The sky is falling … again! Updated 31/12/16

This is longish, so please bear with me for a while….

Check these out first:

Matthew Chapter 6 verses 9 – 13 KJV Standard version
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
From the earlier 1611 version of the King James Bible:
9 After this maner therefore pray yee: Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen.
11 Giue vs this day our daily bread.
12 And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters.
13 And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer, Amen.
view original:
Luke Chapter 11 verses 2 – 9 KJV Standard version

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

From the earlier 1611 version of the King James Bible:

2 And hee said vnto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heauen, Halowed be thy Name, Thy kingdome come, Thy will be done as in heauen, so in earth.

3 Giue vs day by day our dayly bread.
4 And forgiue vs our sinnes: for we also forgiue euery one that is indebted to vs. And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill.

view original:

And here’s the Book of Common Prayer version
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our tresspasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice the subtle changes, updated language and an extra ‘ever”. Nothing too spectacular. Several versions in existence and maybe more than the ones quoted above.

We learnt a version at infant school by rote, just like we learnt our multiplication tables. We never had a physical “hard” copy to look at and neither did the teacher, she just recited it from memory so if she’d remembered it wrong then we learnt her mistakes too. We learnt her version.

It wasn’t until I was given a KJV Bible as a gift when I was nine years old that I had the chance to read the “Lord’s Prayer” for myself and discovered the two different versions in Matthew and Luke which in turn were different to the one I’d been taught which was:

“Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.  Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Amen.”

That, I learnt years later is a version of the version found in the Roman Catholic Catechism.

At the age of 4 and a half I doubt any of us had a clue about trespassing or what temptation was though I do recall seeing a notice in a field whilst on a family day out which read “Trespassers will be Prosecuted”.  I didn’t know what “prosecuted” was either but it was another big word and sounded very scary so I resolved to avoid “trespassing” at all costs till I was at least 11 and in the company of others.  Sorry, I digress!

I pointed out these discrepancies to the adults around me at the time.  The reasons attempted varied from “different churches have different versions of the Bible” to “the Bible was written in Old English and we don’t talk like that any more”.  The latter reason seemed reasonable.  Different churches having different versions left me wondering why but I’ll leave that for another day.

When I changed school at 11 there was another version to be learned.  “Them” had changed to “those” (more grammatically correct) and “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever” was added.  No-one explained why though I did ask.  I got the stock answer when parents are fed up of kids asking too many questions “Because it just is!”

OK, so what’s the point of all this?

A couple of days ago I came across a comment on a website from someone claiming that his/her “timeline” had been changed because the Lord’s Prayer was not as he had remembered it and this was not the world he grew up in.  Eh? He or she was using this as back up to that “effect” that’s been orbiting the interweb for the past few weeks.  You know, the one named after a late SA president 😉  I re-read the comment several times and admit I laughed out loud then shook my head in disbelief that someone could not see the flaws in their thinking.

Yes, someone has at some time changed some of the words from what was originally translated into the KJV to the version which most are familiar with now.   It wasn’t done by magic yesterday. Many assume that all religious quotes in common usage must come verbatim from the Bible but they don’t! Unfortunately few of us read the Bible before we were indoctrinated by religious teachers and other religious texts.

To try to prove their point they quote Luke 17 v 34

 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

because (presumably in his other timeline) they always believed it was originally two men in a field.  Uh-huh..

I wonder whether they bothered to check that passage out?  Probably not because if they had and had read the next two verses they’d have seen this:

 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

What they’d originally believed was true and now they’ve discovered there were other examples of the same situation which presumably they’d never read or heard of before.  Different “timeline” or rather more recently acquired knowledge?

