The full scope of the 'climate-change' conspiracy

It can’t just be a few “bad apples.” If that were the case, if it were simply the work of a handful of bad actors, those dishonest renegades would quickly have been called to account by their peers. They would have been exposed as frauds and been punished, expelled from the academy.

That didn’t happen. Their peers have offered nothing but support. Uniformly and almost universally, those scientific peers have rallied behind the proponents of “climate-change” theory.

And that can only mean that their peers are in on it too.

This is the task facing all of us who believe in this scientific conspiracy promoting the fraud of climate change. If we are to oppose this conspiracy, then we must understand its full scope. Doing that requires us to investigate who else is in on it — who else must be in on it. And the more we investigate that, the more we will begin to appreciate just how vast and all-encompassing this conspiracy must be.

Because it’s not just their scientific peers in a single discipline who are rallying in support of the proponents of the theory. The fraud and the cover-up have spread, compromising nearly every scientific discipline. The physicists, chemists, paleontologists, botanists and geologists all must be in on it too. They all are actively participating in the conspiracy. The ornithologists and entomologists and oceanographers and microbial biologists are in on it.

Without the full cooperation of all of them, the conspiracy could not survive. Every scientist in every discipline must be in on it.

And yet we see all of these fraudulent, corrupt scientists continuing to work at our public and private colleges and universities where they continue to enjoy the respect of all their non-scientist peers in academia. Where is the brave college dean speaking out against this fraud? Where is there a provost or university president standing up for the truth by expelling these corrupt scientists and corrupt sciences from the campus?

No such heroes can be found. So the universities must be in on it too. All of them. And all of the academic journals, and all of the popular publications that promote their findings, and the libraries and librarians who continue to fill their shelves with this fraudulent science.

They’re all in on it. They must be.

You’ll never read about their complicity in your newspaper, of course, because the media is in on it too. No surprise there. We already knew that the lamestream media was massively corrupt and untrustworthy. What’s one more conspiracy, one more massive cover-up to them?

But it doesn’t stop there. It couldn’t. As vast as we have already seen this conspiracy to be, its success depends on it’s being much larger than just what we have described so far. The conspiracy requires that it be much larger than that. It can’t be just the scientists and the sciences, the colleges and universities, the libraries, newspaper and the media who are in on it.

There are whole nations that are in on it. The Netherlands is in on it. And Bangladesh, Mauritius, Kiribati, Bali, Tuvalu and Grenada are all in on it. What do those nations all have in common? Only this: They have all chosen, for some reason, to become outspoken proponents of the climate-change conspiracy.

And rather than stand up against those nations’ lies and expose them as frauds as ought to be done, the other nations of the world have chosen to play along. Europe is in on it. The entire United Nations is in on it — not just the member states, but also the non-governmental organizations that work with it. The International Red Cross is in on it. Catholic Charities and World Vision are in on it.

Don’t be shocked by those last two. Don’t somehow expect that such religious agencies would, by virtue of their faith or their supposed commitment to altruism, be immune to the lure of this massive, nefarious fraud. The Vatican, after all, is wholly corrupted by the climate-change conspiracy. It is firmly on record in support of the lies of the scientists. So are most of the major Protestant denominations.

Who, then, can still be trusted? Who is left untainted by the corruption of this vast web of lies, fraud and deceit?

Not the military. The U.S. military is in on it too, from the highest levels of the Pentagon on down.

Not business. The business world is in on it too. The property insurance companies and reinsurers are, if anything, even more strident in promoting the conspiracy than the scientists themselves. And those insurers, of course, have ties to every other form of business, coercing them into accepting policies based on the lying science of the conspiracy.

The tentacles of this vast conspiracy reach into every corner of life — academia, government, religion, commerce. If that were not true — if all of these many agents were not in on it — then the conspiracy could not have endured so long without being exposed and renounced by now.

Without the full cooperation and participation of all of these actors in all of these groups the conspiracy could not exist as we know it does. It cannot merely be the work of a few bad apples or a few renegades. It’s all or nothing.

