Narcissistic malevolence

I borrowed the phrase Narcissistic Malevolence from Jordan Peterson. He used it in reference to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who banned six million unvaccinated Canadians from traveling for months after the rest of the world had eased up on this insane and punitive policy. When I heard him use it, I immediately thought of Joe Biden and the leaders of the Climate Change Alarmist movement.

These people are malevolent. They want to harm us. They claim that CO2 is the control knob for climate change, and then set out to destroy nuclear power, which is CO2-free. I had a long conversation with Gaia and Ab about nuclear, as they claim that power plants merely absorb excess energy to keep the grid from boiling over. All I can say at this point is if nuclear power is an illusion, it is a grand one. I need to explore more than I have. Just understand that on the surface, shutting down nuclear plants directly contradicts any real desire to rein in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Climate alarmists are harming us with record gasoline prices and shortages of energy in Europe and England and Australia. But the long-term outlook is even more depressing, as they continue to push renewable energy even as they know it cannot replace fossil fuels. How do I know they know this? Because of the malevolence, the desire to harm us. Solar and wind contributes hardly anything to our net energy use, yet Biden is using that as a lever to shut down coal and oil production. He can read, he can even interpret a graph, and so knows exactly what he is doing.

I use the term “Biden” even as I know he appears to be an addled old fool. I long ago disabused myself of the notion that presidents are in charge of anything but reading teleprompters. I do not imagine he knows WTF he is talking about, any more than supposed Climate Scientists do. Biden is just a figurehead reading a Teleprompter, saying “Go fuck yourself San Diego.” (That’s a reference to Ron Burgundy and the movie Anchorman, in case you wonder why I suddenly let go with verbal abuse of a beautiful city.)

I just got done listening to a talk by Patrick Moore. I am linking to it rather than embedding it, as it is almost an hour long, and I cannot make such a claim on other people’s time. What I liked about the talk was the images and graphs he used. Generally speaking, most people do not know how to read a graph, so they do not convey useful information to targeted audience. My idea here is to keep it simple and add a brief description to a few of the graphs provided by Moore.

So I say I am going to keep it simple, and right away I hit you with spaghetti on the wall, right? But this graph is easy to interpret. It covers the last 570 million years, probably derived from Antarctic ice cores. The blue line is temperature, and there is no scale. However, our current temperature is about 14°C or 57°F, represented on the far right. All I can make of the blue line then is that in times past it has been much warmer, and at times much colder than now.

The purple line is CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that is what makes this a simple graph to understand. Do you see a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature? Me neither. CO2 levels have been four times higher than now during ice ages! CO2 levels have been trending downward for ages, as can be seen by the bright green line. Plant life needs at least 180 PPM of CO2 to survive.

Do you see the red arrow, lower right? I put that there. If you note on the purple line, there is a slight uptick in CO2 today compared to the past. That tiny little uptick, insignificant, is what has everyone on the alarmist side in a tither.

This graph should be straightforward and easily understood.The longest running record of measured temperatures using thermometers is called HadCET, or Hadley Centre Central England Temperature dateset. This graph runs from 1659 to 2009. As you can see, temperatures have increased from slightly below 9°C to slightly less than 10°C in the 350 years shown on the graph, or about .03°C per century. Is that worrisome? No.

The black line represents CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Do you see any correlation between temperature and CO2? Yeah. Me neither.

Just for shits and giggles, I am placing the Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” as featured in Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth. I sized it up as much as I could because it represents 1,000 years compared to HadCET’s 350. From the red arrow, which I inserted, to the far right, is the data covered by HadCET. Do you see what I see? Mann has temperatures increasing by .5°C in the 20th century alone! This is completely at odds with HadCET, which shows perhaps 10% of that warming, if that.

Where did Mann get his data? Why is he at such odds with HadCET?

Mann did a lot of cherry picking, and avoided actual temperature records where possible. It was as if he was on a mission, to create a frightening image to scare people into believing that the planet is burning up. Since it is not, and since he is smart enough to know that, I think it safe to say he is paid to mislead us. That is all I can make of him and his junk science.

This one is easy to grasp – polar bear populations. Most people do not know that they were in severe decline in the 1950s, and were rescued by a 1973 treaty among arctic nations (Russia, Norway, US, Greenland and Canada) to stop hunting them (often enough for trophies). Since that time, the polar bear population stabilized, and then exploded to the point where Inuit people are now saying there are too many of them, and too many funerals as a result.

