Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

A quick reminder, the climate didn’t start changing when humans showed up. Long before factories, cars, or carbon charts, Earth’s climate was already in motion. Ice ages came and went. Sea levels rose and fell. Volcanoes changed global weather overnight. In fact, the planet was warmer about 7,000 years...

HighWireTalk's profile picture

The HighWire

252,852 subscribers

20,805 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

"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."
2:36

"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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I'm going to upset a few people with this one... The climate is changing. It always has! But I don't believe we're facing a man-made climate crisis. I believe we're being sold one. Earth has gone through ice ages, warm periods and times with no polar ice caps long before humans were driving cars. CO₂ makes up around 0.04% of our atmosphere, and the UK's contribution to global emissions is tiny. Should we stop polluting? Absolutely. Should we be handing governments more power, more taxes and more control over our lives in the name of "saving the planet"? Absolutely not. Watch the video before you tell me I'm wrong.
6:10

I'm going to upset a few people with this one... The climate is changing. It always has! But I don't believe we're facing a man-made climate crisis. I believe we're being sold one. Earth has gone through ice ages, warm periods and times with no polar ice caps long before humans were driving cars. CO₂ makes up around 0.04% of our atmosphere, and the UK's contribution to global emissions is tiny. Should we stop polluting? Absolutely. Should we be handing governments more power, more taxes and more control over our lives in the name of "saving the planet"? Absolutely not. Watch the video before you tell me I'm wrong.

Digby Furneaux

54,032 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change — Which Lie Are We Paying for Today?” When I was a kid, it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now it’s just “climate change.” We were told: 🌎 Ice caps gone by 2000 🌎 Cities underwater 🌎 Humanity extinct Decades later — we are still here while spending TRILLIONS fighting “climate change.” Taxes are higher. Energy is unaffordable. Freedom is shrinking. And the climate? Hasn’t changed. If this was really about saving the planet, would the elites be: Buying oceanfront mansions? Flying private jets to “climate summits”? Cashing in on carbon credits? This isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about controlling the people —and making the right people rich. President Trump was right. This is the climate hoax of our time.
1:05

Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change — Which Lie Are We Paying for Today?” When I was a kid, it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now it’s just “climate change.” We were told: 🌎 Ice caps gone by 2000 🌎 Cities underwater 🌎 Humanity extinct Decades later — we are still here while spending TRILLIONS fighting “climate change.” Taxes are higher. Energy is unaffordable. Freedom is shrinking. And the climate? Hasn’t changed. If this was really about saving the planet, would the elites be: Buying oceanfront mansions? Flying private jets to “climate summits”? Cashing in on carbon credits? This isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about controlling the people —and making the right people rich. President Trump was right. This is the climate hoax of our time.

Lisa Robinson

22,231 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Thanks to Tim Pool for mentioning my work. Yes, with the decrease of Earth’s magnetic field, the weather will get worse. There are legitimate studies about this, and it has happened cyclically in our past. This process drives climate change, and together with the axial and apsidal precessions, it alters the entire ecosystem of the climate. That’s how the Sahara became a desert 6000 years ago during the Solovki Geomagnetic Excursion. The climate will change differently in various parts of the world, but there is a tipping point, and all of this is covered in the 2003 leaked Pentagon report. Believe it or not, all the wars today, the inflation, the battle for rare earth minerals, the building of doomsday bunkers, and even the COVID pandemic are connected to this event.
1:08

Thanks to Tim Pool for mentioning my work. Yes, with the decrease of Earth’s magnetic field, the weather will get worse. There are legitimate studies about this, and it has happened cyclically in our past. This process drives climate change, and together with the axial and apsidal precessions, it alters the entire ecosystem of the climate. That’s how the Sahara became a desert 6000 years ago during the Solovki Geomagnetic Excursion. The climate will change differently in various parts of the world, but there is a tipping point, and all of this is covered in the 2003 leaked Pentagon report. Believe it or not, all the wars today, the inflation, the battle for rare earth minerals, the building of doomsday bunkers, and even the COVID pandemic are connected to this event.

