reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

No evidence has been shown to prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. If it could be proven, it would also need to be shown that the natural emissions, which make up 97% of the total, do not drive global warming. This is a scientific fraud. The idea that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to disastrous global warming is not supported by chemistry or historical data from ice cores. The inverse solubility of carbon dioxide has been known for 200 years, and ice core samples show that carbon dioxide levels increased after natural warming periods. Temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

In the nineteenth century, many Americans used homeopathic (naturopathic) remedies that were widely available at low cost. The American Medical Association (formed in 1847) allegedly opposed homeopaths becoming AMA members and sought to control the medical profession by excluding them, while homeopathy remained a minority alternative. The transcript then claims John D. Rockefeller identified “great potentialities of profit” in the medical industry and, after turning the U.S. medical system from homeopathic to allopathic medicine, became the “kingpin of the medical monopoly.” It describes allopathy as centered on radical surgery, heavy drug use, and lengthy hospital stays, and alleges that control of legislatures, hospital accreditation, physicians, and medications became the basis of the modern system. It further claims health care costs multiplied and became unaffordable for most Americans, leading to the rise of medical insurance, portrayed as “another tax,” administered through Social Security and Medicare, with Medicare costs deducted from Social Security benefits. The transcript asserts that money from the health industry funnels into a Rockefeller-style medical and drug monopoly and that the Rockefellers allegedly control major drug companies by placing people from institutions like Chase Manhattan Bank and Exxon oil among directors and officials of large drug firms. A separate segment shifts to an oil-drilling conversation emphasizing drilling control: a man claims he does his own drilling with workers he knows, avoiding lost tools, failed cementing, and ruined leases—contrasting his approach with speculators who rush contracts and rely on contractors. Speaker 6 and others then expand the theme of “mainstream medicine” as Rockefeller creation, adding claims of global institutional dominance and “eugenics” programs (including forced sterilization, water fluoridation, abortions, and vaccinations). They argue that a “Flexner Report” (linked to a Carnegie-funded investigation) helped establish modern allopathic medicine by standardizing medical education, closing many medical colleges, and marginalizing holistic and natural medicines; the transcript alleges curricula were altered to focus on patented drugs and to remove emphasis on herbs and nutrition. It then cites the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 as giving hospitals funds conditional on providing free care, followed by a system shift into paid, long-term pharmaceutical dependence. The transcript also alleges the American Cancer Society (founded in 1913) and major philanthropic grants to medical schools served to advance allopathic-only curricula and ensure board influence. The transcript further claims big pharmaceutical firms use “biopiracy,” researching plant compounds, copying or slightly modifying them to patent synthetic analogs, then marketing pills while discrediting the original natural sources. It asserts that the Rockefellers travel with naturopathic doctors who allegedly use homeopathic remedies first and pharmaceuticals only as a last resort. It also cites David Rockefeller’s 1994 statement at a UN business conference that “the right major crisis” could be used to achieve a “new world order.” Long portions of the transcript then follow a conspiracy narrative about global governance and “lockstep” authoritarian control. A document from the Rockefeller Foundation is introduced as “Scenarios for the Future International Development,” with a scenario called “lockstep” describing tighter top-down government control, increased authoritarianism, limited innovation, and “growing citizen pushback.” The transcript reads passages implying a pandemic scenario that leads to economic disruption, isolation, and restrictions on mobility, along with mandatory quarantine and mask policies that continue after the pandemic fades. It claims Ebola is treated as a tool to advance control and asserts that oppressive measures like quarantines and curfews are part of a broader “tool kit.” Another segment alleges that John D. Rockefeller and associates “pirated” the blood banking industry and administrative leadership of the American Red Cross to advance eugenics management, and it discusses the founding of the General Education Board (GEB), an “Occasional Letter,” and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory as centers for eugenics and genetics research. It connects alleged Rockefeller funding to eugenics institutions in Germany and describes supposed links to organizations and individuals across military intelligence and government. The transcript further claims wrongdoing involving blood contamination (including AIDS), reliance on contaminated blood for HIV infections, and neglect of technologies to remove viruses. It also discusses population “culling” targets attributed to a population council and a negative population growth organization. The transcript then includes a conversation about vaccines and alleged future mass harm, mentioning a nasal mist “live attenuated virus,” “squalene,” a large number of “injection stations,” and the idea of a “great culling.” It references FEMA and population relocation in the context of civil disorder or pandemics and includes claims about a “council of seven men” making long-term decisions. It ends this section by stating that “her message” is that “everyone” must decide what to do with the information. The transcript also describes the Georgia Guidestones, portraying their construction details (including multilingual engraved messages and population-reduction themes) and interpreting passages as advocating maintaining humanity under 500,000,000 and guiding reproduction and disputes in a world court. It states that the structure’s “population control” passage has drawn attention and compares the required reduction to the 1979 world population. A segment attributes a “master plan” to “Agenda 21,” claiming it is designed to reduce independence by moving people into cities and making them dependent on the state, limiting private property and land ownership, and controlling food production via corporations while discouraging rural living. Toward the end, the transcript shifts into additional conspiracy claims about climate change, featuring a discussion in which John Coleman argues that climate change is “not happening,” and the transcript asserts that climate research funding and institutional selection bias support a particular position. It includes an argument between speakers about global warming and future sea-level impacts. Another speaker claims that “ClimateGate” emails demonstrate manipulation and that climate change was renamed from “global warming” after Earth’s cooling period. The transcript also includes assertions that carbon dioxide cannot significantly drive warming and that climate change theory is connected to Marxism and socialist goals. Finally, there is a mix of other claims: references to a swine flu vaccine scare in 1976 with alleged neurological injury and death claims; a discussion of a patent for a COVID testing “system and method”; and allegations about biological weapons contracts, fortifications like Fort Detrick and Lytton Bioinetics, and disputes over HIV origins. The transcript contains an extended exchange with Dr. Robert Gallo, including claims about what experiments did and did not involve, and ends with additional statements urging unity, “the Great Awakening,” and concluding remarks about ongoing struggle between “wrong and right.”

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.

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.

Alaska's weather network is in decline. In 2013, 74 stations reported reliably; today that number has fallen to 43, reflecting a global trend where long-running climate stations are retired or downgraded even as officials insist monitoring is more urgent than ever. There are trillions of dollars available for climate subsidies, schemes, and slogans, yet not enough to maintain even the most basic weather networks to measure the climate itself. That contrast tells you everything: Trillions are flowing, though not to stations, not to data, not to reliably quantifying the problem, but instead to lining bureaucratic pockets.

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.

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.

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.

The speakers discuss the issue of climate change and the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They mention that some people view the IPCC as a bureaucratic organization rather than a scientific one. They also mention a Nobel laureate who doubts the claims made about climate change. The speakers argue that there is a lack of scientific rigor and too much focus on politics in the climate change debate. They highlight the discrepancy between measuring CO2 levels in parts per million and emissions in tons, emphasizing the need for a more accurate understanding of the issue. They criticize the European Union for not considering the effectiveness of their actions in relation to the massive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. They conclude that false ideas about climate change are being propagated by authorities, including the United Nations.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

The ice core surveys in Vostok, Antarctica, show a correlation between carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature, but the relationship is more complex than Al Gore suggests. The data reveals that temperature increases first, followed by a rise in CO2, with an 800-year lag. This pattern is consistent across multiple ice core surveys. CO2 is not the cause of warming; rather, it is a product of temperature changes. Additionally, humans contribute only a small fraction of CO2 emissions compared to natural sources like volcanoes and the oceans. The oceans, in particular, have a memory of temperature changes and release or absorb CO2 accordingly. Earth's long climate history provides no evidence that CO2 has ever determined global temperatures.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.