The population of polar bears is thriving. Is there anything more to say? Climate alarmists claim they are threatened by loss of sea ice, but that just another scare tactic. Arctic sea ice fluctuates and is currently robust.

The entire Arctic freezes over every winter. Did you know that?

This is a composite satellite image of the Pacific Ocean, done in such a way that no clouds are visible. If you look to the left of North America, about an inch out, you’ll see a small dot. Those are the Hawaiian Islands.

Above is a drawn image representing the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. They say it is twice the size of Texas, but I make it out to be almost as big as Alaska.

Here is the point: It does not exist. If it did, we would be able to spot it on the satellite image above, where we could even see Hawaii.

Why do they lie like that? I suppose they want to keep us on the edge of our seats, never allowing us to relax, never admitting that there really is no clear and present danger from climate or human interaction with climate. So they just make shit up.

Above is said to be the GPGP and efforts to contain it, to even clean it up. Do you notice anything out of place? Look where they place the GPGP in the image directly above this one, in the middle of the ocean and far off the coast of North America. What do you see in this photo? That’s right … land. This photo was taken in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster that killed 20,000 people. The land is Japan. These people have no compunction about just flat out lying when it suits their ends.

By the way, plastic in the ocean is a problem. Most of it comes not from consumer goods, but rather fishing vessels that dump all of their used nets and lines overboard. Moore says we need an international agreement to force fishing boats to carry their debris home with them for disposal on land. They will not act unless forced to act, as it is not economical for them. It’s a problem for all.

Moore goes on in his talk to discuss how the Great Barrier Reef is healthy and not threatened. Climate alarmists like to use things like that because they are far away and invisible. The whole matter, as presented by Moore, is complicated and not easily visualized, so I suggest if you are interested to pick up in the video at 34:30.

In 2019 Netflix ran an episode of Our Planet claiming to show a bloody death scene of Walruses in the Arctic, blaming it on climate change. David Attenborough, who sacrificed his personal integrity and lost all credibility (at least outside climate alarmism circles) to advance this hoax, narrated. The claim that receding ice makes it impossible for walruses to hook up after calves are born led to them jumping off a cliff wall to their death, en masse.

It’s a lie, that is, these events, called “haul outs” have been going on for centuries, and are more extreme now as the walrus population is thriving, numbers are higher than ever before. It appears that having lost the polar bear wars, climate alarmists merely moved on to a new “threatened” species.

There’s another factor involved, a hunting tactic used by polar bears. A group of about twenty of them charged the walrus herd from behind, leaving them no choice but to be killed or to jump to their deaths. Those that chose the latter ended up a bloody mess on the beach, and there was a polar bear feeding frenzy.

Being a wild animal is no easy life.

[By the way, the camera crew that worked for BBC and Attenborough himself would have to have known the facts stated above. This makes them boldfaced liars knowingly running a scam on us.]


That’s a wrap, and far more work than I planned to do, but fun, nonetheless. As is apparent, the climate change alarmists are without conscience, and far more scheming and dishonest than anyone (but a few of us) knows. They succeed in their bizarre lies because of media support, wall-to-wall propaganda, as Rappaport calls it. We can only do what we do, fight lies with truth, and call liars and cowards out into the light of sunshine.

42 thoughts on “Narcissistic malevolence

  1. Did you see the video where a minister of the Canadian Parliament called in with the question of why Klaus Schwab was bragging that he and the WEF had placed half of the members of parliament into office? For some reason they lost the video feed real quick

    Liked by 2 people

  2. we’ve been two times on Maledives, like 20 years ago and back then it was also said, the reefs are in bad condition. How can I tell? We’ve also been snorkeling in the Red Sea and the reefs are not said to be in bad condition but looked very similar to me. There are some colored and some gray places, always lots of fishes, turtles, even sharks. How do they know, that corals don’t like it when water gets a little bit warmer?
    All this global climate changes claims are based on the assumption that one can somehow calculate a kind of average temperature and tell if this average temperature changes. How can you calculate an average temperature if it falls on rainy days and nights and increases if there are no clouds or if winds move some warm air over? You cannot. Or to be more precise, you can calculate it but it has no value. And besides temperature sensors are not very accurate. You can measure the difference between two temperatures pretty accurately using the same sensor (relative measurement), but measurements on two different places with two different sensors have an error of say +- 1°C at least (absolute measurement). And they claim an increase of temperature in the range of 0.1°C in ten years or something like that derived from millions of measurements made with different sensors from different times. Just try to measure your own temperature with a few different thermometers or even with the same thermometer a few times and you’ll get differences too. Their sensors are not better the most of them worse because they are decades old.


