reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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. They point out that periods in Earth's history with much higher CO2 levels did not result in significant temperature changes. The claim of a consensus among thousands of scientists is disputed, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is seen as politically driven and includes non-scientists in its ranks. Climate scientists are accused of exaggerating the issue to secure funding, and the global warming industry has become a source of employment for many. Dissenting voices are met with anger and censorship.

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.

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.

The speaker argues that climate change is a natural occurrence and not solely caused by global warming. They claim that there is no global climate or warming, as different regions experience both warming and cooling. They mention various factors that contribute to climate change, such as Milankovitch parameters, solar activity, geomagnetism, cosmic radiation, and volcanic activity. They emphasize that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide. The speaker dismisses the idea that carbon dioxide is the cause of climate variations and criticizes the media, politicians, and environmentalists for their lack of scientific knowledge. They believe that adaptation to climate change is necessary, but long-term predictions are unreliable, while immediate weather forecasts based on satellite observations are more accurate. They highlight the increase in atmospheric pressure in the south of France as an indicator of climate change.

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 doubting the climate change orthodoxy is seen as politically incorrect. Senior climate scientists argue that the scientific basis for the theory of man-made global warming is weakening. They point out that periods in Earth's history with much higher CO2 levels did not result in significant temperature changes. The claim of a consensus among thousands of scientists supporting the catastrophic impact of human activity on climate change is disputed, with some scientists disagreeing. The IPCC, a UN body, is seen as politically driven, and its claim of representing thousands of top scientists is questioned. Climate science funding depends on the existence of a problem, leading to a vested interest in creating panic. The global warming industry has become a significant source of employment, and dissenting voices face censorship and intimidation.

These policies are harmful and based on falsehoods. Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, argues that to combat climate alarmism, we must challenge the science behind climate change. He notes that while some claim Canada’s emissions are minimal compared to countries like China, the real issue is the absence of a climate crisis. Initially a climate alarmist, Harris changed his perspective after learning from a geology professor who demonstrated no consistent link between carbon dioxide levels and Earth's temperature. He discovered that historical data shows high CO2 levels did not correlate with warmer conditions. This led him to conclude that the climate scare lacks a solid scientific foundation, relying instead on flawed models.

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.

The speaker discusses the UN's efforts to establish a global government under the pretext of climate change. They mention the failures of previous attempts, such as the Kyoto Protocol, and the exaggerated claims made about the effects of Chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone. The speaker also highlights the lack of global warming in the past 18 years despite increased CO2 concentrations. They discuss how countries like China and India are not willing to make restrictions, while poorer countries are bribed with money to support the climate treaty. The speaker believes that the establishment of a global government is inevitable, but hopes that people will eventually reject it.

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.

Christian Gerondeau disputes the claim that scientists from the IPCC unanimously agree that humans are causing climate change. He mentions a petition signed by Nobel laureates and others from 40 countries, titled "There is no climate emergency," which challenges this consensus. Gerondeau suggests that environmental NGOs have dominated the IPCC for over 30 years, silencing dissenting voices. He expresses frustration at not being given a platform on public radio or television channels. The former director of France's weather service was removed after questioning the anthropogenic nature of climate change.

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.

The GIEC, an official organization with limited scientific expertise, was established to be controlled by state representatives, as demanded by Reagan and Thatcher. For nine years, it was led by Bergboline, a climate scientist who strongly believed in the role of CO2 in temperature changes. During this time, there was a belief that the climate was heading towards a catastrophe. However, these predictions were proven false. The GIEC's initial focus was on blaming carbon for climate change, aiming to eliminate carbon exploitation. Algore promoted carbon market inventories and taxes, justifying these actions with a collection of lies and predictions.

The speakers discuss the issue of climate change and the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They mention that some people view the IPCC as a bureaucratic organization rather than a scientific one. They also mention a Nobel laureate who doubts the claims made about climate change. The speakers argue that there is a lack of scientific rigor and too much focus on politics in the climate change debate. They highlight the discrepancy between measuring CO2 levels in parts per million and emissions in tons, emphasizing the need for a more accurate understanding of the issue. They criticize the European Union for not considering the effectiveness of their actions in relation to the massive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. They conclude that false ideas about climate change are being propagated by authorities, including the United Nations.

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 criticizes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for using Greta Thunberg to promote their reports, calling it a belief system rather than a scientific organization. They argue that despite carbon dioxide only representing 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 making people poorer while benefiting a small elite. The speaker questions the expertise of individuals like Greta Thunberg and Bill Gates in influencing laws and violating people's rights. They dismiss the discussion as propaganda and emphasize the small percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The speaker discusses the causality between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature. They argue that human activities have a minimal influence on CO2 increase, with natural effects, particularly temperature, being responsible for over 85% of atmospheric CO2 rise since the industrial revolution. They criticize the IPCC's focus on anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the sole cause of climate change, calling it contrary to the truth. The speaker accuses certain individuals, such as Jean Jouzel and Valérie Masson Delmotte, of scientific fraud and highlights the lack of evidence in the IPCC's reports and their inaccurate predictions. They emphasize the need for policymakers and industry leaders to realize they have been deceived by the IPCC and its "apprentice sorcerers."

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.

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.

Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition, argues that the climate change movement is a scam. He believes that the focus should be on debunking the science behind climate change. While some argue that countries like Canada should set an example by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Harris claims that there is no climate crisis. He shares his experience as an aerospace engineer and how a professor challenged his beliefs about the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. This encounter led him to question the correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature. Harris highlights a book called "Climate Change Reconsidered" that contains thousands of references debunking the foundation of the climate scare, which he claims is based on faulty models.

We acknowledge the climate change and aim to establish a decarbonized economy with measures to limit its impact. However, we don't want to impose punitive ecological measures or advocate for degrowth. We believe in considering both scientific data, including that of the IPCC, and political vision. While scientists sometimes tend to exaggerate, we should still trust them. Our role is to strike a balance between scientific evidence and the well-being of the French people, just as we did during the Covid pandemic. It is the responsibility of politicians to find this equilibrium between scientific facts and the reality on the ground.

Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, argues that the climate change movement is a scam. He believes that the focus should be on challenging the science behind climate change. Harris shares his experience as a former climate alarmist and how he was convinced by a professor at Carleton University that there is no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature. He mentions a book called "Climate Change Reconsidered" which provides thousands of references debunking the foundation of the climate scare.

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.

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.