reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than previous periods in history. They claim that carbon dioxide levels are at their lowest in 600 million years. They also mention that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but this information was allegedly removed from the IPCC reports to fit a specific narrative. The speaker suggests that those who challenge this narrative do not receive sufficient media coverage. They mention the large amount of money invested in climate change.

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.

Malcolm Roberts questioned the CSIRO about scientific papers proving that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. Despite asking scientists, journalists, and politicians for 25 years, no one has been able to provide evidence from scientific literature. Even if human emissions do drive global warming, they only account for 3% of total emissions, while the remaining 97% comes from natural sources like ocean degassing. This raises doubts about the entire premise of human-induced global warming. The speaker believes that the push for this concept is not about the environment but rather a means for unelected individuals to gain power. They express their frustration and promote their book, "Green Murder," as a direct challenge to those leading this movement.

In the nineteenth century, many Americans used homeopathic (naturopathic) remedies that were widely available at low cost. The American Medical Association (formed in 1847) allegedly opposed homeopaths becoming AMA members and sought to control the medical profession by excluding them, while homeopathy remained a minority alternative. The transcript then claims John D. Rockefeller identified “great potentialities of profit” in the medical industry and, after turning the U.S. medical system from homeopathic to allopathic medicine, became the “kingpin of the medical monopoly.” It describes allopathy as centered on radical surgery, heavy drug use, and lengthy hospital stays, and alleges that control of legislatures, hospital accreditation, physicians, and medications became the basis of the modern system. It further claims health care costs multiplied and became unaffordable for most Americans, leading to the rise of medical insurance, portrayed as “another tax,” administered through Social Security and Medicare, with Medicare costs deducted from Social Security benefits. The transcript asserts that money from the health industry funnels into a Rockefeller-style medical and drug monopoly and that the Rockefellers allegedly control major drug companies by placing people from institutions like Chase Manhattan Bank and Exxon oil among directors and officials of large drug firms. A separate segment shifts to an oil-drilling conversation emphasizing drilling control: a man claims he does his own drilling with workers he knows, avoiding lost tools, failed cementing, and ruined leases—contrasting his approach with speculators who rush contracts and rely on contractors. Speaker 6 and others then expand the theme of “mainstream medicine” as Rockefeller creation, adding claims of global institutional dominance and “eugenics” programs (including forced sterilization, water fluoridation, abortions, and vaccinations). They argue that a “Flexner Report” (linked to a Carnegie-funded investigation) helped establish modern allopathic medicine by standardizing medical education, closing many medical colleges, and marginalizing holistic and natural medicines; the transcript alleges curricula were altered to focus on patented drugs and to remove emphasis on herbs and nutrition. It then cites the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 as giving hospitals funds conditional on providing free care, followed by a system shift into paid, long-term pharmaceutical dependence. The transcript also alleges the American Cancer Society (founded in 1913) and major philanthropic grants to medical schools served to advance allopathic-only curricula and ensure board influence. The transcript further claims big pharmaceutical firms use “biopiracy,” researching plant compounds, copying or slightly modifying them to patent synthetic analogs, then marketing pills while discrediting the original natural sources. It asserts that the Rockefellers travel with naturopathic doctors who allegedly use homeopathic remedies first and pharmaceuticals only as a last resort. It