    1. Your usual excess of certainty about lack of certainty is at work here. It is true that temperature measurements are not, in the short term, reliable. But if you pay attention to HadCET, you’ll see something not seen in the short term, consistency over time. That is when measurements come into play, and when climate and temperature variability is on display and why it can be ignored.

      Anthony Watts has been investigating the measurement stations in the US, documenting each one, showing that most of them are poorly located. Even so, a poorly located station that registers too-high temperatures (most of them) can still capture trends over time. So it is that I have on hand here a 100 year record for every state in the lower 48 American states showing that the long term trend is only an ever-so-slight rise in temperatures, even as they are probably higher than reality. That is useful information, countering the claim by others that we are achieving record highs (the 1930s are the hottest decade on record, still standing as so, and no one knows why). They are playing with numbers, ignoring the past, even, where possible, changing the record of the past. It is insidious lying, done by people of massive low character and integrity, hired hands completely without scruples.

      Coral reefs are fine, by the way, if you bothered to look at the Moore presentation where I indicated. I marvel that all the effort that goes into writing a post like this serves as a basis for a quick and light skim (if even that) and then as a launch pad for unrelated speculation.


  3. that’s my common sense Mark. They manipulate the data anyway and the measurement error is a constant too. A location becomes bad if the environment changes. For instance a station at the airport may be fine as long as the airport is constantly busy. What I meant is, that the calculation of an average temperature makes as much sense as the calculation of an average phone number. As for Moore presentation, how can you see, if the reef gets worse? Even if on one place the reef completely dies and everything becomes just gray, which is nowhere the case, what would it mean? That the place became inhabitable or that the reef just died? Simple organisms replicate and reproduce but nothing lives forever. I remember some time ago some kind of garden bamboo which was replicated by splitting not by seeds suddenly just died in many places pretty much at the same time because it was the same plant and it’s time came. Reefs grow slow and we still don’t know much about that. The reefs we talk about are the same reefs Jacques Cousteau has seen back then.


    1. Yes, average is meaningless, mostly, but changes over time, which is what HadCET measures, are meaningful. This is also what I have in my office here, all of the NOAA data from 1918 to 2018, and while at the very same time that Anthony Watts is saying that most measuring stations are on heat islands, it doesn’t matter in the long run if you are measuring change (which, incidentally, is so slight as to not matter).

      The deal with coral reefs is not their relative health, which I assume is fine, but rather this: Climate alarmists use them because they know you cannot see them and that you are not going there anyway. That’s why Moore named his book INVISIBLE CATASTROPHES and Threats of Doom, the key word invisible. I had a local naturalist tell me that Siberia is going to hell now, or so she read, and she’s very good at confirmation bias. The point was, of course, that she’s not able to witness it herself. If someone had told her that Colorado is going to hell, she could stick her head our her window and see it is not true.

      “They manipulate data anyway” is so broad brush that I don’t assign any value to that statement. For the most part, they do not. If data does not support them, they ignore it. Polar bear populations are robust and healthy, so they are now talking about walruses, and lying, but at a location so remote that no one can go there, an invisible catastrophe. My NOAA data is not manipulated, and the book it is in has on the cover “”A book that NOAA should have published.” The author had to pull it all down from NOAA himself, as NOAA has it but does not promote or publish it, as it does not support the alarmist agenda. But it is public information, accessible to all of us.


  4. One person’s consciousness is subjective based on unique circumstances and experiences, or so I believe, and I’m no expert. This means that from the get-so, all scientific inquiry seems to be biased in favor of the observer. I have, however, found some biologists who are working on new hypotheses that refute this, although they must accept the premise in order to refute it. Odd, but common, I have found, among “big thinkers.” What almost none of these scientific approaches to understanding human minds considers is the non-material, or psychic (used interchangeably with “spirit,” or “soul”) factors which dominate human existence, IMO, not by (voluntary) consciousness, but by (involuntary) “unconsciousness.” why dismiss unconsciousness? Is it not an indispensable element in determining the whole mental picture in individuals, and in society and culture? Extreme bias?

