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.
SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=17205
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
Enlighting as always
Trying to solve or prove what causes global climate is hard to narrow down predict or even suggest. There are tremendous amount of things effecting it. That doesn't mean we have to drink the kooliade they are giving us when it is clearly bull shit. Here's some unpopular theories that science doesn't have the funding to make studies of. Does chem-trails cause hurricanes? Does the HARPP system cause drought? Do solar fluctuations cause extreme weather conditions? How could all three of these factors effect the climate? Why have these projects still remained silent and out of discussion of a global issue? They have found the chemicals in the soil from the chem-trails. Corbett's is simply saying one size fits all answers are comforting to our brains but they are often false and just bad science. The world is shades of black, white and mostly grey.
The USA Luciferian Air Force continues to implement the weather warfare in the present moment, as it has done seamlessly over seven decades. Therefore EVERYTHING the govt(s) reports deserves base rejection, in fact survival of mankind and all life on the planet requires eradication of statism in totality or the threat of near-term planetary omnicide is a lock.
There is no time to entertain those who embrace the cult of statism. Geo-engineering has destroyed the ozone layer and the globalists are simply manipulating the herd with perception deceptions while methane rises to facilitate a runaway greenhouse event.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
With each new column on this subject, I have less and less respect for Corbett. I am also beginning to wonder why he is pushing so hard to have people not take climate change seriously. Is he being blackmailed - everyone has something in his past. Does he need the money and is being paid ? Is he just an egomaniac who thinks his judgment is better than those with scientific backgrounds and extensive experience? I am now beginning to wonder if his reporting on other subjects is this sloppy?
It is a sad thing when websites or reporters that you once trusted seem to change for the worse.
I'm not sure what to make of all of this right now. I think Corbett has raised some valid points and is on the money with governments having an incentive to skew things in a way that justifies their own agendas (i.e. carbon taxation and covert eugenics).
However, with that said, we don't need any scientific or governmental body to verify for us that "we" have fucked a lot of things up on this planet and really do need to keep pushing in the direction of reducing our impact on this earth if we plan to survive here as a species.
It is useful to understand what covert agendas are at play within the environmental movement, but it would be good in the future to see James discuss the facts regarding our environmental crisis and explore ideas on how we can work together as a species to overcome them, without centralised authorities dictating things on their terms.
timshell83 -
For goodness sake, get a clue!
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
I have been fortunate to learn from a great thinker that science is the “known desire to know,” and that obviously having a conclusion and then fitting the data to support it is diametrically opposed to that.
Corbett’s use of Popper is dishonest because he is using the local variations in climate, and opposing conjectures of the particular effects of climate change to disqualify the larger picture. Particular variations in climate are all over the place in different locales, and different in the same locale, and there are opposing theories as to particular effects in the same locale at the same time. NONE of this refutes the fact that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, and that humanity is contributing to that rise. NOTHING Corbett writes refutes the greenhouse effect itself.
You can TRY and refute global warming by showing that CO2 levels are falling over a long period of years OR by showing the greenhouse effect does not work on a global scale OR by showing that overall GLOBAL temperatures are dropping over a long period of years. It is a global picture not what is happening locally that is of great concern. And dishonest conceited pundits like Corbett should have their names inscribed in stone so that someday we will remember who dishonestly delayed our response to global warming.
Strange of you to say this given the fact that all these posts are old reports he has done.
Also, if you're wondering if Corbett's reporting on other subjects is sloppy or not, that indicates you never fact-checked any report Corbett does when Corbett himself says multiple times to not take his word as fact but to actually do the research yourself.
Same thing here, you did the research and came up with different conclusions? Good, keep them for yourself or start your own channel and spread them. As far as I see it, Corbett has done his homework and is on point here. He doesn't say "let's keep going with fossil fuels" or "CO2 is good for the environment". He merely points out the pseudoscience of so-called "Climate Change". He doesn't say the climate/weather isn't changing, he merely says it's not changing in the way "mainstream" says it's changing and it's not because of the reasons "mainstream" says.
If you actually think Corbett is some sort of "shill" or (as you put it) "egomaniac who thinks his judgement is better than those with scientific backgrounds and extensive experience" then go listen to "those with cientific backgrounds and extensive experience" and leave "us" "maniacs" to "maniac" in peace =)
I have been fortunate to learn from a great thinker that science is the “known desire to know,” and that obviously having a conclusion and then fitting the data to support it is diametrically opposed to that.
Corbett’s use of Popper is dishonest because he is using the local variations in climate, and opposing conjectures of the particular effects of climate change to disqualify the larger picture. Particular variations in climate are all over the place in different locales, and different in the same locale, and there are opposing theories as to particular effects in the same locale at the same time. NONE of this refutes the fact that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, and that humanity is contributing to that rise. NOTHING Corbett writes refutes the greenhouse effect itself.
You can TRY and refute global warming by showing that CO2 levels are falling over a long period of years OR by showing the greenhouse effect does not work on a global scale OR by showing that overall GLOBAL temperatures are dropping over a long period of years. It is a global picture not what is happening locally that is of great concern. And dishonest conceited pundits like Corbett should have their names inscribed in stone so that someday we will remember who dishonestly delayed our response to global warming.
Copy+pasting the same reply 4 times. Clearly you didn't read anything anyone here wrote. Good luck and take care.
But you say nothing about what I wrote. Attacking me may be a pleasing diversion, but it does not really address the issue.
Lol, I say nothing about what you wrote? You're the one who didn't say anything about what I wrote, or the other 3 people you replied to with the same text. And I'm not going to say, it's clear to me that the one doing the "attack" is you on Corbett. Now when other people express their opinion, it's an "attack" on you. Give me a break. Bye
damantanor -
Thank you for your clear reply dismissal to timshel83 per their strategic avoidance of dialogue.
It seems rational that Corbett's implementation of returning the denial in kind to the traitors in academia, military, medicine, pharma, politics, media etc is likely the most effective endgame strategy of resistance against the narrative of global warming which denies climate engineering.
Traitors are not entitled to debate. Neither are they entitled to charity or forgiveness after failing in an endgame commitment of deceit characterized by an absence of redemption through acts of their own volition. Love does not imply pacifism.
The arrogance of psychotics is the "tell" that never stops giving. If one studies the video of Trump delivering his laughable speech at the UN, it mirrors the collective shedding of any care to hide their agenda(s). In my perception this suggests the velocity of endgame implementation strategies is immediate or already finalized. Perhaps Corbett's reinforced response of fixated climate posts mirror that reality? I hope so.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
You still do not deal with the issues.
Lmao. The UN lay out a report and said that we have 12 years to save the planet. What year is that? 2030. What's that agenda the UN came out with in 2015? Hmm...Oh yeah! Agenda 2030.
It's all brainwashing! You need to go through Corbett's coverage of this agenda. Maybe you'd see the wool that your toxic media is pulling over your eyes.
I have been fortunate to learn from a great thinker that science is the “known desire to know,” and that obviously having a conclusion and then fitting the data to support it is diametrically opposed to that.
Corbett’s use of Popper is dishonest because he is using the local variations in climate, and opposing conjectures of the particular effects of climate change to disqualify the larger picture. Particular variations in climate are all over the place in different locales, and different in the same locale, and there are opposing theories as to particular effects in the same locale at the same time. NONE of this refutes the fact that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, and that humanity is contributing to that rise. NOTHING Corbett writes refutes the greenhouse effect itself.
You can TRY and refute global warming by showing that CO2 levels are falling over a long period of years OR by showing the greenhouse effect does not work on a global scale OR by showing that overall GLOBAL temperatures are dropping over a long period of years. It is a global picture not what is happening locally that is of great concern. And dishonest conceited pundits like Corbett should have their names inscribed in stone so that someday we will remember who dishonestly delayed our response to global warming.
James your one of best journalist out there.
timshel83 it sounds like your not able to see new ideas with an open mind, which will eventually be a major blow to your ego.
damantanor very well said, I really appreciate your rebuttal.
I have been fortunate to learn from a great thinker that science is the “known desire to know,” and that obviously having a conclusion and then fitting the data to support it is diametrically opposed to that.
Corbett’s use of Popper is dishonest because he is using the local variations in climate, and opposing conjectures of the particular effects of climate change to disqualify the larger picture. Particular variations in climate are all over the place in different locales, and different in the same locale, and there are opposing theories as to particular effects in the same locale at the same time. NONE of this refutes the fact that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, and that humanity is contributing to that rise. NOTHING Corbett writes refutes the greenhouse effect itself.
You can TRY and refute global warming by showing that CO2 levels are falling over a long period of years OR by showing the greenhouse effect does not work on a global scale OR by showing that overall GLOBAL temperatures are dropping over a long period of years. It is a global picture not what is happening locally that is of great concern. And dishonest conceited pundits like Corbett should have their names inscribed in stone so that someday we will remember who dishonestly delayed our response to global warming.
Great comment I mostly agree. However, the effects of climate change are done with simulations that are just continually adjusted until they get the result they want or else they lose funding.
If you read the sceptical environmentalist it makes the solid case with long term data that shows every aspect of the environment is getting better except for global warming. But it also shows the harm from climate change is much lower than people predict and mostly effects poor people on coast lines and barely fertile land. It also happens slowly over 100 years where future tech will drastically reduce harm. Additionally the large majority of the damage to the air was done during the industrial revolution, so cutting back on co2 emissions will have negligible consequence. Basically he proves that of the top 20 most harmful things to humanity, it is the worst use of money and putting any significant money into stopping climate change is a waste. For every life saved by cutting emissions hundreds could be saved by investing in other problems like mosquito nets. Bill gates knows where to invest in humanity.
So.. you cite a scientific paper on pseudoscience and use mainstream news article headlines to prove your point? Did you not find any papers on climate change that served your narrative?
Also... do you not believe in man made climate change at all or do you not believe that some extreme weather conditions are caused by it? Because I don’t know how people still find it hard to believe that we could have an impact on the ecosystem of our planet. The world’s population increased from about 2B to roughly 8B in the last 100 years while many nations heavily industrialized.
Do you believe one meteor could have changed the atmosphere enough to kill all dinosaurs?
I think that the fact there is no solar information applied to any fluctuations in the earths temperatures is very UNSCIENTIFIC❗️We all belong to part of a bigger picture . The solar system is not static . They’re using static models❗️ Meaning as if though the rest of the solar system doesn’t matter⁉️ I’m not an expert , but that can’t be right . I mean since when in science do you omit a variable⁉️ A big one at that . THE SUN .
I am far from not trusting the Theory of Evolusion, natural selection mechanism seems legit.
Nevertheless, i wonder does not the Theory of Evolution also explain too much? In the same way as "global worming" is used to explain all fenomenas?
Out class perfact.
.