Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

by | Dec 8, 2015 | Videos | 47 comments

Watch this video on BitChute / DTube / Odysee / YouTube

Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions? Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.

Climate change makes for shorter winters

Climate change makes for harsher winters

Climate change means less snow

Climate change means more snow

Climate change causes droughts in California

Climate change causes floods in Texas and Oklahoma

Climate change makes wet places wetter and dry places drier…

…except when it makes wet places dryer…

…and dry places wetter

Climate change causes more hurricanes

Climate change causes less hurricanes

Climate change causes more rain (but less water)

Climate change causes less rain

Climate change decreases the spread of malaria

Climate change increases the spread of malaria

Climate change makes San Francisco foggier

Climate change makes San Francisco less foggy

Climate change causes duller autumn leaves

Climate changes causes more colourful autumn leaves

Climate change makes for less salty seas

Climate change makes for saltier seas

Climate change causes Antarctica to lose land ice

Climate change causes Antarctica to gain land ice

Climate change makes the earth hotter…

…unless the earth isn’t getting hotter…

…in which case climate change can explain that, too.

Science as Falsification


  1. Haha. It seems fitting somehow…but I’ve changed it anyway. Thanks for the heads up.

  2. It’s really sad to see you going down this path of the pseudo science of climate change denial. So many of your assertions illustrate a serious lack of scientific literacy and a serious level of misinformation regarding climate science. You seem to accept the claims of the global warming skeptics and disinformation shills on faith without bothering to verify or fact check any of them, while on the other hand dismissing the mainstream climate science and accusing the thousands of credentialed scientists all over the world of engaging in fraud and hoaxes without any evidence and without doing research or verification. It’s sad, because in other subject areas, you show a much greater ability to use critical thinking and research abilities. “Woo-Woo Pseudoscience” is actually an apt description of your video and your views on climate science.

    • Keep. Humping. That. Chicken. Or have the courage to admit that you’re in a cult. Your call.

      • Oh common, Anacardo, when people go straight for the childish insults they are showing that they have no rational arguments to make and no knowledge of the subject. You’ll have to do better than that if you want to convince anyone that you have a valid position. So, why don’t you give it another try, and this time try to provide something substantive to the debate? What points did I get wrong and why?

        • Keenan67, the burden is on the anthropogenic global warming crowd to show some sort of evidence for their position, not the other way around. Why, you no doubt will ask? Because anyone who has ever read a history book or has knowledge of European painting knows without doubt that the earth’s climate has changed over time. It has been much hotter and cooler than today and all long before the evil greenhouse gas spewing factories and cars of the 20th century. There are climate variation cycles that might have something to do with that big ball of yellow light that appears in the sky every day and is OBVIOUSLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY the source of earth’s warmth. To have to say this is so idiotically ridiculous that no one else wants to take the time to bother.

          The people who fall for this global warming nonsense are no different from cargo cult worshipers. To try to get through to them is like talking to babies, except that babies are cute.

          We can also add to the above the fact that there has been no global warming over the past 18-20 yrs. None. Go look it up.

          Your post is especially annoying considering all the reporting that James has done in the past, his interviews with Professor Ball, the exposure of the crimes of the East Anglia liars in climategate, etc. If this were James’ only post on the matter, we might excuse your question. Why don’t you put some effort into looking these things up yourself?

          To continue to hold on to the global warming hoax, coupled with your denigration of James means that you are most likely unable to open your mind. Hence, the insults.

    • keenan67, you speak for me as well. It’s curious to see James building up so much credibility capital, only to squander it on this essentially ideological mindtrap. And it makes me wonder what is going on with him. I was starting to trust him. It’s like so many others you see entering the public spotlight, first gaining the trust of their listeners, then going completely off the rails on rhetorical babblings as radical as climate change denial. Is James just another gatekeeper?

      Anyone that has done any serious research on this knows climate change is real and the elites and scientists are very concerned about it because they don’t have another solution and they can’t stop the oil companies from doing what they want to do. Plan B has tanked.

