TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The climate change consensus is being challenged by new peer-reviewed papers showing urban heat island effects and solar activity can explain warming. Scientists faced obstacles getting alternative viewpoints published due to fear of losing funding. Credible scientists like Dr. Willie Soon are now working independently to avoid repercussions. This shift allows for more freedom in scientific debate.

Some individuals believe in global warming but not in the idea that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Climate change dissent is met with intolerance and politicians are afraid to express doubt. Senior climate scientists argue that the scientific basis for the theory is weakening. They point out that periods in Earth's history with much higher CO2 levels did not result in significant temperature changes. The claim of a consensus among thousands of scientists is disputed, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is seen as politically driven and includes non-scientists in its ranks. Climate scientists are accused of exaggerating the issue to secure funding, and the global warming industry has become a source of employment for many. Dissenting voices are met with anger and censorship.

Researcher Judith Curry claims that climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate the risks of climate change. The climate gate scandal revealed leaked emails showing university climate scientists conspiring to hide data, which made Curry realize that the science had been corrupted. The origins of the climate change industry can be traced back to the 1980s and the UN environmental program, where some officials had an anti-capitalism agenda and seized on climate change as a means to advance their policies. The intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) was created to focus on dangerous human-caused climate change, and funding agencies directed all funding in the field. Alarmist researchers control the discussion by publishing scary papers, and alarmist media amplifies their claims. Other scientists who recognize the nonsense are hesitant to push back due to discomfort and potential career consequences.

Researcher Judith Curry claims that climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate the risks of climate change. The climate gate scandal revealed leaked emails showing university climate scientists conspiring to hide data, which made Curry realize that the science had been corrupted. She believes that a climate change industry has been set up to reward alarmism, with origins dating back to the 1980s and the UN environmental program. The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which focused on dangerous human-caused climate change and received funding from national agencies. Curry argues that researchers know what they need to say to secure funding and advance in academia. Alarmist researchers control the discussion by publishing scary papers, which the media and activists amplify. Other scientists who recognize the nonsense may not push back due to discomfort or personal and professional integrity.

Some individuals believe in global warming but not in the idea that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Climate change dissent is met with intolerance, and doubting the climate change orthodoxy is seen as politically incorrect. Senior climate scientists argue that the scientific basis for the theory of man-made global warming is weakening. They point out that periods in Earth's history with much higher CO2 levels did not result in significant temperature changes. The claim of a consensus among thousands of scientists supporting the catastrophic impact of human activity on climate change is disputed, with some scientists disagreeing. The IPCC, a UN body, is seen as politically driven, and its claim of representing thousands of top scientists is questioned. Climate science funding depends on the existence of a problem, leading to a vested interest in creating panic. The global warming industry has become a significant source of employment, and dissenting voices face censorship and intimidation.

Recent peer-reviewed papers challenge the consensus on man-made global warming, attributing 40% of observed warming to urban heat islands and solar activity. The Climategate scandal revealed efforts to suppress dissenting views. Despite barriers, three solid papers were published, led by prestigious scientists like Dr. Willie Soon. Fear of losing funding and jobs silences many scientists, but independent researchers are now speaking out with more freedom.

Researchers and media often exaggerate environmental crises for funding. Claims of an ozone hole causing skin cancer are refuted by declining chlorine levels. Data shows minimal global warming over the past century, with most temperature rise before 1940. Former NASA and Scripps leaders criticize profiting from climate predictions, warning against unnecessary economic damage.

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.

The speaker claims the current climate is no warmer than in past historical periods 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 instrumental records to show a sharp increase. The speaker asserts that those challenging this narrative are not receiving media coverage due to the significant financial investment in the climate change narrative.

Public intellectuals manufacture demand for their services by making alarming predictions and offering solutions to problems. The speaker discusses global warming as an example, stating that it fits the pattern of climate scientists creating a crisis to generate funding for their research. However, the speaker acknowledges that there are scientists who believe in global warming and others who oppose it. The problem lies in the suppression of opposing views by those pushing the global warming narrative. The speaker suggests that climate scientists should be more transparent and push the data to the public, but there is no incentive for them to do so.

Some individuals believe in global warming but not in the idea that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Climate change dissent is met with intolerance and politicians fear expressing doubt. Senior climate scientists argue that the scientific basis for the theory is weakening. Historical periods with significantly higher CO2 levels did not result in major climate changes. The claim of a consensus among thousands of scientists is disputed, as the IPCC includes non-scientists and politically driven conclusions. Climate scientists have a vested interest in creating panic to secure funding. The global warming issue has become a political activist movement, with many jobs and industries dependent on it. Dissenting voices are met with censorship and intimidation.

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.

Speaker 0 discusses the formation of FSOC’s new Household Resilience Working Group, which will focus on American households’ financial condition. She notes that communities nationwide, especially in Texas’s 29th district, have faced destabilizing climate-disaster effects, with property insurance providers leaving states like Texas, California, and Florida due to growing climate risks. She asks what the administration is doing to address the risk that mortgages and other credit could become unavailable in certain regions because of climate change. Speaker 1 responds: “Again, congresswoman, are you familiar with KLW 24? No. It it was the base for everything that was done with climate and with all the proposed climate legislation and it has been discredited. So everything that FSOC previously did based on climate—” He asks, “Who discredited it?” Speaker 1 clarifies: “Nature Magazine has retracted the economic commitment of climate change more than eighteen months after first learning that the paper was fatally flawed with officers acknowledging that its errors are too substantial for a correction.”

Christian Gerondeau disputes the claim that scientists from the IPCC unanimously agree that humans are causing climate change. He mentions a petition signed by Nobel laureates and others from 40 countries, titled "There is no climate emergency," which challenges this consensus. Gerondeau suggests that environmental NGOs have dominated the IPCC for over 30 years, silencing dissenting voices. He expresses frustration at not being given a platform on public radio or television channels. The former director of France's weather service was removed after questioning the anthropogenic nature of climate change.

The GIEC, an official organization with limited scientific expertise, was established to be controlled by state representatives, as demanded by Reagan and Thatcher. For nine years, it was led by Bergboline, a climate scientist who strongly believed in the role of CO2 in temperature changes. During this time, there was a belief that the climate was heading towards a catastrophe. However, these predictions were proven false. The GIEC's initial focus was on blaming carbon for climate change, aiming to eliminate carbon exploitation. Algore promoted carbon market inventories and taxes, justifying these actions with a collection of lies and predictions.

A scientist investigated criticism of her paper and admitted that her critics had valid points. She also learned from the climate gate scandal that many researchers are not open-minded. Leaked emails revealed that some university climate scientists conspired to hide data and manipulate journal editors. This made her realize that the climate change industry rewards alarmism and is driven by an anti-capitalism agenda. The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to focus solely on finding dangerous human-caused climate change, which leads to a biased perspective. National funding agencies also direct funding towards researchers who emphasize the existence of dangerous impacts, creating a manufactured consensus.

Critics argue that the climate consensus stifles scientific inquiry. Scientists should present facts for people to decide. Silencing ideas hinders scientific progress. Climate researchers are adamant that increasing CO2 controls today's climate, even if evidence suggests otherwise. This rigid stance has turned climate research into a cult, detached from science. Translation: Critics believe that the climate consensus restricts scientific exploration. Scientists should present facts for individuals to make decisions. Blocking ideas hampers scientific advancement. Climate researchers insist that rising CO2 levels regulate the current climate, regardless of contradictory evidence. This unwavering position has transformed climate research into a cult, separated from science.

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.

The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than it has been many times in history, noting that our baseline is now at the lowest carbon dioxide level in six hundred million years. They assert that, in terms of temperature change, the IPCC’s first report of 1992 showed the middle medieval warm period was warmer than the present. The speaker claims this did not fit the narrative, so by the time the 1996 report appeared, a “completely contrived graph” called the Hochist was used. According to the speaker, the Hochist graph involved removing the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Instead of a graph that rose and fell with historical variability, they say the graph was flattened and then an instrumental record was added at the end that appears to indicate a rapid rise. The speaker emphasizes that those who challenge or call out this manipulation are not receiving media coverage. The speaker also points to substantial financial influence, stating that billions of dollars are going into the entire climate change narrative. In summary, the claims center on a belief that historical climate fluctuations were downplayed or erased in influential graphs, replaced with a narrative supported by instrumental records that show a sharp rise, and that critics of this portrayal are marginalized in the media while large sums are invested in promoting the climate change narrative.

Some individuals believe in global warming but not in the idea that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Climate change dissent is met with intolerance and politicians are afraid to express doubt. Senior climate scientists argue that the scientific basis for the theory is weakening. Historical periods with significantly higher CO2 levels did not result in major climate changes. The claim of a consensus among thousands of scientists is disputed, as the IPCC includes non-scientists and politically driven conclusions. Climate scientists have a vested interest in creating panic to secure funding. The global warming issue has become a political activist movement, with jobs and industries dependent on it. Dissenting voices are met with censorship and intimidation.

The speaker, who identifies as a scientist and founder of The Weather Channel, disagrees with the idea of global warming being a consensus. They argue that science is not about voting but about facts, and claim that there is no significant man-made global warming happening now or in the future. They believe that climate change has become a political issue rather than a scientific one. The other speaker questions the speaker's views and mentions the 97% consensus among climate scientists. The speaker responds by suggesting that the government funds research that supports the global warming hypothesis, leading to biased results. The conversation ends with the acknowledgement that they won't reach a conclusion.

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.

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.

Public intellectuals manufacture demand for their services by making alarming predictions and offering solutions to problems. Global warming is seen as an example of this, with climate scientists creating a crisis and scaring the public to generate funding for their research initiatives. However, there are scientists who believe the opposite and are silenced by those pushing the global warming narrative. It is suggested that climate scientists should be more transparent and push the data out to the public, but there is no incentive for them to do so. Speaking out against the mainstream view could jeopardize their funding and career prospects.