Episode 211 – Expertology

12/03/201142 Comments

The experts always know best…or do they? Join us today on The Corbett Report podcast as we scrutinize the media’s ready reliance on “experts” to say what the establishment wants to be said, and what this practice means for the rise of the scientific dictatorship.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

Watch this video on BitChute / YouTube / Download the mp4

Documentation

Cutting Through The Matrix – January 21, 2011
Time Reference: 05:16

 

A Safe Tan? No Way, Experts Say
Time Reference: 10:07

 

European fiscal union: what the experts say
Time Reference: 10:13

 

Arsenic? Experts say real apple juice danger lies in calories
Time Reference: 10:18

 

Fuel experts say gasoline consumers had it easy during recent storms
Time Reference: 10:27

 

Pet shouldn’t be impulse gift, experts say
Time Reference: 10:41

 

ESPN Experts Say…New York Giants Fall to the Pack
Time Reference: 13:02

 

Growing wealth disparity underlies Occupy protests, experts say
Time Reference: 14:48

 

Strong market: Experts say ride on the wave but be cautious
Time Reference: 17:05

 

The National On Demand
Time Reference: 20:24

 

Alan Watt on “Rude Awakening”
Time Reference: 25:02

 

Dr. Tim Ball on The Corbett Report
Time Reference: 34:01

 

Dr. Tim Ball official homepage
Time Reference: 39:13

 

Climategate 2.0: Hockey Stick Debunking Confirmed
Time Reference: 41:14

 

Frontline – The Vaccine War
Time Reference: 42:59
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: EpisodesPodcasts
Tagged with:

Comments (42)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Nick Weech asks a question regarding: “Bingo, bango, sugar in the gas tank.”
    https://www.corbettreport.com/experts-say-experts-say-headlines-are-propaganda-propagandawatch/#comment-67105

  2. Ukdavec says:

    The Real Problem Central Bankers Face: The Rest of Us

    If only people behaved as they were supposed to, central banks wouldn’t keep missing their targets. Psychology is leading them to an even odder conclusion: perhaps the Federal Reserve needs to teach people to behave as the economic models require.

    So it is not their fault – it is OUR fault! And we need to be taught how we should behave!

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-problem-central-bankers-face-the-rest-of-us-11570536214

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      What a headline and first paragraph by James Mackintosh!
      I wish the article wasn’t behind a paywall, because I can’t believe he is serious.

    • pearl says:

      Stunning. I don’t know why I’m surprised. Here’s my contribution to highlight another example of gaslighting:

      “As a reporter who covers technology and the future, I constantly hear variations of this line as technologists attempt to apply the theory Charles Darwin made famous in biology to their own work. I’m told that there is a progression of technology, a movement that is bigger than any individual inventor or CEO. They say they are simply caught in a tide, swept along in a current they cannot fight. They say it inevitably leads them to facial recognition (now even being deployed on children), smart speakers that record your intimate conversations, and doorbells that narc on your neighbors. They say we can’t blame these companies for the erosion of privacy or democracy or trust in public institutions — that was all going to happen sooner or later.[…]Companies are simply responding to ‘natural selection’ by consumers.

      https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/10/1/20887003/tech-technology-evolution-natural-inevitable-ethics

    • Ukdavec says:

      Ooops.

      PDF of article here

      http://www.mediafire.com/file/n55wy67bcm6xkhn/The_Real_Problem_Central_Bankers_Face__The_Rest_of_Us_-_WSJ.pdf/file

      Reveals some of the thinking of the ‘elites’.

      The need for propaganda, disdain for low IQ’s, reliance on computer models… The parallels with elements such as Brexit, climate crisis, et al are very clear for me.

  3. hugo.c says:

    You forgot one:

    “Officials Say”

    🙂

  4. manbearpig says:

    Holy Connoli, Admire the Formidably Fallacy-filled Frankenstein Strawman “the Experts” have generated for us this time:

    “Climate explained: Why do people still think climate change isn’t real?”

