TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker states that climate-related predictions are not science but politics. They claim that in the sixties, it was predicted oil would be gone in ten years. In the seventies, it was another ice age in ten years. In the eighties, acid rain would destroy all the crops in ten years. In the nineties, the ozone layer would be destroyed in ten years. In the 2000s, the glaciers would all melt in ten years. In the 2010s, the East and West Coast would be underwater from rising sea levels in ten years. The speaker asserts that none of these predictions came true, but they resulted in higher taxes.

The speaker believes climate change concerns are politically motivated, not scientific. They cite past predictions that did not come true: in the sixties, oil depletion in ten years; in the seventies, another ice age in ten years; in the eighties, acid rain destroying crops in ten years; in the nineties, ozone layer destruction in ten years; in the two-thousands, glaciers melting in ten years; and in the twenty-tens, coasts underwater in ten years. The speaker claims these instances of "fear mongering nonsense" always resulted in higher taxes.

Anne expresses concern about the mainstream media accepting false information about climate change. She argues that hurricanes, sea levels, bushfires, and climate-related deaths are not increasing, contrary to popular belief. Anne criticizes the media for promoting fear without providing evidence to support their claims. She questions why the media's credibility remains intact despite their inaccurate predictions. Anne suggests that scare stories about impending doom attract attention and sell newspapers, leading people to fall for propaganda. She emphasizes the lack of evidence linking human emissions to global warming.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which served as a pretext for a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including influential figures like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for an all-powerful state: the environment and climate change. A book called "The 1st Global Revolution" outlined this plan, stating that pollution, global warming, and other threats would be used as a common enemy to unite humanity. Critics argue that this top-down approach, driven by scientism, disregards other important aspects of society and places too much emphasis on science. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a crucial role in implementing this agenda, with connections to China. Critics question the motivations behind this agenda, suggesting that it is more about control and power than genuine environmental protection.

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.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which justified a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for global control: the environment and climate change. This plan was outlined in the book "The 1st Global Revolution." Scientists now emphasize the urgency of the climate crisis, but this top-down approach based on scientism disregards other important aspects of society. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a critical role in implementing the agenda. Surprisingly, there are connections between the World Economic Forum and China, raising questions about the true motivations behind the sustainable development agenda. It appears that power and control, rather than genuine environmental concern, drive this agenda.

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 arguing that there is no climate catastrophe or climate emergency. They claim that the threat narrative is pervasive, describing “tentacles” extending across the public sector, private sector, and academia. The speaker asserts that politicians, exemplified by Mark Carney, use fear mongering to secure votes, and notes that this phenomenon is seen globally, predominantly in left-leaning governments. According to Speaker 0, the climate discourse represents self-sabotage and economic suicide. They describe economies as being strangled by a left-wing agenda, contending that such forces are shaping markets, national policy, media output, education, and financial flows. The overarching claim is that this agenda is about power and control, with fear mongering used to imply a climate catastrophe. The transcript then shifts to a brief interlude welcoming Desiree Fixler. Desiree Fixler is thanked for joining again, with a note that much has happened since their last chat.

There is a political movement that has used climate change to scare people. It started with global cooling, then changed to global warming, and now they use the term climate change. They claim the world will end in 12 years, but that's not true. We will adapt. The pandemic is even better for them because they can gain control. They can implement vaccine passports and restrict travel. We should be concerned about a potential bank crisis and the possibility of a central bank digital currency that can control our purchases based on our social credit score. This happens in China, and some technocrats in the US might want the same. We should be skeptical and ask questions.

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.

Global warming is seen as an opportunity for governments to expand their power globally. Climate activists unknowingly empower governments to control every aspect of our lives. Environmentalists, even radical ones, inadvertently support mainstream narratives. The climate narrative influences consumption, travel, social interactions, diet choices, and more.

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 speaker discusses the UN's efforts to establish a global government under the pretext of climate change. They mention the failures of previous attempts, such as the Kyoto Protocol, and the exaggerated claims made about the effects of Chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone. The speaker also highlights the lack of global warming in the past 18 years despite increased CO2 concentrations. They discuss how countries like China and India are not willing to make restrictions, while poorer countries are bribed with money to support the climate treaty. The speaker believes that the establishment of a global government is inevitable, but hopes that people will eventually reject it.

One urgent task is to defeat the climate hysteria hoax. The ocean is rising, but the impact is minimal and exaggerated. Our factories are struggling, and reliance on intermittent wind energy is impractical. The radical left's fearmongering about climate change is harming the economy and the middle class. Conservative leaders must challenge this narrative. Predictions of impending doom, like having only 12 years left, have proven false. The focus should be on real threats, such as nuclear weapons, rather than exaggerated climate fears. The shift from "global warming" to "climate change" reflects the inability to accurately predict climate patterns, making it a catch-all term. The real issues lie elsewhere, and we must address them.

Climate experts have been making incorrect predictions for decades. In 1969, Paul Ehrlich claimed that everyone would disappear in 20 years, but he is still being cited today. In the 1970s, experts warned of a new ice age caused by air pollution. Leonard Nimoy even made a video about it. However, when the ice age didn't happen, they shifted to global warming. In 1989, a UN official said rising sea levels would wipe out entire nations by 2000. Al Gore also made incorrect predictions in his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." Despite these failures, the media continues to amplify these claims. Climate change is a natural process that we cannot control, and there are both upsides and downsides to it.

The speaker discusses the UN's agenda to establish a global government under the pretext of climate change. They highlight the failures of previous attempts, such as the Kyoto Protocol, and the exaggerated claims made about the effects of Chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer. The speaker also mentions that countries like China and India are not willing to restrict their CO2 emissions, as it would hinder their economic growth. They believe that the upcoming COP 21 conference will succeed in establishing a global government, but eventually people will realize the truth and reject it. The speaker criticizes the House of Lords for excluding those who question the official narrative on climate change.

Anne expresses concern over the mainstream media accepting false information about climate change. She argues that data shows no increase in hurricanes, sea level rise, bushfires, or climate-related deaths. She criticizes the lack of evidence supporting the claim that human emissions drive global warming. The other speaker questions why the media continues to believe inaccurate predictions without questioning their credibility. Anne suggests that scare tactics and propaganda have been used for 30 years to manipulate public opinion.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate change was centered around the Cold War, which justified a large and powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including influential figures like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for global control: the environment and climate change. This plan was outlined in the book "The 1st Global Revolution." Scientists now emphasize the urgency of the climate crisis, but this top-down approach based on scientism disregards other important aspects of society. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a crucial role in implementing the sustainable development agenda. Surprisingly, there are connections between the World Economic Forum and China, raising questions about the true motivations behind this agenda. It appears that some proponents of environmental protection are more interested in power and control than in genuinely safeguarding nature.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which justified a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for an all-powerful state: the environment and climate change. This plan was outlined in the book "The 1st Global Revolution," which stated that humanity itself was the enemy. Scientists now emphasize the urgency of the climate crisis, but this top-down approach based on scientism disregards other important aspects of society. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a critical role in implementing the agenda. The connections between the World Economic Forum and China raise concerns, as China's environmental record is poor and their control over their population and politics seems to be the real motivation behind their environmental efforts.

The speakers express concern about the mainstream media accepting false information about climate change. They argue that hurricanes, sea levels, bushfires, and climate-related deaths are not increasing as claimed. They criticize the lack of evidence supporting the idea that human emissions drive global warming. Despite the inaccuracies in their predictions, the speakers believe that the media continues to promote scare stories for attention. They highlight the absence of proof in arguments against coal, gas, and hydrocarbons. Overall, they question why the media's credibility remains intact despite their track record of incorrect predictions.

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.

The narrative prior to the focus on climate was centered around the Cold War, which served as a pretext for a powerful federal government. In 1991, the Club of Rome, including prominent figures like Mikhail Gorbachev and Al Gore, met and proposed a new justification for an all-powerful state: the environment and climate change. A book called "The 1st Global Revolution" outlined this plan, stating that pollution, global warming, and other threats would be used as a common enemy to unite humanity. The push for climate action is driven by scientism, an ideology that prioritizes science above all else, disregarding culture, history, and religion. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with the UN, plays a crucial role in implementing the agenda, with connections to China. However, the motivations behind this agenda seem to be more about power and control than genuine environmental concern.

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.

Speaker 0: And they came up with this incredible document where they actually said we need a new justification for this all powerful state. So the new excuse is going to be because the environment is gonna be harmed and because climate is going to hurt us. Speaker 1: Wait. What? What? I could not believe what I just heard. Did world leaders really lay out this globalist plan in plain English, in a physical book way back in 1991? I went on Amazon, and there it was, the first global revolution, which states, and I quote, in searching for a common enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. And therefore, the real enemy is humanity itself.

Climate change is a major concern, with the government prioritizing it over other threats like Russia or China. Activists have significant influence, and the issue has permeated all levels of government. Some link climate change to population control, believing it's a tactic to limit people's impact on the environment. This connection may not be obvious to everyone, but it's a key goal for those advocating for climate action.

The speaker believes climate change concerns are political, not scientific. They cite past predictions that did not come true: in the sixties, it was predicted oil would be gone in ten years; in the seventies, another ice age was predicted in ten years; in the eighties, acid rain was predicted to destroy all crops in ten years; in the nineties, the ozone layer was predicted to be destroyed in ten years; in the two-thousands, glaciers were predicted to melt in ten years; and in the twenty-tens, the East and West Coasts were predicted to be underwater in ten years. The speaker claims these instances of "fear mongering nonsense" resulted in higher taxes.