Comments


[Note: A lower quality version of this video was first published to The Corbett Report on November 25, 2009. A higher quality version of the video was recorded for the 2009 Video Archive DVD and is being made available online for the first time in preparation for the run-up to the COP21 Climate Conference starting November 30 in Paris.

Sadly, we now know how the Climategate scandal referred to in this video was addressed: by sweeping the true nature of its revelations under the rug with fraudulent investigation after fraudulent investigation after fraudulent investigation. As a global carbon treaty comes closer to reality, however, it is more important than ever to remind the well-meaning but severely misinformed environmental activists about how their cause has been hijacked so that the COP21 agenda can be derailed.

Stay tuned for more coverage of this important issue on The Corbett Report in the coming weeks.]

Transcript: This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com and I come here today with a message for you.

You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.

You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.

This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.

This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:

Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.

You have suspected as much for years.

You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.

You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.

You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.

You disagreed when the slogans--and then the science--were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.

You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.

You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.

Your movement had been hijacked.

The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome's 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

And when you looked at the Club of Rome's elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.

Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.

Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.

Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.

We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.

We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists' wishes, not reality.

We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.

We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.

We now know, in short, that they were lying.

It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.

With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.

Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.

We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.

We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.

In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.

Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.

We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.

We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.

We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.

We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.

Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support 'our' side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.

It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.

We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?

For The Corbett Report, this is James Corbett in western Japan.

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. spoonful says:

    I remember when the environmental movement started in the early 1970’s with Ewell Gibbons eating granola. Back then, air pollution (as well as water and soil) were bad because – well, they killed people. Since then, air pollution has morphed into global warming which has morphed into climate change. Now the toxins won’t kill you or turn men into a women, but they might make the climate change . . . whaddaya mean you don’t believe in climate change? You must be a Republican . . .

    • You missed a step in the evolution of this religion – global cooling, which was the initial failed branding of this religion. The product was rebranded to global warming, and now, with even more money and marketing, to the amorphous “climate change.”

      • VoltaicDude says:

        But remember Algo, if you cool and heat and cool and heat properly you end-up with great sour-cream.

        Ah yes, Ewell Gibbons and Mr. …was that Breakstone’s? – Geese, how could I forget? It’s as though everything really important from my childhood is slipping away.

        How come they don’t have a commercial-re-runs-channel? That way a whole new generation of really nice people can “make the word sing in perfect harmony,” have an intelligent conversation about the composition of their Big Mac, and remember that if “it’s Wednesday…”

        How will the new generations be able to think critically and strive for a fairer world? Perhaps we’ll just have to go hell in a hand basket.

    • oregonstu says:

      No, mate, Ewell Gibbons did not start the “environmental movement”, his granola commercials were an example of the corporate branding and co-option that James is referring to. I would say that Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” is a much better marker for the beginning of the “environmental movement”, if such an inexact and nebulous thing can be called a movement or given a definite starting point at all.

  2. hankblackgraphics says:

    Good one. If only logic could compete with religious zeal…

  3. hlawsonbell says:

    To: spoonful: It is the responsibility of everyone in a dialogue to ascertain whether he wishes to makes sense or just wants to be heard. i challenge you to rethink your response and offer something more meaningful.

    To James: unfortunately, the biggest hijack that has taken place has been that of the media and the critical thinking of the masses. Once that was complete those who wish to control us can say anything and the dumbed down population readily believes it.
    J Edgar Hoover: “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believes it exists”

  4. Myers says:

    Questions to all those who agree with James that AGW is a pseudo-science:

    Why, in your opinion, is there so much opposition to the dissemination of climate science (fake or real) by the corporate lobby groups that dominate so much policy making in modern government? Why is climate skepticism given so much press coverage if the elites who own the press want everyone to believe AGW is real?

    Why have authorities been so heavy handed in clamping down on climate change protest over the past three decades; infiltrating groups, criminalising protester’s actions, conflating environmental activism with terrorism?

    Why are governments like the UK gov abandoning their support for renewable energy, efficient housing and other ‘low carbon’ schemes, why have they taken discussion of climate change off of the curriculum of the nation’s schools?

    Why have all the summits and conferences, all the treaties and agreements basically come to naught in terms of actual change in societal direction?

    Why have people like the Koch brothers and Exon Mobil been so secretive and determined in deliberately covering up their research and the funding of front groups?

    Why is Donald Trump saying that climate change is ‘a hoax’?

    All these things make sense to me if AGW were in fact a genuine threat to the world of corporate power which has the fossil fuel industries at its centre. None do (to me) if it is a hoax perpetrated by The Club of Rome.

    I am not trying to win an argument here, I am genuinely interested in the other side of the debate, in how climate skeptics/ deniers account for how the issue has played out in my lifetime.

    • Myers says:

      Come to think of it, there are loads of people in congress saying that AGW is a hoax, or is not settled science, or is a plot to diminish America.

      If the whole thing is a hoax, it seems the cat is out of the bag, those good ol Republicans have seen through it:

    • oregonstu says:

      Those are some extremely good questions, Meyers. I have some further points to add to your comments.

      First off, let me make it clear that a great many environmentalists understand that the environmental “movement” has been hijacked and usurped by the very powers we oppose, at least insofar as the extremely diverse of group of individuals who might be said to comprise this “movement” are represented by large environmental organizations.

      There has been a great deal written about how the big environmental groups such as the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, etc. have succumbed to this sad co-option by the transnational corporate deep state. I have surmised that this infiltration/co-option/manipulation extends even to such “radical” environmental groups such as Greenpeace. Individuals who understand these facts may comprise a minority among those who self identify as environmentalists, but nonetheless we number in the tens or hundreds of thousands world wide.

      Even though the majority of environmentalists see the basic science underlying climate change as an incontrovertible scientific fact, that does not always translate into a corollary belief that the pathetic corporate friendly “remedies” such as cap and trade carbon limits represent anything more than a transparent pretense intended to placate the gullible rank and file of the environmental “movement”, yet meanwhile ensuring not only the undeviating trajectory of increasing global Co2 emissions, but also providing cover for and abetting other unrelated items on the agenda of the transnational cartel empire (an example of this would be using global warming as a cover for the military program involving the massive “chem trail” aerosol spraying in the atmosphere).

      Libertarians, as a group, tend to make no bones about their belief that anthropogenic climate change based upon elevated atmospheric Co2 levels is a deep state hoax. In this podcast, you have based this assertion upon the famous e mails which you say show that the research of two scientists in Britain reveal that they doctored their data. In fact, there is a body of evidence which argues against your assertion, and these researchers have been cleared in more than one independent investigation.

      However, for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that your position regarding these two researchers is correct. Why should anyone accept the idea that the many thousands of scientists who have conducted research on various aspects of climate change should have their integrity questioned on the basis of these TWO IDIVIDUALS? Here is a quote that touches on that point:

      “The IPCC’s primary conclusions are based on an assessment of thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. Although many errors were alleged, EPA confirmed only two errors. The small number of documented errors are not central to IPCC’s main conclusions or to EPA’s Endangerment Finding. In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC. The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.”

      What the historical record actually shows that the corporatocracy was among the first to do research on climate change, they covered up the results because it was bad news for their business and profits, they attacked the credibility of scientists who began to publish research which established the links between elevated Co2 levels and rising temperatures, with the collaboration of their colleagues in the corporate media they have hyped misinformation and controversies designed to smear the reputations and undermine the credibility of the research of scientific adversaries (a perfect example of this is the “e mail” case you cite), and they engaged in a systematic propaganda campaign to muddy the waters and mislead the public about what they knew to be true.

      All of the above is perfectly consistent and logically corresponds with their vested profit motives and the clear historical record of the projects they have invested themselves in, whereas the idea that they would deliberately seek to buttress evidence of elevated Co2 based climate change MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER in terms of their profit motives, it is completely illogical.



    • VoltaicDude says:

      Hi Myers. Do you know who Twyla Tharp is? But seriously, you’re earnestness deserves the same. So, here’s a puzzle as analogy to the climate change hoax (which is not the same idea as saying that industrial pollution in general is a hoax). As an analogy it deals with the same type of disinformation, but under a different subject – the Syrian Refugee Crisis. (It’s useful to recognize this pattern across subject matters.)

      Daily Kos:
      “Elizabeth Warren’s beautiful statement on Syria.”

      This “beautiful” statement – an edited version of Warren’s Senate-floor speech – will make your eyes water (unless you’re…well you know, somebody bad).

