All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
56:09
The Real Deal: Climate Change: Myth vs. Reality, Part 2 (6 January 2022) w Joe Olson, P.E.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, with a second in our series of special reports with Joe Olson about the climate change hoax.
Just to review briefly what we presented during our first, Principia Scientific International, which Joe co-founded, has published voluminous studies on this, including a book, Slaying the Sky Dragon, Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which I highly recommend.
We all know for there to be a causal relation, there must first of all be a correlation.
In this instance, you're seeing a correlation between vaccines and autism.
Notice, as the use of vaccines increased, the occurrence of autism increased in correspondence with it.
In the case of global temperature variation in over 6 million years, however, there is no correlation.
Look at the difference.
Look at the graphs.
The blue line and the black.
It would be very difficult to sort out how they could possibly be related, but In the absence of a correlation, there can be no causation.
That's the bottom line.
There's no correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
That means atmospheric CO2 is not a cause of global temperature.
Changes in the one do not bring about changes in the other.
Meanwhile, we know there have been variations in global temperature over the duration of Earth.
Here we have the last roughly 2,500 years.
Ups and downs, changes.
The point being, this is not a function of the quantity of CO2 available in the atmosphere.
Joe, Before we go further, I want to bring you in to say a few words about our first presentation, my friend.
Yeah, everybody needs to watch that one first because this is going to be a series and so this is like, you know, you don't want to skip the first class of the semester because you're going to be behind the rest of the semester.
This is just second and what's going to probably end up being a half dozen different series on all of the different aspects of the global warming fraud and the related frauds of green energy and peak oil.
So those are all three the trifecta of energy control and they're all manipulated by the same group of clowns that have been misleading science for decades now.
It's absolutely disgusting.
I got interested in this when Obama got elected and threatened to pass the carbon tax and I knew that it was in a complete lie because I had to take two semesters of thermodynamics back in 1971 and 2 and so I knew that it was impossible for what they were saying happen could happen and I wrote articles and sent them to newspaper editors nationwide and never got anything much in the way of response.
I had one editor at Washington Examiner that was like, yeah, we're a conservative newspaper,
we'll publish something that's alternative.
But every time I'd send him an article, he goes, well, it's just too complicated.
You can't, and I talked to him on the phone and it was like, and then, so he never did anything.
So finally, out of desperation, I sent an article called Hoax of the Century to Infowars
and they published it on April 13th, 2009.
And I went, okay, here's the breakthrough.
You're not gonna make it through the standard published press,
so you need to go to the internet.
And so after that, I wrote, well, here's the first hundred articles that I wrote.
The first hundred articles you wrote.
Yeah, true.
Through May 25, 2011, and I was posted at Climate Realist, Climate Depot, read into the congressional record, had good connections with the guy that worked with Inoff, and so he got it read into the congressional record.
Then, I started getting published at Canada Free Press, Freeman Institute, Drudge Report, Breitbart, Climate Change Dispatch, so I pretty much made the rounds as far as printed material.
And so then we'll get into the other radio interviews and TV interviews that we've done since then, but now it's time to switch over to where we left off at the previous conversation.
Well, Joe, I'm proud to know you.
That's really the old man work you are undertaking here.
All right.
Tell us about the repeatability of Professor Robert Wood's 1909 experiment on the theory of the greenhouse.
Okay, that one we pretty much covered, but Robert Wood was a professor at Stanford University.
He didn't agree that you could warm a greenhouse or that there was such a thing as greenhouse gas.
Just based on the radiant energy transfer, because radiant energy will go right through the glass, and then it doesn't get reflected back into the glass, so you don't have something.
In a physical system, it would be called a check valve.
In an electrical system, it would be called a diode, and basically what you're doing is you're allowing current or flow to go in one direction, but not in another.
Well, there's nothing in the atmosphere, and there's nothing in the glass of a greenhouse that can do that with radiant energy.
You're talking a form of energy that's photons moving at the speed of light, and they have very little mass.
They go right through the glass of the greenhouse.
They warm the bottom of the greenhouse.
The greenhouse starts heating up, but it doesn't have the radiant energy bounce off the glass and stay inside the greenhouse.
What it does is it prevents convective loss to the atmosphere.
And that's the same thing that happens with the atmosphere.
The glass in a greenhouse is a hell of a lot more effective as a barrier than a three-atom gas molecule, which is what you have with water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So those things just bounce around when they get hit by something moving at 186,000 miles per second.
So, we've discussed the radiant part of it.
There was one of the guys that I was in dialogue with very early on, who's a professor at the University of Monterey, and his name is Nassif Nathal.
Redid the experiment that Robert Woods did using modern instruments, and he completely proved it, and that's put up at publications at Principia Scientific, and then because nobody had actually measured the amount of energy that was being bounced back to earth, what they call long wave radiation being bounced back, and they claim that that's back radiation, a force that's never been measured.
So he set up an experiment in a park in Monterey, and this was back around 2010, And there was violent gang wars going on in Monterey.
