reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The climate change consensus is being challenged by new peer-reviewed papers showing urban heat island effects and solar activity can explain warming. Scientists faced obstacles getting alternative viewpoints published due to fear of losing funding. Credible scientists like Dr. Willie Soon are now working independently to avoid repercussions. This shift allows for more freedom in scientific debate.

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.

Three new peer-reviewed papers published in prestigious scientific journals challenge the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming. One paper suggests that 40% of observed warming can be attributed to the urban heat island effect, where cities cause local temperature increases. The remaining warming can be explained by changes in solar activity tracked by NASA. The climate establishment has responded on Twitter, dismissing these findings. The difficulty in getting peer-reviewed studies on this topic was highlighted during the 2009 climate gate scandal, which revealed attempts to hide data and silence dissenting scientists. These recent papers, published in reputable journals, provide alternative viewpoints and are authored by well-established experts. The fear of jeopardizing funding and careers still prevents many scientists from speaking out. However, independent scientists, no longer reliant on grants, are able to challenge the mainstream narrative.

Researcher Judith Curry claims that climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate the risks of climate change. The climate gate scandal revealed leaked emails showing university climate scientists conspiring to hide data, which made Curry realize that the science had been corrupted. The origins of the climate change industry can be traced back to the 1980s and the UN environmental program, where some officials had an anti-capitalism agenda and seized on climate change as a means to advance their policies. The intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) was created to focus on dangerous human-caused climate change, and funding agencies directed all funding in the field. Alarmist researchers control the discussion by publishing scary papers, and alarmist media amplifies their claims. Other scientists who recognize the nonsense are hesitant to push back due to discomfort and potential career consequences.

Researcher Judith Curry claims that climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate the risks of climate change. The climate gate scandal revealed leaked emails showing university climate scientists conspiring to hide data, which made Curry realize that the science had been corrupted. She believes that a climate change industry has been set up to reward alarmism, with origins dating back to the 1980s and the UN environmental program. The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which focused on dangerous human-caused climate change and received funding from national agencies. Curry argues that researchers know what they need to say to secure funding and advance in academia. Alarmist researchers control the discussion by publishing scary papers, which the media and activists amplify. Other scientists who recognize the nonsense may not push back due to discomfort or personal and professional integrity.

In the nineteenth century, many Americans used homeopathic (naturopathic) remedies that were widely available at low cost. The American Medical Association (formed in 1847) allegedly opposed homeopaths becoming AMA members and sought to control the medical profession by excluding them, while homeopathy remained a minority alternative. The transcript then claims John D. Rockefeller identified “great potentialities of profit” in the medical industry and, after turning the U.S. medical system from homeopathic to allopathic medicine, became the “kingpin of the medical monopoly.” It describes allopathy as centered on radical surgery, heavy drug use, and lengthy hospital stays, and alleges that control of legislatures, hospital accreditation, physicians, and medications became the basis of the modern system. It further claims health care costs multiplied and became unaffordable for most Americans, leading to the rise of medical insurance, portrayed as “another tax,” administered through Social Security and Medicare, with Medicare costs deducted from Social Security benefits. The transcript asserts that money from the health industry funnels into a Rockefeller-style medical and drug monopoly and that the Rockefellers allegedly control major drug companies by placing people from institutions like Chase Manhattan Bank and Exxon oil among directors and officials of large drug firms. A separate segment shifts to an oil-drilling conversation emphasizing drilling control: a man claims he does his own drilling with workers he knows, avoiding lost tools, failed cementing, and ruined leases—contrasting his approach with speculators who rush contracts and rely on contractors. Speaker 6 and others then expand the theme of “mainstream medicine” as Rockefeller creation, adding claims of global institutional dominance and “eugenics” programs (including forced sterilization, water fluoridation, abortions, and vaccinations). They argue that a “Flexner Report” (linked to a Carnegie-funded investigation) helped establish modern allopathic medicine by standardizing medical education, closing many medical colleges, and marginalizing holistic and natural medicines; the transcript alleges curricula were altered to focus on patented drugs and to remove emphasis on herbs and nutrition. It then cites the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 as giving hospitals funds conditional on providing free care, followed by a system shift into paid, long-term pharmaceutical dependence. The transcript also alleges the American Cancer Society (founded in 1913) and major philanthropic grants to medical schools served to advance allopathic-only curricula and ensure board influence. The transcript further claims big pharmaceutical firms use “biopiracy,” researching plant compounds, copying or slightly modifying them to patent synthetic analogs, then marketing pills while discrediting the original natural sources. It asserts that the Rockefellers travel with naturopathic doctors who allegedly use homeopathic remedies first and pharmaceuticals only as a last resort. It also cites David Rockefeller’s 1994 statement at a UN business conference that “the right major crisis” could be used to achieve a “new world order.” Long portions of the transcript then follow a conspiracy narrative about global governance and “lockstep” authoritarian control. A document from the Rockefeller Foundation is introduced as “Scenarios for the Future International Development,” with a scenario called “lockstep” describing tighter top-down government control, increased authoritarianism, limited innovation, and “growing citizen pushback.” The transcript reads passages implying a pandemic scenario that leads to economic disruption, isolation, and restrictions on mobility, along with mandatory quarantine and mask policies that continue after the pandemic fades. It claims Ebola is treated as a tool to advance control and asserts that oppressive measures like quarantines and curfews are part of a broader “tool kit.” Another segment alleges that John D. Rockefeller and associates “pirated” the blood banking industry and administrative leadership of the American Red Cross to advance eugenics management, and it discusses the founding of the General Education Board (GEB), an “Occasional Letter,” and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory as centers for eugenics and genetics research. It connects alleged Rockefeller funding to eugenics institutions in Germany and describes supposed links to organizations and individuals across military intelligence and government. The transcript further claims wrongdoing involving blood contamination (including AIDS), reliance on contaminated blood for HIV infections, and neglect of technologies to remove viruses. It also discusses population “culling” targets attributed to a population council and a negative population growth organization. The transcript then includes a conversation about vaccines and alleged future mass harm, mentioning a nasal mist “live attenuated virus,” “squalene,” a large number of “injection stations,” and the idea of a “great culling.” It references FEMA and population relocation in the context of civil disorder or pandemics and includes claims about a “council of seven men” making long-term decisions. It ends this section by stating that “her message” is that “everyone” must decide what to do with the information. The transcript also describes the Georgia Guidestones, portraying their construction details (including multilingual engraved messages and population-reduction themes) and interpreting passages as advocating maintaining humanity under 500,000,000 and guiding reproduction and disputes in a world court. It states that the structure’s “population control” passage has drawn attention and compares the required reduction to the 1979 world population. A segment attributes a “master plan” to “Agenda 21,” claiming it is designed to reduce independence by moving people into cities and making them dependent on the state, limiting private property and land ownership, and controlling food production via corporations while discouraging rural living. Toward the end, the transcript shifts into additional conspiracy claims about climate change, featuring a discussion in which John Coleman argues that climate change is “not happening,” and the transcript asserts that climate research funding and institutional selection bias support a particular position. It includes an argument between speakers about global warming and future sea-level impacts. Another speaker claims that “ClimateGate” emails demonstrate manipulation and that climate change was renamed from “global warming” after Earth’s cooling period. The transcript also includes assertions that carbon dioxide cannot significantly drive warming and that climate change theory is connected to Marxism and socialist goals. Finally, there is a mix of other claims: references to a swine flu vaccine scare in 1976 with alleged neurological injury and death claims; a discussion of a patent for a COVID testing “system and method”; and allegations about biological weapons contracts, fortifications like Fort Detrick and Lytton Bioinetics, and disputes over HIV origins. The transcript contains an extended exchange with Dr. Robert Gallo, including claims about what experiments did and did not involve, and ends with additional statements urging unity, “the Great Awakening,” and concluding remarks about ongoing struggle between “wrong and right.”

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.

Recent peer-reviewed papers challenge the consensus on man-made global warming, attributing 40% of observed warming to urban heat islands and solar activity. The Climategate scandal revealed efforts to suppress dissenting views. Despite barriers, three solid papers were published, led by prestigious scientists like Dr. Willie Soon. Fear of losing funding and jobs silences many scientists, but independent researchers are now speaking out with more freedom.

Public intellectuals manufacture demand for their services by making alarming predictions and offering solutions to problems. The speaker discusses global warming as an example, stating that it fits the pattern of climate scientists creating a crisis to generate funding for their research. However, the speaker acknowledges that there are scientists who believe in global warming and others who oppose it. The problem lies in the suppression of opposing views by those pushing the global warming narrative. The speaker suggests that climate scientists should be more transparent and push the data to the public, but there is no incentive for them to do so.

People are facing a mass extinction while discussions focus on economic growth. The climate alarm has evolved into a lucrative industry, driven by self-interest and government funding. Many careers depend on climate research, leading to a corruption of science. Skeptics face intimidation, and the narrative promotes increased government control. Historical climate data shows that current temperatures are not unprecedented; Earth has experienced much warmer periods. The role of CO2 in climate change is questioned, with evidence suggesting temperature changes precede CO2 increases. The climate crisis narrative serves to expand government power and control over individual lives. Many in the climate industry benefit financially from the alarmism, while ordinary people resist restrictions on their lifestyles, recognizing the agenda as an attack on freedom and prosperity.

Three new peer-reviewed papers published in prestigious scientific journals challenge the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming. One paper suggests that 40% of observed warming can be explained by the urban heat island effect, where cities cause temperature increases around thermometers. The remaining warming can be attributed to changes in solar activity tracked by NASA. The climate establishment has responded by dismissing these findings on Twitter rather than providing a scientific response. The difficulty in getting peer-reviewed studies on this topic is highlighted by the Climategate scandal in 2009, which revealed attempts to hide data and silence dissenting scientists. However, these recent papers, authored by renowned experts, have managed to break through the barriers and offer alternative viewpoints in the scientific literature.

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.

This video examines the climate change debate, questioning the prevailing narrative of man-made global warming. It emphasizes the financial incentives and funding that drive the climate industry, including research grants and job opportunities. The speakers argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is not as settled as portrayed, attributing significant impact to natural factors like solar activity and cloud cover. They challenge the notion that extreme weather events are increasing and present evidence contradicting this claim. The video suggests that climate alarmism is driven by political and financial interests rather than scientific evidence. It also discusses the influence of the climate crisis on various industries and institutions, highlighting its transformation into a multitrillion-dollar industry with many jobs and funding dependent on its existence. The video explores the pressure faced by individuals who question the climate crisis narrative, including scientists, researchers, and academics risking their careers and funding. It criticizes the climate consensus for suppressing dissenting views and stifling scientific inquiry, arguing that climate alarm is being used to increase government control and regulate individual behavior. Additionally, it addresses the impact of climate policies on developing countries and the growing skepticism and resistance from the public.

Critics argue that the climate consensus stifles scientific inquiry. Scientists should present facts for people to decide. Silencing ideas hinders scientific progress. Climate researchers are adamant that increasing CO2 controls today's climate, even if evidence suggests otherwise. This rigid stance has turned climate research into a cult, detached from science. Translation: Critics believe that the climate consensus restricts scientific exploration. Scientists should present facts for individuals to make decisions. Blocking ideas hampers scientific advancement. Climate researchers insist that rising CO2 levels regulate the current climate, regardless of contradictory evidence. This unwavering position has transformed climate research into a cult, separated from science.

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.

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.

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.

New peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals challenge the alleged consensus on man-made global warming. One paper suggests that 40% of observed warming can be attributed to the urban heat island effect, where cities cause local temperature increases. The remaining warming can be explained by changes in solar activity. The papers have faced criticism on social media, but the authors argue that a scientific response should be in the form of peer-reviewed papers. The difficulty in getting such studies published was highlighted in the Climategate scandal of 2009, which revealed attempts to hide data and silence dissenting voices. The recent papers were accepted by prestigious journals, indicating a shift in the scientific community. Independent scientists, not reliant on grants or affiliations, are now more willing to challenge the mainstream narrative.

This video challenges the mainstream narrative on climate change, highlighting the financial incentives and biased research that drive the climate industry. It argues that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not as straightforward as claimed, emphasizing the impact of natural factors like solar activity and cosmic rays. The consensus on climate change is enforced by the establishment, leading to backlash and career risks for those who question it. The video suggests that the climate alarm is a hoax used to increase government control and interfere in people's lives. It also points out the clash between the demands of the climate movement and the needs of developing countries. As the climate alarm becomes more costly and restrictive, protests against climate and COVID policies are growing, fueled by anger and skepticism towards the establishment. The video emphasizes the need for unbiased scientific research in order to address climate change effectively.

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.

Climate scientist Judith Curry discusses her journey from being an alarmist to a skeptic of climate change. She explains how her research on hurricanes and global warming was misinterpreted by the media, leading to her being demonized by both sides of the debate. Curry criticizes the politicization of climate science and the pressure to conform to the consensus. She argues that the extreme scenarios and alarming predictions are not supported by the evidence and that the real underlying problems, such as poverty and poor governance, are being ignored. Curry emphasizes the need for a more balanced and nuanced approach to climate change.

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.

Other scientists who recognize the nonsense don't push back because it's uncomfortable for them in universities. Universities punish people who tell the truth. Judith Curry, a former department chair at Georgia Tech, experienced hostility when she expressed that fossil fuels aren't so terrible. She looked for other university jobs but was told that nobody would hire her because of her reputation as a climate denier. Curry transitioned to the private sector and started a weather forecasting company. Climate alarmists now smear her as a climate denier doing it for the money, but she made more money at Georgia Tech. Curry believes climate change is a problem but not a crisis. A full interview discussing climate and scientific consensus will be posted soon.

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.