Interview 1125 - James Corbett Discusses Carbon Rations on X22 Report

01/19/201662 Comments

James Corbett joins Dave of X22 Report to talk about the global warming narrative and its carbon ration end game. Topics discussed include the global average temperature construction, the carbon ration control grid, and the economics of technocracy.

What Is The Average Global Temperature?

Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs

Pope's climate adviser proposes CO2 budget for every person on the planet

Patrick Wood Exposes the Technocracy Agenda

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nosoapradio says:

    and the rich were immortal because they owned the time banks…

    I liked the albedo, heat island part ’cause I didn’t realize that this aspect could be considered as changing the climate… ok ok I’m a diesel engine, I need time get going… that’s what my researcher friend and specialist in fluid mechanics physics means by it’s certain human’s are affecting the climate, it’s just a question of how much.

    or how little I’d persist in saying…

    So as a climate-sceptical interviewee and source of material for my 17-year old neighbor’s school report about climate scepticism I’ll be sending her this interview (along with the rest of the stuff from Corbett and the French site “Skyfall” and other random sites I’ve already sent her).

    Thanks again.

    p.s. Just occurred to me that you could do (and I’m sure I’m not the first to suggest this) a FLNWO episode on Atlas Shrugged. Be curious to hear your take on it.

    • Craig says:

      @nosoapradio. I like your Alas Shrugged suggestion as I’ve heard this book mentioned many times in the alt media and I’d like James’s and perhaps another guest’s take on it. I do have one reservation though. I haven’t read the book and as I see from Amazon it is 1184 pages long I’m not sure I will in the foreseeable future – unless I have really good reason. So I feel like I’m breaking the alt researcher’s cardinal rule here by not looking at the source material myself.

      • nosoapradio says:

        Whatever source you care to employ, Craig, for familiarizing yourself with this work is worth your time.

        I don’t officially belong to the Ayn Rand fan club, and I have to say I was dismayed by her take on Israel expressed on a talk show that I believe she formulated in the heat of the moment, under pressure and without serious consideration,

        but she gives, in my opinion, an eloquent critique of the notion “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need”, even if she’s blinded by hero-worship for the likes of Rockefeller and other magnates she saw as “entrepreneurs”. Though she’s been usurped as such, (because of Greenspan’s youthful admiration) I do not believe she was a “neo-con” at heart. She believed in unbridling the human potential and spirit…

        At the end of the day, with all her illusions, adolescent hollywood romanticism, bad habits and opinionated narcissism, she was a very intriguing, insightful and touching humanist.

        This book was not available in France before…2012? reportedly due to lack of a decent translation… I’d say more because France is a terribly collectivist state and, at the time it was published, and for some 60 years after that, such criticism was not timely…

        Good evening to you Craig.

        • Craig says:

          Thanks for the detailed reply. I have downloaded a sample of Atlas Shrugged to my Kindle to ‘dip my feet in the water’. I’ll give it a go. Best wishes. Craig.

  2. Jason says:

    Randall Carlson has some great points of view concerning climate change. Worth checking out.

    • Jason says:

      a good start :
      was on point 6 years ago.

      • nosoapradio says:

        Listened to this over breakfast. Nice’n clear. Another good one to be sent off to my exceptionally bright and beautiful 17-year old neighbor (who’s doing a climate scepticism paper for school) and her (exceedingly nice, charming and oddly shy) fluid mechanics physics researcher Dad (who travels around the world attending/giving conferences and working with other scientists to develop climate models and climatology in general. And who firmly thinks because I’m sceptical, I’m being manipulated.

        He also recently did a conference for something like “national science day” that I attended warning of a definate increase in extreme weather events in the coming years because of human industrial activity… that left me somewhat perplexed…He began by saying that, as time was limited, he would just suppose everyone knew that global warming was caused by humans and go on from there.

        He tries to answer my questions when I corner him at occasional dinner parties – of course this proves difficult as I’m not a scientist – but basically he concludes that climate sceptics are either paid to be that way, are looking for attention, are incompetent, are being manipulated and mislead or all of the above. For him, a consensus is a consensus and he’s certain there is one.

        Anyhow, thanks Jason, and now back to the hamster wheel with me…

        • Jason says:

          you seem to have fun neighbours… the get-togethers must be a blast! 😉

          • nosoapradio says:

            Though I don’t believe you were expecting an answer, in truth, they are distinguished scholars and their 3 teen-age daughters are accomplished musicians (from oldest to youngest: violin, alto and cello) and nationally recognized athletes (running and pole vaulting). They do via ferrata and rock climbing on week-ends to relax.

            They are as thoroughly intimidating as they are articulate and kind.

            They’re all bilingual or trilingual (English, French, Italian) as they’ve lived in both Europe and the United States because of the father’s physics and climatology activities.

            They love all sorts of games and throwing spit balls and streamers at each other on new years eve.

            They’re pretty good cooks and the parties they host can be quite entertaining.

            However my climate scepticism, when expressed or hinted at, (though I make every effort to observe the utmost tact) seems to weigh rather heavily on the ambiance… which can be a bit discouraging. I’m a locally renowned party pooper.

