Randall Carlson

[Lauren Johnson]

What do you make of this latest video from Corbett, Peter?

If others don't mind, I have been thinking about this question.

Corbett is just flat wrong about AGW.

This is how I understand his general direction. The globalists have created the false science of AGW to advance their agenda towards global domination. Yes, the world is warming but it is largely not caused by the insignificant gas CO2. It's absurd on the face of it. But by corrupting climate science by various means, they have created this mythological chimera threatening human existence.

So, that is his main point. CO2 is trivial. Duh!

Then there's that hockey stick. Once again, he correctly points out that when the graph is displayed from zero, you see the relatively tiny fluctuation of global average temperatures. What's the big deal?

Well, climate science does indeed say that small fluctuations in average temperature do indeed have huge effects, and their science I find quite persuasive. But then, this begs the question of how do they know what ancient climate was like. Corbett claims that it is based on tree rings. My understanding is that a bigger source of data comes from sophisticated analysis ice core samples taken from very ancient ice on Greenland and Antarctica. This is correlated with lots of other data, like for example tree rings.

I would agree to the extent that globalists would certainly try to benefit from the climate crisis. But jumping from that to denying climate science is just pathetic. F. William Engdahl does the same thing.