TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
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.
@DrEliDavid - Dr. Eli David
Australian geologist, Ian Plimer on climate alarmists: “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.” https://t.co/a1o0MMJFOt
Video Transcript AI Summary
Anne expresses concern over the mainstream media accepting false information about climate change. She argues that data shows no increase in hurricanes, sea level rise, bushfires, or climate-related deaths. She criticizes the lack of evidence supporting the claim that human emissions drive global warming. The other speaker questions why the media continues to believe inaccurate predictions without questioning their credibility. Anne suggests that scare tactics and propaganda have been used for 30 years to manipulate public opinion.
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 referring 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 it's 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 every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong. Now 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 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 gonna die. We're all doomed, and it's great for the mainstream media to frighten certain people, front page on the newspaper, lead article on a television program, and people fall for the propaganda. There's been a relentless campaigning are propaganda for 30 years, and the basics haven't been shown. If you cannot show that saying, human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, and all the arguments about coal, about gas, about hydrocarbons not them.
What what about They're wrong.
@Xx17965797N - Truthseeker
Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, demolishes the human-induced "global boiling" narrative, in two and a half minutes: "Six out of the six ice ages started when we had far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So how can carbon dioxide drive global warming?"
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker challenges the idea that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, stating that it has never been proven. They argue that even if it were proven, it would also need to be shown that natural emissions do not drive global warming. The speaker points out that in the past, there were six ice ages when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now, questioning how carbon dioxide can drive global warming. They emphasize that the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very small. The speaker concludes by stating that we are being asked to believe that a trace gas emission can change the entire planetary system, which they view as a matter of belief rather than science.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, something that I've, I've seen you discuss before are some of the, the major lies of the green movement and just how easy it is to debunk those. So can you walk us through a few of those that you think are the most important talking points that really exposed the fallacy of the entire green movement?
Speaker 1: Well, they are arguing that Human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. There's just one slight problem with that. No one has ever proven The human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. It's never been shown. And I have asked many scientists, Including a former chief scientist of this country, just give me half a dozen scientific papers that prove that human emissions that carbon dioxide drive global warming.
It can't be done and it hasn't been done. Now, horror of all horrors, assume that I'm wrong. Assume that you can prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Then you also have to prove that the natural emissions, which are 97% of the total emissions, You also have to prove that the natural emissions don't drive global warming. So before the whole game starts, it's nonsense.
The whole science that the human induced global warming is based on is actually wrong. It's demonstrably wrong. My knowledge and experience is of past environments, going back to the beginning of time and looking at the past environments on planet Earth. In the past, we've had six great ice ages. 6 out of these 6 ice ages started when we had far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now.
So how can carbon dioxide drive global warming? And past atmospheres had up to 20 percent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. At present, we have 0.04% carbon dioxide. A very, very small amount of of a trace gas is in the atmosphere. So we're being asked to believe that, And I use the word believe advisedly because that's a word of religion and politics.
It's not a word of science. We're being asked to believe that traces of an emission of a trace gas into the atmosphere will change a whole planetary system.
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
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer Demolishes the human-induced "climate emergency" fairy tale in three and a half minutes
Video Transcript AI Summary
Geologists argue that climate science is a recent invention compared to their 250-year track record of studying climate. They criticize climate scientists as obscure academics funded by taxes, claiming that their models are not in line with geological evidence. They point out that the Earth has experienced six ice ages, with fluctuations in ice coverage and sea levels. They question claims of record-breaking temperatures, highlighting that past interglacial periods were warmer. They mention that we have recently emerged from a little ice age, so it's expected that temperatures will rise. They argue that the current carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are low compared to geological history, and reducing it further would harm plant and animal life.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We hear about climate scientists, whatever that is. Now in geology, we have a 250 year track record of arguing about climate. Textbooks are full of it. We've been laboring about climate for a long while, and then there's this sudden new invention of climate science. And I had some of these when I was head of department at the University of Melbourne, and these are embedded, obscure, unemployable academics funded by your taxes.
And those taxes are to fund these people's hobbies. And the end result of that is that they put good people out of work, and they cost our nation trillions. So there's 1 group of people that use models. Another group of people, this is this is really simple. We use evidence, and the 2 are not in accord.
And if they're not in accord, you've got to throw out the models, which we've seen time and time again are incorrect. So we can look back in the past, and we can see that we've had 6 great ice ages. During that ice age, we'll have the ice expand that negotiation, or it will contract. That's an integration. We are currently in an integration of an ice age that started on a Thursday 34000000 years ago, and the ice has come and gone.
In our last interglacial, sea level was about 7 meters higher. Temperature was about 5 degrees warmer. So if someone says, oh, this is the hottest day on record, you have to ask, since when? If it's the hottest day in the last 120,000 years, then that is a record. But since when?
So if we go to the peak of our interglacial, which was about 4000 years ago, it was about 5 degrees warmer. So it's cooler than the hottest temperature on record. If we go to the time of Jesus when it was warm, it's about 4 degrees cooler than then. If we go to the dark ages, go to the Viking age, we've actually warmed up since then. If we go to the medieval warming, we've cooled down since then.
And if we go to the little ice age, we've warmed up since then. So since when? And And I know this is gonna surprise you, but we've just come out of a little ice age. What do you think temperature's gonna do? Fall?
Alright. It's been rising since the minimum more than 300 years ago. So it is no surprise that if you have cutoff times for temperature or for sea level or for hurricanes or whatever, you can spin whatever yarn you want to spin. These 6 great ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. We have 0.04% of that gas in the atmosphere, and we hear words like emissions.
Well, that means nothing to me because the atmosphere has changed in its carbon dioxide content from over 20% to now, which is really low in geological time. If we halved it, all plant life would die, and animals would die.
reSee.it AI Summary
Australian geologist Professor Ian Plimer debunks the idea that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. He points out that there has never been a scientific correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide throughout history. In fact, past climate change events occurred when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This suggests that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Watch the full interview for more insights. #ClimateScam #NetZero
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Australian geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the "human-induced climate change" narrative, in under a minute: "No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. It's never been shown scientifically." "And if we look back in time, we've never had a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide. There's never been climate change driven by carbon dioxide. All we see is the exact opposite. And the opposite is we've had six great ice ages, each of which kicked off when you had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So it's obvious: carbon dioxide does not and cannot drive global warming." Full Interview: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AZwky0fKBGk… #ClimateScam #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is no scientific evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. Despite extensive research, no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide has been found throughout history. In fact, the opposite is true. We have experienced six major ice ages in the past, all of which occurred when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is now. Therefore, it is clear that carbon dioxide does not and cannot drive global warming.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. It's never been shown scientifically. And I have asked and asked and asked for this information. I've been searching the literature. I cannot find it.
So the whole fundamentals are wrong. And if we look back in time, and as someone who does deal with history and archaeology and geology, We've never had a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide. There's never been climate change driven by carbon dioxide. All we see is the exact opposite. The opposite is we've had 6 great ice ages Yeah.
Each of which kicked off when you had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So it's obvious. Carbon dioxide does not and cannot drive global warming.
@valjtb - Val
O geólogo Prof. Ian Plimer: "Ninguém jamais demonstrou que as emissões humanas de dióxido de carbono provocam o aquecimento global... E se isso pudesse ser demonstrado, então teríamos de mostrar que 97% das emissões que são naturais não provocam o aquecimento global." Dublado
Video Transcript AI Summary
I don't have opinions, only demonstrable facts. No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. If it could be demonstrated, then we would have to show that 97% of emissions, which are natural, do not cause global warming. This is a scientific fraud from day one. We have known for 200 years through chemistry that it is the opposite. When we drill ice cores, we can see chemical fingerprints that tell us the temperature and show that when there was natural warming, there was an increase in carbon dioxide. It's not carbon dioxide that drives temperature, it's the reverse. Another fraud.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Eu não tenho opiniões. Eu tenho fotos demonstráveis. Esses fatos são validados e são repetíveis. Fato número Ninguém jamais demonstrou que as emissões humanas de Dioxida de carbono impulsionam o aquecimento global. Nunca foi mostrado.
E se isso pudesse ser demonstrado, então teríamos de mostrar que noventa e sete por cento das emissões, que são naturais, não provocam o aquecimento global. Game over. Estamos lidando com uma fraude. Isso é uma fraude científica desde o primeiro dia. Ouvimos a propaganda de que o aumento do gás da vida, gás residual na atmosfera trará desastre e que teremos aquecimento global descontrolado.
Desculpe, pessoal, sabemos há duzentos anos pela química que é exatamente o inverso. Agora, tenho certeza que alguns de vocês tentaram isso ontem à noite no jantar com champanhe ou cerveja e se esqueceram de beber, E esquentou, e continuou borbulhando e borbulhando e borbulhando e borbulhando e isso é o inverso solubilidade do dióxido de carbono. Sabemos disso há duzentos anos. Vemos isso nos núcleos de gelo. Quando perfuramos o gelo, Temos impressões digitais químicas que nos dizem qual era a temperatura e temos pequenos pedaços que ficam presos no ar.
E podemos mostrar que quando tivemos aquecimento natural, cerca de seiscentos e cinquenta seis mil anos depois, tivemos aumento no dióxido de carbono. Não é o dióxido de carbono que impulsiona a temperatura é o ziguezague inverso. Outra fraude.
reSee.it AI Summary
Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer debunks the human-induced global warming narrative in a concise talk. Historical data shows all six ice ages began with higher CO2 levels than today's 0.04%. Though seemingly low, the atmosphere's CO2 content has significantly decreased over time. Halving it would harm plant and animal life. Watch the full talk at the provided link for more insightful content. Visit the website mentioned for similar content. #ClimateScam #NetZero
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the human-induced "global boiling" narrative, in three and a half minutes: "[Six of the six] great ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. We have 0.04% of that gas in the atmosphere... Well that means nothing to me, because the atmosphere has changed in its carbon dioxide content from over 20% to now, which is really low in geological time. If we halved it, all plant life would die, and animals would die." Credit: https://twitter.com/adhtvaus Full talk: https://watch.adh.tv/cpac-2022/season:2/videos/cpac-2022-prof-ian-plimer… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
Geologists have been studying climate for centuries, while climate science is a relatively new field. The speaker criticizes climate scientists as obscure and unemployable academics funded by taxes. They argue that evidence from the past shows that the Earth has experienced six ice ages, with periods of ice expansion and contraction. The current interglacial period started 34 million years ago, and during the last interglacial, sea levels were higher and temperatures were warmer. The speaker questions claims of record-breaking temperatures, pointing out that in the past, temperatures have been even hotter. They also mention that we have just come out of a little ice age, so it's not surprising that temperatures have been rising. The speaker dismisses the significance of carbon dioxide emissions, stating that the current levels are low compared to geological history and that reducing it would harm plant and animal life.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We hear about climate scientists, whatever that is. Now in geology, we have a 2 50 year track record of arguing about climate. Textbooks are full of it. We've been laboring about climate for a long while, and then there's this sudden new invention of climate science. And I had some of these when I was head of department at the University of Melbourne, and these are embedded, obscure, unemployable academics, funded by your taxes, and those taxes to fund these people's hobbies, and the end result of that is that they put good people out of work, and that cost our nation 1,000,000,000,000.
So there's 1 group of people that use models. Another group of people, I mean, this is really simple. We use evidence, and the 2 are not in accord. And if they're not in accord, you've got to throw out the models, which we've seen time and time again are incorrect. So We can look back in the past, and we can see that we've had 6 great ice ages.
During that ice age, we'll have the ice expand, that's negotiation, or it will contract. That's an interglacial. We are currently in an interglacial of an ice age that started on a Thursday of 34,000,000 years ago, and the ice has come and gone. In our last interglacial, sea level was about 7 meters higher. Temperature was about 5 degrees warmer.
So if someone says, oh, this is the hottest day on record, you have to ask, since when? If it's the hottest day in the last 120,000 years, then that is a record. But since when? So if we go to the peak of our interglacial, which was about 4000 years ago, it was about 5 degrees warmer. So it's cooler than the hottest temperature on record.
If we go to the time of Jesus when it was warm, it's about 4 degrees cooler than then. If we go to the dark ages, go to the Viking Age, we've actually warmed up since then. If we go to the medieval warming, we've cooled down since then. And if we go to a little ice age, we've warmed up since then. So since when?
And and I know this is going to surprise you, but we've just come out of a little ice age. What do you think temperature is going to do, fall or rise? It's been rising since the maunder minimum more than 300 years ago. So it is no surprise that if you have cutoff times for temperature or for sea level or for hurricanes or whatever, you can spin whatever yarn you want to spin. These 6 great ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now.
We have 0.04% of that gas in the atmosphere, and we hear words like emissions. Well, that means nothing to me because the atmosphere has changed in its carbon dioxide content from over 20% to now, which is really low in geological time. If we halved it, all plant life would die, and animals would die.
reSee.it AI Summary
Geologist Professor Ian Plimer discredits the "human-induced climate change" narrative, stating that past ice ages had higher carbon dioxide levels than today. He calls it a scientific and financial scam. Watch the full interview for more details. Visit wide-awake-media.com for similar content.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"This is the greatest scientific and financial scam that we've ever been fed." Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, blows the "human-induced climate change" narrative completely out of the water, in just two minutes: "We are being fed an enormous load of rubbish... If you look back in the past, we can see from looking at the past that every time we've had an ice age, we've had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now, so it's clear that carbon dioxide cannot drive global warming." Full interview: https://watch.adh.tv/videos/the-week-in-60-minutes-australia-ep-10-spectator-tv-wednesday-5-july-2023 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
Satellites have allowed us to measure the number of trees and carbon dioxide emissions on Earth. Surprisingly, the planet is already at net zero, with vegetation absorbing more carbon dioxide than humans emit. So where does the excess carbon dioxide come from? It mainly comes from the oceans, with only 3% of emissions being human-caused. Looking at the past, we see that there were higher levels of carbon dioxide during previous ice ages, suggesting that it cannot be the driving force behind global warming. Dismissing the past would mean disregarding the laws of physics and chemistry. This whole situation is seen as a massive scientific and financial scam that will ultimately hurt the average person, as energy costs affect everything.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have the beauty of satellites, and we can measure things for satellites, and we can measure the number of trees on the planet with satellites. And we've done that over the whole planet. We've counted the number of trees in the whole world. We can measure how much carbon dioxide is emitted by burning coal and by burning petroleum because you can measure the tons, which are, actually used, which can measure how much carbon dioxide is emitted from smelting because you know how many tons of metal are produced, and we work out that the planet is already at net 0. Vegetation is sucking up more carbon dioxide than the planet humans are emitting.
So we are already at net 0. Now that create a scientific problem, well, where the hell does the excess carbon dioxide come from? Well, it comes out of the oceans. About 3% of all emissions on planet Earth are from humans. The rest come out of the oceans, some comes out of mammals breathing out like ourselves, I'm breathing out 4% carbon dioxide, and some of it comes out of volcano.
So you can do some very simple calculations to show that we are being fed an enormous load of rubbish. And to make matters worse, if you look back in the past, we can see from looking at the past that every time we've had an eyesight, We've had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So it's clear that carbon dioxide cannot drive global warming. And you can't dismiss the past because if you do by saying, and I've had this shit to me, oh, yes, that's the past. And, you know, your geologist here was stuck in the past, but we're dealing with a present.
If you use that argument, you then have to say, oh, wait a minute. The laws of physics and chemistry in the past were different from the laws of physics and chemistry now. So, really, this is the greatest scientific and financial scam that we've ever been feared, it's gonna hurt us. It's gonna hurt the average person who's now suffering terribly from inflation and high cost of living. And much of that is just a simple cost of energy, and energy makes everything cheap or expensive.
reSee.it AI Summary
Geologist Professor Ian Plimer exposes the fraud of "human-induced global warming" in a concise two-minute talk. He challenges the notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, emphasizing the need to prove that the 97% of natural emissions do not contribute. No evidence has been presented to support this claim. For more details, visit the provided links. Additionally, a discount code is available for a hoodie.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"Game over. We are dealing with a fraud". Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, exposes the monumental fraud that is "human-induced global warming", in just two minutes: "No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide 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… 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
No evidence has been presented to prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. Additionally, it would need to be shown that the 97% of natural emissions do not contribute to global warming. This is a scientific fraud. The idea that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to disastrous global warming is propaganda. Chemistry has taught us for 200 years that carbon dioxide behaves in a predictable manner, similar to a warm beer that bubbles when left out. Ice core samples also support the fact that natural warming precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, not the other way around. This exposes 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's the same thing. And so, I think, I think, I think, I think, 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 Zig Zag 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
Hoodie available here: https://wideawake.clothing/collections/climate-change-hoodies?filter.v.price.gte=&filter.v.price.lte=&sort_by=best-selling Use discount code 'TWITTER15' for 15% off!
Climate Change Hoodies
Climate change hoodies.
wideawake.clothing
reSee.it AI Summary
Geologist Professor Ian Plimer discredits the notion of human-induced global warming, stating that no evidence supports the claim that carbon dioxide emissions drive it. He further argues that even if such evidence were presented, it would need to account for the natural emissions that make up 97% of the total. To learn more, watch his full talk or visit the provided links. Additionally, a discount code for a related t-shirt is available.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"Game over. We are dealing with a fraud". Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, exposes the monumental fraud that is "human-induced global warming", in just two minutes: "No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide 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… 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
No evidence has been shown to prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. If it could be proven, it would also need to be shown that the natural emissions, which make up 97% of the total, do not drive global warming. This is a scientific fraud. The idea that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to disastrous global warming is not supported by chemistry or historical data from ice cores. The inverse solubility of carbon dioxide has been known for 200 years, and ice core samples show that carbon dioxide levels increased after natural warming periods. 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 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. 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, We'll bring a disaster and that we will have runaway global warming.
Sorry folks, we've known for 200 years from chemistry that's the same thing. And so, I think, I think, I think, I think, 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
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
T-shirt available here: https://wideawake.clothing/collections/climate-change-t-shirts?filter.v.price.gte=&filter.v.price.lte=&sort_by=created-descending Use discount code 'TWITTER15' for 15% off!
Climate Change T-Shirts
Climate change t-shirts.
wideawake.clothing
reSee.it AI Summary
Geologist Professor Ian Plimer discredits the "human-induced climate change" narrative, stating that historical data shows higher carbon dioxide levels during past ice ages. He argues that carbon dioxide cannot drive global warming. Watch the full interview at the provided link. For more content like this, visit the website.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"This is the greatest scientific and financial scam that we've ever been fed." Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, blows the "human-induced climate change" narrative completely out of the water, in just two minutes: "We are being fed an enormous load of rubbish... If you look back in the past, we can see from looking at the past that every time we've had an ice age, we've had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now, so it's clear that carbon dioxide cannot drive global warming." Full interview: https://watch.adh.tv/videos/the-week-in-60-minutes-australia-ep-10-spectator-tv-wednesday-5-july-2023 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
Satellites help us measure the number of trees and carbon dioxide emissions on Earth. Surprisingly, vegetation absorbs more carbon dioxide than humans emit, putting us at net zero. However, excess carbon dioxide comes from the oceans, with only 3% of emissions being human-caused. Simple calculations debunk the idea that carbon dioxide drives global warming, especially when looking at past ice ages with higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Dismissing the past would mean disregarding the laws of physics and chemistry. This misinformation is causing significant harm, particularly to the average person who is already struggling with inflation and high living costs, largely due to expensive energy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have the beauty of satellites, and we can measure things for satellites. And we can measure the number of trees on the planet with satellites. And we've done that over the whole planet. We've counted the number of trees in the whole world. We can measure how much carbon dioxide is emitted by burning coal and by burning petroleum because you can measure the tonnes, which are, actually used.
We can measure how much Carbon dioxide is emitted from smelting because you'd know how many tonnes of metal are produced. And we work out that the planet is already at net zero. Vegetation is sucking up more carbon dioxide than the planet's humans are emitting. So we are already at net 0. Now that creates a scientific problem.
Well, where the hell does the excess carbon dioxide come from? Well, it comes out of the oceans. About 3% of all emissions on planet Earth are from humans. The rest come out of the oceans. Some comes out of, mammals breathing out, like ourselves, I'm breathing out 4% carbon dioxide, and some of it comes out of volcanoes.
So you can do some very simple calculations to show that we are being fed an enormous load of rubbish. And to make matters worse, if you look back in the past, we can see from looking at the past that every time we've had an ice age, we've had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So it's clear that carbon dioxide cannot drive global warming. And you can't dismiss the past, because if you do, by saying and I've had this said to me, oh, yes. That's the Fast, then, you know, you geologists deal with stuff in the past, but, we're dealing with the present.
If you use that argument, you then have to say, oh, wait a minute. The laws of physics and chemistry in the past were different from the laws of physics and chemistry now. So, really, this is the greatest scientific and financial Damn that we've ever been fed. It's gonna hurt us. It's gonna hurt the average person who's now suffering terribly from inflation and high cost of living, and much of that is just a simple cost of energy.
And energy makes everything cheap or expensive.
The Week in 60 Minutes Australia: Ep 10 | Spectator TV - Wednesday 5 July, 2023
The Spectator Australia offers provocative, insightful, and engaging writing from contrarian, conservative thinkers. From high life to low, outraged to amused, local to international, The Spectator is always stimulating and enjoyable.
Guests: Professor Ian Plimer, Alan Moran, Rod Lampard & Kel Richards hosted by Alexandra Marshall
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
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
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
Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer debunks the notion of man-made global warming. He asserts that there is no scientific evidence linking human carbon dioxide emissions to global warming. Throughout history, there has been no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels. In fact, ice ages occurred when carbon dioxide levels were higher than today. It is clear that carbon dioxide does not drive global warming. Watch the full interview for more details.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"If we look back in time, we've never had a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide." Geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, lays the "man-made global warming" fairy tale to rest, in under a minute. "No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. It's never been shown scientifically." "If we look back in time, we've never had a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide. There's never been climate change driven by carbon dioxide. All we see is the exact opposite. And the opposite is we've had six great ice ages, each of which kicked off when you had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So it's obvious: carbon dioxide does not and cannot drive global warming." Full Interview: https://youtube.com/watch?v=AZwky0fKBGk 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
There is no scientific evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. Despite extensive research, no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide has been found throughout history. In fact, the opposite is true. We have experienced six major ice ages, all of which occurred when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is now. Therefore, it is clear that carbon dioxide does not and cannot drive global warming.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. It's never been shown scientifically. And I have asked and asked and asked for this information. I've been searching the literature. I cannot find it.
So the whole fundamentals are wrong. And if we look back in time, and as someone who does deal with history and archaeology and geology, we've never had a correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide. There's never been climate change driven by carbon dioxide. All we see is the exact opposite. The opposite is we've had 6 great ice ages, each of which kicked off when you had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now.
So it's obvious carbon dioxide does not and cannot drive global warming.
(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
"The climate isn't warmer than historical periods. Carbon dioxide levels are now the lowest in 600 million years. Geologist Randall Carlson debunks the 'human-induced climate change' hoax. Stay informed on Telegram: t.me/realwideawakemedia and our newsletter: 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 Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: https://www.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 this information was removed from the IPCC reports to fit a specific narrative. The speaker believes that those who challenge this narrative are not receiving media attention. They highlight the significant amount of money invested in the climate change narrative.
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 Hockett's.
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 narrative.
(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 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 a reformed ex-climate alarmist, there is no climate crisis and no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature. The climate scare is based on models that don't work, with no foundation. Follow the author's backup account and subscribe to their newsletter for updates.
@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 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
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 challenging the science behind climate change. Harris shares his experience as a former climate alarmist and how he was convinced by a professor at Carleton University that there is no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature. He mentions a book called "Climate Change Reconsidered" which provides thousands of references debunking the foundation of the climate scare.
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, 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 doubled the emissions to the US etc 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 1 in the Ottawa Citizen about comparative planetology, how studying the planets Helps us understand the Earth better. And I use 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 carl at 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 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
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
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer Demolishes the human-induced "climate emergency" fairy tale in three and a half minutes https://t.co/amu1ehpq7R
Video Transcript AI Summary
Geologists argue climate for 250 years, dismissing climate science as a new, flawed field. They rely on evidence, not models, pointing out past ice ages and warmer periods. Current temperatures are cooler than historical peaks, with a recent warming trend post-little ice age. The speaker questions the significance of current climate records, emphasizing the Earth's long-term climate fluctuations and the minimal impact of current carbon dioxide levels. They argue that drastic changes in CO2 levels would harm plant and animal life.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We hear about climate scientists, whatever that is. Now in geology, we have a 250 year track record of arguing about climate. Textbooks are full of it. We've been laboring about climate for a long while, and then there's this sudden new invention of climate science. And I had some of these when I was head of department at the University of Melbourne, and these are embedded, obscure, unemployable academics funded by your taxes, and those taxes are to fund these people's hobbies.
