Watched the first few minutes and realized I viewed it before (also had it bookmarked), I did finish it after posting. Excellent video.

Those links were to the different sections of that book, you can read the entire volume from that site. You are correct about Big Oil, and the British East India Company. Interestingly enough, the BEIC still exists and functions, it was nationalized, then relaunched as The East India Company. Also, keep in mind the BEIC was really just a branch of the English Government, it was a way to conquer territories in the name of trade, rather then invasion with military etc...

Anything that becomes too large has tyrant tendencies: companies, governments, budgets, religion... Even Science is subject to this rule, much of what the Nazis (National Socialists) espoused was conjured up under the auspices of science---anthropology, biology, psychology to name a few, they used that "science" to control, kill, conquer etc... So science is not immune to this risk.

Huge fan of Jefferson as well. Since tyranny can apply both ways, it reminds me of the I-Ching and Lao Tzu warning of how even those in the right can become wrong, "When King Wen overthrew the tyrant he had to reflect deeply and choose his policies wisely as not to be a tyrant overthrowing a tyrant." Extreme Yin turns into Yang, extreme Yang turns into Yin. Even the most perfected thing can become a source of tyranny. The Sun's incredible heat/energy means it cannot be the cold, dark moon, it's own nature and Universal laws keeps it in check. Euripedes said: "In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side." and perhaps his most famous: “Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.”
ref: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Euripides

~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ~

ChuangTze said:

"Anything that becomes too large has tyrant tendencies: companies, governments, budgets, religion... Even Science is subject to this rule, much of what the Nazis (National Socialists) espoused was conjured up under the auspices of science---anthropology, biology, psychology to name a few, they used that "science" to control, kill, conquer etc... So science is not immune to this risk."

This is a correct statement.

greencedar

Liberal/Conservative.

Consider those 2 words.
One is tolerant and easy going.
The other is wary of change.

Both are afeared of the other.

Notice I did not throw political parties in my post. Those 2 words are universal across all political spectrum’s.
Kingly/Queenly
Democracy
Communism
Socialism

All the above have both human mind sets in their population and work also in govt. services.
Being a personal thing.
Not everyone knows.
Except by actions and conversing as friends.

Funny part is. The Sun don't care. It will give skin cancer to both. Even Libertarians ,Kings and Queens, CEO's,

Reminds me of my views on their two party system (even though vastly more complex like our minds changing) republican, republic like "China," democratic democracy like freedom to opinionated.

I currently use gas because I have to put things evolve.

@greencedar - I think I have treated you here with respect and courtesy so I am respectfully asking you to do us all the courtesy of ceasing to make claims without backing evidence. As I've stated you are perfectly within your rights to have whatever opinions you come by however you arrive there, but in a public forum claims require evidence. No more standalone speculation. please.

To be clear and specific you claim above that "a large segment of the scientific community is after political power" so please accompany such claims with citations of examples anyone can verify. You also claim that the confidence in human caused climate change is based on "erred statistics, fraudulent statistics, and manipulated statistics" These are extremely serious claims and bordering on actionable - Fraud is a serious crime. So especially here, where it is so serious, you absolutely owe it to yourself and anyone you speak this to, to back it up. Guesswork and impressions don't cut it. OK? If you don't back up such claims it is an admission of weakness and I doubt you desire that.

I deleted the statement.

I didn't want you to delete it. Just back things up from now on. OK?

Climate Change Makes Substantially Increased Concern Newsworthy... now that big bucks are seen at risk -

If you haven't already seen the news from the UN summit on the financial danger expected to be four times as bad as the global economy crisis of 2008 soon enough to scare the wallets off a consortium of the world's wealthiest financiers it might be wise to look it up. I saw the article in The Guardian but it will be everywhere soon enough. It took vast wealth to spin the data to convince so many that the human factor in climate change was a hoax but that wealth seems about to be matched. Nothing works harder than money.

If it is a hoax, the hoaxers have their hands on the handle now and a changing of the guard, unseating Oil Barons, seems more likely, though it will surely be very slow since Oil and other fossil products are valuable even when not burned since there's no way to recreate million year processes without taking millions of years and having the raw materials that no longer exist to work with. I suppose it could be possible that he hoaxers are actually Big Oil playing a misdirection game (Oh please Brer Fox! Don't throw me in da briar patch!) but I tend to think that powerful people and conspiracy are basically at odds. They generally don't play well with others. They thrive on hardball. I guess we shall see.

If, as I expect, it is not a hoax, we will simply avoid the worst of it and move into an age of cleaner, cheaper energy. Sorry guys. Socialism isn't in the cards. These guys are Capitalists with great power and they don't want Socialism and they have the means to effect their whims and desires. It's always about money and whatever imbalances and instabilities it may also have, Capitalism works and is sustainable as long as enough freedom exists to adapt to change.

This first step, the call for the ending of subsidies and tax breaks that shore up Big oil's bottom line and make competition foolhardy and ineffective, has begun and their free ride may be coming to an end. Over time it will likely be replaced by some other form of corporate welfare with new beneficiaries, as our history shows (Meet the new Boss... Same as the old Boss), but we will have taken a step into the future much like when gas lamps were replaced by electric, ice boxes by refrigeration, and so on. The cost of that change also helped increase the pollution creating this conundrum but that seems part of an inescapable process as population grows. 19th century technology has little place in the 21st century with a global human population of 7.6 Billion people and it appears we don't have the luxury of putting that change off until the 22nd century.

Either way, the tide is turning..

I know anyone can post anything on YouTube, but this video presents a compelling case that the government's temperature data has been altered to make the case for global warming. If it's right, then GW truly is a hoax. Is there a rebuttal?

enorbet,

Regarding Socialism you are mistaken...the uber rich/elites have always loved Socialism/Fascism and Communism, it is the greatest vehicle for them to concentrate their power and riches. Then, after instituting one of the above three systems, they pass laws/dictates/mandates, preventing anyone from doing what they did (ie: gain wealth/power). That's why Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the likes are always in favor of raising taxes, its not for them to pay more, its for the rest of us to pay more and have less, so "they" can have more. The endgame for those systems is always to get as close to 100% taxation as possible, oh yes, the humanitarian causes/freebies/environment etc... is always a precursor/fundraiser/pat on the back incentive, however, the benefits are either short lived or never materialize. What does materialize is you losing more money and the government/rulers getting more of it.

Ref: the ultimate ponzi schemes of 401K, social security, medicare etc... Talk about a pyramid scheme. geesh. I am sure that some of these scientists are sincere, however, the systems behind them (political/educational/philosophical) are indeed full of crooks, bandits, robber barons, tyrants, you name it....

Excellent compelling video. notes are here: https://realclimatescience.com/2018/...imate-science/

Hello again KenJackson. Apart from the fact that Tony Heller (who started blogging as Steven Goddard, apparently so it was harder to check his actual credentials) is yet another unqualified blogger buffoon who has zero background in Science let alone Climatology and whose ethics in Journalism are highly suspect for several verifiable reasons. It is known that he cherry picked, altered, misunderstood and misreported data.

We can temporarily forget about how many times he has taken down his own posts and gone to extensive trouble to erase all records of tom foolery, but one solid example of most of those faults that he has chosen to continue with is confusing sea ice with glaciers all the while mis-reporting land ice at 3% of the Earth's total land mass despite the fact that it is closer to 5% just considering surface area and paying no attention to volume. Since the ice sheet in Antarctica is miles thick for most of the inland area this is a significant amount of ice that can contribute to rising sea levels. He ignores this. Sea Ice has no long term effect on sea levels but that's exactly why Tony cherry picks Sea Ice and not land ice. It agrees more with his agenda, at which he has had moderate success since he has been linked, quoted, interviewed and otherwise received recompense from fossil fuel corporations. Fame and Fortune are powerful motivators known to seduce many to crime, and Tony seems at least smart enough to recognize he is at little actual legal risk, even though someone might consider his fake news as akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, a form of Free Speech not protected by law.

Let's even assume for a moment that he so firmly believes in his cause that all his errors and fraudulent behavior were unintentional. He seems to expect Science to be like Religion, based in certainty and impervious to revision. He fails to understand that through increased numbers of drilled ice cores, partly because of the initial milder concern, and more accurate means of collecting and comparing such data that the data was indeed revised some but nowhere near to the extreme that Tony reports. That revision, required by newly acquired better data, is part of why the intensity of the alarm has risen, not among the general public who is largely ignorant of how this data is collected and analyzed, but among those most in the know! They know for a fact that the data was not "fudged" to present a false conclusion or to commit any sort of fraud but simply revised to give a clear picture of the DEGREE they already know was occurring from past data.

Short answer - No Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard is not a reliable source
and,
Yes, he has been repeatedly been debunked by anyone remotely trained in the appropriate Sciences, let alone Journalism.

citations/sources?