      Then watch the whole speech. (Note: 08:50 – 08:59; “What about the…”)

      Unless we’re Xenophobes, the suffering of displaced people anywhere deserves our sympathy. But, if the actual facts of a news story are distorted in the corporatist mass media, beyond the actual tragedy, we need to ask, “Why?” Not just, “How so?”

      Warren’s comment about the Assad regime (@08:50) lends support to the U.S. State Dept.’s calls that we need to effect regime-change in Syria.

      Isn’t that crazy?

      That’s the very policy that has killed over one hundred thousand innocent Syrian civilians, and displaced millions – the civil war in Syria is a contrivance. If Warren doesn’t know enough to unequivocally stand against this regime-change policy (presuming the best about her), and which also stands as contrary to international law, how can she help?

      How could this next contrived step – this “official” and very public absorption of “Syrian refugees” – be twisted by some future event to promote some future hate and fear mongering campaign?

      Would a future fear mongering campaign, perhaps instigated by a false-flag of some sort, be good for the Syrian people? Would it help alleviate the refugee problem?

      When a Senator doesn’t understand this level of analysis, that’s the real problem. We should refuse to be led into situations that will make us naïve pawns of the brutally deceptive powers that shape these narratives.

      Compare this knowledge:
      Syrian Girl Blows The Lid Off The Refugee Crisis

      and this:

      So, likewise, if climate change science is being falsified: How so? and Why?

      Everyone is lying. Otherwise “both” sides would be talking about the petrodollar empire, and why all these shenanigans feed into maintaining the status quo (even during a transition to a new energy paradigm) of structured control by our shadow government.

      Again, as another analogy, when is the last time corporatist mass media told you any truth about 911? Or the JFK assassination? If it’s reported on corporatist mass media, it’s probably a lie, regardless of which side is being covered. Do you really think Trump doesn’t know he’s a clown? He’s fed his lines daily.

      If they don’t consistently lie, they’re knotted-up ball of disinformation will start to unravel. Substituted narratives of control are predicated on the idea that both sides will be lying to subvert attention to what is actually going on.

      This dialectical structure when translated to dance is called a pas de deux.

      • Myers says:

        Thanks for your reply.

        The thing I am interested in here is that the analogies you reference such as the events of 911 and the assassination of JFK, are I would say distinctly different from the climate change issue.

        My assertion and my questions are along the lines of:
        If the science of AGW were fabrication, exaggeration or hoax perpetrated by secretive networks of elite interests, why is there so much media coverage given over to disputing that science? If I were to take a cross sectional survey of opinion from the best selling newspapers in my country, I would say that somewhere between half and most of the coverage presents the subject as either one of disputed science or as an outright liberal conspiracy (a hoax).
        How can any power network be so influential that it can skew the research findings of many thousands of scientists around the world so as to create a huge corpus of ‘fake’ science, but at the same time be so inept that it cannot keep the media ‘on message’?
        NB The media is well known to be centralised and in the hands of oligarchs, scientific research is still much less centralised, and even today is far more independent that the media in how it controls information.

        My point is that surely, if it were a hoax, it has spectacularly failed. For the past 25 years there has been no significant change of direction in the way that our political and industrial systems function. Agenda 21 gets mentioned as some threatening device cooked up at the Rio Earth Summit way back in the early 90’s, but what has it actually done in all this time? We had an Agenda 21 officer in our local government for a while, she was perhaps the most obvious example of a figleaf office holder that I have ever seen, she did nothing, she had no power.

        JFK and 911 on the other hand are not clearly exposed anywhere in the media, not even the alt media outlets which generally take the line that AGW is a genuine threat to civilisation. The narratives of deep events like these are tightly controlled, the science is secretive, classified and selective. AGW on the other hand involves the work of thousands of research institutions around the globe, all the work is open and peer reviewed. How does anyone control that narrative except through the media’s (mis)representation of the science: and as said, this- to my reading, is (on balance) dissuading the public from believing that AGW is real, or is the scientific consensus, or is something to think or do anything much about.

        911 and JFK had quite obvious and far reaching consequences.

        All the while the public figures who most openly and loudly make the case that AGW is a hoax are bible bashing Republicans and out and out proven fabricators, people like Trump. How does someone who follows the work of the Corbett Report (and believes AGW is fake) think when all those Tea Party Republicans stand up and champion their opinions in public?

        • oregonstu says:

          “How can any power network be so influential that it can skew the research findings of many thousands of scientists around the world so as to create a huge corpus of ‘fake’ science, but at the same time be so inept that it cannot keep the media ‘on message’?”

          Damn good question. Particularly when one considers how extraordinarily well they manage to stay on track with their multilingual, multinational barrage of lies on any number of other subjects.

          They have managed to subvert and co-opt a good percentage of the academics and scientists in most fields, but a troublesome, independent majority remains a serious Public Relations problem for them. This troublesome group of scientists has thwarted their long running, concerted efforts to keep the data on climate change under wraps, so they have been forced to use other tactics.

          The clamor and obfuscation of their hired guns in pet “libertarian” think tanks and academia are part of this game plan. And their co-option and manipulation of large environmental groups into supporting their useless “remedies” such as cap and trade” are another key part of their plan: frame the parameters of debate, and dissipate the focus and energy of their opponents in endless international conferences that somehow never seem to reach an agreement on even the ineffectual, corporate friendly “remedies” that they have been manipulated into supporting.

  5. 1) Very good lecture, by Christopher Monckton, denouncing the falsehood of “Man-Made Climate Change”: https://vimeo.com/8023097

    2) The best documentary out there, dismantling the whole “Anthropogenic Global Warming” fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrsUQ5jw_B4

    3) And, some more information…

    The (false) “environmental movement” is a creation of the powers-that-be, aimed mainly at (1) preserving natural resources for the elites, and (2) reducing the world population to more manageable levels, in terms of the uncontrollable economic and cultural development that has come out of the world’s population growth and industrialization.

    (How do you think that the Internet, and alternative sites like this one, historically came to be?)

    Inform yourselves about who founded (and funded) the “Club of Rome” (that started talking about “Limits to Growth”) the WWF, and the likes…

    The world is on the verge of developing an energy solution that will solve every problem related to poverty, pollution, and the lack of natural resources. That solution is called “Nuclear Fusion”, and you will barely read anything about it in the mainstream/controlled/corporate media.

    Listen to and read what Daniel Estulin and the LaRouche movement have to say about all this.

    • Myers says:

      ‘The (false) “environmental movement” is a creation of the powers-that-be, aimed mainly at (1) preserving natural resources for the elites, and (2) reducing the world population to more manageable levels, in terms of the uncontrollable economic and cultural development that has come out of the world’s population growth and industrialization.’

      Well would you agree that it has spectacularly failed to preserve the natural resources of the world?
      Do you think that the global population has been culled or shows any sign of such in the near future? If not, then the (false) movement which started a hundred years ago needs to get its shit together.
      The elites of the Club of Rome have done very nicely out of the economic development of the world haven’t they? This is what confounds me about this idea that the environment movement which emerged from real phenomena like the dust bowl, somehow serves elite interests, when all I see are elites exploiting natural and human resources to get incredibly rich, it is a direct threat to their interests.

      Nuclear Fusion has been just twenty years away for about forty years. I guess you can dream.

  6. Cu Chulainn says:

    well then, how about confronting the facts in the first four of these detailed Assessment Reports, instead of sermonizing?


  7. Myers says:

    ‘The analysis of 20 years’ worth of data by Yale University researcher Dr. Justin Farrell shows beyond a doubt that ExxonMobil and the Kochs are the key actors who funded the creation of climate disinformation think tanks and ensured the prolific spread of their doubt products throughout our mainstream media and public discourse.

    ‘“The contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust,” Dr. Farrell told the Washington Post which was first to cover the news of the study’s release. “This counter-movement produced messages aimed, at the very least, at creating ideological polarization through politicized tactics, and at the very most, at overtly refuting current scientific consensus with scientific findings of their own,” Dr. Farrell said.’


    What do y’all make of this? Did Exxon and the Koch’s miss the meeting about the faux climate change plan to tax and depopulate the world ? Elaborate double bluff? Is Trump a truth teller?

    • Myers says:

      My last, a five minute vid, Seitz and the Marshall Institute. What is going on there?