That makes sense if you think about it. A conspiracy promoting lies about something as vast, global and pervasive as the climate would have to be as vast, global and pervasive as the climate itself.

And it is. It must be. That’s what I’m pleading with you to understand here.

Many of my fellow Americans want to join me in standing for the truth and so they have acknowledged the existence of this conspiracy. Ask them and they’ll tell you that they believe it exists — they believe that the scientists are lying and that the media is letting them get away with it.

But while they recognize that the conspiracy exists, they haven’t thought through the full implications of that realization. They haven’t recognized the vast scope that such a conspiracy requires. They haven’t come to grips with the logical necessity that to believe in the reality of such a conspiracy at all requires one to recognize that nearly everyone, nearly everywhere must be in on it. If such a conspiracy exists at all, then it must be vast, global and all-encompassing — twining throughout every school, church, government and business.

The truth is out there. Trust no one.

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    It is more correctly called a reductio ad absurdum.

  • P J Evans

    I heard a guy oin the train this morning, denying climate change. His line was that scientists are hiding the evidence that would disprove it. I told him that scientists would prefer being proven wrong on this one, but the evidence isn’t running in that direction.

  • Rikalous

    I thought that was the evil Justice League from the future in JLI.

    Right on the money. The joke works better with them than most villain teams, because they are still trying to do what’s best for humanity, by taking over the world and lobotomizing criminals.

  • Rikalous

    I thought that was the evil Justice League from the future in JLI.

    Right on the money. The joke works better with them than most villain teams, because they are still trying to do what’s best for humanity, by taking over the world and lobotomizing criminals.

  • Anonymous

    I’m here to say, if tomorrow the political climate changed so that only
    creationists could get grants, I would not be *able* to continue to
    work.

    Aha! So being anticreationist is all about keeping the cushy job! 
     

  • Anonymous

    Two more “a” letter conspirators: The Arctic and Antarctic.

  • hapax

    It’s not just a matter of honor; I frankly wouldn’t know what to do.  I
    couldn’t begin to develop a hypothesis much less a grant.

    Rabbit fossils in Cretaceous strata?

  • Anonymous

    Not to mention that many academics get tenure by proving an earlier scholar wrong.

  • Anonymous

    Dinosaurs with evidence of saddles?

  • Jenny Islander

    We’ve got people up here in Alaska reporting that the ice they travel on in winter is no longer safe at the usual times* and they can’t read the patterns of oncoming weather in the sky anymore the way their ancestors did** and, oh, yes, they’re seeing species of plant and animal colonizing their neighborhoods that their ancestral languages don’t even have words for–Alaska Natives are in on the conspiracy!!!  They’ve been in on it for YEARS!!!!!  They even have fake villages that they film fake-falling into the ocean–they say that wave action is cutting away shorelines that used to be protected by reliable shields of winter ice–I know they’re doing it just to make us do . . . something.  Something bad.  Yeah.

    *This has killed people.  Can’t find definitive statistics on how many.
    **This too.

  • Anonymous

    Searching for God’s signature on the fjords of Norway?  

  • MaryKaye

    I wrote:  It’s not just a matter of honor; I frankly wouldn’t know what to do.  I
    couldn’t begin to develop a hypothesis much less a grant.

    Hapax wrote: Rabbit fossils in Cretaceous strata?

    It’s worse than that–I’m not a paleontologist, I’m a geneticist.  So, we have all these gene sequences which are of interest because of the implied relationships among organisms.  But there aren’t any relationships among organisms.  So I’m, say, trying to estimate the age of a malaria-resistance allele in humans using chimpanzee as the dating standard; but we aren’t related to chimps, so that’s silly.  I’m trying to determine whether high-altitude adaptations evolved once or several times in Andean duck species, but they didn’t evolve at all, so what was the question again?  I’m trying to measure the strength of natural selection on those high-altitude adaptations, but…. Or trying to trace HIV back to SIV, but…. Or looking for Neanderthal segments in human genomes, but…. (I actually work on the duck questions, but could easily be working on the others.)