            Be well.

  3. candideschmyles says:

    I am disheartened that is left to me again to challenge the sheer nonsense contained within this interview. This assemblage of fictions built on fictions, ignorance of chemistry and straw man invocation is painfully hard to listen to. It demonstrates that James’ “10 years of research” actually means 10 years being duped into the big oil funded climate sceptic mindfuck.

    The caveats, quickly iterated then ignored, admit that global warming is real and that it is in part anthropogenic. The argument over global means is thus moot and certainly not worth looking so foolish and ignorant by using a fallacy to support a meaningless argument.

    And then there is “carbon saturation”… WTF!! Carbon Dioxide is a 3 atom straight chain molecule. Just how do you saturate that? If it absorbs a single atom more its no longer co2. It can and does absorb and radiate energy in the form of solar radiation, or heat, as the Earth spins through day and night. This is high school chemistry. Making such a messy and ignorant mess of understanding of such elementary principles disqualifies you James from claiming understanding let alone expertise.

    You have no argument and you have no expertise James. So why are you destroying the credibility you have in other areas by putting this horsehit on public record?

    • nosoapradio says:

      “…However, it is equally clear that after reaching a fixed threshold of so-called Greenhouse gas density, which is much lower than that currently found in the atmosphere, there will be no further increase in temperature from this source, no matter how large the increase in the atmospheric density of such gases.

      As also shown by Miskolczi and others using different methods, Dr. Nicol finds that the “greenhouse effect” of CO2 is already saturated at present atmospheric levels and that future emissions will not affect temperature. Dr. Nichol shows that the IPCC concept of greenhouse gas back radiation to warm the earth is fictitious and that the true physical process is retardation of the exit of energy from the surface. He shows that the greenhouse gas absorption bands retard the exit of energy from the earth’s surface, but that there is an upper limit beyond which further increases in greenhouse gas concentrations have no further effect. The surface is radiating at a fixed rate governed by the surface temperature and any increase in greenhouse gases with the same absorption bands will “widen the path” for heat to escape to the same degree as heat is retarded from escape, and therefore there is no additional warming…”

      • candideschmyles says:

        Yeh right. Tell that to Venus. Nice of you to pin your colours to the mast of another big oil shill tho.

        • nosoapradio says:

          How thoroughly substantiated of you!

        • nosoapradio says:

          Here is a commenter from joannenova’s site addressing the Venus canard:

          “…Venus is not a case of runaway greenhouse effect. It’s atmosphere is equivalent to the Earth’s ocean and acts as the primary store of heat for the planet. As I pointed out earlier, when a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15u photon, it’s equivalent temperature rises by hundreds of degrees. In the Venusian atmosphere, the probability of a CO2 molecule colliding with another hot CO2 molecules is nearly 100%, while on Earth, it’s a tiny fraction of one percent. This means that energized CO2 has nowhere to share its newly obtained energy. And of course, the main reason Venus is hot and Mars is cold, even though the primary constituent of each atmosphere is CO2, is their relative distance from the Sun…

          …Saturation means that most of the 15u photons that the surface is emitting are being reflected by CO2, which means that adding more CO2 will not increase the amount of energy reflected, nor will it increase the delay between when a 15u photon is emitted by the surface and when this energy ultimately finds its way off of the planet…”

          As for your ad hominem remark on “big oil shills” I found nothing.

          Again, it is precisely the big names in big oil, as Mr Corbett has amply demonstrated, who are producing the paradoxically chilling man-made warming horror picture spoof.

          • candideschmyles says:

            I read your qualification devoid link. As usual in your links I just see insanity and bias. Your cut n pastes fair no better. As for your neighbour… I think you confuse shyness for caution and fear.

    • bd6951 says:

      Thank you for this. You are not alone. I have commented exactly the same points every time Corbett goes off on this rant. I am sick to death with Corbett’s ignorance regarding climate change. I keep trying to figure out how gaming climate data benefits anyone. As a 40 year veteran of the renewable energy industry I an here to say that renewables have no chance whatsoever of keeping the current system going. This “report” appears in the midst of what is now the largest storm to have ever hit the eastern seaboard. Floods in New Jersey exceed those of Sandy. All one has to do is look at the satellite images for the source of the moisture responsible for this deluge. A warmer climate means a wetter climate, end of story. Super warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern Atlantic released supernatural amounts of moisture into the atmosphere and then was dumped onto the centers of power, NYC and Washington, DC. Forecasters nailed this one. (Last year’s warnings were way off.) During my years studying biology in the early 70s we were well aware of the implications of a warming climate. This storm is the embodiment of what was known 40 years ago.

      What is really galling is Corbett’s ignorance of the role the greenhouse effect plays in providing a habitable ecosystem. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and, prior to the fossil fuel age, maintained an environment in dynamic equilibrium. That equilibrium began to be disrupted as soon as humans began releasing the carbon stored in millions of years of solar energy driven photosysnthesis in the form of fossil fuels. Now, the greenhouse effect’s dynamic equilibrium has been disrupted and results like Jonas (the name of this storm) will only get worse.

