Don’t Believe in Climate Change? You Jew-Hater!

Piers Corbyn is the brother of Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. The former Corbyn is a climate physicist, who caused a stir recently when he spoke in the German Bundestag and departed from the Narrative on climate change. As a result of his heresy, he was accused of being an anti-Semite — as if that had anything to do with the issue.

I notice that the unfortunate Mr. Corbyn (Piers, that is) made the mistake of engaging the issue, and denying that he was an anti-Semite. He trotted out the classic defense: he has a lot of Jewish friends. This was a mistake. As I have said in the past, defending oneself against charges of racism is to take part in a mug’s game. You can’t help but lose. The deck is stacked against you. To go on defense is to lose ground.

As for his brother Jeremy not being a Jew-hater: if he isn’t one, he does a darned good imitation. Maybe he’s just pandering to the Jew-haters (especially the Muslim ones) in the Labour Party’s base.

Piers Corbyn gave his presentation and answered questions in English, with a simultaneous voice-over in German. MissPiggy has translated the German parts, and when the English parts were masked by the voice-over, she translated the German translation. I edited and formatted the resulting text, so the English in the subtitles may differ slightly here and there from Mr. Corbyn’s actual words.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:08   I am Piers Corbyn, director of Weather Action. Long-range weather and climate forecasts.
00:12   And also a physicist, an astrophysicist and climatologist.
00:16   Links to the presentation you’ll see in there.
00:20   Other ones, including a document, I will make available to you and hand out later. All links
00:27   are at the bottom of page one. The key point I want to make today
00:31   is that man-made climate change does not exist.
00:35   Carbon dioxide is a gas of life, not of death,
00:40   and we want more of it, not less. Carbon dioxide levels are in fact
00:45   controlled by temperature. They do not control temperature,
00:49   and climate policy does not control climate.
00:55   It controls you, the public, to tax you and make you
01:00   do what you’re told. Now look at the next graph,
01:06   which includes the facts of what is happening now.
01:12   Here we have a recent exposé of the so-called
01:17   “Hockey Stick Graph” whereby world temperatures that have been more or less constant for
01:22   the last thousand years and suddenly increased due to human activity.
01:26   A court case in Canada has shown that this is a fraud.
01:30   So that means the iconic symbols that you are relying on to form your policy count for nothing.
01:36   The reality is shown in the lower graph,
01:40   where the Medieval warming period was much longer than that.
01:44   What we have instead is a false exaggeration of recent temperatures
01:49   when the world is actually cooling.
01:54   We’ve already got some very extreme cold in Scandinavia
01:58   heading south in a week or so, which was predicted
02:02   by us a long time ago. And follows from various kinds of solar activity.
02:07   The fact is that reduced solar activity fluctuations
02:12   are making it colder. Now the core issue is: What is CO2 doing or not?
02:17   Now for the CO2 story to be true, bear in mind that only 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2,
02:25   and of that, man’s CO2 is only 4% of the 0.04%.
02:29   Which in size terms is, if the Reichstag represented
02:36   the atmosphere, then man’s CO2 would be a bird dropping on the top.
02:40   CO2 itself would be 20 millimetres.
02:44   So we’re asked to believe a millimetre controls
02:47   the entire climate. Now for this narrative to be true, it requires two things.
02:52   One, that man’s CO2, the 4% of CO2, controls the other 96%, and secondly
03:00   that CO2 as such controls climate. The science of the facts
03:05   shows that both of these things are false.
03:10   You see if, if man’s CO2 is going to control the rest of CO2,
03:14   then termites, for example, who emit more CO2 than man, have to do man’s bidding.
03:19   Otherwise termites will be in charge. We should have a war on termites.
03:23   Why don’t we have a war on them? Answer me that. You see it’s delusional nonsense.
03:28   A conspiracy theory of nature to say that man’s 4% controls
03:32   the other 96%. What about the CO2 itself then?
03:37   What does that do? Well, a million year of data shows
03:41   that carbon dioxide levels follow temperature, rather than lead them.
03:47   Follow temperatures in a smooth sense. See the graph. Next picture. Now if CO2 was such a good idea
03:56   at making things warmer, I would suggest looking at these glass windows. You could put CO2
04:02   within the double-glazing in the inner space. It would get warmer,
04:06   would it not? That’s what you believe, OK?
