30 Responses

  1. Corbett is really trying to destroy his own credibility, I guess. Oh well.

    Shame really.

    Karl Popper? The author of the “Open Society” that was the theoretical basis of Mr. Soros’ lovely little organization? Nice work, JC!

    Seriously, the anti-global warming stuff is really an embarrassment to the those who seek the truth about things.

    David Ray Griffin wrote about how it destroys other aspects of truth movements here:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42827.htm

    In addition to what DRG says I have yet to read a good explanation/reason for AGW being a massive “hoax”.

    TPTB need to do all this so that they can have a cover to tax people more? Um no. TPTB don’t care anymore about how blatant their schemes are – e.g., the recent obviousness of ISIS, false flags, war, thievery etc etc etc. Tax money is chump change when they can create money out of thin air.

    TPTB need the ruse of “cap and trade” to steal all of our money, do they? Funny, it seems that they just “stole”/printed $25 Trillion during the last financial crisis, huh? And not a word from anyone.

    How many Trillion more $$$ were stolen during the current GWOT? With outright murder and war crimes?

    Seriously, TPTB are openly debating/contemplating a cashless society and negative interest rates and the anti-AGW think they would need to construct this elaborate AGW ruse to further control us? HELLOOOO!!

    Everyone younger than 30 practically is already begging for the end of cash and willingly allows themselves to be smart-monitored as it is. How much more control would be needed via AGW?

    But no, they need to set up this massively elaborate ruse – again, one with benefits DIRECTLY accruing to those already in power (big oil, MIC, etc etc) – to do what?

    Certainly one can snipe at the some of the inconclusive findings of AGW but that’s all of science and until the anti-AGW come up with a better reason for TPTB to create this elaborate hoax I’m going to have to keeping thinking that dumping 10s of billions of tons of crap into the atmosphere every year probably isn’t good a good idea.

    I mean, it would be one thing for the anti-AGW crowd to say that the reason for the hoax would be to cover up the fact that TPTB have already been manipulating the climate for their own ends – via chemtrails, etc – for decades and they want to hide that fact but they don’t make this argument. It’s all about control or money or something that doesn’t quite fit together.

    Funny, that angle, huh? By denying AGW, the anti-AGW crowd is actually providing even more cover for TPTB and what many people think they have been doing to our world for decades which in the end would indeed be AGW or AGC depending on how you may see it.

    Isn’t that clever?

    Sorry, Scott, love your work and most of Corbett’s but the anti-AGW stuff is too much.

    • Oh, Silliness. Science is supposed to be about the facts, not about taking sides pro or con. If you claim that the world is warming, you must demonstrate that with actual data that everyone can peruse for its completeness. If there are holes in your data, that should be pointed out, and when it is pointed out, it needs to acknowledged.

      So just some ‘factually’ based literature for you, nothing pro or con, but things that do strengthen or weaken a position on the bases of a multitude of facts. But a word of caution: you will have to read or listen attentively. Because the ‘evidence’ is not simple but slightly complex. It requires a bit of thinking and reasoning to follow and if you are not willing to make the effort, then its all for naught, and you can go back to believing whatever it was that you believed in the first place. A good piece of advice to keep in mind before plunging in, however, is that “A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind.” A guy by the name of Robert Bolton said or wrote that. I think he was on to something.

      Anyway, just some ‘facts’ for you:

      A)

      An essay by Jim Steele, titled “Is Antarctica’s Climate Change Natural or CO2 Driven? There Is Absolutely No Consensus”

      the URL is : http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-climate-change-all-natural-.html

      You should follow this up, unless ‘facts’ frighten you.

      B)

      Everybody likes a good documentary, especially if its about clouds. I know you will like this:

      Title: Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery

      Url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

      E)

      The Cloud Experiment at CERN – Jasper Kirkby follows up on Henrik Svensmark’s work

      URL: http://normanpilon.com/2014/01/05/the-cloud-experiment-at-cern-jasper-kirby-follows-up-on-henrik-svensmarks-work/

      F)

      An essay by Judith Curry on all that ails climate science:

      Title: RICO!

