reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@YALiberty - Young Americans for Liberty
MIT-educated @RepThomasMassie vs. John Kerry on climate change... This is classic! 😂😂😂
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the consensus on the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, with the current level being 406. They mention that scientists consider 350 to be a dangerous level. Speaker 0 points out that the average CO2 level has been over 1000 parts per million since mammals have existed. Speaker 1 argues that in the past 800,000 years, CO2 levels have not been as high as they are today. Speaker 0 questions how CO2 levels reached 2000 parts per million if humans weren't present. Speaker 1 explains that geological events contributed to CO2 levels in the past. Speaker 0 dismisses the conversation as not serious.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's the consensus on parts per million of, CO 2 in the atmosphere?
Speaker 1: About 406, 406 today. Okay. 406. Are you aware 350 being the level that scientists have said is dangerous.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are you aware? 350 is dangerous. Wow. Are you aware that since mammals have walked the planet, the average has been over a 1000 parts per million?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But we weren't walking the planet. It's, Let me just share with you that we now know that definitively at no point during the least the past 800,000 years Has atmospheric CO2 been as high as
Speaker 0: it is today? The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200,000,000 years before that was greater than it is today. And I'm going to submit for the record Yeah.
Speaker 1: But there weren't human beings. I mean, there was a different world, folks. We didn't have 7,000,000 people So how
Speaker 0: to get to 2,000 parts per million if we humans weren't here?
Speaker 1: Because there were all kinds of geologic events happening on earth, which Did
Speaker 0: the geology stop when we got on the planet?
Speaker 1: Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 0: this is just not a serious conversation. Your testimony is not serious.
@JunkScience - Steve Milloy
Breaking: @RepScottPerry crushes @johnkerry on climate at today's House hearing: - 'You want to spend $1.6 quadrillion on a problem that doesn't exist.' - Climate scientists 'are grifting like you are.'
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks Secretary 1 if they support the administration's goal of cutting US emissions in half by 2030. Secretary 1 confirms their support. Speaker 0 then brings up a past resolution in 1997 where the US shouldn't cut emissions until other countries like China, India, and Mexico do the same. Secretary 1 acknowledges this and states that emissions have increased in those countries as well as globally. Speaker 0 questions if Secretary 1 has abandoned their position, to which Secretary 1 explains that the world has changed since then. Speaker 0 then asks about Secretary 1's previous statements on global emissions and the correct amount of CO2. Secretary 1 explains the need to reduce emissions and control current levels. Speaker 0 presses for a specific amount, but Secretary 1 says it changes daily. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 challenging Secretary 1's views on climate change and the cost of addressing it. Secretary 1 defends their position and mentions the consensus among scientists.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, chairman. Thank you, secretary. In an attempt to get to net 0 by 2050, do you support the administration's goal of cutting US emissions in half by 2030?
Speaker 1: Yes. I do.
Speaker 0: Secretary, in 1997, the senate Voted 95 to 0, including you and then senator Biden in favor of the Byrd Hagel resolution, which resolved that the US shouldn't cut emissions until China, Co India, Brazil, South Korea, and other developed so called developing nations cut emissions as well. Do you remember that?
Speaker 1: I do very, very well because I was managing
Speaker 0: it on
Speaker 1: the floor this time.
Speaker 0: Since 97, have emissions from China, India, and Mexico all increased?
Speaker 1: Yes. As they have from the United States.
Speaker 0: And global emissions have continued to increase as well. Right? Yes. Have any of those countries submitted a credible plan to get to net zero emissions by 2050?
Speaker 1: Which countries?
Speaker 0: Let's just go with China, India, or Mexico. No. It seems that have you abandoned your position that those other nations would cut emissions before Americans would have to make choices between the groceries on their table and paying for for these policies?
Speaker 1: I think the reality is that the world changed in that period of time. Let me let me Okay.
Speaker 0: So so you voted that way but But
Speaker 1: let me explain to you the vote because I did manage this on the floor. And I know exactly what happened because I'm the one who said to our colleagues, I think everybody ought to vote for this. And the reason was that it fundamentally had the message that it's not fair. The one we were talking about earlier with the Germans. It's not fair for us to be reducing, and China, which was producing 3 times more emissions than us, And then producing goods that come into our country from that dirty power, and we have a problem.
So we wanted to address that, But we knew not every aspect of that piece of legislation is what you you all call we all call a message. It it was a message vote, and the vote was clear. We wanted other people to join us in the effort to reduce emissions. Okay. Fair enough.
That hasn't happened sufficiently.
Speaker 0: It hasn't happened sufficiency sufficiently. Now secretary, in 2015, at the Paris Climate Conference, you said that if all into industrial nations go to 0 emissions, It wouldn't be enough. And then at the White House's climate day in January of 21, you said almost 90% of the planet's emissions come from outside the US. We could go to 0 tomorrow, and the problem isn't isn't solved. And in April 21, you told the Washington Post that even The US and China going to 0 emissions tomorrow won't solve the climate's problem.
Then in April 21, you said that global net zero is not enough and that c o two must be removed from the atmosphere. How much is the correct amount of c o two?
Speaker 1: Let me explain to you if I can so you understand exactly what I said. That's close but it's not quite exactly what I was saying. What I was saying let let me tell you what it says. I'm gonna tell you what the Here's how how it works. Because we have put I'd forget the exact number of tons, millions of tons of c o two and other greenhouse gases are now in the atmosphere?
They're there. And every day, we're adding more. And so every day, the heat is going up and we have to figure out how we're gonna, you know, tame the monster here. The only way to do that is to reduce emissions on an ongoing basis to get control on the current level of emissions that we have created? But what is then but what actually sucks
Speaker 0: Sir, with all due respect, you've been through this before. What is the correct amount? I don't wanna Spend a bunch of time about a history lesson about things they'll people don't care about.
Speaker 1: What changes every day? I don't I can't tell you exactly what the amount changes
Speaker 0: in there.
Speaker 1: Yes. It does.
Speaker 0: So, secretary, you probably know that for approximately 200,000,000 years, what's what's the parts per million now? About four hundred. Right? Can we agree with that?
Speaker 1: 400. Alright.
Speaker 0: It's about 200,000,000 years. 2000 parts per million. Did mother nature get it wrong for 200,000,000 years? Here's the difference, congressman.
Speaker 1: The difference is yes. There were math there were periods which all scientists, all the scientists who deal with climate acknowledge That there have been moments on the planet which is 1,000,000,000 of years old in which there were greater heat and There was greater Tell
Speaker 0: me the difference quickly. I've got a little
Speaker 1: The difference is human beings are creating So That's the difference.
Speaker 0: Though human beings are We are
Speaker 1: creating it.
Speaker 0: A 100000 years old, but But during these periods of time where it was 2,000 parts per million, life existed. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: we were in one of the lowest Oh, it's not human beings walking around. We're in one
Speaker 0: of the lowest periods of carbon in the atmosphere in not only recorded history, in the history of Life existing on the planet. In December of 2022, you told the Washington Post we need to remove 1.6 trillion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via direct air capture? The cost for that is about $1,000 per ton or 1.6 Quadrillion dollars. Now I said you said you didn't know, but since 2015, since the last El Nino, about 500,000,000,000 tons have been Have been admitted into the atmosphere. During that same period of time, 2015, if you look at the temperature graph, this is from NOAA.
The temperature has gone down. Show the next slide. This is from NASA satellite data. Temperature has gone down. You wanna have the have the American taxpayers, my constituents that are having a hard time, afford their groceries, pay for a car, Buy a new home, spend 1.6 quadrillion dollars to fix a problem that, a, doesn't exist.
And as a matter of fact, You might be exacerbating because it's unknown. It is unknown at this time the low level that of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that might actually destroy life? Because plant life all depends. As you know, secretary, plant life all depends on c o two. And when we kill it, Then we're done too.
