Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

by | Dec 8, 2015 | Videos | 91 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.


One of the giants in the history of the philosophy of science, Karl Popper, once famously observed that a theory that explains everything explains nothing.

And, to be sure, the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change appears to explain everything.

After all, we all know that climate change makes for shorter winters . . . except for when it makes for harsher winters.

And climate change means less snow . . . except for when climate change means more snow.

And climate change causes droughts in California and floods in Texas and Oklahoma, and generally makes wet places wetter and dry places drier, except when it makes wet places drier and dry places wetter.

And climate change causes more hurricanes at the same time as it causes fewer hurricanes.

Climate change causes more rain, but less water? . . .  And less rain, but more water?

Climate change decreases the spread of malaria at the same time as it increases the spread of malaria. (But don’t worry! The Terminator himself advises us not to listen to those climate change cynics, hey guys?)

Do I need to go on?

Oh, OK.

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 the polar ice caps to melt.

Climate change causes the polar ice caps to freeze.

Climate change makes the earth hotter, unless the earth isn’t getting hotter, in which case climate change can explain that, too!

What’s the problem here? This sounds like the perfect scientific theory. It can explain literally everything, including self-contradictory things! This means it’s absolutely perfect, isn’t it?

Well, no, not according to Karl Popper and the philosophers of science.

And within the philosophy of science, there’s something called the demarcation problem. How do you differentiate science from pseudoscience?

If you’re at all interested in this, I would suggest you read through Karl Popper’s Conjectures and Refutations, in which he lays out his criterion for differentiating science and pseudoscience, namely falsification.

What on earth does he mean by this?

Well, he starts with a very simple but very profound observation that people are attracted to pseudoscientific theories:

“[. . . b]y their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth.”

And it occurred to him that although this is usually taken to be a good sign of a theory, “[i]t began to dawn on me [Karl Popper] that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.”

So he goes on to list his conclusions as to how we ultimately try to differentiate science from pseudoscience, and I think a couple of the most important conclusions here are:

4. A theory which is not refutable by an conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory, as people often think but a vice.

And also:

7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

And he sums it up by saying: “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”

So, I would say that the ball is in the court of the believers of the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.

By what means can one falsify this hypothesis?

Let’s start with just an even less of a hurdle to come over: what set of observations over what period of time would be enough to refute the theory?

And then, furthermore, are there any actual hypotheses, any predictions that come as a result of this theory that can then be tested against the real world, or real observations?

If the answer to that is no, then . . . well, you’ve got a word for your theory, and it’s not science.

It’s pseudoscience.

So again, the onus is on the believers in the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change hypothesis to come up with some way that you can test and potentially falsify this theory.

Because if you can’t come up with any actual way to answer that question of how you falsify the theory, then you might as well just pray to your witch doctors to save you from the weather gods.


  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.

          • Yes, I concur with ccuthbert2001 on a number of points raised in the post.

            It is dumbfounding how many people who try to advocate a position, whether it be the anthropogenic global warming theory or other such psuedoscientific theories that we are bombarded with on a daily basis through the globalist controlled MSM , often fail to refer to or otherwise offer any form of actual evidence or unbiased studies that have been scrutinized by independent persons knowledgeable in the subject area of the particular study to back up their positions and claims.

            Statements we often hear such as “90% of the world’s scientists agree that global climate change is real” are meaningless without any context provided or a sufficient definition and specification of the parameters of such a consensus or how it was reached.

            No, instead, the proponents of psuedoscience resort to name-calling, personal insults, ad-ho minim attacks and character assassination in a feeble attempt to discredit those who disagree with them. To have the temerity to say James Corbett is somehow deluded and a “gate keeper”, while studiously ignoring and simultaneously discrediting his entire body of work on the other hand is disrespectful, a feckless argument, contributes nothing to an enlightened dialog on the subject and is a waste of time for those of us who, as James puts it, “still have 2 brain cells to rub together.”

            So, if others in the Corbettsphere agree with my views or differ with them on this matter, I invite your comments. However, if all you have to provide in reply are the aforesaid name-calling, personal insults, ad-ho minim attacks and character assassination against me or anyone else, especially since you can’t have the vaguest notion of who or what type of person I am, please find a more productive use for your time and energy.

            Thank you for your consideration.

    • 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?

  15. The latest study proves that this is the stupidest year, on record.
    The point of his climate change videos is that he is exposing a BIG fraud. This pivotal one gives the social engineers too much power. It is a complete religion, with fanatics and heretics, heaven and hell. They have produced fundamentalists, (and billionaires) who see red when challenged. The media has dirty hands on this one. This myth, like all others, absolutely depends on the support of the masses. Of course our world must undergo change; I just don’t like it being steered by lies and censorship.

  16. Can we be forgiven for being confused?

    First the gods caused everything.
    Then God replaced them, and offered eternal life, too*.
    Then He was replaced with vitamins and big pharma, as they became the key to everlasting life.
    Now salvation is to be found in your recycling bin, and the mantras of NYT and NBC.

