Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Allan Weisbecker / Jim Fetzer

Global warming hoax / New JFK show #6 (with Gary King)      

111 comments:

  1. wow, allan weisbecker is one of my favourite guys - but in this podcast he was a real asshole...

    allan, you were frantic - asking jim to speak then telling him not to interrupt... lol, like wtf? - if i was jim i'd have asked you to come back some other time after you calmed down

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the last TWO YEARS Jim Fetzer has been sending me Climate Change propaganda from elite sources like the NY Times and Washington Post and the UN. When I send him back the SCIENCE of it via data links, he says 'I'm too busy' to look at my links. So I asked him, begged him, to quit sending crap from globalist publications. He WILL NOT STOP. Then he says he hasn't looked into the subject. How can you have 'a strong opinion' (his words, repeated in the podcast) if you haven't looked into it?

    Hearing him on this podcast read on and on from the NY Times and (another globalist source) Wikipedia when he has always been 'too busy" (I'd be glad to quote his emails) to examine my sources got me agitated, no doubt about it. I only had two segments and didn't want the time wasted with unsupported assertions like how catastrophic the sea level has been when the real figure is ONE TENTH OF AN INCH a year. I do apologize for being aggravated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. even though he might have deserved it, it didn't make for good radio

      anyway, i watched your An Open Video to Jim
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV7c_ADQk_o

      so climate change is just another big lie (grrrrr)

      (p.s. and sorry for calling you an a-hole)

      Delete
    2. Alan, I wish you would point out your facts to Max Keiser! He seems to be a hawk for the climate change gang.

      Delete
    3. Allan thinks he KNOWS whether climate change is or is not real. I DO NOT. And I am quite certain that I understand SCIENCE far better than does he.

      So when I send him a link to an article like this one, http://truth-out.org/news/item/22999-evidence-of-acceleration-on-all-fronts-of-anthropogenic-climate-disruption unlike him, I am NOT BEGGING THE QUESTION by assuming I AM RIGHT. I am SHARING DATA.

      When I sent him this one, I explained that it looked very good to me because of the wide range and extent of the data presented and that I used to be a member of the AAAS.

      He told me he did not even know the meaning of "AAAS", which of course is the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has no idea how much there is he does not know.

      That is my greatest problem with Allan. This is a VERY COMPLEX issue and I expect to do a lot of shows about it. But he INSISTS HE IS RIGHT AND BERATES ME FOR NOT AGREEING WITH HIM--when I am dubious that he is right and not yet willing to take a stand.

      When that time comes, I am sure that, if I am not on his side, he will attack me again and again. Frankly, he has been doing this for several years now--and I have simply not had the time to devote to it, especially when I am very skeptical of his skepticism.

      As I see it, we have been polluting the atmosphere since around 1750 with massive quantities of industrial waste and it would be a fantasy to suppose it has had no effects on our environment. I think the latest article is a nice summary, but I am willing to be shown to be wrong, which Allan has not done.

      And his remark about 1/10th of an inch increase in the ocean's level is naive in the extreme. Very subtle changes in Earth's temperature or the level of the seas can make enormous differences in ecology and impact evolution profoundly. In my view, he is simply out of his depth and I am sick and tired of his ongoing verbal abuse.

      Delete
    4. I realize Max is likewise deluded. this is a good point and shows that once someone is taken in by a cleverly orchestrated hoax (the Big Lie works best according to Hitler, etc), the evidence ceases to matter. Max is otherwise great. The implications are truly scary...

      Delete
    5. Re: we have been polluting the atmosphere since around 1750 with massive quantities of industrial waste and it would be a fantasy to suppose it has had no effects on our environment.

      CO2 is not a pollutant Jim. It is plant food - food for plants. Below 150ppm THEY WILL DIE! During the last ice age we were only 30ppm above that level, so fairly close to a real disaster. I suspect the plant have a totally different opinion on what that should be regarded as dangerous than you Jim. More CO2=more plant food and a greener planet and more to eat for all the starving children in Africa.

      Where has all the "pollution" spewed into the atmosphere from 1750 gone? Is it still up there somewhere? What about all the emissions from 1850? Or 1950? Would be hard to even find any traces of any "pollution" from that year. You see Jim, the atmosphere isn't just accumulating "pollution". Dust and other "pollutants" are mostly washed out by rain and will end up in the sea some day. The ocean isn't just some distilled weather, but a gigantic chemical processing plant. It is so huge that it is impossible to pollute the oceans. It will all be broken down, no matter what substance or quantities we throw in it, etc...

      What is your best example on "pollutant" that has caused harm since 1750? What harm is easiest to demonstrate Jim?

      You should read the story on Chicken Little one more time Jim.

      Delete
    6. Of all people, Jim should know that "consensus" plus "science" equals the continuation of myths, hoaxes, scams, and superstitions.
      Now, more than ever, we all need to be wary of anything we read or see that is handed to us by any source.
      It is hard to imagine that Jim "The National Repository for JFK and 911 Info" Fetzer does not know about the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated.
      Jim - don;t believe everything you read. Scientists are just as corruptible as politicians.
      Alan,
      I understand your frustration with this issue.
      And...I am so glad to hear about your video. I can hardly wait to see it...because it sounds like the input I need to come up with an actual method for over coming Total Sociatial Brainwashing."
      Here again, history is important. Specifically, a history of the atmosphere.
      For the first few billion years, there was no oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. In it's place was CO2 - about 30%. Well, here we are today as proof CO2 is what we always knew. Plant food. A small increase in CO2 would actually reduce world hunger.
      Where's the tipping point of no return they threaten us with? You know, the one we were way over and came back from.
      Polar Bears?! There are more today than there were 50 years ago. Yep. We're killing now though. Fukushima...not drowning. They are aquatic mammals that can swim hundreds of miles a day - get out of the water - and drag a beluga whale through a whole in the ice for dinner.
      But the oil companies spend millions to discredit the "consensus." Well, our government spent tens of billions funding people who will lose there jobs if they tell the truth.
      "Consensus?" Google - 1300 peer reviewed papers that do not support the AGW theory.
      "But the UN..." Fuck the UN! They ARE the enemy.
      This is a huge conspiracy involving the Elites, Bankers, and Green Commies aka Watermelons.
      It's junk science with models created to torture the data.
      Your mistake Alan, was assuming that Jim would respect your research enough to believe you without question.
      My own family does not even trust me that much.

      Delete
    7. EJ Doyle has asked me to post this for him:

      Hey Jim,

      Tried to log in to The Real Deal to leave a comment but wordpress is having brain farts with my Mac?? Anyway, this was my comment:

      When I was guest on your show in '09 you were very uncomfortable for me to talk about what I called "The 10% solution" meaning if 10% of every municipality, city, etc. were armed, it would prevent any military takeover, IE: 600,000 in LA alone. Yet you have changed and now say "when they come for the guns it is time to use them."

      You gave Obama $100 five times with idea he was going to change things, He didn't, but you did and now you see him for the schmuck he is (and should get your $500 back:-).

      Recently, on VT, you wrongly ID'd a guy from Texas as the real Robbie Parker. You were wrong and you apologized.

      Point is you are indeed a brilliant man but like all of us, you do make mistakes and indeed have made up for them. In this case, as millions of us understand, you are quite wrong about "climate change" which used to be called "global warming" and it would serve all of us well (your fans and supporters of your hard, post-retirement work) if you would relax the ego attachment you have assigned to your position and realize many of us out here also have high IQ's and a hunger for truth and once again, you may be wrong about something which of course is why we have erasers on pencils.