also cites David Rockefeller’s 1994 statement at a UN business conference that “the right major crisis” could be used to achieve a “new world order.” Long portions of the transcript then follow a conspiracy narrative about global governance and “lockstep” authoritarian control. A document from the Rockefeller Foundation is introduced as “Scenarios for the Future International Development,” with a scenario called “lockstep” describing tighter top-down government control, increased authoritarianism, limited innovation, and “growing citizen pushback.” The transcript reads passages implying a pandemic scenario that leads to economic disruption, isolation, and restrictions on mobility, along with mandatory quarantine and mask policies that continue after the pandemic fades. It claims Ebola is treated as a tool to advance control and asserts that oppressive measures like quarantines and curfews are part of a broader “tool kit.” Another segment alleges that John D. Rockefeller and associates “pirated” the blood banking industry and administrative leadership of the American Red Cross to advance eugenics management, and it discusses the founding of the General Education Board (GEB), an “Occasional Letter,” and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory as centers for eugenics and genetics research. It connects alleged Rockefeller funding to eugenics institutions in Germany and describes supposed links to organizations and individuals across military intelligence and government. The transcript further claims wrongdoing involving blood contamination (including AIDS), reliance on contaminated blood for HIV infections, and neglect of technologies to remove viruses. It also discusses population “culling” targets attributed to a population council and a negative population growth organization. The transcript then includes a conversation about vaccines and alleged future mass harm, mentioning a nasal mist “live attenuated virus,” “squalene,” a large number of “injection stations,” and the idea of a “great culling.” It references FEMA and population relocation in the context of civil disorder or pandemics and includes claims about a “council of seven men” making long-term decisions. It ends this section by stating that “her message” is that “everyone” must decide what to do with the information. The transcript also describes the Georgia Guidestones, portraying their construction details (including multilingual engraved messages and population-reduction themes) and interpreting passages as advocating maintaining humanity under 500,000,000 and guiding reproduction and disputes in a world court. It states that the structure’s “population control” passage has drawn attention and compares the required reduction to the 1979 world population. A segment attributes a “master plan” to “Agenda 21,” claiming it is designed to reduce independence by moving people into cities and making them dependent on the state, limiting private property and land ownership, and controlling food production via corporations while discouraging rural living. Toward the end, the transcript shifts into additional conspiracy claims about climate change, featuring a discussion in which John Coleman argues that climate change is “not happening,” and the transcript asserts that climate research funding and institutional selection bias support a particular position. It includes an argument between speakers about global warming and future sea-level impacts. Another speaker claims that “ClimateGate” emails demonstrate manipulation and that climate change was renamed from “global warming” after Earth’s cooling period. The transcript also includes assertions that carbon dioxide cannot significantly drive warming and that climate change theory is connected to Marxism and socialist goals. Finally, there is a mix of other claims: references to a swine flu vaccine scare in 1976 with alleged neurological injury and death claims; a discussion of a patent for a COVID testing “system and method”; and allegations about biological weapons contracts, fortifications like Fort Detrick and Lytton Bioinetics, and disputes over HIV origins. The transcript contains an extended exchange with Dr. Robert Gallo, including claims about what experiments did and did not involve, and ends with additional statements urging unity, “the Great Awakening,” and concluding remarks about ongoing struggle between “wrong and right.”