      So, I too, admonish Corbett to confine his work to areas that do not require the scientific rigor required in understanding the function of our ecosystem. For continuing this climate change denial folly will only serve to diminish his credibility in the areas where his work is quite good.

      • nosoapradio says:

        The colossal and critical difference between James Corbett and the likes of bd6951 or Candideschmyles is that James Corbett substantiates his rants.

        As knowledgeable as you present yourself as being on the subject, would you care to cite the relative quantities of carbon flushed through the world’s ecosystems by humans and then by nature?

        • bd6951 says:

          I don’t have to substantiate anything. The vast climate science community has done that voluminously. Corbett substantiates nothing. He copies and pastes articles from the same dubious sources from which you apparently glean what you think you know about climate. You conflate carbon with carbon dioxide. This is fundamentally wrong and the fact that you do not comprehend this difference disqualifies and precludes you from weighing in on this most important of issues. The salient fact is that the atmosphere, that silly little thing that supports all life, now contains over 400 ppm of CO2, a concentration never to have occurred. So this is my choice: to depend on the might of NASA, NOAA, major universities across the globe; or to listen to a scribe who has never set foot in a lab or in the field doing the oftentimes dangerous research required to learn what human beings are doing to our planet and its climate.

          Carbon is the basis of organic chemistry and biochemistry, the building block of all our planet’s flora and fauna. Carbon dioxide is the product of the respiration of all terrestrial and aquatic oxygen breathers as well being a major byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels, wood and, to an alarming degree, from the digestive processes of cattle and other livestock. You clearly don’t understand dynamic equilibrium. Before 1859, the start of the fossil fuel age, the flora of our planet easily absorbed all of the carbon dioxide produced, by way of the truly amazing process of photosynthesis, exhaled and generated by all the processes that produce it. In 1859, the world’s population was less than 1 billion inhabitants. Most energy was generated by burning wood and hard, “clean(er)” coal. Sufficient areas of forests easily absorbed that CO2, maintaining a benign environment via dynamic equilibrium. I won’t belabor the obvious regarding the explosion of the world’s population and fossil fuel use. What has happened is that the amount of CO2 spewed into the atmosphere has increased geometrically while the CO2 sinks, primarily temperate rain forests, are now barely half of what they were 50 years ago. This activity has thrown this equilibrium into chaos.

          [SNIP – The only rule of this board is no personal attacks. Your last paragraph crosses that line so it has been deleted. Please rephrase without the ad hominem. – JC]

          • bd6951 says:

            There was nothing ad hominem about anything that I wrote. I am curious about how people arrive at such uninformed positions. This is why I asked about education. I remember when one’s education was indicative of many aspects of a person’s outlook on life. Economists live in a alternative universe for example. For this reason they disregard externalities that, were they included in price discovery, would render such activities as mountain top removal coal extraction extinct. Snip away.

          • Riccardo says:

            I respect all your knowledge, but if you mention that there are 400ppm of CO2, then why not to mention that this famous CO2 is about 0.5% of atmospheric gas? I think that if we are to have an honest, constructive dibate, we need to make the effort to understand information we do not like. I was brought up, likemany of us, with the equation more CO2=increase in temperature. I can´t say, at this stage of my understanding, if that´s completly wrong, but it seems to me to not have as much weight as something is being constanctly left aside in the dibate: the Sun and the solar activity

        • bd6951 says:

          For all of you climate change denial morons I challenge you to read the article associated with the link below. Sometimes the ignorance displayed by you people is staggering.

  4. candideschmyles says:

    Glad I am not the only one here who sees the damage to credibility James undertakes in his obsession with the trivial, confused conflations and general ignorance. I share your concern that such a weighty and pressing reality deserves far better. Yet it appears to me this is now down to the lowest common denominator, the $. His round of guest appearances on the banana radio stations is oiled by playing to a choir that expects this nonsense and can tolerate no less. And that in turn brings subscriptions. K’ching!!

    What makes it so nauseating is that the funding and mission strategy for all this disinfo was devised and delivered by the oiliogarchs James puts so much effort into exposing. He singularly failed to mention the real activists who were jailed, held under house arrest or otherwise prevented from calling out the bullshit at the recent Paris talks. Choosing instead to focus on the verbal diahorrea of some Tory backbencher, (as though it was important!), or trying to massage figures science never wanted to give but IPCC were coerced into giving into some smoking gun. It’s sheer insanity and a gross inability to see bullshit when you are waist deep in its stench. But I see there’s yet another interview on the subject with a title so hypocritical I near choked. So it seems James cannot take a step back from this. So be it. Then I must.

    • WannabePhilosopher says:


    • cabanaobr says:

      This really is awful. I really don’t understand how candide expects anyone to care about what he thinks when all he can offer is foul-mouthed diatribes and the familiar liberal refrain of “the science is settled!” etc etc.

      The familiar device of the alarmist is to cite “hundreds of scientific journals” without, of course, actually citing one, and to liberally smear with ad hominem.