He had to walk to his university from his home and the university wouldn't allow him to conduct his experiment on university grounds because he was doing experiments at night and they couldn't guarantee his safety.
So he did them in a public park.
While that was going on, one gang firebombed another gang's casino and killed 60 people in a firebombing in Monterey, just blocks from where he was.
One day, he was walking home from doing his night-long experiment in a park in Monterey, and there was an open gunfight in the street right in front of him, and there was a guy Shooting it out with the cops with AK-47s.
He dove underneath the pews of a Catholic church and prayed to God that he'd survive.
But that's the dedication that this man had for doing true science.
And nobody has done an experiment to measure the amount of, quote, back radiation.
And he is the only one that has.
And the only back radiation he found was that At night there's certain portions of the magnetosphere that form field lines that come down to the earth and NASA had predicted that at night there would be certain areas where photons from the sun would hit it and be able to travel all the way down those field lines and that's exactly what he measured but it's inconsequential and it had no ability to do any amount of warming at all.
So that's the proof that there is no back radiation warming, and nobody can challenge this experiment because nobody's done one.
But anyhow, we caught a little bit ahead of ourselves.
What I wanted to cover today was the fake science that was used to produce the hockey stick of carbon dioxide and the hockey stick of temperature.
So getting back to this chart, on the very far right hand side of the chart, you have the current temperatures Then you have the very cold Little Ice Age, and like we mentioned before, that's when they had ice festivals on the Thames River when it froze six feet thick, and you could walk across it and take elephant rides up and down the Thames.
Before that, they had the medieval warming period, Well, the problem is you can't show that there's a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature if you have a variation in temperature and you've had a supposedly decreasing amount of CO2.
So, if you've got a wiggle in your hockey stick, you don't have a hockey stick.
So, they needed somebody to come up with not being a hockey stick.
Well, that got turned out to be a guy named Michael Mann at University of Pennsylvania.
Well, on November 19, 2009, East Anglia University had their emails hacked, and what they think happened is that somebody at the university downloaded 220,000 emails and then put them up on a Russian server, but he only put up a portion of them that were unencrypted.
The rest of them were encrypted, and they said, if you give us any grief, we'll release the encryption key and show exactly how crooked all of your stuff is.
But one of the principal players in that was Michael Mann and the leaders at East Anglia University.
And what it proved was that they had manipulated all of the data and that they had peer-reviewed block anybody that disagreed with their data.
So you basically had a monopoly that was trying to run science.
So it was a little bit of a scandal.
So, I wrote several articles about that, and then in January 27th of 2010, which is just a month following or two months following the Climategate release, there was, to my knowledge, the only debate between a warmest, which is a term that I refer to them because they referred to us as deniers, like you're denying science, you're denying the Holocaust, you're denying all of the root Dogma that we're forcing down your throat.
Yeah, I am a denier, so you can go ahead and call me a denier.
I'll wear it as a badge, but I didn't want to denigrate them, so I just called them warmists.
And so there was a debate between Gary North, who's a climatology professor at Texas A&M, and Richard Lindzen, who's a physicist but claims to be a climatologist at MIT, but he basically doesn't have any understanding of thermodynamics and is very egotistical and closed-minded and refused to discuss things, and we'll get to that in just a second.
But what Gary North said is that I'll agree to do a debate with you at the Houston Petroleum Club, but here's the ground conditions.
There can be no graphics.
Which, if you're trying to explain science, You can do a lot of hand-waving, but you can't convey material that's mathematical and scientific without having graphical representation, because it's just too difficult to understand.
And so that was item number one.
Item number two was you could make no mention of the ClimateGate email scandal, because those emails were stolen.
Well, guess what?
Over a six-year period of time, there were over 50 requests in England for Freedom of Information Acts on publicly funded research by the East Anglia University, and all of them were denied because in England, their little FOAI law is that if you don't respond to somebody within six months, then it expires and they have to reapply.
So bottom line is all the material that was released had been legally requested in 50 different MOIA requests and denied by the tyrants that run East Anglia University because they were being funded to do this phony baloney research and supported by Michael Mann who's the carver of the hockey stick.
And so what Michael Mann did is that he had to find a way of eliminating the Medieval warming period.
He could reduce the Little Ice Age and say that that was just a regional thing, but he needed to get rid of the Middle Age warming period because that was just way too warm and that put a bump in the hockey stick that didn't match the hockey stick for the claimed hockey stick for the CO2.
And so that's when he had to have a little bit of a come to Jesus moment.
And so they had the debate at Houston Petroleum Cub.
Luncheon tickets were 150 bucks and then they announced that they were going to have a second debate that evening at Rice University that was free and open to the public.
So I went to both of those debates And when it was over, I followed Richard Lindzen out to his car and I started explaining to him some basic things about CO2 and radiated heat transfer and thermodynamics.
And he turned to me and he said, you just don't understand anything about climatology.
You're wasting my time.
Get out of here.
