New Video : The Big Switch

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to New Video : The Big Switch

  1. Heretic Jones says:

    I’d find it difficult to narrate these videos exposing the clownish absurdity of the climate fear campaign without bursting into laughter. These clowns would be epically hilarious if they weren’t so dangerous.

  2. Terry Shipman says:

    A number of years ago I was watching one of the Sunday morning talk shows (David Brinkley I think) and Al Gore was being interviewed and Gore was on his global warming rant. George Will asked him about scientists cooling concerns from the 1970’s. Gore completely denied they ever had such concerns. Will replied, “yes they did. I’ve documented it.” Gore continued to deny it. Who are you going to believe? A respected journalist or a climate shill proven wrong on 100% of his predictions?

    I can go beyond even the historical records Tony provided. Being 69 has its advantages. I was ALIVE during that time and I REMEMBER the cooling scare. If I had been face to face with Gore I would have called him a liar to his face.

  3. Eric Simpson says:

    Whether the leftists were bullsh}tting about cooling, or warming, somehow the solution was / is the same, to de-industrialize:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director & leader behind initiating the global warming scare
    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren, 1973 (Obama’s ‘Science Czar’)

    Why are they driven to de-inudustrialize? Well, this quote sheds some light on that:

    “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue

    Note though: Holdren in 1973 (and now) was for de-industrializing the United States. What about our communist foes in 1973, and now? Holdren had no problem with their 5 year plans to increase industrial output, it was just us that was the problem. Then and now these rich leftist elites have been driven by an overarching self-loathing, and hatred of the US, and the West. Hence, even today, as China’s CO2 emissions soar, and the US has reduced CO2 emissions, the problem is still us, and the leftist loons could care less about China’s runaway CO2 output!

  4. Wellers says:

    I remember it very clearly and it was a very bleak prospect for an impressionable British teenager what with the oil crisis and the UK coal miners’ strike. I remember having to write an essay about the coming ice age while I was at school in the early 1970s, around Greta’s age. But despite my fears at least I didn’t go round scowling at everyone and I didn’t bunk off school!

  5. Margaret Smith says:

    Can’t get the video in. I’ll try later.

  6. Thad K says:

    Tony,

    This video is just Brilliant! Keep up the GREAT work!

    Thad K from Denver

  7. Margaret Smith says:

    It has come in now. I like the reference to Scientific American because one Believer I know (who should know better) thinks this magazine is the go-to place for important information on the climate.

  8. Robert Gipson says:

    Following is an email I sent to my email list in December 2009 (ten years ago). I just tried to post this on Youtube under Tony’s “The Big Switch” video. It was blocked. Let’s see what happens here on Tony’s site. My subject line for the 2009 email was “Sixteen Tons.” I’ve copied and pasted the email below:

    Dear friends : A line in Tennessee Ernie Ford’s classic coal-mining song, “Sixteen Tons,” goes like this:

    “A right fist of iron, the left one of steel, if the right one don’t get ya’ then the left one will.”

    There is poetic irony in that verse when one realizes that Big Oil, who over the last few decades have been behind the progressive damnation of the use of coal–our nation’s cheapest and virtually inexaustible energy source–are today employing a one-two punch scare tactic: “CO2” and “Peak Oil.” If one don’t get ya’, then the other one will. And suspiciously, at the same date: 2020.

    Excerpts from article below:

    “The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date…”

    “Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end.”

    “For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions.”

    “The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP.”
    “The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was moving along well back then, and in fact today their scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except CO2. However there is really not much money in coal, it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired power plant is not much more complicated, or expensive, then a good steam engine.”

    “At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988.”

    – Bob

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/
    Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection

    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 18th, 2009

    112 Comments Comment on this article

    This is a guest post by contributor Andrew30 (whose full name I’ll give you when he reminds me via email). He put it up in comments but it’s so interesting it really deserves a blog all to itself).

    Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?

    Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG, and developed and installed new CO2 removal technology in their process; this lowers the carbon footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is taxed. They have no problem with this whole thing.

    Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in a different position, they have a problem with this whole thing.

    Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi Arabia would change it from really hot to really hot.

    Maybe it is just good business.

    http://www.omanlng.com/

    Oman LNG L.L.C
    Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
    Location: Head office: Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur (approx 340 km from Muscat)
    Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
    Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%, KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui 2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.

    The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)

    This is important to know, for two reasons.
    Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.

    Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.

    The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    So, there a business set up in the early 1970’s, so what?

    I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me it looks like this may have been a very, very long term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental, but it does seem to fit the observable information.

    A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said ‘Why would they do it?’ I indicated the Jones had received 22 million, etc, but he countered, ‘For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions’. That made sense.

    So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing, it covers two or three decades, involves many countries and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it not political in the partisan sense of the word.

    If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that the objectives were:

    1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in power generation and transportation, so as to avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
    2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base load electrical power generation would not consume the available fossil fuel supply.
    3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.

    Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.

    http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15065719

    Then the following is not unbelievable.

    The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was moving along well back then, and in fact today their scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except CO2. However there is really not much money in coal, it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired power plant is not much more complicated, or expensive, then a good steam engine.

    Since there was not enough money in coal it would not be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal as a replacement for oil.

    So they looked at the situation and realized that the difference between the different technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.

    At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988.

    Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly of followers, you can look up ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ (water), on many occasions at environmental conferences comedians and light news organizations have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently they do not do a lot of independent analysis before making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.