      If the science were truly settled, it would be difficult to understand why or how something like the hockey stick hoax, or the various other activities unearthed by Climategate would have occurred. Do nuclear physicists go around typing emails to each other urging them to “hide the decline” of the amplitude of the quantum wave function? Do academic boards go around bragging about how they use Planck’s Nature trick to give shape to his constants? Does the Journal of Nuclear and Partical Physics cite articles from the World Wildlife Fund about the state of particle dynamics and then loudly shout that it only uses the best that ‘science’ has to offer?

      In other words, candideschmyles, you are ignoring every glaring red flag that is proclaiming loudly and clearly that something is rotten in the state of climate science. You cite various journal articles that you loudly insist clean up every purported hole in AGW theory, but these articles seem rather reactive in their nature. They seem to be explaining away more than they explain, and further, you don’t cite refutations or responses. Every time an AGW alarmist cites a supposedly definitive answer to any of the multitude of problems with the AGW story, I have seen that the *actual text* of the article is nowhere near as definitive as the politicized headline it generates, AND that it typically leads to dozens of responses that qualify its conclusions severely. (Of course, this is no problem when your purpose is to reassure the faithful, the candideschmyles of the planet. All you need is the headline (STUPID/EVIL DENIER REFUTED!) who cares about the qualifications?)

      I’m not going to pretend I have the definitive answers on AGW. But you, candide, shouldn’t either. What are you anyway? Maybe you got through Oceanography 101 and believe therefore you can lecture the world about Climate Science, and we should all listen to you? That’s what you sound like.

  5. candideschmyles says:

    [SNIP – The only rule of this board is no personal attacks. Your last paragraph crosses that line so it has been deleted. Please rephrase without the ad hominem. – JC]

    Note that never applied to you or your brown nosers attacking me. Sometimes your best friends are those who tell you what you don’t want to hear. I am sorry and disappointed I ever subscribed now.

  6. tomas says:

    We need to cease using “scientist’s” date and i would even go as far as to say scientific beliefs in these discussions , or we are forever at the whim of the system in place. Science is not truth , never was and never will be . And more to the point , scientists today , just as any “taught in the school system” profession is automatically veered yet again towards a pre-determined conclusion .

    Those who are in control of the system run both sides of this ” discovery/debate/climate war etc.” , and i think it wise for any who are truly into finding out truth to see it that way and not get caught up in what the system wants – regular people , especially “conspiracy open-minded” ones , to argue amongst themselves and completely loose focus of the fact either way the system wins.

    Is all this fossil fuel consumption hurting the planet ? i believe so . Is having 7 some billion people on the planet and over-consuming so much and wasting and destroying so many forms of life harmful ? of course. Is using solar power or wind power or nuclear power etc that would be controlled and run by the same group that has run the oil gas and coal industry better for the world ? don’t think so , just a different angle .

    Lets all not consume so much , be it with food and drink to material possessions that we don’t really need , and then the planet will right itself as always , and we will stop feeding the system . And please lets not quote these “scientists” , because they change their views and angles and their “facts” like i change you know what …

    • bd6951 says:

      Uh, no. There are certain immutable laws of energy and matter that have always been and always will be. Gravity, for one. Unless, of course, you think that “they” have mastered anti-gravity technology different from, say, airplanes which really are anti-gravity devices. Just pour a lot of kerosene into turbines and, voila, anti-gravity. Or entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. So far, this most important of SCIENTIFIC principles remains immutable. Everything I learned about viruses in the early 70s is still the accepted science.

      By installing an off-grid hybrid PV system with a small wind turbine and a biogas generator isolates those clever enough to assemble such systems from those who control centralized energy systems. This is the salient point. Add to the above system an aquaponic food production system and you are free from those who control oil, gas, coal and nuclear. Indeed, this is the direction that current circumstances are leading us. These projects lend themselves ideally to small groups of people. I abide by the 3 Ds: Downsize, Decentralize and Depopulate. The first two we can control. The third, Mother Nature will take care of that.

      • tomas says:

        Uh , no . Gravity has only been agreed to by these scientists for less then 400 years . And thats until the next batch find a different angle on it that benefits the system .

        Continuous “facts” , or better put Laws – as you state- are always being changed by these same scientists .
        On the fore-front it would seem a great thing , as in continuously advancing and learning and evolving , but a quick look into who is behind these schools and benefits from them and their “discoveries” , and we can see the truth . to a degree anyhow .

        Viruses are a perfect example of who benefits , glad you brought it up . 150 years ago there was a man who proved “scientifically” that there were no such things , yet the system quickly saw zero profit from that perspective and put their backing behind mr. Pasteur , whose oft plagiarized and altered works offered a fantastic stream of revenue which is still in play today . Never mind the 70’s , wow .

        Again , like i wrote before , same people and groups benefit either way , just want to keep us open-minded ones arguing . Don’t think it matters either way with climate change or global warming or whatever name they want to put on it nowadays , they have a plan and will do all they can to put in in place , and that much quicker if the rest of us keep picking sides to defend .

  7. Riccardo says:

    what will alwaysamaze me, is how people can promptly let someone else do the thinking process for them. I neve hear two things being mentioned on the global warming/climate change diatribe: the sun and its activity, and trees and the destruction of forests on a daily basis. I am no scientist, but I learned from school that trees absorb CO2, so, my common sense would ask: maybe the cutting of the forests have something to do with CO2 increase? and maybe the solar activity has something to do with the temperature on Earth? And here is where the dumbing down process kicks in, beautifully perpetrated by that free thinking killer we call education system and mass mind manipulation through TV.

    • candideschmyles says:

      It’s difficult not to sound rude about this but if you have never heard anything on these two points, solar variability and carbon sinks, then you only have yourself to blame. There are hundreds of scientific papers on these subjects and volumes written explaining the results for the non scientist.
      In short Solar variability is factored into climate models and the destruction of carbon sinks has many ramifications. They are not ignored.
      And of far more import to carbon capture is the boreal and temperate forests that account for two thirds of carbon capture. Not the tropical forests that get all the headlines. In fact the boreal forests around the Arctic circle hold more than half of all carbon captured by forests globally yet almost nobody knows it. Ignorance is epidemic.

      • herrqlys says:

        Your answer is not very compelling. Plant life uses CO2 in photosynthesis for growth. Boreal and temperate vegetation has a significantly shorter growing season than tropical and semi-tropical plant life. The warmer climate vegetation is also far more robust in its growth cycles.

        A topographic density map doesn’t provide this comparison, where the vast areas of boreal forest would seem dominant (especially on a Mercator projection) but satellite infrared spectroscopy can monitor vegetative activity. The phrase “lungs of the Earth” is very apt for immense tropical jungles such as the Amazon basin because in their highly active growth they absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide by day and expel massive amounts of oxygen by night, all year long.

      • manbearpig says:

        8 Things to Know about Carbon and the Boreal Forest

        19 October, 2014

        “…The boreal forest holds a lot of carbon, but tropical forests hold more.
        For a long time, the boreal was thought to sequester more carbon than tropical forests. This was based on an understanding of global airflow that has since been revised. (Researchers at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado studied measurements made by aircraft and concluded that existing climate models were underestimating the carbon absorption of tropical forests.[iv])

        A recent NASA study estimates that tropical forests annually absorb 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide out of a total global absorption of 2.5 billion metric tons. Researchers say that this is more than the amount absorbed by the boreal forest in Canada, Siberia and other northern regions…

        …If you look at the absolute carbon stored in the boreal, there is a substantial amount. But if you look at a forest’s capacity to sequester carbon over time, the tropical forest has more potential…”

        • manbearpig says:

          “…For example, turnover time of wood in tropical forests has been estimated to be 10–30 years faster in ESMs than the observed value (Negrón‐Juárez et al., 2015), and globally ecosystem C turnover times have been underestimated by 36% in the ESMs (Carvalhais et al., 2014)…

          …There were significant differences among climate zones (p < .001), with the longest C turnover times in the boreal zone and the shortest values in the tropical area (Figure 2a,d)…”

          “…Tropical forests play a major role in determining the current atmospheric concentration of CO2, as both sources of CO2 following deforestation and sinks of CO2 probably resulting from CO2 stimulation of forest photosynthesis. Recently, researchers have tried to quantify this role.

          The results suggest that both the carbon sources and sinks in tropical forests are significantly greater than previously thought…”

    • tomas says:

      only tell us what has advantages for those who run the system . like blaming flooding in the states ( example ) on global warming and el’nino/na , never mentioning that the total flattening of the land by destroying forests everywhere is by far the primary reason for weather problems , from tornadoes to floods etc .

      • nosoapradio says:

        Yes, interesting tomas… I just got a totally new perspective only Yesterday on so-called anthropogenic climate change… thanks to a professional assignment…

        To make a still confused story in my head short, I had a sort of crash course in the devastating effects of the mismanagement and overexploitation of land that leads to the disruption of small water cycles, erosion, flooding and the paradoxical desertification of these lands.

        As vegetation can no longer grow in compacted and nutrient-depleted soil that is impenetrable to roots and worms, there is a reduction in the amount of cooling water vapor that should have been emitted into the atmosphere by this destroyed vegetation that could not grow back…

        It was a very compelling assignment that stressed the fact that overexploitation and the destruction of small water cycles with their resulting flooding and ultimate desertification of land was

        NOT the RESULT of so-called man-made carbon-based climate change but the CAUSE of weather events such as floods and localized warming.

        The much touted Green revolution and single-crop farming are the instigators of this destruction and depletion of land and the consequential increase in harmful flooding and desertification.

        I wanted to ask Mr Jim Steele what he thought about these phenomena and if he thought that these changes constituted climate change in the respect that they could disrupt the fundamental dynamics and drivers of the planet’s climate cycles.

        The elites and Monsanto may well be benefitting in a variety of ways from this carbon confusion…

        • nosoapradio says:

          And it’s funny that the likes of François Gervais also insist on the fact that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere would be detrimental to the planet’s vegetation and to populations living in “desertified” areas. (Even though he is For filtering out the toxic by-products of burning fossil fuels and the development of renewable energies).

          In other words scientific sceptics and non-sceptics agree on critical climate points… such as the negative impact of the destruction of plant life on local weather events and the general well-being of human populations.

        • tomas says:

          absolutely nosoa , and they are not only benefiting from the confusion , which is definitely one that they have caused to begin with , but also enjoying the show as the 99% continue to squabble over what is somewhat irrelevant . (and they continue doing as they do because we continually consume and they are happy to supply – not just food , but all material possessions and needs )

          we need to see it for what it is , same as we shouldn’t consider monsanto , or general motors or government or banks as separate entities – as they are all controlled by the same very few , on reverse we need to also stop splitting the hairs that they feed us through various channels they flood and consider it all one big croc and focus i would say on using less , living in harmony with all life , consuming less , and the rule of all – do to others as we would want them to do to us .

  8. heartruth says:

    To those on both sides of the debate on this thread, what about the proposed solutions and the intention/agenda of those individuals and organisations proposing them?

    What I find weird is that organisations like the IPCC seem to be ‘self-appointed’ saviours of Earth/Humankind… really?

    One thing I’ve learnt from spending way to much of my time on TCR website 🙂 is to develop a healthy skepticism of any ‘great idea’ that comes from a centralized state or corporate power structure.

    So what makes the carbon credit/carbon tax scheme any different?

    What the heck will a ‘carbon tax’ be spent on?
    How will this ‘carbon credit’ system be implemented?
    Who will be in charge of it?
    How will this type of system not be used to advantage those in charge of it?
    What checks and balances will be put in place to mitigate corruption?
    Where’s the transparency in all of this?
    Will the proposed system even work?

    Regardless of whether the carbon thing is a ‘thing’, I just don’t trust the solutions or those proposing them. And, it feels to me that while debate is essential, it’s serving the purposes of those who seek to use the carbon thing (or non-thing tbh I don’t care at this point) as a mechanism for domination and control – and who knows what else.

    Here’s one stellar example from NZ: So called “No till” farming

    From my understanding, it was implemented in NZ to reduce carbon emissions from deep-ploughing.

    Not a scientist but if you could tolerate the observations of a farmer’s kid, I’d be grateful. So, when I was a kid dad would deep-plough the field between crops. This would effectively kill the grass and bury the seeds, allowing the corn crop to grow (probably non gmo in those days). No herbicides required
    Now, for the sake of our planet, to keep that pesky carbon under control, NZ farmers spray ROUNDUP tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of it a year to kill the grass, then seed in the corn (definitely now gmo).
    This practice, apart from being toxic to all life, has damaged the soil biota… I’ll provide links in a part 2 to this post, as am running late. My family – farmers – have noticed how less ‘lush’ the grass is compared with decades ago (ok the Argentine grass beetle devastated the clover which didn’t help, now it’s just urea urea urea). Farm advisor also concurred with dry matter stats, saying that there’s just not the lushness there was 10-20-30 years ago.

    Now, for the first time, NZ authorities will be officially testing for Roundup residues in the groundwater – even mainstream science can’t ignore this ‘inconvenient truth’ anymore.

    How can anyone NOT see the irony in no-till farming? To save the planet from carbon, we need to poison it with Roundup?

    So, yeah – it’s the ‘solutions’ I’m concerned about. One such, the negative impacts of which I have seen before my very eyes.

    I’d be interested in what ya’ll think. I realise this is just an anecdotal account of things.

    • herrqlys says:

      “To save the planet from carbon, we need to poison it with Roundup?” – heartruth

      Excellent point, and made from actual observations, by people whose fulltime job it is to know their natural surroundings. The scientific method arose from just such “an anecdotal account of things”. Thank you.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      Yes, thanks for your anecdotal story.
      Definitely of value.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I hear ya! I detest “authority mandates”.

      Farming is no easy trick. It is a lot of work.
      Over a decade ago, I would sometimes go to the Organic Farming Trade Shows.

      As you know, I have been following some of the Anti-Fluoridation activity in New Zealand.

      1080 – A trade name Fluoride Poison
      Fluoride is used in a lot of poisons and pesticides, because the -F ion is so poisonous.
      1080 is basically Sodium Fluoride & a strong vinegar mix. (It is manufactured differently)
      I was very alarmed to read about 1080 small pellets being air dropped in New Zealand and Australia. A lot of farmers and ranchers are upset.

      The following 2 minute video on 1080 is very, very disturbing.
      I don’t recommend that any dog lover should watch it, because the video images are haunting.

      • generalbottlewasher says:

        Homey, just a question, the motivation behind the 1080 drop? Can this be sold as anything but irresponsible and insane. Does it matter what is being dropped? Nano sized anything is poisonous to our/wildlife pulmonary systems. Not to mention biological agents attached to said nano-systems. The only differance i see is the available evidence for prosecutions if only there where some venue to hear such crimes. Does common law exist ? I think rule of law is needed, a necessary evil. To be used to modify the wardens abuses of the Queens prison populations. What manner of abuse must people accept before justice is prevailed upon?
        Getting older should improve ones aim and narrow the distractions from the desired target. Good shot.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          So much insanity exists with the system, I am continually dumbfounded.
          I’m sure you find it that way up towards Tulsa.

