Marc Malone, Opting Out of The Great Reset |537|

Alex

Administrator
Marc Malone, Opting Out of The Great Reset |537|
by Alex Tsakiris | Jan 25 | Skepticism, Uncategorized
Share
Tweet

Marc Malone alerts politicians to local Great Reset laws already in place.
skeptiko-537-marc-malone-300x300.jpg
 
Excellent episode. Thanks Alex & Marc !

I had posted a question a bit too late on the chat for this one, so I'll add it here in case anyone wants to chime in. It was on the topic of globalization.

What happened to the ideal that was once thought of as a near global utopia, as in Star Trek or the song Imagine by John Lennon? These are visions of world unity where problems like poverty, greed, pollution, energy, and quests for power have become things of the past, replaced by exploration and the betterment of ourselves as human beings. Where did that go off the rails and become viewed as the creation of some dark Empire?
 
Good show.
Of course it's all coordinated, but still failing.
I think we'll get to a global level of fair exchange, but some things might happen first. Then we'll make it OURS.
 
I'm glad somebody is taking some meaningful action (and not just waving colorful paper in the streets).

Montana was mentioned frequently in this episode as a state where progress is being made to beat back the globalist agenda... Montana has been known among the "prepper" community as a sort of last hope for freedom and because of this reputation and because of the harsh environment which will provide some protection from the roving hoards of inner city zombies that will come skittering out of the cities after societal collapse, for decades preppers, homeschoolers, and religiously devout have been trickling into the promised land of Montana (and some I assume find it too cold and isolated and go back home a year or two later).

Anyway, a while back my wife and I played Far Cry 5 (a first person shooter game) and of course the plot jumped out at me as a kind of globalist propaganda (it was developed in Toronto). In the game, you are a sheriff's deputy working with the FBI on a task force attempting to subdue a militant patriotic separatist movement in Montana led by Joseph Seed, a religious cult leader who controls people with his fiery sermons and access to an addictive drug called "Bliss", and who spouts out the types of messages that the globalists actually believe: that the world is overpopulated and the human race needs to be culled. Seed and his family of heavily armed evangelicals have taken over the infrastructure and farmland.

So the game is seeding the idea in players that one day the Feds will have to come in and take back Montana from "cult groups" and at the same time it uses the bad seed, Joseph Seed, to seed ideas about overpopulation and the need to cull the human herd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Cry_5
 
Interesting discussion and a couple things come to mind.
1. I've never understood fundamentalism
The idea that, well, this was said to happen, and it didn't therefore it's all bullshit, never made sense to me.
It's like, "This streetlight is broken, therefore traffic lights don't work."
How does this apply to the conversation?

2. Climate Change is not an on/off switch
Whenever Alex brings up good points about more ice in Antarctica
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/sea-ice-antarctic
he makes comments about islands not disappearing
(Three islands just disappeared, is this Global Warming? Too soon to tell for sure, but when is too late?)
There is never comments about the ice in the Arctic and the massive defrosting of permafrost. The fact that the North is open in ways
that nations like Russia, US and Canada are rushing to declare sovereignty of the territory because it's navigable.
Not a lot of people in Canada, especially on the coasts would ever argue that Climate Change isn't a real thing. We live it every day.
Halifax's crazy weather. The migration of plants and animals from southern climes that never existed even ten years ago here (We have Black widow spiders now! That was unheard of when I was a kid). Vancouver's crazy weather of heatwaves, unheard of forest fire catastrophes etc...
I'm not saying ALL of those are from global warming, but it seems pretty clear (especially if you talk to the Forest Rangers in an area and the natives who have nothing to do with any global conspiracy- they aren't paid enough to be engaged). They will tell you things are insane.

I remember reading that however you fall on the Climate Change argument, it is the most difficult science to do. You have to take thousands of disparate measurements and find ways to see where they connect. I recommend "Sea Sick" (https://alannamitchell.com/sea-sick-the-book/) as an incredible book that shows just how parcelled off scientists actually are from each other. Those doing ocean science have little connection with each other, and the journalist looked at the different local readings to show a devastating series of findings on the health of the world's oceans.

