War Is A Crime .org
HumansForPeace.org -- HumanBeingsForPeace.org -- AfterDowningStreet.org
You are herecontent / Noam Chomsky on Corporate Lies About Global Warming
By davidswanson - Posted on 14 February 2011
Hey kidz!!! And you thought Egypt's Hosni Mubarak's final speech rambled on . . . and on . . . and on . .. ;-)
If you enjoyed this scholarly MAN-BEAR-PIG discourse on "Man Made Global Warming" from good ol' Noam "I Am Just So Much Smarter Than You" Chomsky, . . .
. . . flashback to his other classics like "9-11 Truth" . . . ;-)
(link to video - approx. 4 minutes)
"Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy par1"
(link to video - approx. 5 minutes)
"Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part 2"
(link to video - approx. 7 minutes)
"Noam Chomsky On The 9 11 Truth Movement"
(link to video - approx. 9 minutes)
"Noam Chomsky on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories"
As far as "Man Made Global Warming" that this ol' fool from North Cackilacki thinks Noam "I Am Just So Much Smarter Than You" Chomsky is still selling us . . .
(I watched this interview three times and I still think Mubarak made more sense and was more to the point than Chomsky)
(link to video - approx. 9 minutes)
"What Climate Change kooks don't want you to see"
And as far as Noam "I Am Just So Much Smarter Than You' Chomsky's views on 9-11 TRUTH . .
(link to video - approx. 5 minutes)
"9/11 Truth - David Ray Griffin on Noam Chomsky"
So, let's review . . . Noam "I Am Just So Much Smarter Than You" Chomsky
opposes the 9-11 TRUTH MOVEMENT . . . and apparently supports the orthodox version of 9-11 as outlined by the 9-11 Commission Report.
The Official version of 9-11 is of course the the keystone to the Zionist "War Of Terror" Global Police State campaign. . .
Noam "I Am So Much Smarter Than You" Chomsky continues to support "Man Made Global Warming" . . . which is the keystone to the Zionist "Eco-Carbon Tax" Centralized Global Governance campaign . . .
Cui bono? Who benefits?
You know kidz, I used to have so much respect for Noam Chomsky back in the day . . . of course, I used to have respect for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League long ago and far away . . ;-)
"Hey, this guy's good
I'm a ramblin' guy
Well, I'm ramblin'
I'm a ramblin' guy
I ramble out to San Francisco
Rent a car, get a hotel,
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes, oh no
A ramblin' guy"
- "Ramblin' Man" by Steve Martin
It took him a long time to properly reconsider the events of 9/11, a very long time; but it also took many people who are among 9/11 Truth researchers and speakers many years before they came to doubt the "official story" and 9/11 Commission's final and very bogus report, which has been denounced by plenty of the former commissioners who were not responsible for the final report.
I doubt that he's changed his view to the point of accepting that 9/11 may actually have been an "inside job", but he did definitely ceased his blind mockery of all 9/11 Truth activists. People who know enough about various "theories" claimed by people who say to be part of 9/11 Truth activists should realize that a considerable number of BOGUS theories were created and spread around and these would certainly make it difficult for many people who didn't know about the competent research and related findings to believe the little they unfortunately knew about 9/11 truther claims. No, they'd have cause to stick with the "official story", unless they were capable of doing their own critical thinking and research or study.
David Ray Griffin clearly and cleanly debunked a lot of the junk theories spread around as so-called 9/11 Truth. Some were so grotesquely nonsensical that he and others were right to believe that these extreme junk theories were planted by people only aiming to discredit 9/11 Truth research and activists. I definitely agreed with that view.
Anyway, Noam Chomsky did come to a corrected and much more sensible view. I don't recall what he exactly said, but there's a video clip for this at Youtube, or another video Web site. Am pretty sure that the one I viewed was at Youtube and definitely more recent than the clips you posted links for, for those were posted in 2006.
