Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

A Google Scholar search for the phrase "climate change" reveals studies exploded from the years 2000 to 2020, peaking at 900,000, but extrapolations for 2026 now show just 175,000 - an 80% collapse. Climatologist Judith Curry argues the boom was never organic. "This is not a natural scientific consensus... that has emerged over a long time," she says. "It's a manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers." Curry says funding, promotion and professional acceptance rewarded researchers who stayed inside the narrative, while dissent carried a price. Curry says she paid it herself: "I was essentially unhirable academically... they pretty much finished me off." Over time, more and more social, economic and environmental problems were folded under the same climate umbrella. This led to policy where subsidies, carbon taxes and renewable mandates worked together to restructure Western energy systems (and economies). And so follows Curry's warning: "The biggest climate risk right now is the so-called transition risk." The climate machine has not disappeared, not entirely, but the academic frenzy paid to feed it looks to have peaked. This is likely because the establishment now has a new obsession: AI, which, amusingly, demands vast quantities of cheap, reliable 24-7 electricity - things wind and solar cannot provide. So something has to give, and that something looks to be 'climate alarm'.show more

Electroverse

47,028 subscribers

13,866 просмотров • 6 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

A thread with truth bombs about “climate change” that I (and you) can share with the climate cultists that, for some reason, seem to magically appear at the top of my feed every day now. First up, C02 is not a pollutant and “climate change” is not about climate change. It was invented to scare people into unknowingly going along with global governance. Why “climate change”? Because the climate is everywhere and affects everyone so everything must be controlled.

A thread with truth bombs about “climate change” that I (and you) can share with the climate cultists that, for some reason, seem to magically appear at the top of my feed every day now. First up, C02 is not a pollutant and “climate change” is not about climate change. It was invented to scare people into unknowingly going along with global governance. Why “climate change”? Because the climate is everywhere and affects everyone so everything must be controlled.

The Researcher

110,957 просмотров • 3 лет назад

“I said at the first debate and I stand by it, the climate change agenda is a hoax, because it has nothing to do with the climate,” says Vivek Ramaswamy “We should not be bending the knee to this new religion. That is what it is. We are flogging ourselves and losing our modern way of life.” #CostOfNetZero

“I said at the first debate and I stand by it, the climate change agenda is a hoax, because it has nothing to do with the climate,” says Vivek Ramaswamy “We should not be bending the knee to this new religion. That is what it is. We are flogging ourselves and losing our modern way of life.” #CostOfNetZero

Net Zero Watch

28,321 просмотров • 2 лет назад

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

Michael Shellenberger

66,544 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) was not created by a group of scientists in the late-1980s with the intention of studying both natural and man-made impacts on the global climate system. That did not happen. Period. Why would the IPCC be needed on the scientific front when there were already government agencies like the BoM, Met Office, NASA, NCAR and NOAA working on this? The IPCC was created by bureaucrats with a vested financial and political interest to use the scientific community to build a case to regulate oil companies and control energy, in hopes they could convince the public that consumption of coal, oil and natural gas were causing harmful anthropogenic climate change. Climate change became the Goldilocks issue to move that agenda along, as it would otherwise have little support. Dr. Judith Curry (Judith Curry) explains this in her interview with John Stossel from October. 🎙️ Here’s a snippet. ✂️ 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . The origins go back to the 1980s, and the U.N. environmental program had this big environmental agenda, anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and they seized on the climate change issue as one to move their policies along. . . the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse from the very beginning. So, the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change. The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. They weren’t supposed to focus on natural climate variability. They were just supposed to look for the signal of dangerous human-caused climate change.” 🔗 You can watch the full interview here:

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) was not created by a group of scientists in the late-1980s with the intention of studying both natural and man-made impacts on the global climate system. That did not happen. Period. Why would the IPCC be needed on the scientific front when there were already government agencies like the BoM, Met Office, NASA, NCAR and NOAA working on this? The IPCC was created by bureaucrats with a vested financial and political interest to use the scientific community to build a case to regulate oil companies and control energy, in hopes they could convince the public that consumption of coal, oil and natural gas were causing harmful anthropogenic climate change. Climate change became the Goldilocks issue to move that agenda along, as it would otherwise have little support. Dr. Judith Curry (Judith Curry) explains this in her interview with John Stossel from October. 🎙️ Here’s a snippet. ✂️ 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . The origins go back to the 1980s, and the U.N. environmental program had this big environmental agenda, anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and they seized on the climate change issue as one to move their policies along. . . the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse from the very beginning. So, the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change. The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. They weren’t supposed to focus on natural climate variability. They were just supposed to look for the signal of dangerous human-caused climate change.” 🔗 You can watch the full interview here:

Chris Martz

88,087 просмотров • 2 лет назад

$Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!$

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!

