reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The climate change consensus is being challenged by new peer-reviewed papers showing urban heat island effects and solar activity can explain warming. Scientists faced obstacles getting alternative viewpoints published due to fear of losing funding. Credible scientists like Dr. Willie Soon are now working independently to avoid repercussions. This shift allows for more freedom in scientific debate.

Three new peer-reviewed papers published in prestigious scientific journals challenge the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming. One paper suggests that 40% of observed warming can be attributed to the urban heat island effect, where cities cause local temperature increases. The remaining warming can be explained by changes in solar activity tracked by NASA. The climate establishment has responded on Twitter, dismissing these findings. The difficulty in getting peer-reviewed studies on this topic was highlighted during the 2009 climate gate scandal, which revealed attempts to hide data and silence dissenting scientists. These recent papers, published in reputable journals, provide alternative viewpoints and are authored by well-established experts. The fear of jeopardizing funding and careers still prevents many scientists from speaking out. However, independent scientists, no longer reliant on grants, are able to challenge the mainstream narrative.

The speaker uses a car analogy to explain that focusing solely on human-produced CO2 as the cause of climate change is oversimplifying the issue. They argue that ignoring other factors like the sun, water vapor, and various components of the climate system leads to flawed science. Another speaker adds that understanding all the elements of the climate system, including solar radiation, CO2, water vapor, and clouds, is crucial for creating accurate climate models. Without considering all these components, any model would lack value.

The ice core surveys in 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 precede rises in CO2 levels by about 800 years. This indicates that temperature changes drive CO2 changes, not the other way around. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a natural gas produced by all living things, and humans contribute only a small fraction of it compared to sources like volcanoes, animals, bacteria, and the oceans. The oceans, in particular, play a significant role in CO2 emissions and absorption, with warmer temperatures leading to more CO2 production. Earth's long climate history does not support the idea that CO2 determines global temperatures.

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.

Satellites help us measure the number of trees and carbon dioxide emissions on Earth. Surprisingly, vegetation absorbs more carbon dioxide than humans emit, putting us at net zero. However, excess carbon dioxide comes from the oceans, with only 3% of emissions being human-caused. Simple calculations debunk the idea that carbon dioxide drives global warming, especially when looking at past ice ages with higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Dismissing the past would mean disregarding the laws of physics and chemistry. This misinformation is causing significant harm, particularly to the average person who is already struggling with inflation and high living costs, largely due to expensive energy.

Over the past century, it has been discovered that the variations in the Earth's magnetic field, caused by the sun's charged particles, have a significant impact on global climate. This challenges the widely accepted belief that human-released carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is solely responsible for recent climate change. By analyzing magnetic and meteorological data, scientists have found clear evidence of the sun's influence on temperature variations. Additionally, recent studies have shown that the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide is much lower than previously thought, reducing its impact on global warming. On the other hand, solar physicist Mr. Scaffeta has revised satellite data, suggesting that solar irradiance is ten times stronger than previously estimated. These findings raise doubts about the certainty and arrogance of the conclusions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

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.

Recent peer-reviewed papers challenge the consensus on man-made global warming, attributing 40% of observed warming to urban heat islands and solar activity. The Climategate scandal revealed efforts to suppress dissenting views. Despite barriers, three solid papers were published, led by prestigious scientists like Dr. Willie Soon. Fear of losing funding and jobs silences many scientists, but independent researchers are now speaking out with more freedom.

Three new peer-reviewed papers published in prestigious scientific journals challenge the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming. One paper suggests that 40% of observed warming can be explained by the urban heat island effect, where cities cause temperature increases around thermometers. The remaining warming can be attributed to changes in solar activity tracked by NASA. The climate establishment has responded by dismissing these findings on Twitter rather than providing a scientific response. The difficulty in getting peer-reviewed studies on this topic is highlighted by the Climategate scandal in 2009, which revealed attempts to hide data and silence dissenting scientists. However, these recent papers, authored by renowned experts, have managed to break through the barriers and offer alternative viewpoints in the scientific literature.

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.

This video provides a comprehensive critique of the theory of man-made global warming and its impact on climate change. It questions the scientific basis for human CO2 emissions causing global warming and emphasizes the influence of solar activity and natural climate variations. The video criticizes the reliance on computer models and the media's sensationalism of climate change. It also discusses skepticism surrounding the theory, including the long response time of the deep ocean and challenges to the idea of temperature rise leading to the spread of tropical diseases. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is criticized for alleged censorship and promotion of misinformation. The video highlights financial interests in climate science and the negative impact of climate policies on the world's poorest people. It concludes by raising moral concerns about restricting developing countries to expensive and unreliable forms of energy. Overall, the video suggests that the theory of man-made global warming is politically driven and lacks scientific evidence.