    Here is one such effort:
    ” Consciousness thus differs from other biological phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology, but this subjective ontology does not prevent us from having an epistemically objective science of consciousness.”

    To me this seems like “pretzel logic” at play.

    Pre-supposition and subjectivity in consciousness seems pretty SOP to me, whether in climate change “science” or coral reef “science” or whatever arbitrary part of nature one chooses to understand. Study the parts and “glue the pieces” back together to
    understand the whole? More foolishness, IMO. Someday, conquest of nature may seem foolish. I’m not holding my breath, but would consider such an evolutionary change in attitude as a gift from the universe.


    1. That’s pretty over-my-head. I did read a book long ago on the mystery of consciousness, and all the inherent problems not only with subjectivity, but with the idea that we do not understand how we came to be as conscious beings.

      Regarding coral reefs, they seem to survive without human support or interference. Climate alarmists selected them for endangerment because they are far away and invisible. It’s a fairly dishonest enterprise they do.


  5. Very interesting video. I watched from the 30 minute time stamp then went back & watched from the beginning. Moore engenders trust with his explanations & exposes much , as you showed. However, the following points prick my discernment radar –
    He believes in nuclear weapons
    He firmly believes in nuclear power – fakeologist, as you have mentioned, MM & another I watched whose video I frustratingly cannot find & whose name I cannot remember (not helpful, I know, but I will look back & try to find) make very strong cases against these.
    He says chlorine in water is non-toxic – chlorine (bleach) in water is very different from sodium chloride, a combination as he says essential to life. The constituents not being the same as the whole – pure chlorine into the gut destroys the balance of gut bacteria which in turn play a huge part in normal balanced immune function. Just because an element is in the periodic table does not mean it is safe to eat or drink in its pure form. C in water could be at least partly responsible for many variations of health challenges originating in the gut.
    He say plastic around food is non-toxic – he is of course right when he says that plastic is of life origin, but misleading, because whereas coal & wood are entirely natural, plastic is a synthetic combination of natural substances & can leach particular individual toxins into food (bpa, synthetic oestrogens for example) which can contribute to cancer development, especially when in contact with fat (cheese, cream, milk, crisps, etc) or subject to sunlight or heat (water/other drinks in plastic bottles, tins, tetrapaks etc).
    He alludes to GMO being an invisible threat – GMO is messing with nature by definition & its effects are unknown at best & potentially problematic – why eat something which has been messed with when we can’t know whether it’s safe or not? Not enough time has gone by since its inception to know & caution is sensible.
    He is on YouTube, un-censored, with a (fascinating & no doubt considerably true) line which is contrary to the popular agenda, outing climate change lies & individuals & catching the attention of conspiracy realists, & yet his talk is lightly peppered with the misrepresentations above.
    Puzzled & interested. Perhaps he is partly CO too?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Always a source of concern on my part that when we encounter someone with whom we are not in complete harmony, as I am not with Moore (in matters of nuclear weapons and power I am simply ignorant) to label them CO, a way of declaring yourself right and him wrong on complicated matters, and ruling out the possibility that he is right and you wrong. A little more humility is in order.


      1. I’m not labelling him, just wondering, & wondering what you thought. Have no doubt I’m humble. The points I raised are just subjects on which I have knowledge & simply using my discernment as best I could to try to puzzle things out. Upon which you help me by raising these subjects & permitting this exchange of ideas.



          “Allow Golden Rice Now” campaign – Campaign Leader – Dr. Patrick Moore

          Following are Moore’s collaborators:

          The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board
          The International Rice Research Institute
          Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
          Helen Keller International
          United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
          US National Institutes of Health
          The Rockefeller Foundation
          Bayer CropScience
          Syngenta Foundation
          Philippine Rice Research Institute
          Bangladesh Rice Research Institute
          Biosafety Resources Network
          Biotechnology Institute of the Philippines
          Seed Stories

          The American Medical Association
          The American Assn for the Advancement of Science
          The World Health Organization
          The National Academy of Sciences
          The Royal Society of Medicine (UK)
          The European Commission
          The American Council on Science and Health
          The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
          The American Society for Cell Biology
          The American Society for Microbiology
          The American Society of Plant Sciences
          The International Seed Foundation
          The International Society of African Scientists
          The Federation of Animal Science Societies
          The Society of Toxicology
          The French Academy of Science
          The Union of German Academies
          The Royal Society of London
          The US National Academy of Sciences
          The Brazilian Academy of Sciences
          The Chinese Academy of Sciences
          The Indian National Science Academy
          The Mexican Academy of Science
          Fourteen Science Academies of Italy
          The Third World Academy of Sciences


          1. Thank you, Stephers. You saved me from having to lay out the whole idiotic — probably totally fabricated — rise and fall of Greenpeace. Like all sectors that comprise western pop culture, the high-visibility heroes in the so-called environmental movement, the ones being marched out to center stage, are (lifetime) actors.