Here’s another interesting verse quoted by the same commenter to try to prove his point presumably: Luke 19 v 27 (Jesus is speaking in parables and I suggest reading the verse in context starting at v 12 ) “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”  Jesus is relating what the nobleman in the parable said.  Jesus also said  in Matthew  5 v 44 “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

The commenter was again trying to prove their “timeline” had flipped because  Jesus preached “Love” and the Luke 19 passage seems to suggest the opposite when taken out of context.  On the contrary, it shows their ignorance and misunderstanding of what is actually written in the Bible.  Both passages are contained in the New Testament whether they’ve read them before or not.  From the evidence it looks like this is news to the commentor being discussed here.

That said, there are plenty of contradictions in the Bible but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

I’ve seen it alleged that familiar words have been digitally changed on the web which may be true.  However claiming that words have been changed “in the hard copy” can be checked by going to the original translations.  There are over 50 versions of the Bible in English so how do you know like is being compared with like?  Is admitting to a faulty memory better or worse than admitting you’ve fallen for a false meme?

A popular misquote such as “the lion will lie down with the lamb..”  does not mean a timeline change. It means someone misquoted in your hearing!  If you’d had to learn texts at Sunday School (guilty!) then you’d have read what it actually states in Isaiah 11 v 6 “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together..” Could be the confusion arose because there’s another text in Isaiah 65 v 25 where lion is mentioned in the same verse as lamb:  “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock:”    Hmm! Who knew learning all those tedious texts would come in useful at this late stage?

Somehow the unseen “they” had managed to change the posters reality when in actual fact its more likely they’d had a knee-jerk reaction to some video currently doing the rounds.

“Knee-jerk” – definition   a quick reaction that does not allow you time to consider something carefully.

Books get re-written and altered at intervals.  For instance Enid Blyton’s Noddy books were changed because they are not PC.  The titles of some of Agatha Christie’s books were also changed for the same reason.


I’ve just been back to see if anyone has pointed out the flaws in their comments only to find a small flock are now sucking them up. And people wonder why the world is the way it is. What happened to common sense? Don’t people think for themselves anymore? The Band-Wagon must be getting awfully crowded by now!

Only the gullible fall for the false memes so they become the target audience by default.  Everyone is on a different learning curve, I suppose, so its all cool. 🙂


The “Snow White” boat won’t float either!  Some are saying the words spoken by Snow White’s step-mother have changed from “Mirror, mirror on the wall” to “Magic Mirror on the wall” in another (weak) attempt to convince others of the “timeline change” malarkey.  In the original story by the Grimm brothers it is “Looking-glass, looking-glass ” which has been changed to more modern parlance  “Mirror, mirror“.  Then the film-makers got hold of it and in order to convey to their audience that the mirror was not a run-of-the-mill piece of equipment the dialogue was changed to “Magic Mirror on the wall”….

Any other films that do not appear to be as you first remembered them, think about this:-

Films get re-edited and re-released from time to time, just as books do!

And here’s a snippet about the Bearenstain Bears 😉


See also Cognitive Dissonance


Updated  31 /12/2016  to add

Half of People Believe Fake Facts, “Remember” Events That Never Happened.

Cognitive Dissonance

A Tale of Grapes, Politics, Cults and Aliens and Why People Cling to False Beliefs



One hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch.

“Just the thing to quench my thirst,” quoth he.

Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success.

Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.”

It is easy to despise what you cannot get.

Continued here:

A Tale of Grapes, Politics, Cults, and Aliens: Why People Cling to False Beliefs

thanks to jakes health solutions

Entheogens: What’s in a Name? ~ Gnostic Media

The Untold History of Psychedelic Spirituality, Social Control and the CIA

Link for pdf

Click to access Entheogens_WhatsInAName_by_JanIrvin_draft_v.3.5_Nov20.pdf

Lennart Mogren – Open letter to J L Lash [Update 15/10]

Lennart Mogren  > John Lamb Lash and the  “Failed Gaian Warriors”

Open letter to John Lamb Lash on white genocide
Hi John,
The idea of White Genocide is interesting to think about. As much as I respect your work and the way you have shared your discoveries about the sophianic creation , white genocide idea doesn’t resonate at all with my experiences. I listened to your interview with Red Ice Radio and I simply think you don’t have the facts right.

Read on at the link above




And “John Lamb Lash-Jay Weidner: No credibility on Archons?”


JLL talking to his ex-wife about “The Organic Light”

Updated 15/10/2015 to add:

JLL’s Kalika war party –

Some people are trying to mislead again


Screen Shot 2015-01-19 at 10.22.13

Above is the American Sign-Language symbol for “I LOVE YOU”.


Today’s wander through the blog-o-sphere brought another blatant attempt by those whose seem to be determined to mislead us by alleging that the two clergymen in the photo in the screen-shot below ~ one of whom is the current pope ~ are “flashing satanic signs.”  Really?


Screen Shot 2015-01-19 at 10.53.52


We have no allegiance to nor are we fans of any particular clergy but we draw the line at lies being spread to nefariously promulgate more hatred by people who, in our opinion, should know better.

The offending article originated at the source link found on this blog here

jhaines6.wordpress <dot> com/2015/01/18/alfred-webre-three-updates-sunday-january-18-2015/

What astounds us is that something like this appears to originate from a lawyer and also according to his wiki bio “is a judge on the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission”

We cannot help questioning his judgement or rather lack of it and also the judgement of the person/persons who published it on their blog without verifying the accuracy first given the emotive topic. To quote Webre’s own words back to him ” Are they conscious of what they are doing or are they clueless disinformation pedlars? wink emoticon”

Fortunately some discerning commenters have already pointed out their “error”.


This from wikipedia also

“ILY is a sign from American Sign Language which, as a gesture, has moved into the mainstream. Seen primarily in the United States and other Americanised countries, the sign originated among deaf schoolchildren using American Sign Language to create a sign from a combination of the signs for the letters I, L and Y (I Love You).”



And there’s more 😉  also at JHaines’ blog


Screen Shot 2015-01-19 at 16.19.21


This is Albert Pike!Unknown

(Photo from wiki)

Whilst on the subject of Albert Pike there’s “his” infamous “WWIII letter to Mazzini” hoax which was also published in a recent article on the same blog.

jhaines6.wordpress <dot>com/2015/01/14/charlie-hebdo-is-not-about-free-speech-its-about-inciting-world-war-3/

Here’s a good article debunking the hoax:

See also  ~ the same people were promoting this hoax too

written by N for

© 2015Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Detection

“Jesuit Oath of Induction” is a HOAX – Youtube

Unfortunately some of the links under the video don’t work but the screen shots at do.  We would like to express our gratitude for the research done by bingolly1.

Here’s a starting point

Screen Shot 2015-01-16 at 20.06.13

If we could find this information then so could anyone else. 😉




For further reading:

“The Jesuit Oath Debunked

Sometimes one finds himself completely outside the realm of “the possible” and in the strange realm of “where the heck did they come up with this stuff?” The Jesuit Oath is one such example. It is completely ludicrous, and to believe that people actually believe this stuff is simply staggering. The Oath has also been reincarnated in another popular version known as the “Knight of Columbus Oath”. However, we will deal strictly with the two versions of the Oath that are most commonly cited. The first is located in the Library of Congress, the second is located in the Congressional Record.
Jesuit Oath found in the Library of Congress This version of the Jesuit Oath is one of the two most popular versions cited. It is probably cited so often due to the fact that it can be located in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Library of Congress Catalog Card # 66-43354. Anti-Catholics seem to believe that because it is found in the Library of Congress, that it is a credible document, which I will show is not always a given. On the other hand, perhaps certain anti-Catholics wish to prey on ignorance, and they know exactly what I am about to expose. But, before I do, here is a complete copy of the aforementioned Oath.

“I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poinard dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.
In confirmation of which, I hereby dedicate my life, my soul and all my corporeal powers, and with this dagger which I now receive, I will subscribe my name written in my own blood, in testimony thereof; and should I prove false or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the Militia of the Pope cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear to ear, my belly opened and sulphur burned therein, with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul be tortured by demons in an eternal hell forever!