But his initial views about 9/11 and blind, liberal "elitist" mockery of 9/11 Truth activists and activism certainly illustrate that critically objective he isn't always. He fouled up badly about 9/11, for years, but 9/11 Truth activists should note that he did eventually improve on this subject. And he should improve. Otherwise, he should be very embarrassed when plenty or many former US intelligence officials or officers, former US military people, members of Congress, several of the people who served as members of the 9/11 Commission, scientists, architects, engineers, and many other people support the call for a new and independent 9/11 investigation. But he corrected his view, and certainly NOT everyone who supports the need for a new investigation says that they believe the "inside job" part.
It was an "inside job" with various "outside" help, and I'm not speaking of 19 Saudis with boxcutters. There is very strong evidence for "inside job".
But most Americans prefer to watch disney.
Btw, AE911Truth has clips of interviews with several people, all or mostly all scientists, posted last October and, I believe, November at Youtube. These interviews, one per clip, are from an upcoming documentary by AE911Truth, "9/11: Explosive Testimonies". To find the clips at Youtube, people can simply search the Web site using "9/11: Explosive Testimony" (singular form) or "Explosive Testimony" and ae911truth for search terms. They're excellent and important interviews.
Everyone should listen to those interviews. Living in denial or blindly refusing to consider what others have to say when our minds don't want to consider the possibility of the others being right, this is never acceptable. It's [irresponsible].
to say what all scientists with the necessary knowledge and specializations have to say about "global warming", which is better called "climate change" until we really have truly global warming, which we apparently still don't. If the situation is as it was just a few years ago, then we have warming and cooling, depending on which locations are considered. It might give an average that permits say that the average global temperature has risen, but that's an average reading; not one specifying which changes have occurred in different locations.
And neither is Al Gore, qualified to speak about "climate change" or "global warming". He isn't a scientist, not by a long shot. He is a neoliberal elitist, imperialist, however.
The international panel, IPCC, is of the UN another instrument controlled, dominated by the elite imperialists. The IPCC reportedly included the names of some scientists as signers without their approval, while some scientists who had initially approved reportedly came to change their minds or views, beliefs. These reports should all be verifiable, but if they verified to be true, then it's not the pro-"global warming" group that's going to want to do this work.
Regarding "peak oil", it's debated. Not all people with relevant knowledge or expertise agree. Some say "peak oil" has been reached and this claim makes it possible for the oil industry biggies to manipulate prices. That doesn't prove that "peak oil" hasn't been reached, but it's certainly possible that this "theory" is junk science for profiting Big Oil and its investors. Some scientists say "peak oil" hasn't been reached. And some argue, credibly too, that oil is NOT a fossil fuel. But this all of this information, or certainly the fossil fuel vs abiotic origin of oil, is not of interest to most Americans or maybe most westerners.
All of this has been reported, but most "global warming" and "fossil fuel" theory people or fans don't want to take the time to research the scientific details. Most of these people are not scientifically qualified to really make any claim. We can claim to have read about the above sort of reports, but few of us are scientifically qualified to make a real judgment about them.
And The Nation sometimes does publish bs, including propaganda. I hardly read anything from The Nation, except for TomDispatch, which is part of The Nation Institute. Jeremy Scahill has done some fine work for The Nation, but this media is not consistently good and does publish articles of little to no real value. And with his good work about the Blackwater mercenary firm, he either never has mentioned other big contracting companies that also provide the mercenary "service" and have been doing that since before we heard of Blackwater. He wasn't thorough; only having focused on Blackwater, or mostly having used this focus alone, anyway.
How many scientists, especially independent ones, has Noam Chomsky interviewed? He's among the many Americans who claimed that 9/11 truth research and findings was all bunk. He eventually changed his stated view about this, but he grotesquely mocked 9/11 Truth. After having modified his view, he perhaps still doesn't believe that 9/11 may have been an "inside job"; but Ray McGovern and others have stated this, certainly as a possibility anyway. Ray McGovern might not have used the words "inside job", explicitly, but he nevertheless referred to it as possible in other terms and said that Cheney would be a White House suspect, if 9/11 was an inside job.
To be critically objective, Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not an Earth scientist, or any other kind of scientific expert. Linguistics is very different from the physical sciences. To be critically objective in what he has to say about "peak oil" and "global warming", he would need to interview many scientific experts, including Russian ones who, with some I believe Ukranian ones, determined that the fossil fuel theory about oil is wrong, balony, that, instead, it's of geological origin; a-biotic. They arrived at that theory based on a German scientist decades earlier. And there are Americans with relevant scientific expertise who also say that oil is a-biotic, rather than made from fossil(s). One American who did that is a professor in some scientific discipline at the U. of Texas, the campus in Austin, I believe; but he isn't the only American with scientific credentials who say that oil is or must be a-biotic, rather than of fossil origin. Chomsky would need to interview what the scientists say about "global warming" being real, including those who say it's not due to human cause, and others who say its due to both natural and human causes without being able to be sure of which of the two causes is greater.
It took a long time for people to come to understand that the Earth isn't flat was true. It'll apparently take many people who are believers in "peak oil" and fossil as origin of oil to carefully consider what scientists saying or arguing the opposite have said.
One of the clips of The Nation's video series that this interview with Noam Chomsky is the sixth of apparently is for an interview with some Russian man and I haven't listened to the clip. But if he claims that oil is from fossil origin, then it's his view believe; it wouldn't represent the views of the Russian scientists who have argued that oil is a-biotic and geologically formed. He he defends the "peak oil" theory, then what does he say about all of the many and large untapped oil reserves the Earth has? Et cetera. There perhaps are other questions to present about "peak oil", which is a theory that is favorable for profiting the oil industry and its investors. It might also be profitable for other corporations or industries, as well as government, depending on how much it'd cost to convert all of these from using oil to using cleanly generated energy. The latter is not something I've read from others; only being a thought that just crossed my mind while writing this paragraph.
I don't have the ability to do this research and only or mostly say what I've read. But we do know that the Earth has gone through drastic climate changes multiple, if not many, times since the very start of the Earth, so this natural event should not be discounted today without being truly proven to not be the case today, first. No one has done that yet, not as far as I'm aware anyway. And I do believe that the a-biotic nature of oil is very credible for theory, while not giving much credence to the fossil origin theory. Imo, there's just far too much oil, tapped, exploited, and untapped, for it to have been of fossil origin, and this is something the U. of Texas professor said as well.
People should note that fossil origin of oil is not proven fact; it's theory and maybe it doesn't even scientifically merit to be really considered a theory, scientifically.
All most people get is what's published through or by media, both corporate and alternative, and both err as well as produce balony propaganda. Of course we also learn of what non-independent scientists say, when they're actually on the payroll of some large corporation, if not more than one.
According to an article by F. William Engdahl of a couple or few years ago and cross-posted at www.globalresearch.ca, some Russian scientists found the large reserves of oil in Siberia using the theory that oil is a-biotic. According to the article, which can be found using his author's index at GR, the Siberian oil fields wouldn't have been found, or not in the large quantities found there, if oil was of fossil origin. They say that oil originates geoligically and from very deep within the Earth, and I doubt dinosaurs and surface plants existed down there. It's an article for which the title says something about him having previously believed in the "peak oil" theory or the "fossil fuel" theory. I think it's "peak oil", in the title of the piece, but the article refers to both subjects and is worth reading. Like he said in the piece, he can't prove which side is right, but what he found, as explained in the piece, lead him to cease believing, in a definite, unquestioning or blind way anyway, the "peak oil" theory. He refers to what the U. of Texas professor said; it's where I learned about him and what he said. I think that was said directly to F. William Engdahl, as well. The professor is named, if recalling correctly.
Anyway, keep open minds on these subjects until we have irrefutable facts for knowledge. We don't have that, definitely not about "global warming" and oil being fossil fuel anyway.
Theories aren't facts, and theories are stronger than hypotheses, which are stronger than unintelligent guesses; in fields of the sciences anyway.
Advertise on this site!
Innocence shattered and ultimate redemption are portrayed against the backdrop of the Vietnam War and the turbulent sixties.