            1. If Moore is controlled opposition, he is certainly not harming my causes. That he once belonged to Greenpeace, young and naive, fine. That he then was dispatched as controlled opposition, burden of proof on you.

              The only person I have ever met that I am certain was controlled opposition was John Gatchell. Stephers’ list is a list, her implication that each of these names is a compromised entity, Burden of proof, on you. She did not save you from anything. Get busy.


              1. MT,

                I have little problem with his climate science stance . . . Your position, in that regard, seems poised, learned, and fair.

                However, when it comes to Moore’s exploits and ventures in biotech/GMOs/genetic engineering, PVC manufacturing, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, mining, etc., the guy is – simply stated – an industry/corporate propagandist (think TOXINS).


                In addition to nuclear power, forestry, biotech, plastics and chemical issues, Greenspirit consults on pharmaceutical issues. In a January 20, 2009, op/ed in the Seattle Times, Moore wrote that it is “inevitable that a small amount of ingested pharmaceuticals will eventually show up at trace levels in wastewater,” Greenpeace activist turned industry PR consultant Patrick Moore writes in an op/ed. “The Pharmaceutical Assessment and Transport Evaluation (PhATE) model has been developed by industry as a tool to estimate concentrates of pharmaceutical residues in surface waters. … But some activist organizations still push for costly and unnecessary controls. In Washington, Oregon and Illinois, for example, interest groups who believe that any trace amount of any compound in wastewater must be stopped at all cost are proposing an elaborate take-back plan.” At the end of the op/ed, Moore is simply identified as “an adviser to government and industry.” [1]

                Moore’s colleague at Greenspirit Strategies, Tom Tevlin, told the Center for Media and Democracy that the PR firm does count pharmaceutical companies among its clients. However, Tevlin would not name them. [2] The PhATE model that Moore praised in his op/ed was developed by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the major U.S. drug industry group. [3]

                It should be noted that Moore’s colleague, Tom Tevlin, is intimately involved with the United Nations:


                In short, we help companies, associations and governments get their sustainability priorities straight, and then tell their stories truthfully and clearly.

                Specialties: Communications planning and execution particularly in the mining, energy and natural resources sectors, reputation management, coalition-building, stakeholder relations, crisis communications, strong advocacy, managed media relations, storytelling, public speaking, community relations, government relations at all levels, social media management, speech writing, editing and a calm, measured approach to a sometimes chaotic world. (Translation = spinning/weaving weaponized narrative)

                After ten years of public campaigning, I stepped down from the leadership of the group and with two partners (Trevor Figueiredo and Dr. Patrick Moore) I opened up a new agency, focusing on sustainability strategy and communications in energy, mining, forestry, agriculture, pharma and chemicals.


                Liked by 1 person

                1. Who was the pair, Lester and Parker, who claim ed that any level of ingestion of any toxin was dangerous … the Parsefus Fallacy (definitely sp) or something like that. I never bought it for a second and live by the notion that we can indeed ingest any poison in small amounts and not be affected. As the old saying goes, the solution to pollution is dilution.

                  I found nothing offensive in Moore’s book.


                    1. Nothing alarming there. You should track down an essay by Moore on why he left Greenpeace. It does not sound to me like he was dispatched to be controlled opposition. He said that he was the only one in group leadership with a science background, and that while saving whales does not require that, things like GMO’s and golden rice indeed do. I am not all or nothing about GMO’s, by the way. Most of the food we eat has been modified in some sense. The scary GMO label does not bother me.

                      Farm versus wild salmon, a lot of scary talk there, but here’s what’s also true: At Whole Foods wild king salmon is $40 per pound, and the reason is that human fishing threatens the species. In Alaska there are many restrictions on fishing salmon, halibut, crabs, due to human pressure. Farm salmon relieves pressure on wild populations.