All of which I, M_______ N_______ , do swear by the blessed Trinity and blessed Sacrament, which I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolably; and do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real intentions to keep this my oath.

In testimony hereof I take this most holy and blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further, with my name written with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and sealed in the face of this holy convent.”

So there you have it, the Jesuit Oath found in the Library of Congress. Every time I have seen this Oath used, the author/anti-Catholic has relied on the fact that it can be found in the Library of Congress as some testament to the legitimacy and authority of the document. So, just to be sure that this was really the case, I went on an excursion to the Library of Congress website and had a look-see for myself.”

The research concludes here:

emphasis ours

“Blunders and Forgeries: Historical Essays” available to read online at the link above.

Robert Ware

Screen Shot 2015-01-16 at 21.41.43

Screen Shot 2015-01-16 at 22.03.54


The following sums it up in our opinion

Ware’s most notable forgeries were “The Jesuit Oath” and “Foxes and Firebrands.” The former is sort of like “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in that it falsely constructs a sort of manifesto of the Jesuits, describing their intention to “wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals…to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth” and that it is still used to condemn Catholics today, either by stupid people who never heard that it was fake, or by malicious people who tell stupid people about it.

emphasis theirs

Updated 2016 to add this from the archive Cornerstone Magazine: Alberto Rivera, Jack Chick and a False Story. (Some bloggers have used Alberto Rivera as a source to try to prove that the Oath is genuine).

© 2016Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Detection

Global Warming and David Suzuki’s Lies (updated 29/12/14)

an article from 2000, but still worth reading, imho.

by David MacRae



When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, one of the highlights of my TV-viewing week was David Suzuki’s excellent The Nature of Things. Each week I looked forward to yet another lucid insight into the workings of technology and the natural world. As a consequence of that long-running series, Suzuki is by far the best-known scientist in Canada. In fact, he has a considerable reputation worldwide.

Half-truths man

It’s sad to see how a man I once admired has recently stooped to obfuscation, half-truths and outright lies in support of the Luddite cause of stopping technological progress. He imagines that we should return to some mythical past in which Mankind lived in harmony with nature.

Of course, Man has never lived in harmony with nature. Instead he has fought it from the beginning, and rightly so. Until the capitalist revolution of the last 250 years gave us some control over Nature’s depredations, the vast majority of people lived lives that were brutish, backbreaking and short. The « rich » were those who had a full belly with an occasional helping of meat.

In their mad dash back to this imaginary garden, Suzuki and the other eco-nuts have always set their sights first and foremost on the energy industry. This is because energy is the foundation of a modern of economy. Destroy that and mankind will truly return to the past. In their lemming rush, they ignore one small detail: if they ever achieved their goals, billions of people would die. In their death throes, they would unleash an ecological catastrophe that would dwarf the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Twenty-five years ago, the eco-nuts were fussing about how another ice age was coming. Remember that? Today it’s the opposite problem; the ice caps are about to melt and we’re all going to be drowned. Conveniently, the cause of this coming disaster is the energy industry. To support this idea Suzuki and the rest of the eco-nut fringe present us with the following « reasoning »:
1) The earth is warming up;
2) Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are the cause;
3) This global warming will have a disastrous effect on the future of Mankind and the planet on the whole;
4) The Kyoto Protocol, forcing developed nations to cut back on carbon emissions, will save us from this disaster.
All four of these claims are false. Let’s take them in turn:


Claim: The earth is warming.
Fact: The global temperature reached its modern peak about 1940 and declined somewhat in the following decade. It has not changed significantly in the last fifty years although there has been considerable variation from year to year, largely due to the El Niño phenomenon.
Claim: The cause of warming is man-made increases in atmospheric CO2.
Fact: The cause of global temperature change is – wait for this – changes in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun. Should this surprise anyone? It is intuitively obvious and was first verified scientifically more than a hundred years ago.
Claim: This warming will cause global disaster.
Fact: A somewhat higher global temperature would be beneficial. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the global temperature has usually been higher than it is today. A long high plateau occurred between 8000 BC and 4000 BC. This period is called the Neolithic Climatic Optimum, not the Neolithic Climatic Disaster. Another shorter rise around 1000 AD has a similar name: the Medieval Climatic Optimum. Global temperatures were at a minimum between 1300 AD and 1650 AD. This period is called the Little Ice Age. To put it simply: Heat good. Cold bad. Can any Canadian really doubt this?
Claim: Kyoto will save us all.
Fact: Even if fully implemented, Kyoto will have a minimal effect on atmospheric accumulations of carbon dioxide. According to the exact same climate models which supposedly prove that the earth is heating up due to CO2 emissions are the cause, Kyoto would not change things by more than 0.1ºC over the next century, an insignificant amount.
I am not going to justify these statements. If you want to look further into it, has some good links. I especially recommend John Daly’s Still Waiting for the Greenhouse and Arthur B. Robinson’s Oregon Petition Project. Instead I want to concentrate on Suzuki part in this scam.

Since his thesis contradicts known facts in every way, he necessarily resorts to lies, blustering and misdirection in order to support his position. This is typical of any fanatic.

The Canoe Session

Let’s watch his mendacity and obfuscation in action. On September 21st, sponsored him in an Internet Chat Session on this subject. From the transcript, I’ve extracted all the exchanges he made with his debunkers, people who disagree with his precepts. The rest were supporters or people who were simply looking for information.

We’ll start with a simple request for information before we go on to people who actually confront his lies.
Richard Weatherill: Is it fairly conclusive that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, or can it be attributed equally as well to some cyclic phenomena, of which we are only dimly aware, if at all? Thank you.
David Suzuki: It’s possible of course that there are things we don’t even know about but the overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that we are a major cause of a warming that is not a natural cycle.

This claim is simply a lie. The overwhelming consensus of climatologists is that, if warming exists at all, its causes are natural. In all polls of climatologists conducted so far, those who expressed an opinion were far more likely to disagree with the Greenhouse theory than to accept it. For example, a 1997 Gallup poll indicated that 83 per cent of North American climatologists disagree with it.
Alan Caruba: Is it not true that the earth’s overall temperature has not increased in at least the past fifty years? That no satellite or radiosonde balloon data has found a rise in temperature since around 1950 or so?
David Suzuki: The data that have been gathered, including recalibrated satellite info, support a 1º rise in the last century.

Notice that he did not answer the question. Everyone agrees that temperatures have risen over the last century. In fact, they have risen steadily over a three hundred year period starting about 1650. As I noted, the modern peak in 1940 and temperatures have been stable since 1950. Yes, temperatures rose in the first half of the twentieth century. The question was about the second half.

« As the years go by, there is a stronger and stronger consensus among climatologists that global warming does not exist. There is virtual unanimity that if warming is taking place, the causes are natural. » QL

Three completely different temperature measurement techniques, two in balloons and one in satellites, have shown essentially no change in global temperature since balloons were first used in 1958 and satellites in 1979. Instead they show a random walk (influenced by El Niño) and they agree with each other on where the walk took us. They also agree locally with surface measurements made in the stations with the best records (North America, for example). Other surface measurements, notably in Siberia, indicate a rise in temperature over this period. Four reliable sources, which agree with each other, must surely trump an unreliable source out in left field.

Besides, how could satellite measurements detect any change previous to 1979? Does Suzuki have some data from UFOs that he is hiding from the rest of us?