3. Who is at the Centre of this Global Conspiracy?
I know Kyle Kulinski often says, "It's not who you think it is. It's actually a whole lot easier than that."
And it is.
Alex asks the very honest question of how can people think that there's not a plandemic when the evidence is right there?
Well, the evidence IS there. He's absolutely right. The problem are the conclusions.
Who is the person running DAVOS? He's a zealot for his ideals. Schwab's net worth is $950,000. That is chump change. He's a guy with a projector
and pretty much nothing else. So who is it? Nobody likes to talk about it.
But the truth is, it's a real flaw in capitalism and that's why nobody wants to talk about it.
But, if you look at the Left from the past, Naomi Klein identified that problem way back. It was called Crisis Capitalism.
And everyone, left and right have used that instict "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Her book was called "The Shock Doctrine" https://naomiklein.org/the-shock-doctrine/ and it came out in 2007. Well before any DAVOS insistences on the world order.
We see it happening billionaires taking advantage of Klein's Shock Doctrine. Because they aren't interested in a healthy capitalism where we have competition. They want market dominance to the point of removing everyone else.
We see this happening in public schools where corporate think has taken over the curriculum.
We see this happening in society where we once talked about each other as citizens, Reagan taught a generation to see each other as clients and now, this has evolved to customers.
There is a huge difference between the relationships in a community from "Citizens" to "Customers". Huxley (Brave New World) would be very alarmed to see how we're coming closer and closer to his reality. Not so much Big Brother from 1984, but Big Sister. A friendly face where you get rid of your liberties and have corporations run your life. Don't go outside, it's dangerous there. Stay inside, Netflix and chill. There are so many streaming services, I don't even have shows in common with my kids anymore because they have too much to see, too much content.
Neil Postman's nightmarish vision in "Amusing Ourselves to Death" has become uncannily true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
And the corporatists, the Plutarchs. The Oligarchs have taken notice.
That's why you can have these Woke corporations say and force you to say whatever Big Sister wants because it doesn't cost them a dime.
Black Lives Matter says Raytheon the defence contractor (https://www.city-journal.org/raytheon-adopts-critical-race-theory).
Support identifying people strictly by race, sex, gender, because it makes it that much easier for us to sell to you.
Have both sides fight each other. It sells more guns for gun manufacturers.

Manufacture hate and make a profit doing it.

It's not hard to see. Who has profited from COVID? The Bezos of the world. They make the money and want us to wipe out our "little markets" so Amazon sells everywhere and that local Mom and Pop store down the street is gone forever.
Listen to the latest interview from DAVOS attendee and writer of the novel "How Billionaires Devoured the World", Peter Goodman.
https://player.fm/series/krystal-kyle-friends/episode-57-audio-peter-goodman
He sees the real conspiracy for what it is. Unchecked corporate capitalism corrupting governments, centralizing their power and influence to sell more, to remove any safeguards for the populace- environmental standards, union-busting for worker rights, destruction of communities to create digital urban worlds.

4. Conclusions

Is this "EVIL" with a capital "E" that Alex has been talking about, but skirting around the edges? I don't know. I do know we have a ton of psychological evidence to demonstrate that those who are billionaires see no sign of stopping until they continually get more and more and more from what is less and less of the pie. Your autonomy, your freedom, your ability to make things will change once Disney is the only licensed distributor of stories. The idea of reading public domain works could very well disappear. These happen everywhere because there's a market incentive to do so.

It's not rocket science. It's everywhere and right in our face that we can't see it, and even more so, are afraid to engage it because it brings up the dreaded question, "If capitalism is failing us, does that mean capitalism failed?"

I disagree. I think we failed capitalism, not the other way around. I think that we took our hand off the tiller that FDR righted. I think we let Reagan destroy private unions and then the march to the bottom for workers began. Minimum wage has been woefully away from keeping up with times and inflation https://www.politifact.com/factchec...s-been-decades-minimum-wage-kept-inflation-a/
And yet CEO's wages have exploded. (12% workers, 940% CEO's) https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

If we are to save capitalism, everyone should be a populist. Marc is 100% right that the left/right politics isn't important here. What's important is walk away when you get a win. Argue about the minutia another time. Do I support Ron Paul's anti-war stance? 100%. Do I support his and Bernie Sanders desire to keep jobs in America and not ship them abroad? 100% Do I agree with Ron Paul's privatizing medicine? No. Do I agree with Bernie Sander's pro-gun views? Absolutely not. I will still work on the things with them that I think are valuable. Take the win.