                      Pick your poison.


              2. The following is proof of nothing, but then again, I have nothing to prove.

                Moore can be forgiven for his Greenpeace participation. Greenpeace, however, no way, no how. He may still hold strong feelings if he was led astray then.

                “From 1990–1994 he was a member of the British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy[36][37] and founded and chaired the B.C. Carbon Project. In 1991, he joined the board of the Forest Alliance of BC, an initiative of the CEOs of the major forest companies in British Columbia. As chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance he spent ten years developing the Principles of Sustainable Forestry, which were later adopted by much of the industry.[38][39] In 1991, Moore also founded Greenspirit to “promote sustainable development from a scientific environmental platform”.[40] In 2002, Tom Tevlin and Trevor Figueiredo joined Moore to form the environmental consultancy company Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.”

                “In 2010, Moore was recruited to represent the Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), a multi-national accused by activist groups of widespread and illegal rainforest clearance practices, although this is strongly disputed by Moore.[44]”

                More on Moore: “Moore also delves into topics that will be critical to improving the environment in the next decade, including how we are rapidly adopting sustainable forest practices around the world. Moore explains what really makes a building green and how trees might one day replace gasoline as a major transportation fuel.”

                I did not accuse Moore of being controlled opposition. When you go over to the other side in the logging/clearcutting debate, you are the opposition. And biomass (burning trees for transport fuel and electricity) is in my book, pure evil.

                To better understand Moore’s “sustainable development” strategies, please see: UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).


                1. I suggest the proof is in the (golden rice) pudding:
                  “Rewiring the grain”


                  Moore’s extensive and pivotal synthetic biology endeavors (in forestry, agriculture, and aquaculture) lead us directly back to COVID and toxin-ation (“vaccination”). He and his biotech buddies (Syngenta, supported by Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation are re-assembling life on this planet:

                  Just as a “virus” is a cover story for rewiring humans (to synthesize a synthetic “spike protein”), so too is Moore’s narrative of vitamin A deficiency (rewiring rice to synthesize synthetic beta-carotene). He is a spin doctor.

                  But none of these claims were true. Not only was Golden Rice not “already saving the sight of thousands of children”, there was no evidence to support the claim that it was capable of doing so.

                  The moral of the story – stay away from vaccines and golden rice, lest you be rewired (and toxin-ated).


                2. My exposure to Moore has been through Heartland Institute, where he has given many talks and lectures. I have also read his book, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. He is the only one who has attacked the current hoax called Great Pacific Garbage Patch. If you go down the Heartland roster, you’ll find a mixed bag of varied interests and talents. But my take on the group is that it is one of the most reliable and aggressive anti-climate-alarmism sources on the planet. They tackle the hard subjects using science.

                  The most aggressive of these people is, in my view, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, obviously of the peerage and a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher. If anyone shows all of the signs of controlled opposition it is him, but in listening to him, while he is snarky and often times insulting to his opponents, he brings hard science to bear. For instance, much is made of “climate sensitivity”, or the temperature increase that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will bring. In the video below, Monckton uses tedious math to point out the mistakes in IPCC “science” on the subject, concluding that a doubling of CO2 has a value of 1-1.5, in other words, presents no problem. IPCC says it is 3.5 or higher, and Monckton dispuites their science. I am not inside his head, as I am not inside Patrick Moore’s head, and can only judge these two men by their output. You decide too. I find them reliable.


                  1. MT,

                    I suggest they play a significant role in cementing polarization, just as RFK Jr. does in the vax narrative (similarly, he presents reliable data to contrast with/dispute pseudoscience). Climate alarmists have it mostly wrong (as we can concur), but that does not translate into anti-climate alarmists being completely right. Something else is going on behind these competing narratives. The System wants us debating on-the-surface and not cutting through the orchestrated noise.


                  2. Climate skeptics are, for the most part, retired scientists. Key word is “retired,” as they cannot be fired or defunded, only humiliated and ridiculed. Roger Pielke Jr., just down the road at UofC Boulder is tenured and could not be fired. They moved him to a small windowless office, just to chap his ass.

                    When a propaganda movement is underway, it is important that anyone in opposition pays a price, and publicly, as this serves to keep all of the other heads down. This has always been true with Covid, and AIDS too. Skepticism is not just discouraged, it is severely punished. The reason the Climate alarmists can say they have a 97% consensus is that opposition views, probably a handy majority, are silenced. That is propaganda 101, one voice, one voice only is heard. It is raw power on display.