    Expert David Hall, Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology explains:

    “At its heart, climate change denial is a conflict between facts and values. People deny the climate crisis because, to them, it just feels wrong…
    …climate change becomes such an “inconvenient truth” that, instead of living with and acting upon our worries, we suppress the truth instead…”

    Then the big black letters in bold announce the section on

    NEGATING REALITY

    “…as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt memorably put it – they aren’t reasoning in the careful manner of a judge who impartially weighs up all the evidence. Instead, they’re reasoning in the manner of a defence lawyer who clutches for post hoc rationalisations to defend an initial gut instinct.

    This is why brow-beating deniers with further climate science is unlikely to succeed: their faculty of reason is motivated to defend itself from revising its beliefs.

    A large and growing empirical literature is exploring what drives denial. Personality is a factor: people are more likely to deny climate change if they’re inclined toward hierarchy and against changes to the status quo.
    Demographic factors also show an effect. Internationally, people who are less educated, older and more religious tend to discount climate change, with sex and income having a smaller effect…

    …with conservative voters more likely to discount climate change. Globally, a person’s commitment to democratic values – or not in the case of deniers – is more significant…

    …As the sociologist Stanley Cohen noted in his classic study of denial, there is an important distinction between denial that is personal and psychological, and denial that is institutional and organised. The former involves people who deny the facts to themselves, but the latter involves the denial of facts to others, even when these “merchants of doubt” know the truth very well…”

    And then comes the “Exxon Knew” fairytale followed by the “climate negationists have disproportionate visibility in the media” BS.

    Then comes the “totally misplaced condescension” fallacy (never heard of it??)

    Finally, after underlining that “deniers” are motivated by selfish financial interest, the expert drives his bandwagon home with the insinuation that these illiterate, religious, conservative, reality-denying “merchants of doubt” with fascist leanings aren’t worried about climate and its larger attendant issues.

    “…On the other hand, not all deniers will be convinced. Some downplay and discount climate change precisely because they recognise that the low-emissions transition will adversely impact their interests. …Public surveys emphasise that, throughout the world, deniers are in the minority. The worried majority doesn’t need to win over everyone in order to win on climate change…”

    To gawk at this blinding jewel of Expertology just go here:

    https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763

    and now I shall take a temporary sabbatical in lala land to wallow in crybaby mode ’cause I know

    THIS SHIT WORKS FOR F%§£K’S SAKE!!!!

    waaaaaaaaaaannnnnnhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    • flammable says:

      The believers of man-made climate change are using an even greater way to deny reality. Believing in doomsday scenarios seem like a way of accepting reality but it is not.

      Man-made climate change is creating a shortcut to fixing the environment by limiting all problems to carbon. It is also kicking the can down the road and ignoring present environmental harm. A disaster coming in the near future allows people to wait around and complain without taking real action.

      The real hard truth is that there is no one bad substance we can remove from the environment that will stop illnesses and early death. Also there is no future scenario we can stop and everything will be great. Pollution and environmental hazards do not lay dormant and explode years later. It harms people as soon as it is created.

      • manbearpig says:

        “The real hard truth is that there is no one bad substance we can remove from the environment that will stop illnesses and early death.”

        I’m afraid “the real hard truth” Flammable, is much harder than that.

        no “shortcuts”, no “limiting all problems to carbon” or attempts at “stopping illnesses and early death” nor “fixing the environment” or even “kicking the can down the road”.

        just deliberate destruction, death and deception; not for money ultimately, but a eugenical project of total control.

        but then again, maybe I just need a good night’s sleep…

        • flammable says:

          Agreed manbearpig. I made a mistake with my wording. I do not believe in man-made climate change.

          I wanted to explain how it created false belief disguised as reality. How it used a doomsday scenario to add weight to climate change. While at the same time sneaking in a too good to be true solution of only lowering carbon emissions to save us all.

          • candlelight says:

            Hello flammable,

            Interesting discussion here.

            I guess you meant to say that(The theory of)”Man-made climate change is creating a shortcut to fixing the environment by limiting all problems to carbon.”

