moo-4READERS’ FORUM

Comments under 300 words, please. We cannot engage in correspondence but do appreciate your contribution. We do not publish insults or attacks against other readers. Points should stand on their own merits. You are welcome to express your religious views but not to criticize the views of others. Our mission is to unify our readers, not divide them. Send comments here.
_____________________________

LIFE IS A GAS
2016 Nov 7 from Sture Åström
Dear mr Griffin, We do wish that your upcoming Freedom Force Congress will become a great success. It is far from Sweden so we will not be able to be there. However, I am enclosing a “poem”, which might cause some pleasure of the attendants if you find an opportunity to present it to them. Mr Benn was born in the UK, but has married and settled in Sweden. He is a member of our network, Klimatsans (Climate sense), and participates in our efforts to spread the facts about climate and its changes. Swedish national media are even more hostile to such information than US MSM.

Life is a gas, so let’s hear it
For Carbon Dioxide, oh yes!
There’s merely a trace in the atmosphere
But it’s the Star of the Show nonetheless!

Three parts CO² per ten thousand
Was the count in Victorian days.
We added one part in a hundred years
And it sparked off The Climate Craze. (More)

_____________________________

TRUMP VICTORY SEEN ABROAD AS HOPEFUL SIGN FOR ENDING GLOBAL-WARMING HOAX
2016 Nov 11 from Kevin Benn
Dear Mr Griffin,
Sture Åström forwarded your mail saying you would circulate my poem in the Congress newsletter. I’m much obliged and hope it will contribute to an optimistic atmosphere amongst the delegates!

The election victory of Mr Trump must also be a great boost to your work, and to all those who have preferred to go with the science rather than the scam. The truth about the crucial role played by carbon dioxide in the life of our planet is of course very inconvenient to all those who have gained from AGW, but in the end this truth, and the true causes of climate change, must prevail. Greetings from Sweden and Best Wishes for a successful Congress!

_____________________________

SHOULD FILM MAKERS NOT SEEK A PROFIT?
2015 Nov 6 from Debbie
Dear Mr. Griffin. Thought you should see this cheap shot (below) that Dane Wigington took at you on his geoengineeringwatch website. I guess this guy is not on our side after all.

Dane Wigington blog 2016 Nov 4:
Hello Joseph. Yes, Griffin was a part of the WITWATS films, and he also wanted and made profit from the films. I actually purchased the first hard drives for these films out of my own pocket, paid for many other expenses for Michael Murphy, including supplying him with tickets to Belgium and paying for auditoriums, rental cars, etc. I never asked for or wanted a cent from the films, but what I did insist on (if I was to be involved) was that the films were not discredited with the ‘global warming is a hoax’ false mantra. That is the reason the films did not go down that road.

REPLY BY GEG:
Hello Debbie.
Wigington says that I “wanted and made a profit” from the film, What in the World Are they Spraying? Well, that is somewhat true, but I wish it were more so. What Wigington did not say is that I personally raised $78,800 for the production. For me, it was a huge commitment.

Although I am listed as a co-producer of the program, my role was to provide funding, distribution, and script consultation. I never tracked the hours I devoted to this project, but certainly there were several hundred.

Net sales revenue in excess of manufacturing and other costs was to be split between Michael Murphy and Paul Wittenberger, the producers, and my company, Reality Zone. Naturally, it was our hope that these royalties would allow us to be compensated for our part in the project and also generate funds for the production of future programs.

As it turned out, none of us were compensated as we had hoped. When all the bills were paid, and the bulk of the sales were accounted for, the amount paid in royalties was so modest that I estimate we had worked for less than $5 per hour. And that was OK, because, although we had hoped to do much better than that, our primary motive was to deliver the message.

I have gone into this in more detail than you probably wanted, but I am deeply offended by Wigington’s inference that I am a dishonorable person because, as he puts it, I “wanted and made profit on the films.” Good grief! Even if we actually HAD made a nice profit on the films, please ask Wigington to explain what would be wrong with that. This anti-profit attitude speaks volumes about his mindset.

To me, the most interesting part of Wigington’s email is where he says: “…what I did insist on (if I was to be involved) was that the films were not discredited with the ‘global warming is a hoax’ false mantra. That is the reason the films did not go down that road.”

I never knew before now that Wigington’s participation and his paying for the trip to Belgium was conditional to preventing any skepticism in the film of global warming. You can well imagine that I argued strongly in favor of including it, because the alleged threat of global warming is the justification for geoengineering. However, I was merely a consultant on the script, and my advice was rejected by Michael and Paul. Now I know why. Silencing global-warming skeptics is a standard tactic of global-warming myth-makers. Thanks for alerting me to Wigington’s remarks.