  3. One of the things that is really lacking in your reports on Climate Change that could help improve the journalistic quality is to avoid making it so one-sided in which you seem to have an almost religious certainty about your belief that AGW is a hoax. Making an attempt to get both sides of the story, and accurately representing the arguments of the opposite side would help. I do see you misrepresenting the other side’s scientific claims quite often. Getting a rebuttal from an expert on climate science to respond to your arguments would help in making your reports more balanced.

    • You’re right, it’s one sided. It has to be one sided. This is a HOAX, get it? As in there’s no such thing. It is a big fat OBVIOUS lie perpetrated on the hoi polloi for money and power. What is the other side of that?

    • I absolutely agree, keenan67. Something is definitely out of whack with James on this topic.

      • The only thing that is out of whack are those commenters who cast aspersions without even taking so much as a glance at the enormous quantity of evidence provided after every report and podcast, substantiating all the assertions made therein.

        Indeed, what is so wonderful about the Corbett Report is that James Corbett neither needs nor wants anyone to “trust” or “believe” him at all on any topic. He is constantly saying “Don’t take MY word for it, please go do your own research” and he provides the proof and the basis for any claims he makes as starting points for anyone genuinely interested in understanding and/or learning more.

        Which starkly contrasts with those who appear one day out of nowhere hoping, for some reason, to cast doubt on Mr Corbett’s impeccable and proven credibility and rigour in the eyes of those who are too lazy or bored to check any of the numerous sources listed in the show notes of every episode.

    • Please provide a single example of misrepresentation of “the other side’s scientific claims” instead of merely vomiting your unfounded accusations.

      And incidentally, with regards to your demand of “making an attempt to get both sides of the story”, “the other side” is quite evidently not interested in extending that very same courtesy to scientists skeptical of their alarmist “consensus”. Alarmists refuse any debate on the matter, preferring to call it case closed, 97% consensus, stigmatizing and penalizing anyone who would dispute their so called “consensus” while banning them from any mainstream platforms. If they had their way, man-made global warming skeptics would be jailed, in much the same way that Covid-19 vaccine skeptics are being bullied. It seems that if they did decide to provide an open, honest and substantiated debate on the topic, that their coveted golden-goose of a Climate Crisis might just vanish. At any rate, they’re counting on the fact that most people aren’t interested in the actual science and much prefer emotional and indignant virtue signalling. And unfortunately, they’re right about that.

  4. Maybe I’m being ignorant but wont lowering Co2 emissions be a good thing regardless of whether or not its causing global warming? It’s certainly a pollutant. No?

    Also, its probably been addressed already but what is the motive/endgame for an anthropogenic climate change hoax?

    • The endgame is the elimination of the human race, but not after we have been removed from rural areas and stacked into towers in cities and only have bikes, trains or our feet to get us anywhere. James has shown us how the regulations that are going to be put in place will actually cause people to starve and freeze to death. Help me find the video, James..The plan is to give mother earth (Pachamama) rights that come before ours. This is “the greater good” where the rights of the individual take a back seat to the collective so the earth can “heal”. Another way to “know” that this is a big fat lie, is look at the liars who are spouting this propaganda…It’s the pope, Obama, Chomsky and the msm. I encourage you to look at Rosa Koire’s book “Behind the Green Mask of UN Agenda 21”. It is good, but censored. Even better is Niki Raapana’s blog and her ebook 2020: Our Common Destiny and the Anti-Communitarian Manifesto. But actually, the answers to your questions can be found here in James’ work.

      • Of course this does not mean that we don’t care about the planet! I eat and grow organic food, I recycle, I heat with wood, I make my own laundry soap and toothpaste and so on. I would love to live completely off-grid (minimal carbon footprint, right?)but it is actually illegal according to international building code. Go figure. Even if I shut my gas and electricity off at the meter, I still have to pay a delivery charge! If I lose my job and can’t pay the charge, I can probably be evicted. THEY want us connected to the smart grid so we can be monitored and shut off if “needed”. The climate change crisis m.o. is total tyrannical control over human settlements and behavior.