I yield the balance.
Speaker 1: Congressman, let me just say that, I don't agree with what you're saying out there for A number of reasons. I don't have time to go into all of them now, but I'll just tell you point blank that the difference between the periods you're looking at in terms of heat, etcetera, and Human human input is night and day, number 1. Number 2, why do you think a 195 countries in the world, They're prime ministers. They're presidents.
Speaker 0: Because they're grifting like you are, sir.
Speaker 1: This that's a pretty shocking statement That you believe that all the scientists in the world are great producers, honestly.
Speaker 0: Not all scientists agree with you, mister Sacks.
Speaker 1: 98% of all the scientists in the world
Speaker 0: Science isn't about agreement? It's not about consensus. You know that.
Speaker 1: We are now recognizes.
reSee.it AI Summary
Geologist Professor Ian Plimer debunks manmade climate change in just 2.5 minutes. Scientific literature lacks evidence linking human CO2 emissions to global warming. The push for human-induced global warming aims to dismantle society, empowering unelected individuals. Watch the full talk for more insights: [YouTube link]. Explore similar content at [website]. ClimateScam, ClimateCult, NetZero.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the "man-made climate change" lie, in two and a half minutes: "No one can show from the scientific literature that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming... We have built this whole empire based on something that cannot be shown, and in fact you can show the opposite." "The whole move with human-induced global warming has got nothing to do with the environment. It's got everything to do with [the] deconstruction of our society, as a mechanism of unelected people gaining power." Full talk: https://youtube.com/watch?v=txQcX0fm5bs… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
Malcolm Roberts questioned the CSIRO about scientific papers proving that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. Despite asking scientists, journalists, and politicians for 25 years, no one has been able to provide evidence from scientific literature. Even if human emissions do drive global warming, they only account for 3% of total emissions, while the remaining 97% comes from natural sources like ocean degassing. This raises doubts about the entire premise of human-induced global warming. The speaker believes that the push for this concept is not about the environment but rather a means for unelected individuals to gain power. They express their frustration and promote their book, "Green Murder," as a direct challenge to those leading this movement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We had incentive estimates last year. Malcolm Roberts asked the CSIRO, can you please give me a few scientific papers that prove human emissions of carbon dioxide drive of global warming. Now I know Malcolm well, and he uses some of my questions that I feed him. And the CSIRO presented him with 1 scientific paper, and then it wasn't on the subject. So we asked them again, can you please show me that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming?
That's a trick question. We'll come to that. They couldn't. This is a question that I've been asking scientists around the world for 25 years. I've asked journalists this question.
I've asked politicians this question. It's no wonder I get canceled because no one can show from the scientific literature that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Now let's imagine that I'm wrong. And once I was wrong, but I was mistaken. But let's imagine I was wrong.
And we say, okay, human emissions do drive global warming. Well, the total human emissions are 3% of the total emissions that we get on planet Earth. So if you can show that 3% of emissions drive global warming, you have to show that the 97% of natural emissions, which come from ocean degassing, don't drive global warming. That's never been shown. So we have built this whole empire based on something that cannot be shown.
And in fact, you can show the opposite. The whole move with human induced global warming has got nothing to do with the environment. It's got everything to do with deconstruction of the way we think and our society as a mechanism of unelected people gaining power. And I'm sick of it. And that's why I wrote this book, Green Murder.
It's a full frontal attack on those who are leading the charge.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore: "There is zero evidence that a CO2 increase in the atmosphere is the cause of rising temperature. None whatsoever." Full interview: https://youtube.com/watch?v=E5K5i5Wv7jQ… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many well-known individuals claim that we are in a climate emergency, but there is disagreement. One person argues that the world has been warming for centuries, even before the use of fossil fuels. They state that there is no evidence linking CO2 increase to rising temperatures, as temperatures were already increasing. They mention a graph from Central England, showing a steady rise of just over 1 degree Celsius in 320 years, which they believe is not significant. They also dispute claims that the current rate of temperature rise is unprecedented, citing similar rates in the past.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is an awful lot of well known people who appear to have credentials saying that we are in a climate emergency, which we are, aren't
Speaker 1: we? No, we are not in a climate emergency. These people want us to think that the world began in 18/50 when we started using fossil fuels, but for 150 years before that, it was also warming. There is zero evidence The CO2 increase in the atmosphere is the cause of rising temperature, none whatsoever, because it was already rising. And as I was about to say, during the 1st 150 years of rising out of 1700, there was a period of over 40 years Where the temperature increased more and faster than it has done since 1850, especially since 1950, when we were actually starting to put a significant amount more CO2 in the atmosphere post war.
And today, it's exponential. There's a wonderful graph, it's in my book, which shows the temperature record in Central England From 16/60 or so, when the first thermometer existed. So this is the longest thermometer record of temperature in the world, because they were invented in England. And so that shows a very steady continuous rise in temperature of a little over 1 degree Celsius in 3 20 years. It's not a big deal.
They keep saying it's never gone this fast, it's never risen this fast. That is a lie. It has risen this fast many times in the even recent past, especially from about 16/90 to about 17/30.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
@NikolovScience - Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
This clip exposes John Kerry's lack of science background and understanding of Earth's geological history. We don't need uneducated activists like him to lecture us about climate and the environment.
reSee.it AI Summary
Professor Ian Plimer discredits the UN's fear-mongering on human-induced global warming. Their predictions have consistently been proven wrong over 30 years. No evidence shows that CO2 emissions drive global warming. Propaganda persists, but the fundamental facts remain unproven. #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Australian geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, blows the UN's "human-induced global boiling" fear mongering completely out of the water: "Every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong... They still haven't, after 30 years, shown us that human emissions [of CO2] drive global warming." "There's been a relentless campaign of propaganda for 30 years, and the basics haven't been shown." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8ic-iqWm9ng… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
Anne expresses concern about the mainstream media accepting false information about climate change. She argues that hurricanes, sea levels, bushfires, and climate-related deaths are not increasing, contrary to popular belief. Anne criticizes the media for promoting fear without providing evidence to support their claims. She questions why the media's credibility remains intact despite their inaccurate predictions. Anne suggests that scare stories about impending doom attract attention and sell newspapers, leading people to fall for propaganda. She emphasizes the lack of evidence linking human emissions to global warming.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Anne, thank you for joining me. Are you shaking and crying over these doomsday announcements?
Speaker 1: Well, what I'm scared of is the mainstream media uncritically accepting this codswallop. What I'm scared of is these people get given a microphone saying and talk about total lies. Hurricanes are not increasing. We have data. Sea level is not increasing.
It's some places it's decreasing, other places increasing. We're not having an increase in bushfires. We're not having an increase in climate deaths. We have a very large data bank showing us the exact opposite. So what these people are doing is sprouting exactly the opposite to what the data tells us.
They're doing it with much more noise. They're getting the very friendly media like The Guardian, like the mainstream media saying, oh, we're all doomed, but saying, every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong and they've been doing this for 30 years. This latest missive was just over 30 pages long, all the science comes much later. So they give us all the scary stuff, but they don't give us their data and they still haven't after 30 years, they still haven't shown us that human emissions driving global warming.
Speaker 2: What I don't understand is if their predictions aren't accurate or if they're wildly inaccurate, Why that doesn't dent their credibility? Why the, you would hope at times with these skeptical media say, well, 5 years ago you said this and this and none of that happened and you said this and this and actually the opposite happened. Why do we have this situation where it's the boy who cried wolf and every single time Crying Wolf works.