      It is in fact, quite astounding to me that with your great talent for investigation and attention to detail, that you would be so far off on this one. Your fans are right on this...none of the main stream press are to be believed much beyond the scores to sporting events; CO2 is quite necessary for plant growth; the whistle-blown email expose nailed it; it IS another scheme in the attempted takeover of the planet by Soros and his ilk to create a "carbon credit" economy; etc.

      While I am here...Listened to your discussion with Kevin which I guess you are now the "Dualing Duo." Apparently he wants to not address any of the logic behind your points: a ten second dustification can not come from Ther mite or mate and the rubbing together of concrete, etc. The presence of all the radioactive contaminants in the dust can only mean nukes were used; the fact that planes were still in the air after they were supposed to have hit the buildings, etc. somehow was not proof enough for him, and on and on.

      HOWEVER, the real shit came when he did his appeal to the emotions (heart) bullshit about sex and marriage of the Islamics...He was trying to make Islamic men seem like highly enlightened and sensitive. See the two pdf's I have attached.

      Also, in true critical thinking, regarding the creation of humans, Show Me the Proof hey? As it is said, opinions are like butt holes, some stink, some don't. Any that have to with "authorship" or "god" or a "supreme being" are all opinions and mostly founded in the controller's meme to maintain the reins. If you have read Michael Cremo's "Forbidden Archeology" then you know artifacts that appear to be made by sentient beings (steel balls, gold chain necklaces, etc.) and have been date tested to be anywhere from 40 to 200 MILLION years old would indciate something very big has been in progress for a long time.

      I am really burnt out on all the religious shit on most all of the web stations. It is very "sexy" now to be on the Satanic band wagon hey? Let's see, since there was no fucking Satan or Jesus or Moses or any of that crap, how can people who call themselves "truthers" be so ignorant?? Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it real. Cruel, inhuman, barbaric men and women use Satan as their excuse for the behavior. The same goes for all the religious zealots out there who will kill you to show you their god is better then your god.

      My best.

      EJ

      Delete
  3. the sun obviously drives temperature. we are trained to believe otherwise.

    one day this interglacial will end and co2 will likely be blamed for the cooling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for reminding me, air-ono; i forgot how much trouble i actually went to in order to enlighten Jim on this vital subject: I spent the time making a video addressed to him:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV7c_ADQk_o

    Not a word back from him; i must assume he was 'too busy' to bother with the video i spent a couple hours putting together some critical thinking on the subject, and he has not the time to even watch it.

    then he tries to have it both ways: he sends me link after link of globalist propaganda then when confronted by his ignorance (in the show) of CO2 as the issue, he claims to not have researched the subject.

    my frustration has become revelation: our prof of critical thinking has joined the religion of climate change, if science had anything to do with it, by now jim (and many others)would have seen the hoax for what it is. sad.

    and as others have said and i repeated on the show, the issue is vital: if gore et al get what they want, they will be taxing the air we breath to fund their global government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The man is a fucking petty intellectual tyrant. I am sick and tired of him. I invited him on the show to provide an opportunity for him to present his views. You see what I get for it! As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weisbecker? Interesting name. German for an occupational baker of white bread AND he obviously can't stand the heat in the kitchen!!

      Time he got out, Jim!!??

      Delete
    2. Wow, phil, what a smart post! Phil Sheridan. I used to have a pellet rifle made by the Sheridan company! Important, huh?

      Delete
    3. Jim, Weisbecker is too upset to debate. However, he and others raise some points which set the case for AGW toward a general doubt:

      CO2 is a mild warming agent compared to other greenhouse gases and CO2 is only 0.038 of the total atmosphere

      Most CO2 is still produced in undersea volcanic activity due to solar EMF changes

      There are outright lies on the GW side (now "climate change" named)

      Polar ice retreated in some areas and returned, polar bears have been exposed as having had mostly no problem but the photos of them in summer and in during high solar activity were promoted

      One tenth of an inch means there may be NO rising at all of sea levels in most areas, unless cumulative rise can in fact be shown, and "rise of sea" can be sinking of land, too, if one is not accounting for that (lie or mistake)

      Maunder Minimum -- Mediaeval Cool Period was misrepresented

      Climategate and a whole bunch of other stuff has shown lying and converging of data through a few controlled sources

      Ventura had on a good circumstantial case about the motivations of several prominent warmists/changeists, and even a witness to the pushing of a World Bank early on by Rothschilds at Environmental Conference (1988, I think).

      If these things are not enough to make you doubt what the science means when you read facts and figures which may have been

      - massaged
      - put out of context
      - given an improper context
      - outright be lies

      then you have not used your general conspiracy-aware spidey sense on the issue.

      Delete
    4. I mean Mediaeval warm period and Maunder Minimum which was an early modern cold period.

      And when I said "debate" I didn't mean a formal one; I just meant he's too hot on the issue to respond to you if you will not be shocked and awed at every point or you try to read things he thinks you shouldn't even be bothering with (NYT article).

      Delete
    5. Science is not conducted through consensus.
      Here again, history is important. Specifically, a history of the atmosphere.
      For the first few billion years, there was no oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. In it's place was CO2 - about 30%. Well, here we are today as proof CO2 is what we always knew. Plant food. A small increase in CO2 would actually reduce world hunger.
      Where's the tipping point of no return they threaten us with? You know, the one we were way over at 30% CO2 and came from.
      Polar Bears?! There are more today than there were 50 years ago. Yep. We're killing them now though. Fukushima...not drowning. They are aquatic mammals that can swim hundreds of miles a day - get out of the water - and drag a beluga whale through a hole in the ice for dinner.
      But the oil companies spend millions to discredit the "consensus." Well, our government spent tens of billions funding people who will lose there jobs if they tell the truth.
      "Consensus?" Google - 1300 peer reviewed papers that do not support the AGW theory.
      "But the UN..." Fuck the UN! They ARE the enemy.
      This is a huge conspiracy involving the Elites, Bankers, and Green Commies aka Watermelons.
      It's junk science with models created to torture the data.
      Alan's mistake was assuming that you would respect his research enough to believe him without question.
      My own family does not even trust me that much.
      I remember a time when I did not question the Holohoax. I had no reason to until someone said I should.
      Now I'm a "Denier" of several "Official" stories. Not because I'm evil. Because they are lies.
      BTW - Al Gore is a liar and knows nothing about science. Surprise!
      Sandy Hook is a small hoax in comparison with AGW.
      Start your research with the Club of Rome, Maurice Strong, IPCC climate models, Climategate 1, 2. and 3, Agenda 21.
      The end game is mass genocide to "save the planet" with China taking our place as the the New World Order Police.

      Delete
  6. I just wrote a lengthy email that somehow disappeared. and i am the tyrant, huh?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mwbgo_s370

    that's from one of your listeners who realized that you DO NOT LISTEN to opposing views. if you listen to this link you'll realize that i had corrected fetzer on it MANY times in the past, via email. listen to him cut me off when i start to explain that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not deleted any comments on this thread other than removing the remainder from one that obf deleted himself. Your paranoia is getting the better of you.

      Delete
    2. Weisbecker is too "hot" about the issue and what he has said he perceives about your recalcitrance to look into the issue from the other hypothesis: that it's an exaggeration and lie which is complex.

      Nevertheless, I suggest, Jim, re-read my points so you can reassess your general inclination at LEAST toward true neutrality.

      Remember critics of JFK stuff? They have to be less inclined to trust McAdam before they can see what is disinfo or re-contextualizations and what's left out of it ... and even start to set their thinking onto an entirely different track. McAdam will seem quite solid until then.

