正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

lol This is a crock of crap. Climate “scientists” cannot get their climate models to produce accurate hindcasts of 20th century global mean surface temperature (GMST) observations without having precursory knowledge of 20th century observations to calibrate them to. That's curve fitting, not science. These models also run on...

ChrisMartzWX's profile picture

Chris Martz

182,585 subscribers

27,569 次观看 • 10 天前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术新闻政治
LIVE

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

"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."
1:53

"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."
1:53

"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

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”
1:31

Garry Nolan says there are more groups doing what skywatcher is doing right now “we know how to call them” “Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently.” Source -Sol Foundation 🔗 in comments Garry -“The, the information's out there, we, you know, it's already pretty well understood. I mean, look, there's been enough whistleblower types where the information of how to do this has leaked out. You know, we know how to call them. Whether you believe in psionics or not, it seems to be part of the process. So we know how to call them. The question is not can you video them? Skywatcher has already shown that you can video them and there'll be more of that kind of stuff, I think coming in the future, you know, so Skywatcher is one group of several that I'm aware of that are doing it independently. So that's citizen science. I mean, I think the answer is you don't wait for the government to do it, for you. Don't wait for daddy or mommy to tell you what's going on. You just do it yourself. Because as long as you're not going out there with, with guns or energy, weapons, trying to pull something down and, you know, get yourself in a bad situation, there's no reason people can't do it themselves and organize. So, you know, that's, that I think is the threat in a way that one needs to use against the governmental authorities who think that they hold all the, all the, all the marbles at this point, they don't anymore because the people who've been in the program, like Jake and others who've, you know, made that statement publicly, have basically made their knowledge and ability public. So do it.”

neandrewthal

74,654 次观看 • 1 年前

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.
0:54

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

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 🦊

928,994 次观看 • 1 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
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

66,361 次观看 • 9 个月前

A new paper argues the global mean surface temperature (GMST) is physically meaningless. The study shows that GMST has no thermodynamic validity, with temperature an intensive property. You cannot average Mount Everest with the Sahara, for example; or seawater with Arctic air. It's like averaging phone numbers. It's meaningless. Also, any changes to the averaging method will completely change the trend, again showing the number has no physical reality. The International Standards Organisation refuses to define GMST. The UN and IPCC use a circular definition. Yet governments treat this number as the foundation of trillions in climate spending. "It all statistical theater." Today's $100 trillion climate boondoggle is anchored to a number that doesn't exist.
0:51

A new paper argues the global mean surface temperature (GMST) is physically meaningless. The study shows that GMST has no thermodynamic validity, with temperature an intensive property. You cannot average Mount Everest with the Sahara, for example; or seawater with Arctic air. It's like averaging phone numbers. It's meaningless. Also, any changes to the averaging method will completely change the trend, again showing the number has no physical reality. The International Standards Organisation refuses to define GMST. The UN and IPCC use a circular definition. Yet governments treat this number as the foundation of trillions in climate spending. "It all statistical theater." Today's $100 trillion climate boondoggle is anchored to a number that doesn't exist.

Electroverse

45,468 次观看 • 6 个月前

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 🇯🇵🇮🇹
2:47

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 🇯🇵🇮🇹

Wide Awake Media

1,151,974 次观看 • 2 年前

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.
4:50

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 次观看 • 1 年前

Neil Oliver: "Al Gore and and and the rest of them, they've all got beachfront property...I think the reality is that they know, like the rest of us do, that yes we have climate change, the climate is changeable, the climate is variable like it always has been. But this nonsense about a climate crisis and about a world at boiling point and a world about to burst into flames is errant nonsense." "Putting solar panels everywhere and then the next thing is let's turn down the power of the sun. There's no joined up thinking about it at all. And it is gross hypocrisy. If any of these people meant it, if any of these people, they speak so passionately about the danger that we're all in, they would be living the life themselves as an example. That's how you lead." "It's like Saint Francis of Assisi, you know, was born into wealth. He was he was a rich man's son and he lived the life of a rich man's son until until he got religion, until he got Christianity, and then he gave away everything. And he lived a life of poverty, and he insisted that all of his followers live a life of poverty thereafter. Now that's how you do it. That's that's the way that you get that message across." "You live the life first. And if if by living that life you inspire other people, then they live likewise. But the fact that these people want to preach this nonsense from the bridge of the private jets, or from their goodness only knows what nuclear powered submarines that they want to cut about the world in is just rank hypocrisy." "I've reached a point in my life where I have faith in next to no one. I look out to everyone who's to whom I have to listen on the, coming out of the official mouthpieces. And I find almost all of them completely intolerable."
2:14