Speaker 1: It's a great scare story. We're all going to die. We're all doomed and it's great for the mainstream media to frighten people, certain people, front page on the newspaper, lead article on a television program, and people fall for the propaganda. There's been a relentless campaign of propaganda for 30 years and the basics haven't been shown. If you cannot show saying, human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, that all the arguments about coal, about gas, about hydrocarbons
@RickyDoggin - A Man Of Memes
Multimillionaire climate grifter, John Kerry, gets absolutely destroyed by Rep. Scott Perry for peddling the #ClimateScam, before being called out as the grifter he is, right to his face.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the need to reduce emissions to address the climate crisis. They emphasize that even if all industrial nations achieve zero emissions, it would not be enough to solve the problem. The speaker also mentions that global net zero is insufficient and that carbon dioxide must be removed from the atmosphere. When asked about the correct amount of CO2, the speaker explains that the level changes daily and highlights the importance of reducing emissions. The conversation then shifts to a debate about historical levels of CO2 and the impact of human activity. The speaker argues that human beings are contributing to the problem and defends the consensus among scientists. The other speaker questions the need for expensive solutions and raises concerns about the potential negative effects of reducing CO2 levels on plant life. The conversation ends with a disagreement on the role of consensus in science.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said that if all into industrial nations go to 0 emissions, it wouldn't be enough. And then at the White House's climate day in January of 21, you said almost 90% of the planet's emissions come from outside the US. We could go to 0 tomorrow, and the problem isn't isn't solved. And in April 21, you told the Washington Post that even the US and China going to 0 emissions tomorrow won't solve the climate's problem. Then in April 21, you said that global net zero is not enough and that c o two must be removed from the atmosphere.
How much is the correct amount of CO 2?
Speaker 1: Let me explain to you if I can, so you understand exactly what I said. That's close, but it's not quite exactly what I was saying. Can you tell me what the Let let me tell you what it says. I'm gonna tell you what the here's how how it works. Because we have put I forget the exact number of tons, millions of tons of c o two and other greenhouse gases are now in the atmosphere.
They're there. And every day we're adding more. And so every day the heat is going up and we have to figure out how we're gonna, you know, tame the monster here. The only way to do that is to reduce emissions on an ongoing basis to get control on the current level of emissions that we have created. But what
Speaker 0: is then but what actually suck
Speaker 1: Sir, with
Speaker 0: all due respect, you've been through this before. What is the correct amount? I don't wanna spend a bunch of time about a history lesson about things they'll people don't care about it.
Speaker 1: What changes every day? I don't I can't tell you
Speaker 0: exactly what the amount changes.
Speaker 1: Yes, it does.
Speaker 0: So, secretary, you probably know that for approximately 200,000,000 years. What's what's the parts per million now? About 400. Right? Can we
Speaker 1: agree with that?
Speaker 0: It's over 400. Alright. It's about 200,000,000 years. 2,000 parts per million. Did mother nature get it wrong for 200,000,000 years?
Here's the difference, congressman.
Speaker 1: The difference is, yes, there were there were periods which all scientists all the scientists who deal with climate acknowledge that there have been moments on the planet which is billions of years old, in which there were greater heat and there was greater
Speaker 0: Tell me the difference quickly. I've got the
Speaker 1: difference is human beings are
Speaker 0: creating. So That's the difference. So human beings are We
Speaker 1: are creating.
Speaker 0: A 100000 years old, but but during these periods of time where it was 2,000 parts per million, life existed. As a matter of fact
Speaker 1: Not not people. Not not human beings walking around.
Speaker 0: We're in one of the lowest periods of carbon in the atmosphere in not only recorded history, in the history of life existing on the planet. In December of 2022, you told the Washington Post we need to remove 1,600,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via direct air capture, the cost for that is about $1,000 per ton or 1.6 quadrillion dollars. Now I said you said you didn't know, But since 2015, since the last El Nino, about 500,000,000,000 tons have been have been emitted into the atmosphere. During that same period of time, 2015, if you look at the temperature graph, this is from NOAA. The temperature has gone down.
Show the next slide. This is from NASA satellite data, temperature has gone down. You wanna have the have the American taxpayers, my constituents that are having a hard time afford their groceries, pay for a car, buy a new home, spend 1.6 quadrillion dollars to fix a problem that, a, doesn't exist. And as a matter of fact, you might be exacerbating because it's unknown. It is unknown at this time the low level that of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that might actually destroy life because plant life all depends.
As you know, secretary, plant life all depends on c o two, and when we kill it, then we're done too. I yield the balance.
Speaker 1: Congressman, let me just say that, I don't agree with what you're saying out there for any number of reasons. I don't have time to go into all of them now, but I'll just tell you point blank that the difference between the periods you're looking at in terms of heat, etcetera, and human input is night and day, number 1. Number 2, why do you think a 195 countries in the world, their prime ministers, Their president
Speaker 0: Because they're grifting like you are, sir.
Speaker 1: This that's pretty shocking statement that you believe that all the scientists in the world Our great news. Honestly.
Speaker 0: Not all scientists agree with you, mister Sanchez.
Speaker 1: 98% of all the scientists in the world
Speaker 0: Science isn't about agreement. It's not about consensus. You know that.
reSee.it AI Summary
Australian senator Ralph Babet exposes the fraudulent nature of Net Zero in parliament, calling it a scam that benefits globalists and the CCP. For more details, visit wide-awake-media.com.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Australian senator, Ralph Babet, highlights the ludicrous and fraudulent nature of Net Zero, in the Australian parliament. "Net Zero is a complete and utter scam, designed to shut down our nation, enrich predatory globalists and the CCP. That is all it's going to do." Source: https://aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Read_Listen/ParlView/video/1701277 For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
Welcome to the world of net zero, brought to you by various political parties. Let me introduce you to the LDV ET60, an electric car available in Australia for around $93. However, it has limitations such as a towing capacity of 1,000 kilograms and a range of under 200 kilometers when carrying a load. It may not be suitable for camping or boating trips. Additionally, while it claims to be carbon neutral, it overlooks the environmental impact of its production and the fossil fuels used to charge it. Net zero is seen as a scam that aims to shut down our nation and benefit globalists and the CCP.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now to all the Australian farmers, miners, and tradies out there, I'd like to welcome you to the dystopian world of net zero, a world brought to you by the Liberals, Nationals, Labour, and the Greens. Now let me inform you of the wonders of the only electric used currently available for sale in Australia for 90 $3, nearly $93 plus on road cost. You can drive away in a brand new made in China LDV ET60. Doesn't that just town appealing. Are you dreaming of weekends away camping, caravanning, or boating?
Forget it. This beauty has a towing limit of 1,000 kilograms and is only available in 2 wheel drive with a range of under 200 kilometers when towing or carrying a load. Now instead of asking the salesman, the salesman for free floor mats, better ask you to throw in a free diesel generator and a jerry can. How's about that one instead? Not convinced?
Here is the kicker. It's carbon neutral. How good is that, right? As long as you ignore the 3,000 kilograms of Steel, Copper, Lithium, Nickel, Manganese, Cobalt, Graphite, Zinc and all the rest of it. And don't forget to turn a blind eye to the coal fired power used in the Chinese factory, the diesel trains, the trucks, the kits that are used for transport, and the fossil fuels that you're gonna use when you charge it at night in the comfort of your own garage here in Australia.