_____________________________

SNOW MELT AND SEA LEVEL
2016 Nov 5 from Bernie Schelberg
In response to Gordon Claycomb:
If all the water at the North Pole were to melt, then, yes, there would probably be no change to the sea level. The argument about rising sea levels is based on all the water that is frozen that is not floating. This includes all the snow and ice in Antarctica that is on top of land, plus all that locked up in glaciers and on the tops of mountains. I’m not arguing one way or the other about rising sea levels being an issue or not, all I’m trying to point out is that there’s a lot more snow and ice in the world than the snow and ice that is floating around the North Pole, and if that were to melt, then it may have an effect on sea levels.

COMMENT BY GEG:
I just want to add the fact that what Bernie is saying is confirmed by numerous Internet references dealing with this topic. The key to understanding this is to know that the ice in the Arctic floats on water while the ice in the Antarctic rests on land. If all the ice were floating, then sea level would not rise if it melted, but ice that does not displace water by floating in it will raise sea level when it melts because then it drains into and meets the sea for the first time. The question has been answered.

_____________________________

A PHYSICIST, NOT AN ICEOLOGIST
2016 Nov 5 from Norm Craft
Greetings:
With respect to “IF ALL THE ICE MELTED, SO WHAT?” What he said was partially true, BUT, only applies to ice that is floating on the surface of water/ocean, like an ice cube. Any massive melting, with a continual net loss, of continental/glacier ice, will add to the oceans water level. Any ice that is floating off shore and melts will not add to the oceans water level. I am not an iceologist, but maybe being a physicist will do.

Please do not think I believe in global warming. Not so. That is a hoax, a scam, a con game to the extreme by rich elite looking to get richer and more powerful and having no conscience, in my personal opinion.

_____________________________

DOES DANE WIGINGTON ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING OR ….
posted 2016 Nov 5 from Pia Hellertz, PhD, Ex University lecturer
Mr Griffin, I would love to get some kind of response on Dane Wigington’s critical article about your upcoming conference, Global Warming An Inconvenient Lie. I wonder why he goes on believing in global warming.

I have translated your announsment into Swedish, and it is published on numerous sites telling the truth about the climate and the myths. I hope some of our Swedish experts will go to Arizona and attend so we will hear about what happens.

Will you record the talks to YouTube? I hope… Good luck with your conference!

REPLY FROM GEG:
Hello Pia.
We intend to respond to Wigington very soon, but the short answer is that I, also, am baffled at how such a well-informed person on geoengineering can become a salesman for the global-warming hoax. What do you think is the answer?

Yes, the event will be recorded, and our goal is to cover the Earth with copies. But please do not let that interfere with a decision to attend. Anything you can do to spread the word among your friends about our event will be deeply appreciated – especially if some of them are able to attend in person. We would love to meet with them personally and forge a coalition in your part of the world. The solution to problems like this lies, not only in providing correct information, but in organizing opposition to the conscious forces of disinformation.

_____________________________

FORGET ICEBERGS. FOCUS ON DATA FRAUD.
2016 Nov 5 from Manuel
Yes, the floating ice has zero effect on the volume of water… Arquimedes defined that law more than 2000 years ago: An object in water displaces a volume of water equal to the weight of the object… So X tons of Ice only displace X tons of water in which they float… No difference in weight so once it melts no difference in volume.

However, the above is academic only… Although fun to discuss, instead it would be good to concentrate in listing all the variables that the East Anglia “Joking Schtick” theory did not consider in its equation and which ones it distorted, and in discrediting that. The other considerations, like false potential damages from the warming, although significant, confuse and make us lose focus on the variable manipulation of the AGW-CO2 which is the basis of the fraud.

Focus on the non-cause, not on the effects the non-cause may cause. Once the infamous Stick goes away the whole thing crumbles. Lets not even consider what harm it may or may not do if it is baloney.

_____________________________

CONFLICTED OVER NORTH AMER. PIPELINE
2016 Nov 5 from Gregory Mathers
Mr. Griffin,
I tend to be a little conflicted concerning the North American Oil pipeline since there seems to not be any “good guys” visible in the conflict. However I tend toward not supporting the pipeline for a few good reasons.

1: It appears to be furthering the North American Union Agenda. It will certainly connect Canada and the US, but also perhaps Mexico.

2: Although I believe in general that companies should be able to do with their resources as they see fit, much of the oil resources the oil companies acquire is from government land.

3: The method they are choosing to distribute it (i.e.The pipeline) is not according to free market principles. They are using Eminent Domain to acquire some of the land.

4: Much of the oil transported will probably not be used in the US, but shipped to other counties.