    • Great comment-I would just add that the final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic, after the failure of communism and the failure of capitalism, is communitarianism.

  5. James, i thought you were an English major? didn’t realize you had a Ph.D. in climatology and years of scientific experience.

    personally i have found your reporting on terror issues compelling; your economic analysis less so; and with this topic you seem intent on giving away your credibility for free.

    • One does not need years of science training to see a hoax as obvious as this. And that would be an ad hominem btw.

    • Beware of political scientists and psych majors purporting to practice in the areas of physical science.

      Nature cannot be psychoanalyzed. You can’t question its motives or political strategy. It is unalterable and has no agenda or partisanship. You can’t argue it to death or pontificate on it no matter how sophisticated your bullshit. Look up! Those chemtrails are the last desperate hope of a well-informed panicked elite that knows its real and has no solutions, and it’s not only not working, it’s burning off the ozone layer.

      Stay in areas where you have some competence. This is not one of them.

      • Well that was a nice fallacious and verbose attempt at ignoring all the evidence provided here. And it will probably work (has probably worked) with lazy and/or disempowered “thinkers” who prefer “believing” and “feeling” to actually looking at the information and understanding.

    • Same thought here, Cu. Just throws it away. So sad.

      It’s part of the “modified limited hangout” strategy. Hook your listeners on some truth, as long as it’s not the whole truth.

  6. Well, me, the truth is I’m somebody who basically wants to believe in global warming but one thing I want even more is to walk the walk when it comes to having an open mind. And the anti-global-warming crowd is normally a bunch of soulless right-wing pro-corporate buffoons, so all my root-for-the-underdog save-the-earth left-wing instincts cause me to rebel against the idea that global warming is just a “hoax” — the same language used by Holocaust deniers, let’s not forget. It’s difficult for me to go to the dark side on this.

    But this is James Corbett, who is not generally given to talking out his arse, so I have to listen. Plus I had a friend I made a deal with: I’d investigate global warming with an open mind if he’d do the same about Building 7. (In the end, unfortunately, I don’t think he approached it with the same spirit of honesty and integrity that, ahem, I did; in other words my opinion changed and his didn’t.)

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that global warming science is engaged in a continual game of shifting the goal posts. The models appear to be useless as their predictions have been consistently wrong. As Jame’s video demonstrates rather convincingly, the theory makes contradictory claims. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that contradictory claims are made in the name of the theory. Possibly an otherwise decent theory is being abused by unqualified makers-of-assertions, I’d need more research on that. But still: You have to ask yourself, if this was the nature of the science promoting something you politically disagreed with, wouldn’t you be all over it?

    Two things to note even so: moving to a sustainable, clean-energy economy strikes me as a good idea regardless of where you stand on global warming. This is how I preserve my left-wing impulses by the way. I can say, sure, have global warming, take it, I don’t need it. I still think it’s foolish to burn all the fossil fuels for various other excellent reasons.

    Secondly, while Popper’s observations about falsifiability are indeed profound and true — there are, in the strictest sense, no scientific facts, only scientific theories that have not been proven wrong yet (and which are in many cases extremely compelling) — relying on Popper himself rather than the idea per se is not necessarily a good idea.

    Why not?

    Because Popper also writes patently ridiculous straw man arguments that violate his own principles of evidence-based critical rationalism. Things like this:

    “[T]he ‘conspiracy theory of society’…[is] the mistaken theory that, whatever happens in society — especially happenings such as war, unemployment, poverty, shortages, which people as a rule dislike — is the result of direct design by some powerful individuals and groups…

    “In its modern forms it is, like modern historicism, and a certain modern attitude towards ‘natural laws’, a typical result of the secularization of a religious superstition. The belief in the Homeric gods whose conspiracies explain the history of the Trojan War is gone. The gods are abandoned. But their place is filled by powerful men or groups — sinister pressure groups whose wickedness is responsible for all the evils we suffer from — such as the Learned Elders of Zion, or the monopolists, or the capitalists, or the imperialists….

    “Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproves the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful. Conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy.”

    • ah yes, Karl Popper, the philosopher of the stock exchange, has served George Soros well in service of the “open society,” the democratic dictatorship of the commodity.

      • Well, Popper’s an interesting guy. I find myself alternately wanting to quote him for support and repudiate him for nonsense. I think the problem is that he is a fine philosopher of science, but just as subject to values-bias as the rest of us. He spares his own biases the critical treatment that he advocates, rendering him an ironic figure. Falsifiability remains a crucially important concept (not that he invented it or anything, but he deserves credit as one of its foremost proponents.)

      • Here’s a Popper-ism I do like: “With each step forward, with each problem which we solve, we not only discover new and unsolved problems, but we also discover that where we believed that we were standing on firm and safe ground, all things are, in truth, insecure and in a state of flux.”

  7. Greenhouse warming theory is falsifiable. That is why I issued The Climate Change Challenge last month individually to the authors and reviewers of the IPCC 2013 Physical Science Basis Report and to the general public. See

    The challenge states “I hereby agree to give $10,000 (ten thousand dollars) of my children’s inheritance to the first person or team of people who can demonstrate through direct measurements in the laboratory and/or in the field that a 15% increase in carbon dioxide, such as that observed from 1970 to 1998, can actually cause more warming of Earth than caused by observed contemporaneous depletion of the ozone layer of up to 60%.”

    My new book What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse gases or ozone depletion? ( website ( explain how well global warming throughout Earth history is explained by ozone depletion and why greenhouse warming is not very effective. Ozone depletion explains very clearly each of the changes in global temperature trends over the past 100 years. Greenhouse warming theory cannot explain any. There are clear problems with the way current climate models calculate radiant thermal energy. Ultraviolet-B radiation from Sun reaching Earth when ozone is depleted contains 48 times more thermal energy than infrared radiation from Earth absorbed by greenhouse gases. There simply is not enough energy in the infrared to cause significant global warming.

    • That sounds interesting, but I don’t understand how it makes global warming theory falsifiable. To falsify a theory means, of course, to invalidate it beyond any doubt. The way one black swan disproves the “all swans are white” theory. It’s conceptually distinct from pointing out weaknesses or possible alternatives. (This is neither a defense of global warming nor an attack on it, nor an attack on the ozone theory — just a question about the grounds on which global warming theory is falsifiable. My ignorance here is vast.)

    • And what causes dat ozone hoe? Could it have anything to do with that big yellow ball in the sky????

      • Ultraviolet-C solar radiation has enough energy to dissociate a molecule of oxygen (O2) into two atoms of oxygen (2O). An atom and a molecule of oxygen then combine to form ozone (O3). Ultraviolet-B solar radiation has enough energy to dissociate ozone back into an atom and a molecule of oxygen. This cycle, known as the Chapman cycle goes on endlessly in the lower stratosphere. The average lifetime of a molecule of ozone is only about 8 days. Both dissociations heat the stratosphere, which is why temperatures start increasing at the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere above Earth and the stratosphere above the troposphere. The ozone layer is simply the region of the atmosphere where the physical condition promote the Chapman cycle.

        When the ozone layer is depleted by atoms of chlorine or bromine, less ultraviolet-B radiation is absorbed in the stratosphere cooling the stratosphere, and more UV-B reaches Earth, warming Earth. The Antarctic Ozone Hole was caused by manufactured CFC gases that are broken down by ultraviolet light to release chlorine atoms. One atom of chorine can destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone. This process was slowed by the Montreal Protocol that restricted manufacture of CFCs.

