All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2020 - David Icke
27:24
"I was a climate alarmist. I believed the narrative" - Som Wardner Talks To Gareth Icke
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Outro Music Essentially what I've been doing with a lot of these other
things is when I investigate them deep, you know, I do the same thing.
I kind of like analyze both sides of the or multiple sides arguments and see which one kind of holds water, you know, trying to be aware of argument from authority, fallacy, those kind of things.
And you tend to find that a lot in science.
There's a lot of argument from authority.
And, you know, everybody's aware that big money has moved forward.
Medicine, pharma in particular.
But they don't realise that big money has moved science in many ways.
They think it's towards the CO2 denialism, or whatever they want to call it, whatever emotional term they want to use.
They're going with the denial to link to the Holocaust, don't they?
That's the whole point of it.
Of course, yeah. There is a subconscious association with that, and they want to tar you with the same brush.
You're such... A terrible person.
And it's really bad. Some of these people that have some of these professors who are very honorable and incredibly intelligent people who identify skeptics, whether it's Judith Curry, who had to retire, whether it's William Happer, who's a lovely man, and he really understands the CO2 molecule like no other.
Whether it's David Bellamy compared to David Attenborough, who believes all the fraudulent, you know, studies, and how would he know that the studies are fraudulent?
He even told us that the walruses, you know, he even told us that the walruses were dying because of climate change.
And then they realized that actually, it wasn't climate change.
There's a record number of walruses.
That's why there's a record number of deaths.
Just like there was a record number of polar bears as well.
But we've had it all. We've had the deer, we've had the African penguins.
All four of those things that were so-called endangered because of climate change, and especially pushed by the BBC, all turned out not to be true.
And those things really woke me up to what's kind of going on.
The argument from authority fallacy is one of the biggest problems for science.
Because science and the schooling system has to Educate you based on a paradigm.
There's no way around it.
You have to have a paradigm.
And if the paradigm's flawed at the foundation, unfortunately they construct an entire building on that shaky foundation and they don't even realize.
And when it comes out that the foundation itself may have been wrong, it's too late.
People have now their egos vested in it by writing numerous books and giving numerous talks and essays and And the problem is they're very unlikely to be willing to budge on that and admit that they were wrong for 30 years, 40 years. That's why that famous phrase, I don't know who said it, like, science moves one death at a time, you know?
Science moves forward one death at a time.
And it's a big problem because it's basically we're now being tested by the failings of human nature.
Religious thinking never really went away.
I mean, the classical religions have started to die off, but it has been replaced by science, scientism of sorts.
Yeah, you know, and and within that science like so now it's like, oh, but studies say science says so therefore it must be true.
So what you found is, you know, people still want to identify with the group.
They still need a purpose and and they still have an emotional, um, desire to belong to
the right side, you know, and you found that religious thinking may not, you know, have
really gone away, might have just metastasized into other movements, whether it's the CO2
hysteria we see today, which is why it just has all the hallmarks of a religion, you know,
with the doomsday, you know, fire and brimstone people telling us to repent, you know, um,
But they believe that they're all acting in good faith, I think most of them, at the street
But it's so sinister now that it's got to this level where they're making children protest.
And a lot of the teachers and the headmasters, the headmistress, whoever, they're encouraging these kids to believe in this hysteria.
And because they've got their poster child, Greta, you know, the second one, because the other one was Suzuki back in 92, which most people don't realize, you know, David Suzuki's daughter, another alarmist, so-called professor, right?
What you have is like, whenever you've got a child lecturing, you know, experts at the UN or whatever, You've got to wonder what's up, right?
Well, you know it's propaganda when they roll a kid out.
Generally, throughout history, whether it was Hitler or Stalin or Al Gore, you know, it doesn't matter.
Do you remember babies out of incubators?
I think we discussed that last time.
Yeah, yeah. They just roll a kid out.
You had George Bush Sr. even saying, they took babies out of incubators to systematically dismantle Kuwait.
I'm like, what? Does that even make sense?
Like, stop for a minute. So that's why you've always got to be critical.
And I think critical thinking, unfortunately, isn't taught in the schools.