    So if you need a large number of followers, there is a ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to tell the followers what to think. The followers do not need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason or the facts; they just need something or someone to follow.

    Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage to get control of the worlds climate data and begin adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the marketing people to present the information needed in as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this case, because of the number of followers greed will not work. There are simply too many followers to pay them all off.

    So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately drive the followers to do something that would just not have been possible after Three Mile Island.

    They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in support of nuclear power. They do not know this of course, but that is what the plan on the table says. Check it out, look at exactly what are the big technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give you a hint, it is not windmills.

    They are also marching in Copenhagen against big business, while supporting one of the biggest businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank control the trillions being put on the table? So they are marching against exactly what they are supporting, they are simply followers.

    Perhaps you can fill in the blanks between the possible objectives I mentioned earlier and where we find ourselves today. Fill in the blanks, connect the dots and follow the money. Look at the funders, how many are involved in delivery, support, financing and maintenance of the movement of liquid energy and the generation of nuclear power.

    I do not think this was ever about the environment.

    There are lots of other things that may tie into this, like GE buying and now selling a
    TV network, they needed then but do not need it now, a bit of a stretch perhaps but GE is a big player in gas and nuclear power generation. Look around, there are others.

    That said; I do believe that the world does need to move to nuclear power for base load power generation, and I do believe that the Peak Oil problem is a real threat to stability.

    So I agree with the objectives and encourage the outcome, I just do not like them messing with the science and trying, nay succeeding, in conning the masses to agree to it all.

    Perhaps there was someone inside the CRU that felt the same way; the means were wrong regardless of the merits of the objectives, so they let slip the package in the hope that someone could figure out what they could not just come out and say publicly.

    This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.

    All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.

    Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like “the data must be wrong”, or “our monitoring is deficient”, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think “We can’t explain the lack of warming”, perhaps the author of that email could not, but perhaps someone else could.

    It would only have taken a dozen people in just the right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.

    So who might have put these people in just the right place all those years ago, and why?

    [End of my 2009 email]

  9. Phillip Neal Goggans says:

    Michael Mann has another tactic to dismiss the global cooling scare. He says that it was really all about air pollution. Some scientists thought pollution might cool the earth. Research eventually showed this was wrong:

    “[Goggans] cites the supposed ‘70’s cooling scare, a myth that’s been debunked for over a decade. Scientists were unsure back then whether the regional cooling effect of certain pollutants or the warming effect of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning would ultimately win out. But we’ve since passed laws to limit that pollution, while greenhouse gasses have escalated. The planet has steadily warmed as a result. The real story is the exact opposite of what Goggans claims.”

    https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article235740627.html

  10. HayMaker says:

    The U.S. has arguably the best temperature and preciptation historic records going back to the late 1800’s (except for the NOAA internal revisions of the super hot 1930’s).

    According to NOAA, none of U.S. regions are warming or warming slightly. The U.S. national average temperature is just above the average. Maximum temperatures for every U.S. region are all nearly normal and near “NOAA’s” historic average.

    Precipitation in the U.S has been increasing for 30 years in almost every U.S. region and nationally according to NOAA. The Great Lakes are overflowing and the mountain ranges are buildiong ice and snow.

    Can anyone tell me why should give a crap about other countries poor temperature recording history and internal data tampering.

    America’s climate is the best it’s ever been according to NOAA, getting better. I guess I’m neither a “Warmist” or a “Coolist”, I’m a “Just Rightist”.

  11. Wally Butts says:

    The nuclear energy proponents are not recognizing that current nuclear power generation ranges in the area of 40% efficient.

    That simply means that for every 40kw of electricity produced, a further 60kw of heat energy is wasted to the cooling water system.

    Who is so naive to think that all of this wasted energy is not going to warm the environment?

    I used to go fishing in the cooling water outlet at a now-defunct coal-fired plant on the shore of Lake Erie, and at times the cooling water exiting the plant was almost hot to the touch, so I can imagine that fishing anywhere near a nuclear plant producing multiples of the electricity output of the coal fired plant would be futile because of the additional hot water being generated by that sized nuclear plant.

    Nuclear plants with current technology are certainly not benign.

  12. Jenny says:

    In June 21, 1977 New York Times published an article titled “40-ton ‘Super Magnet’ is flown from U.S. to Moscow for a Joint Project Aimed at Conserving Power”. This rather odd man I knew said that we also had one but larger and used it to somehow bend the Jet Stream down to pick up the warm air in our continent to warm up the Arctic so we could mind resources there. He said it was in the Dakotas somewhere. He also said the Russians tried to use theirs to disastrous effect, which he did not elaborate on. I had seen several instances of unusually high winds for short durations which did much damage and with no understanding of what happened. Perhaps bending the Jet Streams down does this.

    With all of the cooling scares in 70’s, perhaps they did try to reverse the trend with this technology, which then led to the global warming “trend”. Maybe that old man wasn’t so odd after all.

  13. Anon says:

    Given the fact that it took DECADES for the theories of Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Plate Tectonics and the Dinosaur Asteroid Extinction Hypothesis to become accepted science, this transition from Global Cooling to Global Warming is unprecedented.

  14. David Ippolito says:

    Please keep up the good work. I’ve been a skeptic since the 1990s and am an environmental scientist/CIH – retired – just knew intuitively that the climate is much to complex to pigeon hole into a computer, especially when using only one of many possible variables. You don’t even have to understand science to know that if the “authority” wants to eliminate debate about any scientific issue by intimidation and the politics of personal destruction, SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.