And the end result of that is that they put good people out of work, and they cost our nation trillions. So there's one group of people that use models. Another group of people, I mean, this is this is really simple. We use evidence, and the 2 are not in accord. And if they're not in accord, you've got to throw out the models, which we've seen time and time again are incorrect.
So we can look back in the past, and we can see that we've had 6 great ice ages. During that ice age, we'll have the ice expand, that's negotiation, or it will contract. That's an interglacial. We are currently in an interglacial of an ice age that started on a Thursday 34000000 years ago, and the ice has come and gone. In our last interglacial, sea level was about 7 meters higher.
Temperature was about 5 degrees warmer. So if someone says, oh, this is the hottest day on record, you have to ask, since when? If it's the hottest day in the last 120,000 years, then that is a record. But since when? So if we go to the peak of our interglacial, which was about 4000 years ago, it was about 5 degrees warmer.
So it's cooler than the hottest temperature on record. If we go to the time of Jesus when it was warm, it's about 4 degrees cooler than then. If we go to the dark ages, go to the Viking age, we've actually warmed up since then. If we go to the medieval warming, we've cooled down since then. And if we go to the little ice age, we've warmed up since then.
So since when? And I I know this is going to surprise you, but we've just come out of a little ice age. What do you think temperature's gonna do? Fall or rise? It's been rising since the moon the minimum more than 300 years ago.
So it is no surprise that if you have cutoff times for temperature or for sea level or for hurricanes or whatever, You can spin whatever yarn you want to spin. These 6 great ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. We have 0.04% of that gas in the atmosphere, and we hear words like emissions. Well, that means nothing to me because the atmosphere has changed in its carbon dioxide content from over 20% to now, which is really low in geological time. If we halved it, all plant life would die, and animals would die.
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.
reSee.it AI Summary
Prof. Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist, argues that there is no climate emergency and that it has not been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. He points out that only 3% of emissions are from humans, while the remaining 97% are natural. He suggests that to prove human emissions change climate, it must also be proven that natural emissions do not.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"This is probably the biggest con that we've ever had." Australian geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer: "There is no climate emergency... It has never been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming." "Only 3% of emissions are from humans, the rest is natural... So if you're to prove that humans, and their emissions of the the gas of life, change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions—97% of all emissions—don't change climate. That has never been addressed." Credit: @RitaPanahi @SkyNewsAust
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are being misled with exaggerated information about a climate crisis that doesn't exist. Human carbon dioxide emissions are not proven to cause global warming, as only 3% of emissions are from humans. The focus on climate change is driven by money, not environmental concerns. Expensive electricity bills and job insecurity are direct results of this deception. This is a major scam not supported by science.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are being misled. We are being misled with information which is either cooked or very very specifically plucked out to make the story look as if we are in a crisis. We're not in a crisis. There is no climate emergency. We are living in the best times you could ever live on planet Earth.
And we are so fragile, and we're so protected, and we're so wealthy that if someone drops a feather, we panic. The key scientific point is it has never been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Only 3% of emissions are from humans. The rest is natural, from ocean degassing mainly, but some from volcanoes. So if you're to prove that humans and their emissions of the gas of life change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions, 97% of all emissions, don't change climate.
That has never been addressed. We have a fallacy from day 1 in this whole climate hysteria. It's got nothing to do with the environment. It's got nothing to do with being green, except that being green means you get a huge pile of greenbacks. This is about money.
This has got nothing to do with the climate. It's got nothing to do with the environment. It is can I create a new way to skin the punter alive and that's what's happening? Just look at your electricity bill and just wonder why in this country we had cheap reliable electricity. Now it's very expensive.
