Thank you. I am not here to defend James Corbett as I cannot say I have listened to him with regard to the so-called climate change narrative. He does do massive research and I have followed him on other subjects. The fact is, anyone who thinks they have something to say about this issue who knows nothing/fails to mention: plate tectonics, fracking, the injury to our natural environment by war and the preparations for war, and the manipulation of weather by the Pentagon--is sleep-walking. There is lots of evidence and research to support, like the Covid Con- weather (climate) is being used as a weapon of war. Even folks like Corbett dodge those realities.
After all, when you have a multi-million dollar 'environmental-defense industry'- Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc. (especially Greenpeace!) skirting the issue of war and preparations for war and what it does to the environment...you have to wonder.
I know many deeply concerned with the environment and the climate, myself included. We have nothing to do with Greenpeace, Sierra Club or other money making enterprises. If you are interested in the real issues, I am happy to explain.
While I appreciate your response and offer- I am not one to be greenwashed on the issue! I am fully aware of the dangers that threaten our natural environment- many are manufactured by humans (geoengineering, chemtrails, over-production of plastics, etc.)
Also, I fully recognize that climate is used as weapon at the same time I state, based on scientific evidence, that we are looking at long-term catastrophic climate change. This is not a contradiction. It is not hard to understand how both are true.
Given what humanity has experienced in the past 4 years, your comment that what you offer is 'based on scientific evidence...' is off-putting to those of us who have been paying attention.
Let's be honest- there is much evidence to support that electric vehicles and 'compostable' carry-out containers are not going to save the day! This kind of thing is all for show and provides yet another profit-center for corporations- many of whom are pushing the so-called 'green new deal'.
You are perfectly right. The amount of BS thrown at us in the last four years has been appalling. The problem is: the environmental damage, which is very real and extremely worrying, is being caused (in part) by those who believe in the climate change delusion (as "Planet of the Humans" shows). What is needed is to separate the two issues. Above all anyone who preaches the "authority of science" needs to be treated with caution if not contempt. Healthy scepticism, critical thinking and the scientific method (experiment etc.) is needed, not blind trust in (fake) "scientific authorities" (trust me I'm a scientists (but am paid by Bill Gates)) with a dubious agenda.
Hello Michael, I am new to your writings but just discovered you through a journey from Wolfgang and Swine flu to your sister to your substack. I like your "genocide" series. On this topic: I was a useful idiot for the climate brigade until the pandemonium, when I discovered that the same guys who were teaching me to "debunk climate deniers" turned around to use their cognitive inoculation skills to "pre bunk" "misinformation" about the "vaccines". That's when the penny dropped. The BS about climate and the BS about Covid come from the same place.
Climate Change/Global Warming strikes me as a weird way to make the Weather political, which is plainly absurd. I think it also reflects an underlying "First World" anxiety that its market share/exploitation sphere is shrinking. When high-placed "Green" activists scoot off to conferences in private jets, that just tells me that they are more concerned about their stock portfolios than the "Climate." It's a theory of the 1%, nothing more. Also, you never hear them yammering about the World's number one polluter, the Pentagon, and the War Machine more generally.
Thank you for your thoughtful letter and your offer.
As for your defense of James Corbett, it is a total waste of your time. Obviously, I should have heard back directly from James Corbett by now, with an agreement to debate me on the topic of climate change. There really is no other way forward. His lack of interest in an objective scientific debate reveals him to be what we suspected he was all along: uninterested in a scientific investigation of what is climate change and how dangerous it is, or is not, based on facts and research. If my science is that flawed, and that of the various experts I will cite, then I will be torn to pieces by the erudite Mr. Corbett. I welcome such an education.
But one need only look at how Mr. Corbett has refused to engage with any of the important research on climate change, let alone to refute any of it, in his previous discussions to know we are looking at someone who is at the minimum a moral coward, and perhaps something worse.
I say that while fully recognizing Mr. Corbett’s excellent reporting on certain aspects of COVID-19—granted there are serious flaws there too which I have alluded to.
I am delighted, however, that you are ready to debate me and I will start preparations soon. Can we plan for the end of April, if you do not mind, so that both of us can properly prepare?
Much appreciated.
Emanuel
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
MAR 18， 2024
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.
Dear Emanuel, I still am unsure as to what you mean by "scientific evidence". I remember you cited a book, which used data from NASA & the UN, both of which are deeply discredited, Deep State (aka Satanist) agencies. The book was flawed because the data was flawed (garbage in garbage out). What "evidence" are you referring to? As to "Corbett's moral cowardice" I suspect he is simply a very busy man who doesn't have time for BS. I, on the contrary, am much more indulgent! Without a consensus on data a debate is pointless!
Let me know when we can have our televised debate. I am sure there is plenty of interest out there in a serious discussion. By the way, I want to bring it to the attention of your distinguished and honorable audience
that I am far from the only scholar who decries Federal Reserve and private equity fraud, who denounces the 9.11 false flag incidents, who condemned the Covid 19 operation from the start (and was thrown out of the country for that) but who also holds that we face catastrophic long-term climate change which is related to emissions but has other causes. One only look at the Permian extinction to see how this works. It has happened before. In any case, none of you will be disappointed by this debate. Dear Dr. Buergermeister, let us set the date!
I fully understand dearest Michael and I always appreciate your insights. Obviously I agree with many of your points concerning the fraudulent green policies pursued by the global elite.