      • minnie says:

        I used to be a pretty passionate environmentalist – and I still am up to a point. I don’t want to see the air or the oceans polluted or the destruction of the rainforests.

        I started to become sceptical about the movement when I noticed that environmental campaigns always seemed to lead towards taxes for the “little people” – congestion charges, “green” taxes applied to heating bills, even new fridges after CFCs were identified as the destroyers of the ozone layer (not to mention increased sales of sun cream).

        Yet at the same time, technology to build the electric car for the masses has been delayed for decades. Oil tankers pollute the oceans, geoengineering is written about appreciatively in The Guardian (you can now pay to have sunshine on your wedding day, it enthuses) and rainforests are destroyed to make way for big livestock farms.

        The environmental protestors who are infiltrated and persecuted by the police are always the ones who are targeting big business or weaponry. It’s not about one side or the other – the powers that shouldn’t be cherry-pick the environmental campaigns that they can use for their own ends – to tax or control the masses – and go all out to support them.

        I can’t remember the last time I heard about the problems of the holes in the ozone layer in the mainstream media. But the holes are still there, and apparently they get bigger every spring. The issue was used in a targeted global media campaign in the late 1980s and then dropped like a hot potato.

        How much carbon does bombing produce? Think about how much global warming could be reduced if we could put a stop to all NATO’s interventions. That clearly shows what the powers that shouldn’t be really think about anthropogenic global warming.

  8. oregonstu says:

    A Message to the Libertarian Movement

    This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.

    This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:

    Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.

    In fact, the libertarian movement has not merely been usurped by these transnational financial interests, it was actually CONCEIVED AND CREATED by these financial interests. The hard, uncomfortable truth that needs to be faced by the many good and decent libertarians in the world today is that the movement they identify with was created as THE original act of corporate “Astroturfing” (which means a fake “grassroots” movement” that is in truth a corporate front) back in the 1950’s.

    Read about this tragic history below, and weep. You have been the unwitting dupes manipulated by the transnational corporate deep state all along.

    Don’t get me wrong. I know there are a great many intelligent, well intentioned individuals who self identify with the libertarian movement who generally have their heads screwed on very well. I realize that the “libertarian movement” is comprised of a very diverse group of individuals who often may hold a wide array of opinions on a given subject – you cannot all be painted with the same brush and neatly pigeon holed.

    Furthermore, I personally find that my views on a great many issues correspond more closely with those who call themselves libertarians than other nebulous categories of humanity I tend identify with – “progressives”, “liberals”, and “environmentalists”, for example. On too many crucially important issues, I feel that your average “liberal environmentalist” is downright clueless, whereas many “libertarians” see things much the way I do.

    However, the ONE topic on which virtually all libertarians seem to hold a unified, orthodox opinion is that anthropogenic climate change based on elevated atmospheric Co2 levels is a hoax perpetrated by the corporate deep state – apparently because they wanted to… what? Impose a “cap and trade” policy on the world? The purported motive isn’t so clear, but the unified belief in a hoax backed by “fake science” sponsored by these financial interests is quite clear, isn’t it?

    Unfortunately, libertarians as a group refuse to engage in an intellectually honest debate on this issue. They hyperventilate about the dubious example of TWO SCIENTISTS who may indeed have falsified some of their research data, and conflate this one example as being a refutation of HUNDREDS of studies undertaken by thousands of reputable independent scientists all over the world whose findings support an overwhelming consensus among many thousands of scientists in multiple fields – that global warming as a result of anthropogenic Co2 emissions is an incontrovertible FACT.

    Libertarians, as a group, are far more blind to the fact that they have been infiltrated, funded, and manipulated than environmentalists are, as a group. Libertarians steadfastly ignore any evidence that contradicts their belief on this issue. They ignore the mountain of evidence that shows that libertarian oriented think tanks are the source of the misinformation used by corporate interests to attempt to discredit global warming science. They ignore the OBVIOUS fact that these corporate deep state financial powers have dedicated themselves to protecting their incredibly profitable fossil fuel industries, and that scientific research which proves global warming is a reality is a THREAT TO THEIR PROFITS.

    The uncomfortable truth we ALL need to face, left, right, and center, is that the transnational deep state leaves no stone unturned, no opportunity to deceive and mislead unexploited, no organization of ANY stripe uninfiltrated or unmanipulated. We need to wise up to their tricks if we wish to have a shadow of a chance to collectively expose and overcome their odious and evil schemes.

