TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 argues that the science is very incorrect and very bad science, aside from all the other material Jill Demenov and US Right to Know uncovered. They claim those sources went overboard to disprove something without good data, and that the manipulation and intent to tell a story that is not substantiated are the reasons why they should be retracted. They also state that these people do not have the courage or the decency to retract.

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 claims the current climate is no warmer than in the past and that present carbon dioxide levels are the lowest in 600 million years. They allege the IPCC's 1992 report showed the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but this was altered in the 1996 report with a "hockey stick" graph. This allegedly removed the medieval warm period and little ice age by flattening the graph and adding the instrumental record to show a sharp increase. The speaker asserts that those challenging this narrative are not receiving media coverage due to the billion-dollar investment in the climate change narrative.

The speaker claims the current climate is no warmer than in past historical periods and that present carbon dioxide levels are the lowest in 600 million years. They allege the IPCC's 1992 report showed the medieval warm period was warmer than the present, but this was altered in the 1996 report with a "hockey stick" graph. This allegedly removed the medieval warm period and little ice age by flattening the graph and adding instrumental records to show a sharp increase. The speaker asserts that those challenging this narrative are not receiving media coverage due to the significant financial investment in the climate change narrative.

Speaker 0 describes a controversial 2000 study and its alleged connections to Monsanto. The speaker asserts that Monsanto staff helped write the article, and that the authors were likely receiving large sums of money from Monsanto. They claim much of the data in the study was unpublished, describing it as secret data from Monsanto, and label the paper “basically a complete fraud.” The study supposedly claimed that glyphosate was safe and not linked to cancer. The speaker then references subsequent studies released recently, which purportedly found that glyphosate increased or caused ten distinct types of cancer in rats when the rats were exposed at so-called safe levels. Despite these findings, the speaker notes that the original paper was used by agencies around the world to claim glyphosate was safe and to support approval processes. The speaker concludes that the entire foundation of those safety assurances was built on “a complete fraud and lie,” and states that the retraction of the 2000 paper is, in this context, something they are happy about, remarking that it is probably the only time they will be happy about a retraction.

Speaker 0: Asked about the system of retractions and whether retracting a paper discredits a hypothesis, and on what basis retractions occur. Speaker 1: Responded that quoting papers that are later retracted does not negate a hypothesis; there is no rule requiring a hypothesis to be retracted if a cited paper is retracted after publication. They note that the practice involves harassing journals rather than logically disproving a hypothesis. For example, they may present a dozen questions to the journal, answer all of them, and then continue harassing the journal to the point that the journal ignores the answers and retracts the paper to avoid further harassment.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 still wants to ban fracking. Speaker 1 says no, clarifying they stated in a 2020 debate they would not ban fracking as Vice President or President. Speaker 0 points out that in 2019, Speaker 1 said they were in favor of banning fracking. Speaker 1 responds that in 2020, they made their position clear, and they have not changed that position in 2024, nor will they going forward, and that they have kept their word.

The speaker, who has participated in four reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emphasizes that there is no exaggeration in the IPCC reports. In fact, some argue that the reports are not alarmist enough. The speaker points out that current events, such as extreme weather events, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and rising sea levels, align with what has been predicted in the IPCC reports since the 1990s. They refute the claim that the IPCC reports are exaggerated and stress the importance of recognizing the credibility of the scientific community. The speaker concludes by urging action in the present to address the future impacts of climate change.

Speaker 0 notes a claim that “Russia joins EU providing energy resources.” The speaker then asserts, “Now, clearly, this clearly, this didn't happen,” indicating that the prior claim did not occur in reality. The statement continues by reminding that “Russia attacked Ukraine,” and emphasizes that “we all know that Ukraine was one of the major suppliers of grain.” The speaker proceeds to link these events to broader implications, saying that “when this abrupt climate change occurs, we know that there will be food shortages.” Finally, the speaker adds that such shortages “are worse for rare earth minerals.”

The speaker discusses the scientific evidence surrounding the interference with data by the deputy mayor. They provide an example of a research paper that found no reduction in lung problems or asthma symptoms in children despite improvements in air quality. The mayor and deputy mayor wanted the sentence reworded to imply the opposite of the findings. The speaker concludes that the mayor's team attempted to manipulate data and questions if they are doing it in other areas as well.

Speaker 0 presents a very quick briefing and discusses the credibility of the different things they've seen. They say, "these files were made up by the sea. They were made up by Obama. They were made" as a claim about the files’ origin, with the sentence trailing off in the transcript.