          By the way, we sure have been getting a lot of rain down here in recent weeks. Cooler too. 40’s in the mornings.

      • heartruth says:

        Thanks herrqlys, Fawlty Towers, and HRS for your encouraging responses 🙂

        I apologize for the delay in answering. After I re-read my post, I decided that the least I could do would be to dig around to find out whether my anecdotal account could be supported by historical facts or not.
        Check out my post below if you feel so inclined. Still very much a work in progress, I’ve only been able to skim the articles at this point so may have missed the finer details.

      • heartruth says:

        1080 – don’t even get me started on this one! I’ve only just emerged from the modern herbicide-laden version of ‘no-till’ farming rabbit hole. I can feel myself slipping down another rabbit hole… too tempting!

    • mkey says:

      Does no-till farming have to be followed by heavy use of weed killers?

      • heartruth says:

        Nope, hence my referring to it as ‘so-called no-till’.
        Turns this is the ‘modern’ version, which just so happened to be pushed by the agrichemical industry after they invented paraquat (glyphosphate’s predecessor)!
        Check out the links in my post below if you’re interested in the gritty details. 🙂

  9. Nevertheless says:

    Zionist bankers, as always working to tax us into slavery.

  10. herrqlys says:

    Hmmm, you’ve been trolled, James. But when the globalists, their institutions like the IPCC, and their minions decide to get down and dirty they infest the comment sections everywhere.

    Personally, I’m astonished at the “settled science” obfuscation. And this latest IPCC “report” is actually a summary of a “scientific report”, which in itself bears an absence of evidence.

    I find William Engdahl’s take on this to be clear and concise:

    As for science in climatology, I’ve always been impressed with the clarity of Dr. Don Easterbrook:

    Real science. Real explanations.

    • manbearpig says:

      Holi Connoli! Me too! Don Easterbrook! Love that humble no nonsense break down! LIke you said; “Real science, Real explanations”! in the face of a pack of wannabe spin doctors! Most gratifying indeed!

  11. herrqlys says:

    I think I commented, a long time ago, that I was already skeptical about the IPCC, its political composition, and the suspicion that it was formed to promote an idea and sponsor findings to support the original thesis.

    Back in the day, when I watched highlights of the December 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21, in Paris I was intrigued by the number of hedge fund executives in the audience. Ahah, I thought, there’s big money in this.

    And when you speak of money (fiat currencies, actually) you just know that the global banking cabal is lurking under the surface. So why did so many national governments sign on to this specious undertaking? Most governments have a science portfolio of one shade or another, and so their own specialists could have independently weighed in on the science of climate change (subtly rebranded from global warming).

    Well, most governments are drowning in debt up to their political eyeballs, and are terrified about raising more taxes from their citizens while trying to retain power. Enter the promise of a new tax (an idea probably emanating from BIS and its dark web), a carbon tax, that their voters could be swayed to give their heartfelt support to. Banks give governments new loans, governments get new taxes – which then go to pay the banks.

    “What do we have to do to make this happen?”, they asked. The answer: climate porn from the Insidiously Pornographic Climate Circus. Let’s get peoples’ attention without any hard facts, or even without any facts at all. It’s showtime, people.

    • manbearpig says:

      Yea, nice rundown of the cynical psychological machinations behind the Oilygarch bankers’ carbon tax.
      You can recognize hedge fund executives? wow.

      • herrqlys says:

        I don’t know any hedge fund executives, and so wouldn’t spot one if the TV camera was right on them. The presenter pointed them out, probably in the vein of “oh, my, this is an important event…why over there is…”. I was simply paying attention to the unmasking.

  12. kabouit says:

    Maybe it would help the skeptics and non-skeptics if we found a common ground: I think we all agree pollution is bad and that oil and gas is polluting. Great, one thing accomplished. With that out of the way, can we point out a few things:
    1: most of us are not scientists and get our science from different sources
    2: Different scientific sources may be getting their funding from different places with have different agendas
    3: Oil and gas are lucrative and so it a world-wide tax
    4: Divide and conquer is a powerful political tool, potentially used by those who profit from both the oil and gas industry AND carbon tax revenues to keep people bickering with each other instead of noticing the elephant in the room.

    Oil and gas is certainly lucrative enough to create a media propaganda campaign in order to maintain status quo. But wouldn’t a world-wide tax be motive enough to create a media campaign as well? What about Scientists? Remember when they were all saying that smoking was good for us? They can be swayed too.

    And if carbon tax were to resolve anything, here are a few concrete things that might convince skeptics that carbon tax is indeed there to save the world:
    1: incentives to home-owners/property Managers to install solar panels
    2: incentives to grocery stores to provide compostable bags
    3: incentives to older car owners to convert to hybrid instead of dumping an otherwise fine car and buying a brand new one only to use a little less petrol
    4: incentives to struggling logging industry to convert to making wooden toys and paper bags
    5: reward manufacturers who don’t over-package
    6: reward manufacturers who don’t make products that break after a ridiculously short amount of time

    No? None of that?

