reSee.it - 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.

Achieving net zero emissions could have dire consequences, as at least 50% of the population relies on nitrogen-based fertilizer for survival. Banning this fertilizer, as some countries have done, would lead to widespread hunger and disease. The notion of saving the earth through such measures is seen as a disguised death wish, as the earth does not necessarily require saving.

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.

There is a lot of talk about the Green New Deal in the United States. Speaker 1 believes it is a recipe for mass suicide. They argue that eliminating all fossil fuels in 12 years would lead to the decimation of the human population and a process of cannibalization. Speaker 1 also points out that without fossil fuels, every tree would be cut for fuel, and there would be no other source of heating and cooking. They find the idea ridiculous and preposterous, questioning why anyone would vote for something that would result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth.

The World Economic Forum and the UN have plans for changing how we conduct ourselves, with a fixation on Agenda 2030. Elites want to structure the economy and society in the Western world like the Chinese model, without putting it to a vote. Developments in AI and robotics are so advanced that elites believe they don't need 90% of the population. There is a depopulation agenda using vaccines, repeated pandemics, wars, and famines. Conflicts include Russia/Ukraine, potential China/Taiwan, and the Middle East. Governments are making decisions that hinder farmers' ability to produce food, impacting crop yields and food production, leading to death, destruction, and conflict in starving regions. The future for humanity is looking very dark unless people stand up together.

The Green New Deal is being discussed in the United States, and there are concerns about its feasibility. The speaker believes that eliminating all fossil fuels in 12 years, as proposed in the Green New Deal, would lead to disastrous consequences. They argue that it would result in a significant decrease in the human population due to the inability to deliver food to cities. Additionally, without fossil fuels, all trees would be cut down for fuel, and animals would die or go wild. The speaker finds this scenario preposterous and believes it would be mass suicidal. They question why anyone would support a plan that could lead to the death of most humans on Earth.

The speaker claims the C40 consortium, composed of 40 of the world's largest cities, is pursuing an agenda that includes limiting citizens to three articles of clothing per year and a 95% reduction in private car ownership. They allege this is why electric cars are being promoted, even though there won't be enough electricity to power them. Additionally, the speaker states the agenda includes one short-haul flight per person every three years, which they believe will decimate the travel and tourism industries. They claim the ultimate goal, though not directly from C40, is an 85% reduction in Western living standards, which they say is deemed necessary by "green virtuous globalist utopians" for a green planet. The speaker believes bureaucrats are using this agenda to advance their careers, and radical leftists are willing to sacrifice the working class and the poor to achieve their ambitions.

Human productivity creates a sense of abundance and safety in the world. However, this is not natural, as it relies heavily on fossil fuel machines. If these machines were to stop working or decrease in efficiency, our entire way of life would collapse. With a global population of 8 billion people, the world cannot naturally sustain such numbers. The current push to transition to renewable energy sources without viable replacements is reckless and dangerous. We are already witnessing the consequences in Europe and agriculture. Instead of eliminating all fossil fuels by 2050 without proper alternatives, we should focus on finding sustainable solutions now.

The speaker questions the motives behind authority and suggests that a cult benefits from people believing in climate change. They argue that carbon dioxide is essential for life and that it is being wrongly portrayed as a pollutant. The speaker claims that the push for renewable energy is financially unfeasible and will lead to a proxy war between Russia and the West. They also discuss the manipulation of the food chain, with Bill Gates buying up farmland and targeting farmers. The speaker believes that these actions are part of a larger agenda to dismantle Western society.

The speaker, a founder of a well-known environmental organization, expresses concern about the Green New Deal. They argue that phasing out 85% of the world's and US's energy from coal, oil, and natural gas within 10 years would lead to the end of civilization. The speaker believes that nuclear power and hydroelectric dams could replace these energy sources, but environmentalists oppose them. They claim that the Green New Deal opposes 98.5% of electricity and 100% of transportation energy. The speaker also highlights the challenges of feeding the global population without fossil fuels and transporting food to cities. They warn of agricultural collapse, starvation, and the depletion of trees if fossil fuels were banned worldwide. The speaker criticizes the idea of banning aircraft and fossil fuel vehicles.