    * Buy now and save! Limited time offer. Some restrictions may apply. Void where prohibited by law.

    • “Can we be forgiven for being confused?“

      Yep, that’s definitely covered. There’s only one unforgivable sin and confusion isn’t it.

      • I guess I am forgiven then. Or am I?
        Honestly, the cryptic reference to the ‘one unforgivable sin’ is going over my head.
        Please clarify, for me, and all the others here.

        • “I guess I am forgiven then. Or am I?”

          Why would you assume that you are? Or aren’t?

        • “Honestly, the cryptic reference to the ‘one unforgivable sin’ is going over my head.”

          I find myself wondering whether any Corbetteers even know what the one, (and there is only one), unforgivable sin is or if there is just a remarkable lack of curiosity about it.
          Not a single guess.
          I suppose that I shouldn’t really find that surprising. Everyone being so caught up in fixing the problems of the world and all. Who has the time to ponder the coming world?

  17. Another confusion for me, anyway.
    What is the one unforgivable sin?

    • Hanky
      You would not believe it if it were told to you.

      • “You would not believe it if it were told to you.”


    • tsingi

      That’s an excellent watch. Talk about common sense. Very refreshing. Thanks

    • I just finished the video. His perspective on the scam was great to hear. We need more of him. Thanks for sharing.

  18. Hi, everybody. Is anyone interested in taking a deep dive into learning the actual reality of how weather and climate unfold from David Siegel? So you can debunk, with a super-geeky level of scientific knowledge to refer to, anyone in your life who clings to the “trust the climate science” narrative?

    How much fun is it to learn a subject deeply enough to be able to neutralize someone’s canned, TV-induced sound bites with just a bit of actual information delivered with a flourish and a smile? Super-FUN!!!!!

    He’s got both a UK-timed, and US/Canada/Central America-timed class starting next week. The US/etc. class starts Wednesday, March 20th at 11am EDT/8am PDT for twelve weeks. This is science-heavy, but taught so that anyone can dive in and keep up no matter their academic background (heck, I’m just an attorney; not a scientist).

    Here’s more information on David, an interview he did with a UK outfit for an hour, and information on signing up for the class:

    You’re getting this because you filled out the contact form at my website,, and you wanted to know about climate issues. A month ago, I had a great conversation with Mike Robinson at UK Column, where we decided to see if anyone was interested in a master class on climate. We now have 60 people signed up and paying for two classes!

    If you are in Europe or the US/Canada, there’s still a bit more room for a few more people, use this link to register:

    Details here:

    Come on, Corbett Reporters, (is that what we are? ha!), let’s all be there or be square. Thank you!!

  19. the oxymoron kept kicking the can round the traffic circle..

    dear wordsmiths of this thread,
    please help me with a term or phrase or meme that encapsulates the form of attack whereby accusations are made but without any substance to back the claims up?

    I think its an act of desperation, such as when someone is upset but doesn’t know why, or cornered intellectually, and cant see anyway out and so just start spewing ad homonyms. Like leveling an ak47 at someone but its not loaded,, I’m drawing a blank for the right name for that kind of assault?

    merci d’avance

  20. Question for all

    “When all the trees and green that produces our Oxygen are gone, Where will we get the Oxygen?

    Breathe easy all you warmers. Co2 is good for you. Just ask billygates. Or is it goats. Hummm. I recall something about the Sheep being seperated from the goats. i.e. Lambs vs Kids? Later.


    • mkey

      Just watched it. Interesting. Lots to think about. Thank you for the link.
      One FACT that was stated is; “What goes up must come down.”
      Questions: “What’s coming down that wasn’t coming down when I was growing up? 1950’s”
      “Why didn’t I get any Tomatoes last year? No Cherries. No Pears. No Strawberries.
      No Raspberries. Blackberries. Elderberries.”
      “Why were there no Honeybees. Almost no Yellow jackets. Very few Bumblebees.”

      • Yes, indeed. That stuff is certainly coming down on its own accord.

        It’s a bad flu. It’s covid. Or is it just heavy metal poisoning? Ignore that large elephant in the room and fully focus un Wuhan. Don’t look up!

        A few very interesting moments during that talk. Like con and chem essentially being the same, but having people fight for decades over the distinction. It’s almost like a controlled narrative, or something. Mind that vail, now.

        Condensation trails? On what?

    • BUMP
      Jim Lee’s appearance on the The Highwire

  21. Excellent post. 🙂 I’m glad you reposted it since I hadn’t seen it before.

    It reminds me of the ever-mutating hypothesis of evolution. The geologists think the biologists have the ultimate proof, the biologists think the astronomers have the ultimate proof, the astronomers think the oceanographers have the ultimate proof, the oceanographers think the botanists have the ultimate proof…

    They keep propping up a hypothesis they are determined to be convinced is true, even when scams, frauds, and forgeries come to light. When flexible dinosaur tissue is found, they claim it apparently CAN last for millions of years instead of questioning their long age dating.

