Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
Geologist Gregg Braden challenges the mainstream climate narrative "Climate change is real — I've been saying it since 1979. But humans aren't the cause. CO2 is rising — yes. But over 90% comes from warming oceans (warm water releases gas), not human activity. The oceans are warming from BELOW... show more
19,880 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![Award-winning journalist Alex Newman delivers a PERFECT 90 second summary of the climate scam: "The notion that CO2 is pollution is absolutely preposterous... The idea that [it's] going to destroy the planet or change the temperature of the Earth is totally ludicrous." "But from a totalitarian perspective, if you can convince people that CO2 is pollution, there's no human activity that doesn't result in CO2 emissions, including living, including dying, turning on a light switch." "Every single aspect of your life, then, if we submit to the idea that CO2 is pollution, then comes under the regulatory control of the people who claim to be saving us from pollution." Credit: Alex Newman](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1872220993239847168/amplify_video_thumb/1872220943214329856/img/aMo4QDn8uraVdrvG.jpg)
![Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: "There are three things you need to know to know that [the climate crisis] is false." "First, it is not too hot now. It is one of the coldest periods in the history of the Earth." "Second, CO2 is lower now in the atmosphere than it has been throughout nearly the entire history of the Earth." "The third thing you need to know is that all the CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere, where did it come from? How did it get in the fossil fuels? By plants pulling it out of the atmosphere, and the oceans. The plankton in the sea, the vegetation on the land, turned into coal, oil and gas." "So all we're doing is replacing carbon dioxide... If there wasn't enough CO2 for the plants, we would all die too... We are replenishing the CO2 to a much better level than it had gone down to. We are the actual salvation of life on Earth." Credit: Patrick Moore Cristian 🇯🇵🇮🇹](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1809547758472167924/ext_tw_video_thumb/1809547675643035649/pu/img/EsR4VzmVIvkOUCYi.jpg)
![“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](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1984003595080241338/amplify_video_thumb/1984001965953839110/img/XbIlSgE2iW3ADFmk.jpg)