Now Vertu's signaling, you know what it is, it's an expensive business. We got to reject net zero because it makes net zero cents. Net zero is a total and complete and utter scam designed to shut down our nation, enrich Predatory Globalists and the CCP. That is all it's going to do.
reSee.it AI Summary
John Kerry, a prominent figure in climate discussions, claims that the farming industry must be dismantled to achieve Net Zero. He argues that agriculture contributes to 33% of global emissions and reducing emissions from the food system is crucial. Kerry emphasizes the need to address this issue to both combat climate change and ensure food security. Source: https://youtube.com/live/IF8opPN16LQ
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Climate con man extraordinaire, John Kerry: The farming industry must be destroyed in order to achieve Net Zero. "Agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world. And we can't get to Net Zero—we don't get this job done—unless agriculture is front and centre as part of the solution." "You just can't continue to both warm the planet, while also expecting to feed it. It doesn't work. So we have to reduce emissions from the food system." Source: https://youtube.com/live/IF8opPN16LQ Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
Agriculture contributes 26-33% of global emissions, making it crucial to address in order to achieve net zero emissions. With a growing population of over 8 billion people, emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause half a degree of warming by mid-century. This could result in 600 million people not having enough food in a 2-degree future. We cannot warm the planet and expect to feed it simultaneously. To keep the 1.5-degree target alive, we must reduce emissions from the food system. Scientists, based on physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry, have warned us about the consequences of exceeding 1.5 degrees. These predictions are already coming true, but at a faster and larger scale than anticipated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Agriculture contributes about 33 percent of all the emissions of the world, depending a little bit on how you count it, but it's anywhere from 26 to 33. And we can't get to net 0. We don't get this job done. Unless agriculture is Front And Center is part of the solution. But with a growing population on the planet, we just crossed the threshold of 8,000,000,000 fellow citizens around the world just crossed that in this last year.
Admissions from the food system alone are projected to cause another half a degree of warming by mid century on the current course that we are today. A 2 degree future could result in an additional 600,000,000 people not getting enough to eat. And you just can't continue to both warm the planet while also expecting to feed it. Doesn't work. So we have to reduce emissions from the food system to keep the 1.5 degrees alive.
Why do we have to keep 1.5 degrees alive? Because scientists, as a basis of physics and mathematics, not ideology and politics or party labels or anything else, as a matter of physics and mathematics and some biology and chemistry have told us, these are the consequences. And we already see it happening. And almost everything they've predicted for 30 plus years now is coming true, but the problem is it's coming through faster and bigger. Than was, in fact, predicted.
reSee.it AI Summary
John Kerry, a prominent figure in climate discussions, claims that reducing emissions from the food system is crucial to address the climate crisis. He emphasizes the need to balance warming the planet and feeding it. Kerry's statement sparks debate about the feasibility of such measures. Source: [link]
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Climate con man extraordinaire, John Kerry, announces the need for a war-like effort to shut down the global farming industry, in order to combat the non-existent "climate crisis". "You just can't continue to both warm the planet, while also expecting to feed it. It doesn't work... So we have to reduce emissions from the food system." Source: https://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=647742adf6134e1e8dbc8492… Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
John Kerry, the US special presidential envoy for climate, claims that emissions from the food system will contribute to a 3-degree increase in global temperature, rather than the desired 1.5 degrees. He emphasizes the need to reduce emissions from the food system to combat the climate crisis. However, critics argue that Kerry's statements are lies and that the world's climate has changed naturally in the past. Kerry urges civil society to push for change and emphasizes President Biden's commitment to addressing climate change. He believes that with the right choices, victory in this battle is possible.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In his usual lying hysteria, John Kerry, who serves as the 1st US special presidential envoy for climate, told a series of lies and announced that our government is planning to shut down US agriculture. They call it innovation because they are confident that our pain and desperation will someday give birth to an innovative new solution, or at least that's their cover story.
Speaker 1: Emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause another half a degree of warming By mid century, on the current course that we are today. And instead of being on a course to be able to hold the earth's temperature increase to 1.5 degrees, We're actually on a course to hit around 3 degrees right now. And you just can't Continue to both warm the planet while also expecting to feed it. Doesn't work. And As is so often the case with respect to the climate crisis, we have to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously.
This is the biggest Organizational effort that I think we have faced, certainly since World War 2 but perhaps ever. So we have to reduce emissions from the food system to keep the 1.5 degrees alive. Why do we have to keep 1.5 degrees alive? Because Scientists as a basis of physics and mathematics, not ideology and politics or Party labels or anything else as a matter of physics and mathematics and some biology and chemistry have told us, These are the consequences.
Speaker 0: Everything out of his mouth is a lie. The exact opposite of what he says is True. The scientists he is referring to are almost all on the United Nations payroll. The real scientific community of the world realize is that the world's climate has changed in extreme erratic ways over the years without human pollution. In one of the most recent studies, Auerhaus University researchers found that the Arctic had ice free summers just 10000 years ago, and ice core samples show that the Earth is in a cooling period, not a warming one.
But these decrepit old gatekeepers want us all dead because the system isn't giving up control.
Speaker 1: And I think, to those in civil society, we gotta push more. We gotta be more militant maybe. President Biden has demanded an all of government Initiative. We are all working together. Every department of our government is, engrossed in this.
And, If we make the right choices, there's no question in my mind we can win this battle.
reSee.it AI Summary
Senator John Kennedy questions a US Department of Energy representative on the effectiveness of spending $50 trillion to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The senator highlights the lack of certainty regarding the impact on global temperatures. Source: YouTube video. For similar content, visit wide-awake-media.com.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Senator John Kennedy grills a climate grifter from the US Department of Energy on the #ClimateScam: "If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?" "You don't know, do you? You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce world temperatures." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8s_aVsNCpMg Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much reducing carbon emissions in the United States by $50 trillion will lower world temperatures. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of global efforts to reduce emissions but does not provide a specific answer. Speaker 0 repeatedly questions Speaker 1's inability to provide a clear response, expressing concern about spending taxpayer money without knowing the impact on world temperatures. Speaker 1 believes that the US must lead in addressing climate change. However, Speaker 0 insists on receiving a specific answer, which Speaker 1 fails to provide.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If we spend $50,000,000,000,000 to become carbon neutral in the United States of America by 2,050, You're the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.
Speaker 1: So first of all, it's a net cost. It's what benefits we're having from getting our act together and reducing all of those climate benefits. We're seeing Let
Speaker 0: me ask again. Maybe I'm being right now. Maybe I'm not being clear. If we spent $50,000,000,000,000 to become carbon neutral by 2,050 in the United States of America, how how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?
Speaker 1: This is a global problem. So we need to reduce our emissions and we need to do everything we can. Then we can How
Speaker 0: much if we do our part, is it going to reduce
Speaker 1: So we're for we're 13% of global You
Speaker 0: don't know, do you? You don't know, do you?
Speaker 1: You can do the math. We need to You don't know, do you, mister secretary? So we're 13% of global
Speaker 0: warming. Why won't you tell me?
Speaker 1: If we went to 0, that would be You
Speaker 0: don't know, do you? You just want us to spend $50,000,000,000,000 and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce world temperatures. Now I'm all for carbon neutrality, but you're the deputy secretary of the Department of Energy and you're advocating we spend 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars to seek carbon neutrality and you can't and this isn't your money and my money. It's taxpayer money and you can't tell me how much it's going to lower world temperatures or you won't tell me, you know, but you won't.
Speaker 1: In my heart of hearts, There is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the US leads.
Speaker 0: Tell me how much it's going to reduce. You can't tell me.
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
A reformed ex-climate alarmist challenges the climate crisis narrative, highlighting the lack of consistent correlation between CO2 and Earth's temperature. With historical evidence of higher CO2 levels and colder conditions, the foundation of the climate scare appears weak, relying on unreliable models. Explore more at wide-awake-media.com.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Reformed ex-climate alarmist: "There is no climate crisis... [There is] no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature—at times CO2 was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions... There is no foundation to the climate scare—it's all based on models that don't work." Source: https://youtu.be/Qdg4uQW8Dlg Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition, argues that the climate change movement is a scam. He believes that the focus should be on debunking the science behind climate change. While some argue that countries like Canada should set an example by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Harris claims that there is no climate crisis. He shares his experience as an aerospace engineer and how a professor challenged his beliefs about the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. This encounter led him to question the correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature. Harris highlights a book called "Climate Change Reconsidered" that contains thousands of references debunking the foundation of the climate scare, which he claims is based on faulty models.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The most maddening part of all of that though is that these policies, they're not just destroying lives, they're rooted in lies, all of them. Our next guest was once a Climate Alarmist, but now says the entire movement is quote, a scam. Tom Harris is the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition, He joins me now. Tom, good to see you tonight. Now you actually say the only way to get rid of this is to go after the science of Climate Change.