Open Minded Approach

27,238 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

40 years ago they told us an ice age was imminent. Now they tell us that the global warming is an existential threat to humanity. Which is it? Neither. The climate change agenda is a hoax because it has nothing to do with the climate and everything with global “equity” - by letting China catch up to the U.S. The same people who rail against carbon emissions in the U.S. don’t say a peep about shifting those same emissions to China, while also opposing nuclear energy here at home. It’s a farce & I won’t hedge in saying so.
2:20

40 years ago they told us an ice age was imminent. Now they tell us that the global warming is an existential threat to humanity. Which is it? Neither. The climate change agenda is a hoax because it has nothing to do with the climate and everything with global “equity” - by letting China catch up to the U.S. The same people who rail against carbon emissions in the U.S. don’t say a peep about shifting those same emissions to China, while also opposing nuclear energy here at home. It’s a farce & I won’t hedge in saying so.

Vivek Ramaswamy

2,965,033 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

The global mean surface temperature today is only about 1C warmer than it was in 1880. This modest rise has been framed as a 'climate emergency,' yet in historical context it is trivial. Global temperatures have fluctuated by more than 10C over natural glacial cycles long before industrialization. Even during the Holocene, recent periods such as the Medieval Warm Period were far warmer than today without triggering catastrophe. The data show no runaway warming or planetary collapse. In fact, historical records reveal warmth is beneficial to humanity and to life in general. This disconnect between reality and the apocalyptic rhetoric exposes the ruse. There is no "climate crisis."
0:42

The global mean surface temperature today is only about 1C warmer than it was in 1880. This modest rise has been framed as a 'climate emergency,' yet in historical context it is trivial. Global temperatures have fluctuated by more than 10C over natural glacial cycles long before industrialization. Even during the Holocene, recent periods such as the Medieval Warm Period were far warmer than today without triggering catastrophe. The data show no runaway warming or planetary collapse. In fact, historical records reveal warmth is beneficial to humanity and to life in general. This disconnect between reality and the apocalyptic rhetoric exposes the ruse. There is no "climate crisis."

Electroverse

32,204 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

40 years ago they told us an ice age was imminent. Now they tell us that global warming is an existential threat to humanity. Which is it? Neither. The climate change agenda is a hoax because it has nothing to do with the climate and everything with global “equity” - by letting China catch up to the U.S. The same people who rail against carbon emissions in the U.S. don’t say a peep about shifting those same emissions to China, while also opposing nuclear energy here at home. It’s a farce & I won’t hedge in saying so.
3:09

40 years ago they told us an ice age was imminent. Now they tell us that global warming is an existential threat to humanity. Which is it? Neither. The climate change agenda is a hoax because it has nothing to do with the climate and everything with global “equity” - by letting China catch up to the U.S. The same people who rail against carbon emissions in the U.S. don’t say a peep about shifting those same emissions to China, while also opposing nuclear energy here at home. It’s a farce & I won’t hedge in saying so.

Vivek Ramaswamy

1,054,563 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

MUST-WATCH: Contrary to propaganda spouted by climate alarmists, rising temperatures are the CAUSE of increased atmospheric CO2, not the other way around, and the temperature of the Earth is regulated by solar activity. The climate has always changed, long before humans got here, and it will continue to change long after we're gone, but globalist bodies like the UN and WEF want us to believe that humans are causing it, as a pretext to exert absolute totalitarian control over the entire planet. From the documentary, ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Watch the full documentary here: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #NetZero
6:41

MUST-WATCH: Contrary to propaganda spouted by climate alarmists, rising temperatures are the CAUSE of increased atmospheric CO2, not the other way around, and the temperature of the Earth is regulated by solar activity. The climate has always changed, long before humans got here, and it will continue to change long after we're gone, but globalist bodies like the UN and WEF want us to believe that humans are causing it, as a pretext to exert absolute totalitarian control over the entire planet. From the documentary, ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. Watch the full documentary here: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

740,138 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, blows the "human-induced climate change" myth completely out of the water: "[Changes in climate] are driven by that great ball of heat in the sky, which we call 'the Sun'. A trace gas (CO2) has nothing to do with our climate." "If we get further away from the Sun, it gets cooler, and if we get closer to the Sun, it gets warmer. No legislation, from Canberra or from the UN, can change the orbit of the Earth." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
0:51

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, blows the "human-induced climate change" myth completely out of the water: "[Changes in climate] are driven by that great ball of heat in the sky, which we call 'the Sun'. A trace gas (CO2) has nothing to do with our climate." "If we get further away from the Sun, it gets cooler, and if we get closer to the Sun, it gets warmer. No legislation, from Canberra or from the UN, can change the orbit of the Earth." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