                    So to say that they are just creating division cannot be true, as the thing missing on mainstream media is any word at all about any skeptic. They are not shown.

                    Of course there are plants within the skeptics movement, Marc Marano comes to mind (MM). Others may well be too. But Moore passes my sniff test – the classic controlled opposition move is to lead and collect media credibility (RFK) and then do a strategic retreat/surrender. That is yet to happen within the skeptic crowd.


                  3. Finances
                    In 2006, the Heartland Institute announced that it would no longer publicly declare its funders. However, leaked 2012 documents showed that donors such as software giant Microsoft and pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKlein had given between $50,000 and $60,000 to the Institute. [20] Heartland also received $50,000 annual donations from the energy company ExxonMobil for approximately ten years until 2007. An anonymous donor contributed at least $7.2 million between 2008 and 2011. [21] In 2018, the Heartland Institute received more than $5.7 million in donations and more than $5.8 million in total revenue. [22]

                    Again, this proves nothing. Cato, a think tank with which I have some personal
                    historical knowledge of, is connected at Heartland’s origin. NO matter. There is nothing here to prove. People can believe what they choose. The universe will continue, with us, or without us. It does not need us in any way to persist as it does. What we (hypno-apes 2.0) do, or think we do, ultimately, matters not. As some Hindu mystics love to say: “There is no doer.”


                    1. The standard climate alarmist accusation is that any organization that opposes them is funded by the fossil fuel industry. Since Exxon stopped its funding of Heartland in 2007, I think it safe to call that accusation false. CATO exists on a smaller platform.


                    2. My sense is that Heartland’s connections to the Mont Pelerin Society and the Mercer family (and the brothers Koch) is much more concerning (with much deeper implications):


                      In Dark Money, Jane Meyer links the Mercer Klan to the Koch brothers network. The Mercer family appeared on the Koch brothers’ donor list at some point during the ’00s, and for a time they were close allies, but on the whole the Mercer family appears to be much further to the right. Despite the mainstream media’s depiction of the Koch family as the pinnacle of right wing extremism, the Kochs are actually staunch adherents of the Mont Pelerin Society-derived neo-liberalism the dominates the liberal establishment in both the Republican and Democratic parties in these United States. Indeed, the Koch brothers covertly backed Hillary during the 2016 election.

                      No, when it comes to financing the far right, it falls upon individuals such as Peter Thiel, and families like the Mercers and the DeVos-Prince Klan. The Mercer and DeVos-Prince families are closely aligned, being among the wealthiest backers of the highly secretive Council for National Policy (CNP). And like Thiel, the Mercer family are also major patrons of the alt-right. Indeed, the Mercer family became the largest financiers of Breitbart in 2012, upon the death of the founder. It was through Breitbart that the Mercers came into contact with Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, and Milo Yiannopoulos, all of whom they became patrons of (after the Mercers cut Milo off, he was picked up by fellow alt-right patron Matthew Mellon, a close Thiel associate, as I noted before here).

                      The patriarch of the Mercer family is Robert, a former computer scientist turned hedge fund manager. Mercer is often described as a pioneer in early artificial intelligence, though I have found few details concerning what this work may have entailed. Still, it is curious given the bizarre obsession certain fringe elements of the far right have with A.I.

                      What little is out there indications that Mercer’s expertise is in computer linguistics, which he won a lifetime achievement award for in 2014. He worked for IBM for over twenty years before joining the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies in 1993. Renaissance is a curious entity, a hedge fund that preferred to hire computer scientists, mathematicians, and physicists rather than business school graduates. The company was founded by a mathematician and prominent Democratic Party donor, Jim Simons, who is also credited with contributing to the string theory. While working with Renaissance, Mercer is credited with transforming the financial industry through the use of trading algorithms.


                    3. Mark, I am most happy to stipulate to Stephers’ following statement above as it applies to climate issues: “I have little problem with his climate science stance . . . Your position, in that regard, seems poised, learned, and fair.”

                      Please note, I am aware of no one here taking issue with your climate science position. Climate fog should not, however, IMO, prevent any of us from seeing the broader evil being perpetrated as the engineered climate “food fight” sucks all the oxygen out of the room, preventing a broader discussion of ecological, social and cultural destruction being done right under our noses as we are being deliberately drawn toward the singular target.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    1. Notice how he ran this by you?