Explain.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. A lot of people will say, well, you know, Canada, for example, puts out so little greenhouse gas emissions That we shouldn't, we shouldn't actually try to reduce it because China is double the United States. Well, the trouble is people argue that, well, yes, but we have to set An example to the world and we have to be good citizens and all that sort of thing. So they're using these arguments quite often that China's double the emissions to the US etcetera. But but the real underlying thing is that there is no climate crisis you know I was originally an aerospace engineer and I would give Speeches and I wrote articles.
I wrote one in the Ottawa Citizen about comparative planetology, how studying the planets helps us understand the Earth better. And I used the example of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. I said this could happen on the Earth if we don't reduce carbon dioxide. Well a local professor of Carleton University, professor of geology, he liked my article so much he used it in his course on climate change And but he said to the students, but that part about Venus is wrong. What happened on Venus cannot physically happen on the Earth and he explained why.
Now I thought, who is this climate change denier? Well he invited me into his lab and he showed me the geologic history that he and others are finding, And they found no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and earth's temperature. At times CO2 was 1300% of today And we were stuck in very cold conditions, so it was all over the board. So I started wondering, well, maybe he's right. He exposed me to a lot of people Who actually showed me that there are thousands of scientists.
And here's a book actually that illustrates that. It's called Climate Change Reconsidered, And this is on climatechangereconsider.org. There are thousands of references here which talk about the fact There is no foundation to the climate scare. It's all based on models that don't work.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, dismisses human-induced global warming as a fabrication. He argues that the scientific method has not proven carbon dioxide's role in warming the Earth. Moore believes that future evidence will expose the climate change hysteria as baseless.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore: Human-induced global warming is a "complete fabrication". "The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm… I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NzVMSxszudo Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
Carbon dioxide is often seen as a pollutant, but I believe it is actually essential for life on Earth. It is a good thing that we are increasing its levels in the atmosphere because it was running low before. However, there is no definitive proof that CO2 is causing serious problems. As a student of science, I know that the scientific method has not been used to prove that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. In the future, people may look back and realize that the efforts to change energy policies based on cutting this gas were unnecessary. I firmly believe that the climate change hysteria is a fabrication.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of my missions is to turn on its head the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and somehow dangerous. When in fact, it is the most important nutrient for all life on earth, and without it, this would be a dead planet. So I say not only is carbon dioxide good, it is essential, And it's a good thing that we are putting some more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because it was running low before we came along. If we had definitive proof that CO2 was causing serious problems and we could prove it, don't you think they would write that down on a piece of somewhere so people could read it. They don't have definitive proof, period, in science.
I'm a student of the philosophy and history of science. And I know that the scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the earth to warm.
Speaker 1: You think in a few years, say, 50 years from now, people go, that was a really stupid period in our history when we tried to change all our energy policies to cut this gas?
Speaker 0: I am and firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication.
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Senator John Kennedy questions a representative from the US Department of Energy about the effectiveness of spending $50 trillion to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. He highlights the lack of certainty regarding the impact on global temperatures. The exchange can be viewed on YouTube. For similar content, visit Wide Awake Media's website or subscribe to their Telegram channel.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Senator John Kennedy grills climate grifter from the US Department of Energy on the #ClimateScam: "If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?" "You don't know, do you? You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce world temperatures." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8s_aVsNCpMg Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much reducing carbon emissions in the United States by $50 trillion will lower global temperatures. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of global efforts to reduce emissions but does not provide a specific answer. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks for a clear answer, expressing frustration that taxpayer money is being spent without knowing the impact on world temperatures. Speaker 1 acknowledges the lack of a specific answer but believes that the US must lead in addressing climate change. The conversation ends without a clear estimate provided.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If we spend $50,000,000,000,000 to become carbon neutral in the United States of America by 2,050, You're the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.
Speaker 1: So first of all, it's a net cost. It's what benefits we're having from getting our act together and reducing all of those climate benefits. We're seeing Let
Speaker 0: me ask again. Maybe I'm being
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 0: Maybe I'm not being clear. If we spent $50,000,000,000,000 to become carbon neutral by 2,050 in the United States of America, how how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?
Speaker 1: This is a global problem. So we need to reduce our emissions and we need to do everything we can. Then we can How
Speaker 0: much if we do our part, is it going to reduce
Speaker 1: So we're for we're 13% of global You
Speaker 0: don't know, do you? You don't know, do you?
Speaker 1: You can do the math. We need to You don't know, do you, mister secretary? So we're 13% of global
Speaker 0: warming. Why won't you tell me?
Speaker 1: If we went to 0, that would be You
Speaker 0: don't know, do you? You just want us to spend $50,000,000,000,000 and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce world temperatures. Now I'm all for carbon neutrality, but you're the deputy secretary of the Department of Energy and you're advocating we spend 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars to seek carbon neutrality and you can't and this isn't your money and my money. It's taxpayer money and you can't tell me how much it's going to lower world temperatures or you won't tell me, you know, but you won't.
Speaker 1: In my heart of hearts, There is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the US leads.
Speaker 0: Tell me how much it's going to reduce. You can't tell me.
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
The climate isn't warmer than historical periods. Carbon dioxide levels are the lowest in 600 million years. Geologist Randall Carlson debunks human-induced climate change in under a minute. Check out more content at wide-awake-media.com.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"The climate right now is no warmer than it's been many times throughout history. [It's] now the lowest that carbon dioxide has been in 600 million years." American geologist, Randall Carlson, perfectly summarises the "human-induced climate change" hoax, in under a minute. Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than in the past, citing a baseline of the lowest carbon dioxide levels in 600 million years. They claim that the IPCC's 1992 report showed the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but subsequent reports removed this information. The speaker suggests that a contrived graph called the Hochschies was used to flatten the temperature data and add an upward trend. They believe that those who challenge this narrative receive little media coverage. Additionally, they mention the significant amount of money invested in climate change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The climate right now is no warmer than it's been many times throughout history. Our our baseline is now the lowest the carbon dioxide has been in 600,000,000 years. As far as, temperature change, the IPCC's first report of 1992 showed that the middle medieval warm period was warmer than the present. Well, this didn't fit the narrative. So by the time the 1996 report came out, It was a a completely contrived graph called the Hochschies.
So what they did was they got rid of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. And so when the instead of the graph doing this, they flattened it out, and then they added instrumental Record on the end that looks like it's going way up. The point is is that the people that are calling them out on it are not getting the the media coverage. You know? Because look.
At this point, there's 1,000,000,000 of dollars going into the whole climate change
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Australian senator Malcolm Roberts challenges the link between human-produced carbon dioxide and temperature. He argues that evidence supporting this connection is lacking. Roberts delivers a speech in the Australian parliament, shedding light on what he calls the #ClimateScam. For more details, watch the full speech on YouTube or subscribe to the newsletter for daily updates.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"No one has been able to prove to me that human-produced carbon dioxide affects temperature... because they can't. They can't provide that evidence." Australian senator, Malcolm Roberts, drops some serious #ClimateScam truth bombs in the Australian parliament. Full speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSzDihp5YA4 Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Carbon dioxide is essential for vegetation and life on Earth. It makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere and is classified as a trace gas. It is not toxic or harmful to the environment, but rather beneficial for plants. Nature produces 97% of carbon dioxide annually, and humans have little control over its levels. Despite increased human production, global temperatures have remained flat for 28 years. Natural variation is a normal part of cycles in temperature, rainfall, and storms. The speaker suggests that politicians are involved in a climate fraud, benefiting financially from the issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of vegetation on this planet. No one has been able to prove to me that human produced carbon dioxide affects temperature more than natural variation does because they can't, they can't provide that evidence. We are exhaling it. Every one of us in this chamber is exhaling it. Every human, every animal is exhaling it.
