ZIM have applied industrialisation on evrything. Industrialization allow central command, central plans. Communist, facist both lead back to the Rottenshit..
"when an anonymous booklet aimed at left/anarchist circles"
I was in such circles for years in my early days and anonymous booklets fed us a lot of Zorg propaganda: kibbutzes presented as communal/socialist utopias and inviting volunteers, pushing vegetarianism with "meat is murder", advising vitamin b12 and so on. Those appeared in the anarchist press but a general naivete about Jws and Zionism was widespread, so we were poisoned without ever noticing....
Antifa groups are still (and were during covid), producing leaflets about the "far right" and the "protocols of the elders of zion" being a "forgery"....
Well done Paul for standing your ground against the cockroach attempts to blacken your name!
I did review it at the time, but I couldn't mention everything and everyone in this article! And that review is included in the "Climate Scam" library that I link to, so I do point readers in that direction.
You are still under the influence of the rabbis and their christian slaves who never read actual literature and think that what is presented in a novel is the literal thing that the author supports. Huxley and Orwell are framed as promoting the things they were warning us against, by the enemies of humanity who will hoodwink you forever.
I was not refusing intellectual engagement. I simply did not have time to respond in detail at that moment. The article seems to imply that catastrophic climate change caused by Human activity is a hoax propagated by globalist elites. I find that The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History gives a good summary with references to valuable primary research. But there is plenty more. If I misunderstood, if you are saying that there is catastrophic global warming caused by human activity, and I misread you, do let me know.
With all due respect, while that book is interesting and highlights some alarming ecological developments, it has nothing interesting or useful to say about climate change itself. It simply starts from the basis that anthropic climate change is a given, that it is caused by CO2 emissions, and that its effects are catastrophic. In my opinion all three are dubious assumptions.
The world may indeed have severe ecological problems, but I strongly doubt human generated CO2 is the cause and there is nothing substantive whatsoever in that book to alter anyone's opinion.
It is deeply disturbing to see a relatively balanced and helpful site publish a propaganda piece like this. I do not have time to dissect was is true and what is false, but I am happy to do so. Reader beware
That is such a ridiculous comment! How can you suggest that the content is "propaganda" without deigning to indicate which elements you consider to be inaccurate?
He seems to be a real person. "Director of Center for Truth Politics, Green Liberty President of the Asia Institute. Former independent candidate for President of the United States".
Honourable though people appear, I have found unfortunately that many a person who has had aspirations for higher office or so called ‘green credentials’; have been totally subsumed by the decades of clever crafty psychological programmes, orchestrated via the education system, media, UN, Think Tanks, the likes of Al Gore and many others. All creating a atmosphere of fear, continually supported by billionaire vested interests that gain monetarily from it all. When credible learned sources speak out against the ‘scam’ scenario they are defunded, run down by the controlled media or plain abused. If I see anyone being blatantly made a pariah I look at their words and narratives closely as they are more than likely correct….
No Emmanuel has written plenty of fine articles and probably agrees with Paul on many issues.
I do have some reservations about some of the articles published on globalresearch.ca where he seems to publish most of his stuff, but many people publish there. I do remember disagreeing with Emmanuel on one or two issues (I can't even remember what they were, just that I did) - but I did not file him in my head as a bad'un which I would have remembered.
These types always find objections. They claim to have “evidence” or some special insight into what is “true,” yet somehow they cannot—or more accurately, will not—provide that evidence. They refuse to engage in any serious dialogue or debate. They simply declare themselves the guardians of truth and expect everyone else to shut up and submit. And “Director of the Center for Truth Politics” sounds suspiciously like something pulled straight out of Orwell’s 1984. The Ministry of Truth, with better stationery.
dear Michael, I am delighted to debate you any time. We can set up a broadcast on Zoom or even live on Substack. I absolutely am ready. So far no one has answered my question. This article seems to imply that catastrophic human caused climate change is a hoax made up by globalists. Do you believe that?
