reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@teammagakim - TeamMagaKim
CLIMATE CHANGE…..BIGGEST FUCKING FRAUD EVER!!!!https://t.co/vbCOCYWaSI
Video Transcript AI Summary
If the ocean level rises by 10 feet, it would result in the loss of land in the southern part of the United States, England, most of Europe, and Central America. The speaker expresses jealousy towards the vice president for coming up with a scam before they did. They believe that financial institutions and banks are aware that this scenario won't happen, as it would affect their ability to provide long-term loans. The speaker considers it to be the greatest fraud ever committed against humanity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When our ocean level rises Now you're full of shit. Sit down. I'm gonna answer you. I'm gonna answer you. Shut up and shut up and sit down.
No way. Sit down. No. If the water on the planet rise up 10 feet, that means the southern part of the United States is gone. England is gone.
Most of Europe is gone, and I can go, most of Central America is gone. And I'm I'm jealous of the vice president's score. I am jealous he came up with a scam before I did because the financial institutions, the banks of this world know it's not gonna happen. Otherwise, you couldn't get a goddamn loan in London. You know, those 30, 40 year mortgages?
The world will be over by then. Is Barclays Bank gonna give you a motherfucking loan with the greatest respect, champ. It's the greatest fraud that's been perpetrated on mankind this
@ducom99 - Roel du Pree
Toen @thierrybaudet 2 jaar geleden voorspelde dat er een CO2 budget aan zat te komen werd het een complottheorie genoemd.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2016, the UN decided to give everyone a digital identity for daily use, integrating driver's licenses, bank accounts, media, and health records. A global vaccination strategy was also introduced. This laid the groundwork for a social credit system, similar to China's model. Currently, they are collecting medical data and basic information, with plans to include CO2 emissions, financial data, and personal IP addresses linked to biometric data. The goal is to monitor internet activity. They don't care about our arguments because there is a hidden agenda. It's not about climate, helping people, trade, or public health. They want to maintain pressure on healthcare to push vaccinations. We need to understand why ICU capacity isn't being increased. It's important to recognize the manipulation behind the housing crisis and the division caused by fabricated issues like nitrogen emissions. We must unite for our collective rights and freedoms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Al tweeduizend zestien werd in VN-verband besloten alle mensen op aarde een digitale identiteit te geven voor dagelijks gebruik. Waarbij specifiek de integratie van de rijbewijs, bankrekening, media en gezondheidsdossier werden genoemd. Ook introduceerde een EU-NVN in dat jaar een mondiale vaccinatiestrategie. Met als doel alle mensen in de wereld een digitaal gezondheidsbewijs te geven. Daarmee is de infrastructuur van een social credit systeem, inclusief masterverends naar Chinees model, dus in feite al veel eerder gelegd.
Het gaat nu nog om de medische gegevens enkele andere basale data te halen. Volgend jaar of jaar daarop komt er een CO2-talks bij. Daarna worden financiële gegevens gekoppeld en wordt je persoonlijk IP-adres gekoppeld aan je biometrische data of je gezichtsherkenning. Zodat je gehele internetverkeer kan worden gemonitord. En dan klapt de val echt dicht.
Daarom luisteren ze ook helemaal niet naar onze argumenten, interesseert ze niet, want het gaat helemaal niet om argumenten. Het gaat om een hele andere agenda die hierachter vuil gaat. Het is allemaal schijn. We zitten in de grot van Plato. We kijken naar de voorstellingen.
Het gaat helemaal niet om. Het gaat niet om klimaat. Het gaat niet om het helpen van mensen. Het gaat niet om handel. Het gaat zien of volksgezondheid.
Het is een hele andere agenda. Dus voordat we het ook maar over die geld kunnen hebben. En dus zorg over die zeebedden moeten we begrijpen waarom de IC-capaciteit niet wordt opgeschaald omdat ze willen dat die druk op de zorg blijft zodat ze die druk kunnen op de vaccinaties, zodat ze dat het u erg gebeuren kunnen doorbouchen. Voordat we het over de woningnood gevolgen hebben van een verzonnen stikstofprobleem, kunnen hebben. Of over de woningnood die gevolg is van de massale immigratie, is het essentieel om te zien hoe mensen ze de geest rijp aan maken zijn voor stikstoflobadaans voor klimaatlobadaans terwijl ze de sociale cohesie in onze landen verder verzwakken en de tegen elkaar opgezet krijgen te worden in plaats van gezamenlijk zij aan zij te strijden voor onze gezamenlijke rechten en vrijheden
@wennie67 - Pennie
"Wij" waren toch wappies ? 😳🤔🤪 https://radar.avrotros.nl/nieuws/item/het-co2-budget-een-budget-voor-vlees-eten-autorijden-vliegreizen-en-energie/?fbclid=IwAR1QcXyg__B5hpAK20h_LfczbBsdOjTV6K6ICGsWLfyN8sIW8Q4Td-MHwVk
Het CO2-budget: een budget voor vlees eten, autorijden, vliegreizen en energie
Een budget om de uitstoot van CO2 terug te dringen. Als de plannen worden doorgevoerd, krijgt ieder huishouden jaarlijks een budget voor vervoer (vliegreizen en autorijden), vlees eten en energieverbruik in huis. Hoe moeten we dit precies voor ons zien?
radar.avrotros.nl
@5dme81 - 5DME81
carbon tax explained to libtards. #inflation #LiberalsMustGo #TrudeauDestroyingCanada #stoptheTax #CarbonTaxScam #carbontax scam to cover liberal misspending of tax dollars! https://t.co/PvYDaA7wWc
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the finance minister for not understanding how the carbon tax leads to inflation. They explain that the carbon tax is paid at every stage of the food production process, from the farmer to the grocery store, ultimately causing Canadians to struggle to afford food.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's incredible. He actually doesn't know how food ends up on his plate. The farmer pays a carbon tax. The truck that picks up the farmer's food pays a carbon tax to take to the processor. The processor pays a carbon tax.
