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.

Climate change is questioned, focusing on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The speaker challenges the lack of knowledge on CO2 percentages by politicians advocating for drastic climate change actions. They highlight that human contribution to CO2 is minimal compared to the overall atmospheric composition. Criticisms are made towards policies promoting renewable energy over coal, despite Australia's small role in global CO2 emissions. The speaker argues against drastic economic changes based on incomplete understanding of climate science.

I'm a skeptic about climate change, not a denier. It's important to clarify that I am a scientist, while the CEO of the Weather Channel is not. CNN promotes the idea of a scientific consensus on global warming, but science is based on facts, not votes. The evidence shows that significant man-made global warming is not occurring now, hasn't in the past, and isn't expected in the future. This issue has become politicized, especially within the Democratic Party, which I regret. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with your audience, even if we may not reach a conclusion today.

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.

I don't use unproven approaches like planting trees to address the climate issue. Some people believe that planting enough trees can solve the problem, but that's nonsense. Are we the science people or the idiots?

As an engineer and business manager, I have never found any logical scientific evidence to worry about atmospheric gases. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Carbon dioxide is essential for life. Two global experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed that despite reductions in human carbon dioxide emissions, the levels in the atmosphere continued to increase. This proves that humans do not have a significant impact on carbon dioxide levels, as it is controlled by nature.

There's skepticism about ESG and sustainable labels, which is why we're focused on net zero. We can't stabilize the climate without achieving it. It's simple: emissions either increase or decrease. If they're decreasing, are they doing so in line with scientific standards? We're basing this on the same science used by the UN and others for the 1.5-degree objectives. These are hard numbers, not subjective opinions.

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.

Nous sortirons de la pandémie grâce à la vaccination, malgré quelques personnes hésitantes et extrémistes opposées à la science. En tant que leader, il faut choisir : tolérer ces opposants minoritaires ou se concentrer sur la majorité vaccinée pour retrouver nos activités préférées.

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.

There's scrutiny and healthy skepticism around ESG and sustainable labels, which is actually a good thing. It's why we're so focused on net zero. Stabilizing the climate requires us to reach net zero; it's that simple. We're dealing with hard numbers: emissions either increase or decrease. If they're decreasing, are they doing so at a rate consistent with scientific targets? Our approach is rooted in the same science used by the UN and others for the 1.5-degree objectives.

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.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny and healthy skepticism. This is a key reason we are so focused on net zero. We can't stabilize the climate without achieving net zero; it's that simple. Emissions either increase or decrease. If decreasing, are they doing so at a rate consistent with scientific findings? We're basing our approach on the same science that the UN and others use for their one-and-a-half-degree objectives.

The speaker, who has participated in four reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emphasizes that there is no exaggeration in the IPCC reports. In fact, some argue that the reports are not alarmist enough. The speaker points out that current events, such as extreme weather events, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and rising sea levels, align with what has been predicted in the IPCC reports since the 1990s. They refute the claim that the IPCC reports are exaggerated and stress the importance of recognizing the credibility of the scientific community. The speaker concludes by urging action in the present to address the future impacts of climate change.

I'm a skeptic about climate change, not a denier. It's important to clarify that I am a scientist, while the CEO of the Weather Channel is not. There is no scientific consensus on climate change; science is based on facts, not votes. The evidence shows that significant man-made global warming is not occurring now, has not occurred in the past, and is unlikely to happen in the future. This issue has become politicized, particularly by the Democratic Party, which I regret. However, I believe the scientific facts support my position. I'm glad to have the opportunity to share my views with your audience.

I have stated publicly that there's no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for the slight warming of the global climate over the last three hundred years. If such proof existed through testing and replication, it would be documented for everyone to see. The idea that human emissions are the dominant influence on climate is just a hypothesis, not a universally accepted scientific theory. Therefore, skepticism is warranted when people claim the science is settled. However, it is certain that CO2 is essential for all life on Earth, and without enough of it in the atmosphere, the planet would be dead. Yet, our children are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life.

We are not in trouble because of a lack of energy or amateurs. We need to talk about things. These people are great, but they are inexperienced. Macron has been here for 6 years and didn't think about all this before. We are dependent now, whereas France used to be a leader in electricity. We had the strongest nuclear potential in the world and could export electricity. But now we are begging because we followed Germany's lead. This is not Europe, it's German Europe. The Franco-German relationship is a disaster for France. We need to break free from this imperialism.

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.

Question everything your government does or doesn't do, and especially distrust the EU Commission, which is described as spreading fake news. Those who promoted the response to a novel virus are now claiming we're all going to die of climate change, but this is just a scheme to take taxpayer money and give it to global corporations. They also want to get rid of individual mobility by targeting cars. Measures to save the planet won't work, but will abolish freedom, democracy, and love. Stop voting for the same people who created this mess, because they are liars.

I believe I'm the only person in America who openly opposes the demands of the climate movement. Unlike others who just pay lip service to the idea of considering different strategies, I genuinely believe that the focus on reducing carbon emissions is misguided. Instead, we should prioritize maximizing human prosperity by promoting metrics like GDP growth. My agenda is centered around unleashing economic growth in our country.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny and healthy skepticism. This scrutiny is a key reason for our relentless focus on achieving net zero emissions. Ultimately, stabilizing the climate depends on reaching net zero. It's straightforward math: emissions are either increasing or decreasing. If they're decreasing, we need to check if that decrease is consistent with scientific targets. We base our approach on the same scientific data used by the UN and others for the 1.5-degree climate objective.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny. This skepticism drives our intense focus on achieving net zero emissions. Ultimately, stabilizing the climate requires reaching net zero; it's that simple. Emissions either increase or decrease. The key question is whether they are decreasing at a rate consistent with scientific targets. Our approach is grounded in the same scientific principles used by the UN and others, specifically targeting the 1.5-degree objective.

Canadians have experienced the devastating effects of climate change, such as wildfires, floods, and storms. We acknowledge that this is a global issue and it is our duty to make decisions based on scientific evidence and take ambitious actions. Although we are concerned, we remain hopeful. We understand that time is running out and we must act now. We must not let this opportunity pass and we cannot go back on our commitments.

As an engineer and business manager, I have never found any logical scientific evidence to worry about atmospheric gases. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned, they produce carbon dioxide and water vapor. Carbon dioxide is essential for life. Two natural experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed that despite reductions in human carbon dioxide emissions, the levels in the atmosphere continued to increase. This proves that humans do not have a significant impact on carbon dioxide levels, as it is controlled by nature.