Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
WATCH THIS VIDEO ON LBRY / YOUTUBE
[Note: A lower quality version of this video was first published to The Corbett Report on November 25, 2009. A higher quality version of the video was recorded for the 2009 Video Archive DVD and is being made available online for the first time in preparation for the run-up to the COP21 Climate Conference starting November 30 in Paris.
Sadly, we now know how the Climategate scandal referred to in this video was addressed: by sweeping the true nature of its revelations under the rug with fraudulent investigation after fraudulent investigation after fraudulent investigation. As a global carbon treaty comes closer to reality, however, it is more important than ever to remind the well-meaning but severely misinformed environmental activists about how their cause has been hijacked so that the COP21 agenda can be derailed.
Stay tuned for more coverage of this important issue on The Corbett Report in the coming weeks.]
Transcript: This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com and I come here today with a message for you.
You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.
You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.
This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.
This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:
Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.
You have suspected as much for years.
You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.
You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.
You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.
You disagreed when the slogans–and then the science–were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.
You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.
You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.
Your movement had been hijacked.
The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
And when you looked at the Club of Rome’s elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.
Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.
Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.
Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.
We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.
We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists’ wishes, not reality.
We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.
We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.
We now know, in short, that they were lying.
It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.
With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.
Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.
We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.
We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.
In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.
Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.
We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.
We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.
We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.
We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.
Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support ‘our’ side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.
It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.
We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?
For The Corbett Report, this is James Corbett in western Japan.
Good one. If only logic could compete with religious zeal…
To: spoonful: It is the responsibility of everyone in a dialogue to ascertain whether he wishes to makes sense or just wants to be heard. i challenge you to rethink your response and offer something more meaningful.
To James: unfortunately, the biggest hijack that has taken place has been that of the media and the critical thinking of the masses. Once that was complete those who wish to control us can say anything and the dumbed down population readily believes it.
J Edgar Hoover: “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believes it exists”
1) Very good lecture, by Christopher Monckton, denouncing the falsehood of “Man-Made Climate Change”: https://vimeo.com/8023097
2) The best documentary out there, dismantling the whole “Anthropogenic Global Warming” fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrsUQ5jw_B4
3) And, some more information…
The (false) “environmental movement” is a creation of the powers-that-be, aimed mainly at (1) preserving natural resources for the elites, and (2) reducing the world population to more manageable levels, in terms of the uncontrollable economic and cultural development that has come out of the world’s population growth and industrialization.
(How do you think that the Internet, and alternative sites like this one, historically came to be?)
Inform yourselves about who founded (and funded) the “Club of Rome” (that started talking about “Limits to Growth”) the WWF, and the likes…
The world is on the verge of developing an energy solution that will solve every problem related to poverty, pollution, and the lack of natural resources. That solution is called “Nuclear Fusion”, and you will barely read anything about it in the mainstream/controlled/corporate media.
Listen to and read what Daniel Estulin and the LaRouche movement have to say about all this.
well then, how about confronting the facts in the first four of these detailed Assessment Reports, instead of sermonizing?
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
Those are some extremely good questions, Meyers. I have some further points to add to your comments.
First off, let me make it clear that a great many environmentalists understand that the environmental “movement” has been hijacked and usurped by the very powers we oppose, at least insofar as the extremely diverse of group of individuals who might be said to comprise this “movement” are represented by large environmental organizations.
There has been a great deal written about how the big environmental groups such as the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, etc. have succumbed to this sad co-option by the transnational corporate deep state. I have surmised that this infiltration/co-option/manipulation extends even to such “radical” environmental groups such as Greenpeace. Individuals who understand these facts may comprise a minority among those who self identify as environmentalists, but nonetheless we number in the tens or hundreds of thousands world wide.
Even though the majority of environmentalists see the basic science underlying climate change as an incontrovertible scientific fact, that does not always translate into a corollary belief that the pathetic corporate friendly “remedies” such as cap and trade carbon limits represent anything more than a transparent pretense intended to placate the gullible rank and file of the environmental “movement”, yet meanwhile ensuring not only the undeviating trajectory of increasing global Co2 emissions, but also providing cover for and abetting other unrelated items on the agenda of the transnational cartel empire (an example of this would be using global warming as a cover for the military program involving the massive “chem trail” aerosol spraying in the atmosphere).
Libertarians, as a group, tend to make no bones about their belief that anthropogenic climate change based upon elevated atmospheric Co2 levels is a deep state hoax. In this podcast, you have based this assertion upon the famous e mails which you say show that the research of two scientists in Britain reveal that they doctored their data. In fact, there is a body of evidence which argues against your assertion, and these researchers have been cleared in more than one independent investigation.
However, for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that your position regarding these two researchers is correct. Why should anyone accept the idea that the many thousands of scientists who have conducted research on various aspects of climate change should have their integrity questioned on the basis of these TWO IDIVIDUALS? Here is a quote that touches on that point:
“The IPCC’s primary conclusions are based on an assessment of thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. Although many errors were alleged, EPA confirmed only two errors. The small number of documented errors are not central to IPCC’s main conclusions or to EPA’s Endangerment Finding. In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC. The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.”