Neil Oliver: "Al Gore and and and the rest of them, they've all got beachfront property...I think the reality is that they know, like the rest of us do, that yes we have climate change, the climate is changeable, the climate is variable like it always has been. But this nonsense about a climate crisis and about a world at boiling point and a world about to burst into flames is errant nonsense." "Putting solar panels everywhere and then the next thing is let's turn down the power of the sun. There's no joined up thinking about it at all. And it is gross hypocrisy. If any of these people meant it, if any of these people, they speak so passionately about the danger that we're all in, they would be living the life themselves as an example. That's how you lead." "It's like Saint Francis of Assisi, you know, was born into wealth. He was he was a rich man's son and he lived the life of a rich man's son until until he got religion, until he got Christianity, and then he gave away everything. And he lived a life of poverty, and he insisted that all of his followers live a life of poverty thereafter. Now that's how you do it. That's that's the way that you get that message across." "You live the life first. And if if by living that life you inspire other people, then they live likewise. But the fact that these people want to preach this nonsense from the bridge of the private jets, or from their goodness only knows what nuclear powered submarines that they want to cut about the world in is just rank hypocrisy." "I've reached a point in my life where I have faith in next to no one. I look out to everyone who's to whom I have to listen on the, coming out of the official mouthpieces. And I find almost all of them completely intolerable."

Camus

17,019 次观看 • 1 年前

The Sun, Not CO₂: What They’re Not Telling You About Climate Change Prof. Henrik Svensmark, astrophysicist at the Danish National Space Institute, has a theory that challenges the entire foundation of climate politics. THREAD 🧵1/5 The Sun’s magnetic field modulates cosmic rays that seed clouds. More clouds = cooling. Less clouds = warming. Clouds are the real thermostat. And they’ve been left out of the climate models. (The link to the full interview is in the reply.)
5:34

The Sun, Not CO₂: What They’re Not Telling You About Climate Change Prof. Henrik Svensmark, astrophysicist at the Danish National Space Institute, has a theory that challenges the entire foundation of climate politics. THREAD 🧵1/5 The Sun’s magnetic field modulates cosmic rays that seed clouds. More clouds = cooling. Less clouds = warming. Clouds are the real thermostat. And they’ve been left out of the climate models. (The link to the full interview is in the reply.)

Freedom Research

18,343 次观看 • 1 年前

Rogin: It looks very likely that we're about to restart bombing of Iran. And there are a lot of reports out there that this is about to happen. And what that means is that all of the problems, not just with the US economy, with the economy of every country in the world, are about to get worse. And it means that the Iran war is going to go much longer than otherwise anticipated. And that is a disaster not just for Americans, but for all people. And then if you think about the effects on energy and then manufacturing, and then rates will continue to go up, and then inflation, it's a it's a calamity for the world economy with no strategy whatsoever.
1:12

Rogin: It looks very likely that we're about to restart bombing of Iran. And there are a lot of reports out there that this is about to happen. And what that means is that all of the problems, not just with the US economy, with the economy of every country in the world, are about to get worse. And it means that the Iran war is going to go much longer than otherwise anticipated. And that is a disaster not just for Americans, but for all people. And then if you think about the effects on energy and then manufacturing, and then rates will continue to go up, and then inflation, it's a it's a calamity for the world economy with no strategy whatsoever.