      Delete
  7. Go 6:50 in to that video (put up by a listener) and hear jim cut me off when i try to remind him of all the times i told him THE SAME THING i'm telling him on the show, and how he THANKED ME and now it's completely new to him.

    if this isn't proof that the problem is not with me, I don't know what is or what could be.

    he calls me an intellectual tyrant. What? i've made custom videos for him, but HE'S TO BUSY to pay attention and he calls me an intellectual tyrant.

    that's rich.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sticking to science, i'll quote him:

    'And his remark about 1/10th of an inch increase in the ocean's level is naive in the extreme. Very subtle changes in Earth's temperature or the level of the seas can make enormous differences in ecology and impact evolution profoundly. In my view, he is simply out of his depth and I am sick and tired of his ongoing verbal abuse.'

    Aside from the Medieval Warm period, in which the world temp was 5 degrees warmer and they were growing grapes in northern england and the pplar bears were fine... (did our SUVs cause that, jim?)

    ....aside from that, and aside from the fact that there has been negligible (IPCC admits this) GW for more than 15 years...

    aside from the fact that fetzer admits he has not looked into GW yet i AM SOMEHOW the one out of my league...

    aside from.... wait. what verbal abuse? hey, jim, aside from defending myself how about quoting some of my verbal abuse?

    ReplyDelete
  9. DR. FETZER:
    ALAN IS "ON THE MONEY"!!!
    GLOBAL WARMING IS A SHAM TO FUND "THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, RUN BY THE U.N."!!!
    LIKE ALAN, I DON'T CARE FOR "REPUBLICAN PARTY OPERATIVE, ALEX JONES", IN THIS INSTANCE ALEX JONES IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!
    COPY AND PASTE:
    CLIMATEGATE FOR DUMMIES INFOWARS:
    THE UNITED NATIONS WAS BUSTED IN 2009, THROUGH HACKED EMAILS FROM A UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, MAKING UP TEMPERATURES TO APPEAR AS IF THE EARTH IS WARMING!!!
    YOU SHOULD HAVE "LORD MONCTON", FROM SCIENCEANDPUBLICPOLICY.ORG AND MARK MORENO FROM CLIMATEDEPOT.COM ON YOUR SHOW TO EXPLAIN "THE U.N. SCAM!!!
    COPY AND PASTE INTO YOU TUBE:
    Lord Christopher Monckton ends the Global Warming Debate an
    YOU AND ALAN NEED TO "SMOKE A GOOD JOINT", AND COOL OUT!!!
    THANKS FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO, YOUR INFORMATION AND SHOW ARE INCREDIBLE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think Fetzer's caution on this issue is perfectly understandable. When it seems the entire scientific establishment and mainstream popular opinion is behind the idea of AGW and imminenet catastrophic 'Climate Change', well socialized, non-paranoid people are inclined to assume that the science is good and disinclined to spend too much time considering the alternative viewpoint.

    (I know that the reported scientific consensus on AGW/climate change is a fiction, but that's not my point.)

    And I can understand Allan Weisbecker's frustration that Fetzer appears uninterested in really seriously testing his own beliefs. I had a similar experience trying to get Fetzer to see that the American Jews involved in 9/11 were not 'dual citizens'. He could offer no evidence that Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith et al are dual citizens, but goes on claiming it anyway. He does indeed as Weisbecker asserts, refuse to use his own critical thinking expertise when learning the truth about the question at hand may discomfit him. So he's human.

    I think it's great that Fetzer intends to do some shows on this subject. A useful primer might be the documentary GREAT GLOBAL WARMING HOAX. Good guests would be Tim Ball (a regular like Jim on Erskine Overnight) or Richard Lindzen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a link to an article about Richard Lindzen: http://www.infowars.com/mit-professor-exposes-climate-change-hysteria/

      Delete
  11. Jim,
    See Dr. Eric Karlstrom's (Emeritus Professor of Geography, California State University, Stanislaus) website www.naturalclimatechange.us
    In particular, aside from his front page study titled 'Disproofs of the Hypothesis of Unprecedented Catastrophic AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming): And Proofs that AGW is a Fraud,' see 'Global Green
    Dictatorship.' http://naturalclimatechange.us/Global GreenDictatorship.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. I sent GREAT GLOBAL WARMING HOAX to Jim at least three times and links to Tim Ball at least 4 times. He's too busy. But I'm out of my league.

    Dropped out of college in 1970 to go on the global wave and wisdom hunt. Big mistake, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Personally I do not believe in global warming, it appears to be just another scam that is being propagated in order to control people, but even if, for the sake of argument we assume that it does in fact exist, the absolute worse thing that could happen is for government[s] to step in and "solve" the problem.

    If that happened, global warming [if it exists ] would become even worse than it was before government involvement-guaranteed.

    "Global Warming Guru Reverses Himself, Slams U.N. Report":

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/gary-north/algorean-reverses-himself/

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OBF, i suggest that your phraseology 'Personally i don't believe in global warming' is a giveaway that you have not looked into it, which is fine. we can't all look into everything. but 'not believing' in it shows how it is not seen as a matter of science but of some kind of philosophy. (Gore calls it the 'new religion,' which is another giveaway that science is not really involved.)

    I also find it mildly distressing that all 'the usual suspects' :) of this blog are quite silent on the issue. This is in fact one of the more important frauds of recent times; if they get their way (a carbon tax funding global governance), 9/11 will look like a tiny bump on the road.

    Likewise, with our constitution, they are using the 'save mother earth' litany to snoop our every move via the 'we have to know your carbon footprint' crapola.

    If you want to get upset about the climate, look into geoengineering (chemtrails). the sky over my home was plastered with chemtrails last week and also today. the aluminum, barium, and god knows what else is now in the air i'm breathing. You too, depending on where you are...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allan,

      I have not looked into Global Warming extensively but I tend to agree with you. Here is my 2 cents: there has been NO global warming since 1995. If man made CO2 were responsible for warming wouldn't the temperature keep going up? The winter we just went through was brutal - coldest in YEARS.

      If man made CO2 IS this big of a problem then why is their "solution" a carbon trading scheme? They have publicly stated that carbon taxes are needed for a new World Currency. Air USED to be free. Now they want to charge you to breathe. The Jew Bankers want to tax the life cycle to fund their Jew World Order.

      It's kind of like the Libyan rebels first act was to setup a Central Bank. Something does indeed smell rotten in Denmark.

      Delete
    2. Allan - chemtrails are an undemonstrated threat. 1) what is this substance they allegedly are spraying? 2) at what level has biological effect been demonstrated for this substance? 3) what would the concentration be at the ground level when sprayed from 40000 feet?

      I don't believe in toxic shadows and chemtrails - both are undemonstrated threats, and probably as real as (the non existing) Ground Zero in Hiroshima.

      Delete
    3. A friend sent me this comment via email:

      “If man made CO2 were responsible for warming wouldn't the temperature keep going up? The winter we just went through was brutal - coldest in YEARS.”

      I have always thought Don is a very smart guy. But this is a vary naive statement. In fact, it is the fact that we are having some of the coldest winters in years that is a manifestation of climate change/global warming. Radical departures from the norm in either direction (hot or cold, rain or drought) are examples of a climate out of balance, a jet stream that is changing, and despite regional variations the aggregate global temperature is rising.

      I am sorry but people who cast the climate change issue as simply a political escapade are not rational. The evidence is not in their favor. The north pole is melting – ocean temperatures are rising – methane is being released – the jet stream is changing – regional swings are happening.

      My interpretation of the evidence suggests that as a species we have already hit the tipping point and that mass die off is just around the corner (geologically speaking).

      Delete
    4. Tell your friend 1) it's not getting warmer, 2) the climate patterns are always changing, 3) arctic - and antarctic - ice is not melting / refreezing at rates outside their normal ranges.