            However, I would have to think that the vast majority of those who believe in anthropogenically derived climate change are also very concerned about the health of the environment, as concerns for both logically go hand in hand. Wouldn’t you say? At least for those who are honest about it, that is, your average Joe, and not necessarily the captains of industry – owners of production – who may very well be banking on the idea (scheme) that paying for carbon footprints with credit swaps will ultimately be a zero-sum game, while their own creditors, and others, e.g., governments beholden to central banks, stand to reap massive carbon tax rewards.

            With said carbon tax scheming in mind – and with Al Gore as a front man such scheming seems all too obvious – a technique used by the best of liars and schemers to advance their manipulative scheming is to incorporate “convenient” truths with manipulative falsehoods and omissions. In this case, the convenient truth happens to be that both climate and environment are changing. For Al Gore and Carbon Taxes such a truth is hardly inconvenient. It’s simply being manipulated to create the desired narrative that speaks solely and exclusively of CO2, alone, being the one and only culprit driving climate change – the much easier to formulate a wide-reaching global tax….Yes, how convenient, indeed!

            However, once again, to whatever extent the CO2 narrative is being conjured and manipulated, it is a mistake to reject out of hand the notion that climate change is, potentially, in some way anthropogenic.

            That the overall degradation of the environment is unquestioned, with our billion plus automobiles and trucks, tens of thousands of daily airline travel, tens of thousands of smoke stacks spewing a whole host of chemicals and soot into the atmosphere and effluence into the waters, the heating and cooling of millions upon millions of buildings, not to mention geoengineering, the unspoken dispersal of nano-particulates into the air we breath, etc., etc, with all that, it just seems ludicrous to dismiss it as a contributive factor. Certainly it’s contributing to a change in environment – but, not climate?

            In the same vein as you were saying, that there are many causes of pollution creating the degradation of the environment, I sense the same scenario playing out in the degradation of the atmosphere with the very real consequence of it being a catalyst, detrimental in nature, for a destabilizing climate.

            However vast and glorious it may seem, the atmosphere is finite in nature.

            Picture this: If you drew a circle roughly 24 feet in diameter representing the Earth, a band surrounding this circle to represent the Earth’s first three layers of its atmosphere – the Troposphere, Stratosphere and Mesosphere, would be all of two inches wide.

            More than likely, how we’re screwing with Earth’s climate is the question, not if we are.

            • manbearpig says:

              If increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change, let’s see some evidence for it.

              And if increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the climate to change why do alarmists tamper data, avoid factual debates and resort to sophistry, child abuse, stigmatisation and bullying?

              • candlelight says:

                My dear manbearpig,

                No apologies?

                Lol

                No matter – water under the bridge….

                I do fear we have a changing, volatile, climate which seems to be wrought with near historic weather extremes, in terms of frequency and magnitude. This is not to say extreme events such as hurricanes and droughts, etc., have never occurred, but catastrophic events seem to be occurring, anecdotally, with greater strength and/or frequency in just the past 15 years, or so…. Perhaps my point of view is shaped by media bias and fear mongering, but, I don’t really think so. Though, I’m only a casual observer and not a statistician, and have not personally entered data to chart what my gut is telling me.

                But, as far as CO2 is concerned, you seem to miss my point. As far as I’m concerned, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is only one factor – perhaps even a relatively insignificant factor – that’s contributing to a changing climate. And no, of course I have no proof, just gut. The fumes of pollution belching out of every factory smoke stack, power plant, tail pipe and chimney, whether burning oil, gas, coal or garbage, contain far more than just CO2. And let’s not forget about the dastardly effects of lovely geoengineering which at least you and I can actually agree on – aluminum in your tree roots, anyone? …. Yes, harping solely on CO2 as the culprit of climate change is quite a bad, stinking joke in my opinion. But, as I attempted to explain, boiling the problem down to a single element, CO2, makes for a very wonderful and convenient trading commodity to cap, swap and trade in a nice global business way, much easier to quantify than trying to add up the other gazillion pollutants manufactured world-wide, which spew forth into the atmosphere, unabated, 24/7.