Now your job is threatened because of this expensive electricity. This is probably the biggest con that we've ever had. Maybe the biggest con since the Dutch tulip craze. It is a con. It's not underpinned by science.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe we're not facing a crisis or climate emergency. Geologist Ian Plimer argues that human carbon dioxide emissions are only 3% of total emissions, with the remaining 97% being natural. He emphasizes that proving human impact requires addressing the influence of natural emissions, which hasn't been done.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
"We're not in a crisis. There is no climate emergency." Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer: "It has never been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming." "Only 3% of emissions are from humans, the rest is natural... So if you're to prove that humans, and their emissions of the the gas of life, change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions—97% of all emissions—don't change climate. That has never been addressed."
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are being misled with exaggerated information about a climate crisis. Human carbon dioxide emissions are said to drive global warming, but only account for 3% of emissions. The rest is natural. The climate hysteria is about money, not the environment. Expensive electricity bills and job losses are linked to this deception. It is a con not supported by science.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are being misled. We are being misled with information which is either cooked or very very specifically plucked out to make the story look as if we are in a crisis. We're not in a crisis. There is no climate emergency. We are living in the best times you could ever live on planet Earth.
And we are so fragile, and we're so protected, and we're so wealthy that if someone drops a feather, we panic. The key scientific point is it has never been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Only 3% of emissions are from humans. The rest is natural from ocean degassing mainly, but some from volcanoes. So if you're to prove that humans and their emissions of the gas of life change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions, 97% of all emissions, don't change climate.
That has never been addressed. We have a fallacy from day 1 in this whole climate hysteria. It's got nothing to do with the environment. It's got nothing to do with being green, except that being green means you get a huge pile of greenbacks. This is about money.
This has got nothing to do with the climate. It's got nothing to do with the environment. It is, can I create a new way to skin the punter alive and that's what's happening? Just look at your electricity bill and just wonder why in this country we had cheap reliable electricity, now it's very expensive, now your job is threatened because of this expensive electricity. This is probably the biggest con that we've ever had.
Maybe the biggest con since the Dutch tulip craze. It is a con, it's not underpinned by science.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that throughout Earth's history, there have been millions of climate changes, none of which can be linked to atmospheric CO2 levels. The historical record shows no evidence of CO2 driving climate, so I see no reason to think current climate change is caused by CO2 changes.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "In the complete history of planet Earth, we have had millions of climate changes, and not one of these we can identify was driven by a change in CO2 in the atmosphere." "We see no record of CO2 driving climate in the past, and there is therefore no logical reason to think that climate change in the present is driven by changes of CO2." Credit: @adhtvaus
Video Transcript AI Summary
Climate is always changing, with measurable changes in temperature and rainfall. The planet has been warming and cooling for 4.567 billion years, and for most of that time, it has been warmer and wetter with higher sea levels than now.
Warmings and coolings are driven by the Earth's distance from the sun, which changes due to its orbit shifting from circular to elliptical, its axis changing, and its wobbling. Unless you can change the magnetic fields of the sun or the Earth's orbit, you cannot change the climate.
Throughout Earth's history, there have been millions of climate changes, none of which have been identified as driven by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is no record of carbon dioxide driving climate in the past, so there is no logical reason to think that current climate change is driven by changes in carbon dioxide. The past is the key to the present.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Climate has always changed, and we are getting changes in temperature, in rainfall, and in many other measurable factors over time, and they're always changing. And in the distant past, we can use to measure these. In modern times, we can instrumentally measure them. We've had the planet warming and cooling for a very, very long period of time, like about 4,567,000,000 years. Now for most of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now.
For most of time, sea level has been higher. We are living in times where we are in an interglacial of a great ice age. We've had warmings and coolings during this ice age, and these warmings and coolings are driven by the distance from the sun, and that distance from the sun changes because we have an orbit that goes from circular to elliptical, an orbit that's axis that changes a little bit, and an orbit that wobbles. So as we get closer to the sun, we warm up. As we get further away, we cool down.
Now unless you can change the magnetic fields in the sun, you have no way of changing climate. Unless you could change the way in which the Earth orbits, you have no way of changing climate. In the complete history of planet Earth, we have had millions of climate changes, and not one of these we can identify was driven by a change in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We see no record of carbon dioxide driving climate in the past, and there is therefore no logical reason to think that climate change in the present is driven by changes of carbon dioxide. So the past is the key to the present.