You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience
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
While I wouldn't go so far and say "Traitors are not entitled to debate. Neither are they entitled to charity or forgiveness" - In the virtual world, I really have no patience for these kinds of debates.
timshel83 clearly never researched anything that he's talking about, and to people who have this kind of mentality, there really is nothing one can say online.
But we must not forget that only through Unity of our Souls can we ever get out of this mess. So while online I will never debate these "traitors", in real life I would never say that they aren't entitled to forgiveness. The Elite doesn't forgive so we must forgive, this is our strength.
Much love and thank you for the kind words.
damantanor -
Yes, there is no separateness and therefore a conscious person forgives as there is no other recourse when the unrepentant one is unconscious. A conscious person can not initiate aggression against others as it would be recognized as an aggression against self. However holding an individual accountable is an act of respect as surely as vengeance is an act of justice. Forgiveness manifests a release of the conscious person, yet may be conditionally meaningless to the unconscious one. This is because forgiveness is not divorced from repentance and acceptance from within facilitated by termination of the aggression(s). Consciousness is strength and reward.
Only love will get "us" out of this mess, and as the enemy population is diverse and perhaps beyond identification, I'm inclined to expect that some are meant to stay here in the mess. In fact I highly suspect they are passionately engaged and committed to it.
Thank you for the conversation. Sorry to have delay in replies as I'm most often at my farm where there is no broadband and an endless stream of work to keep me occupied for days and nights without leave.
Have a very nice evening.
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.