The speaker questions the belief that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming, stating that this has never been proven. They also criticize the concept of "net zero" emissions, arguing that if humans didn't release carbon dioxide, they would die because it is a natural part of our bodily functions. The speaker accuses the climate change movement of being anti-human and denying the place of humans on Earth. Another speaker adds that temperature data from satellites and balloons shows a slight cooling trend, while data from land-based sources has been manipulated to show a warming trend. They argue that throughout history, the Earth has experienced cycles of warming and cooling, and the current period is no different. They conclude that carbon dioxide is not the cause of these changes.

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.

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.

- 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.

Anne expresses concern over the mainstream media accepting false information about climate change. She argues that data shows no increase in hurricanes, sea level rise, bushfires, or climate-related deaths. She criticizes the lack of evidence supporting the claim that human emissions drive global warming. The other speaker questions why the media continues to believe inaccurate predictions without questioning their credibility. Anne suggests that scare tactics and propaganda have been used for 30 years to manipulate public opinion.

Speaker 0 argues that control is in the hands of unelected officials at supranational organizations, and that they want all of the world’s resources in their pocket. Speaker 1 says the bigger picture is an attempt to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy. Speaker 2 calls this a coup, asserting that “we can control with rules” and “we don’t need currency anymore.” Speaker 3 describes it as an inverted prison, where you are supposedly free to roam about, but “everything you want to access is behind lock and key.” Speaker 1 warns that “the potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible.” Speaker 4 outlines plans to commandeer land, reduce farming, radically change the food we eat, transform the supply of electricity, dictate how we use it, and replace currency with a system of credits, all built on the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide. Speaker 5 counters with, “I do not think there’s a climate crisis,” basing that claim on climate data sets built to answer questions like that. Speaker 0 states, “The government is very clear that they want a catastrophic story,” and adds that there is no single science paper proving conclusively that humans control all or most of the global climate, while accusing Europe’s net-zero push of being “effectively economic suicide,” arguing politicians are “purposely impoverishing ordinary people” and deindustrializing Europe. Speaker 6 comments on the damage done “in the name of saving the planet” and asks, “what is it we’re actually saving if we’re paving it over.” Speaker 0 calls this a global war on agriculture. Speaker 4 notes that many farms are selling up, leading to fears of food shortages. Speaker 2 states, “If I can switch everybody from real food to pharma food, then 100% of the agriculture industry can go through my publicly traded stocks, and I have complete control.” Speaker 3 terms it “the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world,” but also says it is a blueprint and an action plan. Speaker 0 contends that “All life on Earth is going to be radically changed.” Speaker 4 predicts that “Everything will be monitored,” including the environmental consequences of every human action. Speaker 2 complains that “the general cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that they're facing.” Speaker 3 warns that once a digital ID is in place, “it's game over for humanity.”

The speaker questions the belief in human emissions of carbon dioxide driving global warming and criticizes the concept of net zero. They argue that if we had net zero carbon dioxide emissions, we would not be able to survive. They describe the climate change movement as anti-human, suggesting that it denies the place of humans on Earth. Another speaker points out that temperature data from satellites and balloons shows a slight cooling trend, while data collected mainly on land suggests a warming trend. They also mention that throughout history, the planet has experienced cycles of warming and cooling, and the current cycle is not exceptional. Both speakers conclude that carbon dioxide is not the cause of these changes.

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 speakers express concern about the mainstream media accepting false information about climate change. They argue that hurricanes, sea levels, bushfires, and climate-related deaths are not increasing as claimed. They criticize the lack of evidence supporting the idea that human emissions drive global warming. Despite the inaccuracies in their predictions, the speakers believe that the media continues to promote scare stories for attention. They highlight the absence of proof in arguments against coal, gas, and hydrocarbons. Overall, they question why the media's credibility remains intact despite their track record of incorrect predictions.

The speaker questions the need to spend 1.6 quadrillion dollars to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, arguing that the low levels of carbon dioxide might actually be necessary for plant life. They highlight that during the period since 2015, when carbon emissions increased, temperature has actually gone down. The speaker suggests that the problem may not exist and accuses the other person of grifting. The other person disagrees, mentioning the difference between natural climate variations and human impact, and the global consensus on addressing climate change.

Geologists have been studying climate for 250 years, while climate science is a relatively new field. The speaker criticizes climate scientists as obscure and unemployable academics who cost taxpayers a lot of money. They argue that climate models are often incorrect and should be disregarded. The speaker points out that Earth has experienced six ice ages, with periods of glaciation and interglacial periods. They emphasize that we are currently in an interglacial period, which started 34 million years ago, and that temperatures have been both warmer and cooler in the past. The speaker also mentions that we have just come out of a little ice age and that temperatures have been rising since then. They dismiss the significance of carbon dioxide emissions, stating that the current level of 0.04% is low compared to geological history and that reducing it would harm plant and animal life.

The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than previous periods in history. They claim that carbon dioxide levels are at their lowest in 600 million years. They also mention that the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but this information was removed from the IPCC reports to fit a specific narrative. The speaker believes that those who challenge this narrative are not receiving media attention. They highlight the significant amount of money invested in the climate change narrative.

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 questions the need to spend trillions of dollars to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, arguing that the problem doesn't exist and may even be worsened. They mention that carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and killing it would have negative consequences. The other speaker disagrees, stating that human activity is significantly contributing to climate change and that the consensus among world leaders supports taking action. The first speaker dismisses this as a money-making scheme.

The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than previous periods in history. They claim that carbon dioxide levels are at their 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 believes that those who criticize this manipulation of data are not receiving sufficient media coverage. They highlight the significant amount of money being invested in climate change.

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 the current climate is not warmer than in the past, citing a baseline of the lowest carbon dioxide levels in 600 million years. They claim that the IPCC's 1992 report showed the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but subsequent reports removed this information. The speaker suggests that a contrived graph called the Hochschies was used to flatten the temperature data and add an upward trend. They believe that those who challenge this narrative receive little media coverage. Additionally, they mention the significant amount of money invested in climate change.

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.