                This desire to knight CO2 as the one honorary fiend of plant and animal(human)kind on the planet would be the logical reason for such things as you call out – obfuscation/tampering and criminal activity – conducted by champions of the CO2 narrative. I don’t know if you have corroborating legal evidence and can document the criminal activity you mentioned, such as child abuse. That’s a new one on me. You’re not talking about Greta Thunberg, are you? lol… I’m sorry to kid about it, as child abuse is no laughing matter. It is quite an accusation on your part. Please elaborate!

                There are a few things I believe in, or rather, to put it a better way, there’s a few things that seem illogical to discount or emphatically dismiss:

                1. There’s no reason not to believe that quantities of foreign gases, chemical compounds and particulates added to a particular system would not alter that system in any way.

                2. The system is very complicated, indeed, and yet it can’t be denied that cleaning up the air we breath is beneficial.

                3. There is time.

              • manbearpig says:

                My response will have to fill two comment boxes as Part 1 and Part 2:

                Part 1:

                You state:

                “…I would have to think that the vast majority of those who believe in anthropogenically derived climate change are also very concerned about the health of the environment…”

                As are those who don’t. In fact those who don’t swallow the official CO2 fairytale are very concerned that liars who would perpetrate such hogwash are not genuinely interested in fixing the environment, but rather in making it worse via the poisonous geoengineering you evoked, for example, which brings us to the first point; you assert that:

                “…to whatever extent the CO2 narrative is being conjured and manipulated, it is a mistake to reject out of hand the notion that climate change is, potentially, in some way anthropogenic…
                it just seems ludicrous to dismiss it as a contributive factor. Certainly it’s contributing to a change in environment – but, not climate?…There’s no reason not to believe that quantities of foreign gases, chemical compounds and particulates added to a particular system would not alter that system in any way…”

                So you say, though perhaps not primarily through CO2 and probably with the help of SAI, our polluting ways must cause climate change:

                Well, I’ll agree that one cannot haarp on the ills of SAI and weather modification enough, and in the total absence of communication and clear info on the issue, it’s difficult to try to calculate how and how much this electromagnetic manipulation and aerosol spraying might or might not affect climate. Perhaps SAI and the use of other exotic weapons will impact climate in the future but for the moment there is no indication of acceleration in climate phenomena nor an upward trend in most extreme weather events, quite the contrary as explained by Tony Heller:

                https://realclimatescience.com/hiding-the-decline-in-extreme-weather/

                So your “fear that we have a changing, volatile, climate which seems to be wrought with near historic weather extremes, in terms of frequency and magnitude.” is but an anthropogenic illusion conjured by perception management professionals.

                What remains to be seen is if the prescribed cures will not at some future date impact the climate system that is managed by the colossal forces of the sun, cosmic rays, ocean-cloud exchanges and perhaps even a new hypothesis known as “Pervection”.

              • manbearpig says:

                Part 2:

                “The system is very complicated, indeed, and yet it can’t be denied that cleaning up the air we breath is beneficial.”

                Refutation of this harkens back to the arguments above: if those who have created the “CAGW-fueled-by-CO2” hype resort to geoengineering in the form of SAI and other such potentially poisonous “cures”, then they’re clearly not interested in “Cleaning up the air we breath”.

                Thus, the average joe who swallows hook, line and sinker, the idea that man can dial up or down the climate through increase or decrease of man-made pollution, CO2 or otherwise, becomes, in fact, an accomplice to their own poisoning and that of the environment that they presumably care about, by unwittingly aiding and abetting the mendacious establishment of life-killing geo-engineers.

                Finally, “…I’m sorry to kid about it, as child abuse is no laughing matter. It is quite an accusation on your part. Please elaborate!…”

                Parading the autistic Greta across the world, exposing her to considerable stress and the torment of being massively ridiculed etc could indeed constitute a form of child abuse

                but I was more thinking along the lines of the following:

                “…Amidst the headlines, an increasing number of anxiety and stress cases fueled by climate change are being recorded by specialists. Caroline Hickman of the Climate Psychology Alliance and Bath University recently spoke to The Telegraph of her experiences

                listening to children experiencing eco-anxiety, noting that some have even been treated with psychiatric drugs.

                “A lot of parents are coming into therapy asking for help with the children and it has escalated a lot this summer,” she told The Telegraph.