What the historical record actually shows that the corporatocracy was among the first to do research on climate change, they covered up the results because it was bad news for their business and profits, they attacked the credibility of scientists who began to publish research which established the links between elevated Co2 levels and rising temperatures, with the collaboration of their colleagues in the corporate media they have hyped misinformation and controversies designed to smear the reputations and undermine the credibility of the research of scientific adversaries (a perfect example of this is the “e mail” case you cite), and they engaged in a systematic propaganda campaign to muddy the waters and mislead the public about what they knew to be true.
All of the above is perfectly consistent and logically corresponds with their vested profit motives and the clear historical record of the projects they have invested themselves in, whereas the idea that they would deliberately seek to buttress evidence of elevated Co2 based climate change MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER in terms of their profit motives, it is completely illogical.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
No, mate, Ewell Gibbons did not start the “environmental movement”, his granola commercials were an example of the corporate branding and co-option that James is referring to. I would say that Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” is a much better marker for the beginning of the “environmental movement”, if such an inexact and nebulous thing can be called a movement or given a definite starting point at all.
A Message to the Libertarian Movement
This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.
This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:
Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.
In fact, the libertarian movement has not merely been usurped by these transnational financial interests, it was actually CONCEIVED AND CREATED by these financial interests. The hard, uncomfortable truth that needs to be faced by the many good and decent libertarians in the world today is that the movement they identify with was created as THE original act of corporate “Astroturfing” (which means a fake “grassroots” movement” that is in truth a corporate front) back in the 1950’s.
Read about this tragic history below, and weep. You have been the unwitting dupes manipulated by the transnational corporate deep state all along.
http://www.alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda
Don’t get me wrong. I know there are a great many intelligent, well intentioned individuals who self identify with the libertarian movement who generally have their heads screwed on very well. I realize that the “libertarian movement” is comprised of a very diverse group of individuals who often may hold a wide array of opinions on a given subject – you cannot all be painted with the same brush and neatly pigeon holed.
Furthermore, I personally find that my views on a great many issues correspond more closely with those who call themselves libertarians than other nebulous categories of humanity I tend identify with – “progressives”, “liberals”, and “environmentalists”, for example. On too many crucially important issues, I feel that your average “liberal environmentalist” is downright clueless, whereas many “libertarians” see things much the way I do.
However, the ONE topic on which virtually all libertarians seem to hold a unified, orthodox opinion is that anthropogenic climate change based on elevated atmospheric Co2 levels is a hoax perpetrated by the corporate deep state – apparently because they wanted to… what? Impose a “cap and trade” policy on the world? The purported motive isn’t so clear, but the unified belief in a hoax backed by “fake science” sponsored by these financial interests is quite clear, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, libertarians as a group refuse to engage in an intellectually honest debate on this issue. They hyperventilate about the dubious example of TWO SCIENTISTS who may indeed have falsified some of their research data, and conflate this one example as being a refutation of HUNDREDS of studies undertaken by thousands of reputable independent scientists all over the world whose findings support an overwhelming consensus among many thousands of scientists in multiple fields – that global warming as a result of anthropogenic Co2 emissions is an incontrovertible FACT.
Libertarians, as a group, are far more blind to the fact that they have been infiltrated, funded, and manipulated than environmentalists are, as a group. Libertarians steadfastly ignore any evidence that contradicts their belief on this issue. They ignore the mountain of evidence that shows that libertarian oriented think tanks are the source of the misinformation used by corporate interests to attempt to discredit global warming science. They ignore the OBVIOUS fact that these corporate deep state financial powers have dedicated themselves to protecting their incredibly profitable fossil fuel industries, and that scientific research which proves global warming is a reality is a THREAT TO THEIR PROFITS.
The uncomfortable truth we ALL need to face, left, right, and center, is that the transnational deep state leaves no stone unturned, no opportunity to deceive and mislead unexploited, no organization of ANY stripe uninfiltrated or unmanipulated. We need to wise up to their tricks if we wish to have a shadow of a chance to collectively expose and overcome their odious and evil schemes.
I used to be a pretty passionate environmentalist – and I still am up to a point. I don’t want to see the air or the oceans polluted or the destruction of the rainforests.
I started to become sceptical about the movement when I noticed that environmental campaigns always seemed to lead towards taxes for the “little people” – congestion charges, “green” taxes applied to heating bills, even new fridges after CFCs were identified as the destroyers of the ozone layer (not to mention increased sales of sun cream).
Yet at the same time, technology to build the electric car for the masses has been delayed for decades. Oil tankers pollute the oceans, geoengineering is written about appreciatively in The Guardian (you can now pay to have sunshine on your wedding day, it enthuses) and rainforests are destroyed to make way for big livestock farms.