      During the period of warming ending 16 years ago (but widely admitted to have ended only in the last 5 or so years) the mainstream AGW proponents said the warming was definitely linked to industrial activity and developed world consumer lifestyles.

      But curiously this warming trend coincided with a period of massive solar activity, some say unprecedented in 1200 years, with resultant increased temperatures on other planets and on Neptune's largest moon.

      It seems there was no need to look for a local earthly explanation for global warming, and now that the solar activity has subsided along with the global warming trend, it is reasonable to suppose the local explanation was not only unnecessary but also false.

      You'll soon notice now you're looking into this issue critically that every year during the northern hemisphere's summer the newspapers and parliaments are full of anguished reports from the Arctic about melting ice. Then when summer heads south and the Arctic ice starts to refreeze, the attention shifts to the melting Antarctic icecaps ... and so on ad inf.

      You'll kick yourself one day for falling for this nonsense.

      Delete
    5. Jim,

      My main points are: the Hockey Stick was a load of BS, the IPCC has been caught in their own emails rigging the data and if burning fossil fuels is so bad why is the answer a carbon trading scheme that will be used to fund a World Bank (run by Jews) and Currency? Why isn't there a Manhattan style project to get us off of oil and on to nuclear fusion energy? What happened to the Hydrogen Economy?

      In a hydrogen reactor one gallon of seawater will produce as much energy as 300 gallons of gasoline. Follow the money: they want to enact cap and trade NOT nuclear fusion reactors. Wall Street speculation over science and progress. That's why I think the whole AGW thing is a scam.

      If you prove me wrong I'll be happy to come back here and admit it but as I see it now it's a load of bullshit.

      Delete
  15. Don,

    All you say is true and I'm glad you said it but for a critical thinker (which i have seen you can be) the NOAA chart showing sea level conditions (which i brought up in the show) is actual empirical evidence that AGW is an untenable position. Jim talks about photographs of ice melting, etc etc, as if that MEANS anything. When you look at sea level rise world wide and find that it is less than one tenth of an inch a year going back up to 100 years, you understand why the AGW proponents SAY sea level is a catastrophe but never QUOTE ANY data. If they did they would look like the 9/11 level liars that they are. For Jim to say that 'one tenth of an inch can make a big difference' is an embarrassment, frankly. As a lifetime waterman i can tell you that given the tides and weather, one tenth of an inch is not even NOTICEABLE over a decades long stretch. Ten years equals ONE INCH. An onshore breeze will raise the sea level one inch on any given day.

    When it comes to matters of the sea, it's not me who is out of his league.

    Look at the list of those who tell us AGW is real, from al gore to the Goldman Sachs gang to b obama himself, and ask yourself: 'Should I believe these people?'

    What Jim cannot or does not want to understand is that THEY ARE LYING.

    and since this is an emotional issue, it does not matter what the evidence is. it's a BELIEF. for a truly scientifically-minded person, just the fact that temp rise precedes CO2 rise should be enough. HOW CAN THE EFFECT PRECEDE THE CAUSE? Sorry for yelling but my frustration level is close to critical mass with this bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allan, AGW is pure fiction. This fiction is partly created by deliberately overlooking the law of diminishing return for CO2 and temp. Just 20ppm will suck up >50% of the TOTAL POTENTIAL. So a doubling from 280 ppm (pre-industrial) to 540 ppm will not even be measurable. Modtran calculation, bar chart: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png?w=640

      We are discussing other peoples faith here. And they are as indoctrinated and dogmatic as the Obama worshippers. AGW could also be a disease, not sure here really.

      I notice that not even his snarling poodle are defending Jim on AGW here.

      Delete
  16. AC Weisbecker said: "OBF, i suggest that your phraseology 'Personally i don't believe in global warming' is a giveaway that you have not looked into it, "

    Your statement is "a giveaway" that you are just another assumptive asshole here, making unwarranted assumptions about what I have/have not studied - in much the same way as Fetzer and his assorted cronies have made unwarranted [and unprofessional] assumptions about video and photographic evidence and government reports etc. in the case of 9/11, in fact :-) And so it goes.

    No regards obf

    ReplyDelete
  17. One thing to consider is that all higher order plants (basically everything apart from Cactii, Ferns and a few other simple forms) evolved at a time when CO2 levels were 20-30x higher than today.Therefore we know that increased CO2 levels are not detrimental to plant life.

    I believe it is very difficult indeed for the layman to know if global warming exists or not due to the cyclical nature of temperatures. For instance, the Thames used to freeze solid in the 17th century and they held month long ice fairs on the ice whereas the 19th century was rather warmer than the 20th, these things go in cycles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I worked in the gardens of a large country house and they had enormous Victorian greenhouses still rigged up to pump CO2 throughout.

      A little global warming would be wonderful for humanity and its food supply.

      Delete
  18. "The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives."
    ~ Sioux Proverb

    This month's dispatch comes on the heels of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) recent report, and the news is not good.
    "No one on this planet will be untouched by climate change," IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri announced. The report warned that climate impacts are already "severe, pervasive, and irreversible."

    The IPCC report was one of many released in recent weeks, and all of them bring dire predictions of what is coming. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a report warning that "the rate of climate change now may be as fast as any extended warming period over the past 65 million years, and it is projected to accelerate in the coming decades."

    The report went on to warn of the risk "of abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes in the Earth's climate system with massively disruptive impacts," including the possible "large scale collapse of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, collapse of part of the Gulf Stream, loss of the Amazon rain forest, die-off of coral reefs, and mass extinctions."

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/22999-evidence-of-acceleration-on-all-fronts-of-anthropogenic-climate-disruption

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Denial and Reality

      While the pollution insults to the planet and ever-increasing and obvious signs of advancing ACD continue to mount, the urge for many people to bury their heads in the sand, often at the request or manipulation of industry and its media arms, continues apace as well.

      The state of Wyoming has become the first state to block new science standards, because the standards include an expectation that students will understand that humans have significantly altered the planet's biosphere.
      Corporate media's ability to misinform and manipulate the masses should never be underestimated, as a recent Gallup poll found that only 36 percent of US citizens believe that ACD would seriously impact their lives.
      Recently the Republican-led US House of Representatives advanced a bill that would require federal weather agencies to focus more on predicting storms and less on climate studies... hence promoting denial of ACD.

      The aforementioned efforts are the modern equivalent of passengers on the Titanic who opted to stay in the bar.

      Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly challenging to even keep pace with all the signs.

      Delete
    2. While the eastern and central US experienced a colder-than-average winter this year, the National Climatic Center released data showing that most of the rest of the planet registered the eighth-warmest winter on record.

      Penn State climatologist Michael Mann wrote in Scientific American recently that a climate crisis looms in the very near future, saying that if humanity continues burning fossil fuels as we are, we will cross the threshold into environmental ruin by 2036.

      As noted earlier, one of the world's largest and most knowledgeable scientific bodies, the AAAS, wants to make the reality of ACD very clear: Just as smoking causes cancer, so too are humanity's CO2 emissions causing Earth to change, with potentially unknown and unalterable impacts. The AAAS's Alan Leshner said, "What we are trying to do is to move the debate from whether human-induced climate change is reality."

      The group's full report, an important read, adds: "The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems.

      The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk."

