Being A Climate Alarmist Means Never Having To Admit You Were Wrong

Ten year drought. Floods. Say whatever BS is necessary to keep funding coming in.

ScreenHunter_2036 May. 28 22.08ScreenHunter_2037 May. 28 22.09


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Being A Climate Alarmist Means Never Having To Admit You Were Wrong

  1. Chewer says:

    While the MSM carries their water!

    • sfx2020 says:

      The alarmists are shameless. If it was still hot and dry, global warming. If it rains and breaks the drought, it’s global warming. Just what wouldn’t be global warming?

      When California gets heavy rain, that will also be global warming.

      • Jon Lonergan says:

        Maybe if the sun turns into an ice-cube the Warmists might concur that this is not warming – maybe not.

  2. omanuel says:

    The AGW debate is over. AGW proponents lost the debate but retained all the political power and all the federal resources used to promote this scam.

    The question is why does our government use public tax funds to deceive the public?

    • myrightpenguin says:

      That of course is a rhetorical question. lol.

    • omanuel says:

      Regretfully, the answer is not something anyone wants to hear:

      Stalin effectively won WWII and united nations [UN] and independent national academies of science [NAS] into an Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science Truth on 24 Oct 1945:

      Click to access Introduction.pdf

      • myrightpenguin says:

        It doesn’t matter how much the science is proven wrong they just keep pursuing their agenda (whatever it is, but it is mainly about control and money, both at national level and supranationally).

        One of the best hopes ironically right now is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank because that is a source through which “politically incorrect” funding can take place, esp. for poorer countries in Africa, so that they do not have to be beholden to the ‘big green’ Chicagoland / NGO driven agenda. It’s all about money, if banks in the West feel they are missing out (to China) they will have to then self-correct.

        • David A says:

          Richard, if you can place Oliver’s concepts in simple English, it is actually appreciated. I do not know what he thinks we were being saved from, or why.

        • Hey David ,

          I just saw your message. (Sorry but I haven’t been getting e-mails from this blog lately because I just don’t have the time to read them all.)

          I also haven’t yet had enough time to write intelligently about the ins and outs of his physics. What I can say is that he believes that the USSR under Stalin had taken over most of academia in the West, with the tacit approval of Western authorities. And the apparent idea behind that is that only Soviet-style governance could successfully keep secret the alleged knowledge that both sides had, to the effect that nuclear chain-reactions are much more commonplace and easy to trigger than we’ve been led to believe.

          What I’m still kind of struggling with as far as motive is that if Oliver is right then that suggests that the proliferation risk with nuclear power is greater (and harder to control) than we’ve been told by mainstream science. Oliver seems to suggest that the danger we’ve been “protected” from is that if we made maximum use of nuclear power by running breeder reactors in such a way as to optimize the alleged properties of neutrons, it would become obvious to everyone that nuclear bombs are very easy to make, and lots of people would make them, and eventually they would get used.

          That then would seem to imply that making full use of neutron repulsion would carry the same risk today that existed in the time of Stalin. To my knowledge, Oliver has yet to explain why, if hiding the truth was the correct thing to do back then, that exposing it would be the correct thing to do now. His positions seem to imply that he thinks man has a newfound temperance that he’s acquired since the 1940s. My understanding (particularly informed by my religious conclusions) is that, if anything, man’s temperance has declined since then, and will continue to do so.

          Therefore, if Oliver’s science is correct, then it might be the case that, in order to expand nuclear power to the point where all the spent fuel would be reprocessed and all of our power needs would be met with nuclear, we would need to adopt additional economic restrictions (such as is done in the fertilizer business) in order to keep us all safe from the deranged people who would want to use their newfound knowledge of physics to destroy us. Perhaps it is, in fact, inevitable that such political upheaval happens — if Oliver’s science is right. But that doesn’t mean we should welcome or celebrate it! And we would have to be ever-vigilant about the pressure to go overboard with such restrictions.

          In any event, the bottom line for science is that I don’t believe that scientists ever should have lied about their findings, if in fact that’s what happened. Had I been involved in any of that research, and had I realized that I had two choices (tell the truth and risk not only the consequences of disobeying a global dictatorship, but also the risk of triggering the death of millions by nuclear terrorism … or, Door #2, lie about my findings), I would have just left the field. No doubt I’d have been punished for doing so, but it would have been the only moral choice.

