Christopher Monckton takes a bite from the elephant

The Climate Change hoax is a vast and powerful movement whose objectives have nothing to do with climate and everything with command and control. It is propaganda, not the sleek fast moving stuff we see on TV news – stories and plots that are essentially false and meant to leave a psychic footprint. Rather, it is intense, meant to do great harm, and make fundamental changes in the way we live. CO2 is our friend and benefactor, fossil fuels have made us wealthy, our lives easier. It is no coincidence that these are the primary targets of this insidious movement. The people behind it are lying about everything, but are doing it for our own good. Yikes!

I wonder, given that The Green New Deal intends to remove fossil fuels from our lives, how we will fly or drive from place to place using energy generated by windmills or solar panels. You might suggest electric cars, but any fool can quickly calculate that electricity is a product of fossil files, mostly natural gas and coal. The answer is that we won’t be freely moving about. If you think that goal is farcical, that they don’t really mean it, think again. They intend to introduce fundamental economic changes to the lives of ordinary people. They want to chain us down. Things have gotten out of hand in their minds, too many people, too much wealth, and billions of brown and black people wanting better lives. The Climate Change movement is essentially anti-human.

The subject is well-covered here in past blog posts and in the Blogroll links below.  I am writing to direct your attention to two articles, one by Judith Curry at Climate Etc., and the other by Christopher Monckton at Watts Up With That. The subject is a paper featured in Nature Communications entitled Discrepancies in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians. It is a gauntlet, naming names and libeling people right and left. It’s obvious purposes is to chill the climate skeptic movement. The authors, AM Peterson, EM Vincent and AL Westerling, are apparently intent on getting people who dispute the “science” behind Climate Change to STFU.

I was happily encouraged by the Monckton paper, as he is doing something. He contacted University of California at Merced and the authors. He communication is labeled …

Notice of intended prosecution: Fraud and libel by you.

He means business. Monckton is a man of science and letters, and wealthy to boot. He is going to sue the bastards. Nature Communications has already withdrawn the article from its website in response:

Nature

The others are given seven days to back down before legal action commences.

I don’t know where this will lead. The power behind the Climate Change hoax is immense, one of the largest propaganda campaigns I have ever witnessed. Ron Arnold and Paul Driessen, authors of the 2014 book Cracking the Big Green, are not naive about the odds of success in the face of such indescribably malevolent perfidy. They are simply prepared to dig in and fight a long hard fight, the outcome unknown.

“We don’t propose a revolutionary overthrow, which would be patently impossible, given the current wealth, power and government clout of Big Green, but to find ideas whose time has come and that any person of good will can employ as part of daily living. The process is, some think, like the proverbial riddle “How do you eat an elephant?” with the obvious answer: “One bite at a time.”

11 thoughts on “Christopher Monckton takes a bite from the elephant”

  1. we don’t have to worry about driving anymore – 5G infrastructure will drive for us. LOL – You will never see me in a driver-less car and I imagine most people feel that way.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’d never heard of him, but have no problem aligning with common causes, and this cause, which is not anti-wilderness, is to fight the imposition of a “centralized transformation” of our lives by use of fabricated evidence that relies on groupthink to conceal the fact that we are in no danger.

      I have come uncomfortably close, as I’ve said before, with the right-wing I abandoned so many years ago, and will not return to – I am still a wilderness advocate, an advocate for single payer, for a regulated workplace and fair taxation. I have also been to Climate Change City, and have witnessed the massive fraud behind it. I have found the only people working to expose this fraud are people I don’t have much else in common with. Life is like that.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Mark, have you read or seen any of the information suggesting oil is not a fossil fuel, but is actually abiotic? About five years ago I was able to find a lot of information about this, but wonder of wonders, the information is buried under all kinds of nonsense in search results now. Here’s a link to a video that gives a pretty good summary of why the utterly preposterous and never proven HYPOTHESIS of oil being a fossil fuel continues to be promoted as a fact despite the complete lack of supporting evidence, and all kinds of evidence that the hypothesis is false: https://prepareforchange.net/2017/01/27/oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-it-is-an-abiotic-a-self-regenerating-compound/

    (Spoiler Alert: It has something to do with the Rockefellers and creating the illusion of scarcity to corner the market and drive up prices.)

    Like

    Reply

    1. I have heard of that theory, and give it weight. My own experience in natural gas is that wells never fully deplete, and if capped, build up a head, as if the supply underneath is being recharged.

      I am working, idly, on a speculative idea that the “climate emergency” movement, once known as AGW, once known as climate change, coincides with fracking, and immense new supplies of oil and gas, centuries worth recently opened up. Given that oil is the key to wealth, health and better lives, AND more people, it seems logical that an anti-CO2/ anti-oil/gas/ anti-human movement like climate emergency, with such immense power behind it, so many lying liars who are never called to task for their lies, emerges at the same time.

      Like

      Reply

      1. As you work on your speculative theory, I hope you will look more at the history of the fossil fuel hypothesis. I wrote a paper about it years ago for an undergrad class–a paper my professor rolled his eyes at, of course. Google isn’t cooperating with me now the way it did then so I can’t find the name of the guy who first proposed the fossil fuel idea. As I recall though, it was basically just a notion that he pulled out of his ass and published as a hypothesis with absolutely zero scientific evidence, but the Rockefellers found it to be a very useful hypothesis indeed. I also recall reading that Russia drastically expanded its wealth through oil thanks to the work of geologists who have published innumerable papers that work from the abiotic theory. The fossil fuel hypothesis isn’t even discussed among serious Russian scientists. The illusion of oil’s scarcity is intricately tied to the climate change hoax, I think. The elite want to maintain total control over natural resources that are abundant and beneficial and should be freely available to all.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I will do so. I recall maybe 20 years ago reading Alexander Cockburn saying that Russians had an abiotic theory of fossil fuels, and that it was not as absurd as Westerners imagined. That was my first exposure. On the other side, petroleum geologists, conventional thinkers anyway, will tell you that natural gas bubbles up in the Louisiana swamps, a classic fallacy in assuming that coincidence is cause.

          Geez, so many topics! My first project today is to take some photographs of our Colorado television “meteorologists,” which supports my theory that beautiful people are usually not smart people because they never needed to develop their brains. Their looks opened the doors. That’s pretty well known, but I thought I could give it a nice humorous treatment.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment