reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Carbon dioxide is invisible, which allows for stories to be made up about its impact on the climate. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that it is causing a climate emergency. Looking back at the Earth's history, it was actually warmer than it is today for most of the time. The slight warming trend we have experienced in the last 300 years began before the use of fossil fuels. Despite the exponential increase in CO2 emissions, it has not affected the temperature. CO2 is essential for life and should be seen as a positive rather than a negative.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As an engineer and business manager, I have never found any logical scientific evidence to worry about atmospheric gases. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Carbon dioxide is essential for life. Two global experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed that despite reductions in human carbon dioxide emissions, the levels in the atmosphere continued to increase. This proves that humans do not have a significant impact on carbon dioxide levels, as it is controlled by nature.

There is no scientific proof that carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for the slight warming of the global climate in the last 300 years. The idea that human emissions are the main cause of climate change is just a hypothesis, not a universally accepted theory. It is important to be skeptical of those who claim the science is settled and the debate is over. However, it is certain that CO2 is essential for life on Earth, and without it, the planet would be uninhabitable. Despite this, children and the public are being taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will harm life and civilization.

There's skepticism about ESG and sustainable labels, which is why we're focused on net zero. We can't stabilize the climate without achieving it. It's simple: emissions either increase or decrease. If they're decreasing, are they doing so in line with scientific standards? We're basing this on the same science used by the UN and others for the 1.5-degree objectives. These are hard numbers, not subjective opinions.

There is no scientific proof that carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for the slight warming of the global climate in the last 300 years. The idea that human emissions are the main cause of climate change is just a hypothesis, not a universally accepted theory. It is important to be skeptical of those who claim the science is settled and the debate is over. However, it is certain that CO2 is essential for life on Earth, and without it, the planet would be uninhabitable. Despite this, children and the public are being taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will harm life and civilization.

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.

Speaker 0 asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much reducing carbon emissions in the United States by $50 trillion will lower global temperatures. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of global efforts to reduce emissions but does not provide a specific answer. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks for a clear answer, expressing frustration that taxpayer money is being spent without knowing the impact on world temperatures. Speaker 1 acknowledges the lack of a specific answer but believes that the US must lead in addressing climate change. The conversation ends without a clear estimate provided.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny and healthy skepticism. This is a key reason we are so focused on net zero. We can't stabilize the climate without achieving net zero; it's that simple. Emissions either increase or decrease. If decreasing, are they doing so at a rate consistent with scientific findings? We're basing our approach on the same science that the UN and others use for their one-and-a-half-degree objectives.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide have never been proven to cause global warming. It would also need to be shown that the natural emissions, which make up 97% of total emissions, do not drive global warming. This is a scientific fraud. Chemistry has shown for 200 years that carbon dioxide has an inverse solubility, meaning it warms up when it is not dissolved. Ice core samples also demonstrate that carbon dioxide increases after natural warming, indicating that temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. This is another fraudulent claim.

200 years ago, the temperature was only 1.5 degrees Celsius cooler than now, so claiming a 1.5-degree increase will be catastrophic is ridiculous. In the past, temperatures were much higher, yet CO2 levels were decreasing. There is no clear relationship between temperature and CO2 levels based on historical data.

I have stated publicly that there's no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for the slight warming of the global climate over the last three hundred years. If such proof existed through testing and replication, it would be documented for everyone to see. The idea that human emissions are the dominant influence on climate is just a hypothesis, not a universally accepted scientific theory. Therefore, skepticism is warranted when people claim the science is settled. However, it is certain that CO2 is essential for all life on Earth, and without enough of it in the atmosphere, the planet would be dead. Yet, our children are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life.

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.

We must address the constraint of CO2 emissions as it is causing global warming. The equation is simple: more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, which in turn have negative effects. These effects include severe weather and ecosystem collapses. While there is some uncertainty about the exact relationship between CO2 and temperature, the consequences will be extremely detrimental. Despite asking top scientists if we can reduce emissions by half or a quarter, the answer is clear: we must reach near-zero emissions to stop the temperature from rising. Currently, we release over 26 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, with each American contributing around 20 tonnes and people in poor countries emitting less than 1 ton. The global average is about 5 tonnes per person, and we need to make significant changes to bring this down to zero.

My plan includes a carbon fee, which may be passed on to consumers. However, this should not deter us from implementing the fee, especially for carbon.

As a business manager with knowledge of atmospheric gases, I have never found any logical scientific evidence to worry about the impact of carbon dioxide. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Carbon dioxide is essential for life. Two global experiments in the past 14 years support this. In 2009, during the recession, carbon dioxide levels continued to increase despite reduced human use of hydrocarbon fuels. Similarly, in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, carbon dioxide levels kept rising despite decreased human carbon dioxide output. It is clear that humans do not significantly affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; it is controlled by nature.

Many human activities produce greenhouse gases, but to reach zero emissions by 2050, we must find cost-effective ways to do these activities without emitting greenhouse gases. The green premium, or extra cost, for green alternatives like biofuels is high, with biofuels costing $3.15 more per gallon than regular jet fuel. By reducing the green premium through research and innovation, we can achieve our goal of zero emissions by 2050.

Canada is proposing to set the cap level for emissions at 35% to 38% below 2019 levels by 2030. This is crucial for Canada to achieve its goal of reducing emissions by 40% to 45% across the economy by 2030.

Scientists have found a link between temperature and CO2, but it's the opposite of what many believe. In the past, temperature has risen first, followed by a rise in CO2 levels. Ice ages start when CO2 is at its maximum and end when it's at its minimum, contradicting the idea that CO2 controls temperature. Looking back over millions of years, CO2 levels have changed drastically, but they have never driven temperature changes.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny and healthy skepticism. This scrutiny is a key reason for our relentless focus on achieving net zero emissions. Ultimately, stabilizing the climate depends on reaching net zero. It's straightforward math: emissions are either increasing or decreasing. If they're decreasing, we need to check if that decrease is consistent with scientific targets. We base our approach on the same scientific data used by the UN and others for the 1.5-degree climate objective.

Canada is proposing to set the cap level for emissions at 35% to 38% below 2019 levels by 2030. This is crucial for Canada to achieve its target of reducing emissions by 40% to 45% across the economy by 2030.

As an engineer and business manager, I have never found any logical scientific evidence to worry about atmospheric gases. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Carbon dioxide is essential for life. Two natural experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed that despite reductions in human carbon dioxide emissions, the levels in the atmosphere continued to increase. This proves that humans do not have a significant impact on carbon dioxide levels, as it is controlled by nature.