      Upon request, Dr McPherson provided Truthout his latest writings, which address the likelihood of abrupt climate disruption and even the possibility of near-term human extinction:

      Gradual change is not guaranteed, as pointed out by the US National Academy of Sciences in December 2013: "The history of climate on the planet - as read in archives such as tree rings, ocean sediments, and ice cores - is punctuated with large changes that occurred rapidly, over the course of decades to as little as a few years." The December 2013 report echoes one from Wood Hole Oceanographic Institution more than a decade earlier. Writing for the 3 September 2012 issue of Global Policy, Michael Jennings concludes that "a suite of amplifying feedback mechanisms, such as massive methane leaks from the sub-sea Arctic Ocean, have engaged and are probably unstoppable." During a follow-up interview with Alex Smith on Radio Ecoshock, Jennings admits that "Earth's climate is already beyond the worst scenarios." Skeptical Science finally catches up to reality on 2 April 2014 with an essay titled, "Alarming new study makes today's climate change more comparable to Earth's worst mass extinction."

      The conclusion from this conservative source: "Until recently the scale of the Permian Mass Extinction was seen as just too massive, its duration far too long, and dating too imprecise for a sensible comparison to be made with today's climate change. No longer.

      Delete
    3. the ipcc is about as credible on the agw issue as dick cheney is on 911. michael mann, the hockey stick buffoon, even less so.

      it is painfully obvious that the professor is the one out of his depth.

      Delete
    4. Rhetoric, political finger-pointing, and fear mongering, Prof Fetzer, not much else.

      Don't you see how absurd it is when they blame every flood or drought on climate change, as if floods and droughts were not always with us?

      If you don't see that this is insane, how would you characterize the claim made in this article in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management that,

      " Between 2010 and 2099, climate change will cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft in the United States."

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069613001289

      Delete
    5. Jim, it seems that you often repeat your worry about pollution and damage in the same breath as concern about CO2 as warming factor doing damage.

      This is exactly what the hoax is about: pick a fairly innocuous thing -- really not a pollutant in any dangerous sense -- and focus people away from direct actions on poisons.

      Just as thermite is a bugbear for a complex event, so, too, CO2 is a deflection from your real concerns.

      Delete
  19. @55.50:
    alan; 'if you haven't looked into it much, why do you have such a strong opinion on this?'

    ahjim; 'strong opinion...i agree alan...that i'm nuetral on it, for Gods sake!

    and it's w-i-s-e-becker not weece-bucket ahjim? can't you ever get the pronunciation of the name of your old friend right?

    d'you know something ahjim? you are some plum. i have rarely heard you say so much yet say so very little in the first half. this is all too funny.

    and don't fret alan. nothing is near as bad as is made seem.
    it is al(le)gor(e)y, for the most part, and jim is only acting his part.

    me, i'm getting ready for the collective arses laugh-off?

    all the world's a stage. the final curtain is about to come down.

    sirius-ly now, r u isis-lee?

    (nice polarised choice of music at the hour interval, total. it don't phase me anymore though. imagine that).
    you've been waiting for these days too for a long time, eh? we made it, my friend. totally.
    (and of course the episode was posted at 9. 56. of course it had to be. after all where would we be without 9/11?)

    gary; JFK didn't die. get over it. he is also a bit player.

    J=10 F=6 K=11 so we get 10-6-11 or when turned upside down and backwards 11-9-01 or in Europe September 11 2001.

    len osanic sounds like the dinosaur out of toy story!

    4 events that most know where they were when they occurred are; jfk's death, the moon landings, princess dianas death and 9/11. they were all faked and they are all intricately connected. siriusly!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolute bullshit. JFK and Diana are both dead, to say otherwise is to be in total ignorance of the real facts.

      So which are you?

      Totally ignorant or deliberately spreading disinfo?

      Delete
    2. so you are saying that there is no chance that the jfk and diana events were staged?

      none, zilch?

      sure. there's no way the jfk event could have been staged- jim fetzer wouldn't of wasted a lifetime on its meaningless minutiae if the event was fake; right?

      Delete
    3. Yes that's what I'm saying, there is zero doubt in my mind that JFK was assassinated in Dealey Plaza 50 years ago. Culto's work claiming otherwise is the biggest pile of untenable horseshit I've ever seen.

      Delete
  20. if we are indeed entering another maunder minimum shouldn't we be pumping out more co2?

    ReplyDelete
  21. MICHAEL MANN FACES BANKRUPTCY AS HIS COURTROOM CLIMATE CAPERS COLLAPSE

    excerpt

    "The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State." In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science."

    Why is Mann hiding the metadata that he used to create his infamous hockeystick temperature graph?

    He has been accused of manipulating the data along with his other IPCC cohorts in order to deceive on the subject of man made global warming, or as it is usually called nowadays - climate change.

    Another question: why did they stop calling it "global warming" and change it to "climate change"? I think I know the answer to that one.

    As for there being a so-called consensus of scientists who support the claims of man made global warming, science is not determined by majority rule anyway.

    In 1977, while the HSCA was doing their reinvestigation of the JFK assassination, the top scientist on neutron activation analysis, Vincent Guinn, was said to have proven that the bullet fragments recovered from the JFK limo matched the chemical composition of the lead in the magic bullet, Turns out, years later, neutron activation analysis is now considered junk science, and the FBI now longer even uses it. Go figure. The point is that there are a lot of scientists out there more than willing to compromise their integrity for success within the establishment system. Practically the whole system (academia, science, media, etc) is controlled by the big money boys.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jim Fetzer wrote:

    "When I sent him this one, I explained that it looked very good to me because of the wide range and extent of the data presented and that I used to be a member of the AAAS. He told me he did not even know the meaning of "AAAS", which of course is the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has no idea how much there is he does not know."

    I think that what Fetzer is, basically, trying to say here is:

    "If the information is released by the AAAS, it must be true."

    Fetzo makes a powerful point there - that we all must admit. However, people armed with powerful BS smell-detectors will know better...

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it comes from the AAAS, it's PROBABLY true.

      Delete
  23. I'm highly against pollution AND big oil. I'd like to see big oil obsoleted. I don't buy into the CO2 argument.

    By far the biggest determinant of the weather and temperature is the sun. CO2 comprises 0.038% of the total atmosphere. It's not toxic and is necessary for life. Man's contribution to total CO2 is a fraction of the 0.038 of 1%. CO2 is relatively weak as a greenhouse gas. Furthermore, there is convincing evidence that the so-called research has been influenced and downright doctored. The argument that the Koch brothers donated money against global warming may be due to their ignorance and blind greed. As far as I can tell, global warming is a scam to get us to go along with Agenda 21 and total state control.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In my more paranoid moments I have wondered seriously whether the skepticism of GWB regarding AGW wasn't a plot to make smart people side with the global warming alarmists, they so loved to look down on poor Georgie. And he did in the end convert to climate mania.

    Well, now that Simon Shack and other widely derided commentators from the School of Never Ending Doubt are questioning climate change dogma I'm fighting the same gnawing suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course the gas-guzzle / anti-social policy conservative (reactionary) side is what keeps the centre-left focussed on AGW and Bush played into that.

      As to Shack, etc., they are right on AGW and on many things, just extreme in their radical doubt ...

      it can make them right at times, but wrong at times.

      Delete
  25. JFK: Knowing what you know now about the fakery involved in 9/11, sandy hook and the boston bombing, and with already believing some elements of the JFK case to be faked or manipulated. Do you think that maybe it would be worth considering the idea that the whole thing was a hoax? Would you not have some of the people on your show who think that the whole thing was a hoax?

