New study published in reputable journal finds that Monsanto’s global weedkiller harms #HoneyBees. The paper ‘#Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees’ reports that bees fed glyphosate at concentrations chosen to mimic environmental levels lose beneficial gut bacteria, which then leaves them vulnerable to deadly infections. Glyphosate, arguably the world’s most hated chemical which is currently being blamed for just about every ailment known to man is now facing fresh demands for a ban based on this new research. The only problem is that this new study is fundamentally flawed and fails to even address whether changes observed in the #Bees gut microbiome play any part in its health or that glyphosate is responsible for anything at all. What’s worse it that it will most likely take time and attention away from the real causes of the declining bee (and other pollinators) population and create a scapegoat for self-righteous zealots, and those looking to push their agenda.
Glyphosate Is Not Harming Honey Bees Gut Microbiota https://mylespower.co.uk/2018/10/05/g…
Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees http://www.pnas.org/content/early/201…
People online can unknowingly find themselves in an echo-chamber, having their more fringe beliefs amplified and reinforced by a lack of exposure to conflicting views and evidence. That, coupled with the fact that anyone can publish anything online, has lead to a renaissance in conspiracy theories, pseudo-medical procedures, and general bad science. One of the more interesting conspiracy theories that seems to have grown in popularity over the last decade is the belief that the long-lasting white clouds left in the sky by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed on the population for nefarious reasons. The people who believe in this conspiracy theory call these lines in the sky ‘chemtrails’ and feel so strongly against them that they recently organised protests around the world. I decided to make a series of videos investigating the weird and wonderful world of chemtrails to hopefully shed some light on a conspiracy which most find hard to grasp.
Top 10 reasons Gore was wrong
As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, ten years ago today, Al Gore said we had only a decade left to save the planet from global warming. But Earth and humanity has been doing just fine since then.
People that know money over at Investor’s Business Daily, said that “We Know Al Gore’s Been Running A Global Warming Racket” and listed five ways they ascertain this, I’m going to list those, embellish them, and add a few of my own. IBD writes:
While preening at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2006 during the premiere of his “An Inconvenient Truth” fib-umentary, Gore made his grand declaration. The former vice president said, in the words of the AP reporter taking down his story, that
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” In Gore’s own words, he claimed we were in “a true planetary emergency.”
Ten years later, he’s probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement…
Meanwhile he’s been busy turning his gloom and doom predictions into cash and assets. here is their list (first 5, with my embellishments), and 5 more items -Anthony
1 – Satellite data says that Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 20 years. Yes, 2015 supposedly “smashed” the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record according to satellites.
Claims of “hottest ever” in 2015 have been due in part to a strong El Niño in 2015 (which even climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts grudgingly admits to) and some statistical sleight of hand by NOAA to boost temperatures. They said in 1997, that the current absolute temperature of the Earth was warmer by several degrees that today, but they’ve since changed their methodology and say that’s no longer the case…however, their initial claim lines up with what we see in the satellite record above about 1997 and 1998 when the supersized El Niño happened.
No North Pole warming for nearly 14 years! No South Pole warming for 37 years!
U.S. has had no warming for 18 years
South Pole sees no warming for 37 years. ‘For the whole of the satellite record, the South Polar region has had a negative trend. So much for a fingerprint of warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect being greater warming at the Poles!’
There has been zero trend for exactly half the record, (and for an increase in CO2 concentration of 37 ppm).
The Pause has lengthened again. For more than half the record the Southern Hemisphere has zero trend.
The Science is not Settled
By David Siegel via www.ClimateCurious.com
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
1 • Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.
2 • Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
3 • There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
4 • New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
5 • CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
6 • There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
7 • Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
9 • No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.
10 • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.
Also See: How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from climate proponent to climate skeptic (wattsupwiththat)
What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change
Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.
The Truth about CO2
Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.
The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.
They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.
The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.
The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”
Up until the visit with Monsanto scientists, Nye disapproved of the use and creation of GMOs. According to the Washington Post, Nye stated in his 2014 book, “Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation” that the foods containing GMO crops are fundamentally problematic. The Post explained that Nye also said that GMOs could possibly have “environmental risks” that cannot be ruled out with any kind of certainty (1).
Yet, somehow one visit to Monsanto some 10+ years after aligning himself against GMOs, and Nye appears to be singing GMO praises. So what exactly happened during that visit? Was it the science as pro-GMO advocates claim that changed Nye’s opinion?
Bill Maher’s Interview with Nye
Backstage after his appearance on Bill Maher’s “Real Time,” Nye revealed that he’s revising the entire chapter on GMOs in his 2014 book.
I went to Monsanto,” Nye said during the backstage interview, “and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there, and I have revised my outlook, and I’m very excited about telling the world. When you’re in love, you want to tell the world.”
It’s not surprising that anti-GMO supporters are astounded by Nye’s change in his stance on GMOs. It begs the questions: Why did Nye decide to visit Monsanto after all these years? What was he shown or told that changed his long-held opinion?
To add more fuel to the conspiracy theories, Nye is being tight-lipped, citing his revised chapter will reveal all. However, Monsanto’s tweets reveal their immense pleasure in winning Nye over to their side.
By Mason I. Bilderberg – August 22, 2014
Forty years ago global cooling was the alarmist du jour for scaring the hell out of everybody. “Science” was predicting drought, extended dry spells, floods, desolation, food shortages, devastating tornadoes, catastrophic famine, long freezes, temperature increases and even a reversion to the “little ice age” when the Thames was frozen so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. (source: the article featured below)
“Scientists” were wringing their hands, worried sick, because they saw “few signs that government leaders anywhere [that] are … prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food.”
The article ends with the same old tired refrain that is repeated ad nauseam by every alarmist everywhere every time the world is about to end (again): “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
Yes. “Science says”, we must ACT NOW! It is imperative to do something immediately – if not sooner – to prevent planetary destruction.
So, from my personal magazine collection i present to you these snippets from a climate-related article published in Newsweek magazine on April 28, 1975. Click the image to download a PDF copy of the entire article in all its alarmist glory.
By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
Imagine you’ve owned the same car since 1988 and for all these years you’ve always brought your car to the same mechanic. Now imagine the street sign to the right belongs to the mechanic you’ve been using all these years. Read the sign carefully.
Would you be at all surprised if this mechanic was only focused on muffler and exhaust related issues? So much so that maybe you too became overly focused on your muffler and exhaust?
Given your choice of shops is strictly limited to muffler and exhaust repairs, how can you ever expect to accurately diagnose problems NOT muffler or exhaust related?
The answer is, you can’t.
Above is the IPCC mandate as defined by the U.N. 
That’s right. Underneath all their papers, studies, rhetoric and obfuscation, lies the IPCC’s “muffler and exhaust” mandate as defined by the IPCC’s creator – the United Nations. Now you know why every one of their “findings” is “human-caused.”
“The IPCC does not have a mandate to consider any other causations for alleged climate change, such as natural ones related to solar change and ocean circulation cycles — just presumptive human causes, such as fossil fuels.
“The IPCC sees a human climate-fingerprint everywhere because that is what they are looking for.” – S. Fred Singer
My muffler analogy may not be the best example, but i think you get the idea: The next time you see a headline or hear a person touting another monumental, human-caused climate finding by the IPCC, remind them how the IPCC is finding what they’re looking for in the only place they’re looking.
Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
 – Download the mandate by following this chain of links: IPCC > Procedures > Click “Principles Governing IPCC Work” and choose your language to download the PDF – OR – you can download a copy here (PDF)
 – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by, and operates under the control and monitoring of, the United Nations(source).
 – Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. (Source: Wikipedia)
By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB) – June 23, 2014
As you know, i am a global warming skeptic. If you wish to catch up on what i believe and why, i recommend looking to the menu at the top of each page where it says “Global Warming.”
Very briefly, this how i split the issue:
I have always had issues with the question, “Do you believe in global warming?”, because it’s really two questions:
- Has the earth warmed (over some time frame)?
- Are humans responsible?
Because simply answering “yes” to the above question can be misunderstood to mean you agree warming has occurred AND that humans are primarily responsible, i always split the issue:
- I do agree there has been some warming over the last 100 years, BUT
- I’m not convinced humans are the main cause. I’m inclined to think our climate is primarily driven by the same natural forces that have driven our climate since the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago – and humans are a small part of that natural cycle.