787,866 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

“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
9:05

“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 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

This is Thea Riofrancos, a professor at Providence College, talking about building a new social form based on the climate con that might be called green social democracy, eosocialism, or carbon free communism. 🤣🤡 As I keep saying, “climate change” has nothing to do with climate change. It is about creating a socialist NWO based on the climate con and sustainable development. It is telling that she is followed by the Sunrise Movement climate commie kids, Shutdown DC who is in the revolution business, the Journal of Democracy, C40 Cities, and Freedom House. All of these groups are part of Democracy International.
1:08

This is Thea Riofrancos, a professor at Providence College, talking about building a new social form based on the climate con that might be called green social democracy, eosocialism, or carbon free communism. 🤣🤡 As I keep saying, “climate change” has nothing to do with climate change. It is about creating a socialist NWO based on the climate con and sustainable development. It is telling that she is followed by the Sunrise Movement climate commie kids, Shutdown DC who is in the revolution business, the Journal of Democracy, C40 Cities, and Freedom House. All of these groups are part of Democracy International.

The Researcher

72,090 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

🚨 Ex-Climate Scientist sounds the ALARM on Climate Industry!!! : “In REAL science, you have a theory, you test it, and if the test fails you know your theory is wrong!…” Alas, Climate scientists have decided this FUNDAMENTAL principle of scientific inquiry does not apply to THEM! Imagine if a doctor prescribed a medicine that killed its patients, or an engineer designed a bridge that fell down - the press would be ALL over it! Not in climate science… I smell a rat… Watch the full video at:
1:14

🚨 Ex-Climate Scientist sounds the ALARM on Climate Industry!!! : “In REAL science, you have a theory, you test it, and if the test fails you know your theory is wrong!…” Alas, Climate scientists have decided this FUNDAMENTAL principle of scientific inquiry does not apply to THEM! Imagine if a doctor prescribed a medicine that killed its patients, or an engineer designed a bridge that fell down - the press would be ALL over it! Not in climate science… I smell a rat… Watch the full video at:

Anika

88,286 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Firefighter James Rodgers speaking alongside Zack Polanski, on the need to address climate change "When people talk about climate change, they often talk about the year 2050. I’m a firefighter. I want to talk about now, because for firefighters, climate change isn’t a prediction, it’s a shift we’re already working. Climate change is the fire call to multiple back gardens alight, children’s clothing burning on the washing line." "Climate change is the acrid smell as you effect entry into a flat because someone has succumbed to heat stroke and hasn’t been checked on in weeks. Climate change is the sound of people in floods of tears when they’re stuck in a lift 20 floors up in 30-degree heat." "Climate change is the taste of dust in your dry mouth watching a fire sweep uncontrollably across a park you used to play football in as a child in your summer holidays. Climate change is this becoming a day-to-day reality." "This week I’ve spoken to my colleagues from all over the United Kingdom and they have said no one wants to admit it, but the heat is getting to all of us. We’re getting shorter with each other and we’re finishing jobs feeling like we’ve done a full day’s work even before lunch." "Another said, my station gets very hot inside and there isn’t a place I can find relief from the heat whilst at work. It leaves me having more headaches and brain fog, less able to do my job after 24 years in the job. Another firefighter said to me, when are we finally going to get the workwear designed for this climate?" "Everyone who works in the fire brigade is feeling the exhaustion. We expect the fires, we expect the floods, we expect the road traffic collisions. What we didn’t expect was for the extreme heat itself to become the emergency." "Not just for the public, for the people responding to it too. Climate change is rapidly changing the conditions in which every part of our job happens. Make no mistake, we will turn up. Don’t fear the sound of our sirens – it’s the sound of help on its way." "We will keep responding, we will keep adapting. The question isn’t whether us firefighters will do our job, the question is whether the rest of us are willing to do ours. The climate crisis is stretching the fire service long before it makes headlines." "And whilst the same debates continue to happen, whilst fossil fuels are exploited from the earth for the profit of the few, our jobs are getting harder, days longer, resources thinner and incidents more severe." "Major fires can start with a single spark. Every solution starts with a decision to act. Every action that cuts emissions, protects our green spaces, teaches our children to care, supports resilience or helps a vulnerable neighbour matters." "Our future isn’t decided by one big decision, but millions of small ones. And the longer we wait, the harder it becomes for communities, for governments and, yes, for firefighters too. Because the climate crisis isn’t coming." "It’s calling 999."
3:26