I believe it is necessary to provide at least some sort of proof before simply declaring an article to be “propaganda.” The part I object to most is this: “I do not have time to dissect what is true and what is false.” That is not good enough. If someone does not have time to show what is false, misleading, distorted, or manipulative, then he probably should not have time to call the article propaganda either. That is a serious label. It implies intentional deception, not merely disagreement.
The article was challenging many of the common arguments used to support climate-change alarmism and arguing that some of the people driving the hysteria have an agenda. You may disagree with that argument. You may believe the author is wrong. You may even believe the article is misleading. Fine. Show it. Point to the false claim. Show the manipulation. Identify the missing context. Explain where the author distorted the evidence. Otherwise, “propaganda” becomes little more than a label used to dismiss something without actually engaging it.
I am not interested in turning this into a debate over climate change, global warming, climate disruption, or whatever term is preferred at the moment. There are many factors involved, and yes, mankind may be one of them. That is not really the point here. The point is that skepticism toward climate hysteria is not automatically propaganda. Believing that some people use fear to gain money, power, influence, or control is not some wild conspiracy theory. Among nearly eight billion human beings, there are absolutely people who will exploit any crisis if it benefits them.
I do not believe the entire issue is a hoax. But I also know that certain people never let a crisis go to waste.
the serious concern here is that readers will get the impression that the use of catastrophic climate change as an excuse to push through global techno fascist policies by the WEF means that climate change (global warming) was a hoax cooked up by the billionaires to push through their agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. Catastrophic climate change as a result of human activity, and mass extinction, is plenty real and those fighting it for years did not get any help from global finance. It was only around 2015 that corporations got this idea of exploiting a real catastrophe for profit
But Victor Rothschild was involved in the research on climate that produced the so-called “environmental” framework now embedded in banking regulation. And he died in 1990!
We don’t “get the expression…” We know that the only way human activity can affect the climate/weather is through the use of geoengineering - HAARP, radiation, chemtrails etc.
We have a major pollution (- and corruption😎) problem for example of oil based plastic products, polyester, nylon etc., and emissions from various production processes particularly from companies owned by the same people behind the climate hoax😎
Cheap, high-sulfur aviation fuel contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and can be considered a form of geoengineering. However, as long as the "right" people profit from this activity, it will continue.
Humanity's minimal contribution to CO2 emissions is close to negligible.
I will write my own article. I can present hundreds of articles and books on this topic, and research papers, not to mention the famous study by Exxon that it tried to hide. I am not sure that would be helpful, but If you want a biography here, I can certainly provide that.
No - I look forward to your article and will read it. I have seen your work before and I agree with much of what you write. Maybe you could post a link here when you have written it?
One quick question for you though - are you a competent mathematician? If not, how do you judge the quality and verity of research papers on this subject?
I think it was a mistake to phrase my first statement in that manner. I apologize I will write a more detailed article on the topic with references. Regarding the issue of specialization, I am not a climate scientist or a mathematician. I was a professor for 25 years, however, and I wrote numerous reports on science policy if not scientific papers. There are two issues. First is do you have the expertise to understand the issues in context and the second is are the facts, technical or non technical, in the academic paper accurate. It is quite difficult for even an expert to ascertain whether all the content in multiple papers is accurate.
That’s a complete non-sequitur. Of course the global feudalists are willing to use anything opportunistically to support their agenda (built around the premise of providing “security” for those unable to provide it for themselves); that has been their modus operandi since the beginning. This doesn’t mean climate change exacerbated by humanity is a hoax.
Solid.
ZIM have applied industrialisation on evrything. Industrialization allow central command, central plans. Communist, facist both lead back to the Rottenshit..
Like your audio.
Thank you.
Much ground covered — thanks!
With regards to Robert Crumb, I highly recommend the 1994 feature length documentary "Crumb".
Thanks for this overview of how the parasitical class co op-ed this a long time ago. Shared .
Ps: I had the privilege to interview R Crumb . Man is incredibly switched on and articulate .
"when an anonymous booklet aimed at left/anarchist circles"
I was in such circles for years in my early days and anonymous booklets fed us a lot of Zorg propaganda: kibbutzes presented as communal/socialist utopias and inviting volunteers, pushing vegetarianism with "meat is murder", advising vitamin b12 and so on. Those appeared in the anarchist press but a general naivete about Jws and Zionism was widespread, so we were poisoned without ever noticing....