    By the way, could anyone point out one concrete example of a place/industry/thing where carbon tax is alleviating the evil doings of humans?

    Need I go on why the skepticism and cynicism?

  13. heartruth says:

    No-till saga – Part 2
    Clarification/overview – by ‘no-till’ I mean the modern version which uses herbicides. From what I’ve discovered so far, it seems like a valid issue regarding soil health hijacked and ‘guided’ by the agri-chem industry. Here are the results of my descent down the rabbit hole. I’ve not read through everything yet, so may have missed the finer details.

    1) No or low tillage seems to be much better for soil
    • No-till farmer website
    • No-till farm consultants
    • Problems with tillage, advantages of ‘no-till’, application in intensive large-scale commercial agricultural context = herbicides
    No-tillage is a technology driven practice change for farming. The advent of glyphosate in the mid 1970s has offered an opportunity to remove vegetative cover to establish a crop without cultivation.

    Yes, no till can be done without the use of herbicides
    • Permaculture and tillage – Wikipedia
    • Permaculture – about no-till
    • Permaculture, no-till and climate change

    2) No or low tillage and climate change… Monsanto to the rescue!
    Possible historical link between this modern version of ‘no-till’ (i.e. which includes herbicide use), and the invention of paraquat… ya don’t say!
    • Historical review of no-tillage cultivation of crops

    The invention of Paraquat in 1955 and its commercial release in 1961 led the Imperial Chemical Company, ICI, and others, to initiate intensive no-tillage research in the UK, the USA and elsewhere. In 1961 and 1962 demonstration trials were run in several farms in the United States. These demonstration plots led Harry and Lawrence Young from Herndon,
    Kentucky, to apply the novel technology on their farm and became one of the first mechanised farmers in the world to use modern no-tillage crop production.

    Then the whole climate change thing happened… get more bang for your buck. You preserve the integrity of the soil and reduce carbon emissions!
    Here’s Monsanto’s take on things (brace yourselves)
    •‘Benefit and safety of glyphosphate’
    • Monsanto on climate change and tillage
    • Embedded video
    • Monsanto article discussing this in more detail
    • Dr Chuck Rice interview
    • Monstanto pledge report 2005
    Our Roundup agricultural herbicides are useful for conservation tillage. They let farmers control weeds without plowing or hoeing, thereby saving backbreaking labor and conserving soil and water.
    • Population explosion! Feed 9.6 Billion People and be Carbon Neutral: Monsanto’s Plan

    3) Does the evidence show that no-till can significantly mitigate climate change?
    • Could No-Till Farming Reverse Climate Change?
    • Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation

    4) Glyphosphate and negative impact on soil, animals, humans
    • Dr Phillis Tichinin interview
    • Stock feed, impact on animal organs
    • Dr Frank Rowson (Veterinarian, NZ)
    • Independent scientists manifesto on glyphosphate

    … or not, according to Wikipedia?
    Scroll down to ‘soil biota’.

    Hmmmm who to believe…

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      You put together a great piece of work.
      Thanks heartruth.

      • heartruth says:

        Thanks 🙂 Perhaps to avoid talking myself into a corner and imposing a ‘deadline’, I’ll avoid posting detailed anecdotes until I can provide evidence/sources to support/negate them!

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          I was chuckling to myself the other night when thinking about the topic of “tilling”.

          Before the machine age..
          Historically, many farmers tilled their land.
          Oh yea…they did this because it was fun exercise and they did not want to enroll in a Fitness Club. They had the option of no-till, but decided that they would rather spend many weeks struggling in the heat with backbreaking exercises as they pushed that plow and hoed a row.

          With my organic gardening, I have had mixed results with just digging a small hole for seeds, but no-till. Often the plants are puny.
          Soil gets compacted and needs to breath. In addition, plants compete.

          Farming is a tough risky ballgame. There is a lot of tech to it.

          • mkey says:

            Well, there is such a thing as building the soil.
            I’m not the one to denigrate tradition, but good practices can always sustain some scrutiny.

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              You said it building the soil and microbes.
              Healthy soil always has lots of microbial action.

              I once had a lawn of St Augustine grass.
              I don’t do weedkiller pesticides, just pulling by hand.
              In America, the Home Owners Association is always on your back for “pretty lawns”.

              One of the best things I did was to aerate the lawn.
              A machine driven, heavy barrel (with water) which had hollow points rolled across the lawn, pulling up plugs of dirt.
              Of course, I’d spray compost tea and molasses and seaweed around after the ‘holy ground’. Throw on some cornmeal (to keep fungi away) and Greensand and lava sand.

              That grass just choked out the weeds. Very few would sprout. I’m glad, ’cause like most people I’m lazy…probably not as lazy as the average Joe…but I like to economize my efforts.

              Aeration of the soil is important for good microbial action.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top