reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We're all talking about something here which isn't happening. I've heard time and time again members here talk of c o two as a pollutant. A pollutant is a life giving natural gas. It gives me the impression that some of our members haven't had the benefit of a formal education. Isn't this really just about the state being able to get its hand in ordinary people's trouser pocket to still get more tax from them? Isn't this all about political control? Isn't all this about politics and big business? The whole thing's a sham. This bogus hypothesis, this ridiculous nonsense that man made c o two is causing global warming. Enough, please, before we damage irrevocably the global economy.

Planting trees is not a solution to the climate issue, despite some people's fascination with them. It is nonsensical to believe that simply planting enough trees can solve the problem. We need to question whether we want to be the knowledgeable ones or the fools.

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.

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.

I'm a skeptic about climate change, not a denier. It's important to clarify that I am a scientist, while the CEO of the Weather Channel is not. CNN promotes the idea of a scientific consensus on global warming, but science is based on facts, not votes. The evidence shows that significant man-made global warming is not occurring now, hasn't in the past, and isn't expected in the future. This issue has become politicized, especially within the Democratic Party, which I regret. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with your audience, even if we may not reach a conclusion today.

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.

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.

We agree that vegetation management is important, but we need to consider the impact of climate change on our forests. Ignoring science won't help us protect Californians. It will start getting cooler, just watch. I wish science agreed with you, but I don't think it does.

I'm the only Republican candidate who isn't influenced by money, so I can say that the climate change agenda is a hoax. We need to declare independence from it. The anti-carbon agenda is holding us back.

I offset personal emissions by spending $10 million yearly on various projects like electric heat pumps and solar panels. I avoid less proven methods like tree planting, which some believe can solve the climate crisis, but I disagree. We need to rely on science, not myths.

I'm a skeptic about climate change, not a denier. It's important to clarify that I am a scientist, while the CEO of the Weather Channel is not. There is no scientific consensus on climate change; science is based on facts, not votes. The evidence shows that significant man-made global warming is not occurring now, has not occurred in the past, and is unlikely to happen in the future. This issue has become politicized, particularly by the Democratic Party, which I regret. However, I believe the scientific facts support my position. I'm glad to have the opportunity to share my views with your audience.

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.

So I think one area of mutual agreement and priority is vegetation management. But I think we wanna work with you to really recognize the changing climate and what it means to our forest and actually work together with that science. That science is gonna be key. Because if we if we ignore that science and sort of put our head in the sand and think it's all about vegetation management, we're not going to succeed together protecting Californians. K. It'll start getting cooler. I wish You you just watch. I wish science agreed with you. Hey. Well, I don't think science knows, actually.

Vegetation management is a shared priority, but we need to consider the changing climate and its impact on our forests. Collaborating with scientific insights is crucial; ignoring them will hinder our efforts to protect Californians. While some may hope for cooler temperatures, it's essential to rely on science for understanding these changes.

Vegetation management is a mutual priority. It's important to recognize the changing climate and its impact on forests, using science as a key tool. Ignoring climate science and focusing solely on vegetation management will hinder the protection of Californians. One speaker believes it will start getting cooler, but another speaker wishes science agreed with that statement. The second speaker does not think science knows.

I spend $10 million a year offsetting personal emissions by buying electric heat pumps for low-income housing and installing solar panels. I avoid less proven methods like tree planting. Some believe trees alone can solve climate change, but that's nonsense. Are we guided by science or ignorance?

I don't have opinions, only demonstrable facts. No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. If it could be demonstrated, then we would have to show that 97% of emissions, which are natural, do not cause global warming. This is a scientific fraud from day one. We have known for 200 years through chemistry that it is the opposite. When we drill ice cores, we can see chemical fingerprints that tell us the temperature and show that when there was natural warming, there was an increase in carbon dioxide. It's not carbon dioxide that drives temperature, it's the reverse. Another fraud.

Planting trees is often seen as a solution to the climate crisis, but the speaker disagrees. They believe that the idea of trees solving the issue completely is nonsense. They question whether we should trust science or be ignorant.

It's not science. It's politics. I've been listening to this bullshit for fifty years. In the sixties, it was oil will be gone in ten years. In the seventies, it was another ice age in ten years. In the eighties, it was acid rain will destroy all the crops in ten years. In the nineties, it was the ozone layer will be destroyed in ten years. In the February, it was the glaciers will all melt in ten years. In the twenty tens, it was the East And West Coast will be underwater from rising sea levels in ten years. None of this fear mongering nonsense came true, but it did result in higher taxes every time.

We are in a domain where the official authorities, emanating from the United Nations, lie blatantly. They are not a scientific organization, but an ideological one. For thirty years, we have lived in this misunderstanding and impossibility of reducing our CO2 emissions. What we are doing, with billions and billions of dollars, is useless. We are fortunate to live in a climate optimum. The so-called catastrophic warming is a lie. The temperature has actually decreased in the last eight years. The IPCC claims that warming is accelerating, but it is a lie. Weather events occur every day, but the weather varies as it always has. In the past, during the time of the dinosaurs, there was ten times more CO2, and it was not a catastrophe. CO2 is life, and more CO2 means more life.

I believe I'm the only person in America who openly opposes the demands of the climate movement. Unlike others who just pay lip service to the idea of considering different strategies, I genuinely believe that the focus on reducing carbon emissions is misguided. Instead, we should prioritize maximizing human prosperity by promoting metrics like GDP growth. My agenda is centered around unleashing economic growth in our country.

We agree on the importance of vegetation management, but we need to consider the changing climate and its impact on our forests. Collaborating with science is essential; ignoring it will hinder our efforts to protect Californians. While some may believe temperatures will cool, we must rely on scientific evidence to guide our actions.

Vegetation management is considered a mutual priority. It's important to recognize the changing climate and its effects on forests, and to work together using science. Ignoring the science and believing vegetation management is the only solution will not succeed in protecting Californians. It was asserted that it will start getting cooler. The speaker wished science agreed with them, but then stated that science doesn't actually know.

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.

I'm the only person on the stage who isn't bought and paid for, so I can say this: the climate change agenda is a hoax. We need to declare an independent rule and acknowledge that the anti-carbon agenda is dampening our progress.