    I guess my next grant would be gematria–trying to decode God’s comments in “junk DNA”.  Do you think it should go to NIH or NSF?

    Descriptive biology can coexist with creationism, as it did for centuries.  I am a terrible descriptive biologist, though–I don’t have the eye for it.  I’m an analytical type.  I bet my counterparts in climate theory are much the same, and would not know what to do with themselves either.

  • Beatrix

    Heh.  The “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” fraud is dead.  Listen to James Delingpole walk you through how this goes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhX9qqNEaBg

  • http://heartfout.typepad.com/blog/ Heartfout

     Transcript for those of us not able to access youtube properly? Or at least the cliff notes?

  • Beatrix

    Heartfout -  seriously?  You can’t get Youtuube?  Why?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    If you turn on “CC” (closed captioning) it will put subtitles in for you. I read lips (hearing impairment) and I can tell you that what he says actually matches the subtitles.

  • http://heartfout.typepad.com/blog/ Heartfout

    My sound doesn’t work.

  • http://heartfout.typepad.com/blog/ Heartfout

    Does it? I clicked on the little button and a red exclaimation mark came up, but no captions…gonna try and find a transcript.

  • Beatrix

    Heartfout – I dont know how to get subtitles.  I would recommend Delingpole’s blog at the Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/ 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino
  • http://heartfout.typepad.com/blog/ Heartfout

     Ahhhh, ok, got it. Writing a reply up but will probably post in the morning, kinda sleepy.

    @5f5369ed04536abc40b16d3856286c01:disqus
    It doesn’t look good from the start. He’s referencing a recent study by CERN (Here if you’re interested: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html) that  is looking at the effect of aerosols and cosmic rays on the atmosphere. He does not mention a number of things. Firstly, there has been no sudden long term drop in the level of cosmic ray radiation over the last ~60 years. Secondly, although adding in simulations of cosmic rays does increase the amount of ionisation occurring, this is not at all similar to the situation currently in the atmosphere, where the cosmic rays have been there since the start. It is not comparing like and like. Finally, although the ionisation rate increases, this does not de facto mean that cloud formation rates change that significantly: in fact, a 2009 study found that although there has been a cyclic drop in cosmic ray impacts (this is mostly caused by variations in the largest current local cosmic ray emitter; our sun, and is around 11 years long, rather than the 60 years I mentioned earlier.) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041327.shtml and that this drop had not caused a measurable change in global cloud cover. Oh, and that the experiment was looking at nucleation, not cloud formation.

    I found this out just by finding the study on the internet and reading it, along with some back ground knowledge about cosmic rays. He didn’t even provide a link to the study itself. Not impressed.

  • P J Evans

    You can probably get better information on climate change from Science News than what the troll is pushing. And Science News includes references.
    http://www.sciencenews.org/

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, the lead researcher on the study in question pointed out that, “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray
    effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.”  And of course, even if a significant effect of cosmic radiation on climate is eventually demonstrated–as it may well be–none of these researchers are remotely suggesting that the effect of fossil fuel use on the climate would therefore be insignificant.

    Which proves to our troll, no doubt, that these researchers are In On It too.  Just as Fred anticipated.

  • Albanaeon

    Please.  We should trust one man who lacks one single credential in the field over nearly every single expert in that field?  Ummm…  No.  You don’t go to an auto mechanic for brain surgery.  You don’t get neutrino mechanics from a TV weather person, and you don’t get valid analysis of climatology from a two-bit hack like Delingpole.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Oh come on Beatrix–climate change as well? Do yourself a favour and mix and match a bit to keep us on our toes.

  • Donalbain

    Listen to James Delingpole walk you through how this goes.

    James Delingpole has been back to university, studied climatology, and has published a paper on the subject in a major journal? Blimey!

    *watches link*

    Oh. No. He hasn’t. False alarm.

  • Donalbain

    Listen to James Delingpole walk you through how this goes.