  8. Greenhouse warming theory ASSUMES that when you double the concentration of carbon dioxide, for example, the increased infrared radiation from Earth absorbed by the air will increase the temperature of the air several degrees centigrade and this will warm Earth similar amounts. This has never been observed (calibrated) in the laboratory or in the field. The only experiment documented in the literature was by Knut Ångström in 1900 and he showed that the warming was minimal. He appears to be the last experimental spectral physicist to think about greenhouse gases.

    Climate sensitivity is calculated assuming all warming observed was caused by observed changes in greenhouse gases. But I show that ozone depletion explains observed warming far better and that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 may simply be a proxy for ocean temperature since the solubility of CO2 in water is well known to decrease with rising temperature.

    But the sensitivity of at least air temperature to increasing CO2 should be directly observable in the laboratory. If it is not found to be substantial, then greenhouse warming theory is falsified. I am betting $10,000 that it will never be shown to be substantial.

    I show that radiant energy is a function of frequency, not amplitude or bandwidth as assumed by computer models. This means that ultraviolet-B radiation reaching Earth when ozone is depleted is 48 times more energetic, 48 times “hotter”, than infrared radiation absorbed most strongly by CO2. After all, UV-B burns your skin; no amount of exposure to infrared radiation from Earth can lead to sunburn. There simply is not enough thermal energy absorbed by CO2 to play a major role in global warming. Furthermore CO2 only absorbs energy along narrow spectral lines in narrow frequency bands. Thus CO2 only absorbs a small amount of the total thermal energy radiated by Earth. Furthermore radiation from a body of matter cannot warm that body of matter. And thermal energy in a layer of air that is colder than Earth, cannot warm Earth. That breaks the second law of thermodynamics. This is all explained in my book and on my website I conclude that greenhouse warming theory is physically impossible for many reasons.

    There are numerous reasons why greenhouse warming theory is simply wrong. The climate challenge says put up or shut up. If you cannot demonstrate empirically, by experiment in the lab or field, that increased concentrations of CO2 actually cause air to warm degrees centigrade, then greenhouse warming theory does not work.

    Next week, at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco (24,000 scientists), we have a booth publicizing the climate challenge. Many of the atmospheric scientists attending already got the challenge personally in their email.

    • I just took a quick look at your website. 2015 is the hottest year ever? Really? I’m not buying it…

      • 2015 is slated to be the hottest year since thermometers were invented. Just Google “2015 hottest year” to see the many different groups coming to this conclusion. There were certainly much hotter years throughout geologic time and 1200 years ago may have been hotter. The point is that in the last century plus, 2015 will most likely go down as the hottest year when averaged throughout the globe. Of course some regions may be cooler. This warming is completely explained by ozone depletion caused by the volcano Bardarbunga. It is not clear that greenhouse gases had any effect; in fact CO2 emissions decreased slightly in 2015.

        • Not buying it. Listen, the thing is I live in a Mediterranean climate. It’s been a Mediterranean climate for generations. It is still a Mediterranean climate. Where’s my climate change?

          I don’t believe this hottest year claim knowing how tptb are sabotaging temperature reporting. I believe my own senses, and this climate is the same as last year, and the year before, and the year before…

          As for de ozone ho’e, I don’t agree with the “settled science”:

          Choice paragraph:
          “Chlorine happens to be one of the most naturally abundant trace chemicals in the atmosphere. The natural sources of chlorine in the atmosphere so dwarf the puny amounts of chlorine that could possibly be released by CFCs, that it would be truly embarrassing to the scientists implicated in this hoax if the existence of these natural sources were reported by the news media. Therefore, they have not been reported.”

          Also see this:


          I think a much more likely explanation is the patent was running out on cfcs.