The environmental protestors who are infiltrated and persecuted by the police are always the ones who are targeting big business or weaponry. It’s not about one side or the other – the powers that shouldn’t be cherry-pick the environmental campaigns that they can use for their own ends – to tax or control the masses – and go all out to support them.
I can’t remember the last time I heard about the problems of the holes in the ozone layer in the mainstream media. But the holes are still there, and apparently they get bigger every spring. The issue was used in a targeted global media campaign in the late 1980s and then dropped like a hot potato.
How much carbon does bombing produce? Think about how much global warming could be reduced if we could put a stop to all NATO’s interventions. That clearly shows what the powers that shouldn’t be really think about anthropogenic global warming.
Interesting to see who the scientists are that you cite as being representative of the scientific consensus on climate change, Naso. The “consensus”, which, we infer, is being turned on its head by diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats and assorted officials that rewrite the summary.
I would say the first thing that an intelligent person needs to attempt to do when trying to make heads or tails of a massive welter of contradictory information and strident but diametrically opposing conclusions, is to first consider the source of a given body of information, argument, or point of view.
In considering the source, the KEY QUESTION that needs to be asked is, is this person laying all of his or her cards on the table? Have they arrived at their conclusions out of personal conviction derived from self directed, honest research that is not tainted with personal bias or directed towards a predetermined outcome? Or are they in any way being influenced – by grants, job promises, salary, or prospects of career advancement – by an outside commercial entities with a vested interest interest in presenting research, arguments, or conclusions which will tend to produce the greatest financial gain for said commercial entity?
In other words, is the individual presenting a given body of information dedicated to scientific objectivity and the best interests of the public, or is this individual serving the interests of commercial entity which may be in pursuit of profit oriented objectives which might very well be contrary to the best interests of the general public?
The sad truth is that academia has long been subject to the profoundly corrupting influence of powerful financial interests. Of late, this phenomenon has expanded so far that there is virtually no academic discipline that can be said to be entirely free of this erosion of academic integrity. The degree to which any given field of study is subject to such co-option is directly proportional to the profitability of the industries which employ those who graduate from it.
With increasing frequency, we see these graduates going on to become spokespersons for the industries that have enlisted their services, though of course in most cases pains have been taken to obscure the ties that bind them to their benefactors. It isn’t particularly difficult to see when this has happened, even though ferreting out the particular details of HOW it has happened with a given individual may take slightly more effort.
The individuals you cite are very obviously quislings of the fossil fuel corporations, Naso – their positions are pure misdirection, misinformation, laughable lies, and blatant corporate propaganda. Here are some other takes on the background of the likes of Dr. Tim Ball, Donna LaFramboise, and Dr Christopher Essex (quoted in their article you linked to):
Excerpt:
“Few in the audience have any idea that Prof. Ball hasn’t published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch.”
http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mr-cool-friends/
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/climate-science-as-portrayed-
Donna La Framboise received substantial speaking fees on various occasions from the Heartland Institute…”the Heartland Institute, heavily funded by fossil fuel groups, had already reached its conclusions before starting out (i.e., climate change is a hoax) and only reviews papers written by deniers (the IPCC reviews all papers on the subject).”
http://ecowatch.com/2013/09/10/history-of-attacks-on-climate-science/
http://www.nature.com/news/documents-spur-investigation-of-climate-sceptic-1.16972
by.html
“How can any power network be so influential that it can skew the research findings of many thousands of scientists around the world so as to create a huge corpus of ‘fake’ science, but at the same time be so inept that it cannot keep the media ‘on message’?”
Damn good question. Particularly when one considers how extraordinarily well they manage to stay on track with their multilingual, multinational barrage of lies on any number of other subjects.
They have managed to subvert and co-opt a good percentage of the academics and scientists in most fields, but a troublesome, independent majority remains a serious Public Relations problem for them. This troublesome group of scientists has thwarted their long running, concerted efforts to keep the data on climate change under wraps, so they have been forced to use other tactics.
The clamor and obfuscation of their hired guns in pet “libertarian” think tanks and academia are part of this game plan. And their co-option and manipulation of large environmental groups into supporting their useless “remedies” such as cap and trade” are another key part of their plan: frame the parameters of debate, and dissipate the focus and energy of their opponents in endless international conferences that somehow never seem to reach an agreement on even the ineffectual, corporate friendly “remedies” that they have been manipulated into supporting.
John McLean is yet another oil industry lackey,and absolutely misrepresents the nature of the scientific reviewing process for the IPCC report: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/20/john-mclean-and-the-nrsp/
Here is a quote on your “expert reviewer” John McLean: John Mashey examined McLean’s background and it seems that while the National Post awarded him a PhD he actually has no scientific qualifications at all, just a Bachelor of Architecture. Which makes McLean’s rant against a critic, which was captured by Nexus 6 particularly funny