Michael Shellenberger

51,165 просмотров • 1 год назад

.Kayleigh McEnany exposes how Democrats have been lying about climate change for years in a brutal segment exposing John Kerry, Greta Thunberg, AOC, and Barack Obama’s fear-mongering “In 1995, the New York Times predicted that most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. Well, the beaches are still sandy and the ice caps are still frozen. But every major Democrat has campaign rather on climate change, using it as a scare tactic. Vote for them or the world's going to melt. And once they're in, they send huge climate contracts to their friends, to their donors, but no one's buying it anymore. Democrats have cried climate wolf so many times that even the Times is telling them to cut it out. They say Democrats don't have to campaign on climate change anymore. Turns out voters care about energy prices, not windmills, solar panels. The New York Times says it's not clear why climate should be at the center of Democrat campaigns. And even under Biden, climate wasn't a top priority for voters. A poll from 2024 had climate at the bottom of the list. And remember the Democrats' top climate warrior, Greta? Well, she moved on from fighting climate change to freeing Palestine. Is the left finally going to give up its most expensive scam? After decades of hysteria, decades of finger pointing, the polls tanked. The money dried up faster than they said our water sources would. And now all of a sudden, Democrats don't care about climate change anymore.”

.Kayleigh McEnany exposes how Democrats have been lying about climate change for years in a brutal segment exposing John Kerry, Greta Thunberg, AOC, and Barack Obama’s fear-mongering “In 1995, the New York Times predicted that most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. Well, the beaches are still sandy and the ice caps are still frozen. But every major Democrat has campaign rather on climate change, using it as a scare tactic. Vote for them or the world's going to melt. And once they're in, they send huge climate contracts to their friends, to their donors, but no one's buying it anymore. Democrats have cried climate wolf so many times that even the Times is telling them to cut it out. They say Democrats don't have to campaign on climate change anymore. Turns out voters care about energy prices, not windmills, solar panels. The New York Times says it's not clear why climate should be at the center of Democrat campaigns. And even under Biden, climate wasn't a top priority for voters. A poll from 2024 had climate at the bottom of the list. And remember the Democrats' top climate warrior, Greta? Well, she moved on from fighting climate change to freeing Palestine. Is the left finally going to give up its most expensive scam? After decades of hysteria, decades of finger pointing, the polls tanked. The money dried up faster than they said our water sources would. And now all of a sudden, Democrats don't care about climate change anymore.”

Steve Guest

111,332 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

"We Need to Employ $50 Trillion": Larry Fink on Why the Private Sector Must Lead the Green Transition "Well, if they don't get it done, then we are going to have more risk as societies, we're going to have more issues related to rising climate and importantly, which will create more societal issues." "Already we're seeing an impact in society right now from climate risk and climate change. are seeing insurance premiums going up 18 % a year right now. So we're seeing a real impact from what climate risk is doing from flooding, from fires. So we're seeing a big impact." "And so the faster that we could find ways to mitigating the rising temperatures, I would say the more just society could be. And so to me, we don't have much time. And this is why when I learned about catalyst and I learned about what Bill was doing was very clear to me why we needed to be a part of this, why we needed to invest the time and the money." "And the key is also the time because we need to be learning about these new the new technologies and how to move forward. And we need to then inform our investors ultimately where we think the next opportunities are going to be too as Bill in his book wrote about, we need to employ $50 trillion to get to a green world." "With the rising deficits that we see in governments, from our perspective, the 50 trillion is mostly going to have to come from the private sector. And I do believe that money will be well spent, well spent for returns. It will transform our economies. It will build new jobs. will build new cities and new opportunities." "So I look at this as an optimist. I don't look at this as a pessimist. But the key is to be that optimist. We have to jump on it now. We have to be investing today. We need to talk about it today, although much of the problems in the future but we're seeing more and more evidence of the problem today."

"We Need to Employ $50 Trillion": Larry Fink on Why the Private Sector Must Lead the Green Transition "Well, if they don't get it done, then we are going to have more risk as societies, we're going to have more issues related to rising climate and importantly, which will create more societal issues." "Already we're seeing an impact in society right now from climate risk and climate change. are seeing insurance premiums going up 18 % a year right now. So we're seeing a real impact from what climate risk is doing from flooding, from fires. So we're seeing a big impact." "And so the faster that we could find ways to mitigating the rising temperatures, I would say the more just society could be. And so to me, we don't have much time. And this is why when I learned about catalyst and I learned about what Bill was doing was very clear to me why we needed to be a part of this, why we needed to invest the time and the money." "And the key is also the time because we need to be learning about these new the new technologies and how to move forward. And we need to then inform our investors ultimately where we think the next opportunities are going to be too as Bill in his book wrote about, we need to employ $50 trillion to get to a green world." "With the rising deficits that we see in governments, from our perspective, the 50 trillion is mostly going to have to come from the private sector. And I do believe that money will be well spent, well spent for returns. It will transform our economies. It will build new jobs. will build new cities and new opportunities." "So I look at this as an optimist. I don't look at this as a pessimist. But the key is to be that optimist. We have to jump on it now. We have to be investing today. We need to talk about it today, although much of the problems in the future but we're seeing more and more evidence of the problem today."

Camus

55,484 просмотров • 1 год назад

"Why I don't believe in human-made climate change, and why Net Zero is a scam." "Look at China and look at India. Their emissions are skyrocketing and... we're that flat line at the bottom. Yet somehow we're the ones getting punished." "We're banning gas stoves, taxing farmers and paying more for power, while our government expands gas projects and exports coal to China and India." "If it's really about the environment, why are we shipping these so-called fossil fuels to the rest of the world?" "And every time the experts get it wrong, they just move the goalposts." "First it was acid rain, then it was the ozone, then it was global warming, then it was melting ice caps, then it was global boiling, and now it's climate change." "The wording now is so vague they can never be wrong. Too cold? Climate change. Too hot? Climate change. It's not about the weather, it's about... control." "We build entire energy grids from solar and wind, which only work for some of the year and are mostly foreign-owned. That's not sustainability. That is a government-backed scam."

"Why I don't believe in human-made climate change, and why Net Zero is a scam." "Look at China and look at India. Their emissions are skyrocketing and... we're that flat line at the bottom. Yet somehow we're the ones getting punished." "We're banning gas stoves, taxing farmers and paying more for power, while our government expands gas projects and exports coal to China and India." "If it's really about the environment, why are we shipping these so-called fossil fuels to the rest of the world?" "And every time the experts get it wrong, they just move the goalposts." "First it was acid rain, then it was the ozone, then it was global warming, then it was melting ice caps, then it was global boiling, and now it's climate change." "The wording now is so vague they can never be wrong. Too cold? Climate change. Too hot? Climate change. It's not about the weather, it's about... control." "We build entire energy grids from solar and wind, which only work for some of the year and are mostly foreign-owned. That's not sustainability. That is a government-backed scam."

Wide Awake Media

88,309 просмотров • 1 год назад

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."

Wide Awake Media

191,053 просмотров • 1 год назад

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid-19th Century, and thus none showing human-created emissions caused an acceleration in recent decades. This does not mean that climate change isn’t happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human-caused climate change. Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public. In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world’s leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me. For years, the world’s top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into how the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers, and the wider public for so long. You might think this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real-world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention-grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has, since the 1990s, been the main justification for apocalyptic climate claims, and past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show that scientists were deliberately misleading. The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations. Not only can I prove that the real-world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration, I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented their research, and how they did it, thanks to my on-the-record email conversation with Kopp of Rutgers.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid-19th Century, and thus none showing human-created emissions caused an acceleration in recent decades. This does not mean that climate change isn’t happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human-caused climate change. Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public. In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world’s leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me. For years, the world’s top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into how the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers, and the wider public for so long. You might think this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real-world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention-grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has, since the 1990s, been the main justification for apocalyptic climate claims, and past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show that scientists were deliberately misleading. The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations. Not only can I prove that the real-world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration, I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented their research, and how they did it, thanks to my on-the-record email conversation with Kopp of Rutgers.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Michael Shellenberger

138,205 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

A few years ago, in 2019, at the extinction rebellion launch I heard Greta Thunberg speak. Nobody knew who she was then. She was just this young girl that had protested against climate change and she travelled to London to make a speech. I got in contact with this TV company that I knew and said they should make a documentary about her now because I thought she was going to become World famous. They weren’t interested, obviously, because the media are not interested in climate change whatsoever. So I’m calling it now. This is Peter Kalmus Peter Kalmus he’s a NASA climate scientist who really speaks passionately and tells it how it is. He speaks with emotion which is something few scientists do - and more should. I think he’s going to become very very famous in the next few years as the climate collapses further. Media get on it. BBC News (UK) Sky News ITV News

A few years ago, in 2019, at the extinction rebellion launch I heard Greta Thunberg speak. Nobody knew who she was then. She was just this young girl that had protested against climate change and she travelled to London to make a speech. I got in contact with this TV company that I knew and said they should make a documentary about her now because I thought she was going to become World famous. They weren’t interested, obviously, because the media are not interested in climate change whatsoever. So I’m calling it now. This is Peter Kalmus Peter Kalmus he’s a NASA climate scientist who really speaks passionately and tells it how it is. He speaks with emotion which is something few scientists do - and more should. I think he’s going to become very very famous in the next few years as the climate collapses further. Media get on it. BBC News (UK) Sky News ITV News

Matthew Todd 🌏🔥

16,129 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Two things can be stated with certainty based on the geological and paleoclimatological record. Profound and abrupt climate change will occur again, and no legislation passed in Washington or anywhere else is going to alter that. These shifts have happened too many times to count, across timescales that dwarf the entire industrial era, driven by forces that have nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide concentrations in the modern atmosphere. A complete cessation of fossil fuel use tomorrow would not change that underlying reality by a single degree. The record is unambiguous on this point, and it has been unambiguous for decades for anyone willing to look at it honestly. So if the science points so clearly toward natural forcing mechanisms as the dominant driver of catastrophic climate change, why is all the attention focused elsewhere? The fossil fuel industry is being blamed for a contrived crisis while the mechanisms behind genuinely catastrophic natural climate change are being systematically kept out of public awareness. That is not an accident. There are real agendas riding on this narrative, and the manufactured climate emergency appears to be functioning as a tool to prevent people from recognizing what is actually driving conditions that have historically brought civilizations to their knees. That is not a comfortable place to land, but when you follow the evidence rather than the funding, that is where it leads.

Two things can be stated with certainty based on the geological and paleoclimatological record. Profound and abrupt climate change will occur again, and no legislation passed in Washington or anywhere else is going to alter that. These shifts have happened too many times to count, across timescales that dwarf the entire industrial era, driven by forces that have nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide concentrations in the modern atmosphere. A complete cessation of fossil fuel use tomorrow would not change that underlying reality by a single degree. The record is unambiguous on this point, and it has been unambiguous for decades for anyone willing to look at it honestly. So if the science points so clearly toward natural forcing mechanisms as the dominant driver of catastrophic climate change, why is all the attention focused elsewhere? The fossil fuel industry is being blamed for a contrived crisis while the mechanisms behind genuinely catastrophic natural climate change are being systematically kept out of public awareness. That is not an accident. There are real agendas riding on this narrative, and the manufactured climate emergency appears to be functioning as a tool to prevent people from recognizing what is actually driving conditions that have historically brought civilizations to their knees. That is not a comfortable place to land, but when you follow the evidence rather than the funding, that is where it leads.

Randall Carlson

10,851 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The Climate Agenda Collapses Under Its Own Weight In a stunning reversal, the global climate narrative is unraveling—fast. As Marc Morano highlights: - Trump’s UN Speech: A fearless takedown of decades of climate alarmism, exposing the agenda for what it is. - Bill Gates’ Retreat: The man who pushed lab-grown meat, owned America’s farmland, and funded Harvard’s sun-blocking schemes now admits the “climate transition” is a dead end. But is the sun finally safe from his geoengineering ambitions? - Global Backpedaling: From Canada scrapping carbon taxes to NY’s Hochul admitting climate goals are unaffordable, even the elites are abandoning the green fantasy. - Decades of Lies Exposed: The facade is crumbling. The world is waking up—and the climate establishment has no answers. The era of climate coercion is over. The people have spoken.

