Interview 1125 – James Corbett Discusses Carbon Rations on X22 Report

by | Jan 19, 2016 | Interviews | 31 comments

James Corbett joins Dave of X22 Report to talk about the global warming narrative and its carbon ration end game. Topics discussed include the global average temperature construction, the carbon ration control grid, and the economics of technocracy.

What Is The Average Global Temperature?

Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry ‘carbon ration cards’, say MPs

Pope’s climate adviser proposes CO2 budget for every person on the planet

Patrick Wood Exposes the Technocracy Agenda


  1. Randall Carlson has some great points of view concerning climate change. Worth checking out.

  2. Thank you for this. You are not alone. I have commented exactly the same points every time Corbett goes off on this rant. I am sick to death with Corbett’s ignorance regarding climate change. I keep trying to figure out how gaming climate data benefits anyone. As a 40 year veteran of the renewable energy industry I an here to say that renewables have no chance whatsoever of keeping the current system going. This “report” appears in the midst of what is now the largest storm to have ever hit the eastern seaboard. Floods in New Jersey exceed those of Sandy. All one has to do is look at the satellite images for the source of the moisture responsible for this deluge. A warmer climate means a wetter climate, end of story. Super warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern Atlantic released supernatural amounts of moisture into the atmosphere and then was dumped onto the centers of power, NYC and Washington, DC. Forecasters nailed this one. (Last year’s warnings were way off.) During my years studying biology in the early 70s we were well aware of the implications of a warming climate. This storm is the embodiment of what was known 40 years ago.

    What is really galling is Corbett’s ignorance of the role the greenhouse effect plays in providing a habitable ecosystem. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and, prior to the fossil fuel age, maintained an environment in dynamic equilibrium. That equilibrium began to be disrupted as soon as humans began releasing the carbon stored in millions of years of solar energy driven photosysnthesis in the form of fossil fuels. Now, the greenhouse effect’s dynamic equilibrium has been disrupted and results like Jonas (the name of this storm) will only get worse.

    So, I too, admonish Corbett to confine his work to areas that do not require the scientific rigor required in understanding the function of our ecosystem. For continuing this climate change denial folly will only serve to diminish his credibility in the areas where his work is quite good.

    • I don’t have to substantiate anything. The vast climate science community has done that voluminously. Corbett substantiates nothing. He copies and pastes articles from the same dubious sources from which you apparently glean what you think you know about climate. You conflate carbon with carbon dioxide. This is fundamentally wrong and the fact that you do not comprehend this difference disqualifies and precludes you from weighing in on this most important of issues. The salient fact is that the atmosphere, that silly little thing that supports all life, now contains over 400 ppm of CO2, a concentration never to have occurred. So this is my choice: to depend on the might of NASA, NOAA, major universities across the globe; or to listen to a scribe who has never set foot in a lab or in the field doing the oftentimes dangerous research required to learn what human beings are doing to our planet and its climate.

      Carbon is the basis of organic chemistry and biochemistry, the building block of all our planet’s flora and fauna. Carbon dioxide is the product of the respiration of all terrestrial and aquatic oxygen breathers as well being a major byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels, wood and, to an alarming degree, from the digestive processes of cattle and other livestock. You clearly don’t understand dynamic equilibrium. Before 1859, the start of the fossil fuel age, the flora of our planet easily absorbed all of the carbon dioxide produced, by way of the truly amazing process of photosynthesis, exhaled and generated by all the processes that produce it. In 1859, the world’s population was less than 1 billion inhabitants. Most energy was generated by burning wood and hard, “clean(er)” coal. Sufficient areas of forests easily absorbed that CO2, maintaining a benign environment via dynamic equilibrium. I won’t belabor the obvious regarding the explosion of the world’s population and fossil fuel use. What has happened is that the amount of CO2 spewed into the atmosphere has increased geometrically while the CO2 sinks, primarily temperate rain forests, are now barely half of what they were 50 years ago. This activity has thrown this equilibrium into chaos.

      [SNIP – The only rule of this board is no personal attacks. Your last paragraph crosses that line so it has been deleted. Please rephrase without the ad hominem. – JC]

      • There was nothing ad hominem about anything that I wrote. I am curious about how people arrive at such uninformed positions. This is why I asked about education. I remember when one’s education was indicative of many aspects of a person’s outlook on life. Economists live in a alternative universe for example. For this reason they disregard externalities that, were they included in price discovery, would render such activities as mountain top removal coal extraction extinct. Snip away.

  3. We need to cease using “scientist’s” date and i would even go as far as to say scientific beliefs in these discussions , or we are forever at the whim of the system in place. Science is not truth , never was and never will be . And more to the point , scientists today , just as any “taught in the school system” profession is automatically veered yet again towards a pre-determined conclusion .

    Those who are in control of the system run both sides of this ” discovery/debate/climate war etc.” , and i think it wise for any who are truly into finding out truth to see it that way and not get caught up in what the system wants – regular people , especially “conspiracy open-minded” ones , to argue amongst themselves and completely loose focus of the fact either way the system wins.

    Is all this fossil fuel consumption hurting the planet ? i believe so . Is having 7 some billion people on the planet and over-consuming so much and wasting and destroying so many forms of life harmful ? of course. Is using solar power or wind power or nuclear power etc that would be controlled and run by the same group that has run the oil gas and coal industry better for the world ? don’t think so , just a different angle .

    Lets all not consume so much , be it with food and drink to material possessions that we don’t really need , and then the planet will right itself as always , and we will stop feeding the system . And please lets not quote these “scientists” , because they change their views and angles and their “facts” like i change you know what …

    • Uh, no. There are certain immutable laws of energy and matter that have always been and always will be. Gravity, for one. Unless, of course, you think that “they” have mastered anti-gravity technology different from, say, airplanes which really are anti-gravity devices. Just pour a lot of kerosene into turbines and, voila, anti-gravity. Or entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. So far, this most important of SCIENTIFIC principles remains immutable. Everything I learned about viruses in the early 70s is still the accepted science.

      By installing an off-grid hybrid PV system with a small wind turbine and a biogas generator isolates those clever enough to assemble such systems from those who control centralized energy systems. This is the salient point. Add to the above system an aquaponic food production system and you are free from those who control oil, gas, coal and nuclear. Indeed, this is the direction that current circumstances are leading us. These projects lend themselves ideally to small groups of people. I abide by the 3 Ds: Downsize, Decentralize and Depopulate. The first two we can control. The third, Mother Nature will take care of that.

      • Uh , no . Gravity has only been agreed to by these scientists for less then 400 years . And thats until the next batch find a different angle on it that benefits the system .

        Continuous “facts” , or better put Laws – as you state- are always being changed by these same scientists .
        On the fore-front it would seem a great thing , as in continuously advancing and learning and evolving , but a quick look into who is behind these schools and benefits from them and their “discoveries” , and we can see the truth . to a degree anyhow .

        Viruses are a perfect example of who benefits , glad you brought it up . 150 years ago there was a man who proved “scientifically” that there were no such things , yet the system quickly saw zero profit from that perspective and put their backing behind mr. Pasteur , whose oft plagiarized and altered works offered a fantastic stream of revenue which is still in play today . Never mind the 70’s , wow .

        Again , like i wrote before , same people and groups benefit either way , just want to keep us open-minded ones arguing . Don’t think it matters either way with climate change or global warming or whatever name they want to put on it nowadays , they have a plan and will do all they can to put in in place , and that much quicker if the rest of us keep picking sides to defend .

          • No worries , enjoy your bread and butter . Or is it margarine again . Wait, got to check the latest edition of scientific daily first .

  4. only tell us what has advantages for those who run the system . like blaming flooding in the states ( example ) on global warming and el’nino/na , never mentioning that the total flattening of the land by destroying forests everywhere is by far the primary reason for weather problems , from tornadoes to floods etc .

    • absolutely nosoa , and they are not only benefiting from the confusion , which is definitely one that they have caused to begin with , but also enjoying the show as the 99% continue to squabble over what is somewhat irrelevant . (and they continue doing as they do because we continually consume and they are happy to supply – not just food , but all material possessions and needs )

      we need to see it for what it is , same as we shouldn’t consider monsanto , or general motors or government or banks as separate entities – as they are all controlled by the same very few , on reverse we need to also stop splitting the hairs that they feed us through various channels they flood and consider it all one big croc and focus i would say on using less , living in harmony with all life , consuming less , and the rule of all – do to others as we would want them to do to us .

  5. This really is awful. I really don’t understand how candide expects anyone to care about what he thinks when all he can offer is foul-mouthed diatribes and the familiar liberal refrain of “the science is settled!” etc etc.

    The familiar device of the alarmist is to cite “hundreds of scientific journals” without, of course, actually citing one, and to liberally smear with ad hominem.

    If the science were truly settled, it would be difficult to understand why or how something like the hockey stick hoax, or the various other activities unearthed by Climategate would have occurred. Do nuclear physicists go around typing emails to each other urging them to “hide the decline” of the amplitude of the quantum wave function? Do academic boards go around bragging about how they use Planck’s Nature trick to give shape to his constants? Does the Journal of Nuclear and Partical Physics cite articles from the World Wildlife Fund about the state of particle dynamics and then loudly shout that it only uses the best that ‘science’ has to offer?

    In other words, candideschmyles, you are ignoring every glaring red flag that is proclaiming loudly and clearly that something is rotten in the state of climate science. You cite various journal articles that you loudly insist clean up every purported hole in AGW theory, but these articles seem rather reactive in their nature. They seem to be explaining away more than they explain, and further, you don’t cite refutations or responses. Every time an AGW alarmist cites a supposedly definitive answer to any of the multitude of problems with the AGW story, I have seen that the *actual text* of the article is nowhere near as definitive as the politicized headline it generates, AND that it typically leads to dozens of responses that qualify its conclusions severely. (Of course, this is no problem when your purpose is to reassure the faithful, the candideschmyles of the planet. All you need is the headline (STUPID/EVIL DENIER REFUTED!) who cares about the qualifications?)

    I’m not going to pretend I have the definitive answers on AGW. But you, candide, shouldn’t either. What are you anyway? Maybe you got through Oceanography 101 and believe therefore you can lecture the world about Climate Science, and we should all listen to you? That’s what you sound like.

  6. To those on both sides of the debate on this thread, what about the proposed solutions and the intention/agenda of those individuals and organisations proposing them?

    What I find weird is that organisations like the IPCC seem to be ‘self-appointed’ saviours of Earth/Humankind… really?

    One thing I’ve learnt from spending way to much of my time on TCR website 🙂 is to develop a healthy skepticism of any ‘great idea’ that comes from a centralized state or corporate power structure.

    So what makes the carbon credit/carbon tax scheme any different?

    What the heck will a ‘carbon tax’ be spent on?
    How will this ‘carbon credit’ system be implemented?
    Who will be in charge of it?
    How will this type of system not be used to advantage those in charge of it?
    What checks and balances will be put in place to mitigate corruption?
    Where’s the transparency in all of this?
    Will the proposed system even work?

    Regardless of whether the carbon thing is a ‘thing’, I just don’t trust the solutions or those proposing them. And, it feels to me that while debate is essential, it’s serving the purposes of those who seek to use the carbon thing (or non-thing tbh I don’t care at this point) as a mechanism for domination and control – and who knows what else.

    Here’s one stellar example from NZ: So called “No till” farming

    From my understanding, it was implemented in NZ to reduce carbon emissions from deep-ploughing.

    Not a scientist but if you could tolerate the observations of a farmer’s kid, I’d be grateful. So, when I was a kid dad would deep-plough the field between crops. This would effectively kill the grass and bury the seeds, allowing the corn crop to grow (probably non gmo in those days). No herbicides required
    Now, for the sake of our planet, to keep that pesky carbon under control, NZ farmers spray ROUNDUP tonnes and tonnes and tonnes of it a year to kill the grass, then seed in the corn (definitely now gmo).
    This practice, apart from being toxic to all life, has damaged the soil biota… I’ll provide links in a part 2 to this post, as am running late. My family – farmers – have noticed how less ‘lush’ the grass is compared with decades ago (ok the Argentine grass beetle devastated the clover which didn’t help, now it’s just urea urea urea). Farm advisor also concurred with dry matter stats, saying that there’s just not the lushness there was 10-20-30 years ago.