And in breathing, we all animals including koalas multiply the concentration of carbon dioxide 100 to 125 times. We take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at 0.04%. We exhale it at 4% to 5%. We've increased the concentration 100 to 125 times. Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on earth.
This is a fact sheet on carbon dioxide. It's just 0.04% of earth's air, 4 100th of 1%, 4 100th of a percent. It's scientifically classified as a trace gas because there is bugger all of it. It's non toxic, not noxious. Senator Hanson Young called it toxic.
That is straight out wrong. It's highly beneficial to and essential for plants. Greenhouses inject the stuff into greenhouses to simulate the growth of plants. In the past, when carbon dioxide levels in this planet were 4 times higher than today and they have been 135 times higher than today. Naturally, in the past, fairly recent, it's resulted in earth flourishing.
Nature produces 97% of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. It does not discolor the air. It does not impair the quality of water or soil. It does not degrade the environment nor impair its usefulness nor render it offensive. It's not a pollutant.
It does not harm ecosystems and is essential for ecosystems. It does not harm plants and animals. It's essential for plants and animals. We do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We couldn't even if we wanted to.
In 2009, after the global financial crisis, in 2020, during the COVID mismanagement, we cause severe recessions around the world, globally. All of a sudden, the use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal oil and natural gas decreased dramatically. And what happened to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Did it start going down? No.
Did it even inflect slightly and decrease the rate of increase? No. It continued increasing. Why? Because nature controls the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
There has been massive increase in human production of carbon from China, India, Brazil, Europe, Russia, Asia, America, yet temperatures have been flat, flat for 28 years, not warming, not cooling, flat. And the trend during the massive industrialization during the 2nd World War and the post war economic boom saw temperatures from 1936 to 1976 fall. Over 40 years of massive industrialization, the longest temperature trend in the last 160 years cooled. Remember the predictions we were going to be in for an ice age. In the 1880s and 1890s in our country, temperatures were warmer by far.
Variation in everything in nature is natural. Inherent natural variation within larger cycles of increasing and decreasing temperature and rainfall, drought cycles, storm cycles and every uptick is heralded as catastrophic and every downtick is suddenly ignored. What's driving this political scam, this climate fraud? Ignorant, dishonest and gutless politicians enabling scanners making money from it.
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Climate czar John Kerry faces criticism for his stance on carbon reduction. Critics argue that the current carbon levels are historically low, and removing 1.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide through expensive methods seems unnecessary. They also question the implementation of policies that could harm life on Earth. Kerry defends his position by highlighting global concerns and the involvement of world leaders. The debate revolves around the potential consequences of these actions.
@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥
🚨🚨🚨Climate czar, John FORBES Kerry gets ANNIHILATED once again👇🥶 “We’re in one of the lowest periods of CARBON in the atmosphere, in NOT only recorded history but in the history of LIFE existing on the planet!!!” “In December, 2022 you told the media that we have to remove 1 600 000 000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via ‘direct air-capture’ at $1000 per ton, which will cost tax payers $1.6 QUADRILLION dollars” “Since, EL-NINO in 2015, 500 billion TONS of carbon has been released into the atmosphere, do you know what happened? Temperatures went down!!”🤔 “You are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist!!” John Kerry responds : “ I don’t agree with you for a number of reasons that I can’t get into, BUT I’ll say this, why do you think that PRESIDENTS and PRIME-MINISTERS in 195 countries are concerned about this?” “BECAUSE THEY ARE GRIFTERS, LIKE YOU!!!!”🤣🤣🤣 Has John Kerry and the CLIMATE CULT lost their minds or are they doing this on purpose?? (1) Why not plant more trees to capture carbon? You know that’s their job right? Why $1.6 QUADRILLION DOLLARS with a fancy name, ‘direct air capture’? Did you know that most countries have enough TREES to be considered ‘carbon neutral’ already? I think Canada is 10X more than required!!! (2) If we are at the lowest point of recorded carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is 0.04 CO2 levels in the atmosphere, then why are we dropping it even more? Did you know that when we reach 0.02 CO2 levels, it will kill all plant life on earth and we will have an ICE AGE?? Did you know that CO2 generators are used to grow plants faster? (3) Why are we implementing policies that will lead to the DEATH of MOST LIFE on this planet?! (4) They are making us pay taxes to: a) lead us to an accelerated ice age and death of MOST LIFE on the planet b) Fund global media propaganda to make this happen How does this not sound CRAZY to most of you guys? Please let me know if my facts are wrong or any arguments against this!! As it stands, they’re leading us into an ice age AND death of most LIFE on this planet!!! These are the REAL FACTS!! #ClimateScam #CrimesAgainstHumanity
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the need to spend 1.6 quadrillion dollars to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, arguing that the low levels of carbon dioxide might actually be necessary for plant life. They highlight that during the period since 2015, when carbon emissions increased, temperature has actually gone down. The speaker suggests that the problem may not exist and accuses the other person of grifting. The other person disagrees, mentioning the difference between natural climate variations and human impact, and the global consensus on addressing climate change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No. The lowest periods of carbon in the atmosphere and not only recorded history, in the history of life existing on the planet. In December of 2022, you told the Washington Post we need to remove 1,600,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via direct air capture. The cost for that is about $1,000 per ton or 1.6 quadrillion dollars. Now I said you said you didn't know, But since 2015, since the last El Nino, about 500,000,000,000 tons have been have been emitted into the atmosphere.
During that same period of time, 2015, if you look at the temperature graph, this is from Noah. The temperature has gone down. Show the next slide. This is from NASA satellite data. Temperature has gone down.
You wanna have the, have the American taxpayers, my Constituents that are having a hard time afford their groceries, pay for a car, buy a new home, spend 1.6 quadrillion dollars to fix a problem that a doesn't exist. And as a matter of fact, you might be exacerbating because it's unknown. It is unknown at this time, The low level that of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that might actually destroy life because plant life all depends. As you know, secretary, plant life all depends on c o two. And when we kill it, then we're done too.
I yield the balance.
Speaker 1: Congressman, let me just say that, I don't agree with what you're saying out there for any number of reasons. I don't have time to go into all of them now, but I'll just tell you point blank That the difference between the periods you're looking at in terms of heat, etcetera, and human human input Is night and day, number 1. Number 2, why do you think a 195 countries in the world, They're prime ministers.
Speaker 0: They're presidents. Because they're grifting like you are, sir.
reSee.it AI Summary
The climate has been as warm in the past as it is now, and carbon dioxide levels are the lowest in 600 million years. Geologist Randall Carlson questions the idea of human-induced climate change. Follow @wide_awake_news for more and subscribe to their newsletter for daily updates.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"The climate right now is no warmer than it's been many times throughout history. [It's] now the lowest that carbon dioxide has been in 600 million years." American geologist, Randall Carlson, perfectly summarises the "human-induced climate change" hoax, in under a minute. Follow our backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to us on Telegram: t.me/realwideawakem… Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: http://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than previous periods in history. They claim that carbon dioxide levels are at their lowest in 600 million years. They also mention that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but it was removed from the IPCC's reports to fit a specific narrative. The speaker believes that those who criticize this manipulation of data are not receiving sufficient media coverage. They highlight the significant amount of money being invested in climate change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The climate right now is no warmer than it's been many times throughout history. Our our baseline is now the lowest that carbon dioxide has been in 600,000,000 years. As far as, temperature change, the IPCC's first report of 1992 showed that the middle medieval warm period was warmer than the present. Well, this didn't fit the narrative. So by the time the 1996 report came out, It was a a completely contrived graph called the Hochschies.
