正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

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:show more

Michael Shellenberger

1,408,825 subscribers

114,237 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

健康养生科学技术新闻政治

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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

138,172 次观看 • 9 个月前

"We're not in a crisis. There is no climate emergency." Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer: "It has never been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming." "Only 3% of emissions are from humans, the rest is natural... So if you're to prove that humans, and their emissions of the the gas of life, change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions—97% of all emissions—don't change climate. That has never been addressed."

"We're not in a crisis. There is no climate emergency." Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer: "It has never been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming." "Only 3% of emissions are from humans, the rest is natural... So if you're to prove that humans, and their emissions of the the gas of life, change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions—97% of all emissions—don't change climate. That has never been addressed."

Wide Awake Media

234,182 次观看 • 2 年前

"This is probably the biggest con that we've ever had." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "There is no climate emergency... It has never been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming." "Only 3% of emissions are from humans, the rest is natural... So if you're to prove that humans, and their emissions of the the gas of life, change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions—97% of all emissions—don't change climate." "That has never been addressed."

"This is probably the biggest con that we've ever had." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "There is no climate emergency... It has never been proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming." "Only 3% of emissions are from humans, the rest is natural... So if you're to prove that humans, and their emissions of the the gas of life, change climate, then you also have to prove that the natural emissions—97% of all emissions—don't change climate." "That has never been addressed."

Wide Awake Media

734,743 次观看 • 11 个月前

"Today is climate emergency day." Good Morning Britain, one of the UK's most popular breakfast TV shows, goes full climate apocalypse. "It's a day to raise awareness about how short the window is that we have to tackle climate change, to reduce our emissions, to not get to that 1.5 degree value that all of the UN says, and all the climate scientists say, that will mitigate the very worst impacts of climate change." "So the clock here is ticking down, and today it will go below five years for the first time in our history." 🤡

"Today is climate emergency day." Good Morning Britain, one of the UK's most popular breakfast TV shows, goes full climate apocalypse. "It's a day to raise awareness about how short the window is that we have to tackle climate change, to reduce our emissions, to not get to that 1.5 degree value that all of the UN says, and all the climate scientists say, that will mitigate the very worst impacts of climate change." "So the clock here is ticking down, and today it will go below five years for the first time in our history." 🤡

Wide Awake Media

134,215 次观看 • 2 年前

“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

66,361 次观看 • 9 个月前

$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

51,140 次观看 • 1 年前

We're told climate disasters are getting worse, but the data says the exact opposite. According to the world's leading disaster database, climate-related disasters show no trend since 2000. And climate-related deaths have collapsed by over 98% since 1920, with deaths dropping from nearly 500,000 per year to under 10,000 today. Floods, droughts, storms and wildfires are not increasing. And on top of that, humanity is just far more resilient than it used to be. There is no crisis. Just progress.

We're told climate disasters are getting worse, but the data says the exact opposite. According to the world's leading disaster database, climate-related disasters show no trend since 2000. And climate-related deaths have collapsed by over 98% since 1920, with deaths dropping from nearly 500,000 per year to under 10,000 today. Floods, droughts, storms and wildfires are not increasing. And on top of that, humanity is just far more resilient than it used to be. There is no crisis. Just progress.

Electroverse

12,742 次观看 • 4 个月前

THE CLIMATE CHANGE LIE: Bill Gates I do not want your money, declares fearless 31 year Harvard Scientist who has scientifically confirmed that CO2 Climate Change theory is a big lie used to control humanity. C02 is the gas of life, they are delusional, global warming is nothing. He goes on to say that John Kerry and Al Gore are talking nonsense about Climate Change, they are not even scientists. They have no idea of the important role that CO2 plays in all life on earth, more CO2 equals more life on planet earth. Bill Gates who is not a scientist, not a doctor and not anyone of intelligence says we have to reduce CO2 to Zero which includes reducing the population because CO2 is warming the earth, this is a blatant lie used to frighten humanity into obedience. Independent scientific papers and independent scientists who have been researching this subject for many years have already proven that CO2 gas is of no concern to life. International Attorney confirms that Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab and many other WEF politicians are using Climate Change, Pandemics and Wars to bring about total world control through the United Nations and World Economic Forum. He declares that they must be stopped and should have been stopped a long time ago. Now is the time to unite humanity and defend life and freedom. This is your home, defend planet earth.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE LIE: Bill Gates I do not want your money, declares fearless 31 year Harvard Scientist who has scientifically confirmed that CO2 Climate Change theory is a big lie used to control humanity. C02 is the gas of life, they are delusional, global warming is nothing. He goes on to say that John Kerry and Al Gore are talking nonsense about Climate Change, they are not even scientists. They have no idea of the important role that CO2 plays in all life on earth, more CO2 equals more life on planet earth. Bill Gates who is not a scientist, not a doctor and not anyone of intelligence says we have to reduce CO2 to Zero which includes reducing the population because CO2 is warming the earth, this is a blatant lie used to frighten humanity into obedience. Independent scientific papers and independent scientists who have been researching this subject for many years have already proven that CO2 gas is of no concern to life. International Attorney confirms that Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab and many other WEF politicians are using Climate Change, Pandemics and Wars to bring about total world control through the United Nations and World Economic Forum. He declares that they must be stopped and should have been stopped a long time ago. Now is the time to unite humanity and defend life and freedom. This is your home, defend planet earth.

Truth Justice ™

6,322,632 次观看 • 2 年前

We're told climate disasters are getting worse. According to the world's leading disaster database, climate-related disasters show no trend since 2000. And climate-related deaths have collapsed by over 98% since 1920, with deaths dropping from nearly 500,000 per year to under 10,000 today. Floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires are not increasing. And on top of that, humanity is just far more resilient than it used to be. There is no crisis, just progress.

We're told climate disasters are getting worse. According to the world's leading disaster database, climate-related disasters show no trend since 2000. And climate-related deaths have collapsed by over 98% since 1920, with deaths dropping from nearly 500,000 per year to under 10,000 today. Floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires are not increasing. And on top of that, humanity is just far more resilient than it used to be. There is no crisis, just progress.

Electroverse

11,921 次观看 • 1 天前

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

54,805 次观看 • 2 个月前

Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist and WEF agenda contributor: "And so often when I speak of climate change, I don't call it global warming, because as individuals, we don't experience the average temperature of the planet. But what I do call it is global weirding." "Because wherever people live, they recognize that something is weird. You can talk to almost anyone. can say, if you live here, do you feel the weather is weird? And they will say yes. Scientists have predicted this. We've known for a long time that climate change is loading the weather dice against us." "We've known that as the average temperature of the planet increases, heat waves will become more intense, the heat wave season will be extended. Heavy downpours will become more frequent, and flood risk will increase in many places." "The intensity of tropical storms, including cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, will increase. And droughts, like the one being experienced in Syria right now, which would not be a drought if it were not for human-induced warming, would become more intense."

Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist and WEF agenda contributor: "And so often when I speak of climate change, I don't call it global warming, because as individuals, we don't experience the average temperature of the planet. But what I do call it is global weirding." "Because wherever people live, they recognize that something is weird. You can talk to almost anyone. can say, if you live here, do you feel the weather is weird? And they will say yes. Scientists have predicted this. We've known for a long time that climate change is loading the weather dice against us." "We've known that as the average temperature of the planet increases, heat waves will become more intense, the heat wave season will be extended. Heavy downpours will become more frequent, and flood risk will increase in many places." "The intensity of tropical storms, including cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, will increase. And droughts, like the one being experienced in Syria right now, which would not be a drought if it were not for human-induced warming, would become more intense."

Camus

50,067 次观看 • 11 个月前

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

10,662 次观看 • 2 个月前

Here’s the TRUTH: the climate disaster death rate has *declined* by 98% over the last century, even as carbon emissions have risen. The average person is 50X less likely to die of a climate-related cause than in 1920. Why? Fossil fuels. And 8x as many people die from cold temperatures as warm ones. The right answer to all temperature-related deaths is, again, more abundance of fossil fuels. These are inconvenient truths for the climate cult. The real emergency isn’t climate change, it’s the man-made disaster of climate change policies that threaten U.S. prosperity.

Here’s the TRUTH: the climate disaster death rate has declined by 98% over the last century, even as carbon emissions have risen. The average person is 50X less likely to die of a climate-related cause than in 1920. Why? Fossil fuels. And 8x as many people die from cold temperatures as warm ones. The right answer to all temperature-related deaths is, again, more abundance of fossil fuels. These are inconvenient truths for the climate cult. The real emergency isn’t climate change, it’s the man-made disaster of climate change policies that threaten U.S. prosperity.

Vivek Ramaswamy

3,240,621 次观看 • 2 年前

Chris Wright: "How often do you hear that the planet is getting greener because there is more carbon dioxide in the air? It contributes to increased crop productivity and greener wilderness. How often do you hear that deaths from extreme weather have been falling by a stone for a century? ... we're promoting an alarmist view of climate change."

Chris Wright: "How often do you hear that the planet is getting greener because there is more carbon dioxide in the air? It contributes to increased crop productivity and greener wilderness. How often do you hear that deaths from extreme weather have been falling by a stone for a century? ... we're promoting an alarmist view of climate change."

Aaron Rupar

215,684 次观看 • 1 年前

Blackout is a lying dishonest scoundrel. We have over a 125 years of rainfall data for west of the Great Dividing Range (the Murray Darling Basin) and the data is clear, there is NO climate change trend in rainfall. There is NO increase in natural disasters - it’s a land out droughts and flooding rains, as it has always been. And to lie to farmers, to imply that your policies of "taking action on climate" will reduce droughts or floods is utterly contemptible.

Blackout is a lying dishonest scoundrel. We have over a 125 years of rainfall data for west of the Great Dividing Range (the Murray Darling Basin) and the data is clear, there is NO climate change trend in rainfall. There is NO increase in natural disasters - it’s a land out droughts and flooding rains, as it has always been. And to lie to farmers, to imply that your policies of "taking action on climate" will reduce droughts or floods is utterly contemptible.

Craig Kelly:🇦🇺Foundation for Economic Education

35,185 次观看 • 10 个月前

Zack Polanski, "What is your assessment of where we're at and what needs to happen?" Caroline Lucas, "We've had this Joint Intelligence Committee report that was suppressed by the Labour government because they saw how serious the climate and nature emergency is" "Perhaps they didn't want to show how little they were doing to rise to the occasion" "Just as sea levels are rising, tragically the far right is rising too" "They are weaponising climate change and climate policy" "One of the ways we can push back against that is by, not using the language of net zero, which most people don't understand" "It's about making this conversation real for people" "If we can talk about climate change as being about power, and redistributing power" "If we can talk about it in terms of justice" "Then we've got a better chance of making change happen" "But also crucially, hopefully, reducing the change of a Farage-led government at the next election" Zack Polanski, "So beautifully put"

Zack Polanski, "What is your assessment of where we're at and what needs to happen?" Caroline Lucas, "We've had this Joint Intelligence Committee report that was suppressed by the Labour government because they saw how serious the climate and nature emergency is" "Perhaps they didn't want to show how little they were doing to rise to the occasion" "Just as sea levels are rising, tragically the far right is rising too" "They are weaponising climate change and climate policy" "One of the ways we can push back against that is by, not using the language of net zero, which most people don't understand" "It's about making this conversation real for people" "If we can talk about climate change as being about power, and redistributing power" "If we can talk about it in terms of justice" "Then we've got a better chance of making change happen" "But also crucially, hopefully, reducing the change of a Farage-led government at the next election" Zack Polanski, "So beautifully put"

Farrukh

18,397 次观看 • 5 个月前

Climate change is real. The EPA's decision that greenhouse gases are not a public health issue flies in the face of decades of data about the negative public health impact of greenhouse gases, including heat exposure and fire risk. Colorado is all too familiar with the effects of climate change, seeing the three largest fires in our state's history and the most destructive in the last five years. Despite the EPA's denial of scientific reality, Colorado will continue to achieve our ambitious clean energy goals to save people more on energy bills, reduce emissions, and improve our air quality and health.

Climate change is real. The EPA's decision that greenhouse gases are not a public health issue flies in the face of decades of data about the negative public health impact of greenhouse gases, including heat exposure and fire risk. Colorado is all too familiar with the effects of climate change, seeing the three largest fires in our state's history and the most destructive in the last five years. Despite the EPA's denial of scientific reality, Colorado will continue to achieve our ambitious clean energy goals to save people more on energy bills, reduce emissions, and improve our air quality and health.

Governor Jared Polis

39,722 次观看 • 1 年前

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

88,083 次观看 • 2 年前