Thank you. I am not here to defend James Corbett as I cannot say I have listened to him with regard to the so-called climate change narrative. He does do massive research and I have followed him on other subjects. The fact is, anyone who thinks they have something to say about this issue who knows nothing/fails to mention: plate tectonics, fracking, the injury to our natural environment by war and the preparations for war, and the manipulation of weather by the Pentagon--is sleep-walking. There is lots of evidence and research to support, like the Covid Con- weather (climate) is being used as a weapon of war. Even folks like Corbett dodge those realities.
After all, when you have a multi-million dollar 'environmental-defense industry'- Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc. (especially Greenpeace!) skirting the issue of war and preparations for war and what it does to the environment...you have to wonder.
I know many deeply concerned with the environment and the climate, myself included. We have nothing to do with Greenpeace, Sierra Club or other money making enterprises. If you are interested in the real issues, I am happy to explain.
While I appreciate your response and offer- I am not one to be greenwashed on the issue! I am fully aware of the dangers that threaten our natural environment- many are manufactured by humans (geoengineering, chemtrails, over-production of plastics, etc.)
Also, I fully recognize that climate is used as weapon at the same time I state, based on scientific evidence, that we are looking at long-term catastrophic climate change. This is not a contradiction. It is not hard to understand how both are true.
Given what humanity has experienced in the past 4 years, your comment that what you offer is 'based on scientific evidence...' is off-putting to those of us who have been paying attention.
Let's be honest- there is much evidence to support that electric vehicles and 'compostable' carry-out containers are not going to save the day! This kind of thing is all for show and provides yet another profit-center for corporations- many of whom are pushing the so-called 'green new deal'.
You are perfectly right. The amount of BS thrown at us in the last four years has been appalling. The problem is: the environmental damage, which is very real and extremely worrying, is being caused (in part) by those who believe in the climate change delusion (as "Planet of the Humans" shows). What is needed is to separate the two issues. Above all anyone who preaches the "authority of science" needs to be treated with caution if not contempt. Healthy scepticism, critical thinking and the scientific method (experiment etc.) is needed, not blind trust in (fake) "scientific authorities" (trust me I'm a scientists (but am paid by Bill Gates)) with a dubious agenda.
Hello Michael, I am new to your writings but just discovered you through a journey from Wolfgang and Swine flu to your sister to your substack. I like your "genocide" series. On this topic: I was a useful idiot for the climate brigade until the pandemonium, when I discovered that the same guys who were teaching me to "debunk climate deniers" turned around to use their cognitive inoculation skills to "pre bunk" "misinformation" about the "vaccines". That's when the penny dropped. The BS about climate and the BS about Covid come from the same place.
Climate Change/Global Warming strikes me as a weird way to make the Weather political, which is plainly absurd. I think it also reflects an underlying "First World" anxiety that its market share/exploitation sphere is shrinking. When high-placed "Green" activists scoot off to conferences in private jets, that just tells me that they are more concerned about their stock portfolios than the "Climate." It's a theory of the 1%, nothing more. Also, you never hear them yammering about the World's number one polluter, the Pentagon, and the War Machine more generally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI&ab_channel=Clintel
March 22, 2024
A response from Emanuel to
“In Defense of James Corbett
Yet Another Response to Emanuel Pastreich”
MICHAEL BUERGERMEISTER
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your thoughtful letter and your offer.
As for your defense of James Corbett, it is a total waste of your time. Obviously, I should have heard back directly from James Corbett by now, with an agreement to debate me on the topic of climate change. There really is no other way forward. His lack of interest in an objective scientific debate reveals him to be what we suspected he was all along: uninterested in a scientific investigation of what is climate change and how dangerous it is, or is not, based on facts and research. If my science is that flawed, and that of the various experts I will cite, then I will be torn to pieces by the erudite Mr. Corbett. I welcome such an education.
But one need only look at how Mr. Corbett has refused to engage with any of the important research on climate change, let alone to refute any of it, in his previous discussions to know we are looking at someone who is at the minimum a moral coward, and perhaps something worse.
I say that while fully recognizing Mr. Corbett’s excellent reporting on certain aspects of COVID-19—granted there are serious flaws there too which I have alluded to.
I am delighted, however, that you are ready to debate me and I will start preparations soon. Can we plan for the end of April, if you do not mind, so that both of us can properly prepare?
Much appreciated.
Emanuel
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
MAR 18， 2024
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
Dear Emanuel, I still am unsure as to what you mean by "scientific evidence". I remember you cited a book, which used data from NASA & the UN, both of which are deeply discredited, Deep State (aka Satanist) agencies. The book was flawed because the data was flawed (garbage in garbage out). What "evidence" are you referring to? As to "Corbett's moral cowardice" I suspect he is simply a very busy man who doesn't have time for BS. I, on the contrary, am much more indulgent! Without a consensus on data a debate is pointless!
Dear Dr Buergermeister.
Let me know when we can have our televised debate. I am sure there is plenty of interest out there in a serious discussion. By the way, I want to bring it to the attention of your distinguished and honorable audience
that I am far from the only scholar who decries Federal Reserve and private equity fraud, who denounces the 9.11 false flag incidents, who condemned the Covid 19 operation from the start (and was thrown out of the country for that) but who also holds that we face catastrophic long-term climate change which is related to emissions but has other causes. One only look at the Permian extinction to see how this works. It has happened before. In any case, none of you will be disappointed by this debate. Dear Dr. Buergermeister, let us set the date!
Apart from which: my father was Dr. B, not me!
As Plato pointed out in The Republic: without a basic consensus there can't be a serious debate. There isn't a basic consensus.
I fully understand dearest Michael and I always appreciate your insights. Obviously I agree with many of your points concerning the fraudulent green policies pursued by the global elite.
I would strongly suggest that you watch this. We have ALL been lied to! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI&ab_channel=Clintel