The Climate Agenda Collapses Under Its Own Weight In a stunning reversal, the global climate narrative is unraveling—fast. As Marc Morano highlights: - Trump’s UN Speech: A fearless takedown of decades of climate alarmism, exposing the agenda for what it is. - Bill Gates’ Retreat: The man who pushed lab-grown meat, owned America’s farmland, and funded Harvard’s sun-blocking schemes now admits the “climate transition” is a dead end. But is the sun finally safe from his geoengineering ambitions? - Global Backpedaling: From Canada scrapping carbon taxes to NY’s Hochul admitting climate goals are unaffordable, even the elites are abandoning the green fantasy. - Decades of Lies Exposed: The facade is crumbling. The world is waking up—and the climate establishment has no answers. The era of climate coercion is over. The people have spoken.

Camus

196,539 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Joe Rogan Destroys the Climate Change Narrative in Under 3 Minutes “This idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullsh*t. It’s not true.” Rogan’s guest, Mel Gibson, was shocked to learn that Earth’s climate has always been changing—even long before humans existed. Rogan talked about data from millions of years ago that show Earth’s temperature has gone up and down naturally over time. “There’s no static temperature of Earth ever,” he said. “There’s never been a time where it keeps the same temperature, and then humans came along and ruined everything. That is just not real.” So why all the fear-mongering? It turns out that there are a lot of financial and political benefits to scaring the sh*t out of people. “The problem with anything is that once a narrative gets established and then there’s a profit attached to the solution to that narrative. Yes. And that’s green energy and green energy bills and there’s businesses that are wrapped around there. “And then there’s also this fear that they love to pump into people about climate change that, you know, they terrify the sh*t out of young people that we’re going to destroy the world and climate change. You must act now. And then you become beholden to the political party that it’s espousing these ideas and then your enemy is the deniers of this science, even though you don’t even understand the science,” Rogan explained.

Joe Rogan Destroys the Climate Change Narrative in Under 3 Minutes “This idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullsht. It’s not true.” Rogan’s guest, Mel Gibson, was shocked to learn that Earth’s climate has always been changing—even long before humans existed. Rogan talked about data from millions of years ago that show Earth’s temperature has gone up and down naturally over time. “There’s no static temperature of Earth ever,” he said. “There’s never been a time where it keeps the same temperature, and then humans came along and ruined everything. That is just not real.” So why all the fear-mongering? It turns out that there are a lot of financial and political benefits to scaring the sht out of people. “The problem with anything is that once a narrative gets established and then there’s a profit attached to the solution to that narrative. Yes. And that’s green energy and green energy bills and there’s businesses that are wrapped around there. “And then there’s also this fear that they love to pump into people about climate change that, you know, they terrify the sh*t out of young people that we’re going to destroy the world and climate change. You must act now. And then you become beholden to the political party that it’s espousing these ideas and then your enemy is the deniers of this science, even though you don’t even understand the science,” Rogan explained.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

929,051 просмотров • 1 год назад

NEW: Canadian Climate Change group vandalizes a Tesla dealership in Montreal Canada to protest against "climate denial." The Climate Change freaks are now vandalizing the top electric vehicle company in the world. You can't make this up. The protesters blamed *Tesla,* an EV and solar power company, for Climate Change. The individuals were a part of the "Last Generation" Group, an environmental group that is funded by the Climate Emergency Fund. "We know we don't have much time left. Climate tipping points are nearing as the world around us is being decimated," the group's website says. Both individuals were arrested. They accused Elon Musk of "destroying democracies and spreading climate denial." Lmao.

NEW: Canadian Climate Change group vandalizes a Tesla dealership in Montreal Canada to protest against "climate denial." The Climate Change freaks are now vandalizing the top electric vehicle company in the world. You can't make this up. The protesters blamed Tesla, an EV and solar power company, for Climate Change. The individuals were a part of the "Last Generation" Group, an environmental group that is funded by the Climate Emergency Fund. "We know we don't have much time left. Climate tipping points are nearing as the world around us is being decimated," the group's website says. Both individuals were arrested. They accused Elon Musk of "destroying democracies and spreading climate denial." Lmao.

Collin Rugg

528,297 просмотров • 1 год назад