The truck that picks it up from the processor to take it to the grocery store pays a carbon tax. The grocery store pays a carbon tax, and then Canadians can't pay for food. When will this partisan hack finance minister finally understand the carbon tax causes inflation?
@liberal_party - Liberal Party
Pierre Poilievre and his Conservatives have no plan to fight climate change, and they want to take money out of Canadians’ pockets. Their climate denial would cut our price on pollution rebates, hurt our economy, and take Canada backward. https://t.co/iYUhuwJhBa
@OffCyndisc - Cyndi
Look at what we have here! No wonder Biden is pushing the Global Warming Crisis. https://t.co/q753fgijuG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sleepy Joe allegedly pushed for electric vehicles in the name of climate change, but it is suggested that his motive may have been different. BHR Partners, a Chinese company controlled by the Bank of China Limited and partnered with Hunter Biden, facilitated the purchase of a cobalt mine in the Congo for $3.8 billion. This raises questions about whether Biden used his political influence to benefit his family financially, rather than for environmental reasons. Sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Examiner, and The New York Post have covered this story.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ever wonder why Sleepy Joe was pushing for electric vehicles super hard over the last few years with seemingly no cause? And, he I guess he was doing it in the name of climate change, but I'm about to squash that really quickly. This is BHR Partners. They're an Equity Investment Fund Management Company based out of Shanghai, China, they are controlled by the Bank of China Limited, and they have a partnership with none other than Hunter Biden. They deal with mergers, acquisitions, investment, and reforms of state owned enterprise.
As of 2017, their assets under management was 12,000,000,000 yen. Not too shabby. And here are their founders up here. Oh, wait a second. Devon Archer.
We know that name. How do we know that Name. And here is where it all comes together. Hunter Biden helped facilitate the purchase of one of the world's richest cobalt mines for $3,800,000,000 in the Congo through this Chinese company. The competition between China and the US in securing cobalt, a raw material used in to wreck vehicles?
No way. You're telling me that he was using his presidential political influence to get you and I to buy electric vehicles to get his family filthy, stinking rich, and it had nothing to do with climate change at all? What? No. Let's take a look at some of these articles, shall we?
The New York Times. The Washington Examiner. The New York Post.
@rexglacer - Rex Glacer
@hollyanndoan @SDTC_TDDC @MikeBarrettON So Conservatives not voting for a carbon tax in the Ukraine is anti-Democracy but covering up crimes for the Liberals is the definition of Democracy... https://t.co/sGpNvxzssw
@ryangerritsen - Ryan Gerritsen🇨🇦🇳🇱
The real cost of Trudeau’s climate ideologies. https://t.co/HiUcJ3aOFi
Video Transcript AI Summary
Zicky Swazi, an 11-year-old boy who never attended school, supports his grandmother by washing cobalt. He is one of around 1,000 children involved in this dangerous work. These kids, some as young as 10, carry heavy sacks of cobalt to be washed in rivers, exposing themselves to toxic fumes. Despite officials claiming that no one under 18 is allowed to work, child labor remains prevalent. Companies were questioned about their use of child-mined cobalt, and while they acknowledged issues in the supply chain, they claim to follow responsible sourcing guidelines. However, our investigation reveals the challenges in tracing the origin of child-mined cobalt.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Zicky Swazi has never been to school. He has no idea how to read or write, but he is an expert in washing cobalt. My parents are dead, he told us, and I stay with my grandma. So you need to make money for your granny? Yes.
There are 1,000 more children like 11 year old Zicky. Barely 10 years old, these kids lug heavy sacks So cobalt to be washed in rivers. And even those too young to work spend much of their day breathing in toxic fumes. Officials make a great job chasing children away saying nobody under 18 is allowed to work here. But clearly, that is not the case.
We asked these companies whether child mined cobalt is being used in their products. All acknowledge problems with the supply chain, but say they require their supplies to follow responsible sourcing guidelines. But our investigation shows just how complicated it is to trace child mind cobalt.
@AmazingZoltan - Amazing Zoltan
Trudeau seriously claims that his carbon tax is responsible for snow and this proves he alone "stands with Christmas." https://t.co/bkWKgZJegg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Conservative Party of Canada's climate denialism threatens future white Christmases. We, on this side of the house, support Christmas.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Climate denialism of the conservative party of Canada is putting future white Christmases at risk, and that's why on this side of the house, we stand for Christmas.
@ElanderNews - Elander & the News
NET ZERO - “You can’t be an environmentalist and support Wind and Solar power.” If the solution is worse than the problem then it is your duty to question the ‘science’ https://t.co/W7YWmIjOKG
Video Transcript AI Summary
To make a wind turbine, you need a large amount of iron ore, concrete, and steel. The concrete production emits carbon dioxide, and the steel requires rare earth elements, which are often sourced from China and come with environmental concerns. Additionally, the cobalt used in wind turbines is often mined by child slaves in dangerous conditions in the Congo. The turbine blades are made from balsa wood obtained by clearing parts of the Amazon forest, and they contain a toxic chemical called Bisphenol A. These blades cannot be recycled and end up as landfill, polluting the soil and water. Supporting wind and solar power means supporting pollution, slavery, and environmental damage.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To start with a wind turbine, you need about 30,000 tons of iron ore, about 30,000 tons of concrete. To make concrete, you need to get limestone and shale, cook it up. Limestone's got 44% carbon dioxide in it. That carbon dioxide goes in the atmosphere, you sinter it, then you grind it up, and you have cement. You then got to quarry stone to make the aggregate, to make your concrete.
You then got to transport that 30,000 tonnes just for the foundation for 1 turbine. So you use a lot of concrete to make a wind turbine. You use a lot of steel to make a wind turbine. But then you get into the generator. Now the generator uses rare earth element magnets.