Antifa groups are still (and were during covid), producing leaflets about the "far right" and the "protocols of the elders of zion" being a "forgery"....
Well done Paul for standing your ground against the cockroach attempts to blacken your name!
Age Restricted content!
It is also here: https://winteroak.org.uk/2026/07/06/fake-green-globalists-exposed/
Why not mention "Bright Green Lies" by Derrick Jensen et al 2021?
I did review it at the time, but I couldn't mention everything and everyone in this article! And that review is included in the "Climate Scam" library that I link to, so I do point readers in that direction.
See: https://winteroak.org.uk/2021/05/17/sombre-truths-behind-bright-green-lies/
Aldous Huxley on the side of the angels? Seems unlikely don't you think?
He was not the same man as his brother. I see him as a genuine critic of the looming technocracy with which Julian was so involved.
You are still under the influence of the rabbis and their christian slaves who never read actual literature and think that what is presented in a novel is the literal thing that the author supports. Huxley and Orwell are framed as promoting the things they were warning us against, by the enemies of humanity who will hoodwink you forever.
I was not refusing intellectual engagement. I simply did not have time to respond in detail at that moment. The article seems to imply that catastrophic climate change caused by Human activity is a hoax propagated by globalist elites. I find that The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History gives a good summary with references to valuable primary research. But there is plenty more. If I misunderstood, if you are saying that there is catastrophic global warming caused by human activity, and I misread you, do let me know.
With all due respect, while that book is interesting and highlights some alarming ecological developments, it has nothing interesting or useful to say about climate change itself. It simply starts from the basis that anthropic climate change is a given, that it is caused by CO2 emissions, and that its effects are catastrophic. In my opinion all three are dubious assumptions.
The world may indeed have severe ecological problems, but I strongly doubt human generated CO2 is the cause and there is nothing substantive whatsoever in that book to alter anyone's opinion.
It is deeply disturbing to see a relatively balanced and helpful site publish a propaganda piece like this. I do not have time to dissect was is true and what is false, but I am happy to do so. Reader beware
That is such a ridiculous comment! How can you suggest that the content is "propaganda" without deigning to indicate which elements you consider to be inaccurate?
Its a unit 8200 Paul. They just do the stupid job they get paid to do...
He seems to be a real person. "Director of Center for Truth Politics, Green Liberty President of the Asia Institute. Former independent candidate for President of the United States".
Honourable though people appear, I have found unfortunately that many a person who has had aspirations for higher office or so called ‘green credentials’; have been totally subsumed by the decades of clever crafty psychological programmes, orchestrated via the education system, media, UN, Think Tanks, the likes of Al Gore and many others. All creating a atmosphere of fear, continually supported by billionaire vested interests that gain monetarily from it all. When credible learned sources speak out against the ‘scam’ scenario they are defunded, run down by the controlled media or plain abused. If I see anyone being blatantly made a pariah I look at their words and narratives closely as they are more than likely correct….
No Emmanuel has written plenty of fine articles and probably agrees with Paul on many issues.
I do have some reservations about some of the articles published on globalresearch.ca where he seems to publish most of his stuff, but many people publish there. I do remember disagreeing with Emmanuel on one or two issues (I can't even remember what they were, just that I did) - but I did not file him in my head as a bad'un which I would have remembered.
These types always find objections. They claim to have “evidence” or some special insight into what is “true,” yet somehow they cannot—or more accurately, will not—provide that evidence. They refuse to engage in any serious dialogue or debate. They simply declare themselves the guardians of truth and expect everyone else to shut up and submit. And “Director of the Center for Truth Politics” sounds suspiciously like something pulled straight out of Orwell’s 1984. The Ministry of Truth, with better stationery.
dear Michael, I am delighted to debate you any time. We can set up a broadcast on Zoom or even live on Substack. I absolutely am ready. So far no one has answered my question. This article seems to imply that catastrophic human caused climate change is a hoax made up by globalists. Do you believe that?
I believe it is necessary to provide at least some sort of proof before simply declaring an article to be “propaganda.” The part I object to most is this: “I do not have time to dissect what is true and what is false.” That is not good enough. If someone does not have time to show what is false, misleading, distorted, or manipulative, then he probably should not have time to call the article propaganda either. That is a serious label. It implies intentional deception, not merely disagreement.
The article was challenging many of the common arguments used to support climate-change alarmism and arguing that some of the people driving the hysteria have an agenda. You may disagree with that argument. You may believe the author is wrong. You may even believe the article is misleading. Fine. Show it. Point to the false claim. Show the manipulation. Identify the missing context. Explain where the author distorted the evidence. Otherwise, “propaganda” becomes little more than a label used to dismiss something without actually engaging it.
I am not interested in turning this into a debate over climate change, global warming, climate disruption, or whatever term is preferred at the moment. There are many factors involved, and yes, mankind may be one of them. That is not really the point here. The point is that skepticism toward climate hysteria is not automatically propaganda. Believing that some people use fear to gain money, power, influence, or control is not some wild conspiracy theory. Among nearly eight billion human beings, there are absolutely people who will exploit any crisis if it benefits them.
I do not believe the entire issue is a hoax. But I also know that certain people never let a crisis go to waste.
Both things can be true.
Yes I believe that :-).
the serious concern here is that readers will get the impression that the use of catastrophic climate change as an excuse to push through global techno fascist policies by the WEF means that climate change (global warming) was a hoax cooked up by the billionaires to push through their agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. Catastrophic climate change as a result of human activity, and mass extinction, is plenty real and those fighting it for years did not get any help from global finance. It was only around 2015 that corporations got this idea of exploiting a real catastrophe for profit
But Victor Rothschild was involved in the research on climate that produced the so-called “environmental” framework now embedded in banking regulation. And he died in 1990!
We don’t “get the expression…” We know that the only way human activity can affect the climate/weather is through the use of geoengineering - HAARP, radiation, chemtrails etc.
We have a major pollution (- and corruption😎) problem for example of oil based plastic products, polyester, nylon etc., and emissions from various production processes particularly from companies owned by the same people behind the climate hoax😎
Cheap, high-sulfur aviation fuel contributes to the depletion of the ozone layer and can be considered a form of geoengineering. However, as long as the "right" people profit from this activity, it will continue.
Humanity's minimal contribution to CO2 emissions is close to negligible.
CO2🍃 isn’t the problem.
We actually need more CO2🍃💚The gas of life💚
What evidence can you point to that catastrophic climate change is a real threat?
I will write my own article. I can present hundreds of articles and books on this topic, and research papers, not to mention the famous study by Exxon that it tried to hide. I am not sure that would be helpful, but If you want a biography here, I can certainly provide that.
No - I look forward to your article and will read it. I have seen your work before and I agree with much of what you write. Maybe you could post a link here when you have written it?
One quick question for you though - are you a competent mathematician? If not, how do you judge the quality and verity of research papers on this subject?
I think it was a mistake to phrase my first statement in that manner. I apologize I will write a more detailed article on the topic with references. Regarding the issue of specialization, I am not a climate scientist or a mathematician. I was a professor for 25 years, however, and I wrote numerous reports on science policy if not scientific papers. There are two issues. First is do you have the expertise to understand the issues in context and the second is are the facts, technical or non technical, in the academic paper accurate. It is quite difficult for even an expert to ascertain whether all the content in multiple papers is accurate.
That’s a complete non-sequitur. Of course the global feudalists are willing to use anything opportunistically to support their agenda (built around the premise of providing “security” for those unable to provide it for themselves); that has been their modus operandi since the beginning. This doesn’t mean climate change exacerbated by humanity is a hoax.
I will write my own article on this topic. thanks for your suggestions
That would be a good thing.
"I do not have time to dissect was is true and what is false, but I am happy to do so."
I don't see why you can be happy to do so when you don't have time for it.
my explanations have all disappeared
I haven't removed anything.
I believe you. But some of my responses disappeared
Make yourself "happy". Of course "disection" is part of the problem..