04:10   So, an American company tried this. They made some double-glaze
04:13   with CO2 and it didn’t work at all.
04:16   And they went bust. The key summaries to understand on that
04:21   are CO2 levels are an effect, not the cause
04:26   of changes in the climate. Man’s CO2 is only 4% of the total.
04:31   The warmism theory is a crazy conspiracy theory
04:35   of nature. The extremes we’re having now are coming
04:40   from the global jet stream, which is dictated by solar activity.
04:45   Now, a quick look at what’s been happening in the last million or so years. We have ice ages.
04:53   It is the natural state of things. We are now in an interglacial period,
04:57   and this particular interglacial has been warmer.
05:00   Ten thousand years is above. Within that, the last ten thousand
05:04   years there have been nine peaks, one every
05:07   thousand years or so. All of the recent ones have been warmer
05:10   than it is currently. All of them. Yet there has been
05:13   less CO2 in the past, according to official data.
05:18   What we do know as a scientific fact is that average
05:24   smoothed-out temperatures follow average solar activity.
05:28   A period of low solar activity is what we’re headed for.
05:33   Excuse me, you have thirty seconds left. —Thirty seconds, all right.
05:36   So I’ll go to near the end and then you can read
05:39   the rest of the ledger. This is the graph of expected temperatures
05:42   based on the work of a Finnish team Niroma.
05:45   It shows we are heading for a huge plunge.
05:50   Here’s a little graph to show the feedback mechanisms,
05:55   including the areas of snow in the northern hemisphere over winter
06:00   that are accelerating us into a colder world.
06:05   And the last thing to note is that whatever the so-called 97%
06:09   of scientists say: one, it is irrelevant how many
06:13   people say anything; it is the scientific facts that count.
06:17   And anyway, that particular claim isn’t true.
06:20   This paper’s analysis shows that only 0.3% of climate scientists believe this.
06:25   In American 31,000 scientists have signed a petition calling for the end of these policies
06:31   because they are based on fake science. Thank you.
06:37   Thank you Mr. Corbyn. As chairperson of the committee, I would
06:43   like to draw your attention to the fact —
06:48   which perhaps the political party that invited you neglected to do —
06:52   that the subject of today’s hearing is not the question
06:55   of whether or not climate change is man-made.
06:58   This hearing is about the proposed climate protection statute
07:02   of the German Federal government. Just to inform you. Mr. Hilse has a question for Mr. Corbyn.
07:10   Mr. Corbyn, firstly, I clearly apologise for
07:13   the attempted reprimand by the committee chairperson.
07:17   Of course you are correct to point out that when a theory
07:22   upon which these laws are based cannot be proven —
07:28   and you call the theory nonsense — it is forbidden
07:32   to enact such legislation. We as politicians are not allowed
07:37   to enact useless laws that cause lasting damage to the environment
07:41   or impoverish broad sections of the population.
07:44   Which this does through the increase in the cost of living in general and of course through
07:48   unemployment. Almost 100,000 job losses have already been announced,
07:52   but there will certainly be more.
07:55   Now to my question. So the climate alarmists are constantly talking about the fact that the current
08:00   global warming is particularly fast and unusual.
08:03   The medieval warm period you’ve shown in the “hockey stick” curve
08:06   from Michael Mann is virtually extinguished.
08:09   Now the alarmists have begun to admit that there was
08:13   a medieval warming period but say it was only a regional phenomenon.
08:16   So firstly, in the past, were there
08:19   rapid and abrupt climate changes on earth? And secondly,
08:23   please explain the past global climate fluctuation
08:26   between warm and ice ages. —Unfortunately, the speaker
08:32   has no microphone on and no translation can take place.
08:39   Please point out to the speaker that he has to turn on the microphone.
08:45   Do show, oh, recent findings do show
08:51   they were essentially global. But I would ask
08:55   a further question in response. You see, low solar activity,
09:00   a million years of data show that, means the world
09:04   is getting colder. Currently we have very low
09:08   solar activity and a very cold earth. Which I did imply
09:12   based on data. That’s all in the presentation.
09:16   But you see the next few years — within a decade it’s going to
09:20   get a lot colder. So I want to ask every presenter
09:24   here, when it does get colder, will they accept that there’s no way that they already reached their
09:31   so-called 1.5 degree global warming goal, because we’re