We used to have magnets made out of iron. We then found it would be better to have an iron cobalt magnet. We now find that magnets made out of rare earth elements are much better. Rare earth elements mainly come from are part of China, Bayer and Orbul, and that rare earth element, ore, is quite rich in uranium and thorium. I've been to Byron Allborn, it is probably the greatest environmental disaster in the world.
The uranium and thorium material are just thrown everywhere. So if you're using wind powered electricity, you are actually responsible for a huge amount of pollution by uranium and thorium in China, but they're Chinese, let's not worry about that. You can't be an environmentalist. Now, that's in the magnets. We also have cobalt in those wind turbines.
And that cobalt, most of it is mined by slaves who are children, who are working in dangerous open pits and underground in the Congo for Chinese groups. So If you want to support wind power, you're supportive slavery, the same as if you're supporting solar power, the solar panels are made by Uyghur slaves in China. So if you want to be supporting renewables, you're supporting slavery, you're supporting massive pollution of uranium and storing. And then you look at the turbine blades, and they're made out of balsa wood laminated with epoxy. That balsa wood you get from clear filling parts of the Amazon forest to get your bolster wood.
So of course, you're a good environmentalist, you want to have renewable power, bugger the Amazon, you just clear fella and get the balsa wood. And then in the epoxy, there's a chemical called Bisphenol A that's incredibly toxic. Most countries in the world have banned the use of it. This comes out of China in the laminate turbine blades. Those blades cannot be recycled.
Those blades are eroding all the time and spreading this bisphenol everywhere in soils and waterways around the turbine blades. And then when the turbine blade has finished its useful life, which is much shorter than we're told, they get cut up and used as landfill. And so the best fennel A gets into soil and gets into water. You cannot possibly be an environment and support wind and solar power.
@JunkScience - Steve Milloy
.@elonmusk is a great guy but his recent pro-carbon tax video is full of misinformation. Here are my comments spliced into Elon's video. https://t.co/V51LneJ4V8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk released an 8-minute video calling for a carbon tax, but Steve Malloy from publishedjunkscience.com disagrees. Malloy criticizes Musk's claims about the climate crisis, carbon dioxide levels, and temperature changes. He argues that there is no scientific evidence linking man-made emissions to temperature changes. Malloy also dismisses the idea of a carbon tax, calling it pointless and regressive. He believes that fossil fuels are essential and that the transition to sustainable energy should not be rushed. Malloy suggests that the focus should be on removing subsidies and incentivizing industries to reduce carbon emissions. He challenges Musk to a debate on the topic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, everyone. I'm Steve Malloy at publishedjunkscience.com. You can get me on x@junkscience. Look. We all appreciate Elon Musk for buying Twitter and saving free speech, but no one is perfect.
Elon just put out an 8 minute video, calling for a carbon tax. There are a lot of problems with it. Whoever wrote that script for Elon really let him down. So we're gonna watch the video together, and I'm gonna make comments. Let's go.
Speaker 1: What I'm gonna talk about today is what is needed to address the climate crisis.
Speaker 0: Hold on there, Elon. Here's Jon Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Prize winner in physics on the alleged climate crisis.
Speaker 1: Regarding climate change, I believe that the climate change is not a crisis.
Speaker 0: So there's no climate crisis. And if we're just choosing between his assertion and yours, well, I'm gonna have to go with his.
Speaker 1: What actions can we take that that will accelerate the transition out of the fossil fuel era? So there's a certain amount of carbon that is circulating through the environment. So it's going into the air, getting absorbed by plants and animals, and then going back into the air. And this carbon is just circulating on the surface. And this is fine, and it's been doing that for 1000000, 100 of 1000000 of years.
The thing that's changed is that we've added something to the mix. So this is what I would call the sort of the turd in the punch bowl.
Speaker 0: Elon, did you just call carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the quote turd in the punch bowl end quote? Elon, c 02 is essential for life on Earth. More carbon dioxide actually means more plant and animal life on Earth. We
Speaker 1: added all this extra carbon to the carbon cycle and the net result is that the carbon in the ocean's atmosphere is growing over time. It's much more than can be absorbed by the ecosystem. It's really quite simple. We're taking billions of tons of carbon that's been buried for 100 of 1000000 of years and is not part of the carbon cycle, taking it from deep underground and adding it to the carbon cycle. The result is that a steady increase in the the carbon in the atmosphere and in the ocean, which doesn't look like much if you look at it on this chart.
But when looked at in the context of of history, it actually looks like this. So the carbon +1000000 has really been bouncing around the 300 level for around 10,000,000 years. And then in the last few 100 years, it went into a vertical climb.
Speaker 0: So, Elon, what is that bizarre moving line on the graph? It's not labeled and doesn't seem to have any meaning at all.
Speaker 1: This is the essence of the problem. This is very unusual and a very extreme threat as you can see from this rate of growth. Then this is accompanied by a temperature increase as one would expect. Then this temperature increase you know, people talk about 2 degrees or or 3 degrees.
Speaker 0: Elon, this graph is totally fake. It's entirely fraudulent. First, there is no such thing or place with average global temperature. That is not a physical concept. No temperature anomaly on this graph has actually been measured.
At best, these are modeled guesstimates. This is not a record of anything since guesstimates are not records. And everything about temperature anomalies is guesswork in the first place, including the arbitrary baseline. Now since the temperatures are guesstimates, where are the error bars? Why aren't those shown?
Error bars aren't shown because 96% of US surface temperature stations, for example, are not accurate to within 1 degree centigrade. Bubble stations are likely much worse. Yet, this graph reports accuracy to within 1 hundredth of a degree Celsius. It's just fraud.
Speaker 1: So we want to appreciate just how sensitive the the climate actually is to to temperature. And it's if we want to look at it in terms of absolute temperature, not in degrees Celsius relative to 0. We need to say, what is the temperature change relative to absolute 0?