Do I think that a society has the right to have transparency of government? That the populace has a right to decide on their own what is important and not a group of plutocrat elites make those decisions? Yes. The populace needs to make those decisions. NO. The plutocrats do not.
Who's with me?
J
P.S. I'm not interested in nasty responses, flippant ones, or partisan ones. I am interested in actual non-partisan evidence challenging my ideas ALWAYS. Notice none of the links I've put up are from any MSM. I don't follow them. They are market-driven corporations as well. I am evidence persuaded. Nothing more. Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
thx for this thoughtful post... below:

Interesting discussion and a couple things come to mind.
1. I've never understood fundamentalism
The idea that, well, this was said to happen, and it didn't therefore it's all bullshit, never made sense to me.
It's like, "This streetlight is broken, therefore traffic lights don't work."
How does this apply to the conversation?

I assume you're referring to global warming here... and I think in that context the failure of a scientific hypothesis has a different meaning. I don't think it's fundamentalism to point out this hypothesis and the predictions that went along with it have been falsified. we've lived in the laboratory... what they predicted would happen didn't happen:
1643214351937.png

2. Climate Change is not an on/off switch

same as above... it's just science stuff... failed predictions. and then there's the lies and deception that have been exposed... like climategate

3. Who is at the Centre of this Global Conspiracy?

which one?


4. Conclusions
If we are to save capitalism, everyone should be a populist. Marc is 100% right that the left/right politics isn't important here. What's important is walk away when you get a win. Argue about the minutia another time. Do I support Ron Paul's anti-war stance? 100%. Do I support his and Bernie Sanders desire to keep jobs in America and not ship them abroad? 100% Do I agree with Ron Paul's privatizing medicine? No. Do I agree with Bernie Sander's pro-gun views? Absolutely not. I will still work on the things with them that I think are valuable. Take the win.

Agreed. I think the cynical will call this idealism, but then again that's the spiritual path isn't it :)
 
Thanks for the thoughtful response Alex.
I guess when it comes to Global Warming, my question is this:
"How is it we allow for the Globalists to be off with their predictions of global control but scientists with what is likely to be the most difficult predictor of something like the gradual changes of a climate for an entire planet have to be on point with what they predicted in the past?"
Isn't it possible that their predictions were off about some things, but the process is still occurring (if we look at the indicators I've outlined in my own post above?)
Keeping in mind that we do have solid evidence of scientists who have falsified their findings (Climategate), we can't therefore theorize that EVERY scientist is full of shit when it comes to Global Warming, could we?
To me, that would be the same argument as the Atheists saying, "Because we can prove there are charlatans doing seances, it's obviously bullshit that you can talk to the dead."
We both recognize that there is good and bad science in all these things.
If all my observations of what's going on here in Canada ISN'T global warming. I'd be interested in understanding what it is.
Because, I know it's not our collective imagination that things are indeed changing climactically here.
J
 
"How is it we allow for the Globalists to be off with their predictions of global control but scientists with what is likely to be the most difficult predictor of something like the gradual changes of a climate for an entire planet have to be on point with what they predicted in the past?"
This is systemic in this community and, I'd dare say, in social media.

The standards applied as evidence/proof seem to differ. The difference appears to be each of our own biases. This broadening use of the term "my truth" has been puzzling to me. It seems to be the same concept. Terms like belief/perspective/opinion can all be relative to the individual. Truth used to carry a more universal connotation; not so anymore it seems.

So, when Alex comes across a slavery/holocaust denier its anathema. Here he's applying truth objectively; not allowing for another to have a different version. While I agree with Alex on this point, where/how is the line drawn? I'm sure there are many that would react similarly to denial of climate change. They feel an objective truth exists on the topic.

In fairness to Alex, he gave the poster an opportunity to bring evidence on the slavery/holocaust topics. They passed.

We should continue to hold to high standards in this regard; regardless of the topic. Globalists, climate change, alternative-historians, etc. Otherwise, we're just in the "my truth/your truth" discussion business which...... isn't really a discussion or at least anything close to a productive one.
 
This is systemic in this community and, I'd dare say, in social media.

The standards applied as evidence/proof seem to differ. The difference appears to be each of our own biases. This broadening use of the term "my truth" has been puzzling to me. It seems to be the same concept. Terms like belief/perspective/opinion can all be relative to the individual. Truth used to carry a more universal connotation; not so anymore it seems.