The speaker argues that the current climate is not warmer than it has been many times in history, noting that our baseline is now at the lowest carbon dioxide level in six hundred million years. They assert that, in terms of temperature change, the IPCC’s first report of 1992 showed the middle medieval warm period was warmer than the present. The speaker claims this did not fit the narrative, so by the time the 1996 report appeared, a “completely contrived graph” called the Hochist was used. According to the speaker, the Hochist graph involved removing the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Instead of a graph that rose and fell with historical variability, they say the graph was flattened and then an instrumental record was added at the end that appears to indicate a rapid rise. The speaker emphasizes that those who challenge or call out this manipulation are not receiving media coverage. The speaker also points to substantial financial influence, stating that billions of dollars are going into the entire climate change narrative. In summary, the claims center on a belief that historical climate fluctuations were downplayed or erased in influential graphs, replaced with a narrative supported by instrumental records that show a sharp rise, and that critics of this portrayal are marginalized in the media while large sums are invested in promoting the climate change narrative.

In an open letter to the Wall Street Journal, former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Professor Frédéric Site, reveals that the IPCC censored comments from certain scientists. He states that the approved version of the report does not align with the input of the contributing scientists. Over fifteen important points from the scientific chapter were removed, including the lack of definitive evidence linking greenhouse gases to climate change and the inability to determine human responsibility for observed climate changes. Site suggests that creating panic is beneficial to secure funding for climate science, emphasizing the importance of never suggesting that there may not be a problem.

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 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.'

Speaker 1 clarifies that when talking about climate change, they used metaphors to convey their message. They did not mean for people to literally panic, but rather wanted to evoke a sense of urgency. There was no specific scientific study that led them to this conclusion.

Speaker: Noted claims about the Amish and COVID. - The speaker traveled to Lancaster County, Amish country, visiting the house of a relative of Gideon King, described as the one person, the only known person in the Amish community who supposedly died from COVID. They say there may be up to five people, but the names of five people were not provided. A $2,500 reward on Twitter was offered for names of more than five people in Lancaster County who died from COVID; no one could name more than one person, and they all named Gideon King. - The speaker visited the house of Sam King, a relative of Gideon King. Sam said he doesn’t know if Gideon actually died from COVID. They think Gideon died in the hospital. - If there were five Amish people who died, this would mean the Amish death rate was 90 times lower than the infection fatality rate of the United States. - The explanation offered: this is possible because the Amish aren’t vaccinated and didn’t follow a single guideline of the CDC. They did not lockdown, did not mask, did not social distance, did not vaccinate, and there were no mandates to get vaccinated in the Amish community. - The speaker asserts there are no autistic kids in the Amish community, claiming it is very rare to find kids with ADD, autoimmune disease, PANDA, PANS, epilepsy, or other chronic diseases. - The speaker states the US government has studied the Amish for decades, but there has never been a report released to the public. The stated reason is that such a report would show that not following guidelines leads to better health. - The speaker concludes there is no public report after decades of study because it would be devastating to the narrative and would show that the CDC has been harming the public for decades.

Speaker 0 questions whether the climate change narrative is dying, noting that many people are afraid to say so for fear of being called a climate denier. They claim a growing number of people believe “this is bullshit.” They relate conversations with energy industry people who said, “the thing is collapsing because the money people are realizing we can't pay for this,” and that the grid cannot rely on solar and wind because it “needs to maintain frequency.” They reference Spain shutting down last year and describe the grid as unstable now. They say, for the last ten years, engineers have known there’s a major problem but won’t say it in meetings because “the climate stuff comes from the top and you can't question it,” yet this is starting to break down as people realize trillions of dollars have been spent to move from “85% of our energy is from, you know, real fuels” to “84.2” or so, which they view as insane. Speaker 0 asserts that “Real fuels are gonna be needed,” and notes a shift in stance on the climate hoax. They claim the pivot is happening because “they want data centers and they want to pour massive energy into them,” and suddenly “don’t care about the climate because all the boys up the top who are pushing the climate are now saying, no. We need data centers. We need CBDC. We need a crypto,” which is described as a huge energy use, along with mentions of AI. They conclude that it’s “always crypto,” and state that these developments reveal the climate pushers to be liars.

Speaker 0 inquired about Caroline's statement last week regarding the MAHA report, specifically mentioning formatting issues and citations of studies that either did not exist or did not back up the report's conclusions. Speaker 0 asked if the formatting errors Caroline mentioned included these citation issues. Caroline confirmed that the formatting errors she referenced included those issues. She stated that these errors were updated by the appropriate policy components at the White House, and a new report was issued, aligning with her previous statement.

Speaker 0 believes climate change is not a hoax, noting the last ten years have been the warmest on record. They advocate for transforming the energy system from fossil fuels to sustainable energies to create jobs. Speaker 1 says the climate change issue is complicated, stating the Earth's temperature has never been static. They reference a Washington Post piece that found the Earth is in a cooling period. They cite scientists who have captured 485 million years of climate change data. Speaker 1 suggests there's a lot of money and control involved in the climate change emergency issue.

Dr. McCulloch is asked to weigh in. Speaker 1 responds that he has presented at FDA advisory meetings and advised companies for decades on regulatory science. He states that when a product definitely results in death, and there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers on this, the COVID vaccines in some people sadly result in death—some on the very first day they take the shot. He argues that this must be a black box warning on the product immediately. He says he checked the package inserts for the currently available products, noting that the ones Senator Blumenthal wants to pursue, and what the Governor still wants to pursue, and what the FDA still wants administered, do not have the word “death” in the package insert. He asserts that Americans are not fairly informed. Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 doubts that the COVID injection caused some deaths, and asks for his view on the numbers listed on VAERS (thirty-seven thousand, six hundred seven, per the prompt) and whether he has any science to back up his opinion. Speaker 1 replies that the best data are autopsies. He references the largest autopsy series published to date and notes that he is the senior author. He says they examined deaths after vaccination, had an adjudication committee and methods of arbitration to decide whether the vaccine caused death, and that in these autopsy cases, seventy-three point nine percent of individuals, it was determined that the vaccine was the cause of death. He mentions Holsher and colleagues, who are right behind him. Speaker 0 reiterates the FDA’s own laws, asking that this be included in the package insert, correct? Speaker 1 confirms, noting that in 2021 Dr. Carol Tocetta, working with the Daily Cloud, wrote about Peters’ marks in 2023 and asked, “where’s the black box warning? Where is 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.

Speaker 0 asks what policies would slow droughts and flooding if fossil fuels aren't cut. Speaker 1 advocates for adaptation and mastering climate change through technology powered by fossil fuels, citing improved buildings and temperature controls as examples of how humans are dying less from climate disasters. Speaker 1 calls the climate change agenda a hoax related to global equity, noting opposition to carbon emissions and nuclear energy. Speaker 0 asks if increasing nuclear energy is a remedy, and Speaker 1 confirms support for it and removing government regulation. Speaker 0 questions if taller buildings and better HVAC systems are the solution. Speaker 1 says using fossil fuels to advance lives protects against all risks. Speaker 1 claims more people die from lack of energy access than climate change and that climate models are fabricated, referencing 1970s warnings of a global ice age. Speaker 1 concludes that focus should be on human flourishing, not carbon emissions.

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.

Speaker 0 presents a critique of how California handles wildfire liability and utility reform. The speaker notes that when the Los Angeles Times calls something a bailout by Governor Gavin Newsom, it warrants closer examination. The core claim is that California lawmakers frequently attribute wildfires to climate change, but the speaker argues that the underlying issue is different and links it to utility practices and political dynamics. Key facts highlighted include a 2024 tally of utility equipment ignitions in California: at least 237, with 135 of those fire ignitions tied specifically to Southern California Edison (SCE). The speaker asserts that it is easier for legislators to discuss climate change since weather does not fund political campaigns, in contrast to utility companies, which are described as having substantial political donations. The discussion then focuses on SB 254, a bill recently signed by Governor Newsom. The speaker asserts that, on the surface, SB 254 appears to be utility reform with wildfire mitigation plans and cost-effectiveness measures. However, according to the speaker, a deeper look reveals that the bill substantially reduces the financial exposure of Southern California Edison for the Easton fire. The speaker quotes the Los Angeles Times as calling SB 254 “effectively a bailout for SCE,” indicating that the bill allows SCE to draw on the state wildfire fund. Specific financial mechanics are described: the state wildfire fund is stated to be a $21,000,000,000 fund, with roughly half funded by ratepayers. The speaker contends that the bill moves the burden of liability from Southern California Edison’s private balance sheet onto the state fund, thereby shifting financial risk away from the utility and onto public funds. Lastly, the speaker identifies the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) as the primary implementing agency for SB 254, noting that it is controlled by Gavin Newsom’s five appointed friends. The overall claim is that SB 254 restructures who bears the financial risk of wildfire liabilities, reframes SCE’s exposure through the state wildfire fund, and positions the CPUC as the agency executing these changes, which the speaker frames as a bailout for SCE.