          I face a similar dilemma now, because (hypothetically speaking) if I look into all of this in depth and can’t refute it despite my best efforts, I have to decide how far I’m willing to go to publicize my own findings. I know that if it’s true, I don’t want to participate in a total cover-up, but I also don’t necessarily want to be a font of such knowledge for the world. I think it’s fair to say I’m a lot more conflicted about this issue than Oliver is. But I greatly respect his instinct to favor truth over lies. If we go down the road of saying, well, we have to keep lying or covering up the truth about X, but hey, you can trust us implicitly on Y (where Y = climate-related matters), then we’ve become the enemy.


      • Oliver ,

        I’ve been waiting for a while for greater insight from you regarding the nuclear aspect of your teachings, which is something that I’ve considered important since it might provide a motive for some of the details of government conspiracy that you’ve focused on, e.g. Stalin.

        In reading your latest submission, I see you have a link to a document you published in March called Solar_Energy.pdf , in which you state the following:

        The weakest and strongest nuclear forces are short-ranged; The intermediate nuclear force includes long-range Coulomb REPULSION between positive charges on protons [13-15]. This becomes competitive with ATTRACTIVE forces in neutron-proton pairs at A~150 amu (atomic mass units) and the nucleus inverts into a core of neutrons somewhat more highly energized by neutron- repulsion [14], with pairs of neutron-proton (n, p+) pairs on the nuclear surface.

        Alpha-emission begins in Nd-144, when the nuclear surface is 30 α-particles and the core is 24 neutrons. Neutron repulsion generated ~10 MeV/neutron for lighter nuclei, but increases more rapidly with mass above A~150 amu [14]. Nuclear stability ceases when the nuclear core contains more than 44 neutrons in Pb-208.

        Spontaneous fission was first detected in Th-232 [16], when the surface is 45 α- particles and the nuclear core is 52 neutrons. Spontaneous fission is increasingly likely in U-238, Pu-244 etc., and becomes the dominant mode of decay in heavier nuclei like Cf-254, Fm-256 and No-258.

        Neutron-induced fission was discovered in U-235 and Pu-239, when the surface is 46 and 47 α-particles, respectively, and the nuclear core contains 51 neutrons. “

        Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood: is what you’re saying that the existing reactor technology is limited by its degree of dependence on an isotope (U-235) that does not fission spontaneously, as opposed to others which, according to you, do in fact fission spontaneously?

        – Richard

        • omanuel says:

          You are correct.

        • Thank you for your continued efforts to clarify this! I’ll post on this later once I’ve managed to further assimilate your evidence.

        • omanuel says:


          Frightened world leaders agreed to take totalitarian control of society and hide the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima – NEUTRON REPULSION – in 1945 in order to save the world from nuclear annihilation!. They are not at fault.

          They destroyed the very foundations of solar and nuclear physics almost immediately and have since destroyed astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, geology, nuclear, particle, planetary, solar and theoretical physics.

          When you first realize the extent of the deception you may feel depressed, hopeless, etc., but then you will see that – by divine coincidence – the seventy-year old matrix of deceit is now being exposed and will collapse.

        • Oh, I realized quite a lot of deception a long time ago! Long enough that the shock and depression have long since passed. I’ve long known, for example, that energy is not conserved but continuously created, which is one reason I’ve been determined to try to understand your concepts.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “The question is why does our government use public tax funds to deceive the public?”

      That is like asking, “Why do cattle ranchers use the proceeds from cattle sales to build more fences to keep the cattle in?”

  3. “I wish I believed in global warming,
    In the pseudo-scientific consensus,
    I could leave behind all common sense,
    Become completely non compos mentis.

    I wish I believed in global warming,
    I could cast scientific principals aside,
    And understand that a settled science
    For the first time ever had arrived.

    I wish I believed in global warming
    And all of those wild climate claims,
    And then if anyone dare question them
    I could learn how to call them names….”


  4. Every tornado, record high,record low, drought, flood, snowstorm, hurricane, earthquake, volcanic eruption is caused by CAGW according to the alarmists.

  5. Andy Oz says:

    Following the alarmist logic then:
    Beautiful weather is Global Warming.
    Gorgeous sunsets are Global Warming.
    Slightly misty mornings with a crisp bite in the air are Global Warming.

    They should rename TV Weather Reports and call them the daily Global Warming Report.

    Climate Alarmists are idiots and lack any integrity, or they are manipulative sociopaths.

  6. Psalmon says:

    When the reservoirs are full and the place is still underwater, I look forward to the articles how the ground water will take 100 years to recover…the Drought is Over on The Surface…In the not so hard to predict category. Same with California after El Nino buries the place.

  7. Moors710 says:

    The truth is immaterial to them Because they do not actually believe nor disbelieve what they say whatever they think will further their agenda is what is said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s