Speaker 0: Elon, you've just blown the entire climate con. You can see quite clearly from this graph that the last 4 interglacial periods have been warmer than today even though carbon dioxide was at pre industrial levels. Moreover, the graph shows that in the present era, atmosphere and carbon dioxide has increased dramatically while temperature has not. Al Gore made the same embarrassing mistake in his ridiculous movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Speaker 1: That's how the universe thinks about temperature. It's how physics thinks about temperature. It's relative to absolute 0. For small changes result in huge effects. So New York City under ice would be minus 5 degrees.
New York City underwater would be plus 5 degrees. But looked at in a as a percentage relative to absolute 0, it's only a plus minus 2% change. So the sensitivity of climate is extremely high.
Speaker 0: This is probably the place to point out that the climate hoax emperor has no clothes. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that man made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused any change in temperature at any time anywhere on Earth. To claim otherwise is just making stuff up.
Speaker 1: We've amplified the sensitivity by building our cities right on the coastline. And most people live very close to the ocean and some countries, of course, they're very low lying and would be completely underwater in a climate crisis.
Speaker 0: Elon, sea level rise has been constant since the mid 19th century. It may be relatively greater in some coastal areas due to natural subsidence, groundwater withdrawal, and land use, but no part of sea level rise has anything to do with emissions. A recent study reported that whatever ice loss Greenland has experienced over the past 40 years has not affected sea level at all. We have even just recently learned about how the government uses satellites to lie about sea level rise.
Speaker 1: We we've essentially designed civilization to be super sensitive. The important thing to to appreciate is that we are going to exit the fossil fuels era. So it is inevitable that we will exit the fossil fuels era because at a certain point, we'll simply run out of carbon to mine and burn.
Speaker 0: So we will run out of carbon to mine and burn? Elon, did you miss the failure of the peak oil hypothesis and scare? We have plenty of coal, oil, and gas to burn. Really an unlimited amount for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 1: The question is really, when do we exit the era? Not yet. The goal is to exit the era as quickly as possible. That means we need to move from the old goal with the pre industrial goal, which was to move from chopping down forests and killing lots of whales. The the old goal was to move from chopping wood and killing whales.
Speaker 0: Elon, have you missed all the dead whales washing up on the East Coast beaches since the Biden administration permitted offshore wind? Green groups have gone from save the whales to kill the whales.
Speaker 1: Killing whales to fossil fuels, which is actually, in that context, was a good thing. But the new goal is to move to a sustainable energy future. And we want to use things like hydro, solar, wind, geothermal. Nuclear is also a good option in places like France, which don't subject to natural disasters. And we wanna use energy sources that will be good for a 1000000000 years.
Speaker 0: What? We wanna use energy sources that will be good for a 1000000000 years? You know, human history only goes back 5000 years. Right? Going forward, we'll be lucky if Joe Biden doesn't get us in a nuclear war before November.
A 1000000000 years? Why not a gazillion years or a bazillion years?
Speaker 1: So how do we accelerate this transition away from fossil fuels to sustainable era? And what happens if we don't? If we wait and if we delay the change, the the the best case is simply delaying that inevitable transition to sustainable energy. So this is the best case if we don't take action now. At the risk of being repetitive, there's gonna be no choice in the long term to move to sustainable energy.
It's tautological. We have to sustainable energy or else we don't have the other one.
Speaker 0: We have plenty of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Emissions are not changing the climate. The flip side of delaying a transition is rushing it. And there is no point in rushing any transition because of the climate hoax.
Speaker 1: So the only thing we gain by slowing down the transition is just slowing it down. It doesn't make it not occur. It just slows it down. The worst case, however, is more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined. K?
This is these are the best worst case scenarios. So then, we have about 3% of scientists that believe in the best case, about 90% that believe in the worst case.
Speaker 0: So here we have the 97% consensus myth. There is no such consensus, and science is not conducted by consensus anyway. The 97% consensus myth has been debunked many times. While we're at it, please remember that no so called climate scientist has ever correctly predicted anything. None.
Not one. I don't even really consider these people as scientists just like I don't consider organ grinder monkeys to be musicians.
Speaker 1: This is why I call it the dumbest experiment in history ever.
Speaker 0: So Elon calls fossil fuels the dumbest experiment in history. Fossil fuels have taken humanity from less than a 1000000000 people in the pre industrial era to a growing population of over 8,000,000,000 leading longer, healthier, wealthier, and freer lives than ever before. The earth is greener than ever before, carrying more life than ever before. What's dumb is the junk science fueled suicidal disaster that we call the climate hoax.
Speaker 1: But why would you do this if the transition is delayed? Or or or is happening slowly is because there is a hidden subsidy on all carbon producing activity. In a healthy market, if you have, say, €10 of benefit €4 of quantum society, the profit would be €6. This sort of, you know, makes obvious sense. This is where the incentives are aligned with a good future.
This is not the case today. But if you have the incentives aligned, then the forcing function towards a good future towards a sustainable energy future will be powerful. In an unhealthy market, you have your 10 years benefit, give you 4 years, but the 4 years isn't isn't taxed. So you have an untaxed negative externality.
Speaker 0: Elon's so called negative externality, which is generally referred to as the social cost of carbon, is another bogus idea. Nothing in our world happens without fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, 1,000,000,000 would die very soon. Fossil fuels are all benefit with no negative externality.
Speaker 1: It's basically economics 101. So you have basically unreasonable profit and a forcing function to do carbon emitting activity because this cost to society is not being paid. The net result is 35 gigatons of carbon per year into the atmosphere. So this is analogous to not paying for garbage collection. And it's it's not as though we should say, in the case of garbage, have a garbage free society.
It's very difficult to have a garbage free society, but it's just important that people pay for garbage collection.
Speaker 0: Emissions of greenhouse gases are invisible and odorless. They are a very small part of the atmosphere, 0.04% in the case of carbon dioxide. Moreover, carbon dioxide is vital plant food. What's garbage is likening emissions to garbage.
Speaker 1: So we need to go from having untaxed negative externality, which is effectively subsidy of enormous size, $5,300,000,000,000 a year according to the IMF, every year. We need to move away from this and have a carbon tax. This is being fought quite hard by the the carbon producers.
