In Defence of James Corbett

Yet Another Response to Emanuel Pastreich

In Defence of James Corbett

Yet Another Response to Emanuel Pastreich 

Dear Emanuel,

You write: James Corbett’s “reporting lacks clarity (who exactly is responsible for what, and how—what precisely was the chain of command, or what might it have been), it lacks a demand (put these people in jail, seize their assets because of these state crimes), and it lacked a plan (contact me or my friends and we will help you organize a movement).”

I think this unfair on your part for the simple reason that it’s the duty of each and every one of us to articulate our perceptions of the world as clearly as possible; we aren’t obligated to follow a set pattern or to call for a clear set of solutions. I also haven’t forgotten that you called for the imprisonment of all those who told the truth about the climate change hoax. That James Corbett would want nothing to do with you should hardly surprise!  

You continue: “But then I saw him pushing these climate-change-is-a-myth narratives left and right. I do not hold the opinion there is climate change. There is but what exactly it is must be determined through a rigorous investigation.”

This is a curious statement, to say the least. Either one “holds the opinion there is climate change” or one doesn’t!

Why should there be a “rigorous investigation”? If there were climate change, we would notice; there wouldn’t be ANY snow (after all we are told that the world has NEVER BEEN HOTTER!) and summers would be UNBEARABLY HOT and not (as last summer was in my neck of the woods) rainy and relatively cool.

Why do I need to investigate a question when the truth is staring me in the face? Why do I need a “rigorous investigation” of what I can see with my own eyes?[1]

What one notices from texts such as “This Changes Everything” by Naomi Klein or “The New Climate War” by Michael E. Mann is a complete and utter absence of sound scientific (or philosophical) reasoning.

To quote from Michael E. Mann:

“There is no one well-defined threshold that defines dangerous human interference with our climate. There is no cliff that we fall off at 1.5°C (2.7°F) warming or 2°C (3.6°F) warming. A far better analogy is that we’re walking out onto a minefield, and the farther we go, the greater the risk. Conversely, the sooner we cease our forward lurch, the better off we are.

Dangerous climate change has in fact already arrived for many: for Puerto Rico, which was devastated by an unprecedented Category 5 hurricane with Maria in September 2017; for low-lying island nations like Tuvalu and coastal cities like Miami and Venice, which are already facing inundation by rising seas; for the Amazon, which has seen massive forest burning and climate-change-induced drought; for the Arctic, too, which has seen unprecedented wildfires in recent years; and for California, which has experienced unprecedented death and destruction from wildfires that now occur year-round. And those are just a few examples. The United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan have collectively witnessed unusually persistent, damaging weather extremes in recent years. Africa has been subject to drought, floods, and plagues of locusts. Australia has witnessed virtually every possible form of weather and climate disaster in recent years. And the list goes on.

We often hear that climate change is a “threat multiplier” when it comes to conflict, national security, and defense, for it heightens the competition that already exists over critical resources—food, water, space. But that framing applies equally to other domains, including human health.”[2]

Each and EVERY example given is anecdotal and in one instance in particular the statement is plainly false. P&G admitted direct responsibility for the “wildfires” in California, which can be attributed to arson rather “climate change”.

There is an additional element, which does indeed need thorough investigation: to what extent were the fires in Hawaii or elsewhere caused by Directed Energy Weapons and/or chemtrails? This is a line of investigation well worth pursuing and one you ought to consider following.

You persist with statements such as: “I have read quite a bit on climate change and it is clear, as I have stated here before, that although the research on climate change may be wrong, that those who are leading the charge to discredit the threat attack figures like Greta and Al Gore and refuse to take on the core serious scientific research.”

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this but that is neither here nor there.

Reading about climate change is one thing, experiencing it quite another.

I once believed (for roughly forty years!) that climate change was a reality and I remember feeling uneasy and not a little queasy when James Corbett made fun of it. But then I remembered the hysteria from my youth: climate change was going to cause the sea-levels to rise, and, in forty years, it HASN’T HAPPENED. Nor is it likely to do so. In fact, we’d all be well advised to follow Obama’s example (if he doesn’t know the truth, who does?) of buying property on the waterfront.

That Greta was picked according to Aristotelian rhetorical principles (one should pick someone to present a case who seems devoid of wiles) and comes from an acting family (with a Deep State background apparently) simply shows that the Deep State oligarchs who rule us have read (doubtlessly in the original) Aristotle. I’m told that she earns $46m p.a. for her pains. Whether she does or not is another question worthy of investigation. As for Al Gore: who can take ANY politician seriously? Even when I watched the film (and believed what Al Gore said) the fact that it was a politician who said it had a sobering effect.

As for the “core serious scientific research” one need only read the Climategate emails, which tell everything about how serious the “research” actually is.

We’ve all been lied to, not merely you or I and it’s time for you to acknowledge this betrayal and to accept the fact.

We need be rid of all the BS, not merely the BS about Covid.

---

[1] The argument: just because it’s cold in your neck of the woods doesn’t mean there isn’t climate change is clearly nonsense. Either global warming is global or it’s a hoax, (as James Corbett has rightfully pointed out); there really is no in between.

[2] The New Climate War, Michael E. Mann