It's an obedient system.
If I went and studied environmental studies, let's say, and I said that CO2 is greenhouse gas, but it's very likely the evidence shows that it's a very minor greenhouse gas, I think I would probably be marked down.
I probably failed. Yeah, of course.
Yeah, absolutely. This is a big problem because I think history, like some of the smartest people I know, It's very few people actually get what the CO2 stuff is and it took me a long time to finally investigate it and get it I mean, I don't know if you want to talk about that but I'm quite happy to there's you know two two major things about that about the hypothesis that can be disproved pretty quickly the Vostok ice cores are indisputed, you know, so in In Antarctica, there's very many different nations there.
There's, I think, France, Britain, America, Norway, Australia, a bunch of them there.
So you've got scientists from all around Russia, and the Vostok.
Vostok is a frozen lake in Antarctica, and you can dig pretty deep, and they dug quite a few miles down.
And they go all the way back 420,000 years into the past, where you can Observe the CO2 in the atmosphere and also the temperature.
Now, interestingly, there are Greenland ice cores as well, which actually correlate a lot of the findings.
So what do you find in that, which is indisputable objective data?
Then the interpretation is the devil in the detail, if you like, because no one can really debate the spectroscopy of CO2, you know, the frequencies it actually absorbs, that molecule.
Neither can they debate the Vostok ice cores because those are facts.
What they try to do is interpret the data in different ways.
But the key here is the hypothesis is that CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas.
It is admittedly a trace one, but it's so powerful that even slight changes in its parts of a million Will lead to catastrophic climate change, right, if raised.
So let's look at that.
What does the Vostok ice core actually show us?
It shows us one very important piece of information, that it lags temperature.
So if you go back 420,000 years, you have a temperature variance of, you know, six to eight degrees cooler than now, and two to three degrees warmer.
As we know, the planet was A couple of degrees warmer in the Roman times, the Minoan times, and actually very recently, a thousand years ago, when there were many farms in Greenland, which are now still covered by ice.
I mean, this is the thing.
That's another evidential fact.
You know, you have these farms, the Viking farms in Greenland, when it was initially populated in the 900s, and then those farms were abandoned by 1300, 1400, when The world started to slip into a mini ice age, which had only recovered from since 1850.
And the temperature has been rising since 1850, even before the industrial CO2 emissions.
So what's interesting is when you've got that clear evidence that those farms are now still covered by ice, clearly the world was warmer and Holland didn't submerge, you know.
So maybe the hysteria is somewhat unwarranted, and we can actually cope with one or two degrees warmer without it being a complete catastrophe.
Now, going back to the Vostok, what it shows us is that the temperature rises and falls before the CO2. And now the alternative hypothesis is still supported there.
The hypothesis that it's a primary driver of temperatures Fails because as the temperatures rise, the CO2 lags behind by 600 years at least.
And there's many papers on it peer-approved because no one can fudge that data.
It's a fact. And also when the temperatures fall, the CO2 lags by even greater amount, 1,000 to 2,000 years.
I mean, that's a long time, okay, for a human anyway.
So Clearly, they're now claiming that this rise over the last 100, 150 years has led to, you know, I mean, there's no lag there.
But anyway, so there's another very important piece of information, other than the fact that there's always a lag.
There's never a situation where the CO2 rose first and then temperatures followed.
There's, you know, there's some volcanic activity that you see, but generally it's never been the case of a direct correlation there.
In order to work out the causation, you know, you can't claim that lung cancer causes smoking, you know, because it happens after, right?
So that's a key flaw in the primary hypothesis.
There's another one, the magnitude.
Now, If you look at the variance of temperature over the last 420,000 years, it's, you know, roughly 10 degrees, as I said, two to three degrees higher and six to eight under.
Now, that variance of 10 degrees is correlated to a variance of around 100 parts per million of CO2. So the lowest we've recorded is 180 parts per million.
And the highest we've recorded is Usually 280, but there's one occasion where it flips up to 300 before the industrial times, recent industrial times.
So what they're saying there, what we observe, is that there's a 10 degree variance in temperature with a 100 part per million rise and fall, which does correlate.