So, when Alex comes across a slavery/holocaust denier its anathema. Here he's applying truth objectively; not allowing for another to have a different version. While I agree with Alex on this point, where/how is the line drawn? I'm sure there are many that would react similarly to denial of climate change. They feel an objective truth exists on the topic.

In fairness to Alex, he gave the poster an opportunity to bring evidence on the slavery/holocaust topics. They passed.

We should continue to hold to high standards in this regard; regardless of the topic. Globalists, climate change, alternative-historians, etc. Otherwise, we're just in the "my truth/your truth" discussion business which...... isn't really a discussion or at least anything close to a productive one.

100%!
Well said. I have always felt when Alex does his interviews best is when he asks for reasonable proof and something is provided that can be compelling enough to say even, "You may have something there."

I open up more conversations with people by telling them I'm not there to change their minds. I had a Right-Wing friend of mine say, "I don't know why we talk about stuff. You're not going to change your mind."

"I'm not here to convince you of my opinion. I'm here to learn better about yours."

I think this is intrinsically different than, "Everyone is equal in their beliefs and nothing is wrong."
I think we begin with understanding, and then we find where the problems are in the concepts of our understanding better.
If we don't do that, we fall into easily defended camps:
Liberals are trying to destroy the family.
Conservatives hate immigrants.
We all know the tropes. Nobody wins in those fights. All they do is tend to divide us so the "powers that be" (Globalists or Corporate Capitalist criminals) can enjoy keeping us focused on the fights we have with each other.

I want the opportunity so we can keep discussing for the rest of our lives in a world that allows us to do that without penality.
J
 
Finally some push back is taking hold in Canada.

The last living First Minister responsible for the drafting of the Canadian Charter of Rights is taking legal action against the government of Canada for violating the Charter. It's akin to having Benjamin Franklin or George Washington weight in on what is going on in the US right now.

 
Finally some push back is taking hold in Canada.

The last living First Minister responsible for the drafting of the Canadian Charter of Rights is taking legal action against the government of Canada for violating the Charter. It's akin to having Benjamin Franklin or George Washington weight in on what is going on in the US right now.


Let's hope he's successful. Nobody wants to know how my day just went.
J
 
We should continue to hold to high standards in this regard; regardless of the topic. Globalists, climate change, alternative-historians, etc. Otherwise, we're just in the "my truth/your truth" discussion business which...... isn't really a discussion or at least anything close to a productive one.
I want the opportunity so we can keep discussing for the rest of our lives in a world that allows us to do that without penality.
J

These ring of a context in which the potential exists to improve on humanity at large.
That we insist upon striving to:
-Build a world that can be everything for everyone.
-Reserve for eachother the maximum benefit of the doubt.

Terms like belief/perspective/opinion shouldn't offend us unless we fear we are at risk of losing our own.

Shouldn't true confidence enable us maximally to hold space for opposing views? Shouldn't we insist on remaining ready to learn from someone whose perspective seem irreconcilable?

"I can't learn anything from you if you don't see ____________ the same as I see it."
Climate Change
Genocide
Holocaust
War
Political Future
Religion
Inalienable Rights
Equality

The phrase "my truth" should only be used as an olive branch. And when it is, it should be accepted. That is, assuming we wish to grow.
 
These ring of a context in which the potential exists to improve on humanity at large.
That we insist upon striving to:
-Build a world that can be everything for everyone.
-Reserve for eachother the maximum benefit of the doubt.

Terms like belief/perspective/opinion shouldn't offend us unless we fear we are at risk of losing our own.

Shouldn't true confidence enable us maximally to hold space for opposing views? Shouldn't we insist on remaining ready to learn from someone whose perspective seem irreconcilable?

"I can't learn anything from you if you don't see ____________ the same as I see it."
Climate Change
Genocide
Holocaust
War
Political Future
Religion
Inalienable Rights
Equality

The phrase "my truth" should only be used as an olive branch. And when it is, it should be accepted. That is, assuming we wish to grow.

Brilliantly put. Thank you.
I worry about phrases like "normies" and "woke" and "zombies" and whatever derrogatory words you can think of keep popping up because they work on identifying "those who don't know 'the truth'" and "the annointed".
We're all wandering around in the dark getting glimpses at flickerings of light, but all of us need to admit, that there are equally dark figures doing their best to manipulate the truth, as much as to keep us in the dark by making us think that what we see IS light, when it could be just a mirror image away from it.
This is why I always caution away from conclusions, especially without definitive evidence. But even WITH evidence because all the evidence we accrue may not provide the entire evidence of the issue.
Which is why I am asking, and continue to keep asking, why the evidence we're experiencing in Canada daily is NOT global warming, what are some alternatives, because for the life of me I can't see what they would be.
For me the migration of southern clime plants and animals to areas they couldn't previously survive, is VERY compelling evidence that circumvents the idea that scientists had made wrong predictions before.

J
 
Brilliantly put. Thank you.
Which is why I am asking, and continue to keep asking, why the evidence we're experiencing in Canada daily is NOT global warming, what are some alternatives, because for the life of me I can't see what they would be.
For me the migration of southern clime plants and animals to areas they couldn't previously survive, is VERY compelling evidence that circumvents the idea that scientists had made wrong predictions before.

J

Well measurements show a global rise in temperature of 1 degree in 140 years - so the real question you should ask, is whether that minute change (however caused) can explain the changes in Canada you refer to?

The fact is that weather systems shift about over time, and with them local temperatures change - by far more than 1 degree in 140 years!

Plants and animals have always moved into fresh niches as local temperatures change, and/or they find ways to adapt to different conditions.

David
 
Well measurements show a global rise in temperature of 1 degree in 140 years - so the real question you should ask, is whether that minute change (however caused) can explain the changes in Canada you refer to?

The fact is that weather systems shift about over time, and with them local temperatures change - by far more than 1 degree in 140 years!

Plants and animals have always moved into fresh niches as local temperatures change, and/or they find ways to adapt to different conditions.

David

Well, that certainly is a point. I cannot say one way or another if the gradual global rise is in effect or not. Certainly to see such change so rapidly in my life here in this province would seem very much a compressed factor.
I've been here about thirty years now. And in that time, We've gone from almost ten feet of snow, to next to none. From hovering around -5 all winter to wild changes including thaws and flash ice storms. I've seen the arrival of Japanese roots that wouldn't survive in the ground, to the wide distribution of the long-horn beetle that's destroyed entire crops of trees.
I've seen lime disease and ticks explode where they never existed, and Zebra muscles swallow up waterways.
And that's just off the top of my head.
I'm reminded of the CBC "Nature of Things" the "Silent Sentinels" where David Suzuki reported the 99% die off of coral in the Indian Ocean in one roasted summer alone. Animals that have existed for hundreds of years gone in a few weeks.
Startling. I HOPE that the rainforest is growing. I hope desertification isn't occuring at the levels we see. I HOPE that James Blalock's time dilation glacier melting is isolated or bullshit. But my parents witnessed dying glaciers in Greenland, and took a tour of the North in tour boats that could never navigate those waters in the past.


J
 
These ring of a context in which the potential exists to improve on humanity at large.
That we insist upon striving to:
-Build a world that can be everything for everyone.
-Reserve for eachother the maximum benefit of the doubt.

Terms like belief/perspective/opinion shouldn't offend us unless we fear we are at risk of losing our own.

Shouldn't true confidence enable us maximally to hold space for opposing views? Shouldn't we insist on remaining ready to learn from someone whose perspective seem irreconcilable?

"I can't learn anything from you if you don't see ____________ the same as I see it."
Climate Change
Genocide
Holocaust
War
Political Future
Religion
Inalienable Rights
Equality

The phrase "my truth" should only be used as an olive branch. And when it is, it should be accepted. That is, assuming we wish to grow.
The phrase "my truth" simply shouldn't be used at all. There's an element of practical, real world living at stake here.

Questioning a truth, doubting a truth, hating a truth, seeking to change a truth. All fine. "My truth"? Nope. Truth isn't on a continuum where you get to pick your point. Maybe if you lived alone in a non-society. Back back to reality; we don't. We live together.

And let's not pretend how this things are almost always presented on Skeptiko over the past several years. Belief/perspective/opinion as you put it? Hardly. Most commonly, most often its presented as "just so". As "truth". Whatever it may be and almost exclusively its anti-mainstream (again, regardless of topic).

My goodness, if we could only get back to "I believe" or "I think" or "I'm not 100% convinced, but...". Dialogues where people can actually interact and learn might occur. When it starts with "Most southerners didn't have slaves", or "6 million is grossly inflated" or "viruses don't cause disease" its actually a non-starter. Makes me wonder why folks who speak that way even stop by. If "their truths" are all firmly held what's the point of discussing? There's nothing left to learn, right?
 
Well, that certainly is a point. I cannot say one way or another if the gradual global rise is in effect or not.
Great - you are finally taking on board some of what I am saying! Whatever is causing those changes can't possibly be the minute changes in temperature they report. Several points:

When you take a long series of measurements like the ones used to 'prove' CAGW, it is statistically certain that you will get a small trend up or down even if nothing is happening at all. All kinds of things may be responsible, from slight inaccuracies in the earlier thermometers, or different ways of measuring the position of the mercury column - you are supposed to get your eye dead level with the mercury meniscus for a measurement. There are also a long list of computer corrections to the data - the data you see are not exactly the temperatures actually recorded.

I have even seen doubts raised that the high CO2 concentrations are caused by industry. If the earth warms, the seas warm, and the seas contain a saturated solution of CO2 (or carbonic acid if you like). This will effervesce out just like if you warmed some lemonade. Indeed, when Al Gore referred to graphs showing prehistoric CO2 rises and corresponding temperature rises, he didn't know (or maybe he did) that the CO2 rises happened later than the temperature rises!
Certainly to see such change so rapidly in my life here in this province would seem very much a compressed factor.
I've been here about thirty years now. And in that time, We've gone from almost ten feet of snow, to next to none. From hovering around -5 all winter to wild changes including thaws and flash ice storms. I've seen the arrival of Japanese roots that wouldn't survive in the ground, to the wide distribution of the long-horn beetle that's destroyed entire crops of trees.
I've seen lime disease and ticks explode where they never existed, and Zebra muscles swallow up waterways.
J
Well first you need to ask just how much change is normal. I mean Greenland was named that way by the Vikings because it was . . . green - so why did it get covered with ice and snow?

Likewise you might ask what caused the temperature changes corresponding to the ice ages.

We live on a dynamic planet, and one of the most stable things about it is its temperature!

David
 
I HOPE that the rainforest is growing. I hope desertification isn't occuring at the levels we see. I HOPE that James Blalock's time dilation glacier melting is isolated or bullshit. But my parents witnessed dying glaciers in Greenland, and took a tour of the North in tour boats that could never navigate those waters in the past.
Well first you need to ask just how much change is normal.
Also, If you take a look around the planet today and comparatively at the end of 2019, you'll see 10's of millions of people protesting world wide against totalitarian globalist overreach. I don't think any of those people are protesting because they want to be free to destroy the planet. Rather, there's a sense that the totalitarian globalist's are approaching obsolescence, and if you're really paying attention, every single one of the emergencies we're experiencing are directly correlated with powergrabbery.
We the 99.99999% are on the same team and the Totalitarian Globalists are scared shitless of us waking up to that fact.
 
"How is it we allow for the Globalists to be off with their predictions of global control but scientists with what is likely to be the most difficult predictor of something like the gradual changes of a climate for an entire planet have to be on point with what they predicted in the past?"

again, it's just science stuff.

were you around to here this one?
He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

...The reason I bring up this story is that in today’s episode we have a pretty dramatic demonstration of whether data and evidence can change beliefs. The belief in question is whether 97% of climate scientists believe man-made global warming is a major concern. But this belief is just a backdrop for the larger story of why data alone often isn’t enough to change our beliefs — even if we think it will:

Alex Tsakiris: I have to nail that down a little bit more, Rick. The position I’m taking is that the 90 or 97% consensus is completely false. That’s the position I’m taking. So if I am able to significantly undermine that fact–that data point–then you think your beliefs will change?

Rick Archer: Yes. We’re not going to do it in the course of this conversation. We’re obviously going to do it in subsequent exchanges.

Alex Tsakiris: Right. And I just have to share with folks, I’m going to lay my money on the fact that we will prove that conclusively, and your beliefs will not change at all. But that’s just my opinion based on the exchanges that we’ve had. We’ll see how it all turns out.

(this next excerpt is from the follow-up interview)

Alex Tsakiris: … now that you’ve conceded on the 97% consensus idea (after reviewing the data Rick agreed that the study by Dr. John Cook showing a 97% consensus among climate scientists was bunk), has that significantly changed your opinion on man-made global warming?

Rick Archer: No, not significantly.

Alex Tsakiris: Perfect.
 
Back
Top