    ReplyDelete
  26. not a chance Amanda. he has his boundaries set within which he can only operate. not out of badness though. that's just the clues game and the way it must be played out. free will and discernment, and all.
    two threads will sort out all the bullshizzle that is dealt (with) here. probably the two most important threads you will ever read;

    http://letsrollforums.com/jfk-murder-staged-event-t23127.html

    and

    http://letsrollforums.com/lady-diana-spencer-limo-t28930.html

    therin lies the truth, that we were always meant to cotton on to eventually.

    please go through these, now, in these times, especially, and especially you, dear joan.

    let's get Sirius, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way you keep pushing and promoting this horseshit makes it pretty obvious that you're either a clown or a shill.

      JFK died 50 years ago, it was no hoax. Anyone with half a brain who has taken some time to study the case knows this.

      Honestly, anyone who thinks it was a hoax must be completely ignorant of the true facts of the case.

      Delete
    2. it's over already ian. give it up man.

      Delete
    3. Im not pushing or promoting anything. Im sure if anybody is going to do any pushing round here, you'll be doing it. I never said it was a hoax either, I just asked a question. He has people on who dont agree with him on other subjects, why not jfk. When you say true facts do you mean information contained in government documents? What do you know about it anyway, I thought you dont follow US news. It just seems crazy that for less than 20 quid you can buy a book from amazon that lays out how the murder was committed from start to finish.

      Delete
    4. Because the JFK hoax theory is nothing more than ludicrous bullshit and the people promoting it are most likely shills.

      Of course Jim would engage in a debate on the show if there was something to this theory but there isn't, it's horseshit, utter nonsense that doesn't deserve to be given the time of day let alone airtime. The fact that pshea keeps pushing it should tell you that he's not to be trusted because he's either a lunatic for believing such rubbish or, and this is more likely, a shill deliberately spreading disinfo.

      Delete
    5. You could be right, though people would say the same about people who believe the no planes theory or that sandy hook and boston were hoaxes. Before 9/11 people would never have believed such a thing could take place, but the holocaust tells us that hoaxes have been happening since at least the second world war. Were are the hoaxes between the holocaust and 9/11? I can only speak for myself, I would like to hear an expert on the subject like Jim take on the people who believe it to be a hoax.

      Delete
    6. The holocaust wasn't a hoax, it was an exaggeration, an inflation of numbers conflated with the propaganda of Ilya Ehrenburg and other Zionists. It's a different kettle of fish to 9/11 which was planned as a fraudulent event.

      As for the JFK 'hoax', no-one attempted to make the case for a hoax for nearly 50 years and it is only recently that this Culto idiot has surfaced with his crackpot theory. To anyone who has studied the JFK case, it is not even worthy of consideration; why should Jim give Culto's work the recognition of discussion when it is utter nonsense with zero basis in fact?

      There has to be some discernment between worthy theories and lunatic horseshit, Jim simply can't go around giving time to ever crackpot with a ludicrous theory, he has to practise discernment and pick and chose. I can think of no valid reason to bother discussing Culto's hoax theory, it would be akin to discussing whether the earth was flat or if the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus really existed and therefore both a waste of time and a stain on Jim's reputation for serious academic thought.

      Delete
    7. If they deliberately inflated numbers and presented it as reality, thats a hoax. I dont see how debating a person who thinks an event is fake, since we know fake events happen is akin to believing in the easter bunny or how it would be a stain on Jim's reputation for serious academic thought.

      Delete
    8. The theory being discussed has to have at leas some merit and that isn't the case with the JFK hoax theory which is pure, unadulterated bunkum and it would make Jim seem lacking in discernment and sense if he even entertained the idea. Jim discussing whether JFK's death was a hoax is akin to discussing whether the moon landings were faked because they failed to bring back samples of the cheese the moon is made of - laughable nonsense.

      Delete
    9. It could be bunkum as you call it, though i would have enjoyed listening. What evidence would you say proves conclusively that the hoax theory is bunkum.

      Delete
    10. The point of the complete fakery ploy is to make everything unbelievable so nothing is knowable.

      By sowing the seeds of doubt certain individuals seek to marginalize serious researchers and make them akin to the old school caricature of someone chasing butterflies across the meadow with a net.

      As far as I can tell, their recent counter-offensive (launched after they were Pearl Harbored on VT) though vigorous, has not really been very effective.

      Except perhaps for raising Jim, Don and Ians blood pressure, lol


      Delete
    11. I just thought it would be interesting with the massive amount of fakery going on especially in US to explore the possibility some events we thought we knew might also be fake.

      Delete
    12. Chris's post is extremely perceptive and accurate.

      I have explained at length before how this 'it's all fake' nonsense is designed to discredit proper research and mislead people, I think I should write a VT article expanding on this.

      I agree about the counter-offensive, all it has done is make it tiresome to sift through the nonsense to find the posts worth reading, which has sadly driven away a few of the sensible posters.

      I agree that it is interesting to re-examine some events for possible fakery, but the JFK case is one that does not bear such scrutiny. It has been researched in such great depth, and so many aspects have been explored that there is just no basis for making any claim for a hoax.

      Bottom line, JFK's assassination was a coup d'etat where power in America was seized by a shadow group that is still firmly in control today. The Kennedy's had to be taken out in order for this coup to succeed, hence the deaths of JFK and RFK.

      One area that should be fruitful for fakery hunters is NASA, there is tantalising evidence that their fakery extends far beyond just the Apollo program. Also, the Chinese space program looks to have a fair amount of fakery. I recently saw video footage purported to be shot in earth orbit of the Chinese spacewalk and it looked like it was shot in a water tank, several anomalies including visible bubbles.

      Delete
    13. Ian Greenhalgh wrote:

      "One area that should be fruitful for fakery hunters is NASA, there is tantalising evidence that their fakery extends far beyond just the Apollo program. Also, the Chinese space program looks to have a fair amount of fakery. I recently saw video footage purported to be shot in earth orbit of the Chinese spacewalk and it looked like it was shot in a water tank, several anomalies including visible bubbles."

      That is a most interesting subject, Ian - good on you. Hey, did you know that NASA is also capable to make bubbles in outer space?

      http://www.cluesforum.info/newPHP/viewtopic.php?p=2362696#p2362696


      http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2362696#p2362696

      Delete
    14. NASA is probably largely a cover for a secret space program run by the US Navy and CIA, but it's a very labyrinthine subject to try to get anywhere with. The black project budget is colossal, and that's just the known spending. It is highly likely that the profits of the global drug trade (which is run by the CIA/MI6/Mossad) are funnelled into these black projects.

      It is my personal opinion that almost the entire UFO/Aliens sightings thing is actually Black projects and the Aliens theories are actively encouraged in order to deflect attention.

      Delete
    15. I never said "it's all fake". I'm not sure who it is that your quoting but it wasn't me. The NASA stuff is very interesting, as you say "there is tantalising evidence that their fakery extends far beyond just the Apollo program." Things that pre 9/11 people would have just taken for granted, like the International Space Station and the Challenger disaster to name a few examples certainly warrant further investigation for fakery.

      Delete
    16. "there is tantalising evidence that their fakery extends far beyond just the Apollo program."

      for example, you have the very ridiculous mercury imagery linked to the somewhat less ridiculous imagery from the shuttle missions by an american hero from ohio who made it to the big-time.

      godspeed, indeed, john glenn.

      nasa fakery does "hang together" as they say.

      Delete
    17. Trying to discern fakery from images or video is Shack level amateur hour nonsense so don't expect me to put much stock in such theories. It is by finding holes in the hard science that NASA fakery is best discerned, all the images and videos are good for is giving clues to potential avenues of research.

      Delete
    18. that's ok. i wasn't expecting much out of you.

      bloviating incessantly about the subject of science does not make it "hard". how many times has your philosopher of science king ever set foot in a lab. you see, ian, real or "hard" science is done in a lab or in the field. it isn't done in the comment section of a blog.

      fortunately for us, the ability to scratch your balls is more than enough qualification to "discern" that anything mercury mission related is bullshit. go ahead look for yourself..............http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/mercgem/mg-KSC-64PC-80HR.jpg.....www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVB5dg7XX_g......www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9kZ84t1bRQ.

      you do have balls, right?

      Delete
  27. Thanks to all you who wrote in while i was at the beach with my dog.

    as more or less mentioned above, that fetzer brings up michael mann to buttress his case is a classic example of someone who has JUST A LITTLE bit of information. just enough to make a complete fool of himself.

    Hey jim: google 'climagegate' and see what your buddy Michael Mann has been up to with his fraudulent data and his attempts to keep opposing views out of the scientific literature.

    Yes, as stated, he should be in the state penn, not penn state.

    good thing you don't have any strong feelings on the subject!!!! problem is, they are all wrong.

    it was really heartening to see how many of you were just waiting for the prof to go off on one too many science-ignorant rants to verbally pounce on him. i really appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At James Fetzer's own site, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, his colleague John Costella, has posted an analysis of the Climategate emails and other articles including 'Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists'. Long ago I informed JF of this in some thread and he was surprised but vaguely indicated he'd look into the question. Costella is involved with the Australian Climate Sceptics Party.

      Delete
    2. Whoa! John Costella! What is jim going to say to that?! Good one, Nick!

      Delete
    3. Yea, July 2011 I let Fetzer know that Costella was a climate skeptic. Here it is, where I post as fellist:

      http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/minnesota-sustainable-energy-scam-from.html

      Looking it up has reminded me of the correct title of the documentary I recommended earlier,

      'Great Global Warming Swindle'

      full 73mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

      the three minutes looking at Gore's lie about the relationship between warming and CO2, which having been exposed, as you rightly say Allan, kinda puts the whole damn thing to bed:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

      Delete
  28. we are completely ignorant of the true facts of all these media events. we have to rely on the media for our data. you do realize that that is the issue?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oooops. 'climategate' not climagegate' - i was too excited to spellcheck!

    ReplyDelete
  30. By the way, Jim: you aren't a subtle enough wit to have caught the sarcasm when i emailed you that i didn't know what the 'AAAS' is. what i was 'saying' is that sending 10 bucks to some dipshit bureaucrat does not make you SMART.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. maybe it makes him a SMART AAAS though alan.

      Delete
  31. I generally agree with Jim Fetzer on most issues, but I think he is a bit off the mark on the global warming thing. He said he is an agnostic on the issue, so maybe he will eventually see it for the Agenda 21 carbon tax scam it really is. He has changed his position on key issues in the past..

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Coup de grâce. ..Anthropogenic global warming is a Zionist-Banker-Rothschild-Rockefeller-Strong promoted scam. Even Rockefeller told Exxon to go with it. It is the funding for our overlords at the UN...The ultimate evil.
    Zionist-Rothschild-Rockefeller-Strong are the people responsible for all the shit. The hoaxes, the terrorists, the financial crashes, the wars...all of it. It is there stated goal.
    But, while we're down here arguing over another media created scare....our Zionist media....our owners are trying to increase the price of energy with carbon taxes that will have purposes that are against our economy while the Chinese won't play. We did not reduce pollution by moving factories to Mexico. This is no different.
    Stop starving our plants. Give them more CO2.
    Watch for raids on pot grow houses. Now you know why they find big tanks of CO2. A very small increase in CO2 is good for plants. And they repay us with oxygen.
    Seriously folks, this is stuff we were taught in second and third grade in the sixties. And now you know why they don't anymore. So they can scam our stupid asses!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, plants can use between 20 and 30x atmospheric levels of CO2, it does indeed help them grow and every hydroponics store sells co2 enrichment equipment. As I mentioned before, all higher order plants evolved at a time when atmospheric co2 levels were 20-30x what they are today.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. So, where's the "Tipping point of no return?" No one is talking about the billions of years when Earths atmosphere was 30% CO2 / 70% Nitrogen and no Oxygen. We made it past that point. The fact that I'm here typing this is proof.
      The "Tipping point of no return" is just another fear tactic. If it's not AGW, it's 6 ft tall 112 pound armed super soldiers with asperger's that want to kill your kids...just because... If it's not another Hitler, it's a Bin Laden. Now it''s Putin. Nazi's, Muslims, Patriots, evil white devils,whatever...It's all Bullshit. Distractions from the truth. scams, and hoaxes.
      Our most dangerous enemies reside in Washington, DC and Manhattan.

      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
      -- H. L. Mencken

      “Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”
      ― Frank Zappa

      “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
      ― Frank Zappa

      Yes, I quoted Zappa - who knew at least as much about our reality as Al Gore knows about science.

      Delete
  33. AC Weisbecker said :" sending 10 bucks to some dipshit bureaucrat does not make you SMART."

    As revealed via his interview with Ace Baker a couple of years ago, Fetzer is an unapologetic lover of big government [a left wing statist, to be more exact] .

    In the Baker interview he even says that he voted for Obama 1st time around, and was proud of that.

    He sees more government as a solution, not the problem.

    The unmentioned "elephant in the room" in all of these global warming type discussions on the Real Deal is roughly, this:

    "if global warming actually exists [i.e. if Fetzer became convinced of this via "science"], then, from his [Fetzer's] point of view [i.e. worshipper of the state ], the government "needs" to do such and such to "save the world" [ or whatever].

    When the truth of the matter is that if global warming is a reality, the worst thing that can happen would be more government [ie taxes, regulations etc.] to "solve" the problem - [because it cannot, and therefor won't] - inevitably, it will only make the problem even worse [assuming for the sake of argument that the problem exists] - just as it has done everywhere else it has stuck its nose.

    Fetzer's ongoing rampant statism and love of governments in general also explains why he is so anxious to _not_ seriously investigate alleged USGS and DOE "9/11 studies", but to instead take them verbatim as "irrefutable proof" of nuclear demolitions on 9/11, and also why he is so anxious to completely avoid ever having to closely examine both the original 9/11 network footage , or any of the subsequently released alleged live 9/11 footage, on a clip by clip basis.

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OBF, again, one can be sane about the value of proper governance, without being a "statist" in the fearsome sense -- and to WORK FOR BETTERMENT.

      Also, going through clip by clip on the footage is unnecessary anymore: plenty can be shown to have problems and plenty have all earmarks of normal (context AND content).

      The USGS and so on can easily be considered to be doing ordinary work, since again, a) the findings dovetail with the aftereffects not the official dumbed down narrative of fires, b) the findings would be expected to be missed in their implications for years, without conspiracy being involved, since the tests were done by "bean counter" types, that is, scientists looking only for how much of this and that, in a table, not analyzing those for fission pathways, c) once the event was over, legitimate persons would be expected to come in and do some work -- conspiracies are never so complete as you imagine, except if very small (such as Lennon's death, with 1-2 shooters, i.e., Perdomo and maybe the elevator unnamed guy originally suspected by police, plus the mind-dead Chapman).

      Delete
    2. These attacks become ever more pathetic and tenuous....

      And all because Jim completely dismantled your fallacious bullshit.

      You're like the little boy who lost the game so took his ball home in a huff.

      Pathetic.

      Delete
    3. No, Ian, Jim has dismantled part of what OBF says. The other part remains just fine.

      As I mentioned just above, it is the extreme nature of tarring all things with the same brush which OBF makes a mistake in doing; and sometimes you do the same.

      Delete
    4. Oh, I forgot, only you have the 'nuance' and are 'careful'.

      Defending OBF just makes you look like a fool Clare.