      URL: http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/17/rico/

      To fully appreciate this piece, you have to follow up Curry’s links, otherwise you’ll miss the purport.

      Then you will want to hang to Curry’s website address because she’s incomparably informed on what is happening in the “climate science scene,” and I know that’s exactly where you want to be, Silliness.

      I guess that should keep you busy for while and longer. Enjoy! I mean that.

    • “Seriously, the anti-global warming stuff is really an embarrassment to the those who seek the truth about things.”

      You said nothing to convince me that man-made global warming is a thing. And I’m not embarrassed. And nobody else’s beliefs, whatever they are, could ever be an embarrassment to me, a person who seeks the truth about things.

      People who seek the truth are generally on the same page with everything. Why? Because they’ve learned how to separate facts and beliefs. So, we might differ on issues like “Am I the best-looking person here?” or “Is there a God?”, but it’s nigh impossible for us to materially differ (for long) with respect to facts.

      You presented a bunch of your beliefs and no facts. You don’t know why TPTB do anything. Basically, because you’re not one of them. I don’t know why they do it either, I just know that they’ve lied to me regarding the facts. As such, anything they say will now be held to be a lie until it’s shown to be a fact. Pointing to arbitrary lumps of ice falling off ice faces and telling me that I’m to blame won’t do it (because I’m not five). Showing me pictures of polar bears that don’t look well (for whatever reason) won’t do it. Nothing that is designed to appeal to my emotions will do it. I’m going to need facts.

    • Everyone younger than 30 practically is already begging for the end of cash and willingly allows themselves to be smart-monitored as it is.

      Why in the world would you say this?

    • You’re too into your own cleverness. Too detached from the purpose of what you write. You need a little more practice.

  2. Your comments match your monicker, Silliness… It is not a crime to be wrong about something, but I find the conviction with which you are expressing your opinion, and the mockery you are spicing it up with absolutely objectionable.

    In addition to what DRG says I have yet to read a good explanation/reason for AGW being a massive “hoax”.

    Then you have really not read much, have you, Siilliness? Which means that your convictions about how “real” AWG is are based on just the Koolaid you have ben guzzling.

    For folks like you and me, “money” might be this unattainable but desirable commodity, but for the powers that be, money is not the objective, but a tool. They already have all the money in the world, and they can print as much of it as they want.

    Money’s value is proportionate to the weapons that protect it. In that sense, no amount of money can give them power or control over other people or nations. What “they” want is to shackle the rest of the world in a way that the ONLY way of making money is under their terms. Taxation, and the legal framework that it requires is the goal here… Not the few bucks you’d need to send them every year… They really do not need your money… But, what other kind of monetary system would allow them to establish a tax for every citizen of every nation of the world, besides this carbon tax bullcrap?

    A government needs a couple of things in place to function as a control system.

    1. Army:
    Heaven knows that we already have that… and with the “war on terror” hoax, all armies are being consolidated into a single chain of command. That is what “coalition forces” means…

    2. Governmental bodies and institutions:
    Instead of getting rid of existing governments, they have built a new one OVER them and it has been in place for a while now and is being implemented at every turn, after each “crisis” whether political, financial or military. For example, Europe is now being ruled from Brussels, which, in turn answer to secret, semi-secret and openly functioning institutions like CFR, Trlateral Commission, the UN, and their many sub-agencies, while organizations like the Bilderberg Group are acting as the global think tanks which operate free of any nationalistic philosophies.

    3. A monetary system:
    As the petrodollar slowly loses its strength and function, new monetary systems with digital currencies are being developed, and implemented as beta tests in the case of bitcoin. Even though digital currencies like bitcoin have the potential to absolutely decentralize the monetary system, the one that will ultimately become the world currency will surely be used to create a central monetary authority that will regulate everything.