So what they did was they got rid of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. And so when the instead of the graph doing this, they flattened it out, and then they added instrumental A record on the end that looks like it's going way up. The point is is that the people that are calling them out on it are not getting the the media coverage. You know? Because look.
At this point, there's 1,000,000,000 of dollars going into the whole climate change
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
According to scholar Thomas Sowell, he questions the link between rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels, suggesting that the order of events contradicts the idea of man-made global warming. He also criticizes the suppression of opposing viewpoints by those advocating for global warming.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
One of the world's most respected scholars, Thomas Sowell, on the "man-made global warming" hoax: "Temperatures went up first, and then there was the increase in carbon dioxide. You can’t say that A causes B if B happens first... But [the scientists] who are pushing global warming are doing their damnedest to make sure that those who believe the opposite don't get heard in the public." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM Follow our backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Public intellectuals manufacture demand for their services by making alarming predictions and offering solutions to problems. The speaker discusses global warming as an example, stating that it fits the pattern of climate scientists creating a crisis to generate funding for their research. However, the speaker acknowledges that there are scientists who believe in global warming and others who oppose it. The problem lies in the suppression of opposing views by those pushing the global warming narrative. The speaker suggests that climate scientists should be more transparent and push the data to the public, but there is no incentive for them to do so.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Again intellectuals in society, there is a spontaneous demand from the larger society for the end products of engineering, medical, and scientific professions. But the demand for public intellectuals is largely manufactured by the public intellectuals themselves. Yes. Explain that. How do they manufacture demand for their own services?
Speaker 1: Well, the the one one thing is by, making making alarming predictions, offering, solutions to our Problems.
Speaker 0: What do you make of global warming?
Speaker 1: I think it's a classic example of the need for crusades. Now, people many people are shocked by these emails. I'm not at all shocked by them. I read the original UN study years ago, and I was just curious as to how they were going to deal with the question that the temperatures went up first, and then there was the increase in carbon dioxide. Right.
Because you can't say that a causes b, if b happened first. And so I read this, and I could see they were they were tiptoeing through the tulips and the way they phrase Things and so forth, they couldn't confront that. And now we're finding out, that they knew Don well. They couldn't deal with all the evidence.
Speaker 0: So it fits the pattern of a group of intellectuals, science, climate scientists who have a very narrow competency, suddenly proclaiming that there's a crisis scaring the rest of us, thereby creating a demand for their services.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Not as climate scientists alone Mhmm. But as a kind of high priestly cast that can tell us all how to live and save the entire Yes. Climate. And in the meantime, generate 1,000,000,000 of dollars worth of government programs to fund their research initiatives. So are you it's a racket.
Speaker 1: Yes. Alright. But but again, you have to take account of the ability of human beings to rationalize. I'm sure there are scientists out there who believe some or much of what they are saying. And there are other scientists who believe the opposite.
But the but the ones who are pushing global warming are doing their damndest to make sure that those who believe the opposite don't get heard in the public.
Speaker 0: So wouldn't there shouldn't there be some large ish body of climate scientists who say, The data really does suggest that we're headed into trouble here. But precisely because my saying so as a climate scientist will look like special pleading, we as a community of scientists should be even more careful about being completely transparent, pushing the data out to the public. They should overcome the hurdle that it looks like self pleading. Why isn't that taking place?
Speaker 1: There's no pay off to that. All right. Imagine if someone is an assistant professor in some department where the where your senior colleagues are going to vote on your pay among other things, I have 1,000,000 of dollars in grants handed out to promote global warming, and you say just what what you've just now said. And they all say, this guy is incorrigible.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer discredits the idea of human-induced climate change, stating that no evidence has been presented to prove that human CO2 emissions drive global warming. He also questions the assumption that the 97% of emissions that are natural do not contribute to global warming. A link to his full talk is provided, along with additional subscription options.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"Game over. We are dealing with a fraud". Geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the "human-induced climate change" hoax, in just two minutes. "No one has ever shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming… And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions which are natural, do not drive global warming." Credit: @adhtvaus Full talk: https://watch.adh.tv/cpac-2022/season:2/videos/cpac-2022-prof-ian-plimer Follow my backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to me on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to my newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Human emissions of carbon dioxide have never been proven to cause global warming. It would also need to be shown that the natural emissions, which make up 97% of total emissions, do not drive global warming. This is a scientific fraud. Chemistry has shown for 200 years that carbon dioxide has an inverse solubility, meaning it warms up when it is not dissolved. Ice core samples also demonstrate that carbon dioxide increases after natural warming, indicating that temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. This is another fraudulent claim.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't have opinions. I have demonstrable facts. These facts are validated, and these facts are repeatable. Fact number 1, no one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Never been shown.
And if it could be shown, Then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions, which are natural, do not drive global warming. Game over. We are dealing with a fraud. It's a scientific fraud from day 1. We hear the propaganda that increases of the gas of life, a trace gas in the atmosphere, We'll bring a disaster, and that we will have runaway global warming.
Sorry, folks. We've known for 200 years from chemistry That it's the exact inverse. Now, I'm sure some of you tried this last night at the dinner with a champagne Or a beer and you forgot to drink it and it warmed up and it kept bubbling and bubbling and bubbling and bubbling. And that is the inverse solubility of carbon dioxide. We've known that for 200 years.
We see it from the ice cores. When we drill into ice, We have chemical fingerprints that tell us what the temperature was, and we have little bits of trapped air. And we can show that when we had natural warming Some 650 to 6000 years later, we had an increase in carbon dioxide. It's not carbon dioxide drives temperature. It's zigzag inverse.
Another fraud.
Professor Ian Plimer - CPAC Sessions - ADH TV
Watch distinguished Professor Ian Plimer’s presentation at CPAC Australia. Brought to you by ADH TV.
watch.adh.tv
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Post 1: Prof. Ian Plimer challenges the idea of man-made climate change, stating that no one has proven that human CO2 emissions drive global warming. He also questions the impact of natural emissions on global warming.
Post 2: CO2 being plant food and not pollution is highlighted, with a discount sale on related merchandise available until Sunday.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"Game over. We are dealing with a fraud". Australian geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the "man-made climate change" narrative, in just two minutes. "No one has ever shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming… And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions which are natural, do not drive global warming." Credit: @adhtvaus Full talk: https://watch.adh.tv/cpac-2022/season:2/videos/cpac-2022-prof-ian-plimer… Follow my backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to me on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to my newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Human emissions of carbon dioxide do not cause global warming, as 97% of emissions are natural. Claims of a disaster from increased carbon dioxide are false; in reality, carbon dioxide cools when warmed. Ice core data shows that natural warming precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, proving that temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. This is a scientific fraud.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't have opinions. I have demonstrable facts. These facts are validated, and these facts are repeatable. Fact number 1, no one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Never been shown.
And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions, which are natural, do not drive global warming. Game over. We are dealing with a fraud. It's a scientific fraud from day 1. We hear the propaganda that increases of the gas of life, a trace gas in the atmosphere, will bring a disaster and that we will have runaway global warming.
Sorry, folks. We've known for 200 years from chemistry that it's the exact inverse. Now, I'm sure some of you tried this last night at the dinner with a champagne or a beer and you forgot to drink it and it warmed up and it kept bubbling and bubbling and bubbling and bubbling. And that is the inverse solubility of carbon dioxide. We've known that for 200 years.
We see it from the ice cores. When we drill into ice, we have chemical fingerprints that tell us what the temperature was, and we have little bits of trapped air. And we can show that when we had natural warming some 650 to 6000 years later, we had an increase in carbon dioxide. It's not carbon dioxide that drives temperature. It's the exact inverse.
