Interview 1094 – James Corbett on Truther Talk Radio
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
James Corbett joins April and Virstyne on Truther Talk Radio to discuss the founding of The Corbett Report, the latest at Fukushima, the nature of money, the Federal Reserve conspiracy, the solution to the “sovereign” debt crises, the global warming fraud and much more.
SHOW NOTES:
Fukushima Unit-1 Muon Scan Results: No Fuel In Reactor Vessel
Russia to Construct Fukushima Water Decontamination Plant in 2016
Fukushima finds 16 new cases of thyroid cancer in young people
Dulles Urges Breaking Taboo Against Nuclear Weapons
Iran/US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement 1957 (Atoms for Peace)
Japan’s nuclear history in perspective: Eisenhower and atoms for war and peace
Century of Enslavement: The History of the Federal Reserve
Iceland wins legal battle to avoid paying back UK for Icesave collapse compensation
Iceland Experiments With A Jubilee Of Debt Forgiveness
Financial Survival: Greece Drops “Odious Debt†Bombshell
Real Solutions Arise Out of the Greek Crisis
97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”
Timothy Wirth admits turning off air conditioning in Hansen hearing
Corbett Report Radio 237 – Weather Warfare Explained
Filed in: Interviews
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
James,
I think you should produce an article or a film laying out your thoughts and opinions about anthropogenic climate change, climate skepticism and the wider general global warming debate.
I have followed your work for many years, and this is the one and only area of your research that I can recall disagreeing with you utterly. (I studied environmental science as a young adult, indeed global warming is what led me to ask questions about everything else).
I am struck by a number of incongruities. By expressing your alignment with climate skeptics:
-you are positioning yourself with the populist right (Fox, the Daily Mail etc.), arguably the least reliable bunch of people in the mediasphere.
-You are aligning with known propagandists who have track records of manufacturing doubt and propagating pseudoscience in other areas (see ‘Merchants of Doubt’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJIW5yVk__w). It has been well documented that these paid ‘doubters’ have been widely employed in a huge greenwash campaign.
-Your position is ultimately aligned with the power nexus of fossil fuel companies, their investors and ancillaries; the very same forces who clearly have benefited from/driven the imperial projects which have been so clearly elucidated in your work.
-You part with other key researchers in the Truth movement (I am thinking most notably of David Ray Griffin’s recent book).
None of this makes sense to me except perhaps as a sign that we are all susceptible to confirmation bias. If you think I am wrong in that, I think you could and should produce a detailed bit of work substantiating your case.
The vast bulk of your work is so insightful, grounded and important, I am bemused by your comments in this interview.
your full of it you got smacked in the mouth by a few global warming science teachers i studied geology ( B.S. geology plus 27 hours of graduate work ) geology is loaded with info revealing cyclic occurrences throughout all of earth history including the little ice age the earliest european settlers to america had to endure also, the one we’re about to enter ( possibly ).
Seconded. James, I too have been perplexed by your position on climate change over the years. While I’m sure you don’t intend them as the end-all, the references you’ve posted in the show notes don’t really add up to a case against anthropogenic climate change. Would love to see something more in-depth on this topic.
Reading about The Global Warming Policy Foundation (linked in the show notes), I found this in The Guardian:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150817180818/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy-foundation-donors
and this on a website ‘sourcewatch’:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
This seems a contrast to the kind of sources that you would usually cite (i.e. a secretively funded by big business think tank founded by a prominent member of the financial/ political elite).
I listened to this last night before I slept and had every intention of posting something today in response. You beat me to it Myers and like you, as someone who does have a background in studying changes in the environment, climate change is an irrefutable fact of life for me. That there is an anthropogenic component in that change to me is also certain yet the cause is irrelevant as it is now irreversible. James’ refusing to acknowledge the changes and aligning with the oligarchs schills is as perplexing and confusing to me as it is to you. And though it is with some distaste for such an application of pressure I too think it time James put his cards on the table and comprehensively defend his position on this.
It’s all cyclical.
Looks like were heading into another nasty little cold period. Enjoy.
Even assuming that you are correct, over what time period would this become a major problem? 100 years? 50 years? 25 years? 10 years? Don’t you think there are bigger threats to humanity over that time frame? Is that issue of such importance that global laws should be implemented whereby the “unintended consequence” is that individuals in “third world” countries die because of restrictions on available energy resources?
Good point. Moreover, why should we allow TPTB to force feed us their ready made “solutions”. They represent the primary source of extreme environmental pollution with their hyperconsumption economic model driven by endless debt and engineered warfare. Problem, reaction, solution.
There are some aspects of how we have changed the basic chemistry of our atmosphere and oceans that are going to have very real and very severe consequences for hundreds of millions of people before this century turns.
We are not going to kill Earth but we are going to see many fairly localised but widespread ecosystem collapses.
We can adapt to them and thrive by having the right systems in place to avoid local changes that adversley impact on communities.
And this is what any debate should be centred on.
Climate change is not a conspiracy.
Climate change has always and will always happen.
And it has been very fast and abrupt many times in the geological record.
Each such event was measurable in changes in the chemistry of Earth’s biosphere.
You can’t argue with such basic and fundamental chemistry.
We have very precise measurements over the the last 100,000 years.
We have robust measurements over geological time.
There is no doubt mankind has doubled the carbon level.
That introduces more heat and increases the entropy of Earth’s libido.
Weather has more energy.
Icefields melt.
Seas rise assymetrically due to Earth’s gravity field.
The sea gets more acidic and threatens the survivability of some classes of marine life that are key to the food chain sustaining all ocean life.
Denying anthropogenic cause in chemical changes to our biosphere is the same as a smoker denying there are any chemical compounds in the smoke he inhales.
It is bizarre and ignorant.
Here is a very thoroughly researched perspective on sustainability and the climate change crisis and how the ptsb have co-opted our love for our planet and turned that genuine concern into a weapon against us. We have been so selfish and need to give up our greedy individual rights and freedoms so that the planet that you and I have nearly destroyed, can heal…
http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/2012/06/green-virgin-pachamama-final-balance.html
Outside of one environmental biology course, I know little about environmental science. Although, with a professional background in medical science, I have a deep sense of the enormous number of variables constituting complex disease pathologies. It’s often a humbling and challenging process to ascertain the primary cause(s) of many fairly common disorders. Predicting the course of an illness is often a shot in the dark.
Compared to medical science, the challenges of developing reliable probability based assessments must be greatly magnified in climate research given the multiple disciplines involved and the vast amount of data covering virtually incomprehensible long time frames. The mathematics of the models would have huge margins of error, and then there are the unknown variables.
Four simple aspects of the global warming issue nag at me. One is if the data is sound and the models are reliable, then why hide anything as we saw in Climategate? Second, as I understand from Dr. Tim Ball, why does the IPCC tell participating scientists they must presuppose whatever global warming may be happening is anthropogenic and from that starting point search for evidence? Third, how is it decades ago the Club of Rome envisioned environmental disasters as a way to control humanity and the same usual suspects egged on the industrial globalism hyperconsumption economic model? Fourth, what role is geoengineering playing in altered weather patterns and why is this military industrial complex managed program ignored by the most of “left” who normally don’t hesitate to criticize the MIC and hold dark suspicions. How many trillions need to be missing from the Pentagon into the Black Hole Budget before this group gets a wake up call?
The theatrically dueling globalist oligarchs fake-liberal Rockefellers vs. fake-conservative Kochs only add to the dubious nature of the AGW “debate”, esp. when both are funding the same Agenda 21 programs through their foundations, as in the case of the Colorado Climate Project.
The last thing we should do is allow the global elite to use the climate change issue they created one way or another as leverage to foist their prison planet solution on humanity.
I agree with the general observations about complexity and predictions, and although some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world are running models of climate scenarios, the system is very complex. I guess that the consistent message of the green movement has been in support of the precautionary principle. We know certain scientific facts: that carbon gases produce a greenhouse effect and trap heat in the planetary system, we know that we have released many megatons of such gases; we know that virgin forests act as carbon sinks, and that we have cut down most of them; we know that there is a longstanding correlation between carbon gas concentrations and global temperature, and we know that the Earth is warming. The precautionary principle says that, bearing all of that in mind, we should act on the side of caution.
