reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

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.

The speaker claims the current climate is no warmer than in the past and that present carbon dioxide levels are the lowest in 600 million years. They allege the IPCC's 1992 report showed the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but this was altered in the 1996 report with a "hockey stick" graph. This allegedly removed the medieval warm period and little ice age by flattening the graph and adding the instrumental record to show a sharp increase. The speaker asserts that those challenging this narrative are not receiving media coverage due to the billion-dollar investment in the climate change narrative.

People are facing a mass extinction while discussions focus on economic growth. The climate alarm has evolved into a lucrative industry, driven by self-interest and government funding. Many careers depend on climate research, leading to a corruption of science. Skeptics face intimidation, and the narrative promotes increased government control. Historical climate data shows that current temperatures are not unprecedented; Earth has experienced much warmer periods. The role of CO2 in climate change is questioned, with evidence suggesting temperature changes precede CO2 increases. The climate crisis narrative serves to expand government power and control over individual lives. Many in the climate industry benefit financially from the alarmism, while ordinary people resist restrictions on their lifestyles, recognizing the agenda as an attack on freedom and prosperity.

The GIEC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is often misrepresented as a group of experts, but it is actually an alliance of 195 member countries of the United Nations. These countries appoint diplomats, not climate experts, to represent them in the GIEC. For example, the current president of the GIEC is an economist, not a climatologist. The previous president was an engineer. So, the GIEC is not a group of experts as commonly believed. There are very few actual climate specialists involved in the study of climate.

The CEO of The Weather Channel, who is not a scientist, argues against the consensus on global warming. He claims that science is not a vote and states that climate change is not happening, with no significant man-made global warming in the past or future. He believes that the issue has become political instead of scientific, but asserts that the science is on his side. The other speaker questions the 97% agreement among climate scientists and wonders if it is fabricated. The CEO explains that government funding for climate research is biased towards supporting the global warming hypothesis, leading to the majority of published reports supporting it. The conversation ends with the acknowledgement that they won't reach a conclusion.

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.

Skeptics struggle to secure funding and face difficulty in publishing due to alarmist journal editors. The importance of publication lies in researchers' career advancement. Alarmist researchers dominate the conversation by publishing alarming papers, which are then amplified by the media. Various aspects of life, from transportation to childhood obesity, are attributed to climate change. The media's influence causes activists to panic, fearing the potential extinction of the human race.

A new peer-reviewed paper by Jonathan Kohler argues that the global mean surface temperature (GMST) is physically meaningless and lacks thermodynamic validity. Kohler states that temperature is an intensive property, making it inappropriate to average quantities that are not commensurate—such as Mount Everest with the Sahara, or seawater with Arctic air—and likens the averaging process to averaging phone numbers. He contends that GMST is therefore meaningless, and that any change to the averaging method would completely change the trend, indicating that the number has no physical reality. The discussion notes that the International Standards Organization refuses to define GMST, and that the United Nations and the IPCC use a circular definition. Despite these ambiguities, governments treat GMST as the foundation of trillions in climate spending. Kohler characterizes this situation as “statistical theater.” The transcript also mentions that advanced AI systems, when presented with the mathematical arguments, label GMST as a delusion. Kohler claims that today’s climate boondoggle—worth trillions of dollars—remains anchored to a number that, according to his argument, does not exist. Key points highlighted include: - GMST is claimed to be without thermodynamic validity because temperature is an intensive property and cannot be meaningfully averaged across inherently dissimilar systems (e.g., mountains vs. deserts, seawater vs. air masses). - Any alteration in the averaging method would alter the observed trend, implying that GMST has no fixed physical reality. - ISSO refuses to define GMST; the UN and IPCC use a circular definition; governments rely on this number for large-scale climate funding and policy. - Kohler describes the situation as “statistical theater.” - AI systems reportedly identify GMST as a delusion when confronted with the underlying math. - The current scale of climate spending is described as a “climate boondoggle” anchored to a number that Kohler argues does not exist.

The speaker criticizes the current understanding of climate change, claiming that their work on the sun's impact on climate has been overlooked. They argue that the thermometer data used to measure climate change actually reflects urban heat island effects, where cities are warmer due to concrete and asphalt retaining heat. The speaker suggests looking at rural stations for a different perspective, indicating that the sun may be responsible for temperature changes. They accuse organizations like the IPCC, NASA, and NOAA of providing low-quality data and hiding information. The speaker concludes by stating that pure science does not support the claims made by these organizations, emphasizing the political nature of their mandate.

The speaker states he is the founder of the Weather Channel, not the co-founder. He claims CNN has taken a strong position on global warming, stating it is a consensus, but there is no consensus in science because science is about facts. He asserts climate change is not happening, there is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn't been any in the past, and there's no reason to expect any in the future. He believes it has become a big political point of the Democratic party, and he regrets it's become political instead of scientific, but the science is on his side. Regarding the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change, he says the government puts out about $2.5 billion directly for climate research every year, and it only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis. Therefore, 97% of the scientific reports published support global warming because those are the ones the government pays for.

The speaker notes that 'the climate change hysteria has sort of magically gone away' and offers two theories: 'the climate hysteria was astroturfed' with 'funding got pulled with Biden out,' or that 'there's so much money to be made in AI that no one wants to criticize the energy industry anymore.' They add that 'climate change was always a luxury belief in Europe but Europe is having financial problems.' The speaker argues that 'the data has been so not cooperating now for several years and we don't have we just don't have the signs that they promise us' and says 'All data is fake,' questions 'measuring the temperature of the earth,' mentions 'No. We don't have like a new technology,' and concludes 'climate change I'm not expecting to make a big comeback but I could be wrong.'

The UK Met Office has again been caught publishing temperatures from weather stations that don't exist. An FOI revealed Lowestoft closed in 2010, yet the Met Office kept issuing official temperatures for it. The office said they were using well correlated neighboring stations, but the FOI revealed that this was a lie. The numbers were actually coming from a model that was inventing data from phantom neighboring stations. When exposed, they quietly deleted years of readings for Lower Stoft, as well as a number of other stations and added a disclaimer saying their data is for general interest only. FOIs also show over one third of Met Office stations never existed and that real high quality sites like Cowood are ignored. Also, more than 80% of the network is low grade class four or five by WMO standards giving two to five c uncertainty. This is the foundation of The UK's climate record. Closed stations, imaginary stations, and synthetic data underpin the published time series and analyses. The disclosure underscores a pattern of relying on non-existent or non-operational stations to generate climate trends, rather than solely on active, recognized sites. The revelations point to a significant discrepancy between the official temperature records and the on-the-ground reality of station operation. The claimed use of well correlated neighboring stations is contradicted by evidence that the numbers were produced by a modeling approach using phantom stations. The subsequent removal of readings from certain stations after exposure indicates a corrective action that still leaves the underlying practice visible. The disclaimer added indicates that the data are for general interest only, rather than a definitive, fully validated record. In summary, the FOIs allege that a substantial portion of the Met Office station network is either non-existent or of questionable quality, with the majority of the network categorized as low grade, resulting in uncertainties in the reported temperatures. The result is described as the foundation of The UK's climate record, built on closed, imaginary, and synthetic stations. The transcript frames this as a systemic issue affecting the integrity of temperature reporting and the credibility of the climate data presented to the public.

When searching "climate change" on Google, the results mainly come from the UN and official news sources. Despite claiming 868 million results, only 422 are shown, mostly from reputable organizations. Blogs and independent sources are scarce, raising questions about the missing content on the internet.

The speaker claims the current climate is no warmer than in the past and that carbon dioxide levels are at a 600-million-year low. They allege the IPCC's 1992 report showed the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but this didn't fit the narrative. The speaker states that the 1996 report featured a contrived graph, the "hockey stick," which eliminated the medieval warm period and little ice age, flattening the graph and adding the instrumental record to show a sharp increase. The speaker concludes that those challenging this narrative are not receiving media coverage due to the billions of dollars invested in the climate change narrative.

The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than previous periods in history. They claim that carbon dioxide levels are at their lowest in 600 million years. They also mention that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but it was removed from the IPCC's reports to fit a specific narrative. The speaker believes that those who criticize this manipulation of data are not receiving sufficient media coverage. They highlight the significant amount of money being invested in climate change.

There is a problem with our climate and environment, but it's not a hoax. The people claiming to save it are actually destroying it. They create weapons, cause droughts, hunger, and wars. Our food, water, and air are also affected. They call it a climate emergency, but they don't invest in healing the earth. They prevent the planet from healing itself. They manipulate our emotions to make us believe they want to help. It's the Hegelian dialectic, where they create the problem and offer a pre-planned solution.

The speaker states he is the founder of The Weather Channel and asserts there is no consensus in science, only facts. He claims climate change is not happening, there has been no man-made global warming, and there is no reason to expect any in the future. He alleges CNN has taken a strong position that global warming is a consensus, but the science is on his side. He believes the issue has become political instead of scientific. When questioned about the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree on global warming, he explains that the government provides billions in research money annually, but only to scientists who support the global warming hypothesis. Therefore, scientists produce results that align with the government's position to secure funding, which doesn't make it true.

When searching "climate change" on Google, most results come from the UN. Top stories are from mainstream sources like CNBC and NASA. After scrolling through 43 pages, only 422 results are found, mostly from official organizations and news outlets. Blogs and independent sources are scarce, raising questions about the missing billions of results promised initially.

In several countries, meteorologists are facing attacks from people questioning climate change. Now, the SRS weather app is being accused of exaggerating temperatures in the L'Italien basin by 6 to 16 degrees. This has led to accusations that the national weather service is being used to create climate panic during an election year. We apologize for any confusion caused.

The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than in the past, citing a baseline of the lowest carbon dioxide levels in 600 million years. They claim that the IPCC's 1992 report showed the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but subsequent reports removed this information. The speaker suggests that a contrived graph called the Hochschies was used to flatten the temperature data and add an upward trend. They believe that those who challenge this narrative receive little media coverage. Additionally, they mention the significant amount of money invested in climate change.

Global warming is a hoax based on ice core data, which is accessible online. Ice core data shows cooling and warming periods of Earth over thousands of years, revealing natural cycles. The current warming cycle is not the hottest one recorded; past warming cycles have been hotter before modern technology existed.

Twenty years after Al Gore warned of imminent polar melt, the transcript argues that Antarctic sea ice extent is now greater than it was when that claim was made, with satellite records dating back to 1979 showing long periods of stability and even overall expansion. The same pattern is reported in Antarctic wildlife: Gentoo penguins have expanded their range and increased in number, and Adelie penguins also demonstrate long-term population growth. On a global scale, the text asserts that extinction rates are far lower today than a century ago, citing a recent biodiversity study that attributes most species losses to hunting, habitat destruction, and invasive species in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, rather than climate change. The narrative further points to temperature data that allegedly contradicts alarming climate claims: in December 2025, Antarctica was colder than average, and more recently, on January 15, 2026, Concordia Station recorded a low of minus 43.4°C, described as an exceptionally frigid midsummer value for the Antarctic Plateau. The speaker contends that the Doomsday Brigade was wrong in its predictions, asserting there is zero accountability for those forecasts. The overall message contrasts alarmist climate narratives with what the speaker characterizes as evidence of stability or even improvement in Antarctic ice, wildlife populations, and broader extinction trends, while noting unusually cold conditions in specific recent measurements.

How are we going to address the atmosphere filled with metals and sensors, considering we've been manipulating the weather since the 1970s? I urge the Library of Congress to prioritize honesty and reveal the truth about the information it has acquired.

We're already seeing in Southwest Africa, Namibia has a huge drought, they're killing animals, including elephants, to feed the hungry during this drought. This was a hydro climate whiplash. Globally, the extreme weather events related to climate have cost $3,500,000,000,000 over the last decade. That's an increase of almost $800,000,000,000 over the previous decade. We now measure the specific point source solution sites for six sixty million, the most significant virtually all of the global warming pollution sites in the world. 25% of the pollution comes from those cities. It's all free. You can go to the site right now. They get an 88% reduction by going to electric arc furnaces.