Speaker 0: A carbon tax is a pointless tax on energy. It will make energy pointlessly more expensive while not accomplishing anything for the environment. It is a regressive tax, meaning that it would hit poor people the most. Finally, big oil companies like ExxonMobil, for example, and to its everlasting infamy, supports the carbon tax. ExxonMobil knows that fossil fuels are essential, and it doesn't care if consumers are forced to pay higher prices for them.
Speaker 1: And they're using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or the tobacco industry used for many years. They would they would take the approach of even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that swerving cigarettes was bad for you, they would find a few scientists that would disagree. And then they would say, look, scientists disagree. That's essentially how they would try to trick the public into thinking that smoking is not that bad.
Speaker 0: The tobacco industry analogy is just straight up mindless BS demonization. There was and is as much, if not more lying by anti tobacco activists and the government than the tobacco industry. I don't know any climate realist that lies, but I know virtually every climate hoaxer does. Or if they're not lying, they're just really stupid. So you can take your pick with that.
Speaker 1: The solution, obviously, is to remove the subsidy. So that means we we need to have a carbon tax. And to make it something which is neither a left nor a right issue, we should make it probably a revenue neutral carbon tax. So this would be a case of increasing taxes on carbon, then reducing taxes in in other places. So maybe there would be a reduction in sales tax or VAT and an increase in carbon tax so that only those using high levels of carbon would pay an increased tax.
In in order to give industry time to react, this could be a phased in approach that maybe it takes 5 years before the carbon taxes are very high. So that means that only companies that don't take action today will suffer in 5 years. But there needs to be a clear message from government in this regard.
Speaker 0: So we burn fossil fuels because they are a fantastic energy source and there is no cost effective substitute. I'm somewhat surprised that in 2024, Elon Musk of all people still believes that government knows what it's doing and can manage a national or global economy to a good end.
Speaker 1: Because the fundamental problem is the rules today incent people to create carbon, And this is madness. And whatever you incent will happen. That that's why we're we're seeing very little effect thus far. And depending on what action we take, we'll we'll drive the the carbon number to either extreme or or moderate levels. I think it's pretty much a given that the 2 degree c increase will occur.
The question is whether it's gonna be much more than that, not not if there will be a 2 degree increase.
Speaker 0: So if Elon Musk had read the climate gate emails, he would know that the 2 degrees Celsius temperature target was, quote, plucked out of thin air, end quote, and is in no way scientific or meaningful. Our guesstimates of average global temperature are entirely bogus and without meaning. Average global temperature is a concept invented for the climate hoax. And temperature targets like 1.5 degrees Celsius and 2 degrees Celsius are just an arbitrary means of causing the public anxiety about something imaginary.
Speaker 1: So the then the question is, so what can you do? I would say whenever you have the opportunity, talk to the politicians, ask them to enact a carbon tax. We have to fix the unpriced externality. I'll talk to your friends about it and fight the propaganda from the carbon industry. So that's the basic message I have.
Speaker 0: So, Elon, if you wanna debate me about any of this, bring it. I was the first one to ask Al Gore to debate when he was doing his slideshow with An Inconvenient Truth in 2,006. He couldn't run away fast enough. Of course, you're much smarter than Al Gore. You're much braver.
So let's do it. Let's get Joe Rogan to moderate or Tucker Carlson. It would be great spectacle, a great discussion. Let's do it.
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
This is how you debate the climate change cult https://t.co/xJ2Udf6PXj
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dan asks if Hugh supports Trump. Hugh confirms and talks about being an early public endorser. When Dan brings up rising ocean levels, Hugh shares his experience in Antarctica and questions the impact of global warming. He criticizes the lack of mention of global warming in investment prospectuses and believes it's a scam. Hugh expresses jealousy towards Al Gore for his early recognition of the issue. The conversation ends with a promotion to watch more on their website.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Dan, you got the money. Okay.
Speaker 1: I got Yeah. I got a Hugh Bob. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. You support Trump?
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 2: I was one
Speaker 1: of the first endorsers public endorsers of president Trump.
Speaker 0: Guys gonna do when our ocean level rises?
Speaker 1: Thank you for asking that question.
Speaker 2: I have the answer, though.
Speaker 0: Don't let me finish.
Speaker 2: I have the answer. Let me finish. Well, thank
Speaker 1: you for the question. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: For the first time on earth, we're changing the gas
Speaker 1: Now you're full of shit. Sit down.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna answer you. I'm gonna answer you. Shut up and shut up and sit down. No way. Sit down.
Speaker 0: No. No. I gotta finish my question.
Speaker 1: Oh, you I'm gonna answer global warming.
Speaker 2: I'll finish the question and answer.
Speaker 0: It's changing on earth, and it's changing to c02. What do you people with the money what are you doing about this? Because I'm a I'm a
Speaker 2: tell you right now.
Speaker 0: No. I've got children. I've got 21, 23 year old children. And what's their future with you people with money? You you you talk about money all of the time.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Sit down, please.
Speaker 3: Sit down, please. In the front row. Excuse me. In the front row, please sit down.
Speaker 2: Okay. You've asked your question. Thank you very much. Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna answer.
Speaker 2: Excuse me, ma'am. Will you please sit down? And Please. Thank you. That's okay.
Please sit down. Let him answer.
Speaker 1: Okay. In 2011, my wife and I were in Antarctica renewing our vows.
Speaker 2: For most of you that don't
Speaker 1: know, Antarctica's on a mountain top. Okay? And, there is a $500,000,000 facility, scientific facility there and and the scientists came to give us presentations about global warming. And they had cores of ice that they had drilled. They had drilled 4 or 5000 cores and they only brought 15 or 20.
So they're going through the second or third core and they said, a 275000 years ago this was the temperature. And then 55000 years ago, the world was 2 degrees warmer Celsius than it is today. This is 2011. And I went, stop. Stop.