Acyn

74,258 次观看 • 2 个月前

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

138,172 次观看 • 9 个月前

"The whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing," Dr. Willie Soon told Tucker Carlson. He says he's 90% sure the sun, not carbon dioxide, is causing climate change and that the climate czars are so out of their minds that they are misleading the public. "I really find that the whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing, which means we should do nothing about it. Just go on and live life and adapt to it." This message will never make the TV news. You should probably share it for others to see.
1:35

"The whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing," Dr. Willie Soon told Tucker Carlson. He says he's 90% sure the sun, not carbon dioxide, is causing climate change and that the climate czars are so out of their minds that they are misleading the public. "I really find that the whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing, which means we should do nothing about it. Just go on and live life and adapt to it." This message will never make the TV news. You should probably share it for others to see.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

776,452 次观看 • 2 年前

Scientists Kesten Green and Willie Soon found that the UN's climate models simply don't work. "IPCC climate models lack predictive validity and cannot guide policy," say the researchers. When tested on real forecasts instead of theory, the CO2-based models failed, often performing worse than just a random guess. Whereas simple models based solely on solar activity worked far better, even decades out. The whole 'climate crisis' depends on these models, not on actual measurements, but many run as much as 5C too hot. The IPCC was never about testing if man-made warming is actually real. It was built to promote the idea that it was real.
0:38

Scientists Kesten Green and Willie Soon found that the UN's climate models simply don't work. "IPCC climate models lack predictive validity and cannot guide policy," say the researchers. When tested on real forecasts instead of theory, the CO2-based models failed, often performing worse than just a random guess. Whereas simple models based solely on solar activity worked far better, even decades out. The whole 'climate crisis' depends on these models, not on actual measurements, but many run as much as 5C too hot. The IPCC was never about testing if man-made warming is actually real. It was built to promote the idea that it was real.

Electroverse

37,749 次观看 • 13 天前

Zack Polanski, "The problem is chaining yourself to an economic system that is so fundamentally broken" "You don't get marks or points for just being good, a gold star for doing the basics, or even just under the necessary" "We are at this urgent moment in our history where the only thing that is acceptable is what is required" "What is required is to reduce our emissions, to invest in climate adaptation, to protect nature in one of the most nature depleted countries in the world" "And to make sure we're reinvigorating communities with the truth and putting them in charge" "What is the biggest tool we have?" "It is our shared humanity" "Tackling the cost of living crisis is the same solution as tackling the climate crisis" "It's so vital at this budget that we're cutting bills and taxing billionaires" "There's an implication that all of this is transactional, and the only thing people care about is the money in their pockets" "If you're struggling, that probably is the only thing you care about" "But for so many people, they care about the future of this planet. About clean air. Green spaces" "That when people go to work they have a shared sense of purpose, that it is meaningful and that they are contributing something to society" "We are in a crisis. Climate. Equality. Air pollution. Identity. All of these problems are all interlinked" "And it all comes down to our communities and our humanity"
3:20

Zack Polanski, "The problem is chaining yourself to an economic system that is so fundamentally broken" "You don't get marks or points for just being good, a gold star for doing the basics, or even just under the necessary" "We are at this urgent moment in our history where the only thing that is acceptable is what is required" "What is required is to reduce our emissions, to invest in climate adaptation, to protect nature in one of the most nature depleted countries in the world" "And to make sure we're reinvigorating communities with the truth and putting them in charge" "What is the biggest tool we have?" "It is our shared humanity" "Tackling the cost of living crisis is the same solution as tackling the climate crisis" "It's so vital at this budget that we're cutting bills and taxing billionaires" "There's an implication that all of this is transactional, and the only thing people care about is the money in their pockets" "If you're struggling, that probably is the only thing you care about" "But for so many people, they care about the future of this planet. About clean air. Green spaces" "That when people go to work they have a shared sense of purpose, that it is meaningful and that they are contributing something to society" "We are in a crisis. Climate. Equality. Air pollution. Identity. All of these problems are all interlinked" "And it all comes down to our communities and our humanity"