Let's forget about the lag for a minute.
I mean, that's a pretty big problem, but let's just forget about it for a minute.
So they're saying that essentially 10 parts per million is correlated with one degree temperature.
Now, well, what happened?
So in recent times, since the pre-industrial times, which was 280, the upper level, before the turn of the century, was 380.
And now it's about 415.
So that 100 parts per million rise in CO2 has only been correlated to less than a degree So what changed?
So clearly CO2 isn't the primary driver because it's proved itself not to be.
Because that extra 100 parts per million, if it was a linear absorption, which of course it's not, but if it was a linear absorption, it would have led to another 10.
But here's the thing. It was so markedly different to the past that you have to wonder what's up.
It's a tenth, at best, of the power it was for 420,000 years.
So you wonder if the primary hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of climate and therefore even a small increase of CO2 will be catastrophic for the Earth.
You do wonder if that's correct, do you not?
I don't think it is.
I don't either. No, I think there's a big ball of fire that might have a little thing to play in the Earth's temperature.
Absolutely. Remember, that ball of fire and the orbital cycles around that ball of fire We're disputed for many, many decades.
And Milankovic came up with that long.
It seems that all these Serbian or Yugoslavian scientists that were geniuses kept getting ignored by the mainstream for some reason.
You know, you've got Tesla, but you've also got Milankovic.
Only in the 70s were Milankovic cycles proved correct.
Now, they're very predictable.
If you actually look at that 420,000 indisputable Vostok data, you can see the cyclical pattern.
And you can see that the cycles are about to go down.
Not only that the earth was, you know, warmer in the past, not just the reason, but you see that over the next few thousand years, we're heading downwards.
And let's not forget that if temperatures go down, it's a lot, lot worse for humanity and civilization because agricultural output will drop.
And in fact, a lot of people haven't mentioned this in the mainstream.
The BBC don't. But that the increase of 400 plus parts, sorry, 100 parts per million extra of CO2 since the pre-industrial time has led to 40% extra agricultural yields.
The world is greener.
You need less water because obviously you've got the stomata.
There's another way of working out how much CO2 was in the atmosphere.
It's by the plants, fossilized plants, stomata, you know, the little holes.
Because, of course, they had these little holes and To breathe, essentially.
And they want to have as little of those as possible because they don't want to breathe out the water, especially in sort of dry areas.
So when the CO2 in the atmosphere is higher, They can have less of the holes.
And plants love CO2. It's the gas of life.
The irony of all this is that the green gas has been demonized by the green movement.
That's how upside down a lot of these people have got it.
So ask any farmer.
Farmers know that in a greenhouse, You know, plants love that the optimal for their growth is over a thousand parts per million.
In fact, in my room right now, it's probably a thousand parts per million just from my respiring, which when I breathe out, it's like 40,000 parts per million.
I mean, let's not forget this is parts per million, right?
So if I take a hundred thousand molecules of atmosphere into a little chamber, right?
Before humans industrialised, three of those were CO2. They're claiming that we put one extra in, and we don't know if it was us for sure.
I mean, there's definitely some data to do with carbon-14, whatever, in the atmosphere.
So let's just presume it's us.
So that one extra molecule in 100,000 they claim is making catastrophic climate change.
I mean, this is how daft it's got.
You know, when you look at the spectroscopy of the molecule itself, you know that it doesn't make any sense.
I mean, I could go into some other objective facts that debunk this narrative.
One of them is, you know, the actual spectroscopy of the molecule, like what frequencies it absorbs infrared radiation at.
Now, that is indisputable.
Whether you're Russian, you're American, or wherever, it'll always be the same results.
The CO2 molecule It's a linear molecule which is heavier than air.
And thank God for that. It's one and a half times heavier than the average air.
That means it drifts downwards.
You know, fortunate that, because plants eat the CO2 molecule.
And then we eat the plants.
So more CO2 means more life, to generalize, right?
But the Earth isn't all land or plants.
The Earth is mainly ocean.
And it sinks into the ocean.