When all else fails, they take you to war, and the climate hoax is an effective tool. In the name of saving the planet, they will take food, cars, gas boilers, and air travel. Land seized from farmers will be used for wind turbines and solar panels, which won't provide reliable energy, potentially leading to a new dark age. The production of turbines and panels uses oil, gas, and coal, requiring the mining of rare earth metals and minerals, destroying habitats and ecosystems. Mining for lithium, cobalt, cadmium, copper, and lead may increase by 2,000%. While coal mines are shut, other mines are opening to obtain materials for batteries. Child slaves give their lives for cobalt used in electric batteries. When turbines and solar panels reach the end of their lives, they can't be recycled and are buried in landfill sites, leaking lead, cadmium, and other toxins into the soil and water supply. This is driven by greed, benefiting the few and denying the many, after years of brainwashing people into thinking the Earth is about to catch fire.

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.

Achieving net zero emissions could have dire consequences, as at least 50% of the population relies on nitrogen-based fertilizer for survival. Banning this fertilizer, as some countries have attempted, would lead to widespread hunger and disease. The notion of saving the earth through such measures is seen as a disguised death wish, as the earth does not necessarily require saving.

They claim that agriculture is causing global warming and threaten to cut off food supply, benefiting only billionaires. This would lead to poverty and starvation if they achieve net zero emissions. They argue that to reach net zero, all animals, including humans, would need to be killed since we emit CO2. Food and energy are crucial for survival, and they warn of the disastrous consequences if these actions are taken. They also criticize the notion that nitrogen fertilizer is a greenhouse gas and dismiss the campaign against CO2 as phony. Meanwhile, Russia, India, and China continue to build coal and nuclear plants.

The speaker claims the idea of a climate change disaster is false, stating that it is one of the coldest periods in Earth's history, evidenced by ice at the poles, which was absent for 150 million years previously due to warmer temperatures. They assert that current atmospheric CO2 levels are lower than in most of Earth's history, currently at 420 ppm, and were as low as 180 ppm during the last glacial maximum, close to the point where plants die. The speaker suggests an optimal level for plants is 800-1200 ppm. They claim that CO2 emissions have already resulted in a 30% increase in vegetation growth. The speaker argues that fossil fuels originated from plants extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. Therefore, humans are merely replacing CO2, preventing plant starvation and ecosystem collapse. Burning fossil fuels for energy is presented as the salvation of life on Earth.

They claim that agriculture is causing global warming and threaten to cut off food supply, leading to poverty and starvation. To achieve net zero emissions, they argue for killing all animals, including humans. Food and energy are crucial for survival, and over 8 billion people, with 4 billion relying on nitrogen fertilizer, would be affected. However, the notion that nitrogen and CO2 are causing global warming is deemed phony. Despite this, Russia, India, and China are constructing coal and nuclear plants while the West focuses on the campaign against CO2.

The speaker, a long-time green energy supporter, was dismayed to learn about the environmental and human costs associated with green technologies. A single lithium mine allegedly creates millions of tons of waste annually, laced with sulfuric acid and radioactive uranium, polluting water for 300 years. Child labor is used to mine cobalt. Solar panels are allegedly made by laborers in razor wire enclosed camps exposed to quartz dust, causing silicosis. The Ethical Consumer Organization reports that forced labor in the solar panel supply chain is hard to avoid. Wind turbines consume vast resources, require diesel to start, gallons of oil to lubricate, and are hard to recycle. Solar panels are also extremely difficult to recycle, costing more than production. Lithium batteries pose steep challenges too. The speaker claims these "green" solutions are actually good marketing from the $1.5 trillion climate change industry. They urge people to prevent further escalation through unnecessary EVs and solar farms consuming farmland.