And it's like, Well, you know, I'm a professional engineer.
I've studied this stuff for years, and so, bottom line, it's okay.
I'll take your challenge, Mr. Linzen, and I'll raise you one.
I will find out more about climatology than you know, and I challenge you any day of the week, any time, to debate me on this.
So, anyhow, After that, Michael Mann was called into hearings at Penn State University over his behavior, and I wrote a great little article at Canada Free Press called Hockey Stickery Doc.
The mouse ran over the clock on his way to an urgent inquiry hearing about With fellow mice in the back room at Penn State University, turns out the rats piloting the IPCC liner had misguided the vessel into a collision with an iceberg of truth in the dark of night.
The liner, laden with cargo of taxation by misrepresentation from the carbon cabal, appeared doomed.
The mice were charged with producing enough whitewash to prevent the rats from being forced from the ship.
In this article, the term doc will be used to refer to those with a Ph.D.
level education.
In addition to the hockey stick doc, the hearing panel included the V.P.
research doc, the dean of earth and mineral science doc, a non-doc research proctor, To add a sheen of whitewash, these mice also included conversations with another pair of mice, an expert climate doc, who was Gary North, and a magazine editor doc.
The 10-page product of this panel can be found at Findings of Man Inquiry.
That's where we got with that and ended up they had another hearing in July of that year and they dismissed the charges against him because Michael Mann had brought millions and millions of dollars of research grant to Penn and so it didn't matter how corrupt his science was and the fact that he refused to disclose his raw information.
And so there was a great book that was written by Andrew Monkberg called The Hockey Stick Illusion, and the way Michael Mann was able to get rid of the medieval warming period was that he managed to find three sets of tree rings, and what he claimed was that The tree rings proved that there was no warming during that period, so he could take that bump off of a hockey stick.
Well, let's just pretend that this is a bell curve, okay?
And so, if you've got a bell curve, and the vertical axis is the width of tree rings, and then the horizontal axis is temperature, as you go up in temperature over the course of a year, you will have more Ring width growth as it gets warmer and warmer up to the point where you reach the peak of the bell curve, and then as it gets warmer and warmer, the ring width actually drops.
So what happens is, unless you know exactly what the optimum temperature was, the tree ring widths give you two abilities.
You can pick a colder temperature, Because of the narrow ring width, or you can go right across to the other side of the bell curve and say, well, here's the higher temperature.
So bottom line is, you can select a higher or colder temperature based on the same ring width, based on complete phony baloney garbage.
But that, it gets worse!
It turns out that tree ring width is not a direct function of temperature.
The most important function for tree ring width growth is precipitation.
And precipitation is independent of temperature.
It can be hot and wet.
It can be hot and dry.
It can be cold and wet.
It can be cold and dry.
So, that's the variable number one on tree ring width, which would throw out everything, and the second thing on tree ring width is predation, and that's diseased insects and grazing animals coming in and eating the leaves off the trees and keeping them from growing big rings, and that's not even taken into effect.
So, what you're talking is the third degree variable That you have a high or low subjective selection of temperature.
Absolutely absurd and we'll get to other issues of proxy data because that's one of the fundamental flaws of this whole thing is everything's based on phony baloney anecdotal evidence or phony baloney proxy data.
What you're telling me is the guy basing on tree rings had a faulty theory about the causation of the rings themselves, which meant he did not have the proof he thought he had as to how the temperature was being affected by the It's blatant scientific fraud, and I challenge you to debate me.
Don't sue me in court, Michael Mann, for slander.
Debate me on the actual facts of what you did and actual facts of what's going on in the atmosphere, because that's how science is done.
Joe, just to make sure I understand.
Yes.
The hockey stick illusion is exposing the fraud.
It's not committing the fraud.
Yes, yes, it's exposing the fraud.
It's exposing the fact that you're going to use three trees to wipe out 150 years of temperature data, when we have actual records from the Japanese and the Chinese both, who had very accurate calendars and kept accurate records of the first blooms from the cherry blossoms and the yields from the rice fields and the blah blah blah, and they have accurate records that Show that the medieval warming period was universal.
They show that the Little Ice Age was universal.
So we're talking global events, and he was able to say, well, I found some tree rings over in Siberia that didn't match Canada or wherever the hell he found his little conical pine tree rings, but wherever he found them, he
used that to say that it wasn't a universal event and here's proof that some parts of the
world weren't that way and so we're just going to ignore what we know happened in Europe because
that's only a part of the globe. What a complete phony baloney. So anyhow, because of the climate
gate... This is sometimes called cherry picking.
It's a method of selection and elimination or special pleading.
Select the evidence that supports your theory and dismiss.
Eliminate the rest.
I mean, it's so fraudulently violative of the basic principle of scientific inquiry, which is the requirement of total evidence.
Your conclusions must be based upon all of the available evidence pro or con Which is blatantly violated by these shysters.
It's a technique typically used by used car dealers, emphasizing the wonderful stereo and the upholstery and ignoring the fact that the rings are shot and the transmission needs replacement.