                “The symptoms are the same [as clinical anxiety], the feelings are the same, but the cause is different. The fear is of environmental doom – that we’re all going to die.”…”

                https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/children-with-eco-anxiety-are-being-seen-by-specialists-should-you-be-concerned/

                Mass brainwashing and eco-terrorizing is child abuse.

                Furthermore, the money and brain-power frantically thrown for decades now at CAGW, an idea that barely even qualifies as a hypothesis, let alone a substantiated theory, has not produced any substantiation to the idea that humans are causing the climate to change,

                even if the proponents of this weary hypothesis are evidently trying very hard to destroy the atmosphere, and consequently the humans underneath it, including children, through chemtrailing and life-threatening austerity.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Child Abuse

              • candlelight says:

                mbp,

                Part 1.

                Thank you for the link to realclimatescience.com. It really does contain a terrific, enlightening archive of old newspaper clippings and photographs of catastrophic events of years gone by, documenting matter-of-factly, evidence of dire climactic events rivaling any and all recent events occurring in the age of so-called “global warming”…including the most recent havoc from Typhoon Hagibis this very week. The website illustrates an odd disconnect, quite telling, indeed; reports in the early part of the 20th century depicted concern over arctic and Greenland ice melting, and yet, by mid-century, there were numerous articles discussing growing threats of a new ice age….How odd, then, that lo and behold, we have now come full circle back to the threat of global warming….

                Still, I can’t help feeling there’s been something very queer and different about the weather these days (actually, the past decade or two), having nothing to do with professional propagandists – er, hopefully not (more on that later) – though your point is well taken.

                Just from personal experience, I can remember the first time the weather was literally like a spring day in NY on Christmas Day, something like 60°F, or 15.5°C. For 45 years the temperature was nowhere near as high as that, and yet, since then, it’s been similarly mild on a number of occasions. For me, this is pointedly bizarre, because from early childhood until well into adulthood, it was a given that late December was always cold, icy and snowy. But, there are other qualities to the weather that strike any number of older people as quite odd – particularly the up and back nature of the temperature in a given period of time – hot, then cold, then cold then hot, etc. In common recollection, this pattern seems not to have been the case to such a degree(no pun intended)decades ago.

                But, I realize this is neither here nor there with regard to the discussion of today’s climate being anthropogenic, or not.

                I enjoyed your use of the term “colossal” and do believe in your causative description – “…the climate system that is managed by the colossal forces of the sun, cosmic rays, ocean-cloud exchanges…”, and yet…

                I refuse to discount, completely, that the human induced discharge of all materials finding its way into the atmosphere, either from the product of fossil based fuels and other substances, burned or otherwise, and/or the introduction of chemicals, the spewing of nano-particulates – which are literally designed to modify the weather – does in some way, albeit, unknown way, great or small, effect the Earth’s climate.

                To flatly deny the potential of any effect such dispersal of pollutants might have upon the natural order – the “colossus” of universal energies upon the Earth – is just as bizarre as declaring, in a sense, the exact opposite, the claim that a particular level of CO2 is the sole progenitor of all that effects the Earth! Not!

                Anyway, more to come in part 2…. Poor Greta, and the evil that is geo-engineering.

              • candlelight says:

                mbp

                Part 2.

                Now, you state the following:

                “Thus, the average joe who swallows hook, line and sinker, the idea that man can dial up or down the climate through increase or decrease of man-made pollution, CO2 or otherwise, becomes, in fact, an accomplice to their own poisoning and that of the environment that they presumably care about, by unwittingly aiding and abetting the mendacious establishment of life-killing geo-engineers.”

                At this point in time, the vast majority of average joes, let alone even those average joes highly educated in the sciences have not a clue such geo-enginering is taking place and have had not a thing to do with either the reality of its establishment or its ongoing program.

                To pin the label of unwitting accomplice based upon a person’s ignorance of something that is deliberately being obfuscated, while at the same time therefore questioning their moral integrity and sincerity – as you say “…poisoning…the environment they presumably care about…” is on its face, and every other level, beyond ludicrous. It reminds me of some venomous magistrate busting some poor innocent soul for something they did exclaiming – Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse!….God, do I hate that.