Stop. And he said and I said, well, you mean the whole world? He says, yes. And the polls are only benchmarks. And I said, well, what about the things that the the young woman alluded to?
Okay. And he said, it's all cyclical. And although the gas may have exacerbated it, in the cosmos of time, it's not a fart in the wind. In the cosmos of time, of the 13,800,000,000 years that we've been on this miserable planet, it's not a fart in the wind. And as I told Joe Rogan on his show, and he said in his infinite wisdom.
And, Joe, if you hear this, and I thank you for the opportunity being on your show. He said then in 25000 years, it's most likely not gonna be a problem. Now my direct answer to your question, if that were really true, what you believe and let's just for a moment say that it is true. That means that the best scenario vis a vis global warming is about 10 feet raising water. That's the best scenario over the next 40, 50 years.
That's the best scenario. The worst scenario is about a 100 feet. But let's just take the 10 feet. If the water on the planet is going to rise up 10 feet, that means the southern part of the United States is gone. England is gone.
Most of Europe is gone. And I can go, most of Central America is gone. Okay. If that's the case, let's just take Florida for example, which is one of the fastest growing condominium beachfront condominiums on the planet. In the prospectus, when you invest, there should be, in the footnotes, if global warming is for real, they won't put it that way, global warming happens and water rises 10 feet, this investment you made is fuck all.
Not one single investment prospectus written since 2000 this century has alluded to global warming. Now one motherfucker, If it were really true, the banks wouldn't invest. The banks wouldn't finance. Not one motherfucking condominium. So the people that have the money and I'm I'm jealous of the vice president Gore, which Sally and I rode on a plane from South America with a few years ago I am jealous he came up with a scam before I did Because the financial institutions, the banks of this world know it's not going to happen.
Otherwise, you couldn't get a goddamn loan in London. You know those 30, 40 year mortgages? The world will be over by then. Is Barclays Bank gonna give you a motherfucking loan? With the greatest respect, ma'am, it's the greatest fraud that's been perpetrated on mankind this century.
Speaker 3: Continue watching this fascinating conversation for free by clicking on the link below to visit our website, learn from the best minds in the world, and connect with a community of passionate people building the best versions of themselves. Just click on the link below, and I'll see you on the inside.
@WiretapMediaCa - Wiretap Media
BREAKING: Yesterday Yves Giroux exposed the Government's Carbon Tax Ponzi scheme, so today members of the Trudeau Crime Family play Mien Kempf on Canadians and repeat their more money-back "Air Tax" narrative over and over again. https://t.co/2wTdZcNrSM
Video Transcript AI Summary
In my Ontario riding, the carbon rebate means $11.24 back, which can make a significant difference. The majority of households will be negatively impacted by the carbon tax. The Canada carbon rebate benefits 8 out of 10 families, particularly those who need it most, and supports the economy during tough times. Since 2019, 8 out of 10 low to middle-income Canadian families have received more money back than they paid.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I want to mention something that Minister Gilleau mentioned because it's important to have facts and have numbers. And in my Ontario riding, the rebate means $11.24 back, and that is significant. That money can go a long way.
Speaker 1: The majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax.
Speaker 2: Not only does the Canada carbon rebate send more money back to 8 out of 10 families, which happen to be the 8 out of 10 families who need it the most, it also supports, our economy throughout difficult times.
Speaker 1: The majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax.
Speaker 3: Many of us have said in the past since 2019, when we've put that measure in place, 8 out of 10 Canadians, low income to middle income Canadians, get more money back than they pay. That's a fact. Like, you go back and you look at the numbers from 2019 to 2023, 8 out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. [SPEAKER PAUL
Speaker 1: EDGECLIFFE JOHNSON:] The majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon
@SenJohnKennedy - John Kennedy
Democrats want to spend $50 TRILLION to become carbon neutral & held a hearing to tell us why. Dem witness: Carbon dioxide is "a huge part of our atmosphere." Me: "It’s actually a very small part of our atmosphere." (0.035%) Dem witness: "Well, okay. But, yeah. I don’t know." https://t.co/sSdbtsX7aq
Video Transcript AI Summary
Carbon dioxide is a gas in the atmosphere that the expert, a cross-country skier, sees affecting Alaska. They advocate for reducing fossil fuel use and transitioning to electric generation. The cost and timeline for becoming carbon neutral are unclear, but the expert believes investing in the future may stabilize temperatures. The senator questions the expert's past tweets about systemic racism and abolishing the police, which the expert avoids addressing, emphasizing their focus on climate change's impact on sports. The senator concludes the discussion due to time constraints.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is what is carbon dioxide?
Speaker 1: I'm I went to high school, but that's, carbon dioxide is a a gas. Okay. I'm not a I'm not a I'm not a professional to talk about carbon dioxide so much. But
Speaker 0: Well, you you want us to abolish it. Right?
Speaker 1: No. There's always going to be carbon dioxide.
Speaker 0: Right. So so what is it you want us to do? I Let let me let me back up because I I wanna I mean, you're here as an expert. Tell me more about what carbon dioxide is.
Speaker 1: I'm here as an expert cross country skier who sees the changes in my winters and the landscape that I live in in Alaska. And so carbon dioxide is what I see it as is, you know, it's a gas that exists in our atmosphere.
Speaker 0: And What Is it the major part of our atmosphere? Or It's
Speaker 1: a huge part of our atmosphere. Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's actually a very small part of our atmosphere.
Speaker 1: Well, okay. But, yeah. I don't I don't know. What are you asking specifically?
Speaker 0: Well, you said we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I'd like to know first if you know what it is. You want us to abolish fossil fuels?
Speaker 1: I never said that.
Speaker 0: You never have said that? No. Okay. What what do you think we ought to do with fossil fuels?
Speaker 1: What will we do with fossil fuels?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Should we make any changes?
Speaker 1: I would like to see a decrease in the use of fossil fuels. I think there's a possibility to use more electric generation.