Editorial writers who want to make their case by only citing, I mean in this instance today since this happens to be the 6th of January, My newspaper here is just abounding with stories about January 6th, and they're all claiming this was Trump supporters.
I mean, let me just read a sentence here, the first paragraph.
Beneath a pale winter light and the glare of television cameras, it seemed hard not to see the January 6th U.S.
Capitol riot for what it was, the violent storming of the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters bent on upending The selection of Joe Biden as clear as day.
Democracy under siege.
Livestreamed in real time.
Ignoring the fact that we know now that 226 Antifa supporters dressed as Trump, Antifa members dressed as Trump supporters were led and a guy named Ray Epps was the FBI there with others were coordinating the whole event.
That Donald Trump had not even finished speaking at the Ellipse when this began to go down.
In other words, this is a selective use of evidence today, which is totally inappropriate from the point of view of rationality, objectivity, and the pursuit of truth, but which even the newspapers now are pursuing unabatedly as instruments of the deep state or the Democratic Party, where it's hard to differentiate between the two anymore.
But once again, just as Joe's explaining in relation to climate change, when you look at all the evidence for January 6th, it was a false flag.
It was a contrived event being blamed on the wrong parties in order to trash Trump and to claim he was guilty of insurrection because the 14th Amendment states That a party guilty of insurrection is not eligible for federal office?
The Democrats are just scared shitless that Trump is going to clean their clock again.
Joe, you're doing a masterful job here.
I love it.
Well, anyhow, so bottom line is the climate gate thing was so stinky and threatened to destroy the entire hokey fake science, which is nothing but alchemy or phrenology or whatever the hell you want to call the analogy for it.
Climatology is a completely bogus science, but it's just one of many.
And like I say, we are, we live in a false paradigm reality bounded by faux science, fake history, Filtered news financed by a fiat currency and directed by demonic warlords.
So bottom line is there were some people that had been really big on the global warming thing and made a living of it, you know, like Judith Curry over at Georgia Tech.
And then suddenly, because of all the the scandals, she couldn't defend it to her students.
So she said, well, I don't believe that carbon dioxide is the major thing that's causing the warming.
So To prevent having a real defection of anything, they had a fake debate between Judy Curry and Michael Mann in the Discover Magazine April 2010 issue, and here's what I wrote about it.
You need to read this article.
It's at Canada Free Press called Non-Science Nonsense.
The problem with insatiable greed is that it's insatiable.
There exists among us a group of megi-wealthy megalomaniacs who have a lust for power that knows no bounds.
The world of their monopoly game and their fellow humans are mere place chips to be pushed and shredded for their delight.
These demonic demagogues have been consolidating their power for centuries and have set the carbon control trap as leverage to complete their planetary domination.
So we'll get to Judith Curry again in just a few minutes, but next I want to mention another clown that was a climatologist that decided, well, because of ClimateGate, they've proven that carbon dioxide's not warming unless you can cheat and lie about it, and that's Roy Spencer at the GISSNOAA group of folks, and He wrote an article called, Yes Virginia, Colder Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.
And I'm going, wait a minute.
How does that happen?
This is like a friend of mine in college who was spoofing me and said, you know, Jim, you can heat your coffee faster if you begin with cold water, really cold water.
And so you had, in order to heat, you didn't have to go through any temperature above to get to boiling 212.
I mean, it was just, you know, this was a joke.
And what we got here is a parallel joke, Joe.
Yeah, so anyhow...
He wrote this, and I just went, this is completely stupid.
So I wrote an article at Canada Free Press called, Rocket Scientists Need Not Apply.
And that was on July 26, 2010.
And I sent it to Roy, and Roy said, well, thanks.
I said, as a professional courtesy, I never would write anything about anybody that I wouldn't send it to them and explain, you know, because I'm not taking cheap shots at folk.
Don't know that I'll send this to Michael Mann, but Judith Curry knows where I am and so does Roy Spencer, so I don't have to notify him at this point in the game.
They're well aware of me and they're well aware of their own hubris behavior.
So, anyhow, I wrote Rocket Scientists Need Not Apply.
Well, a year or two later, I forwarded that goofy article to a good friend of mine, Dr. Pierre Latour, Ph.D.
Chemical Engineering, and he wrote an article that's at Principia Scientific.
No, Virginia, Cooler objects cannot make warmer objects warmer still, because heat transfer is a vector, and it only goes from higher to lower.
Never goes the other direction unless you input energy, and that amount of energy is more than you're actually raising it by.
So, we'll skip that.
We'll get on to the other little portions.
That's just a great point, Joe.
I mean, it's elementary, but it's important.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, so then I was real curious because the tree rings are a proxy because, you know, Fahrenheit didn't invent the thermometer until 1661, and then there wasn't a real good standardization process for how you calibrated thermometers, and there wasn't a universal distribution of thermometers, and So what you're talking about in the way of temperature records is really spotty, really regional, really subjective, and so bottom line is they said, well, we'll find proxies like tree rings will tell you what the temperature was.
