TruthArchive.ai - 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.

In the past, there were concerns about air pollution causing an ice age, but now the focus has shifted to global warming. The media and the United Nations have been promoting alarmist rhetoric about man-made climate change for decades. However, these predictions of doom have not come true. The purpose of this messaging is to instill fear, allowing governments to gain centralized power and control over people's actions. This serves the agenda of globalism led by the United Nations and the Chinese Communist Party, which is not in the best interest of Australia. These entities aim to control and weaken us, and that is the real emergency.

We're all talking about something here which isn't happening. I've heard time and time again members here talk of c o two as a pollutant. A pollutant is a life giving natural gas. It gives me the impression that some of our members haven't had the benefit of a formal education. Isn't this really just about the state being able to get its hand in ordinary people's trouser pocket to still get more tax from them? Isn't this all about political control? Isn't all this about politics and big business? The whole thing's a sham. This bogus hypothesis, this ridiculous nonsense that man made c o two is causing global warming. Enough, please, before we damage irrevocably the global economy.

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.

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.

Carbon dioxide is often seen as a pollutant, but I believe it is actually essential for life on Earth. It is a good thing that we are increasing its levels in the atmosphere because it was running low before. However, there is no definitive proof that CO2 is causing serious problems. As a student of science, I know that the scientific method has not been used to prove that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. In the future, people may look back and realize that the efforts to change energy policies based on cutting this gas were unnecessary. I firmly believe that the climate change hysteria is a fabrication.

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.

There is a political movement that has used climate change to scare people. It started with global cooling, then changed to global warming, and now they use the term climate change. They claim the world will end in 12 years, but that's not true. We will adapt. The pandemic is even better for them because they can gain control. They can implement vaccine passports and restrict travel. We should be concerned about a potential bank crisis and the possibility of a central bank digital currency that can control our purchases based on our social credit score. This happens in China, and some technocrats in the US might want the same. We should be skeptical and ask questions.

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.

I don't use unproven approaches like planting trees to address the climate issue. Some people believe that planting enough trees can solve the problem, but that's nonsense. Are we the science people or the idiots?

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.

One urgent task is to defeat the climate hysteria hoax. The ocean is rising, but the impact is minimal and exaggerated. Our factories are struggling, and reliance on intermittent wind energy is impractical. The radical left's fearmongering about climate change is harming the economy and the middle class. Conservative leaders must challenge this narrative. Predictions of impending doom, like having only 12 years left, have proven false. The focus should be on real threats, such as nuclear weapons, rather than exaggerated climate fears. The shift from "global warming" to "climate change" reflects the inability to accurately predict climate patterns, making it a catch-all term. The real issues lie elsewhere, and we must address them.

- 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.

Climate experts have been making incorrect predictions for decades. In 1969, Paul Ehrlich claimed that everyone would disappear in 20 years, but he is still being cited today. In the 1970s, experts warned of a new ice age caused by air pollution. Leonard Nimoy even made a video about it. However, when the ice age didn't happen, they shifted to global warming. In 1989, a UN official said rising sea levels would wipe out entire nations by 2000. Al Gore also made incorrect predictions in his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." Despite these failures, the media continues to amplify these claims. Climate change is a natural process that we cannot control, and there are both upsides and downsides to it.

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 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.'

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.

In the past decades, various environmental predictions have been made, leading to fears and taxes to combat these threats. However, many of these predictions, such as running out of oil, an impending ice age, acid rain destroying crops, and the ozone layer being destroyed, have not come true as expected. Despite this, taxes imposed to address these issues remain. While some environmental concerns like melting ice caps are happening, the predicted timelines have not been accurate. It is important to question and understand these predictions and the taxes that follow, as history shows a pattern of repeated predictions and lasting taxes.

I can't stay silent, so deal with it. Many politicians are scared because they know they're not serving the people's best interests. It's no longer a government for the people, by the people, and of the people. It's now a government for and by a group of global misanthropists. They're starting to realize that people won't let them get away with it anymore. They can't deceive them by claiming it's all about saving the planet and climate change. People no longer believe that, and they're catching on to the fact that it's a huge lie.

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 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.

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.