      Delete
    5. No, Ian, you didn't forget; you don't think to question some things you might wish to, if you were less hung up on the extreme stuff in OBF.

      All I said was that OBF gets some things right. How is that extreme nuance or ego on my part? It's not.

      Delete
    6. The fact you can't recognise the fact that obf is a disinfo shill worthy of no further recognition than scorn and derision just marks you out as less than perceptive in my book.

      Delete
    7. The fact that you get fanatic about calling people shills when other people are uncareful in part and good in part, who raise fine questions mixed with bad ideas born of intense doubt, just marks you out as less than perceptive in my book.

      Delete
    8. Well, you talk mostly rubbish and nonsense so who cares what you think, quite frankly.

      Delete
    9. No, Ian, only your type, with your fanaticisms about shills everywhere, think that. As to Jim, he values my input very highly, as do many others. Your input is valued, by me as well, when you make a good point, but you so often mix it with overweening lack of rigour about positions which are partly correct and partly incorrect, thus seeming to be 100% incorrect to you, that it is rather sad what you bother to spout regarding me.

      Delete
    10. Well, Clare, the list of people who downright despise you is rather long, so you really need to reconsider your attitude and approach. As it stands, I can't even make a spelling mistake in an email without you correcting me. I suspect you are deliberately trying to wind me up with this pathetic trolling behaviour.

      Delete
  34. Ian wrote: As for the JFK 'hoax', no-one attempted to make the case for a hoax for nearly 50 years and it is only recently that this Culto idiot has surfaced with his crackpot theory.......[W]hy should Jim give Culto's work the recognition of discussion when it is utter nonsense with zero basis in fact?
    ____________________________
    PShea wrote: probably the two most important threads you will ever read;
    http://letsrollforums.com/jfk-murder-staged-event-t23127.html.......and
    http://letsrollforums.com/lady-diana-spencer-limo-t28930.html......therin lies the truth, that we were always meant to cotton on to eventually.....please go through these, now, in these times, especially, and especially you, dear joan.
    _________________________
    Thanks, Pshea. You know I'm open to all theories. I am not trying to be impolite by saying that I wish you fakeologist advocates would present your case for JFK having been a hoax.

    Wading through these posts at LetsRoll Forums is hard work and I've tried it several times without getting anywhere. Yesterday however, I got lucky and found a podcast done by "Culto" with the Fakeologist. It was a two hour conversation and I would like to give my impressions of it and state what I think the case you are making re JFK is. You should be familiar with it: "fakeologist Ab interviews Culto:"
    http://abirato.info/wp-content/uploa...with-Culto.mp3
    _____________________________
    The case for a hoax basically boils down to a couple of pieces of evidence from a film of the event The evidence cited is the bloody mess that would have been in the limo from all the wounds inflicted and that enough blood wasn't all over Jackie's clothes as would be expected. Proof of this is a picture of the seat of the limo covered with fresh brain matter where Jackie had been sitting.

    It is implied JFK faked his own death with the help of the Connallys for his serious health reasons and also that he couldn't handle the job of the presidency nor was he meant to as brother Joe had been chosen for that job. It is also implied that Jack, as with the rest of the ultra rich. retired to an exclusive, remote island paradise somewhere.

    No thought is given to the atmosphere of the early sixties, the Eisenhower/Nixon presidency, the planning by these two of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba or the selling of the "Communist threat" to America in order to expand the American empire. No thought is given to the fact that Jack was going to change many things which would impact the ultra rich or that he planned to take away the power of impunity the CIA had enjoyed for many years and break the agency "into a thousand pieces."

    Culto, who seems to be a nice and well meaning person, is new to the history of the US and is European. He is being interviewed by a Canadian. Many on this thread are UK subjects and many have been guests on the podcasts. The absence of Americans and the American view of events of the past 50 plus years is notable. Where is our input? We have lived the JFK assassination and many other events, some hoaxes and some not. There is also a generation gap at work here as well as those who are late arrivals to the world of conspiracies.

    Culto arrived in 2007--that is like yesterday to me. Is there money in revisionist conspiracy literature? What is the purpose of stirring up old arguments when the subject has been solved to the satisfaction of most for many years? That goes for Jim and his TSBD photo and attempts to revive interest that LHO is seen there. Jim Garrison said it in 1968, "There is no evidence whatsoever Lee Harvey Oswald killed anyone." And there is none. So why all the fuss?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Greenhalgh said: "Jim completely dismantled your fallacious bullshit."

    Yeah right , my little turdblossom. :-)

    Which is why your fearless leader refused to debate me on John Friend's show and was substituted by Fox.

    Keep on fantasizing/dreaming, you state worshipping dipshit .

    obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, you distort the truth. Jim didn't refuse to debate you, he decided that without the participation of Simon Shack it wasn't worth his time to go over the same old untenable nonsense you spout. He'd already totally refuted and dismantled your nonsense so why should he waste more time on you?

      As it was, Don did a good job of making you look like the idiot you are, plucking away on your guitar while unable to make a single tenable point.

      Delete
  36. Genesis 8:22

    "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jim wrote:
    "The IPCC report was one of many released in recent weeks, and all of them bring dire predictions of what is coming. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued a report warning that 'the rate of climate change now may be as fast as any extended warming period over the past 65 million years, and it is projected to accelerate in the coming decades.'"

    Jim, did you catch the phrase "may now be as fast as"? First, they use the qualifier "may" and then say "as fast AS" meaning that warming MIGHT just possibly reach up to the fastest rate in the past 65 million years. Hmm, what do you make of that? I make of it that we have not as yet reached the kinds of warming levels already reached long before humans graced the planet with their presence. Climate change is inevitable. We do not live in a climate controlled environment. Yes, there is cooling and warming going on. No, it is almost certainly not due in any way to human activity. When the governments have proven over and over again that they are willing to lie to us to get money and power, why is it so unbelievable that they are lying in this case?

    You remember hearing about the Ice Age? Before that was a warming period and after that was a warming period. Was there any possible human contribution to any of those cooling and warming trends?

    AGW... It's dead, Jim.

    ReplyDelete
  38. For anyone still here, and Ian and Norwegian in particular, who both brought up NASA fakery, here's something i put together and which has me in its grip:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVUjMte9vTI

    that NASA is still lying and faking imagery is for me a significant issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a strong suspicion that NASA is primarily a smokescreen to hide the real space programme. Werner Von Braun made some allusions to the fakery in the 1970s. I personally think that the whole UFOs and Aliens malarkey is a disinfo campaign to hide the black projects including the black space programme. I suspect we are at least 50 years ahead in technology of what is known publicly. Operation Paperclip is a good starting point for researching this.

      Delete
  39. AC Weisbecker said: "Why Are These Astronauts Lying?"

    If you do not understand why, I would suggest that you are still hopelessly stuck inside "the Matrix" you say you are presently making a film about :-) .

    Hint: it's all about stolen money, that is, taxes [in the $ billions, if not $ trillions], and power.

    regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why are they lying? because they can't tell the truth. i'd have to lie too, if i were in their shoes. it's probably in their job description. well, the classified one that is.

      Delete
  40. Check out "Earth Changes Media":

    by Mitch Battros-Earth Changes Media
    May 28th, 2014

    New research published in the Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, has provided scientists with greater insight into the climatic changes happening in the atmosphere. Scientists found that changes in the Earth's magnetic field are more relevant to climate change than previously thought.

    Understanding the cause of long-term change in this area helps scientists to predict what will happen in the future. This has key implications for life on Earth.

    The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been thought to be the main cause of climate change. This new study suggests that magnetic field changes taken place over the past century are more important.

    ReplyDelete