No, tree rings won't.
Oh, ice cores will tell you what the temperature was.
Well, no.
Actually, ice cores tell you what the amount of snowfall was, but what ice cores don't tell you is the amount of cloud cover that may have caused direct sunlight to hit that ice and caused the ice to go into sublimation and go directly from ice into the atmosphere.
What they also don't tell you is the amount of compression that you got from having a hundred thousand years of ice cores sitting on top again.
They go, well, then let's just use isotopes.
Oh, well, let's see.
What is one of those isotopes that I'd like to use?
Oh, carbon-14.
So, I, you know, did a little bit of research on carbon-14.
Where does carbon-14 come from?
Well, that comes from ionization of the nitrogen-14 in the atmosphere, knocking off one of the neutrons and changing it from an atomic number of seven to an atomic number of six, at which point it becomes an isotope of carbon called carbon-14 with a radioactive half-life of around 5,000 years.
And so, But the thing is, you don't have a constant amount of that amount of ionization from the sun to form carbon-14, number one.
Number two, it's absorbed in varying levels, and there's some real anomalies with it, because it turns out if you kill a seal, fresh kill a seal or a penguin, Down in Antarctica, they carbon date to over 3,000 years old.
Well, how in the world can that be?
Well, because they're fed off a different part of the food chain that doesn't have atmospheric carbon dioxide included in the food chain.
And so, they are fed by archaea.
So, I wrote a great article at Canada Free Press This one came out, I think it was also in July.
No, it was in November of 2010, called Amazing New Ronco Proxy Croc.
Perhaps you're a traditional scientist stuck in the lab gathering data the old-fashioned way, envious of those high-flying climatologists.
The ones who seem to cook their numbers with such ease.
While they earn green beautification, you sit green with envy, wishing you had success.
Well, wish no more!
With the amazing new Ronco ProxyCrock, you can cook your numbers with ease, too.
You can now sit around buffing your nails and soaking your fine hand washables while your ProxyCrock does all the work.
Ronco can't promise every scientist a Nobel Prize or Academy Award-winning documentary film, But we can't eliminate those ancient and burdensome hypothesis data proof cycles of yore.
It's a great article and it goes into the information about the various proxy things including the tree rings and the ice cores and the I'm very impressed that you've been able to find alternative outlets to publish that aren't completely controlled, Joe, because it's very clear that there are powerful forces that are manipulating the outcome of scientific research, which
Which is trading on its reputation for objectivity and its reliability in discovering truth.
If you can pervert the data or alter the principles by which the data is evaluated, you can bring about any outcome you want.
and declare it to be science.
So what you're doing is extraordinarily important.
Indeed, I taught courses on science versus pseudoscience to undergraduates over 35 years,
Joe.
I regard this as extraordinarily important.
Well, then it gets even better, because then I attended a meeting with True the Vote.
And I'm just going to say right up front that Catherine Ingleberry is the bravest woman I have
ever met on this planet.
And she formed a group called True the Vote, and they had a January meeting in 2011, and they had an author whose name is Larry Bell.
He's an architecture professor at the University of Houston, and he had just written a book called Climate of Corruption.
If we could put that cover up real quick.
Yes, yes, yes, by all means.
And so anyhow, Larry went through 200 pages of all of the financial corruption that was involved in the Chicago carbon exchange and the carbon exchanges in Europe and you know all of the stuff that was being done to sandbag the energy industries in the United States from a political level.
And then, on about page 200, he goes, uh, does this prove that there's a giant conspiracy?
Well, no, actually, there's no proof that there's a conspiracy, but it does point out that we need to use more green energy and that we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels, and it's like, give me a freaking break!
So Larry had contacted his publisher and told him that, you know, author Joe Olson was at the Truby vote event
and had spoken there and the publisher contacted me and said, would you write a report on our book?
And I said, well, if you'd have given me a copy of your book,
I'd have written a report, but I would still have to say a few things negative about it.
But since I had to buy my own copy of the book, I don't feel like I have any obligation to you.
And if I write a report, it's going to be extremely negative
because Larry has no understanding of the science involved at all, and he whitewashed absolutely
everything other than the financial crimes that were absolutely 100% being committed.
So getting back to Joe, Joe, just so I understand.
This is a good book because it's explaining the corruption behind the climate change hoax, right?
Or is it a bad book?
The first 200 pages are exemplary as far as the financial crimes, but he has no understanding of the science.
And I've seen him at multiple events.
We will cover a couple of those in just a few minutes.
So you're telling me this is a good guy, but he's partially bad because he lacks a scientific understanding that he ought to possess to be addressing these issues?
And he won't even allow debate on it because I've been to his public presentations numerous times and it's like, I'm sorry, you know, I'm not going to discuss that with you.
Well, obviously, you're not going to discuss it with me because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You know, so bottom line is, you know, Larry.