    Now, for the first time, NZ authorities will be officially testing for Roundup residues in the groundwater – even mainstream science can’t ignore this ‘inconvenient truth’ anymore.

    How can anyone NOT see the irony in no-till farming? To save the planet from carbon, we need to poison it with Roundup?

    So, yeah – it’s the ‘solutions’ I’m concerned about. One such, the negative impacts of which I have seen before my very eyes.

    I’d be interested in what ya’ll think. I realise this is just an anecdotal account of things.

    • Yes, thanks for your anecdotal story.
      Definitely of value.

    • heartruth,
      I hear ya! I detest “authority mandates”.

      Farming is no easy trick. It is a lot of work.
      Over a decade ago, I would sometimes go to the Organic Farming Trade Shows.

      As you know, I have been following some of the Anti-Fluoridation activity in New Zealand.

      1080 – A trade name Fluoride Poison
      Fluoride is used in a lot of poisons and pesticides, because the -F ion is so poisonous.
      1080 is basically Sodium Fluoride & a strong vinegar mix. (It is manufactured differently)
      I was very alarmed to read about 1080 small pellets being air dropped in New Zealand and Australia. A lot of farmers and ranchers are upset.

      The following 2 minute video on 1080 is very, very disturbing.
      I don’t recommend that any dog lover should watch it, because the video images are haunting.

      • Homey, just a question, the motivation behind the 1080 drop? Can this be sold as anything but irresponsible and insane. Does it matter what is being dropped? Nano sized anything is poisonous to our/wildlife pulmonary systems. Not to mention biological agents attached to said nano-systems. The only differance i see is the available evidence for prosecutions if only there where some venue to hear such crimes. Does common law exist ? I think rule of law is needed, a necessary evil. To be used to modify the wardens abuses of the Queens prison populations. What manner of abuse must people accept before justice is prevailed upon?
        Getting older should improve ones aim and narrow the distractions from the desired target. Good shot.

        • So much insanity exists with the system, I am continually dumbfounded.
          I’m sure you find it that way up towards Tulsa.

          By the way, we sure have been getting a lot of rain down here in recent weeks. Cooler too. 40’s in the mornings.

      • Thanks herrqlys, Fawlty Towers, and HRS for your encouraging responses 🙂

        I apologize for the delay in answering. After I re-read my post, I decided that the least I could do would be to dig around to find out whether my anecdotal account could be supported by historical facts or not.
        Check out my post below if you feel so inclined. Still very much a work in progress, I’ve only been able to skim the articles at this point so may have missed the finer details.

      • 1080 – don’t even get me started on this one! I’ve only just emerged from the modern herbicide-laden version of ‘no-till’ farming rabbit hole. I can feel myself slipping down another rabbit hole… too tempting!

    • Does no-till farming have to be followed by heavy use of weed killers?

      • Nope, hence my referring to it as ‘so-called no-till’.
        Turns this is the ‘modern’ version, which just so happened to be pushed by the agrichemical industry after they invented paraquat (glyphosphate’s predecessor)!
        Check out the links in my post below if you’re interested in the gritty details. 🙂

  7. Zionist bankers, as always working to tax us into slavery.

  8. No-till saga – Part 2
    Clarification/overview – by ‘no-till’ I mean the modern version which uses herbicides. From what I’ve discovered so far, it seems like a valid issue regarding soil health hijacked and ‘guided’ by the agri-chem industry. Here are the results of my descent down the rabbit hole. I’ve not read through everything yet, so may have missed the finer details.