This recalibrated satellite data that Suzuki refers to delights the eco-nuts to no end. Because of the recalibration (made to account for the fact that a satellite’s orbit deteriorates over time), the data now show that global warming has occurred, unlike the original data which embarrassingly showed a cooling effect. But in fact, all that has really changed is the sign of the tiny fractional change since 1979. The data now show a change of +0.04º per decade instead of -0.04º. There have been some further re-recalibrations which may yet flip the sign again, but the bottom line is that zero is zero is zero.
Warren: How do you respond to arguments that the general circulation models used to predict how increases in greenhouse gases will affect climate are so unreliable that we ought not to use them as a basis for large changes in our way of life?
This question was asked three times and Suzuki never offered any response. He couldn’t even find a way to lie about it. Admittedly, his task is difficult. The models all say that temperatures in the lower troposphere should increase faster than ground readings, but the opposite is true. They completely disagree with each other on what the future will hold, not to mention that they can’t « retrodict » the past either. They all show bizarre effects from future warming such as closely juxtaposed hot and cold regions. This is not really surprising because they are full of fudge factors, some of which have a bigger effect than the actual data. This is junk science at its worst.
Alan Caruba: You say that climatologists agree that human activity is responsible for the earth heating up, but 18,000 have signed a statement disputing this. There have been other proclamations disputing global warming. There is no consensus. Do you disagree with this?

David Suzuki: The poll/petition you are referring to was a semi-fictional effort by some sceptics in which they misrepresented themselves as the National Academy of sciences. In fact the national academy took the unprecedented step of issuing a press release condemning the tactic. Some of the signatories to the poll included fictitious characters.

The petitioners have never represented themselves as the National Academy of Sciences. Furthermore, the NAS press release in question did not accuse them of doing so. As Frederick Seitz, onThe petitioners have never represented themselves as the National Academy of Sciences. e of the people behind the petition was a former Academy president, the press release simply stated that « The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences » and that they did not agree with its position. Caruba was right. There is no consensus.

Actually Caruba is not quite right either. As the years go by, there is a stronger and stronger consensus among climatologists that global warming does not exist. There is virtual unanimity that if warming is taking place, the causes are natural.

For example, Seitz himself signed the IPCC protocol of 1995, which the eco-nuts use to prove their case. He has since changed his mind. Or maybe he didn’t. The protocol was fraudulently altered after he signed it. Among other things, the following two paragraphs were removed:
1) « none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases. »
2) « no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to … man-made causes. »
We next find out that the « fictional character » accusation is a lie too.

Bob Ferguson: Your response to Mr. Caruba is inaccurate. That is a false claim circulated by Ozone Action, a radical environmental group. Which signers were fictional?
David Suzuki: For more information on the poll you should check out the National Academies of Science web site. I believe you can find a definite statement on the poll in the archives of their press releases.

Once again, Suzuki did not answer the point – that he was repeating the lies of a radical environmentalist group. Instead he repeated his references to a NAS press release which did not say what he claimed it said. Suzuki must have known the contents of the press release when he propagated his lie. He also appears to know that Ozone Action fabricated the accusation that there were fictional signers. Certainly he did not refute the questioner. Yet he repeated Ozone Action’s libel anyway. As for why he insists on misrepresenting a petition as a poll, this is simply bizarre.
Dick Kahle: Half of the warming of this century, about 0.4 C, occurred prior to 1940 before most of the big increase in CO2. The 0.4 C warming left, which might be caused partially by man, is much less than the 0.8 C that the latest models predict, which include aerosols. Why the difference?
David Suzuki: Historically greenhouse gas emissions have been on the increase since the Industrial Revolution. I believe that the 0.8 includes the earlier 0.4. More importantly future warming is likely to be based on the emissions which are taking place now and those from the past two decades, when emissions soared.

The eco-nuts do, in fact, claim a warming of 0.8º C over the last century (notice that Suzuki earlier rounded it up conveniently to 1ºC). But he ignores the writer’s point – that half of this claimed warming took place in the first half of the century when CO2 emissions were a fraction of what they are today. In fact, Man has been adding to CO2 levels in the air since the invention of fire. Almost all of this increase has taken place in the last fifty years, yet the global temperature today is somewhat below the average of the last 10,000 years.