  9. nosoapradio says:

    Cu Chulainn says:

    “well then, how about confronting the facts in the first four of these detailed Assessment Reports, instead of sermonizing?”

    I’d say:

    Well you can read the 7000 pages meticulously and humbly eeked out by the scientists. Or you can read the 32-page politically agenda-ridden report written by and for agenda-ridden politicians.

    That’s right. Disconnect and discrepency between the original scientific reports and the political “policiymakers synthesis” as described below by Dr.Tim Ball and Donna LaFramboise:

    “Disconnect between the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and the Science Report Of Working Group I reached an extreme.”


    “…Now if scientists were in charge at the IPCC, at the end of the process these summaries would be written up by a small group, released into the world, and we’d all read these scientists’ unadorned words.

    But that’s not what happens.

    In fact, IPCC authors only draft these summaries. And then something incredible transpires:

    A big IPCC meeting takes place. Attended by governments.

    Although some people in the room are scientists, the vast majority are diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats and assorted officials.

    These people then spend the next week rewriting
    the summary authored by scientists…”


    • nosoapradio says:

      So you’ve all heard about the French weatherman who was recently fired for writing a book critical of the IPCC.


      An extract from the “Contrepoints” book summary hints at why he’s so upsetting:

      “…You will measure the skills of the IPCC policymakers who draft the final report , the only one read by our leaders. You will see which parts of the scientists’ work do and do not appear in this report…”

      Learn more at: http://www.contrepoints.org/2015/10/18/225791-climat-investigation-de-philippe-verdier#4rK4QAUm4gXjYd1w.99

    • iiYd says:

      nosoapradio says:

      A big IPCC meeting takes place. Attended by governments.

      Although some people in the room are scientists, the vast majority are diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats and assorted officials.

      These people then spend the next week rewriting
      the summary authored by scientists…”

      I expect some big bankers to be among those present also.

      • nosoapradio says:

        So not only are there rewrites by lobbies (Greenpeace) and political organisations (and probably bankers as well as iiYd suggests)


        the Summary for Policymakers is released months before the Science Report

        as exlained by Dr. Tim Ball:

        “…They produce “The Physical Science Basis” that they know few read or understand. It’s completed and set aside while a Synthesis Report or Summary for Policymakers is written and released at an orchestrated press conference

        months before the Science Report.

        The two are markedly different…” –

        See more at: http://drtimball.com/2012/climate-change-of-the-ipcc-is-daylight-robberyclimate-change-of-the-ipcc-is-daylight-robbery/#sthash.61Ivo638.dpuf

        Finally, as much as I would like to take credit for having formulated the quotes posted above, I must stress that, as I tried to indicate with the use of quotation marks, those are the words of the brave and articulate Donna LaFramboise.

    • oregonstu says:

      Interesting to see who the scientists are that you cite as being representative of the scientific consensus on climate change, Naso. The “consensus”, which, we infer, is being turned on its head by diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats and assorted officials that rewrite the summary.

      I would say the first thing that an intelligent person needs to attempt to do when trying to make heads or tails of a massive welter of contradictory information and strident but diametrically opposing conclusions, is to first consider the source of a given body of information, argument, or point of view.

      In considering the source, the KEY QUESTION that needs to be asked is, is this person laying all of his or her cards on the table? Have they arrived at their conclusions out of personal conviction derived from self directed, honest research that is not tainted with personal bias or directed towards a predetermined outcome? Or are they in any way being influenced – by grants, job promises, salary, or prospects of career advancement – by an outside commercial entities with a vested interest interest in presenting research, arguments, or conclusions which will tend to produce the greatest financial gain for said commercial entity?

      In other words, is the individual presenting a given body of information dedicated to scientific objectivity and the best interests of the public, or is this individual serving the interests of commercial entity which may be in pursuit of profit oriented objectives which might very well be contrary to the best interests of the general public?

      The sad truth is that academia has long been subject to the profoundly corrupting influence of powerful financial interests. Of late, this phenomenon has expanded so far that there is virtually no academic discipline that can be said to be entirely free of this erosion of academic integrity. The degree to which any given field of study is subject to such co-option is directly proportional to the profitability of the industries which employ those who graduate from it.

