reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker mentions that integrating young leaders has been a part of the World Economic Forum for many years. They highlight leaders like Merkel and Putin who were once young global leaders. They express pride in the current young generation, including Trudeau and the President of Argentina, who are now part of their cabinets. The speaker also mentions that this is true in France as well. Another speaker raises a concern about outside interference in democracy and asks for transparency regarding which cabinet ministers support the World Economic Forum's agenda. However, due to technical issues, the question is not fully heard, and the debate becomes heated.

The speaker, representing the Trump EPA, frames geoengineering and contrails as urgent questions for which the American public deserves honesty and transparency. The speaker asserts that “the era is over” when questions were dismissed or vilified, and declares that the Trump EPA is committed to total transparency. The administrator states that the EPA tasked its team to “compile a list of everything we know about contrails and geoengineering for the purpose of releasing it to you now publicly.” The goal is for readers to know “everything I know about these topics and without any exception.” Rather than dismissing questions as baseless conspiracies, the EPA is meeting them head on, performing legwork, reviewing science, consulting agency experts, and incorporating relevant outside information to create online resources. “Everything we know about contrails to solar geoengineering will be in there.” The administrator emphasizes that anyone reading the information will know as much about these topics as the EPA administrator does, addressing questions from people who have looked up at the sky and wondered “what the heck is going on?” or seen headlines about private actors and governments seeking to blot out the sun in the name of stopping global warming. The EPA states that it has endeavored to answer all questions at the links provided. The EPA notes that it shares many of the same concerns about potential threats to human health and the environment, especially from solar geoengineering activities. The speaker highlights that the enthusiasm for experiments that would pump pollutants into the high atmosphere has set off alarm bells at the Trump EPA. Prior to now, the EPA has “never been this proactive to raise awareness about concerns with geoengineering and to stop this activity from being scaled up.” Finally, the administrator frames the stance as an example of government listening to the will of the people, not squashing it, and asserts that “you can always trust this administration and this EPA to take your concerns seriously, answer your questions honestly, and carry out the will of voters with integrity.”

Is this truly a democracy? A functioning democracy requires a strong feedback loop between the people and their government. Without it, if unelected bureaucrats hold the power, the meaning of democracy is lost. The weight of leadership can be challenging, but open communication is essential for a government to represent its citizens effectively. A government without responsiveness to its people isn't truly democratic.

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.

Speaker 0 asks Secretary 1 if they support the administration's goal of cutting US emissions in half by 2030. Secretary 1 confirms their support. Speaker 0 then brings up a past resolution in 1997 where the US shouldn't cut emissions until other countries like China, India, and Mexico do the same. Secretary 1 acknowledges this and states that emissions have increased in those countries as well as globally. Speaker 0 questions if Secretary 1 has abandoned their position, to which Secretary 1 explains that the world has changed since then. Speaker 0 then asks about Secretary 1's previous statements on global emissions and the correct amount of CO2. Secretary 1 explains the need to reduce emissions and control current levels. Speaker 0 presses for a specific amount, but Secretary 1 says it changes daily. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 challenging Secretary 1's views on climate change and the cost of addressing it. Secretary 1 defends their position and mentions the consensus among scientists.

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.

Speaker 0 asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much reducing carbon emissions in the United States by $50 trillion will lower global temperatures. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of global efforts to reduce emissions but does not provide a specific answer. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks for a clear answer, expressing frustration that taxpayer money is being spent without knowing the impact on world temperatures. Speaker 1 acknowledges the lack of a specific answer but believes that the US must lead in addressing climate change. The conversation ends without a clear estimate provided.

The speaker asks the president if he still considers President Xi a dictator. The president confirms that he does, explaining that President Xi is a dictator because he holds absolute power.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

Speaker 0 asks Greta what advice she would give if someone asked her what they should do to address the climate crisis. Greta responds by saying that an elected leader cannot take action without the support of the voters, as it would be undemocratic. She emphasizes the importance of democracy and advises the person to honestly communicate the situation. Speaker 0 acknowledges her point, and Greta asks if there is anything else. The transcript ends.

A speaker asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much global temperatures would decrease if the U.S. spent $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050. The Deputy Secretary states that every country needs to act, and the U.S. accounts for 13% of global emissions. The speaker repeats the question, but the Deputy Secretary says it's a global problem and the U.S. needs to reduce its emissions. The speaker asks how much of a reduction would result if the U.S. does its part. The Deputy Secretary reiterates that the U.S. is 13% of global emissions, and if the U.S. went to zero emissions, that would be 13%. The speaker accuses the Deputy Secretary of wanting to spend $50 trillion without knowing if it will reduce world temperatures.

The speaker criticizes the use of Greta Thunberg by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stating that she belongs in school, not on the streets. They argue that campaigns have misled people into believing that man-made CO2 is the main cause of climate change, despite it only representing a small percentage of the atmosphere. The speaker believes that the proposed solutions to combat climate change, such as higher taxes and state control, are a pretext to control people's behavior and make them poorer. They question the expertise of individuals like Greta Thunberg and Bill Gates in influencing laws and violating people's rights. The speaker concludes by dismissing the claims that 0.041% of the atmosphere is responsible for catastrophic events.