His book, as far as financial crimes, first 200 pages of the book, really worth reading if you want to know exactly how horrible this whole thing was and what the motivation is for it.
We've squandered over $100 billion of scientific research on this bogus, phony, baloney, anecdotal, linear hypothesis that you cannot correct with a coefficient.
And that's exactly how horrible the science of this is.
So, bottom line is, after the meeting, I got a chance to talk with Kathleen Engelbreit, and she was exposing voter fraud massively in a bunch of different jurisdictions, and this was during the Obama era.
And so, first thing that happened was the IRS came after her, and then the FBI came after her, and then her family owned a machine shop And so, because they owned a machine shop, the EPA came after her and they needed to see all of the records for all of the tailings and filings and everything that they did, all the reprocessing that they did, and the recycling, and everything that happened in their machine shop over the last 10 years.
And the FBI wanted all the last 10 years of her records, and the IRS wanted all last 10 years of her personal and business records.
And then, her husband had been contacted by a firearms dealer.
That was in the area and said, I need to get some triggers machined, you know, to improve the action on some handguns.
And so he contacted the ATF and they said, Oh yeah, you're authorized to do that, but you need to fill out these forms and you need to get this license.
So he got the license.
He did trigger work on two different guns for this guy, each one for like 150, 200 bucks a piece.
And then, He said, this is not cost-effective for me to have to do this, find somebody else to do your machine shop work, but that meant that Engelbreit needed to be investigated by the ATF, and then as long as they're at it, well let's go see, you've got a machine shop, let's have OSHA come over and give you a colonoscopy too.
So OSHA came over, they inspected all of their records and everything in their shop, and what they found was that they had bought a second-hand Forklift which she said they needed to use unload a load probably once load or unload a load probably once a week with this forklift and somebody had changed the seat belt on it from the original factory seat belt number one and then somebody was using a pair of non-ocean approved goggles.
And so they find her $20,000.
You're kidding me, Joe!
You're kidding me!
Find her $20,000 and they managed to plead it down in court hearings to $17,000.
So you imagine a woman has stood up to that level of draconian action by the Gestapo government and now she's got evidence of corruption in Georgia that she just released yesterday.
And we'll talk about that with Carl later this afternoon or we'll cover it with Miriam tomorrow.
But Bottom line is, she said she's got evidence in five other states, but the evidence in Georgia, she's ready to release a portion of it.
She said the rest of it is under seal because she's negotiating with a bunch of different district attorneys and a bunch of state attorney generals to overturn six states' elections.
She's got them by the nuts as far as the 2020 voter fraud.
Thank God for Katherine Engelbright.
So anyhow, let's skip on over to some more of these climate clowns.
So we had gotten to the point where we were Got the proxy croc, we got that, we got true the votes, and we've also mentioned the back radiation.
Okay, so then there was a guy that I had read an article about helical travel of light, and what it said is that the particle beam, say there's a dichotomy with light where it behaves sometimes like a wave and sometimes like a particle, and what he did is he used wave guides, split the light up, and he was able to prove that what light actually is, is a photon that's moving in a helical pattern so it's like going in a spiral it's generating a wave an analogy to that would be if a boat goes by you on a lake it will cast a wave well the wave front that you see is not moving at the same speed as the boat and so what he figured it was the it was uh a function of the uh
Square root of three, so that actually the speed of light, if you're doing just the photon, is moving at 1.77 times the amount of the speed of light that you measure as a wave, and so I thought that was a very interesting concept.
It could possibly explain why you end up having a Doppler shift on ancient galaxies, and I've written a 10-article series on the Big Bang fraud, At Canada Free Press, and so I contacted him.
Turned out he lived in Houston.
I said, well, hey, you know, I want to talk to you about your light thing and, you know, get together and maybe you'd be interested in joining PSI and, you know, submit some material.
We could get some of your stuff published.
And so he said, well, I've got a great friend of mine, Pierre Latour, PhD chemical engineer.
So we met at an Indian restaurant and had a wonderful buffet lunch with three engineers.
Talking about real science, and it was a great little meeting.
I love Indian food, by the way.
I love it.
Oh yeah, man.
Give me some curry and some rice pudding, and I'll be happy all day long.
So anyhow, then in 2014, I went to the Heartland Institute International Conference on Climate Change, the ICCC, which was July 9th, the 7th through 9th, which is actually, you have to fly there on a Sunday because it starts at 7 o'clock in the morning on Monday, and then you have to stay until Thursday because it doesn't have the final meeting until 8 o'clock on
Wednesday night, so bottom line is I spent a lot of time there.
There was over 600 people there, and included in the group there was Roy Spencer, who had a booth set up next to us, and then I didn't know it, but the publisher of our Slaying the Sky Dragon book, Stairway Press, is a guy named Ken Kaufman, and he was there, and I didn't know it, but Tim Ball, who was one of my co-authors, had shown up there, And so, it was like, okay, well, this is great.
And so, we started talking and Dr. Pierre Latour went there.
And so, Dr. Latour and Ken Kaufman.
Ken has a degree in electrical engineering.
He's a former U.S.
Air Force officer.
And so, they were having a great time talking.
And now, I was sitting there talking to him about thermodynamics and everything else.
And We get into a discussion with Tim Ball, and he goes, no, no, you guys are wrong.
Carbon dioxide actually warms.
Everybody knows that.
And it's like, no, everybody knows that because that's what everybody's being told, but it's not true.
And it took three days for three engineers to convince my co-author of the Slayin' the Sky Dragon book that Carbon dioxide cools the planet, cannot possibly warm the planet.
You're co-author, Joe.
I mean, that's just bizarre.
And he admitted he never read our book.
He said, I never read a chapter in the book.
He said, I wrote my chapter and that's in his chapter.
And anything to do with science, it just has to do with the Club of Rome stuff, which is interesting background, but it has nothing to do with science.
So, you know, so this is my... But he finally, the light dawned.
Well, temporarily, but then he turned around and stabbed me in the back a few more times, so we'll get into that at some future date.
But Joe, does that sound like a worthy collaborator of the guy I know?
Yeah, well, unfortunately, you know, sometimes you don't get to choose, you know, everybody that you want to deal with in your life, and so that was just an unfortunate circumstance that I had to deal with at that particular point.
But then in 2015, surprise, surprise, I was contacted out of the blue by Coast to Coast AM radio, 615 radio stations, 2 million listeners.
I've actually been a guest on there five times.
I was again a guest on 2017.
They just called me up and said, we don't have anybody for a program tomorrow night.
You've already got a signed author's release.
You want to do a program?
I said, sure.
And so then, in 2019, I sent them a copy of my article on unequivocal 9-1-1 nukes, thinking that they might want to cover it, because they have had Richard Gage on as a guest, and they've also had Judy Wood on as a guest, and I thought, well, you know, maybe we can discuss a little bit about that, because we just issued The 28-author Memorandum to the President on 9-1-1 with Robert David Steele.
And unfortunately, I linked it to his website yesterday, and his Phi Beta Iota site has been taken down.
So that POTUS 9-11 stuff is no longer available at his tiny URL.
It may be available somewhere else online, but I haven't been able to find it.
And then I did another program... It's been taken down?
That is news to me, Joe.
Well, it was open as of Christmas, so it's just been taken down the last week or two.
You know, I kind of think what he did is he probably paid a year at a time and then his family decided they just didn't want to pay to keep it back up.
So then I did another interview with Coast to Coast on Body Electric, which was, let's see, Body Electric was November 27, 2020 on Magna Biology and Viruses, and then I did another one from Muscle Power to Carbon Empowerment.
This is the article I wrote as show notes for that particular one on abigenic production of oil, because the planet produces its own oil, which is something we can do in a further discussion as we get more involved in some of the earth sciences, but also at The Heartland ICC 9 event.
You need to hold them a little further back to get the whole whole image.
Very good.
Very good.
That's good.
That's good.
Seven, nine, 2014, Las Vegas, 9th International Conference on Climate Change.
But these are all proponents, right, Joe?
These are people who are pushing the board.
No, these are people that I call lukewarmists, because they say carbon dioxide warms a little bit.
And so this is Tony Watts, Moncton, Dellingpole.
Mark Murano, who has a degree in political science, doesn't know any science at all.
Patrick Moore, who has a PhD in some kind of biology and was former Green's piece, doesn't know anything.
He supports nuclear power, GMOs.
He's just Glyphosate.
He was on a radio, I mean a TV interview down in Brazil, and somebody said, well, you keep saying glyphosate's completely safe.
You could drink a whole glass.
Well, we've got a bottle of Roundup right here.
Let's see you drink the glass.
He goes, you think I'm crazy?
Of course you're not going to drink poison, Mr. Moore, you phony baloney.
Yeah, he's a real piece of work.
We can get into some more about him and his little phony baloney stuff.
But I did meet a professor from Maryland.
And his name was Dr. Arthur Futuro.
He's a geology professor, and he said, you know, I had mentioned something to him about, I had done a lot of studying, and I thought that there was a lot more energy coming out from nuclear vision and volcanic action than was being recognized, number one, and that it was also not constant, number two.
And so, Dr. Vertouro said, well, I've been studying the earthquake and temperature data.
He said the only data that's really usable is the satellite data from the NOAA weather satellites and the data that you get from the Ocean Boys.
He said those two data streams are pretty well distributed as far as, you know, latitude and longitude Earth-wise, and they're the most accurate that you could possibly have.
So he said, I did a correlation with a million data points, did an Excel spreadsheet, along with the USGS geologic survey and he said I can prove that the El Nino and La Nina temperatures that happen in the western eastern pacific are direct result of volcanic activity and that there's an 18 month lag period between the time that
The energy is released at a three to seven thousand foot depth in the ocean along the rift lines to the time when it actually migrates up to the surface and causes a surface warming or cooling and that affects the amount of water flow that is being blown because of the spinning of the planet and the Coriolis effect is being blown across In the jet stream across the continents, and that's why you have a major west to east flow of moisture and humidity, but most of that's condensed out by the ridge of mountains that run down the Sierra and the Rockies on the northern hemisphere and run down the Andes in the southern hemisphere, and we discussed that along with the Mercodal Oscillation
of the Atlantic and how that particularly ties in.
So I will find the link to his YouTube interview that he did with a Russian media outlet and post that link so that people can watch his hour-long presentation.
And we did a brief discussion of that in our previous discussion on climate.
Joe, do you want to address this slide I have up now?
Which one's that?
Go ahead.
The atmospheric CO2.
You're not seeing the slides I'm putting up?
I know, I've got a thing that says this meeting is being recorded that blocks the center portion of my screen and it says continue or leave and if I punch either one of those two menu options it blanks the, it takes me offline.
I've got the atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Laboratory.
Yes, and that's another interesting thing.
Now, if you take a close-up of that, this is available on Google, so if you can't screen zoom with what you've got right now, you can certainly find this image on Google yourself and study it closely.
What you'll notice is that there's a sawtooth pattern.
There's a like a blue line that is arcing up and showing from 1960, there was 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide.
And by 2020, they're showing over 400 parts per million.
But there's about a 10% variation in the amount of CO2 on a annual basis.
And the reason for that ...is that 68% of the land mass on the planet is in the northern hemisphere.
A large portion of the plant life in the northern hemisphere is deciduous, so it has a rapid growing season in the spring and summer, where it is absorbing carbon dioxide because of photosynthesis.
Again, one of the four known ways that Dr. Pierre Latour describes in the actual chemical formula for photosynthesis.
But it absorbs carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and then as those deciduous leaves fall in the fall and winter and decay, it releases the carbon dioxide back up into the atmosphere.
So that gives you this sawtooth factor that's going up and down
across the supposedly ramping curve.
Now, the next thing is they have nothing but phony baloney proxy data
on what past carbon dioxide levels are.
And so any one of those things is subject to a whole bunch of errors.
And the more you extrapolate from known data, the greater your amount of areas.
You can interpolate between two known data points and your amount of variation is gonna be very small.
But when you're extending from two data points to something outside of your known data points,
that's called extrapolation.
And that's where you run into real risk.
Engineers do not like to extrapolate at all, but that's what we've got in the way of proxy data.
Now, what they're claiming is, the way they know what past CO2 levels were, is that because there's Microscopes and telescopes that were built 150-200 years ago that have trapped CO2 samples in it, and we can open those up and test the CO2 level and find out what the CO2 level actually was.
Well, that's pretty much bogus.
And the other thing that's pretty curious about this is the only place in the whole world that they allow to take samples that are used for international study is Mauna Loa, and that's a volcano!
So they're 10,000 feet up on a volcano that's releasing CO2 on a regular basis and probably doesn't represent the CO2 that would be, you know, randomly or homogenized around the whole entire planet.
You know, the whole thing is just absolutely bogus.
Number one.
Number two, CO2 has no harmful effects on human beings.
The only effect it has on plants is that it is a linear increase in the amount of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and Land-based plant photosynthesis and that produces sugars, starches, and cellulose that we need to have life because that's what we eat and that's what we make all of our organic cotton clothing and all of our buildings out of and everything else is involved with wood.
It's a natural resource that is carbon that is being changed because of photosynthesis and it's being removed from the air and furnishing the air with life-giving oxygen.
Joe, this has been another sensational presentation exposing the climate change hoax, and especially you've been dealing with some of the figures and the phony theories they've been advancing and the techniques they've been using that misdescribe the data.
I think that's extremely important.
If you'd like to take a minute or two more to sum up today's session, that would be terrific.
Well, you know, bottom line is we deserve to know the truth, and at some point the truth will become completely self-evident.
Like I always say, every epiphany is permanent.
So once you understand the stuff that we've discussed today, you'll find it far more difficult to believe the lies that are being told on absolutely every front.
To my knowledge, carbon dioxide warming was the biggest hoax in the history of the planet, until they came up with the Chinese cootie thing.
This is absolutely disgusting, and this is a watershed event for humanity.
Either we wake the hell up, and we get rid of this big pharma mafia that's running the planet, and we restore science to its deserved place in humanity, or we just don't have anything going forward.
We're just going to be, you know, a completely dictatorial, futile slave colony, and that we don't deserve that.
So that's what I'm doing.
My dear colleague, you are a hero in my book for exposing fraud and fakery related to climate change and a host of other issues.
I look forward to our next installment, our next episode of Exposing the Climate Change Hoax.
Meanwhile, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on Real Deal Special Reports Now, climate change, with Joel Olson.
Thanks for joining us back next week with yet another More to Learn, More to Trust, the difference between truth and falsity, real science and pseudo, you need to know.
▲
Export Selection