    James Delingpole has been back to university, studied climatology, and has published a paper on the subject in a major journal? Blimey!

    *watches link*

    Oh. No. He hasn’t. False alarm.

  • http://www.facebook.com/johnmburt John M. Burt

    No, the Kato Institute was set up by Kato Kaelin to search for the real murderers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/johnmburt John M. Burt

    No, the Kato Institute was set up by Kato Kaelin to search for the real murderers.

  • Joshua

    You’re feeding a troll.

  • Nick Barnes

    Also, the net effect of cloud-cover changes on global temperature is more-or-less a wash.

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    the thing you have to remember here, is that people who know they are wrong [or lying] will try to deflect that by accusing someone else of doing exactly what they are doing. SO chances are if a climate change denier says the opposition is in it for the money, there’s a pretty good bet they have a direct financial interest in denying.
    As Karl Rove once said [sic] – ‘find your greatest weakness and your opponents greatest strength, and attack it relentlessly’

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    yup. The joys of occlusion.

    it’s very easy to deny something when you abjectly refuse to even accept that arguments for it exist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    no-one cares, dude. ‘first’ing is a tragedy in itself.
    Unfortunate, given that your question is a good one: I’m not aware of anyone anywhere other than the US arguing against climate change in any serious way. Even the unconvinced readily accept that the drive to renewables is a very good idea.
     Which is why, even though Americans are wonderful people who do truly great things, I await the day the Idiocracy fall face first into their own pitchforks.

    [yes, I am aware that only the minority of Americans are Idiocrats. So don't start that argument]

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    except that Obama proved you don’t need megacorporations to bankroll your political ambitions.

    he then did something totally unexpected, and pissed away vast tracts of faith and hope by pandering to insane Republicans.

    D’oh

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    except that Obama proved you don’t need megacorporations to bankroll your political ambitions.

    he then did something totally unexpected, and pissed away vast tracts of faith and hope by pandering to insane Republicans.

    D’oh

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    damn those pesky Satanists.

    and don’t get me started on the Wiccans

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    damn those pesky Satanists.

    and don’t get me started on the Wiccans

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    mmmmmm… couple of minor points
    British Petrolium does not exist. Call it BP, because that’s its name.
    BP were the first oil company to openly state that climate change is a real problem, and is one of the biggest investors in renewable technology in the world.

    Deepwater Horizon was mostly the fault of Halliburton, who were hired as safety sub-contractors. It was primarily their gross incompetence in not actually bothering to check whether safety equipment worked, let alone repair it, that led to the oilspill. That is why BP are attempting to sue the shit out of Halliburton *right now*.

  • http://www.facebook.com/undeadbydawn Steven Van der Werf

    mmmmmm… couple of minor points
    British Petrolium does not exist. Call it BP, because that’s its name.
    BP were the first oil company to openly state that climate change is a real problem, and is one of the biggest investors in renewable technology in the world.

    Deepwater Horizon was mostly the fault of Halliburton, who were hired as safety sub-contractors. It was primarily their gross incompetence in not actually bothering to check whether safety equipment worked, let alone repair it, that led to the oilspill. That is why BP are attempting to sue the shit out of Halliburton *right now*.

  • Rikalous

    Steven Van der Wef, in the future would you kindly identify who you’re responding to in the body of your comments? Disqus is stupid and doesn’t always show who’s being replied to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Lipton/100001171828568 Jeff Lipton

    “what he says actually matches the subtitles”

    That’s pretty rare (unless they did the CC themselves).  Most of the time that I watch YouTube CCs, they are pretty horrible.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh yes. I’ve seen some very creative subtitling by the auto-interpreter. Usually the best are transcribed by the person uploading the video.

  • hf

    It doesn’t look good from the start.

    You just don’t understand how to look at the evidence. For example:

    Stop the Presses!! Prominent Darwinist Admits Lying!!!!

    I couldn’t begin to develop a hypothesis much less a grant.  I couldn’t propose experiments that would have any chance of working…we aren’t related to chimps, so that’s silly.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X