Firefighter James Rodgers speaking alongside Zack Polanski, on the need to address climate change "When people talk about climate change, they often talk about the year 2050. I’m a firefighter. I want to talk about now, because for firefighters, climate change isn’t a prediction, it’s a shift we’re already working. Climate change is the fire call to multiple back gardens alight, children’s clothing burning on the washing line." "Climate change is the acrid smell as you effect entry into a flat because someone has succumbed to heat stroke and hasn’t been checked on in weeks. Climate change is the sound of people in floods of tears when they’re stuck in a lift 20 floors up in 30-degree heat." "Climate change is the taste of dust in your dry mouth watching a fire sweep uncontrollably across a park you used to play football in as a child in your summer holidays. Climate change is this becoming a day-to-day reality." "This week I’ve spoken to my colleagues from all over the United Kingdom and they have said no one wants to admit it, but the heat is getting to all of us. We’re getting shorter with each other and we’re finishing jobs feeling like we’ve done a full day’s work even before lunch." "Another said, my station gets very hot inside and there isn’t a place I can find relief from the heat whilst at work. It leaves me having more headaches and brain fog, less able to do my job after 24 years in the job. Another firefighter said to me, when are we finally going to get the workwear designed for this climate?" "Everyone who works in the fire brigade is feeling the exhaustion. We expect the fires, we expect the floods, we expect the road traffic collisions. What we didn’t expect was for the extreme heat itself to become the emergency." "Not just for the public, for the people responding to it too. Climate change is rapidly changing the conditions in which every part of our job happens. Make no mistake, we will turn up. Don’t fear the sound of our sirens – it’s the sound of help on its way." "We will keep responding, we will keep adapting. The question isn’t whether us firefighters will do our job, the question is whether the rest of us are willing to do ours. The climate crisis is stretching the fire service long before it makes headlines." "And whilst the same debates continue to happen, whilst fossil fuels are exploited from the earth for the profit of the few, our jobs are getting harder, days longer, resources thinner and incidents more severe." "Major fires can start with a single spark. Every solution starts with a decision to act. Every action that cuts emissions, protects our green spaces, teaches our children to care, supports resilience or helps a vulnerable neighbour matters." "Our future isn’t decided by one big decision, but millions of small ones. And the longer we wait, the harder it becomes for communities, for governments and, yes, for firefighters too. Because the climate crisis isn’t coming." "It’s calling 999."

Farrukh

105,571 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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:
1:09

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:
5:45

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is “an existential threat to all of us,” and scientists and environmentalists say “one billion” to “billions” will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankind’s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind’s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earth’s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within today’s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate change’s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its “Billion-Dollar Disasters Database” after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high “RCP 8.5” scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What’s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely’” explained Pielke recently, “it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively” in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren’t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? 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

114,237 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

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.
2:54

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.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

929,051 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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!
46:20

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Al Gore dials the climate alarmism up to eleven during his performance at COP30. "We are using [the atmosphere] as an open sewer for 175 million tonnes of man-made global warming pollution spewed into it every single day." "The accumulated amount today will trap as much extra heat as would be released by 750,000 first-generation atomic bombs exploding on the Earth every 24 hours." "The temperatures are going up because of that. Last year was the hottest year in recorded history." "We've seen a few million climate refugees trigger neo-authoritarianism and ultra-nationalism." "Health threats from climate have reached unprecedented levels, and the WHO has long since said the climate crisis is the single biggest health threat facing humanity."
2:10

Al Gore dials the climate alarmism up to eleven during his performance at COP30. "We are using [the atmosphere] as an open sewer for 175 million tonnes of man-made global warming pollution spewed into it every single day." "The accumulated amount today will trap as much extra heat as would be released by 750,000 first-generation atomic bombs exploding on the Earth every 24 hours." "The temperatures are going up because of that. Last year was the hottest year in recorded history." "We've seen a few million climate refugees trigger neo-authoritarianism and ultra-nationalism." "Health threats from climate have reached unprecedented levels, and the WHO has long since said the climate crisis is the single biggest health threat facing humanity."

Wide Awake Media

116,914 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

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:
6:45

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 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten