reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Carbon dioxide is invisible, which allows for stories to be made up about its impact on the climate. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that it is causing a climate emergency. Looking back at the Earth's history, it was actually warmer than it is today for most of the time. The slight warming trend we have experienced in the last 300 years began before the use of fossil fuels. Despite the exponential increase in CO2 emissions, it has not affected the temperature. CO2 is essential for life and should be seen as a positive rather than a negative.

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 this information was allegedly removed from the IPCC reports to fit a specific narrative. The speaker suggests that those who challenge this narrative do not receive sufficient media coverage. They mention the large amount of money invested in climate change.

Geologists have been studying climate for centuries, while climate science is a relatively new field. The speaker criticizes climate scientists as obscure and unemployable academics funded by taxes. They argue that evidence from the past shows that the Earth has experienced six ice ages, with periods of ice expansion and contraction. The current interglacial period started 34 million years ago, and during the last interglacial, sea levels were higher and temperatures were warmer. The speaker questions claims of record-breaking temperatures, pointing out that in the past, temperatures have been even hotter. They also mention that we have just come out of a little ice age, so it's not surprising that temperatures have been rising. The speaker dismisses the significance of carbon dioxide emissions, stating that the current levels are low compared to geological history and that reducing it would harm plant and animal life.

The speaker questions the belief that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming, stating that this has never been proven. They also criticize the concept of "net zero" emissions, arguing that if humans didn't release carbon dioxide, they would die because it is a natural part of our bodily functions. The speaker accuses the climate change movement of being anti-human and denying the place of humans on Earth. Another speaker adds that temperature data from satellites and balloons shows a slight cooling trend, while data from land-based sources has been manipulated to show a warming trend. They argue that throughout history, the Earth has experienced cycles of warming and cooling, and the current period is no different. They conclude that carbon dioxide is not the cause of these changes.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide do not drive global warming. Natural emissions make up 97%, showing carbon dioxide does not cause warming. Claims of a disaster from increased carbon dioxide are false. Chemistry proves carbon dioxide cools, not warms. Ice core data reveals temperature rises before carbon dioxide levels. Temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

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.

Geologists argue climate for 250 years, dismissing climate science as a new, flawed field. They rely on evidence, not models, pointing out past ice ages and warmer periods. Current temperatures are cooler than historical peaks, with a recent warming trend post-little ice age. The speaker questions the significance of current climate records, emphasizing the Earth's long-term climate fluctuations and the minimal impact of current carbon dioxide levels. They argue that drastic changes in CO2 levels would harm plant and animal life.

The speaker challenges the idea of man-made global warming, stating that the science behind it is weak and uncertain. They argue that the Earth's climate has always changed throughout history, with periods of both warmer and cooler temperatures. They mention the Little Ice Age in the 14th century, when the Thames River froze over, and the Medieval Warm Period, which was associated with prosperity. They also highlight the Holocene maximum during the Bronze Age, when temperatures were significantly higher for over 3,000 years. The speaker concludes that climate variation in the past is natural.

The speaker challenges the idea of man-made global warming, stating that the science behind it is weak and uncertain. They argue that the Earth's climate has always changed throughout history, without any help from humans. They mention the Little Ice Age in the 14th century, when the Thames River froze over and ice fairs were held. They also discuss the Medieval Warm Period, a time of prosperity and vineyards in Europe. Going further back, they mention the Holocene maximum during the Bronze Age, when temperatures were significantly higher for over 3 millennia. The speaker concludes that climate variation in the past is natural.

Geologist Gregory Wrightstone argues against a “man-made climate crisis” narrative, saying Earth’s current warming trend began about two centuries before significant carbon dioxide emissions. He claims historical warm periods were hugely beneficial for human civilisation, while historical cold periods were “horrifically bad.” A second speaker cites recent records, including the hottest June and May on record, 2022 breaching, the first time 40 degrees, and 2025 being the warmest year on record in the UK, concluding that “the planet is getting warmer” and asking whether this is a problem. Speaker 2 responds that the warming is occurring and emphasizes when the warming trend started. He says it began more than 300 years ago, during periods when CO2 levels were very low. He states that only in the mid-20th century, during the post-World War II economic boom, did humans start adding a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and he claims that two-thirds of the warming trend occurred before that CO2 increase. He contrasts this with claims that natural warming stopped in the mid-20th century and that current warming is primarily caused by human emissions. He also links the warming to the end of what he calls the Little Ice Age, describing it as the coldest period of the last 10,000 years. He says the Little Ice Age was “horrifically bad” and argues that cold periods throughout human history brought crop failure, famine, pestilence, and mass depopulation. He claims warmer periods, warmer than today, led to food abundance, and civilizations and empires thrived, adding that this is “completely contrary” to what he says people are being told. He concludes by saying history suggests people should “welcome the warmth and fear the cold,” and says he would be called a “science denier” by some, but identifies himself as a scientist and argues that those promoting a climate crisis “false notion” should be called “history deniers.”

The speaker questions the belief in human emissions of carbon dioxide driving global warming and criticizes the concept of net zero. They argue that if we had net zero carbon dioxide emissions, we would not be able to survive. They describe the climate change movement as anti-human, suggesting that it denies the place of humans on Earth. Another speaker points out that temperature data from satellites and balloons shows a slight cooling trend, while data collected mainly on land suggests a warming trend. They also mention that throughout history, the planet has experienced cycles of warming and cooling, and the current cycle is not exceptional. Both speakers conclude that carbon dioxide is not the cause of these changes.

200 years ago, the temperature was only 1.5 degrees Celsius cooler than now, so claiming a 1.5-degree increase will be catastrophic is ridiculous. In the past, temperatures were much higher, yet CO2 levels were decreasing. There is no clear relationship between temperature and CO2 levels based on historical data.

Geologists argue that climate science is a recent invention compared to their 250-year track record of studying climate. They criticize climate scientists as obscure academics funded by taxes, claiming that their models are not in line with geological evidence. They point out that the Earth has experienced six ice ages, with fluctuations in ice coverage and sea levels. They question claims of record-breaking temperatures, highlighting that past interglacial periods were warmer. They mention that we have recently emerged from a little ice age, so it's expected that temperatures will rise. They argue that the current carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are low compared to geological history, and reducing it further would harm plant and animal life.

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 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.

Many well-known individuals claim that we are in a climate emergency, but there is disagreement. One person argues that the world has been warming for centuries, even before the use of fossil fuels. They state that there is no evidence linking CO2 increase to rising temperatures, as temperatures were already increasing. They mention a graph from central England, which shows a steady rise of just over 1 degree Celsius in 320 years, suggesting that the current rate of increase is not unprecedented. They also highlight a period from the late 1600s to early 1700s when temperatures rose even faster.

Geologists have been studying climate for 250 years, while climate science is a relatively new field. The speaker criticizes climate scientists as obscure and unemployable academics who cost taxpayers a lot of money. They argue that climate models are often incorrect and should be disregarded. The speaker points out that Earth has experienced six ice ages, with periods of glaciation and interglacial periods. They emphasize that we are currently in an interglacial period, which started 34 million years ago, and that temperatures have been both warmer and cooler in the past. The speaker also mentions that we have just come out of a little ice age and that temperatures have been rising since then. They dismiss the significance of carbon dioxide emissions, stating that the current level of 0.04% is low compared to geological history and that reducing it would harm plant and animal life.

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 this information was removed from the IPCC reports to fit a specific narrative. The speaker believes that those who challenge this narrative are not receiving media attention. They highlight the significant amount of money invested in the climate change narrative.

The speaker argues that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not responsible for most of the warming in the 20th century. They point out that industrial production and CO2 emissions increased significantly after World War II, but temperatures actually fell for four decades during this time. They also highlight that CO2 levels began to decrease in 1940, while temperatures continued to decrease until 1975, contradicting the idea that CO2 and temperature are directly related. The speaker emphasizes that CO2 only makes up a small portion of the Earth's atmosphere, and water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. They also mention that temperature measurements in the Earth's atmosphere do not align with the predictions of climate models, suggesting that the hypothesis of manmade global warming is contradicted by the evidence.

The speaker claims that the current climate is not warmer than previous periods in history. They argue that carbon dioxide levels are at their lowest in 600 million years. They also mention the medieval warm period, which was supposedly warmer than the present, but was removed from the IPCC's reports. The speaker criticizes the use of a graph called the hockey stick, which flattened out temperature changes and added an instrumental record that appears to show a significant increase. They believe that those who challenge this narrative are not receiving sufficient media coverage, despite the large amount of funding dedicated to climate change.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide do not cause global warming, as 97% of emissions are natural. Claims of a disaster from increased carbon dioxide are false; in reality, carbon dioxide cools when warmed. Ice core data shows that natural warming precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, proving that temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. This is a scientific fraud.

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.

People shouldn't panic about global warming because current changes are normal based on Earth's natural history. Over the last 10,000 years, temperatures have fluctuated by about one degree at the Equator and two degrees at the poles every thousand years. The current rate of rise is about one degree per century, which is not unusual. The IPCC's models are flawed because they assume no natural change. The greenhouse effect is small compared to other atmospheric factors like solar radiation and gravity, with oceans and clouds primarily controlling climate stability. The pre-industrialization period used as a baseline by the IPCC was the lowest point in the last ten thousand years. It is currently one degree above that low but two degrees cooler than the warmest period in the last eight to ten thousand years. During the last interglacial period, it was six degrees warmer, and hippos and elephants lived in England.

A 1.5 degrees Celsius increase in global atmospheric temperature is not a disaster. It's less than the temperature difference between breakfast and lunch and will open up vast areas of farmland. During the Eocene thermal maximum, the temperature was at least 5 to 7 degrees Celsius warmer than now, maybe even more. At the same time, CO2 was going in the exact opposite direction of the temperature. There is no clear relationship between CO2 and temperature.