reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 arguing that there is no climate catastrophe or climate emergency. They claim that the threat narrative is pervasive, describing “tentacles” extending across the public sector, private sector, and academia. The speaker asserts that politicians, exemplified by Mark Carney, use fear mongering to secure votes, and notes that this phenomenon is seen globally, predominantly in left-leaning governments. According to Speaker 0, the climate discourse represents self-sabotage and economic suicide. They describe economies as being strangled by a left-wing agenda, contending that such forces are shaping markets, national policy, media output, education, and financial flows. The overarching claim is that this agenda is about power and control, with fear mongering used to imply a climate catastrophe. The transcript then shifts to a brief interlude welcoming Desiree Fixler. Desiree Fixler is thanked for joining again, with a note that much has happened since their last chat.

The speaker believes that if a problem is presented as a global crisis, it is likely a scam. They argue that global crises are often fabricated, using non-existent or local problems to create a sense of urgency. The speaker cites the COVID policy response and the climate change crisis as examples. They claim that these crises are used to push for global authority and control. The speaker also notes that dissenting voices are often silenced, and science is presented as static knowledge rather than an evolving activity. They conclude that these patterns are proof of a scam, and people should be aware of them.

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.

Some individuals believe in global warming but not in the idea that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Climate change dissent is met with intolerance and politicians fear expressing doubt. Senior climate scientists argue that the scientific basis for the theory is weakening. Historical periods with significantly higher CO2 levels did not result in major climate changes. The claim of a consensus among thousands of scientists is disputed, as the IPCC includes non-scientists and politically driven conclusions. Climate scientists have a vested interest in creating panic to secure funding. The global warming issue has become a political activist movement, with many jobs and industries dependent on it. Dissenting voices are met with censorship and intimidation.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 outlines a narrative linking the origins of the environmental movement to the Club of Rome, described as a crisis think tank that purportedly specializes in crisis creation. The speaker cites a document, The First Global Revolution by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, claiming it states that pollution, global warming, water shortages, famine and similar dangers would fit the bill as a new enemy to unite the world and justify a global response to local problems, thereby claiming “the origin of global warming.” The speaker then connects this to Australia, asserting that in 1975 Australia accepted a new economic order via the Lima Declaration at the UNIDO conference. The Lima Declaration, they say, was a blueprint for redeploying tools, jobs and manufacturing to developing nations, leaving Australia short of technology, a manufacturing base and jobs, and that unworkable trade and tariffs agreements followed. They claim these treaties were the foundation for the rollout of Agenda 21 and contend Australia has been moved on a global chessboard with leaders either complicit or naive to long-term consequences. The segment cites 1992 remarks by former U.S. president George Bush Sr. about Agenda 21, describing it as requiring a profound reorientation of human society and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources, integrating concern for environmental consequences into decision making at every level. The speaker urges the audience to consider the implications of “profound reorientation of all human society” and “unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.” The speaker references Morris Strong, then secretary-general of the UN Earth Summit, stating that affluent middle-class lifestyles are not sustainable, including high meat intake, frozen foods, fossil fuels, vehicle ownership, and other consumption patterns. The implication drawn is that Agenda 21 is about controlling every aspect of life—what and how we eat, how we move, food production, quantity of food, and where we live. Dixie Ray, former Washington state governor and assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, is quoted as saying Agenda 21 seeks to transfer wealth from citizens to the third world. A fear-based trajectory is described where fear of environmental crisis would be used to create a world government with UN central direction. The speaker quotes a Habitat One report suggesting land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset and that private land ownership contributes to social injustice, implying a redistribution of wealth through land and resource control. A report from the president’s council on sustainable development is cited as advocating a new collaborative decision process for better decisions and more rapid change in resource use. Harvey Ruben of the Wildlands Project and Jay Gary Lawrence are invoked to suggest that individual rights would be subordinated to the collective, and that participating in UN-planned processes would provoke conspiracy-minded groups to resist, leading to alternative labels like comprehensive planning or sustainable development. The narrative claims that costs are rising for citizens while services are cut, portraying this as wealth redistribution and redeployment of resources that harms the working poor. It references debates over land rights and water allocation, the native vegetation act, and development and planning acts as threats to food producers and long-term security, with alluding to heritage status used to justify control over land titles. The speaker argues for legislative Council checks and balances as a safeguard against parties colluding to pass restrictive policies, urging public participation to restrain erosion of common law, and portraying agenda 21 as an ongoing threat since 2008. The account then traces the Club of Rome’s 1972 Limits to Growth and its environmental alarmism, linking Ted Turner and Mao to early endorsements of the movement, and cites 1987 and 1996 statements about a new world order and an environmental crisis unlocking a one-world government. It asserts the Earth Summit produced the Earth Charter, co-written by Morris Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, as a new set of commandments with environmentalism as a new world religion, and connects this to Agenda 21. Ted Turner’s 1996 reductionist population statements are included, along with a 1998 Baltimore Sun report on Turner’s donations to the UN aimed at stalling population growth and supporting sterilization to “save mother earth.”

