reSee.it - 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.

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.

The speaker argues that life on Earth is in crisis due to crop failure, social and ecological collapse, and mass extinction, framing these as part of Extinction Rebellion’s climate alarmist narrative and a broader political and financial “climate industrial complex” that aims to control purchases, diet, and travel in the name of sustainability and net-zero emissions. They contend that people rely on governments and the media rather than data, and promise to show that temperatures fluctuate, are not unprecedented, and that natural disasters are not getting worse. They claim climate data is unreliable and that CO2 plays a small role in climate, while presenting scientific evidence that we are not in a climate crisis. Using a 65-million-year temperature graph, the speaker states the Earth today is in a cool period and is coming out of an ice age, noting that life thrived in much warmer times without human CO2 emissions. They assert that over the last two thousand years there have been two warm periods and two cold periods, including the Roman warm period, the cold Dark Ages, the medieval warm period, and the Little Ice Age, with current warming described as a recovery from the Little Ice Age. The three degrees Fahrenheit of warming cited by scientists and the media is described as not unprecedented and not cause for alarm due to ongoing fluctuations. The speaker argues that warming and CO2 emissions have not made natural disasters more frequent or violent, citing hurricane and wildfire data. They reference a graph from the Bulletin of the American Urological Society showing a slight downward trend in US hurricanes per year since 1900, and a North Atlantic hurricane intensity graph from 1920 to 2016 showing no trend. They claim the 2014 US National Climate Assessment presents an illusory upward trend by focusing on a red-highlighted portion. They also claim that US and global acres burned by wildfires have been decreasing since 1900. Regarding data reliability, the speaker highlights a gap between climate model predictions and observed data, noting that temperature measurements from weather balloons align with satellite data, while climate models over-predict warming. They discuss the urban heat island effect, giving Paris as an example where city temperatures are much higher than surrounding rural areas, suggesting data can be biased to frighten the public. The speaker argues CO2 is not the climate control knob, as it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and that historical CO2 levels have been far higher than today. They cite MIT oceanographer Carl Wunsch (spelled as Karl Wench) to claim that when oceans warm, more CO2 is released, and when oceans are cold, CO2 is absorbed. A graph is described showing CO2 rising centuries after temperature increases, implying temperature drives CO2 more than the reverse. They acknowledge CO2 may have some small influence but emphasize many other factors—volcanic activity, cosmic rays, and the sun—and claim limiting CO2 would largely stunt biodiversity with little effect on temperature. The speaker argues CO2 is essential for photosynthesis and that farmers use high CO2 in greenhouses to boost crop yields, illustrating CO2 as a life-giving gas and stating it would green the planet and increase food supply if CO2 increases. They conclude that climate change is an existential threat in Western discourse but offer this as historical context from Aztecs to the Salem witch trials. They mention carbon taxes and individual CO2 budgets as signs of climate issues infiltrating daily life and frame their conclusion as pursuing truth by examining data themselves. In summary, the speaker presents historical temperature variability, critiques of data and models, downplays CO2’s role, highlights CO2’s benefits to plant growth, and asserts that the climate crisis is a hoax to be opposed by scrutinizing data personally.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that control is in the hands of unelected officials at supranational organizations, and that they want all of the world’s resources in their pocket. Speaker 1 says the bigger picture is an attempt to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy. Speaker 2 calls this a coup, asserting that “we can control with rules” and “we don’t need currency anymore.” Speaker 3 describes it as an inverted prison, where you are supposedly free to roam about, but “everything you want to access is behind lock and key.” Speaker 1 warns that “the potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible.” Speaker 4 outlines plans to commandeer land, reduce farming, radically change the food we eat, transform the supply of electricity, dictate how we use it, and replace currency with a system of credits, all built on the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide. Speaker 5 counters with, “I do not think there’s a climate crisis,” basing that claim on climate data sets built to answer questions like that. Speaker 0 states, “The government is very clear that they want a catastrophic story,” and adds that there is no single science paper proving conclusively that humans control all or most of the global climate, while accusing Europe’s net-zero push of being “effectively economic suicide,” arguing politicians are “purposely impoverishing ordinary people” and deindustrializing Europe. Speaker 6 comments on the damage done “in the name of saving the planet” and asks, “what is it we’re actually saving if we’re paving it over.” Speaker 0 calls this a global war on agriculture. Speaker 4 notes that many farms are selling up, leading to fears of food shortages. Speaker 2 states, “If I can switch everybody from real food to pharma food, then 100% of the agriculture industry can go through my publicly traded stocks, and I have complete control.” Speaker 3 terms it “the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world,” but also says it is a blueprint and an action plan. Speaker 0 contends that “All life on Earth is going to be radically changed.” Speaker 4 predicts that “Everything will be monitored,” including the environmental consequences of every human action. Speaker 2 complains that “the general cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that they're facing.” Speaker 3 warns that once a digital ID is in place, “it's game over for humanity.”

Speaker 0 says that the richest people in the world have recently started telling people they need to produce more energy, which they find “a little weird” because the same group has spent at least the past fifteen years—since Al Gore became famous—telling people the opposite. Speaker 0 claims they said energy is not the source of life or the base of civilization, but instead the cause of humanity’s downfall: the destruction of the earth and the main reason for climate change. Speaker 0 further states that CO2 is the reason it is getting warmer and that this warming happens because climate cycles are part of nature, including the example that glaciers existed and now do not. Speaker 0 says this group previously taught that burning fossil fuels was not only bad for the environment but a sin, and that society should be organized around being “carbon conscious” because they “love the earth.” Speaker 0 then claims that the same people, including Larry Fink of BlackRock, have since said they are going to take a pause on concern about global warming and that society needs more electricity. Speaker 0 states that most electricity on Earth is produced by boiling water to move turbines, and that a small portion uses radioactive material in nuclear reactors, while most generation is from coal, then natural gas, and some oil. Speaker 0 characterizes this as essentially industrial-age technology: refining and cleaning, but fundamentally the same process of burning fuel to boil water and generate power. Speaker 0 says these figures who previously framed that technology as inefficient and morally wrong are now calling for a massive expansion of it. Speaker 0 links this shift to AI, describing artificial intelligence as a dramatic, quantum increase in processing power that enables computers to reason and mimic human thinking, replacing a lot of human labor. Speaker 0 states that AI is incredibly demanding of power and will require far more electricity than most people understood. Speaker 0 concludes that society will need to put on hold—and invert—its concerns about global warming in order to build AI.

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.