    4. A system of taxation: (specific to your comment)
    In general, the main purpose of taxation is not generating money for the government, but to establish a chain you are tied to, which can be yanked at will by the master. Otherwise, why cap and trade carbon??? If the situation is so dire, just cap it!!! NOW!!!!! To add to that, taxation comes hand in hand with law enforcement to make sure that you don’t break your chain… which brings me to the next item:

    5. A legal system and law enforcement agencies:
    Scott has written a lot about the recent TPP and TTIP agreements, which, along with the Binding Agreement they are trying to shove down our throats in Paris at the COP21, are the perfect examples to how each one of these agreements gradually replaces the signatory nations’ own laws and constitutions and their sovereignty with international laws, written, passed and implemented by international and UNELECTED bodies. I will not go into detail, but will just remind you that these treaties, agreements and pretty much every bill that passes are made up of thousands, if not tens of thousands of pages… It is only the title and the propagandized parts that are presented to the shitizens… The rest is mostly poison… In that context, I have to ask you: Before propagating a “why would they fake it?” idea, have you actually read these treaties and understand what they do?

    6. A shared religion/philosophy:
    This is where the global warming bullshit comes into play once again. It sounds quite benign at first, but this might be one of the most sinister facets of the control grid. Having control over your money and your sustenance is not enough. To maintain this power, your mind also needs to be under control so that you don’t stray. They can scare some with terror, some with disease, some with hunger, but there needs to be a SHARED threat that will unite the people philosophically. What better threat to achieve this than the threat losing the only planet we have, right?

    7. A shared past, a shared future
    This one also sounds benign at first… But I would argue that it is THE most dangerous project currently in progress… For peoples to feel a sameness, they would need to speak, read, and live the same things. This objective is already halfway there, with the help of digital media that knows no borders. However, a shared past and future part requires much bigger, much more impactful events to take place… And for their wish for a world government to come true, the world needs a shared and traumatic experience that unites the shitizens of the world. And, sadly, this will come in the shape of a major disaster, in the shape of a world war, epidemics and god knows what else they have in the works… Death and suffering so big, and so universal that the survivors will leave their differences aside and unite in a way that would make the unified world government a reality.

    Silliness… Ignorance is a bad enough thing already… But every person falls in that category at some point or another… However, cocky and obnoxious opinions formed while being unaware of that ignorance are outright dangerous, and are the main reason for the deceivers being so successful in fooling the masses.

    I have a feeling you go around telling friends, family, colleagues about how bad AWG is and that we should do something about it… Seems like they’ve got you juuuuuust where they want you.

    Oh those poor drowning polar bears… Maybe we should save the polar bears like we save people around the world from their oppressors… BOMB THEM!

    • “Death and suffering so big, and so universal that the survivors will leave their differences aside and unite in a way that would make the unified world government a reality.”

      And Hollywood is getting us ready to accept the “US President” (i.e., someone from the old order) as our world leader after the cataclysm. We’ve all just to congregate outside the half-ruined Whitehouse (or around our monitors showing live coverage of that) and know that what he says is best. No upstarts required.

  3. Ever notice that since the global warning debate began, and the volume of the “debate” was cranked up, no one talks about the factory down the street that is still spewing poison into the land, water, and what’s left of the breathable air?

    • @ JoeB (in case I hit the wrong ‘Reply’ widget)

      Yes, it’s becoming a bit of distraction.

      Did you know, for instance, that the refugees streaming out of Syria are doing so not only or even primarily because they are being bombed, shot, crucified and beheaded, but because of ‘global warming.’ For you see, the ‘civil war’ was itself at least in part and significantly the result of a ‘global warming’ caused drought. It’s absolutely true. I read it in National Geographic.

      You can read it, too, an article titled “Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian War, Study Says.” Have a look:

      URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/

      Of course, there is always a ‘climate denying,’ IPCC un-credentialed wannabe climate ‘expert’ waiting somewhere in the wings to jump at any opportunity to deny the only ‘fact’ that matters anymore. There’s a guy by the name of Roger Andrews. He had the temerity to verify whether or not ‘climate change’ can justifiably be said to be a significant cause of everything now happening to the people of Syria. He then went and further discredited himself by writing about it. You can read that, too, an article appropriately titled “Drought, Climate, War, Terrorism, and Syria.” Have a look:

      http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terrorism-and-syria/

      So, yes, I agree with you JoeB, the global warming debate has become an all purpose cover for matters far more urgently worthy of our attention. Money and marketing. They work.