          Sorry, but so much of science now is so thoroughly corrupted by the gov’t control of research and the massive, multiple scams various fascist cabals perpetrate on an unsuspecting public that to believe anything they say would be equivalent to still believing in the Easter bunny. “Climate science,” vaccines, cholesterol, hiv/aids, cancer, ebola, big pharma “wonder” drugs, gmos, joint replacements, arthroscopic knee surgery, space travel, extraterrestrial life found on earth, I could go on and on… one long series of scams.

  9. I see why nobody replied at this in 2015.

    The first two lines already show what a lot of gibberish the statement is
    “Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience
    Straw man argument”

    Ignoring gibberish is often for the better.

    Merriam Webster: “straw man: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted”
    Similar definitions to be found elsewhere.

    There was no strawman (weak or imaginary opposition) built up, indeed “Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience” is not even an argument, it is a statement.
    An argument needs at least
    A, therefore B.
    A statement is only A.

    Thus accusing of strawman argument, when there is neither an argument, nor a strawman, signifies ludicrous gibberish.

    • I guess James’ deviant genius is that he first convinces everyone that there are real conspiracies going on all over the place and we are being duped, and then extrapolates that to the most grandiose of conspiracy theories to sow doubt, that 99% of the world’s scientists with excellent training, equipment an ability to do their own experiments independently have gotten their heads together to dupe the world to oppose the oil industry, for no reason except they dislike it.

      CO2 obeys the laws of quantum physics acting as a greenhouse gas, something that has been known for at least a century. It’s a mathematically provable certainty based on fundamental physical laws. It’s not even arguable. Only an ahole would argue it’s not real.

      • “You’re” predictably wielding another straw man as per the usual tiresome trollish techniques.

        Nobody at any time refuted the existence of greenhouse gasses.

        What ridiculous simplistic silliness.

        So, pray tell, what is the number one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?

        You wanna reduce that to “net zero” too?

        Actually, you probably do… 😯

  10. I had never seen this clip until today (October 2018).
    Sweet 5 minutes!

  11. The quantum excitation levels of CO2 are well-known and have been repeatedly proven in experimentation. If this were not true, CO2 lasers would not work.

  12. I couldn’t have put it better myself, laughnsky. It’s gibberish. I think James finally got too full of himself.

    • More childish and transparent Ad Hominem attacks aimed at the man and deliberately avoiding his substantiated and apparently unassailable argument. Attacking the man with childish name-calling backed up by nothing because there’s nothing to back it up. Perhaps you would like to be a tad more specific as to where the “gibberish” lies and in what way you see Mr Corbett as being full of himself?

      But on the bright side, at least we’re all getting a lesson in the use of logical fallacies and manipulation!

  13. So, what if James is wrong and the climate scientists are right, as I’m sure is the case? Is anyone willing to bet the planet on his theory? Is the gamble worth it, or should we exercise an “abundance of caution,” as the lawyers like to say?

    How’s James gonna feel in a few decades when he realizes his great mistake, as climate Armageddon arrives, billions are dying, and he realizes he helped spread the theory that it was just a “hoax,” thus helping to forestall constructive action with snake oil political diatribes like this?

    What’s he gonna say, “Oops?” “Sorry.” Too late!

    • So, what if James is wrong and the climate scientists are right, as I’m sure is the case?

      still another weak attempt at distorting the issue.

      WHICH climate scientists “are right”? The ones that have been stigmatized, silenced and banned from the Corporate Controlled Media?

      Right about what EXACTLY?

      Can you please identify more precisely what you claim are “snake oil political diatribes” like this? I bet you can’t.

      More empty and manipulative rhetoric and cheap pot shots designed to deform any debate and dissuade the skittish from actually looking at the evidence presented.

  14. What’s your point of making these climate change doubter videos? It’s clear to every scientist that this is no easy topic and that there is a significant error rate involved.

    Ask yourself one simple question: what’s the minimum probability for climate change to be a threat for you personally to stop working against those scientists? Let’s suppose there is only a 0.1% chance that 1 billion people could be at risk. Is that expected 1 million lives worth your few bucks you get from making these videos?

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member