      With increasing frequency, we see these graduates going on to become spokespersons for the industries that have enlisted their services, though of course in most cases pains have been taken to obscure the ties that bind them to their benefactors. It isn’t particularly difficult to see when this has happened, even though ferreting out the particular details of HOW it has happened with a given individual may take slightly more effort.

      The individuals you cite are very obviously quislings of the fossil fuel corporations, Naso – their positions are pure misdirection, misinformation, laughable lies, and blatant corporate propaganda. Here are some other takes on the background of the likes of Dr. Tim Ball, Donna LaFramboise, and Dr Christopher Essex (quoted in their article you linked to):

      “Few in the audience have any idea that Prof. Ball hasn’t published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch.”



      Donna La Framboise received substantial speaking fees on various occasions from the Heartland Institute…”the Heartland Institute, heavily funded by fossil fuel groups, had already reached its conclusions before starting out (i.e., climate change is a hoax) and only reviews papers written by deniers (the IPCC reviews all papers on the subject).”



  10. nosoapradio says:

    So, let me get this straight oregonstu;

    Are you saying then that the original report written by scientists is NOT subsequently tampered with by lobbies and politicians, sometimes to the extent of suggesting the opposite of the scientific data??

    “…What starts out being a scientific report becomes a political instrument because after a hard-core group of IPCC supporters draft the Summary for Policymakers, government representatives discuss, negotiate and eventually agree on the wording of each sentence. The scientific component of the report is then modified to better align it with the thinking of government representatives…

    John McLean is the author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report. He is also a climate data analyst and a member of the International Climate Science Coalition.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-politics-clouds-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html#ixzz3sXKk68XD

    “Two weeks ago I reported the central error in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to its secretariat. After the contributing scientists had submitted their final draft report, the bureaucrats and politicians had tampered with the HadCRUt3 graph of global instrumental temperatures since 1850 by adding four trend-lines to the anomaly curve and drawing from their relative slopes the unjustifiable and statistically indefensible conclusion, stated twice in the published report, that global warming was “accelerating” and that the “acceleration” was our fault…

    …There has been no warming for 17 years on any measure, as the IPCC’s climate-science chairman now admits. That includes the Hadley/CRU data. There has been no warming for 23 years according to RSS satellite dataset…”


    Touched up Google translation on François Gervais’ findings:

    “…The findings of IPCC reports (2000 pages) are synthesized in a much shorter summary for the general public and policy makers. Those who participated in the writing of these summaries, in addition to scientists, were representatives of various governments (hence the “I” in “IPCC”, for “intergovernmental”).

    Mr. Gervais has seen how certain elements in the full report had disappeared from the final summary. Including the reserve with which modellers present their projections. And reserve is mandatory, as their models, based on the assumption that the CO2 greenhouse effect is the main factor determining the climate, absolutely did not see coming the current cooling, and furthermore, are not validated by the past as they are unable to reproduce the changes of the last century. The range showing the “most probable” temperature increases calculated by these models has continued to descend during the successive versions of the report, but in the final 26-page summary the actual figures deemed “most likely increase” simply disappeared! Mr. Gervais has calculated the estimated uncertainty rate presented in this summary (up from 0.3 to 4.8 ° C by 2100): as 1600%!! Enough to make any serious scientist object !…”


  11. oregonstu says:

    John McLean is yet another oil industry lackey,and absolutely misrepresents the nature of the scientific reviewing process for the IPCC report: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/20/john-mclean-and-the-nrsp/

    Here is a quote on your “expert reviewer” John McLean: John Mashey examined McLean’s background and it seems that while the National Post awarded him a PhD he actually has no scientific qualifications at all, just a Bachelor of Architecture. Which makes McLean’s rant against a critic, which was captured by Nexus 6 particularly funny

  12. nosoapradio says:

    So you’re saying there is no rewrite?

    Yet François Gervais, Vincent Courtillot and Christopher Monckton say that not only is there a rewrite (as you can see above) but that in their personal experience important info for understanding the climate is simply taken out and/or misrepresented (in the fashion described by Mr Corbett in his most recent video.)

    You say this isn’t true?

  13. westerncivic says:

    Sharing this video with friends today.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top