"The colossal mistake of underestimating the death spreading agriculture and meat industry." "ecocide and a crime against humanity." "Permaculture is the real and only way to go." "Economise and replace the burning of fossil fuels as much as possible with renewable energy at least if this renewable energy is actually decreasing c o two emission and the latter is truthfully calculated." "The green agenda is a scam, based on lies and in fact is part of an illiterion agenda to take away vehicles from common people and make the common people dependent on a social credit system for among others their transport." "Pesticides kill the natural soil life just as tiling does and as such destroy the necessary base of land ecosystems." "Meat production uses easily 10 times more natural resources, poisonous pesticides and fertilizer than vegetable food production."

By 2030, there is to be a 50% reduction in farmed animals, and by 2050, a 100% reduction. Starman and Bill Gates have allegedly signed up to this plan. The speaker claims to have the document in writing. The speaker suggests this signals a "world takeover" and declares "World War four commence," urging listeners to "Keep Britain farming."

Several speakers present a cohesive, alarmist view of a global move toward centralized, technocratic governance: - A long-standing desire to control others is fueling a push toward globalization and centralization of power in unelected officials at supranational bodies. They claim the aim is to have all the world’s resources “in their pocket.” - The larger project is described as an attempt to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with a global technocracy. A “coup” is alleged, with the argument that rules could replace currency, creating a system of control without money. - The situation is likened to an inverted prison: people may seem free to roam, but “everything you want to access is behind lock and key.” The potential for social control is described as gigantic and potentially irreversible. - The plan reportedly includes commandeering land, reducing farming, radically changing the food we eat, transforming the electricity supply, and dictating how it is used, while replacing currency with a system of credits. All three strategies are said to be premised on a climate-crisis narrative centered on carbon dioxide. - One speaker disputes the climate-crisis premise, stating they do not think there is a climate crisis and that the government pushes a catastrophic story; another adds that no single science paper proves conclusively that humans control all or most of the climate. - Europe is criticized for a “mad dash towards net zero,” described as economic suicide that deliberately impoverishes ordinary people and de-industrializes Europe, raising questions about what is being saved if it’s being paved over. - A global war on agriculture is claimed, with many farms selling up and concerns about looming food shortages. There is a suggestion that shifting people from “real food” to “pharma food” would enable control through publicly traded stocks. - The speakers call the movement “the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world” and, more broadly, a blueprint and action plan. They warn that life on Earth will be radically changed and that everything will be monitored, with environmental consequences of every human action. - A chilling point is made that once a digital ID is in place, “it's game over for humanity,” and that the general population cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision they describe. Overall, the discussion centers on a perceived coordinated effort to centralize power globally, erode traditional democracy, redefine currency, reshape agriculture and energy systems, and surveil all human activity under a climate-justified technocracy.

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.

The Green New Deal is being discussed in the United States, and the speaker finds it alarming. They believe that eliminating all fossil fuels in 12 years, as proposed in the Green New Deal, would lead to mass suicide. They argue that without fossil fuels, there would be no way to deliver food to cities, resulting in cannibalization. Additionally, they claim that all trees would be cut for fuel, and animals would die or go wild without human care. The speaker finds this scenario preposterous and questions why anyone would support a plan that could lead to the death of most humans on Earth.

The speaker addresses the topic of climate change, calling it a hoax and stating that it has nothing to do with the climate. They mention a 98% reduction in climate disaster deaths in the last century and claim that more people will die from cold temperatures than warm ones. They also criticize the building of a carbon capture pipeline on farmers' land using imminent domain, calling it unconstitutional. The speaker warns that the climate agenda is worse than COVID and compares it to a new religion that is replacing our modern way of life.

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.

CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of around 2 parts per million per year and will continue to rise due to the widespread use of fossil fuels. Banning fossil fuels would have severe consequences, as seen in Sri Lanka where crop failures occurred after chemical fertilizers were banned. The elites may believe that the world is overpopulated and want to reduce the population through mass famine, leaving only a billion people. The remaining billion would be part of the elite, while the rest of us would be gone.