TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

As a scientist, I emphasize looking at data to understand trends in extreme events and their causes. Historical records show that heat waves and wildfires were more severe in the 1930s than today. There is no long-term increase in hurricanes or global drought. Contrary to popular belief, polar bear populations are growing, and the Great Barrier Reef is thriving. The idea of a climate emergency is refuted by scientific evidence, challenging the narrative of man-made climate chaos. The so-called consensus on climate change is questioned, highlighting the importance of examining data objectively.

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.

Geologists have been studying climate for centuries, while climate science is a relatively new field. The speaker criticizes climate scientists as obscure and unemployable academics funded by taxes. They argue that evidence from the past shows that the Earth has experienced six ice ages, with periods of ice expansion and contraction. The current interglacial period started 34 million years ago, and during the last interglacial, sea levels were higher and temperatures were warmer. The speaker questions claims of record-breaking temperatures, pointing out that in the past, temperatures have been even hotter. They also mention that we have just come out of a little ice age, so it's not surprising that temperatures have been rising. The speaker dismisses the significance of carbon dioxide emissions, stating that the current levels are low compared to geological history and that reducing it would harm plant and animal life.

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.

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.

- Climate change is a fact. - Humans are not causing it. - The cow farts. It's not the cows. - NASA knows this. - Over 90% of the c o two, there is an increase in c o two. - Is there more c o two in the atmosphere now than there was ten years, twenty, fifty, a hundred years ago? The answer is absolutely yes. - Is it a bad thing? The answer is no. - Is it the most we've ever had? We're right about four forty parts per million right now. - The oceans are warming from underneath, not from the top. Warm water holds less gas.

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.

I'm the only Republican candidate who isn't influenced by money, so I can say that the climate change agenda is a hoax. We need to declare independence from it. The anti-carbon agenda is holding us back.

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.

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 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.'

The speaker claims that the current climate is not warmer than it has been in history, stating that the carbon dioxide levels are the lowest in 600 million years. They also mention that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but it was removed from the IPCC's reports to fit a specific narrative. The speaker criticizes the lack of media coverage for those who challenge this narrative, attributing it to the large amount of money invested in the climate change agenda.

I don't have opinions, only demonstrable facts. No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. If it could be demonstrated, then we would have to show that 97% of emissions, which are natural, do not cause global warming. This is a scientific fraud from day one. We have known for 200 years through chemistry that it is the opposite. When we drill ice cores, we can see chemical fingerprints that tell us the temperature and show that when there was natural warming, there was an increase in carbon dioxide. It's not carbon dioxide that drives temperature, it's the reverse. Another fraud.

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 discusses the concept of climate change, stating that it is always happening and has been occurring for thousands of years. They explain that measuring sea level rise is difficult due to various factors, and that there is no evidence to suggest a significant change in sea level compared to previous centuries. The speaker questions the alarming claims made about climate change and criticizes the lack of scientific challenge in the field. They argue that scientists are influenced by politicians and that funding for science should be unbiased. The speaker concludes by expressing skepticism towards predictions of disaster and the proposed policies associated with climate change.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The speaker challenges the idea that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, stating that it has never been proven. They argue that even if it were proven, it would also need to be shown that natural emissions do not drive global warming. The speaker points out that in the past, there were six ice ages when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now, questioning how carbon dioxide can drive global warming. They emphasize that the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very small. The speaker concludes by stating that we are being asked to believe that a trace gas emission can change the entire planetary system, which they view as a matter of belief rather than science.

Climate change is real and I believe that carbon and methane emissions contribute to global warming. I have personally witnessed the effects of climate change through melting ice caps, mass migration of animals, and changes in the timing of seasonal events. However, I agree that this crisis is being exploited by powerful entities, such as intelligence agencies and billionaires, to gain more control and power. A war on carbon won't solve the problem, but instead, we should focus on using free markets to transition to sustainable energy sources. If you want to support my presidential campaign, visit Kennedy2020.com and donate.

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.

I'm the only person on the stage who isn't bought and paid for, so I can say this: the climate change agenda is a hoax. We need to declare an independent rule and acknowledge that the anti-carbon agenda is dampening our progress.