Climate change skeptics are often dismissed and mocked by the media. However, there is a manufactured consensus among climate scientists, driven by incentives like fame and fortune. Researcher Judith Curry, who spreads alarm about climate change, published a study claiming that the intensity of hurricanes had doubled. This was picked up by the media, who tied extreme weather events to global warming. Curry became popular among environmental advocacy groups and received media attention, being treated like a rock star. However, some researchers pointed out gaps in her research, including years with low levels of hurricane activity.

Climate change is being portrayed as a pervasive issue, with schools, parents, and universities promoting it as a new religion. However, the speaker questions the understanding of climate change, pointing out that it is often equated with carbon emissions. They clarify that carbon is an element found in various substances, including carbon dioxide. The speaker argues that carbon dioxide, which comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere, is being exaggerated as a problem. They question the need to disrupt the economy and increase energy prices based on such a small percentage. The speaker urges people to challenge this perspective and fight against what they perceive as intellectual nonsense.

Skeptics struggle to secure funding and face difficulty in publishing due to alarmist journal editors. The importance of publication lies in researchers' career advancement. Alarmist researchers dominate the conversation by publishing alarming papers, which are then amplified by the media. Various aspects of life, from transportation to childhood obesity, are attributed to climate change. The media's influence causes activists to panic, fearing the potential extinction of the human race.

Speaker 0 says that the richest people in the world have recently started telling people they need to produce more energy, which they find “a little weird” because the same group has spent at least the past fifteen years—since Al Gore became famous—telling people the opposite. Speaker 0 claims they said energy is not the source of life or the base of civilization, but instead the cause of humanity’s downfall: the destruction of the earth and the main reason for climate change. Speaker 0 further states that CO2 is the reason it is getting warmer and that this warming happens because climate cycles are part of nature, including the example that glaciers existed and now do not. Speaker 0 says this group previously taught that burning fossil fuels was not only bad for the environment but a sin, and that society should be organized around being “carbon conscious” because they “love the earth.” Speaker 0 then claims that the same people, including Larry Fink of BlackRock, have since said they are going to take a pause on concern about global warming and that society needs more electricity. Speaker 0 states that most electricity on Earth is produced by boiling water to move turbines, and that a small portion uses radioactive material in nuclear reactors, while most generation is from coal, then natural gas, and some oil. Speaker 0 characterizes this as essentially industrial-age technology: refining and cleaning, but fundamentally the same process of burning fuel to boil water and generate power. Speaker 0 says these figures who previously framed that technology as inefficient and morally wrong are now calling for a massive expansion of it. Speaker 0 links this shift to AI, describing artificial intelligence as a dramatic, quantum increase in processing power that enables computers to reason and mimic human thinking, replacing a lot of human labor. Speaker 0 states that AI is incredibly demanding of power and will require far more electricity than most people understood. Speaker 0 concludes that society will need to put on hold—and invert—its concerns about global warming in order to build AI.

The speaker suggests that both COVID and climate change are presented as global crises to manipulate people. They claim that these crises are fabricated and used to push for global control and authority. The speaker points out that countries like Sweden and Tanzania faced backlash for questioning the mainstream narrative on COVID. Similarly, they argue that the climate change crisis is based on the idea that CO2 is the biggest threat and that consuming fewer fossil fuels is the only solution. The speaker also highlights the suppression of dissenting voices and the presentation of science as static knowledge rather than an evolving activity. They conclude that these patterns are proof of a scam.

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.

Some individuals believe in global warming but not in the idea that human CO2 emissions are causing it. Climate change dissent is met with intolerance and politicians are afraid to express doubt. Senior climate scientists argue that the scientific basis for the theory is weakening. Historical periods with significantly higher CO2 levels did not result in major climate changes. The claim of a consensus among thousands of scientists is disputed, as the IPCC includes non-scientists and politically driven conclusions. Climate scientists have a vested interest in creating panic to secure funding. The global warming issue has become a political activist movement, with jobs and industries dependent on it. Dissenting voices are met with censorship and intimidation.

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 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 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 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.

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.

In this video, the speakers discuss the financial incentives and political motivations behind the climate change narrative. They explain how the climate industry has grown into a multitrillion dollar business, with many jobs and funding dependent on the existence of a climate crisis. They highlight the pressure to conform to the consensus and the consequences faced by those who question the narrative. The speakers argue that the climate scare is not only an attack on science but also a means for governments to increase their power and control over people's lives. They emphasize the need for open scientific inquiry and express concerns about the suppression of dissenting views.

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.