It is like the science of cigarette smoke (and it is instructive to read about the very same PR companies involved in public perception of both issues); this was falsely disputed long after it was reasonable to state that smoking gives people cancer, it took decades for that to be acknowledged for no other reason than the interference of vested interests.
Tim Ball is just one of a list of scientists who- when you look at their affiliations and funding, quite obviously are compromised in their opinions by huge conflicts of interest. The fossil fuel lobby have been spinning this for longer than most of us are aware. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tim_Ball
Climategate was a case of scientific fraud, of that there is no doubt. However, drawing the conclusion that it somehow proves AGW is fraud from the malpractice of a handful of scientists is ridiculous unless you believe in some sort of metaconspiracy involving all the climate research laboratories and the tens of thousands of scientists working in them around the world. This for me is exactly what distinguishes an issue like global warming from say the science of 911, that the data is public, it is tested and peer reviewed and challenged, and it is widely discussed in the scientific community.
Finally the assertions that the elites created a fictive environmental threat as a deceptive means to control/ depopulate the world just don’t make sense to me. Going off grid, disconnecting from the carbon economy seem to be sure fire ways of becoming much more independent/ resilient as a person/ family/ community. The wars are all resource wars, what need of resource wars if we are all solar powered? Why then would tptb ‘promote’ a green agenda?
I see the opposite going on. The UK government- perhaps the most closely aligned government here in a century with regard to the financial and corporate elites- has dumped its green energy policy and removed AGW from the school curriculum. They fight tooth and nail to stop real progress on carbon emissions, as do governments around the world.
That powerful interests have hijacked the climate debate is obvious (and it is for obvious reasons) but to my knowledge almost all those scientists who publicly dispute AGW are paid to do so by elites who risk losing a lot of wealth and power from a move away from fossil fuels.
…or better, open the topic up to a readers contributed investigation.
‘Sometimes the New York Times publishes something that is actually true, and it is always worth noting because it is so rare’ (paraphrasing Michael Parenti).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html
So come on James, I think your position needs defending.
James, what’s your take on the Chines presidents visit to the US, ending with the UN on Monday and John Boehner’s announced resignation? But the way, when your “under the weather” take one tsp. nano silver (10ppm)3 x per day. It will knock out anything. I also have an ozone generator/filter in my bedroom and tiny one in the car. Very energizing.
The trouble with a powerful bactericidal like silver is that 99.9% of bacteria that live in and on you are essential to good health. Taking non discriminatory agents will always do more harm than good. Silver should only be used on open wounds. And even then copper is more effective.
35% food grade H2O2 appropriately diluted with distilled water, is very effective taken orally or in a nebulizer mask.
My speculation is that the pope fired Boehner!
I hope you feel better soon, James and I am extremely grateful to you always for your great work.
I’m absolutely certain all those criss-crosses in the sky weren’t there when I was younger.
Is this really just increased airline traffic or are those chemtrails?
If they’re chemtrails, do you think they’re designed to frighten us about air traffic pollution and stop everyone from wanting to fly (at the same time we’re all sacrificing our SUVs and vital environmental concerns to the Global warming God)?
I know it’s pretty impossible to speak with any certainty but I’d be extremely interested to read the impressions of Corbett Report commenters on that subject.
Anyhow, good health to you all
There are more contrails because there are more planes. Pollutants in the exhaust emissions act as the nucleus for condensing water droplets. Weaponising weather may well be possible but the inherent chaos in weather systems would make it highly unpredictable and thus, I would argue, unlikely.
Hey, any of you Frenchies heard of a self-proclaimed climato-realist named François Gervais, thermodynamics physicist who wrote a book entitled “l’Innocence du Carbone”?
He seems exceedingly articulate offering a “quiver full of truth-arrows” to arm those confronted with the witting and unwitting purveyors of alarmist climate mythology.
D’you know anything I should know about this guy?