      • Hey Norman Pilon. I live in New England, you don’t have to hard sell me on climate change we get 4 seasons a day here. But it seems, as everywhere, I am losing more and more friends to cancer. And it’s not ethereal, “Oooh, look up in the ozone” kind of etiology or whether it’s man-made or not. It fucking well is man-made. The Eastern seaboard was/is backwash to generations of industries, many of which have gone offshore to escape responsiblity for the illness and death they’ve left behind. This kind of spew and screw criminality is wholly national and transnational and inarguable. But the righteous concern over global warming and the dialog that sought sensible solutions has become dominated by a “green governance”….a one sided case-closed tribunal that has (wink-wink) now concluded we need a one world doctrine, a control model, a taxation model, and one more excuse for “justice for just us” elitism. This began long before the drought false possitives in Syria. By the way Rupert Murdock just bought National Geographic, so I’m not sure I would believe anything I read there even about dung beetles anymore And speaking of dung beetles heres some ’90’s greatest hits on the use of the climate change debate. This is what you should be worried about.

        “The common enemy of humanity is man.
        In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
        with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
        water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
        dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
        changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
        The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
        – Club of Rome,
        premier environmental think-tank,
        consultants to the United Nations
        “In Nature organic growth proceeds according
        to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
        missing from the process of growth and development of
        the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
        sustainable growth and world development based on global
        allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
        Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”
        – Club of Rome,
        Mankind at the Turning Point

        “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
        it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
        Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
        suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
        of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
        representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
        – Club of Rome,
        The First Global Revolution
        Club of Rome. Goals for Mankind: A Report to the Club of Rome on the New Horizons of Global Community. 1977.
        http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921(197712)3%3A4%3C506%3AGFMART%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0
        Club of Rome. Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to The Club of Rome (first ed – 1974).
        Club of Rome. The First Global Revolution (1991). Publisher: Pantheon; 1st edition (September 3, 1991)
        http://www.archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution
        “We are on the verge of a global transformation.
        All we need is the right major crisis…”
        – David Rockefeller,
        Club of Rome executive member
        Rockefeller, David. speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994
        “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
        on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
        – Al Gore,
        Climate Change activist
        Gore, Al. Earth in the Balance, page 297-301. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Marshall_Plan
        “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
        climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
        bring about justice and equality in the world.”
        – Christine Stewart,
        former Canadian Minister of the Environment
        Stewart, Christine. Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998
        “It doesn’t matter what is true,
        it only matters what people believe is true.”
        – Paul Watson,
        co-founder of Greenpeace
        Watson, Paul. Forbes Magazine. http://www.stewards.us/libertymatters/fall97/lmj-fall97-6.htm
        “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
        on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
        – Prof. Chris Folland,
        Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
        “The models are convenient fictions
        that provide something very useful.”
        – Dr David Frame,
        climate modeler, Oxford University
        Folland, Chris. http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

        • Hi Joeb,

          I entirely agree with your point of view. As I put it to Silliness down below:

          (Just to be clear, in case you missed it: I’m being ironic in certain places in my post. The National Geographic article is absolute dross and propaganda. Roger Andrews’ article is actually the one that I commend.)

          But the links you provide simply help to solidify ‘our’ argument against the ‘Global Warming’ meme. See the other links that I also provide, i.e., to Jim Steele (above), Richard Courtney (below), Zbigniew Jaworowski (below), Judith Curry (above), Henrik Svensmark and Jasper Kirkby (above), and, of course, Roger Andrew in my reply to you.

          We are on exactly the same page.😉

          Regards,

          –N

  4. Just to offer some further clarity as to why I think anti-AGW is barking up a wrong tree, I’ll offer these points which some of the other comments may or may not have covered. I don’t debate any more b/c it’s not my job to educate people and I’ve found that no matter what anyone says they have to go and do their own research/thinking.