    1) No or low tillage seems to be much better for soil
    • No-till farmer website
    • No-till farm consultants
    • Problems with tillage, advantages of ‘no-till’, application in intensive large-scale commercial agricultural context = herbicides
    No-tillage is a technology driven practice change for farming. The advent of glyphosate in the mid 1970s has offered an opportunity to remove vegetative cover to establish a crop without cultivation.

    Yes, no till can be done without the use of herbicides
    • Permaculture and tillage – Wikipedia
    • Permaculture – about no-till
    • Permaculture, no-till and climate change

    2) No or low tillage and climate change… Monsanto to the rescue!
    Possible historical link between this modern version of ‘no-till’ (i.e. which includes herbicide use), and the invention of paraquat… ya don’t say!
    • Historical review of no-tillage cultivation of crops

    The invention of Paraquat in 1955 and its commercial release in 1961 led the Imperial Chemical Company, ICI, and others, to initiate intensive no-tillage research in the UK, the USA and elsewhere. In 1961 and 1962 demonstration trials were run in several farms in the United States. These demonstration plots led Harry and Lawrence Young from Herndon,
    Kentucky, to apply the novel technology on their farm and became one of the first mechanised farmers in the world to use modern no-tillage crop production.

    Then the whole climate change thing happened… get more bang for your buck. You preserve the integrity of the soil and reduce carbon emissions!
    Here’s Monsanto’s take on things (brace yourselves)
    •‘Benefit and safety of glyphosphate’
    • Monsanto on climate change and tillage
    • Embedded video
    • Monsanto article discussing this in more detail
    • Dr Chuck Rice interview
    • Monstanto pledge report 2005
    Our Roundup agricultural herbicides are useful for conservation tillage. They let farmers control weeds without plowing or hoeing, thereby saving backbreaking labor and conserving soil and water.
    • Population explosion! Feed 9.6 Billion People and be Carbon Neutral: Monsanto’s Plan

    3) Does the evidence show that no-till can significantly mitigate climate change?
    • Could No-Till Farming Reverse Climate Change?
    • Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation

    4) Glyphosphate and negative impact on soil, animals, humans
    • Dr Phillis Tichinin interview
    • Stock feed, impact on animal organs
    • Dr Frank Rowson (Veterinarian, NZ)
    • Independent scientists manifesto on glyphosphate

    … or not, according to Wikipedia?
    Scroll down to ‘soil biota’.

    Hmmmm who to believe…

    • You put together a great piece of work.
      Thanks heartruth.

      • Thanks 🙂 Perhaps to avoid talking myself into a corner and imposing a ‘deadline’, I’ll avoid posting detailed anecdotes until I can provide evidence/sources to support/negate them!

        • I was chuckling to myself the other night when thinking about the topic of “tilling”.

          Before the machine age..
          Historically, many farmers tilled their land.
          Oh yea…they did this because it was fun exercise and they did not want to enroll in a Fitness Club. They had the option of no-till, but decided that they would rather spend many weeks struggling in the heat with backbreaking exercises as they pushed that plow and hoed a row.

          With my organic gardening, I have had mixed results with just digging a small hole for seeds, but no-till. Often the plants are puny.
          Soil gets compacted and needs to breath. In addition, plants compete.

          Farming is a tough risky ballgame. There is a lot of tech to it.

          • Well, there is such a thing as building the soil.
            I’m not the one to denigrate tradition, but good practices can always sustain some scrutiny.

            • You said it building the soil and microbes.
              Healthy soil always has lots of microbial action.

              I once had a lawn of St Augustine grass.
              I don’t do weedkiller pesticides, just pulling by hand.
              In America, the Home Owners Association is always on your back for “pretty lawns”.

              One of the best things I did was to aerate the lawn.
              A machine driven, heavy barrel (with water) which had hollow points rolled across the lawn, pulling up plugs of dirt.
              Of course, I’d spray compost tea and molasses and seaweed around after the ‘holy ground’. Throw on some cornmeal (to keep fungi away) and Greensand and lava sand.

              That grass just choked out the weeds. Very few would sprout. I’m glad, ’cause like most people I’m lazy…probably not as lazy as the average Joe…but I like to economize my efforts.

              Aeration of the soil is important for good microbial action.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member