09:35   going to be a lot colder? We will then therefore drop
09:38   all these anti-CO2 policies? Now I suggest that they’re going to
09:42   say “NO” to me. The reason why they’re going
09:45   to say no is because it’s an entire business. It is a tax and control business.
09:50   It has to be stopped, not just because
09:54   it’s not based on science, but because it’s actually reducing the
09:58   effective business capacity of Germany and
10:02   the whole of Europe. And causing suffering. On the subject of suffering,
10:06   I’ll mention that a million African women
10:10   die every year because they are cooking on an open fire. They’re cooking on an open fire because
10:17   they’re not supported in having electrification.
10:20   Which is against various United Nations policies to build coal-fired
10:24   power stations. So what should we do? We should be funding
10:28   the building of coal-fired power stations in Africa
10:31   to save a million lives a year. Or put another way:
10:35   suppose Bavaria didn’t have any electricity, and the women there
10:39   were cooking over open fires. And you know, someone suggests
10:43   you should have electricity. Would you support that sort of offer,
10:47   or would you say no, we won’t have any electricity in Bavaria because we need to save the planet?
10:51   You’ve got to get rude. This policy is based on nonsense,
10:57   and it will fail. You have to change over to actually doing
11:03   things in the interest of your people who elected you to be here.
11:09   Thank you. Now Mr. Hilse with a question
11:15   for Mr. Corbyn. —Thank you, Chairperson.
11:19   A preliminary remark, from me, of course. If you can’t attack
11:23   the argument, attack the one presenting the argument.
11:27   This approach is typical of Leftist/Green like-minded people and, of course,
11:31   includes those who are using the business of the climate hysteria from which they have already
11:34   earned billions and of course want to earn even more.
11:37   For these profiteers it isn’t of course a question
11:40   of saving the world, but about profit and about filling your pockets
11:44   with the money of others. —Who are the beneficiaries
11:48   who fill their pockets? Who are the profiteers? An example? — Mr. Corbyn, my question
11:55   is, ultimately our prosperity is based on the provision
11:58   of low-cost energy which you have already mentioned.
12:01   Through this prosperity and the resulting better living conditions,
12:05   which have had an effect on life expectancy, of course.
12:09   Moreover, our economic foundations provide us the luxury to take up environmental protection
12:13   in the first place. These climate protection measures
12:17   would not only plunder the population, they’d also ultimately
12:21   destroy our economic foundations, which enable us to provide,
12:24   as I just said, environmental protection.
12:27   What development do you forecast for Germany and Europe
12:35   if we continue to pursue this path of insanity?
12:44   The interpreter cannot hear what Mr. Corbyn is saying. Please tell him to turn on the microphone.
12:48   Voilà, Yes. Someone did appear to make some negative remarks about me earlier on and I would invite
12:55   them to withdraw them because I am well-qualified.
12:59   Well, look, on a world scale, we need to be clear that
13:03   so-called renewables, only account for 2%. 2% of world energy. Whatever you do in Germany,
13:11   in Europe or in America to reduce CO2 will have no affect.
13:17   Not just because as we speak, China has just set up
13:22   a new railway to make 200 million tons of coal available a year.
13:26   That’s one thing. Another thing, the sea
13:31   holds fifty times more carbon dioxide than the air.
13:36   So that means whatever you do to the air, it would be run
13:41   by the sea. Sea temperatures, when you warm up the sea,
13:45   CO2 outgases; when you cool it off it’s absorbed.
13:48   The reason for the increase in CO2 now has nothing to do with mankind.
13:52   It has to do with the medieval
13:56   warm period. It is an after-effect of the warming then, and
14:00   the subduction of that extra CO2 into currents
14:04   from Greenland which are underneath the ocean and are now reappearing.
14:08   You can read that in my paper.
14:11   So the point is, whatever you do with your policies,
14:16   it will have not affect on CO2. You can’t do it.
14:20   The sea rules, and the sun rules the sea. So I would suggest,
14:26   what you have to do is actually scrap all these
14:31   anti-CO2 policies and spend money on your people
14:35   where it is needed. And I will repeat the question,
14:39   when it gets colder in ten years’ time or
14:43   between five and twenty-five years’ time, it will be extremely cold.
14:48   You should logically end your policy, which is,
14:52   you say you need to reduce CO2, because it got too warm.
14:57   Well, it won’t get too warm. I challenge you, because I know what you’re going to say;
15:01   you want these policies to carry on making money off people.
15:06   And on this, I would say, when you have these Green policies,
15:12   you have to distinguish between true green or real green, if you like, and fake green. You see,
15:18   I would describe electric cars as fake green.
15:22   Not because it’s not nice to have a quiet car, of course,
15:26   and one that doesn’t pollute next door to you, but
15:29   the carbon footprint of an electric is about twice as high
15:33   as for a petrol car. The reason is that you’ve got to have
15:37   a power station to provide you with electricity and you’ve got to
15:41   charge up the battery and discharge the battery. For efficiency you’ve got to carry around
15:45   a huge weight in your car in the form of a battery. So, you know,
15:49   really, electric cars are virtue-signalling
15:53   by very rich and not very intelligent people.
15:57   Um, I don’t know how long I’ve got to carry on talking
16:02   about such things, uh, but, is that thirty seconds? OK.
16:08   I would invite you to look at the actual facts of
16:14   cooling temperatures and what will happen in the next few years.
16:18   And for every policy that comes forward,
16:21   distinguish between real green and fake green.
16:25   Most of the policies you are putting forward are fake green
16:29   to benefit the transnationals and the super rich. The current so-called
16:33   redistribution of wealth, according to
16:37   U.N. policies, is actually a distribution of wealth upwards,
16:42   not downwards. Thank you.
16:46   Mr. Corbyn, I’d like to explain to you that discussions
16:49   among the experts are unfortunately not permitted.
16:52   The only discussion permitted are between parliamentary members and experts.
16:56   You cannot engage in a discussion with the other experts that don’t agree with your opinions.
17:03   However I can assure you the other experts that
17:07   don’t share your opinion, they still had to listen to you.
17:10   That’s just the way it is among the experts. I’m sorry.
17:14   Now to Mr. Beutin. I don’t think it is helpful
17:19   when we move beyond the technical arguments here with biographical things. I know there is more.
17:26   At least that’s what Wikipedia says, but I would request that you
17:31   provide proof since you raised the issue.
17:37   There has been a scandal in Great Britain because of several anti-Semitic posts have been shared
17:44   by Mr. Corbyn, among others that I can recite is:
17:50   “Breaking news — evidence proves US, UK and Israel
17:56   orchestrated 9-11 attacks.” A screenshot of this
18:00   can also be seen on Twitter. I’m of the opinion that
18:04   we here in the German Bundestag have a special duty of care about anti-Semitism and that we should
18:11   also do this in the environment committee, and it does belong
18:16   to our topic. So we need to be a little cautious.
18:22   Well that’s certainly a reflection of your mindset if it’s not anti-Semitic.
18:27   Mr. Beutin, if you have such information, you cannot expect
18:33   the committee secretary or I, as chairman of the committee to be briefed on every detail,
18:36   about every expert who is invited from all over the world,
18:40   in the run-up to a hearing. —There are plenty of
18:44   false things around on Wikipedia. —If you have such information then let us discuss it in advance.
18:50   As far as I’m concerned that tweet was a fake tweet and if I have retweeted anything by accident,
18:56   I should also point out that my retweeting posts
18:59   does not imply my agreement with anything; I often retweet
19:03   things I don’t agree with, such as weather forecasts, to point
19:06   out, you know, that I think they’re nonsense.
19:09   I am in no way anti-Semitic and neither is my brother.
19:13   And these accusations against me are really just aimed
19:16   at undermining my brother. I have loads of friends who are Jews.
19:20   I worked with Professor Richard Lindemann
19:24   in America —No, Mr. Corbyn, please. This is not about your brother,
19:27   Jeremy Corbyn. It’s about you at this hearing.
19:30   These media attacks are, they are laying me in with him, deliberately. —Now that’s enough, OK?
19:35   And for future reference, I’d ask to for more caution with things
19:39   from Wikipedia. I would also ask for maybe
19:43   more thought be made as to who you invite here and
19:46   who is able to follow the rules. Each time you invite experts
19:50   here that always have the same multiple diverse arguments
19:54   to explain what we’ve already heard from you
19:58   umpteen times already. You’re just wasting our time and preventing us from our actual tasks here.
20:04   I really would like to request that you invite someone to the next hearing who perhaps speaks
20:08   about the topic instead of always repeating your theories.

6 thoughts on “Don’t Believe in Climate Change? You Jew-Hater!

  1. Who needs enemies when you have such politicians. I don’t know what to say anymore. It’s absolutely incredible.

  2. Hitler did not like what he called Jew-Physics (Nuclear theory) but he was prepared to use it. Yes, there is anti-Semitism in the world, but in many ways, the weaponising of ‘anti-Semitism’ is much worse. Like all races, Jews can be obnoxious, even on buses in Beersheva, where a Christian visitor of ours was told that she should sit at the front of the bus as she was sitting in the men’s area where she was. All fake rubbish of course.

    The Corbyn brothers all had a privileged upbringing, and like most UK socialists, they had a heavily plated silver spoon. To this class of people it is important to be able to deflect guilt away from the ‘colonial’ guilt of their own heritage, and the ‘joo bankers’ make an easy popular target; the Shylocks and the Fagins of English Literature are still deeply embedded in the British middle class psyche.

    We need to distinguish between real ‘racism’ and fake ‘racism’ too!

    • Like all races, Jews can be obnoxious

      And like all races, Jews can be intelligent. But no more or less intelligent than other races. As we can see from lists of great mathematicians, scientists and chess-players.

      In fact, of course, obnoxiousness and intelligence are both unevenly distributed among the world’s races. Some races have more than their fair share of one or the other (or both), and some have less.

      , even on buses in Beersheva, where a Christian visitor of ours was told that she should sit at the front of the bus as she was sitting in the men’s area where she was.

      Indeed. I hope your Christian visitor didn’t act like a freier.

  3. It does not take much to be called anti- Semite:
    the chairmann of the Bundestag commitee for constitutional issues, Brandner/ AfD was voted out of office for what was viewed as anti- semitism.
    Of course, his words were not chosen smartly enough for a lawyer, but they were not a-s. He had said after the shooting in Halle: why are politicians and do- gooders “loitering” around synagogues with candles when two non- jews were killed. And as to top it off, he used the word “Judaslohn” ( a rewarded betrayel) when rockstar Udo Lindenberg got the highest civil medal for his public Gutmenschen attitudes. The word was coined according to the New Testament after the first name of one of the 12 ( jewish) disciples of ( jewish) Jesus.How can this be anti-semitic? As it seems, our antagonists are running out of ammunition.

  4. If you bring science base facts to a political group of leftist “green” elected representatives that run against there aims of controlling the general population at large .What they can drive there movement means of transportation , what they can eat, what kind of house they can live in, how many children they can have, what taxes they must pay to pay for the “green ” energy companies the leftist invested in .If your science base facts get in the way of there future totalitarian iron fist of controlling the general population ,they call you a witch, an anti Semitic ,or anti-Islamic, or anti-gay ,or you eat puppies for breakfast , or you grab some girls [rear end] in your second year of college (but she cannot recall the day,location, time , or witnesses) , the bottom line is the reputation of anyone who opposes them is to be smeared with rumor or gossip .

  5. In Britain there are prominent Climate sceptics who are also Jews. Lord Lawson, Chairman of the GWPF, and the journalist Melanie Phillips. In America they have the retired MIT Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Richard Lindzen. Also its possible that the scientists who have finally proven that carbon dioxide warming is a hoax, are Jews. Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller have proof of why the Arrhenius hypothesis does not work on planets with carbon dioxide atmospheres. They finally proved the formula for the Greenhouse Effect based on Atmospheric mass, gravity and air pressure first suggested by James Clerk Maxwell in 1888. This theory is proven correct for all known Planetary Atmospheres. Other scientists have found the same results using NASA data with air pressure and the Ideal Gas Law. So the sceptics, both Jews like Richard Lindzen and Gentiles like Piers Corbyn. Have won.

Comments are closed.