    1) Unlike other conspiracy/hoax theories – and I fully support/believe many – there does not exist a direct line between the hoax/conspiracy and the reasons for why it was/is carried out. I’ll just rattle off a few examples where this relationship is readily apparent – maybe not to most sheep but to those who seek truth:

    9/11
    Moon Landing
    Oklahoma City
    Gladio A/B
    Sandy Hook
    Boston
    7/7
    San Bernardino
    ISIS

    In each of the above cases it is apparent once one sees the hoaxes for what they are, to whom the benefits of such hoaxes accrue is readily apparent/discernible. This clear line is NOT apparent with AGW as a hoax. If anything, the clearest line that can be drawn between the hoax and those who would benefit is actually with that of the anti-AGW movement – i.e., the people currently in power such as big oil, the MIC, etc. For example, does Zionist Israel have stake in keeping the oil-ridden Middle East as an arena of extreme importance for the US and its peons? What if countries started weening themselves off hydrocarbons? Wouldn’t that reduce the importance of the region? Instead, anti-AGW people tell us that it’s b/c TPTB need to further control us or something by instilling a sense of something something. Again, the causal reasoning of anti-AGW is not as direct or sensible as the other topics above and TPTB – if anything – have become increasingly less subtle over the years (see below) – i.e., they don’t effing care if we can see the reasons and who benefits much anymore. Why the nebulosity in regards to this hoax as opposed to the others?

    Tip: using as an argument for AGW being a hoax that scientists stand to gain tenure and lucre by going along is laughably embarrassing. Moving on…

    2) In examining the phenomena of the anti-AGW movement one thing in particular stands out: that many many people who are anti-AGW also do NOT believe in other conspiracies/hoaxes as noted above. Sure, there is some crossover as evidenced on this site and elsewhere but from US Senators on down there sure are A LOT of people for which AGW is the ONLY hoax/conspiracy they believe in. Funny that, huh? That there would exist a large group of people who only believe in ONE major hoax while belittling all of the other more well-documented hoaxes/conspiracies e.g. 9/11? Nah, that doesn’t seem fishy AT ALL, huh? I mean even before the anti-AGW crowd could point to research by petro-funded scientists and others for crap stats – I’m talking in the late 90s, early 00s – there were people claiming it was a hoax. However, mention 9/11 to them and why it happened? OBL, of course. Again, anti-AGW is different from other topics in this regard.

    3) I mentioned in my last point but wanted to bring it up again: so if the TPTB have been using chemtrails and other methods of manipulating the climate/weather, doesn’t that kind of put anti-AGW people in somewhat of a bind? Oh, I get it, AGW is a hoax but the climate and weather can be changed by man but only if you’re a member of the TPTB, huh? But wait, wouldn’t that mean that TPTB who are manipulating the climate by clandestine are some of the VERY SAME PEOPLE who are manipulating the climate – and becoming filthy rich/powerful all the while – overtly? Funny that, huh? So anti-AGWers who believe in chemtrails etc are now in an interesting place: by being vocal opponents of AGW they are giving cover to TPTB’s clandestine manipulation of the climate/weather by making it seem ridiculous that mankind in general has the ability to do so. You’re anti-AGW when it applies to massive pollution but pro-AGW(or C) when it applies to TPTB. Nice work, suckers!!! Thanks.

    4) The “fact”-laden arguments used by the anti-AGW crowd are eerily reminiscent of the crap arguments used by people who attempt to debunk the physics of 9/11 truth – and this is why I think DRG gets miffed. I know Scott and others – myself included – in the past used to attempt to debate the .gov trolls who would throw out horseshit from NIST et al to prove the official 9/11 fairy tale OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN never letting their “mathematical” guard down to allow a shred of common effing sense peak in. This is exactly how the anti-AGW crowd feels to me when I argue with them; they feel/act/argue exactly like .gov trolls. It doesn’t matter if the overall picture of anti-AGW doesn’t make much sense – like WTC 7, e.g., – as long as they can point to some study about how it’s actually getting warmer/colder/wetter/drier somewhere in contradiction to AGW theories. Gothcha!!