Speaker 0: Okay. Over over what period of time? 10 years, 50 years, 100 years?
Speaker 1: That's not I would like to see it come as fast as possible while continuing
Speaker 0: How fast? Fast? Sorry? How fast?
Speaker 1: I'm not I don't have a You
Speaker 0: don't know? For that. No. Okay. You just think, well, how how much would it cost for us to become carbon neutral in the United States by 2, 050?
Speaker 1: I'm not a professional on that. I don't have an answer.
Speaker 0: You don't have any idea? No. You just think we ought to spend the money? I'm not an economist. Yeah.
But it's gonna cost money. You realize that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But we've also talked about the the trade off of what the cost of climate change as emergencies will cost in the future also. So Right.
Speaker 0: But it's gonna cost 1, 000, 000, 000, 000 of dollars to become carbon neutral by 20, 050. Right?
Speaker 1: I do not know.
Speaker 0: You don't know. You just think we ought to do it?
Speaker 1: I I don't have a great answer for you, but I think k. I would
Speaker 0: If if we spent if we spent those trillions of dollars and became carbon which you advocate, how much would reduce world temperatures?
Speaker 1: I don't have an answer for that.
Speaker 0: You don't know? No. You just think we ought to spend the money and then see what happens?
Speaker 1: I think, as an athlete, I think if we spend that money and invest in our future, hopefully, those temperatures stop rising, and maybe the snow at least stabilizes where it is for me. But, yeah, I don't think anyone knows for sure. I don't know anyway.
Speaker 0: Well, when when when when my colleagues invite witnesses to come to us to tell us, advise us on passing legislation, always check out the background of our witnesses because I like to know who I'm talking to. I checked yours out, mister Schumacher, and I wanna be sure I understand it as I evaluate your testimony. On June 8, 2020, you tweeted, I'm gonna quote, the war on drugs was intentionally created to incarcerate black people en masse, end quote. The war on drugs, you said, was intentionally created to incarcerate black people on mass. Who who intentionally created the war on drugs to put black people in jail?
Who were you talking?
Speaker 1: I don't remember typing that. You don't?
Speaker 0: No. It's on your Twitter feed.
Speaker 1: Maybe a retweet. I don't know. I haven't used that in a while.
Speaker 0: Well, even if it's a retweet, it it shows your support. Right?
Speaker 1: Maybe. Yeah. I but it's not the topic of this conversation.
Speaker 0: Right. Right. But it has to do with you're here giving us advice, and I just kinda like to know a little bit more about your Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm here as an athlete giving you my story and what I've seen in my view.
Speaker 0: On August 27, 2020, you tweeted this, quote I'm gonna quote, police are paid with taxpayer dollars. If they are not answerable to us, we can demand new service, and that's what this is. Abolish the police in favor of that new service, end quote. You think we ought to abolish the police, do you?
Speaker 1: Again, not the topic I'm here to talk today.
Speaker 0: I know. But but you tweeted it. Do you think we ought to abolish the police?
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm here to talk about.
Speaker 0: Should we do that before or after we get rid of fossil fuels?
Speaker 1: I'm not going to address that.
Speaker 0: You don't want to address it? Okay. Let me ask you about 1 more of your tweets. On August 26, 2020, you tweeted there's a picture. I'm not gonna describe the picture, but you said, quote, your words, not mine.
It's on your Twitter feed. The, quote, this is what systemic racism looks like. The Los Angeles Police Department is literally policing only the Black Lives Matter side, end quote. What do you mean by that?
Speaker 1: This is still off topic.
Speaker 0: No. It's not. You're here as an expert telling us advising us, and I'm asking you about your your your background.
Speaker 1: I'm here as an athlete to talk about the effects of climate change on my sport.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let's go back. Well, I'm almost out of time. You're well out of time, and we have other senators waiting. So please wrap up when you have a moment.
Alright. Thank you all for your testimony.
@MBDan7 - Dan Mazier
JUST IN Trudeau's environment committee chair revealed why the Liberals refuse to hand over proof the carbon tax reduces emissions. There is NO proof! We finally know what Trudeau's radical environment minister has been hiding from Canadians. You won't believe this👇 https://t.co/UoqsFcZKUw
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are estimates and modeling on how a price on carbon can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no specific data proving a direct correlation between the two. It may not even be possible to definitively link a price on carbon to a specific reduction in emissions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My understanding is there is no you know, there are estimates. There's modeling estimates of what how much the price on carbon will will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My understanding, and maybe I'm wrong, is that there is no data specifically stating that the price on carbon resulted in an x amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And I don't even think that's possible, quite frankly. There is no data specifically stating that the price on carbon resulted in an x amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
And I don't even think that's possible, quite frankly.
@ABridgen - Andrew Bridgen MP
The narrative isn't just crumbling, it's coming apart in huge slabs. Remember when this was a "conspiracy theory'? https://t.co/eRRgIp28c6
@ContrarianTribe - Contrarian
🇨🇦My carbon tax worked so well it’s snowing in Canmore, Canada?🤔 https://t.co/1pxP0BXzlz
@goddeketal - Dr. Simon Goddek
Climate change is not only a hoax but a deliberate conspiracy by global elites to control and manipulate the masses. https://t.co/HgrojaRG0j
@JamesMelville - James Melville 🚜
Net zero is a corporate asset grab that that masquerades as environmentalism to dupe people into facilitating their greed. A giant swindle designed to create yet another huge transfer of wealth facilitated by governments to line the pockets of the super-rich. https://t.co/d7iWyczuiz
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Nigel Farage: Net Zero "is about charging us more money... controlling our life and our behaviours, and in terms of the environment, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever." Do you agree or disagree with Nigel Farage? Credit: @Nigel_Farage @alanvibe https://t.co/j87WfyHl3s
Video Transcript AI Summary
The focus on achieving net zero emissions is seen as a way to control people's lives and behaviors while increasing costs. Some believe it has little impact on the environment. Bikers should have the freedom to ride without interference.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The whole net zero agenda that's being pursued. Boris went absolutely full pelt for it. Labour is still on that track. The Tories are now saying, well, we won't do it all tomorrow. We wait till the day after.
And frankly, the whole thing is about charging us more money. The whole thing is about controlling our life and our behaviors. And in terms of the environment, it makes absolutely almost no difference whatsoever. So look, you know, bikers want the freedom to ride their bikes and pursue their hobby. They should be allowed to do that without interference.
@TheoFleury14 - Theo Fleury
Canadian government official praising a communist country???? Do you think this dude is one of the compromised MP’s??? Yes he is. He just outed himself. Canada has been compromised by China 🇨🇳
@MarkJCarney_Ego - Mark Carney's Ego
Damnit. The media was caught on hot mic, admitting that scrubbing the carbon tax was just for show. The law is still there. And I can raise it again anytime I want. I need to find a way to shut these guys up. https://t.co/laQYsbUBNb
Video Transcript AI Summary
The car attacks in the back, meaning they can raise it whenever they want again.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Actually, this means the car attacks in the back. Yeah. They can raise it whenever they want again.
@DefiyantlyFree - Insurrection Barbie
When Barack Obama says it the left fawns. When Elon Musk says it the left burns Teslas. https://t.co/cR0mC8AhnX
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker introduces a campaign to cut government waste, stating that deficit reduction requires difficult choices, including cuts to valued programs. They claim there has been a tremendous amount of waste and fraud in the government during the Biden administration, estimating federal government fraud at half a trillion dollars. The goal is to reduce this figure, saving taxpayer money by stopping spending on things that very few taxpayers would agree makes sense. Examples cited include transgender animal surgeries and the presence of twenty million dead people in the Social Security database.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Everyone knows that getting rid of the deficit will require some tough decisions, and that includes cutting back on billions of dollars in programs that a lot of people care about. But what should be easy is getting rid of the pointless waste and stupid spending that doesn't benefit anybody. We're calling it the campaign to cut waste.
Speaker 1: You know, there's been a tremendous amount of of waste and fraud in the in the government during the Biden administration, which estimated the the federal government fraud to be half a trillion dollars. What we're trying to do is get that number down to a much smaller figure, save money for the American taxpayer, stop money being spent on things that are that I think very few taxpayers would agree makes sense, You know, transgender animal surgeries or why are the twenty million people who are definitely dead mocked as alive in the Social Security database?
@redpilldispensr - Red Pill Dispenser
Do you think we've been lied to about "fossil" fuels? https://t.co/S4unc4HNIK
Video Transcript AI Summary
Oil is the second most prevalent liquid on earth and has no initial cost because it's in the ground. To increase its price, it was made to appear scarce.
At an 1892 Geneva convention, scientists, allegedly influenced by Rockefeller, defined oil as a residue from formerly living matter, terming it a fossil fuel. However, real fossils have never been found below 16,000 feet, while oil is mined at much greater depths.
The term "fossil fuel" is used to make the public believe that oil is a depleting asset. Geologists have allegedly been influenced to support the fossil fuel theory to create a world price for oil, rather than varying prices in different locations. The world's oil supply is not going to run out anytime soon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is the second most prevalent liquid on earth. Putting a price on oil is like putting a price on a pail of water, you know, there there no no initial cost is in the ground and and in those days they were, some of it, almost what you'd call surface mining the oil, they didn't go down deep. So in order to get the price up, they hit on the idea that they would have to make it appear to be scarce. That they're that boy, after we take the next few barrels out, we're probably gonna have to close as well, know that kind of thing. Well a very fortuitous event in 1892 there was a convention in Geneva of scientists to determine what organic substances are.
At this Geneva Convention, Rockefeller took advantage of sending some scientists over. They defined oil as a residue from formerly living matter. Well, that makes it a fossil fuel. I don't know why they decided to use the word fossil, but it says formerly living matter is fossil. And another thing we should know is that there has never been a fossil, a real fossil found below 16,000 feet.
We mine oil or we we drill for oil at 30,000, 30 three thousand, 20 eight thousand every day of the week. So right there, we rule it out that it isn't fossil fuel. It's called fossil fuel for the minds of the public to feel that it is an asset that is running out, being depleted. We talk about depletion allowance, is a lot of, you know, and actually if you know the world's oil supply, you know that it is not gonna run out for an awfully long time. What bothers me is that that in geology books, it's in there.
The geologists say it's a fossil fuel. They they've somehow they've been bought to create a world price for oil. In other words, not, 30¢ a gallon here and 90¢ a gallon there, but let's get a world price. That's their goal.
@SteveLovesAmmo - Steve 🇺🇸
The crazy, racist right-wingers have been saying this for 20 years. The climate is always changing. https://t.co/QuRcpNc60q
Video Transcript AI Summary
Between 2007 and 2012, scientists drilled deep into Greenland's ice as part of the NIEM project to uncover the climate story of the last interglacial around 125,000 years ago. What they found puts today's climate panic into perspective. Back then, Greenland was around eight degrees Celsius warmer than today. Sea levels were four to eight meters higher. Yet the planet didn't collapse and Greenland didn't melt. There were no tipping points and no mass extinctions. The planet was far warmer and life flourished. So when activists claim that two sea of modern warming spells catastrophe, the ice, the data, and the history, all say otherwise.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Between 2007 and 2012, scientists drilled deep into Greenland's ice as part of the NIEM project to uncover the climate story of the last interglacial around hundred twenty five thousand years ago. What they found puts today's climate panic into perspective. Back then, Greenland was around eight c warmer than today. Sea levels were four to eight meters higher. Yet the planet didn't collapse and Greenland didn't melt.
There were no tipping points and no mass extinctions. The planet was far warmer and life flourished. So when activists claim that two sea of modern warming spells, catastrophe, the ice, the data, and the history, all say otherwise.