                I’m fain to acknowledge my own ignorance of the acronym you used – SAI. Yes, I should have known it, I guess I must have forgot. So, I googled it and could not find the proper meaning. I did find the website acronymfinder which may well have boasted 91 meanings for SAI. But, lo and behold, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection was not among them. I had to google SAI weather modification to find the proper meaning. Then, I went back to acronymfinder and added a 92nd meaning to their illustrious list for SAI. So, if you find Stratospheric Aerosol Injection injected into their list, that was my doing. I gave acronymfinder the wikipedia page as an authoritative source. And wouldn’t you know it, the wiki page concerning SAI leads one to believe, when you boil it down, that it’s only a theoretical concept at present – in other words, not currently being employed – and goes on to explain how the program would begin and ultimately expand to some 4000 planes spraying on a daily basis. Would you believe that shit? Lying through their fucking teeth.

                So, please, don’t go blaming average joe for this insidious program, blame the scientists involved, blame the military, don’t blame the public being purposely kept in the dark. Don’t skewer a person’s integrity based upon what they’re unaware of.

                Next up – part 3. Greta

              • manbearpig says:

                “…Thus, the average joe who swallows hook, line and sinker, the idea that man can dial up or down the climate through increase or decrease of man-made pollution, CO2 or otherwise,

                becomes, in fact, an accomplice to their own poisoning and that of the environment that they presumably care about, by unwittingly aiding and abetting the mendacious establishment of life-killing geo-engineers…”

                “unwittingly” being the operative word here.

                “tragically” would also fit and is implicit in the word I chose.

            • generalbottlewasher says:

              Candlelight: down the page a bit on your response to Mbp you state so matter of fact, that nano particulates are literally designed to modify the weather. I also noticed a complete lack in your response of any mention of the military thugs. The Dr. Strangeloves. I wonder why it is devoid in your ideas when as you say ” illogical”. Let me explain. It would be logical to assume the invention of such a thing as nano would be extremely expensive and for military use. The weather manipulation is so much more efficient with something much cheaper and abundant as carbon black or coal fly ash. Nano is so expensive to produce it would be illogical to use it for anything less than exotic weapons, intell or biologicals. The chicken or the egg was part of my rant much further down the page. Weopons development came first for full spectrum control of earth by the Military. Who for ? The rest follows along. Like Ken Lay and his weather derivatives market schemes for the Navy. Which was born from the weopons research of Bernard Eastland and HAARP. I was just curios and mean no disrespect of your thought. But I was wondering why the elephant in the room is never mentioned as the primafacto logical source and cause of climate change or the deranged reality of our current weather anomalies?

              • generalbottlewasher says:

                These two items are connected. Average Joe needs to know of this but how will he ever get it. Get it he must. It is imperative to his survival or so I claim. What do i know, Im just a bottlewasher .

                1.” Pervection”

                http://oprj.net/articles/atmospheric-science/25

                2.”NASA” ICON

                https://m.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/nasa-launches-icon-mission-to-study-earths-ionosphere-1570862153-1?ref=rel_stories_art

                People still today believe NASA is a benevolent civilian benefactor.

              • candlelight says:

                Hello gbw,

                The Military thugs and the Dr. Strangeloves of the world are precisely those whom I was referring to when I asked manbearpig to “blame the scientists involved, blame the military”. They are the elephants in the room, to be sure.

                A very good website for information on Geoengineering is:

                https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

                A quote from the website:

                “Chemtrailing is the publics term for the CLASSIFIED ONGOING artificial modification of Earths climate systems using reflective nano-materials (aerosols) to reflect sunlight. The aerosols are dispersed via jet aircraft trails that expand into reflective artificial clouds.”

                Relying on information presented in Geoengineering.org is primarily the reason why I used the term nano-particulates. Though I certainly do not know all the ins and outs of Military methodology determining the use of various formulations and materials for diverse operations, I am pretty damn sure they don’t give a rat’s ass as to how high the tab. If their attitude isn’t public be damned, I’d be surprised.

                The context in which I used the term “illogical” was to simply connote the idea that it makes absolutely no sense to believe you can add a tangible substance to a system and not alter that system by doing so. In this case, the system is Earth’s climate, and the tangible substance is, basically, molecular energy and mass.

                For the sake of this argument, I am not putting any value on said substance other than to say it’s greater than zero. My present argument is none other than that. That the crap we’re injecting into the atmosphere by all present means, by burning it, aerosolizing it – you name it – has some value, some significance, has some effect, great or small. Or even teeny tiny and miniscule! But to deny any effect whatsoever is, in my book, unreasonable. Or, put another way, illogical…. And to misplace ones vitriol over it is even more illogical.

                Armed with myriad formulations and methodologies, accompanied by charts, tables and tabulations, whatever various and diverse values and significance we do put on what I would like to term Anthropogenic Atmospheric Injection of all kinds, outlined above – AAI – is a whole other can of worms.

                One can among a multitude.

                Be good!

          • manbearpig says:

            Nah, you were pretty clear Flammable; I was just so rigiculously tired as to misread you. I really should refrain from commenting when my mind has reverted to total crystallized fuzz. But I can’t seem to resist.

  5. David Haag says:

    James, you are well spoken…most of the time. I do cringe when your use of ‘I’ and ‘me’ are misused. “I” is a nominative pronoun, which means that it is used as the subject of a sentence, or as a predicate nominative. “Me” is an object pronoun, which means that it serves as a direct or indirect object to the verb or as the object of a preposition.

    And of course as an expert, me never makes those mistakes.

  6. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Corbett’s Summary Point in this 2011 “Episode 211 – Expertology “
    The last few minutes of the episode, Corbett clarifies a few aspects.
    e.g. “‘An Appeal to Authority’, that is a logical fallacy.”
    QUEUED video
    (a few minutes)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0se7V2hGOs&feature=youtu.be&t=44m57s

  7. kropotkin says:

    Don’t sell the CNN short on their hilarious experts on sarin gas

    https://youtu.be/TvwdoCG2XUM

  8. a822 says:

    Right on. When thoughts on a specific topic are but a vague blur, a caked form of knowledge that will actually prevent further development, will not branch out to new angles, new depths, new contradictions or discoveries, it’s easy for the so called experts to finish the job and connect things for people. When the situation is globally that of ignorance, there’s for them a whole territory to conquer. There was a time when not being educated didn’t dispense one from showing common sense and defiance in the so called experts. But the expertology also has to do with destroying common sense and the individual trust in one’s senses.Thus, with the dumbing down a sort of stockholm syndrom and cult of personality has developed, whereby the canonized experts are given full media reign, and people cling to them for guidance and assurance. What can be viewed as wisdom-the fact of aknowledging one’s ignorance on a topic- devolves into submission and reinforcement, while it should lead to questioning, investigating, learning by seeking alternative viewpoints, criticism and double checking.

    • manbearpig says:

      “…But the expertology also has to do with destroying common sense and the individual trust in one’s senses.Thus, with the dumbing down a sort of stockholm syndrom and cult of personality has developed, whereby the canonized experts are given full media reign, and people cling to them for guidance and assurance…” Cult of personality…

      brilliantly stated.

      And in such an environment, propaganda artists like Jon Stewart stand out as wise sages and can thus more easily inflict and instill their “9/11 was an outside job” poison while self-rightously absconding with the veneer of true heroes, to personal gain, as they reinforce the very myth that killed the wise men and the brave.

    • generalbottlewasher says:

      a822, you have described the military mode-de-camp and its timeless conflect with civilian authority. Which we should know is a fallacy. Civilians have no authority. The militaries need of something, to accomplish the mission. Consequences be damned,liabilities parameters only extend to the success of the mission needs. Duck and cover, plausible deniability. Wrap so many layers of obfuscation the enemy will never figure it out , nor will the sacrificed humans damaged by it. Any other by-products will be assessed for potential use. And it spins out of control. In come the clowns. David Keith, Ken Caldera. Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Jon Stewart. The Flag, Valley Forge, Concord, the Lucitainia, UFOs. Everything and anything used to accomplish the mission. If they could only squash that need of those inquiring minds. Lets see? David Keith says millions will die, that might work to our advantage. We can get our C4 antennas working and rid ourselves of those pesky vermin, fund everything we desire and blame it completely on someone else. Perfect! Run Forest Run. Yes you described it to a “T” a822.

      • manbearpig says:

        “…
        its timeless conflect with civilian authority. Which we should know is a fallacy…”

        a fallacy verging on the oxymoronic?

        “and blame it completely on someone else.”

        preferably the victims…

      • manbearpig says:

        Good evening GBW, (and Mielia too, if she hasn’t seen the doc below)

        Speaking of experts, earlier you mentioned pervection so I assume you’re at least moderately interested in climate science (as I am). I thought you might be interested in the following exposé for laymen debunking, if you will, the notion of the greenhouse effect to explain climate:

        https://suitsdumpster.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/climate-3.pdf

        Proponents of the greenhouse effect to explain climate are portrayed as flat earthers who want us all to go cold turkey on real climate and reject rocket science while dividing the sun’s heat by 4 and human testicles by 2!

        😯

        • generalbottlewasher says:

          Thank you MBP. Very interesting to this officer of bottle washing with a high rank and a low IQ.
          It made me think that the SAI that former CIA director Brennen loved so much has to be somewhere at the top of the game that is afoot. In the formulas the Sun X4 part may be the SAI.
          This may be too little at the wrong place but what the hell. If SAI acts as a polarized lens, than the light causes a reaction, just like Transition Lenses, sunglasses.. They go dark. The earth turns with the lenses and the reaction stops. They go clear. What if the reaction is opposite of that in the sky. The clear( open) during the daylight letting in light ( heat) and at night goes dark ( closing) and trapping heat. For the trillions of $ s at stake could this be why Brennen loved it so much. Obscured secrete weapon, unintuitive machinations and fully charge($) and blame and shame the victims with impunity. Sounds right at home for the CIA scientific experts joined at the hip of wall street. Im going to look into this. Bernard Eastland discovered a great deal about lenses in his work on HAARP.

          • manbearpig says:

            IQ? what’s that??

            …an artificial greenhouse effect produced by SAI and spectacular special weather effects by haarping with hertz…to create the illusion of human-caused climate change?

            or maybe I’m just going temporarily dark… have to think about all this tomorrow morn…
            g’night

          • generalbottlewasher says:

            Candlelight, thank you for the clarifications. Seems to me , and The Corbett Report too but I don’t have time to find talks about DARRPA, that all the really bad stuff invented and developed by the military must have a dual use, or quite posiblily many as possible uses. Thus the chicken and the egg I was alluding to. They have long since done away with taxpayer money and must print it at will or take great gains from the black market. Solairy Report, Catherine A Fitts talked about FASDA 56. No accounting what so ever. Which makes me think they now don’t have any consideration of the American populations position on anything. As you also stated. It is troubling to believe that an individual in this country has been jettisoned from the myth of that country and given no option for redress.

            You as well , be good.

  9. manbearpig says:

    “All experts serve the state and the media and only in that way do they achieve their status. Every expert follows his master, for all former possibilities for independence have been gradually reduced to nil by present society’s mode of organization.”

    — Guy Debord, Paris, February-April 1988, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle

    • generalbottlewasher says:

      MBP: The hat has to tip to the Ecuadorians. However their government organization was trying to reduce the people’s will to nil, it has failed. Hurray! This just in from Real News. I.M.F told to shove it. Success by the nils. Now if Hong Kong can do something similar, in this bright sky of October I will look for pigs on the wing.

      https://youtu.be/W6o6EuTweLg

      • manbearpig says:

        wow. tears. emblematic of the human condition. I love the spanish language. such solidarity and determination in the face of such repression..wow…tears…

        let’s see how civilians hold up to one day of real work… touché.

        F%*k off IMF
        and the usurious tyrannical austerity you rode in on…

        • manbearpig says:

          Sorry, “civilians” should be “urbanite office workers” or something to that effect… (hasty public transport messages typed laboriously yet hastily on a phone not good for semantic accuracy…among other things)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top