    5) Lastly, it’s hard to take the view that TPTB are subtle/nuanced enough to create such an elaborate hoax especially when – see 1 – I can see no immediate or long-term, common sense reason for them to do so. One of the commentators above said something like – control is not just money and power and weapons blah blah blah TPTB need to control our minds to barf barf barf. Certainly SOME of TPTB might be multi-generational thinkers – wonder why Soros would like Popper so much, huh? Chortle. – but most want to garner their ends – be it money, riches, power – while they are still on the planet and they put into place schemes that to do so that are READILY apparent to those looking and that make tangible SENSE when viewed through the lens of TPTB. Again, anti-AGW does none of those things and is an anomaly. Banning cash, creating negative interest rates, mandatory wearable bar codes/chips the loss of sovereignty via TIPP, TPP, EU, IMF etc etc are all things that will tangibly help completely imprison inhabitants of modern society and TPTB are openly talking about/doing such things. What is the further need for AGW to be a hoax? Do Greeks/Libyans/Iraqis/Syrians need to effing believe if AGW is real to feel the boot? How about black/Hispanic/poor Americans? Do you think THEY will need to believe AGW to feel the boot? If anything, I believe AGW is the perfect non-hoax issue which lulls people into believing that TPTB are really thinking about the future!!! It’s not that AGW isn’t real. What’s unreal is any sense of TPTB actually giving a flying eff about our lives while they can play act about it all they want. Again, as DRG and others have pointed out, the anti-AGW crowd suffers, I believe, from “hoax” creep which is understandable enough in this day and age but it problematic b/c it hurts the cause of truth in the long run. If TPTB are clever enough to create an elaborate hoax such as AGW, then they are certainly as clever and MORE LIKELY to take a legitimate issue, pay lip-service to it to make people think everything’s ok and – all the while – fund anti-AGW groups to 1) keep themselves rich and powerful while still living and 2) confuse/stifle the rest of the people who need to live with the consequences of TPTB’s actions.

    Debating about specific studies and singular data points is not worth the time if the overall picture does not make sense and anti-AGW only makes sense if it’s a ruse being used by TPTB. Sorry.

    • 1) I shouldn’t have included Gladio on my list b/c it’s not a hoax like the others. I was just typing stream of conscious.

      2) This sentence should read: “Certainly SOME of TPTB might be multi-generational thinkers – wonder why Soros would like Popper so much, huh? Chortle. – but most want to garner their ends – be it money, riches, power – while they are still on the planet and THUS put into place schemes that to do so, that are READILY apparent to those looking and that make tangible SENSE when viewed through the lens of what would benefit TPTB.

      • Hi Silliness,

        “What is the further need for AGW to be a hoax?”

        AGW at this point in time may or may not be a hoax. It certainly started out as one, and if it’s no longer desirable by the TPTB, why does it continue to be promoted in the mainstream press and to be funded to the tune of literally trillions of dollars? On the other hand, assuming it is no longer desirable as a tool for pushing specific government and corporate policies, it may be that, as Richard Lindzen suggests, ‘things have gotten out of hand.’ Elements of culture and institutions often take on a life of their own, and that may be what has happened.

        Having said that, one might ask: can it be demonstrated that the AGW hypothesis was originally advanced to serve very specific political ends and what political ends might those be? The answer, I think, is yes.

        Two papers (and I recommend the first over the second, though the second deserves a reading, I think):

        A)

        “Global Warming: How It All Began” — by Richard Courtney

        URL: http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

        Please be forbearing toward Richard as pertains the first part of his essay: therein he speaks as someone thoroughly persuaded of the falsity of the AGW hypothesis. The really worthwhile section of his paper is the second part and what I think is relevant to your question, ” The origins of the global warming scare.”

        B)

        “The Sun, Not Man, Still Rules Our Climate” — by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc

        URL:

        http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Sun_Climate_sp09_01.pdf

        I leave it to you to make up your own mind about Zbigniew’s paper. He’s credentials speak for his honesty and everything is referenced.

        Regards,

        –N

    • You really do not understand the world around you, do you? The logical fallacies you engage in to argue your points are too many to point out here… Not to mention that your obnoxious statements like “Tip: using as an argument for AGW being a hoax that scientists stand to gain tenure and lucre by going along is laughably embarrassing. Moving on…” are extremely annoying.. How old are you for god’s sake?

