TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The food system must contribute to maintaining the 1.5-degree target set by scientists based on physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry. The consequences of climate change are already evident and surpassing predictions made over the past 30 years.

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.

Agriculture is responsible for about 33% of global emissions, which could rise to 26-33%. To achieve net zero, agriculture must be a key part of the solution. With a growing population of over 8 billion, emissions from the food system alone could cause an additional 0.5 degree of warming by mid-century. A two-degree future could lead to 600 million people facing food shortages. We cannot warm the planet and expect to feed it. To maintain a 1.5-degree limit, we must reduce emissions from the food system. Scientists, based on physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry, have warned us about the consequences, which are already happening faster and bigger than predicted.

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.

Speaker 0 asks Secretary 1 if they support the administration's goal of cutting US emissions in half by 2030. Secretary 1 confirms their support. Speaker 0 then brings up a past resolution in 1997 where the US shouldn't cut emissions until other countries like China, India, and Mexico do the same. Secretary 1 acknowledges this and states that emissions have increased in those countries as well as globally. Speaker 0 questions if Secretary 1 has abandoned their position, to which Secretary 1 explains that the world has changed since then. Speaker 0 then asks about Secretary 1's previous statements on global emissions and the correct amount of CO2. Secretary 1 explains the need to reduce emissions and control current levels. Speaker 0 presses for a specific amount, but Secretary 1 says it changes daily. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 challenging Secretary 1's views on climate change and the cost of addressing it. Secretary 1 defends their position and mentions the consensus among scientists.

Agriculture contributes 26-33% of global emissions, making it central to achieving net zero. The world population recently surpassed 8 billion, increasing the urgency. Food system emissions alone could cause an additional 0.5 degrees of warming by mid-century. A 2-degree warming scenario could leave 600 million more people undernourished. Reducing food system emissions is crucial to keeping the 1.5-degree target alive. Scientists using physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry have warned of consequences already being observed. These consequences are materializing faster and with greater intensity than initially predicted.

- Climate change is a fact. - Humans are not causing it. - The cow farts. It's not the cows. - NASA knows this. - Over 90% of the c o two, there is an increase in c o two. - Is there more c o two in the atmosphere now than there was ten years, twenty, fifty, a hundred years ago? The answer is absolutely yes. - Is it a bad thing? The answer is no. - Is it the most we've ever had? We're right about four forty parts per million right now. - The oceans are warming from underneath, not from the top. Warm water holds less gas.

We're discussing the link between our food system and the climate crisis. While we often talk about emissions from vehicles and buildings, we now need to address the impact of beef production. A new emission inventory reveals that food is the third largest source of emissions in cities. A plant-based diet is not only beneficial for our health, but also for the planet. Therefore, we are committed to reducing city food emissions by 33% by 2030 and challenging our private sector partners to reduce by 25% by 2030. We believe that food should be appealing, delicious, and healthy. For those who are serious about cleaning up our environment, we must now prioritize this aspect.

Agriculture is responsible for a significant portion of global emissions, ranging from 26% to 33%. To achieve net zero emissions, agriculture must be a central part of the solution. However, with a growing population of over 8 billion people, emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause half a degree of warming by mid-century. This could result in 600 million people not having enough food in a two-degree future. We cannot warm the planet and expect to feed it simultaneously. To maintain a 1.5-degree limit, we must reduce emissions from the food system. Scientists, based on physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry, have warned us about the consequences of exceeding this limit, which are already becoming evident and surpassing previous predictions.

Agriculture is responsible for around 33% of global emissions, making it crucial to address in order to achieve net zero. With a growing population of over 8 billion people, emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause half a degree of warming by mid-century. This could result in 600 million people not having enough to eat. We cannot warm the planet and expect to feed it simultaneously. To maintain a 1.5-degree limit, we must reduce emissions from the food system. Scientists, based on physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry, have warned us about the consequences of not taking action. These predictions are already coming true, but at a faster and larger scale than anticipated.

The speaker criticizes climate czar John Kerry, calling him an 80-year-old who doesn't care about the future and is out of touch with reality. They argue that leaders around the world ignore Kerry's calls to eliminate coal-fired power plants because they prioritize their economies and feeding their populations. The speaker also questions Kerry's knowledge of the advancements in emission scrubbers for coal plants. They highlight Vice President Kamala Harris's threat to punish those who deny climate science. The speaker interviews journalist Michael Shellenberger, who discusses the elites' open expression of their hatred for humanity and their desire to keep energy scarce. They mention the bullying of oil and gas companies by the ESG movement and the attack on cheap energy as an attack on modern civilization. The speaker expresses hope that people will realize the scam and the anti-human nature of the climate movement. They mention the resistance rising against environmentally destructive renewable energy projects and the potential downfall of Europe due to its overdependence on renewables.

They claim that agriculture is causing global warming and threaten to cut off food supply, benefiting only billionaires. This would lead to poverty and starvation if they achieve net zero emissions. They argue that to reach net zero, all animals, including humans, would need to be killed since we emit CO2. Food and energy are crucial for survival, and they warn of the disastrous consequences if these actions are taken. They also criticize the notion that nitrogen fertilizer is a greenhouse gas and dismiss the campaign against CO2 as phony. Meanwhile, Russia, India, and China continue to build coal and nuclear plants.

A speaker asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much global temperatures would decrease if the U.S. spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050. The Deputy Secretary states that every country needs to act, and the U.S. accounts for 13% of global emissions. The speaker repeats the question, but the Deputy Secretary says it's a global problem and the U.S. needs to reduce its emissions. The speaker asks how much of a reduction would result if the U.S. does its part. The Deputy Secretary reiterates that the U.S. is 13% of global emissions, and if the U.S. went to zero emissions, that would be 13%. The speaker accuses the Deputy Secretary of wanting to spend $50 trillion without knowing if it will reduce world temperatures.

A trial of personal carbon dioxide allowances has concluded in the UK, calculating the UK's annual carbon dioxide production and dividing it per person per day to meet net zero goals. The speaker claims this confirms a previous "conspiracy theory." The speaker states that carbon dioxide is essential for life and plant food, and that climate change concerns are not based on science but on feelings. They claim a daily food allowance of 2,600 grams of carbon dioxide would only allow for 26 grams of red meat, and a cooked breakfast would have to be half-sized. The speaker alleges the system is rigged towards plant-based meals, benefiting billionaires like BlackRock and Bill Gates who are buying farmland for cereals and soy. They further claim plant-based fake meat contains 20 chemical ingredients, many shared with pet food. The World Economic Forum allegedly wants to include carbon dioxide credit trading, allowing the rich to maintain their lifestyles while the poor sell their excess credits. The speaker concludes that the war on livestock is a war on good nutrition based on a lie to enrich billionaires.

Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, argues that the policies surrounding climate change are not only destructive but also based on lies. He believes that the only way to address this issue is by challenging the science behind climate change. Harris shares his personal journey from being a climate alarmist to questioning the existence of a climate crisis. He mentions a professor who debunked the idea of a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth, citing the lack of consistent correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature throughout history. Harris highlights a book called "Climate Change Reconsidered" as evidence that thousands of scientists question the prevailing narrative on climate change.

The speaker questions the need to spend 1.6 quadrillion dollars to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, arguing that the low levels of carbon dioxide might actually be necessary for plant life. They highlight that during the period since 2015, when carbon emissions increased, temperature has actually gone down. The speaker suggests that the problem may not exist and accuses the other person of grifting. The other person disagrees, mentioning the difference between natural climate variations and human impact, and the global consensus on addressing climate change.

Agriculture contributes 26-33% of global emissions, making it crucial to achieving net zero. With a population of over 8 billion, emissions from the food system alone could cause an additional 0.5 degree of warming by mid-century. This could lead to 600 million people facing food shortages in a two-degree future. To prevent this, we must reduce emissions from the food system to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees. Scientists, based on physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry, have warned us about the consequences of exceeding this limit. Their predictions have been coming true faster and on a larger scale than anticipated.

"It's now ten years since the world in Paris entered the legally binding agreement to avoid dangerous climate change." "Since then, science has become overwhelmingly clear, allowing long term global warming to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius constitutes danger." "and in 2024, annual global temperature change was pushed beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius for the first time on our watch." "The long term average warming is now between one point three and one point five 1.4 degrees." "We are on a path to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius multi decadal boundary within the next five, ten years, a temperature we've not experienced over the past one hundred thousand years." "Here we must admit failure, failure to protect peoples and nations from unmanageable impacts of human induced climate change."

Agriculture is responsible for a significant portion of global emissions, ranging from 26% to 33%. To achieve net zero emissions, agriculture must play a central role in the solution. However, with a growing population of over 8 billion people, emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause half a degree of warming by midcentury. This could result in 600 million people facing food insecurity in a 2-degree future. To prevent this, we need to reduce emissions from the food system and strive to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees. Scientists have warned us about the consequences of exceeding this limit based on physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry. These predictions are already coming true, but at a faster and larger scale than anticipated.

Agriculture is responsible for about 33% of global emissions, which could increase to 26-33%. To achieve net zero, agriculture must be a key part of the solution. However, with a growing population of over 8 billion people, emissions from the food system alone could cause half a degree of warming by mid-century. This could result in 600 million people not having enough food in a two-degree future. We cannot warm the planet and expect to feed it simultaneously. To maintain a 1.5-degree limit, we must reduce emissions from the food system. Scientists have warned us about the consequences based on physics, mathematics, biology, and chemistry, and these predictions are already coming true, but at a faster and larger scale than anticipated.

The inflation reduction passed a year ago has put the US back on the map as a global climate leader. However, concerns arise that the momentum may change after the 2024 elections. Speaker 1 believes that no politician can halt the ongoing transition towards addressing climate change. This transition is driven by scientific evidence and is not influenced by politics or ideology. It is crucial for everyone to contribute to this transition as it directly affects the air we breathe, pollution levels, farming, living conditions, children, and disease.

Climate change is real and I believe that carbon and methane emissions contribute to global warming. I have personally witnessed the effects of climate change through melting ice caps, mass migration of animals, and changes in the timing of seasonal events. However, I agree that this crisis is being exploited by powerful entities, such as intelligence agencies and billionaires, to gain more control and power. A war on carbon won't solve the problem, but instead, we should focus on using free markets to transition to sustainable energy sources. If you want to support my presidential campaign, visit Kennedy2020.com and donate.

Senator Roberts questions the credibility of climate alarmists and highlights the departure of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. He mentions Nobel Science Prize winner Jon Clauser's statement that there is no real climate crisis and climate change does not cause extreme weather events. Two top American climate scientists also criticize claims that July was the hottest month on record, calling it a "stunning amount of exaggeration." They attribute temperature differences in cities to the urban heat island effect, not global warming. Professor John Christie from the University of Alabama states that heat waves in the early 20th century were as intense as recent ones. Even the head of the UN's climate body, Jim Skea, acknowledges that a 1.5-degree temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity.

Climate change is the biggest threat to the world. Time is running out, and this is a fact. Finally, everyone in America is acknowledging it.