And if you look at the geological timescale, you know, all the way back, you know, in Pangaea and all that stuff, billions of years ago, CO2 was far higher in the atmosphere, and it got turned into oxygen by plants, of course, by photosynthesis, but also it mineralized into rocks, you know, calcium, carbonate, et cetera, et cetera.
So CO2 has, as time has gone on, CO2 has kept dropping, you know, And that's dangerous to life because anything lower than 150 parts per million and the entire ecosystem collapse, it's very dangerous.
And we've got as low as 180.
So that was only 30 parts per million from when plants really start to die and life is threatened.
And if we hadn't done the whole, you know, fossil fuels thing, There's a chance that within a million years, I know that's a long time in human terms, but life would have completely been extinguished on the planet because if you follow the trend down, it was pretty disastrous.
So unless there was some huge volcanic activity to bring CO2 back up, life would have eventually perished.
Now, the spectroscopy is indisputable.
Which wavelengths? Now, people always talk about greenhouses, but the atmosphere is not a greenhouse.
You know, the greenhouse doesn't have A huge ocean in it, and clouds in it, and stuff like that.
The greenhouse gets hotter based on convection.
Hot air rises.
And in a greenhouse, there's a piece of glass in the way that stops that hot air from rising, so it keeps getting hotter.
But in the atmosphere, of course, when things heat, it rises.
And then what happens when the air rises?
It obviously cools. So it's a very different system, and it's a bit of a misnomer.
Yeah. We know that the Sun has all of these, you know, wavelengths that we are protected from by the atmosphere.
And if you look at the studies, which are indisputable again, there is a window in and a window out.
So the window in is in obviously the visible range, the short wave radiation.
So you've got, you know, and you've got ultraviolet.
And fortunately, we're protected from most of the damaging short wave radiation that would just kill us all.
You know, it would have been a sterile planet.
If not for the beauty of the atmosphere.
Now, when it hits the Earth, the wavelength changes, obviously, it gets longer, and then it rebounds back into space through the atmosphere.
Now, the atmosphere has an out window, too.
It's the infrared window, heat, infrared.
And as it happens, CO2 doesn't really block that window much, if you look at the spectroscopy.
So it would be a problem if CO2 absorbed all the heat within that particular wavelength window.
But it doesn't. It only does very, very little.
And the little it does is already overshadowed by the far more powerful and abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor.
So when you've got so much water vapor...
So in that 100,000 molecules I had there, you might only have...
Four molecules of carbon dioxide, but you've got infinitely more water vapor.
They've already done the absorbing before the carbon dioxide can even have a chance to get in there.
You know, water vapor can be, it depends on the, you know, the area.
You know, the latitude, longitude, whatever.
The water vapor varies vastly.
It can be as much as 5%.
That's why I didn't want to quote a number for that particular example.
But it's always much, much more than carbon dioxide.
So, If the infrared window isn't blocked by carbon dioxide, then what's the other concern?
Now, that's why there's an overlap between all the greenhouse gases.
So carbon dioxide only gets a little look in because it's so much smaller than all the others.
So clearly there's not much of a concern in that regard.
So then the modelists start to do...
They basically have to play a lot of intellectual...
Acrobatics in order to still retain that hypothesis.
And this is what you tend to find with people who are religious thinkers.
They completely disregard the whole Karl Popper stuff and go for the simple explanation.
They start getting more and more complex to try and explain their paradigm and to cling on to it.
So now they claim that CO2 heats up the ocean.
That's one of the theories. I mean, that's absolutely ridiculous.
Okay, it makes somewhat of sense because, of course, it It drifts down towards the ocean.
But try heating your bath with a room heater, an air heater.
It would take you a long time to shift the temperature of the bath, let alone the vast ocean.
I won't bore you with the physical equations on that, but if you look at how much you need to heat a gas above the liquid, The amount of Celsius to raise it by one degree Celsius, it's something ridiculous.
It's like 33,000 degrees for every one degree of the water.
That's how ridiculous that theory is.
Now then they tried other things.
They've talked about amplification models.
Well, clearly the amplification models aren't every single model that is publicized.
There's some other models that don't use amplification, like the Russian ones, for example.
They rely on amplification, and amplification fails.