      Did you follow COP21 at all? Do you know what they are talking about, these powers that be??? It’s all about MONEY!!! TAXATION!!! BINDING AGREEMENTS!!!! DANGLING MONEY IN FRONT OF IMPOVERISHED AFRICAN NATIONS!!! It is not about the planet!!! If something horrible does indeed happen to the planet, it will be at the hands of these genocidal psychopathic maniacs… Not from A DOUBLE YOU GEE!!!!

      Listen to John F’n Kerry here

      Listen to circus pony Katy (NWO) Perry here

      Read the head bronco of the Jesus-hoax talk about the climate change hoax here… (and he does NOT say “thou shall not spray shit into the atmosphere”)

      Watch the founder of the Weather Channel here…

    • Too many paired words/definitions.

      You are an agent of some sort. Please knock it off if you will/can.

    • @Silliness

      maybe not to most sheep but to those who seek truth:…

      Most people here are smarter than this. Don’t insult them.

  5. stream of consciousness…I’m out.

  6. Hi Scott… In my annoyed state (with silliness’ silliness) I put more than three links in my post, which sent it straight to the wordpress purgatory. Do you think you could rescue it after you liberate the pears out of the jar?😉

  7. Norman again proves my point above. Vis a vis Syria it makes MORE SENSE if AGW is real so that TPTB can use it to seduce rational people into thinking that the CIA-led coup in Syria was real, too.

    What makes more sense? That TPTB used the real issue of AGW as a cover for the coup they instigated in Syria…

    OR that they cooked up AGW 4+ decades ago to give cover for Syria?

    Why not Libya then? Why not Egypt? Tunisia? What about the fake-ass Color Revolutions post Cold War? All of those uprisings were about “freedom” or some such BS.

    If you asked the man on the street what caused Syria they would probably say ISIS or Assad anyways and MAYBE MAYBE if they listened to a lot of NPR they would say global warming but it’s not a good reason for the entire thing being a hoax.

    It’s a stretch and I’m being polite.

    A good example of a widespread hoax but one that is used DIRECTLY to benefit the rich and powerful: that the US government can run out of money and needs a balanced budget.

    This is a widespread fallacious idea held by nearly every one in power but it makes sense b/c IT HELPS TO KEEP THEM IN POWER and MAKING MORE MONEY they way they’ve always been making money. AGW being a hoax would imply that all TPTB have agreed that it’s time to move-on from the ways they’ve made money for centuries and that cuts way against the grain of how greedy sociopaths think/act.

    • “Norman again proves my point above. Vis a vis Syria it makes MORE SENSE if AGW is real so that TPTB can use it to seduce rational people into thinking that the CIA-led coup in Syria was real, too.”

      What?

      Not being inside your stream of consciousness, I admit to being a tad confused by what you write, here. Actually, I think the TPTB would rather hide any CIA links to the destabilization in Syria by using the cover of ‘global warming,’ irrespective of whether the hypothesis was true or not, rather than the other way ’round, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

      (Just to be clear, in case you missed it: I’m being ironic in certain places in my post. The National Geographic article is absolute dross and propaganda. Roger Andrews’ article is actually the one that I commend.)

    • Syria was a singular instance of using global warming as a reason for a CIA coup which seems a paltry return on a hoax that was supposedly created 4 decades or so ago. Why didn’t they use it a the MAIN reason for any other of the later coups? Especially when the -sorry for the confusion – “spreading democracy” has continued to be effective since the 80s in LA, 90s eastern Europe and the Arab Spring.

      Again, it feels like AGW was just thrown in there at the end to justify Syria to the fake-left NPR set and that’s about it.

      • Silliness,

        Did you read the National Geographic article?

        Did you read the piece by Roger Andrews?

        Did you read the piece by Roger Courtney?

        Did you read the piece by Zbigniew Jaworowski?

        If not, I can’t help you with your very legitimate questions. Because these articles, excepting the National Geographic one, are well written and researched efforts that go some distance, I think, to answering most of the questions you raised, and they are what I’m offering as ‘help.’

        Why not go, then, and read what has been recommended to you? I think you may learn things that you will find rather interesting, both about human nature and their social institutions, to say nothing of the natural world. Then again, maybe not. But unless you do the reading, you won’t ever know that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: