reSee.it - Related Video Feed

According to consensus science, there is no evidence of human influence on hurricanes in the past century. Heat waves in the US have not become more frequent since 1900, and incidents have remained steady for the past 60 years. Global wildfires have actually decreased by about 25% since 2003, despite notable fires in Australia and California in 2020. The information on climate change goes through a chain from research papers to assessment reports, summaries, media, and finally reaches the public. This process leaves room for misinformation and manipulation. The speaker questions why individuals like Greta Thunberg, who hold catastrophic views, receive platforms while knowledgeable scientists who don't share the same perspective are overlooked. The speaker also mentions H. L. Mencken's quote about politicians using imaginary threats to keep the public alarmed.

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.

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.

The speaker criticizes the use of Greta Thunberg by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calling it a belief system and cult rather than a scientific organization. They argue that despite carbon dioxide only making up 0.041% of the atmosphere, campaigns have convinced people that it is the cause of climate change. The proposed solutions, such as higher taxes and state control, are seen as a pretext to change behavior and make people poorer while benefiting a small elite. When questioned about Thunberg's role in the IPCC, the speaker questions her expertise and the legitimacy of her influence. They conclude by dismissing the discussion as propaganda.

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.

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 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.

The speaker states he is the founder of the Weather Channel, not the co-founder. He claims CNN has taken a strong position on global warming, stating it is a consensus, but there is no consensus in science because science is about facts. He asserts climate change is not happening, there is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn't been any in the past, and there's no reason to expect any in the future. He believes it has become a big political point of the Democratic party, and he regrets it's become political instead of scientific, but the science is on his side. Regarding the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree on climate change, he says the government puts out about $2.5 billion directly for climate research every year, and it only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis. Therefore, 97% of the scientific reports published support global warming because those are the ones the government pays for.

The speaker criticizes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for using Greta Thunberg to promote their reports, calling it a belief system rather than a scientific organization. They argue that despite carbon dioxide only representing 0.041% of the atmosphere, campaigns have convinced people that it is the cause of climate change. The proposed solutions, such as higher taxes and state control, are seen as making people poorer while benefiting a small elite. The speaker questions the expertise of individuals like Greta Thunberg and Bill Gates in influencing laws and violating people's rights. They dismiss the discussion as propaganda and emphasize the small percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Climate scientist Judith Curry discusses her journey from being an alarmist to a skeptic of climate change. She explains how her research on hurricanes and global warming was misinterpreted by the media, leading to her being demonized by both sides of the debate. Curry criticizes the politicization of climate science and the pressure to conform to the consensus. She argues that the extreme scenarios and alarming predictions are not supported by the evidence and that the real underlying problems, such as poverty and poor governance, are being ignored. Curry emphasizes the need for a more balanced and nuanced approach to climate change.

The speaker discusses the causality between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature. They argue that human activities have a minimal influence on CO2 increase, with natural effects, particularly temperature, being responsible for over 85% of atmospheric CO2 rise since the industrial revolution. They criticize the IPCC's focus on anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the sole cause of climate change, calling it contrary to the truth. The speaker accuses certain individuals, such as Jean Jouzel and Valérie Masson Delmotte, of scientific fraud and highlights the lack of evidence in the IPCC's reports and their inaccurate predictions. They emphasize the need for policymakers and industry leaders to realize they have been deceived by the IPCC and its "apprentice sorcerers."

Gregory Whitestone, executive director of the CO2 Coalition and author of "Inconvenient Facts," discusses the misinformation surrounding climate change. He challenges the claim that July 4th was the hottest day on record, stating that historical data shows past warming periods were actually warmer. He also criticizes the manipulation of data to create a climate of fear and argues that modest warming and increased CO2 levels have benefited the Earth and humanity. Whitestone emphasizes the importance of presenting the truth and facts to influence public opinion.

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 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 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.

The speaker argues that anthropogenic climate change is a lie and a scam. They claim that climate models are not the same as equations and that they do not accurately predict the future. They mention the COVID-19 crisis and how the predicted death toll was proven wrong, implying that climate change predictions are also unreliable. They mention a Nobel laureate in physics who denies the existence of climate change, suggesting a conspiracy. The speaker believes that attributing climate change to human activity is a plot to justify government intervention in people's lives and increase public spending. They view it as a form of totalitarianism.

Scientists during World War II played a crucial role in developing technology for the military. Some scientists today may not always tell the truth, especially regarding climate change. Recent studies show that global warming theories may be incorrect, as the Earth has not warmed as predicted. The scientific community needs to reevaluate current climate models. It is essential to read scientific papers and not rely solely on sensationalized information. The planet is complex, and there is still much to learn about its processes. Be cautious of misinformation and focus on understanding scientific evidence.

The speaker believes climate change theory is a conspiracy and is "completely stupid." They claim the narrative that carbon dioxide controls world temperatures is false. According to the speaker, data shows world temperatures control carbon dioxide concentration, and CO2 has no effect. The speaker alleges the climate is cooling, citing satellite data. They accuse American and United Nations operations of producing fraudulent data by manipulating past temperatures to appear colder and present temperatures to appear warmer.

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.