Over the past century, it has been discovered that the variations in the Earth's magnetic field, caused by the sun's charged particles, have a significant impact on global climate. This challenges the widely accepted belief that human-released carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is solely responsible for recent climate change. By analyzing magnetic and meteorological data, scientists have found clear evidence of the sun's influence on temperature variations. Additionally, recent studies have shown that the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide is much lower than previously thought, reducing its impact on temperature increase. On the other hand, solar physicist Mr. Scaffeta has revised satellite data, suggesting that solar irradiance is ten times stronger than previously estimated. These findings indicate that scientists may have been mistaken for the past twenty years, leading to skepticism towards the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Yann Clark, a renowned paleoclimatologist, studies temperature variations in the Arctic over hundreds of thousands of years. By analyzing ice cores, they have discovered a surprising relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. The temperature increases first, followed by a rise in CO2 levels, with an 800-year delay. This suggests that temperature changes lead to CO2 increases, rather than the other way around. Multiple studies on ice cores support this finding, contradicting the belief that CO2 causes global warming. These findings challenge the fundamental hypothesis of human-induced climate change.

The speaker uses a car analogy to explain that focusing solely on human-produced CO2 as the cause of climate issues is oversimplifying the complex climate system. They argue that ignoring other factors like the sun, water vapor, and various components of the climate system leads to flawed science. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding all the components of the climate system, including solar radiation, CO2, water vapor, and clouds, in order to create accurate climate models. They suggest that without this comprehensive understanding, any model is not reliable.

No evidence has been presented to prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. Additionally, it would need to be shown that the 97% of natural emissions do not contribute to global warming. This is a scientific fraud. The idea that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to disastrous global warming is propaganda. Chemistry has taught us for 200 years that carbon dioxide behaves in a predictable manner, similar to a warm beer that bubbles when left out. Ice core samples also support the fact that natural warming precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, not the other way around. This exposes another fraudulent claim.

New peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals challenge the alleged consensus on man-made global warming. One paper suggests that 40% of observed warming can be attributed to the urban heat island effect, where cities cause local temperature increases. The remaining warming can be explained by changes in solar activity. The papers have faced criticism on social media, but the authors argue that a scientific response should be in the form of peer-reviewed papers. The difficulty in getting such studies published was highlighted in the Climategate scandal of 2009, which revealed attempts to hide data and silence dissenting voices. The recent papers were accepted by prestigious journals, indicating a shift in the scientific community. Independent scientists, not reliant on grants or affiliations, are now more willing to challenge the mainstream narrative.

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.

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."

The speaker questions the effectiveness of decarbonization in preventing global warming, suggesting that reducing solar activity and water vapor would have a greater impact. They argue that carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas has not been proven to contribute significantly to warming. They highlight that the belief in CO2's role is propagated by a single source, while scientific publications present differing views. The speaker emphasizes that CO2 constitutes only 0.04% of the Earth's matter, with 93% being naturally produced. They argue for the importance of reducing air pollution from harmful particles, acknowledging that CO2 is not harmful in itself.

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.

Some scientists argue that a significant portion of global warming can be explained by natural factors, rather than human activity. They believe that fluctuations in the sun's coronal output are causing the entire solar system, including Earth, to warm up. Additionally, they point out that temperature increases have been observed on planets without human presence. In the past, climatologists initially claimed that the world was cooling due to particulate matter in the atmosphere, but later shifted to the term "climate change." Critics argue that the focus on carbon dioxide and human activity is driven by political motives, specifically the desire for increased control and taxation by global elitists and the United Nations.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide driving global warming has never been proven. To do so, it would also need to be shown that the 97% of natural emissions do not contribute to global warming. This is a scientific fraud. The belief that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to disaster and runaway global warming is propaganda. Chemistry has shown for 200 years that carbon dioxide has an inverse solubility, meaning it warms up when not dissolved. Ice cores reveal that increases in carbon dioxide follow natural warming, indicating that temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. This is another fraudulent claim.

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.

Professor Henrik Svensmark and astrophysicist Nir Shaviv explore the impact of cosmic rays from exploding supernovae on cloud formation, affecting Earth's climate. They find a correlation between historic temperature changes and our solar system's journey through the Milky Way's spiral arms. Solar activity, not CO2, is identified as the main driver of temperature change. Despite mainstream media silence, natural climate variability, not CO2, is suggested as the cause of extreme weather events.