Speaker 0, acting as G7 chair, states they will exercise their role as chair because they have a few more minutes with the president and his team. Speaker 0 indicates they must then start the meeting to address some big issues.

The speaker questions why Greta Thunberg never criticizes Saudi Arabia or Russia, only Western energy. They ask if she will condemn OPEC energy and every delegate who arrived on a private jet. They challenge her to condemn private jets and ask if she has ever been on one. The speaker claims to own 100 private jets and asks if Greta has ever been on one, to which she responds affirmatively.

The speaker discusses the influence of globalist elites on world leaders, referring to them as puppets. They claim that these elites do not want democracy because it hinders their agenda. Instead, they use tactics like gaslighting and censorship to control the narrative. The speaker argues that the elites' actions are not about saving the planet but rather about taking away people's freedoms and rights. They believe that the measures being imposed will not achieve their stated goals but will instead lead to the erosion of democracy and the rule of law.

Speaker 0 introduces Desiree as an outspoken whistleblower who has challenged the Davos elite, asserts that old systems are not fit for the twenty-first century, and asks how Desiree helped build the WEF’s great reset. Speaker 1, Desiree, recounts that in 2020 she obtained her dream job as chief sustainability officer at Deutsche Bank. She states that while in that role she witnessed fraud and describes the annual report as a “legal living document” filled with lies. She says that a couple of weeks after she spoke out, she was fired, and shortly after, the annual report was released with “all the lies.” She describes a subsequent “horrific smear campaign” and notes that within two days, U.S. authorities contacted her, including the SEC, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. She mentions that they asked her questions, implying inquiry or investigation directed at her claims. Speaker 0 questions whether Desiree is advancing the view that “they’re controlling the world.” Speaker 1 asserts that the WEF is vast and that its tentacles affect every part of life. She claims that this situation is not stakeholder capitalism but socialism, accusing the WEF of lying to the public. She contends that the Davos agenda involves more than net zero and asserts that it is connected to a “climate crisis” manufactured by a “multi trillion dollar industrial complex.” She reiterates that the Davos agenda is about more than climate goals and frames it as a broad, powerful economic and political enterprise. Speaker 0 asks Desiree whether she ever met Claus Schwab and whether she has anything to say about the encounter. Speaker 1 responds with a brief affirmative, saying “Yes,” to having met Schwab, and adds “Truthfully” when asked for further remarks about the meeting. Summary of key points: - Desiree’s career move to Deutsche Bank in 2020 as chief sustainability officer and her claim of discovering fraud and a lies-filled annual report. - Her claim of being fired and subjected to a smear campaign, followed by inquiries from U.S. authorities (SEC, FBI, DOJ). - The assertion that the WEF’s influence extends across life, characterizing the Davos agenda as socialism rather than stakeholder capitalism, and alleging a manufactured climate crisis tied to a multi-trillion-dollar industrial complex. - The claim that the Davos agenda encompasses more than net zero and entails broader power and influence. - Desiree confirms she met Claus Schwab, with a brief, candid acknowledgment.

The speaker discusses the need to reduce emissions to address the climate crisis. They emphasize that even if all industrial nations achieve zero emissions, it would not be enough to solve the problem. The speaker also mentions that global net zero is insufficient and that carbon dioxide must be removed from the atmosphere. When asked about the correct amount of CO2, the speaker explains that the level changes daily and highlights the importance of reducing emissions. The conversation then shifts to a debate about historical levels of CO2 and the impact of human activity. The speaker argues that human beings are contributing to the problem and defends the consensus among scientists. The other speaker questions the need for expensive solutions and raises concerns about the potential negative effects of reducing CO2 levels on plant life. The conversation ends with a disagreement on the role of consensus in science.

The atmosphere in the European Parliament is tense. Many colleagues are realizing they are not serving the people's best interests. It's no longer about the people, but about a global elite. They are starting to see that the public is no longer fooled by climate change rhetoric and are standing up against it.

Speaker 0 asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much reducing carbon emissions in the United States by $50 trillion will lower world temperatures. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of global efforts to reduce emissions but does not provide a specific answer. Speaker 0 repeatedly questions Speaker 1's inability to provide a clear response, expressing concern about spending taxpayer money without knowing the impact on world temperatures. Speaker 1 believes that the US must lead in addressing climate change. However, Speaker 0 insists on receiving a specific answer, which Speaker 1 fails to provide.

The speaker was asked if they would have done anything differently than President Biden during the past 4 years. The speaker responded that there is one thing that comes to mind. They added that they have been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.

The inflation reduction passed a year ago has put the US back on the map as a global climate leader. However, concerns arise that the momentum may change after the 2024 elections. Speaker 1 believes that no politician can halt the ongoing transition towards addressing climate change. This transition is driven by scientific evidence and is not influenced by politics or ideology. It is crucial for everyone to contribute to this transition as it directly affects the air we breathe, pollution levels, farming, living conditions, children, and disease.

The speaker states that the most significant aspect of their policy decisions is that their values have not changed. They mention the Green New Deal as an example, stating they have always believed the climate crisis is real and urgent. They claim to have worked on applying metrics, including deadlines, and set goals for the United States and the globe for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The speaker asserts that this value has not changed.