Aside from this, where exactly does he get his idea that « future warming is likely to be based on the emissions which are taking place now »? Nobody has ever made such a claim, including the junk scientists themselves. Their models all assume that current warming is caused by current emissions.
There’s a good reason for this. If I build a greenhouse today, the area underneath its roof won’t experience a temperature rise 50 years from now. It happens when I construct the roof. His explanation here doesn’t even qualify as junk science. It’s ad-hoc argumentation pure and simple. It’s designed to shut up his opponent, not advance science or the human condition. It’s shameful.

After this exchange, the transcript ends but Suzuki’s hypocrisy on this issue certainly doesn’t.

Of farts and belches

James Hansen was one of the original alarmists who brought forth this notion of global warming in 1988. He was the principal instigator behind the original IPCC protocol in 1992, which claimed that global warming was a serious problem and that carbon dioxide emissions are the cause.

Mr. Hansen now believes that he was wrong, that global warming is, at fact, caused by emissions of other gases. His reasoning is that when fossils fuels are burned, soot and other impurities are also thrown into the air, which prevent solar energy from reaching the earth. The consequence is that the net contribution of fossil fuels to the greenhouse effect is roughly zero.

Hansen now believes that the main culprit causing global warming is methane emissions, primarily generated by cow farts and rice paddy belches. So the solution is thus to reduce methane emissions. By attaching a hose to the aft side of cattle, perhaps? Maybe the answer is to return to using dirty gasoline and inefficient engines in order to throw more pollution up into the atmosphere.

Bah. Maybe the answer is that Hansen didn’t know what the hell he was talking about back in 1988 – and still doesn’t.

As for Suzuki, when Hansen made his new ideas public, the Great Canadian Environmental Guru responded by saying simply that he hadn’t read the report but doesn’t believe that it would have anything useful to contribute to the debate.

The fact of the matter is that Suzuki has nothing useful to contribute to the debate either.

As to why he lies in public, the answer can only be either that he and his causes benefit hugely from the publicity and the money it generates or simply that he is a fanatic. I make no claim to know which is the truth. Perhaps both. One thing is clear. He is no scientist.


Updated to add more on David Suzuki here

2012: Prophet of nonsense #2 – Gregg Braden and fractal time

2012 has been and gone but these false shepherds are still trying to round up the sheep.

To those of us who aren’t scientifically trained Braden and his ilk may sound plausible and that is what they rely on. There’s a quote

“In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”

Desiderius Erasmus

Actually in the kingdom of the blind the man who says he can see could be king and often is if there’s no-one wiling or able to verify his claims!

See also


The New Age Conspiratorial World of Gregg Braden

© 2014

Archaeological Haecceities

After describing Calleman’s prophecies of nonsense I decided to go for Gregg Braden’s new book Fractal Time: The Secret of 2012 and a New World Age. Apparently, Braden tries to merge fractal patterns with the view of a cyclic universe. This is an idea that partly steams from yet another prophet of nonsense, José Arguelles. Notice that all these prophets refer mainly to other “prophets” and their “interpretation” of the Maya calendar(s), not to established researchers that actually have an academic degree in Maya archaeology, epigraphy, iconography or ethnography. The main exception here is perhaps John Major Jenkins, another of Braden’s influences. Jenkins at least tries to base his galactic alignment nonsense on Mayanist research (particularly archaeoastronomical studies like Freidel, Schele and Parker’s “Maya Cosmos”). But it is still nonsense as there is no particular galactic alignment between the dark rift in the Milky Way and the winter solstice…

View original post 467 more words

“The Planet X Saga: The Scientific Arguments in a Nutshell”

Ancient texts do not discuss the existence of a tenth planet.
There is no astronomical indication of the existence of another large planet in the inner solar system.
The Sun is not acting in any way abnormally.
There are not more earthquakes than normal.
There has been a lot of weird weather lately
Brown dwarfs are not at all the way Planet X people describe.
Observatories are not being closed suspiciously.
The pictures that have been posted are either outright fakes or being misinterpreted.
I am not a government disinformation agent.
The Grand Conclusion (guess what it is)
Links and acknowledgements

view all the above at the link 🙂