Today i want to revisit an aspect of the global warming theory that i covered in my article “Global Warming: I Have Questions.”
For some background, this 97% figure comes from a study conducted by climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and it is quoted ad nauseam by global warming reality deniers as proof that “97% of climate scientists agree global warming is real and humans are the cause.”
To date, i had been unable to track down a copy of this 2013 study. I thought maybe i had just been looking in all the wrong places, then i come to find out “the University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists (John Cook) to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.“
Interesting, eh? 97% of scientists agree but nobody can use the data in a rebuttal. Gotta love it.
But alas, i finally found a PDF copy of this elusive study and i’ve had a chance to read through it for myself (PDF copy here) and below is my rebuttal.
This rebuttal of the study doesn’t get into the questionable methodology used by John Cook and his fellow authors. I’ll leave that for another day and another time. Why? Because i don’t want to muddy the waters. I don’t need to. Taken at face value, the study does NOT say “97% of scientists agree global warming is real.”
Let’s start on page 3 of the study where they explain how the total number of papers examined was determined:
The results and their findings are then depicted on page 4 of the study, in this table. The colors are not in the original table; I added these colors to make it easier to follow along with my breakdown that follows.
Interpretation of this data is as easy as 1, 2, 3 …
- 11,944 papers were analyzed.
- 3,896 of these papers expressed a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming (agw).
- 3,896 is 32.6% of the 11,944 papers.
CONCLUSION: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.
That’s it. I’ve done nothing to adjust or interpret these numbers. What you see is what you get: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.
What? What am i missing here? How does Cook et al twist 32.6% into the oft-quoted 97%?
I’ll tell you what’s missing – and it explains why the University of Queensland is threatening lawsuits over the use of this data for any scientific rebuttals:
They simply ignore the 7,930 papers not expressing a position.
That’s right, they simply ignored the 7,930 papers not expressing a position and qualified their 97% findings by saying the “percent of papers with a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)“.
The bottom line is, without any interpretation, taken at face value, without any qualifying language, this study says:
32.6% of scientists agree global warming is real!
That is the plain language of this study. Period.
Now remember i said i wasn’t going to get into the methodology of this study? Well, i’m not. But somebody far more qualified than myself has, and this 32.6% gets horribly worse for the authors of this study.
Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
I am a
global warming climate change climate disruption skeptic. I catch a lot of heat (pun intended) for my skepticism.
But i have my reasons and this video does a very level-headed job of explaining where skeptics are coming from in the
global warming climate change climate disruption debate.
If you’re a
global warming climate change climate disruption believer and you wish to understand the skeptic’s perspective, i ask you to watch just the first 2 minutes.
The first 2 minutes of this video does an excellent job of spelling out the very thin line between believers and skeptics. So close, yet so far.
This video appears to be based on an article written by Dr. David M.W. Evans called The Skeptic’s Case. As such, you might find the video easier to understand if you read along with the original text (The Skeptic’s Case) or download the PDF here.
Actually, the PDF text version is worth downloading as a standalone resource for those times when people ask why you’re a
global warming climate change climate disruption skeptic.
Mason I. Bilderberg
By Dr. David M.W. Evans via YouTube
As suggested by a friend, I’m following up my Top Ten bad global warming arguments list with a Top Ten good arguments list. These are in no particular order, and I might have missed something important.
These ten were just off the top of my head….there’s no telling what might be lingering deeper in my brain.
I have avoided specific alternative causal mechanisms of natural climate change, because I view them individually as speculative. But taken as a whole, they represent a class of unknowns that can’t be just swept under the rug just because we don’t understand them.
For some reason, all of these ended up being phrased as questions, rather than statements.
1 • No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets), contrary to all “consensus” predictions?
2 • Natural or Manmade? If we don’t know how much of the warming in the longer term (say last 50 years) is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade?
3 • IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs” translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party?
4 • Climate Models Can’t Even Hindcast How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how do you botch a hindcast?
5 • …But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can’t even explain the past?
6 • Modelers Lie About Their “Physics”. Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain “fudge factor” tuning?