                      “So what if 97% of climate scientists think humans are significantly affecting the global climate? If you want me to believe it, you’re going to have to prove it to me!” they say. That would be fine, except that when we are dealing with a complex, technical subject, it generally takes several years of very hard work to get to the point where you can make informed judgements about conflicting expert opinions.

                      1: There is no 97% consensus. I explained that elsewhere. Skeptics, if they speak up, are punished. That’s a propaganda technique. 2: There is no credible science behind climate alarmism. As I noted to SMJ above, they’ve not been right about anything in 33 years. They accuse Monckton of lacking science credentials. I do too. I can see through bullshit, however. All one need to is think, hard and critically. I once bought in to global warming and climate change. Want to know what changed my mind? The Climategate emails. They are in the blogroll.

                      The two bbickmore pieces are professional “debunking,” and must be taken with a truckload of salt. The Wikipedia piece is as biased as anything I’ve ever read.

                      As to Monckton himself, I have sat through his talks, and they are loaded with math and science and hard to follow, but he does a good job tearing down IPCC “Science”, pointing out obvious high school errors in their methodology. You could do worse than sit through his one hour talk above.

                      I am surprised you didn’t bring me DeSmog Blog while you were at it. Is Monckton CO? I don’t know. I take what is good.


                    2. The whole discussion about that climate stuff is completely concocted, politicized and useless, since it’s leaving out the most important factor, which is geoengineering and meddling in countless other fields, which are not accounted for by any of these actors (and couldn’t be, since no one could afford/pull off proper independent research on this). I really don’t get how people can discuss these issues seriously and not feel like complete clowns. It’s all a giant theater while they progress their agendas (amongst other things but mostly of terraforming and transhumanism, not even just geoengineering). Just like Stephers illustrates so extremely well by bringing up all the connections, while others pat each other’s backs enjoying the profits they are gaining and have gained out of such travails. We’re really getting what we deserve.


                    3. By the way, I’ve mentioned this before too: With Heartland and Cato you are going to encounter a hard libertarian tilt. That’s why Breitbart and Koch Brothers are mentioned … they are hard right libertarians, Austrian School and all of that. It does not affect or bother me in the least. Sincerely wrong is OK by me.


                    4. MT,

                      Just as Soros shepherds the “left,” Mercer (along with Bannon) shepherds the “right.” Ultimately, it is a contrived dualism for alchemical purposes.

                      The controllers are systems thinkers:

                      My point about Robert Mercer (and his intimate connections with Heartland), though, was to highlight his role in AI. His partner at Renaissance Tech was Jim Simons.

                      In 1964, Simons worked with the National Security Agency to break codes.

                      Jim Simons worked under the tutelage of Bertram Kostant.

                      This was the beginning of his [Kostant] lifelong passion for Lie groups — the continuous families of symmetries at the core of great parts of geometry, mathematical physics, and even algebra. His work ultimately touched almost every corner of Lie theory: algebraic groups and invariant theory, the geometry of homogeneous spaces, representation theory, geometric quantization and symplectic geometry, Lie algebra cohomology, Hamiltonian mechanics, and much more. (my emphasis, which I hope will make more sense below)

                      Both Simons and Kostant were experts in Holonomy.

                      These cybernetic engineers have studied how to apply metaphysics, mathematics, physics, and signals intelligence to steer human behavior (groupthink, and polarized think). Socio-cultural programming is being directed by Cold War and NSA code breakers, and their algorithms.

                      Our buttons are being pushed.

                      Interestingly, study of this politicized polarization within the context of the climate change narrative (as represented in and propelled by the media is seemingly common in academics. This is just one example: (see “Week 5”).

                      As the syllabus of the academic course implies, climate change denialism/skepticism is an orchestrated ideological bubble – to counter the climate change activism/alarmism ideological bubble (which is also orchestrated). Neither contrasting bubble gets to the heart of the matter.

                      By design (this closed loop yin/yang gestalt – described in detail in the Holonomy paper linked above), neither ideological bubble touches geoengineering/terraforming (and the transhumanism/cybernetic world brain agenda) – as MTC aptly noted below. Both bubbles lie via omission. A very sad state of affairs.

                      We are all being played.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s