Another fraud.
Professor Ian Plimer - CPAC Sessions - ADH TV
Watch distinguished Professor Ian Plimer’s presentation at CPAC Australia. Brought to you by ADH TV.
watch.adh.tv
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Retweet if CO2 is plant food, not "pollution"! T-shirt/hoodie available here: https://wideawake.clothing/collections/climate-change-t-shirts?page=1&sort_by=best-selling Currently running a 15% off sale! Hurry, ends at midnight on Sunday!
Climate Change T-Shirts
Climate change t-shirts.
wideawake.clothing
reSee.it AI Summary
Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer challenges the idea of man-made global warming, stating that no one has proven human CO2 emissions drive it. He questions the narrative and argues that if it were true, the impact of natural emissions should also be considered.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"Game over. We are dealing with a fraud". Geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, blows the "man-made global warming" narrative completely out of the water, in just two minutes. "No one has ever shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming… And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions which are natural, do not drive global warming." Credit: @adhtvaus
Video Transcript AI Summary
Human emissions of carbon dioxide do not drive global warming. Natural emissions make up 97%, showing carbon dioxide does not cause warming. Claims of a disaster from increased carbon dioxide are false. Chemistry proves carbon dioxide cools, not warms. Ice core data reveals temperature rises before carbon dioxide levels. Temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't have opinions. I have demonstrable facts. These facts are validated, and these facts are repeatable. Fact number 1, no one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide global economy is a very strong then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions, which are natural, do not drive global warming. Game over.
We are dealing with a fraud. That's a scientific fraud from day 1. We hear the propaganda that increases of the gas of life, a trace gas in the atmosphere, will bring a disaster, and that we will have runaway global warming. Sorry, folks. We've known for 200 years from chemistry that it's the exact inverse.
Now I'm sure some of you tried this last night at the dinner with a champagne or a beer and you forgot to drink it and it warmed up and it kept bubbling and bubbling and bubbling and bubbling and that is the inverse solubility of carbon dioxide. We've known that for 200 years. We see it from the ice cores. When we drill into ice, we have chemical fingerprints that tell us what the temperature was, and we have little bits of trapped air. And we can show that when we had natural warming some 650 to 6000 years later, we had an increase in carbon dioxide.
It's not carbon dioxide that drives temperature. It's the exact inverse. Another fraud.
@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen
Regular dude exposes the entire Climate Scam in a minute flat https://t.co/9GV4chmsNP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Fossil fuels are better for the environment because without them, all the trees would have been cut down. They also save the whales because whale oil was used before fossil fuels.
The climate change issue is about controlling energy resources. If everyone uses electricity, it all has to be mined, mostly by slave labor in communist countries owned by dictators. This is not necessarily better than fossil fuels, which make money for those who extract them, involving less exploitation.
Scientists who say climate change is real only get grant money if they say climate change is real, while scientists who disagree with climate change have their budgets taken away and are blacklisted. Changing energy resources changes who controls the power in the world.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think fossil fuels are better for the environment than people realize because without them, we would have cut all the trees down by now. I think they also save the whales because before we're using fossil fuels, we're using whale oil to make everything. And I think people who wanted to save the whales should be happy that we use fossil fuels. Okay. Interesting.
So are you completely against, like, what they're supporting or do you think it's just not, like, a realistic outcome? Most of the climate change issue is about controlling our energy resources. Let's say they get off of fossil fuels and they put everybody on electricity, and we're we're all using electricity for everything. Well, all that has to be mined. Most of it's mined by slave labor and communist countries that are owned by dictators at very violent places, and I don't see why that's a better energy resource than fossil fuels.
They make people money who take it out of the ground rather than being forced out of the ground, and there's a lot less exploitation involved in it. The scientists who say climate change is real only get grant money if they say climate change is real. A lot of the scientists who, disagree with climate change, all their budgets are taken away and they're blacklisted. There's a big movement to change our energy resources, like I said. And and and if you change our energy resources, you change who controls the power in the world.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
MIC DROP: Rep. Thomas Massie blows John Kerry's "man-made global warming" propaganda completely out of the water. "I think it's somewhat appropriate that somebody with a pseudoscience degree is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee today." Credit: @RepThomasMassie
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's science background, noting their political science degree. Speaker 0 suggests Speaker 1 is pushing pseudoscience. Speaker 1 states Speaker 0 is not quoting science.
Speaker 0 asks about the consensus on parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Speaker 1 answers about 406, noting 350 is considered dangerous. Speaker 0 claims the average has been over 1000 parts per million since mammals walked the planet. Speaker 1 counters that CO2 levels haven't been as high as today in the last 800,000 years.
Speaker 0 says CO2 levels were higher for 200,000,000 years before that. Speaker 1 says humans weren't present then, and there were geologic events. Speaker 0 asks if geology stopped when humans arrived. Speaker 1 says the conversation isn't serious, and Speaker 0 agrees, stating Speaker 1's testimony is not serious.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Isn't it true you have a science degree from Yale?
Speaker 1: What's that? Bachelor of arts degree.
Speaker 0: Is it a political science degree?
Speaker 1: Yes. Political science.
Speaker 0: So how do you get a bachelor of arts in a science?
Speaker 1: Well, it's liberal arts education and degree. It's a bachelor.
Speaker 0: Okay. So it's not really science. So I think it's somewhat appropriate that somebody with a pseudoscience degree is here pushing pseudoscience in front of our committee today. Let's get back to the science of it.
Speaker 1: But it's not science. You're not quoting science.
Speaker 0: I well, you're the science expert. You got the political science degree. Look, let me ask you this. What's the consensus on parts per million of, CO2 in the atmosphere?
Speaker 1: About 406, 406 today. Okay. 406. Are you aware 350 being the level that scientists have said is danger.
Speaker 0: Okay. Are you aware? 350 is dangerous. Wow. Are you aware that since mammals have walked the planet, the average has been over a 1000 parts per million?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But we weren't walking the planet. It's, let me just share with you that we now know that definitively, at no point during the least the past 800000 years has atmospheric CO2 been as high as it is today.
Speaker 0: The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200,000,000 years before that, it was greater than than it is today. And I'm going to say for the record Yeah.
Speaker 1: But there weren't human beings. I mean, there was a different world, folks. We didn't have 7,000,000,000 people.
Speaker 0: So how did it get to 2,000 parts per million if we
Speaker 1: humans weren't here? Because there were all kinds of geologic events happening on Earth, which spewed
Speaker 0: Did geology stop when we got on the planet?
Speaker 1: Mister chairman, I I this is just not a serious conversation.
Speaker 0: Your your testimony is not serious. I agree.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Man completely tears apart the human-induced climate change narrative in less than a minute. 🔥 https://t.co/KGsqE2ddKH
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes climate change concerns are politically motivated, not scientific. They cite past predictions that did not come true: in the sixties, oil depletion in ten years; in the seventies, another ice age in ten years; in the eighties, acid rain destroying crops in ten years; in the nineties, ozone layer destruction in ten years; in the two-thousands, glaciers melting in ten years; and in the twenty-tens, coasts underwater in ten years. The speaker claims these instances of "fear mongering nonsense" always resulted in higher taxes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's not science. It's politics. I've been listening to this bullshit for fifty years. In the sixties, it was oil will be gone in ten years. In the seventies, it was another ice age in ten years.
In the eighties, it was acid rain will destroy all the crops in ten years. In the nineties, it was the ozone layer will be destroyed in ten years. In the February, it was the glaciers will all melt in ten years. In the twenty tens, it was the East And West Coast will be underwater from rising sea levels in ten years. None of this fear mongering nonsense came true, but it did result in higher taxes every time.