I mean, all the predictions have been wrong, and we don't even know how much of this warming.
There's no way of control testing it, because we've had sea level rises, which are now slowing.
We're at like three millimetres per year, and it's the lowest It's been recorded for thousands of years because it's slowed down since we came out of the mini ice age.
So while CO2 is, you know, rising very rapidly, the sea levels aren't, you know, rising rapidly like that either.
In fact, if anything, they're slowing down slightly.
And most of the time when you see, you know, sea level, like you imagine that sea levels have risen in an area, it actually turns out it's due to tectonic activity, but essentially the land has sunk.
So there's, you know, it's more than one way you can, you know, that can happen.
So I think it's very easy to be alarmist about.
It's very easy to fudge the figures, of course, right?
Because if you have a belief in this paradigm that the world is heating up, it's very easy to fudge these figures.
You can go in and, you know, what time of day are you going to take?
You know, urbanization itself makes things hotter.
So the world is far more urban now than it was back in, you know, like when the horses were riding down City Road, you know, it probably slightly less warm than all these cars constantly going through it.
You think those, you know, the heat from the cars isn't going to raise it a couple of degrees?
So where are the actual thermometers?
And how about the Mercury?
So we always hear this hottest record, hottest, you know, record ever, right?
Montpellier or whatever, like just very recently.
I looked into that and it was 38.1.
And then when you look at the past records, they were in like 1880s and the 1930s.
Those were mercury thermometers.
Are you telling me you could measure a 0.1 there and it wasn't within the margin of error?
So sure, it might be a very hot year.
That's without question.
But the point is, when the CO2 was, you know, much, much lower, you might have had a hotter temperature, but it's within the margin of error of the mercury thermometer not to realize that.
This is the problem. It's very easy to fudge the data.
You can use a different time of day.
You cannot account for urbanization.
A lot of them are in airports in the actual stream of the jets.
You can also not count for...
Well, you can change the latitude, the longitude, the altitude, which makes a huge difference.
And quite often when you find alarmist data, when you look into it, like Jennifer Marahasi has done in Australia, you've found that they've admitted having altered the past.
They actually admit it. And then they say they had to correct it because of The difference in the equipment.
And sometimes equipment hasn't even changed and they still do that.
So it's very bizarre.
It's almost like it's because religious thinking is that dangerous that people do this.
They deliberately defraud others when they believe that it's the right thing to do.
Yeah, well that's the exact thing though, isn't it?
Like we spoke earlier about the religion, the climate change sort of doomsday thing, it is a religious thing and like any religion, I remember being at school and if they said, you know, say like feeding the 5,000 with a loaf of bread and two fishes and you're like, well how do you do that? The answer...
God works in mysterious ways, or whatever, you know, and I think it's a little bit like that with the climate change stuff, because you've just reeled off, you know, half an hour's worth of stuff where, explain that, and they don't.
But they don't, this is the thing, like, whenever I talk to so-called alarmists about this, because I used to be a moderate alarmist, I used to be very concerned, I used to believe the narrative.
I didn't think it was possible that the Brian Cox's and the David Attenborough's could be wrong.
But then I realized that they just believe the doctored data.
They haven't done the critical analysis themselves like David Bellamy did.
And then he was ostracized for it.
And he, by the way, he was thrown out of his career after that interview with George Monbiot, who's been a relentless propagandist for this.
He's also a communist. He was punished on that interview on the BBC saying that he may not have...
He was honest enough to say, okay, you might have some information that I don't.
And then he said, well, didn't you think that you should have investigated this information before?
And he goes, no, well, why don't you send it to me?
And then he tried to make him look like an irresponsible scientist.
But the truth of the matter is, the information that the so-called information George Monbiot had was mostly doctored data.
And... David Bellby has now been proved correct because even the Met Office said that there had been no warming for the last two decades and that was in, you know, whatever, 2013, 2014 or so.
So the problem is that we have Not just financial corruption of science, which everybody's aware of, but they seem to be only aware of one side of that, because, of course, there's millions in this whole Paris Agreement and the alarmist side.
Eisenhower warned about it in his military-industrial complex.
▲
Export Selection