reSee.it - Related Video Feed

No evidence has been shown to prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. If it could be proven, it would also need to be shown that the natural emissions, which make up 97% of the total, do not drive global warming. This is a scientific fraud. The idea that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to disastrous global warming is not supported by chemistry or historical data from ice cores. The inverse solubility of carbon dioxide has been known for 200 years, and ice core samples show that carbon dioxide levels increased after natural warming periods. Temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

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.

The speaker questions the belief that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming, stating that this has never been proven. They also criticize the concept of "net zero" emissions, arguing that if humans didn't release carbon dioxide, they would die because it is a natural part of our bodily functions. The speaker accuses the climate change movement of being anti-human and denying the place of humans on Earth. Another speaker adds that temperature data from satellites and balloons shows a slight cooling trend, while data from land-based sources has been manipulated to show a warming trend. They argue that throughout history, the Earth has experienced cycles of warming and cooling, and the current period is no different. They conclude that carbon dioxide is not the cause of these changes.

Climate change is questioned, focusing on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The speaker challenges the lack of knowledge on CO2 percentages by politicians advocating for drastic climate change actions. They highlight that human contribution to CO2 is minimal compared to the overall atmospheric composition. Criticisms are made towards policies promoting renewable energy over coal, despite Australia's small role in global CO2 emissions. The speaker argues against drastic economic changes based on incomplete understanding of climate science.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide do not drive global warming. Natural emissions make up 97%, showing carbon dioxide does not cause warming. Claims of a disaster from increased carbon dioxide are false. Chemistry proves carbon dioxide cools, not warms. Ice core data reveals temperature rises before carbon dioxide levels. Temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

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.

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.

Climate change is a pervasive issue that is being taught in schools and universities, but the speaker believes it is brainwashing and damaging. They argue that people use the term "carbon emissions" incorrectly, as carbon is a chemical element found in various substances. The real concern is carbon dioxide emissions, particularly from burning coal. However, the speaker points out that carbon dioxide only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, and human activities contribute to just 3% of that. In Australia, this amounts to 1.3% of the 3% of the 0.04%. The speaker questions whether it is worth disrupting the economy and increasing energy prices for such a small percentage. They urge others to challenge this narrative and fight against it.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide have never been proven to cause global warming. It would also need to be shown that the natural emissions, which make up 97% of total emissions, do not drive global warming. This is a scientific fraud. Chemistry has shown for 200 years that carbon dioxide has an inverse solubility, meaning it warms up when it is not dissolved. Ice core samples also demonstrate that carbon dioxide increases after natural warming, indicating that temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. This is another fraudulent claim.

The speaker questions whether young people are being given all the facts about climate change. They ask Tanya Plibersek about the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to which she admits not knowing. The speaker then explains that carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, with humans responsible for 3% of that, and Australia responsible for 1.3% of that 3%. They argue that it is like cleaning a bridge for a granule of sugar and criticize the push for renewable energy and electric cars, claiming they are not reliable or affordable. They believe this ideology puts industry, jobs, and the economy at risk.

The speaker questions the belief in human emissions of carbon dioxide driving global warming and criticizes the concept of net zero. They argue that if we had net zero carbon dioxide emissions, we would not be able to survive. They describe the climate change movement as anti-human, suggesting that it denies the place of humans on Earth. Another speaker points out that temperature data from satellites and balloons shows a slight cooling trend, while data collected mainly on land suggests a warming trend. They also mention that throughout history, the planet has experienced cycles of warming and cooling, and the current cycle is not exceptional. Both speakers conclude that carbon dioxide is not the cause of these changes.

The speaker argues that the idea of carbon dioxide (CO2) being pollution is flawed. They state that CO2 is a natural part of the environment and that the proportion of human CO2 emissions is very small. They believe that the notion of CO2 destroying the planet or changing the temperature is ludicrous. However, they suggest that labeling CO2 as pollution allows for regulatory control over all human activities. They mention that CO2 has actually been beneficial for the environment, as stated by a climate adviser. The speaker questions whether CO2 is truly pollution and suggests that the alleged environmental benefits are fictional if it is not.

No evidence has been presented to prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming. Additionally, it would need to be shown that the 97% of natural emissions do not contribute to global warming. This is a scientific fraud. The idea that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to disastrous global warming is propaganda. Chemistry has taught us for 200 years that carbon dioxide behaves in a predictable manner, similar to a warm beer that bubbles when left out. Ice core samples also support the fact that natural warming precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, not the other way around. This exposes another fraudulent claim.

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 questions the need to spend 1.6 quadrillion dollars to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, arguing that the low levels of carbon dioxide might actually be necessary for plant life. They highlight that during the period since 2015, when carbon emissions increased, temperature has actually gone down. The speaker suggests that the problem may not exist and accuses the other person of grifting. The other person disagrees, mentioning the difference between natural climate variations and human impact, and the global consensus on addressing climate change.

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.

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.

The speaker questions whether young people are being given all the facts about climate change. They ask Tanya Plibersek about the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to which she admits she doesn't know. The speaker then explains that carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, with humans responsible for 3% of that, and Australia responsible for 1.3% of that. They argue that it is like cleaning a bridge for a tiny speck of sugar and criticize the push for renewable energy and electric cars. They believe it puts the economy, industry, and jobs at risk.

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."

The speaker questions the effectiveness of decarbonization in preventing global warming, suggesting that reducing solar activity and water vapor would have a greater impact. They argue that carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas has not been proven to contribute significantly to warming. They highlight that the belief in CO2's role is propagated by a single source, while scientific publications present differing views. The speaker emphasizes that CO2 constitutes only 0.04% of the Earth's matter, with 93% being naturally produced. They argue for the importance of reducing air pollution from harmful particles, acknowledging that CO2 is not harmful in itself.

The speaker questions the need to spend trillions of dollars to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, arguing that the problem doesn't exist and may even be worsened. They mention that carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and killing it would have negative consequences. The other speaker disagrees, stating that human activity is significantly contributing to climate change and that the consensus among world leaders supports taking action. The first speaker dismisses this as a money-making scheme.

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.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide driving global warming has never been proven. To do so, it would also need to be shown that the 97% of natural emissions do not contribute to global warming. This is a scientific fraud. The belief that increased levels of carbon dioxide will lead to disaster and runaway global warming is propaganda. Chemistry has shown for 200 years that carbon dioxide has an inverse solubility, meaning it warms up when not dissolved. Ice cores reveal that increases in carbon dioxide follow natural warming, indicating that temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. This is another fraudulent claim.

The speaker challenges the idea that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, stating that it has never been proven. They argue that even if it were proven, it would also need to be shown that natural emissions do not drive global warming. The speaker points out that in the past, there were six ice ages when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now, questioning how carbon dioxide can drive global warming. They emphasize that the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very small. The speaker concludes by stating that we are being asked to believe that a trace gas emission can change the entire planetary system, which they view as a matter of belief rather than science.

The speaker argues that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a necessary component for life. They claim that the attack on carbon dioxide is a symbol of attacking industry and is fueled by a decline in education and critical thinking skills. They express frustration with the focus on human-induced global warming, stating that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. They also mention that the composition of the atmosphere is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around, and that the temperature of the oceans drives climate.