    And on and on it goes. When an evolutionary idea is disproven, the hypothesis of evolution is supplied with a new and different explanation.

  22. mkey

    I agree, Jim Lee’s interview with Dell Bigtree was very interesting, but still doesn’t make it clear on what is the biggest contributor to the geo-engineered clouds. The trails I see aren’t usually white, they turn a dirty brown and are more of a smear than clouds. While he makes a fairly convincing argument about jet fuel being the origin of chem/con trails, there are companies out there actually spraying this stuff on us. Also, I’m a bit confused about the solution. If it’s the elites that are spraying the stuff, then the solution is to simply stop them spraying. If it really is a by-product of jet fuel then I guess the logical solution is to stop all air travel (except for private jets of course) until Elon can come up with a better solution. And of course the airlines will be very upset if they get hit with all those delicious carbon credits created by Billy Gates for cooling the planet with his clouds, when they start to fully take effect.

    • The solution is not clear because there is no clear solution. But we are stuck on the first step of admitting that we have a problem.

      Getting personalized ground to air missile defense systems might be a solution.

      2-4 years for the stratosphere to clean up. How to break that down?

      Another question that did not come up: is the entire air travel industry economically sound or is it not? Spoiler, it is not. I guess that indicates yet another problem.

    • Cleaner airplane fuel could be a first step towards a cleaner atmosphere

      Some types of airplane fuel still contain lead.
      Alcohol burns virtually clean, but it doesn’t work well for higher altitudes.

      I don’t know what a cleaner fuel would be, but that is one direction towards making things better.

      • HomeRemedySupply

        This is probably not the time or place for it but a I’ll say it anyhow.
        The basic solution to the pollution problem is to create less of it.
        Since it seems that the major problem is that it cannot be eliminated,
        then lets produce as little as possible while still being able to do what
        we need to do. i. e. travel.
        I seem to recall a Volkswagen diesel car that got astronomical mileage.
        Maybe we should DEMAND that these vehicles and others like it be
        produced and marketed so that we can obtain them and have the advantages
        that they once offered. Boycott all others so that if the industry wants to sell
        product they will have to furnish the market with what it wants, not what some dude in some gov. office tells us we have to buy. But then I forgot didn’t I. “They” actually don’t want us to travel at all do “They”? Sorry I forgot that.
        If modern tech is so fantastic and advanced, one would think that it could extract
        so much power from one gallon of fuel that we could go way further than we currently do.
        I once had a 1949 Ford with a flathead V8 and a 3 speed tranny with overdrive and
        if I squeezed it I could get over 30 miles per and that was a very heavy car compared
        to what’s made of plastic and tinfoil today. It wasn’t as areo-dynamic either. Wow what an easy engine that was to work on. Cheap too.


    • tee.
      There is NO clarity. Jim was as unconfused as I have ever seen him. The confusion is part and parcel of the operation. Dale did a good job of mirroring Jim’s facts… It is an operation by the CIA. Has anyone ever stopped the CIA operations within a decade or two of exposure and backlash by the citizens.? No. So the people like Dale and Jim are scoffed at by the CIA cause there is nothing a normal person can do legally too stop the insanity.
      I include the wikipedia account of the bankruptcy of Evergreen Aviation, a Evelyn Rothschild fleet that hired out to the CIA.
      You can speculate part of that fleet was engineered to deliver germ, chemical and radioactive stratospheric aerosol injection . Not to mention the weather warfare in 7 countries in five years.The black opps of the Global Cabal. 300 planes and a small fleet of helicopters where scattered to the four winds when Evergreen filed bankruptcy. Operations concluded successfully. New markets created in trading weather derivatives, weather racketeering ,disaster capitalism, global drug trade , human trafficking and pandemics. Hiring contractors for any payload.
      Now is it any clearer in finding Waldo the mad scientist, in a pile of Dr.Strangloves , eagerly fulfilling that government contract?

  23. I haven’t read all the post here I just wanted to add one reference to an article that shows very strongly that climate change is mainly due to our sun, and there are many more I could reference that agrees with this science. Please read before commenting.

  24. I’d like to see any claim that climate change reduces mass fish suffocation and strandings. Also that it makes it easier for oysters to seed.

    • And if you’ve set those points aside how about a claim that climate change improves the protein quality of plants and the lives of their insect consumers and along the food chain birds that eat them.

  25. Please explain to me if some of my bioadaptation comments don’t falsify the no-global-warming-effect claim.

  26. “paint by number morning sky looks so phony” 1983
    Observe and know.
    All the government funded studies said that it would cause drought, flooding and extreme high winds, and possibly even make it hotter. Google has these studies in the memory hole – one was by Pittsburgh University if anybody is adept with these silicone monsters.
    According to the engineer who built the antenna array in Alaska that injects millions of volts into the ionosphere, he said that it causes the most extreme weather events known on earth. He liked it.
    This is the latest garbage that they are spraying, cough cough
    And of course, the military document has been declassified for years now
    “Can i get a what what”

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member