Farrukh

205,108 次观看 • 8 个月前

So many people—myself included—are drawn to the climate movement because they want to help people. They care, want to help the poor, and save the planet. But what they don't understand is that the climate movement is doing the exact opposite of what these well-meaning activists want to accomplish. The movement vilifies reliable energy—the single biggest driver of getting people out of poverty. Over the past several decades, we’ve spent trillions on an energy transition away from fossil fuels. The result? We’ve made our energy system less reliable and more expensive. Western countries have also practiced climate colonialism by preventing Africa from developing with natural gas, coal, and oil. (This goes against everything climate activists claim to stand for!) This is the most morally inverted movement ever. Right now, a billion people don't have access to reliable energy. That means women are spending their entire day figuring out how to get fuel to cook their food. Children in these settings are not going to school, they’re spending hours collecting wood or walking to get water. All of that is a symptom of energy poverty. This is when climate activists will say “but the planet is burning!” Just no. The planet is not burning. Yes, we've added CO2 to the atmosphere and seen about ~1°C of warming over 150 years. But 95% of CO2 is naturally occurring and historically, warming periods are when humans flourish. The Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 AD) is a great example. It was 0.7-1°C warmer and populations boomed. They then collapsed during the Little Ice Age. Takeaway the climate hysteria and objectively you would choose to live during a warming period over a cooling period. The rest of the data is reassuring: ✅Globally hurricanes rates are slightly declining ✅Tornadoes are down ✅Sea level rise is a manageable ~3mm/year ✅Global greening is up 15–40% since the 1980s ✅10x people still die from cold than from heat In the West the first time students hear about our energy system is within the context of “fossil fuels are burning the planet.” They’re never taught that it’s an amazing technology that has lifted billions out of poverty. I considered this a huge injustice. We need to pivot away from climate hysteria toward one goal: ending energy poverty and expanding access to energy. If you’re still gripped by climate fear and anxiety, I’m sorry you are a victim of this fear narrative. But it's time to get out.
5:50

So many people—myself included—are drawn to the climate movement because they want to help people. They care, want to help the poor, and save the planet. But what they don't understand is that the climate movement is doing the exact opposite of what these well-meaning activists want to accomplish. The movement vilifies reliable energy—the single biggest driver of getting people out of poverty. Over the past several decades, we’ve spent trillions on an energy transition away from fossil fuels. The result? We’ve made our energy system less reliable and more expensive. Western countries have also practiced climate colonialism by preventing Africa from developing with natural gas, coal, and oil. (This goes against everything climate activists claim to stand for!) This is the most morally inverted movement ever. Right now, a billion people don't have access to reliable energy. That means women are spending their entire day figuring out how to get fuel to cook their food. Children in these settings are not going to school, they’re spending hours collecting wood or walking to get water. All of that is a symptom of energy poverty. This is when climate activists will say “but the planet is burning!” Just no. The planet is not burning. Yes, we've added CO2 to the atmosphere and seen about ~1°C of warming over 150 years. But 95% of CO2 is naturally occurring and historically, warming periods are when humans flourish. The Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 AD) is a great example. It was 0.7-1°C warmer and populations boomed. They then collapsed during the Little Ice Age. Takeaway the climate hysteria and objectively you would choose to live during a warming period over a cooling period. The rest of the data is reassuring: ✅Globally hurricanes rates are slightly declining ✅Tornadoes are down ✅Sea level rise is a manageable ~3mm/year ✅Global greening is up 15–40% since the 1980s ✅10x people still die from cold than from heat In the West the first time students hear about our energy system is within the context of “fossil fuels are burning the planet.” They’re never taught that it’s an amazing technology that has lifted billions out of poverty. I considered this a huge injustice. We need to pivot away from climate hysteria toward one goal: ending energy poverty and expanding access to energy. If you’re still gripped by climate fear and anxiety, I’m sorry you are a victim of this fear narrative. But it's time to get out.

Lucy Biggers

31,443 次观看 • 1 个月前