Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Newsreader experiences severe cognitive dissonance after guest goes off script, informing her that human carbon emissions do not cause global warming. Credit: Steve Milloy #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Wide Awake Media

842,310 subscribers

266,255 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

#ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Kommentare

Profilbild von UnBaffle.me

UnBaffle.mevor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience Can only imagine the level of gasping coming thru her earpiece from the control room - as he said such blasphemous things. Lol.

Profilbild von UnBaffle.me

UnBaffle.mevor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience This is delicious to watch.

Profilbild von Chuck Petras

Chuck Petrasvor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience

Profilbild von Naomi Seibt

Naomi Seibtvor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience . @JunkScience did not go “off script”. Did they not do his research before interviewing him? Pathetic how the media seem to blindly believe that all climate scientists must buy into the same climate alarmism propaganda. Steve Milloy did an excellent job! 👏🏻

Profilbild von placesinwales

placesinwalesvor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience Brilliant.. more and more scientists saying this now.. So obvious that she had a script to follow... Senior Fellow at Energy and Environment.. Can't get better than that.. Listen up globalists!

Profilbild von Rodney Billington

Rodney Billingtonvor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience Ummmm,I can taste the tears

Profilbild von shankapodymus

shankapodymusvor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience I love how someone who calmly discusses the climate can upset someone who wants to panic people about "climate change".🫡

Profilbild von Cromwell

Cromwellvor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience Brilliant and spot on!

Profilbild von JimGuldbrand

JimGuldbrandvor 3 Jahren

@JunkScience Haha she is so flabbergasted... loved it

Profilbild von Let Freedom Ring

Let Freedom Ringvor 3 Jahren

@freakinfracking @JunkScience One volcano will put off more than all of humanity for ten years!

Ähnliche Videos

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer: "No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. If someone did show that, they'd have to show that the 97% of the emissions which are natural, don't drive global warming. So the whole concept of global warming is actually underpinned by falsity." Full interview: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer: "No one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. If someone did show that, they'd have to show that the 97% of the emissions which are natural, don't drive global warming. So the whole concept of global warming is actually underpinned by falsity." Full interview: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Wide Awake Media

572,222 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, on the climate doomsday cult: "Every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong. They still haven't, after 30 years, shown us that human emissions [of CO2] drive global warming." "If you cannot show that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, then all the arguments about coal, gas and hydrocarbons, are wrong." #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, on the climate doomsday cult: "Every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong. They still haven't, after 30 years, shown us that human emissions [of CO2] drive global warming." "If you cannot show that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, then all the arguments about coal, gas and hydrocarbons, are wrong." #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Wide Awake Media

585,276 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore: "The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm." "I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication." #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore: "The scientific method has not been applied in such a way as to prove that carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm." "I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication." #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Wide Awake Media

1,895,794 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

One of the world's most respected scholars, Thomas Sowell, on the #ClimateScam: "Temperatures went up first, and then there was the increase in carbon dioxide. You can’t say that A causes B if B happens first... But [the scientists] who are pushing global warming are doing their damndest to make sure that those who believe the opposite don't get heard in the public." Source: #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

One of the world's most respected scholars, Thomas Sowell, on the #ClimateScam: "Temperatures went up first, and then there was the increase in carbon dioxide. You can’t say that A causes B if B happens first... But [the scientists] who are pushing global warming are doing their damndest to make sure that those who believe the opposite don't get heard in the public." Source: #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Wide Awake Media

313,472 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Senator John Kennedy grills climate grifter from the US Department of Energy on the #ClimateScam: "If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?" "You don't know, do you? You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce world temperatures." Source: #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Senator John Kennedy grills climate grifter from the US Department of Energy on the #ClimateScam: "If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?" "You don't know, do you? You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce world temperatures." Source: #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Wide Awake Media

1,109,924 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Senator John Kennedy grills climate grifter from the US Department of Energy on the #ClimateScam: "If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?" "You don't know, do you? You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce world temperatures." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Senator John Kennedy grills climate grifter from the US Department of Energy on the #ClimateScam: "If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?" "You don't know, do you? You just want us to spend $50 trillion, and you don't have the slightest idea whether it's going to reduce world temperatures." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Wide Awake Media

1,469,417 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Geologist Ian Plimer dispels the myth pushed by climate totalitarians that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant", as an excuse to seize power and control over every aspect of our lives. "It is the food of life. It is plant food. It is not a pollutant. But, it is invisible, and you can easily be frightened of something you can't see... and this is being exploited." #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Geologist Ian Plimer dispels the myth pushed by climate totalitarians that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant", as an excuse to seize power and control over every aspect of our lives. "It is the food of life. It is plant food. It is not a pollutant. But, it is invisible, and you can easily be frightened of something you can't see... and this is being exploited." #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset

Wide Awake Media

544,161 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the "man-made climate change" lie, in two and a half minutes: "No one can show from the scientific literature that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming... We have built this whole empire based on something that cannot be shown, and in fact you can show the opposite." "The whole move with human-induced global warming has got nothing to do with the environment. It's got everything to do with [the] deconstruction of our society, as a mechanism of unelected people gaining power." Full talk: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, utterly demolishes the "man-made climate change" lie, in two and a half minutes: "No one can show from the scientific literature that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming... We have built this whole empire based on something that cannot be shown, and in fact you can show the opposite." "The whole move with human-induced global warming has got nothing to do with the environment. It's got everything to do with [the] deconstruction of our society, as a mechanism of unelected people gaining power." Full talk: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

954,022 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Australian geologist, Professor Ian Plimer: "No one has yet shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, and if they did, they'd also have to show that the natural emissions—and that's 97% of the total—don't drive global warming." "Then I look back in time through my geological eyes, and look at times in the past when we have very high carbon dioxide contents of the atmosphere, up to hundreds of times higher than now, and we see that we didn't have runaway global warming… But what we did have is six major ice ages, and there is no correlation over geological time between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature." Full interview: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Australian geologist, Professor Ian Plimer: "No one has yet shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, and if they did, they'd also have to show that the natural emissions—and that's 97% of the total—don't drive global warming." "Then I look back in time through my geological eyes, and look at times in the past when we have very high carbon dioxide contents of the atmosphere, up to hundreds of times higher than now, and we see that we didn't have runaway global warming… But what we did have is six major ice ages, and there is no correlation over geological time between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature." Full interview: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

653,011 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, blows the UN's "human-induced climate catastrophe" fear mongering completely out of the water: "Every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong... They still haven't, after 30 years, shown us that human emissions [of CO2] drive global warming." "There's been a relentless campaign of propaganda for 30 years, and the basics haven't been shown." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, blows the UN's "human-induced climate catastrophe" fear mongering completely out of the water: "Every single prediction they've ever made has been wrong... They still haven't, after 30 years, shown us that human emissions [of CO2] drive global warming." "There's been a relentless campaign of propaganda for 30 years, and the basics haven't been shown." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

2,653,738 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, blows the "human-induced global warming" lie completely out of the water, in under a minute: "We've had six ice ages in the history of the planet. Every one of these started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now... If carbon dioxide drives global warming, then we wouldn't have had an ice age." "The past tells us how the present is operating. And if you want to argue that traces of a trace gas drive a major planetary system, you can only do this when you totally ignore the past." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, blows the "human-induced global warming" lie completely out of the water, in under a minute: "We've had six ice ages in the history of the planet. Every one of these started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now... If carbon dioxide drives global warming, then we wouldn't have had an ice age." "The past tells us how the present is operating. And if you want to argue that traces of a trace gas drive a major planetary system, you can only do this when you totally ignore the past." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

407,735 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Award-winning journalist, Alex Newman, sheds light on a 2013 UN report asserting that meat, chicken and traditional agriculture are "not sustainable", and that a "major propaganda campaign" is needed to persuade people to eat insects instead. "So how are they gonna get people to eat bugs? Well, a combination of propaganda, indoctrinating children and making you very, very hungry... The goal, folks, is not to save the planet. It's not about global warming. It's not about sustainable development. It's about enslaving humanity." "They want to wipe out small and medium sized producers, centralise food control in the hands of mega corporations in bed with the mega governments. They want to move the population into the mega cities, and ultimately bring about this Great Reset and what they call the New World Order." Watch the full video: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #WorldEconomicForum #GreatReset #UnitedNations #Agenda21 #Agenda2030

Award-winning journalist, Alex Newman, sheds light on a 2013 UN report asserting that meat, chicken and traditional agriculture are "not sustainable", and that a "major propaganda campaign" is needed to persuade people to eat insects instead. "So how are they gonna get people to eat bugs? Well, a combination of propaganda, indoctrinating children and making you very, very hungry... The goal, folks, is not to save the planet. It's not about global warming. It's not about sustainable development. It's about enslaving humanity." "They want to wipe out small and medium sized producers, centralise food control in the hands of mega corporations in bed with the mega governments. They want to move the population into the mega cities, and ultimately bring about this Great Reset and what they call the New World Order." Watch the full video: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #WorldEconomicForum #GreatReset #UnitedNations #Agenda21 #Agenda2030

Wide Awake Media

852,536 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Professor Emeritus Dr. Ian Plimer: The Great CO₂ Fraud Dr. Ian Plimer dismantles the core myth of climate alarmism — that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. He argues that no one has ever demonstrated this causal link. If CO₂ truly drove temperature, then why do the 97% of natural emissions not cause the same effect? Plimer calls it what it is: a scientific fraud from day one. For over two centuries, chemistry has shown that CO₂ is the “gas of life,” not a pollutant or planet-killer. Ice core records reveal that temperature rises first, and only centuries later, CO₂ levels follow — proving the inverse of the mainstream narrative. According to Plimer, the story of “runaway global warming” is not science — it’s propaganda built on inversion and fear.

Professor Emeritus Dr. Ian Plimer: The Great CO₂ Fraud Dr. Ian Plimer dismantles the core myth of climate alarmism — that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. He argues that no one has ever demonstrated this causal link. If CO₂ truly drove temperature, then why do the 97% of natural emissions not cause the same effect? Plimer calls it what it is: a scientific fraud from day one. For over two centuries, chemistry has shown that CO₂ is the “gas of life,” not a pollutant or planet-killer. Ice core records reveal that temperature rises first, and only centuries later, CO₂ levels follow — proving the inverse of the mainstream narrative. According to Plimer, the story of “runaway global warming” is not science — it’s propaganda built on inversion and fear.

Camus

19,003 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

American Rancher Warning America About What’s Being Threatened By The USDA & ESG Carbon Regulations - Big Agricultural Will Force All Smaller Farms Out - CEO for Rabobank said if you can't afford carbon offsets, you should not be allowed to fly. The only people that should be allowed to fly are those that can afford carbon offsets - Cameras To Monitor Citizens On How Far You Drive - They Will Control What You Eat & What Your Kids Eat In Schools - ADM and Tyson right now are in the middle of building $500 million dollar plants where they are going to grow insects for human consumption, all in the name of climate change - Digital Tracking Tags On Cattle - They want your land - & Much more all in the name of Climate Change “Agriculture cannot go along with this carbon deal. You cannot agree to have your carbon emissions measured in any way because what they want, like I read out of that Tyson Foods ESG report, what they want is your supplier data and a standardized way of calculating it. Because what do you think the next step is? They're going to want you to reduce it and reduce it and reduce it. It's $3,000,000,000 that the USDA took with no oversight. What they wanna do with it is build a system that measures your carbon emissions. They're kinda giving away what the problem is there. The problem is you and your carbon emissions. And all the bigwigs in agriculture have pretty much signed on to this deal and that narrative, that carbon emissions are this huge problem. But they also want to control how far you can travel. And they've actually tried to regulate this in different places in Europe where they put up cameras that monitor their citizens that make sure they're not traveling too far around the city or even driving older cars and things like that. And the citizens have cut the cameras down. The CEO for Rabobank had said if you can't afford carbon offsets, you should not be allowed to fly. The only people that should be allowed to fly are those that can afford carbon offsets. And if you're too poor to fly and you want to travel, you should put on a virtual reality headset, and that's how you can see the world. They also want to control what you eat. And the New York City schools right now, they have taken meat off the menu for at least 2 days of the week. And the New York City mayor has said that he is working on a plan where he will limit residents' ability to consume meat. And then you have also, you know, ADM and Tyson right now are in the middle of building $500,000,000 plants where they are going to grow insects for human consumption, all in the name of climate change. And they want your land. Biden's, uh, 30 by 30 executive order, which a lot of you are familiar with, I think, um, conservation easements and then, of course, eminent domain in this state. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, has said using eminent domain, the government should take away farmland so that they can, uh, put up windmills. That's his suggestion. All in the name of climate change. Farm Journal's trust in beef program, which is where the $40 million went to. You can put, EID tag or a tracking device in your calf's ear, and they will store all your information, all that cattle all that animal's information. But then you put an app on your phone, and you put all of the information about your operation into that app, how you have to rotate your cattle, what you feed them, your land, soil. All that goes into the app. — So if you rotate or if you feed certain things, they're going to measure your carbon emissions before and after, and they're going to say that you're calculating your benefits. And so what do you think they're going to do with that information once they can control your entire operation and have all the measurements of carbon emissions from your entire operation, they're going to control every aspect of your life.”

American Rancher Warning America About What’s Being Threatened By The USDA & ESG Carbon Regulations - Big Agricultural Will Force All Smaller Farms Out - CEO for Rabobank said if you can't afford carbon offsets, you should not be allowed to fly. The only people that should be allowed to fly are those that can afford carbon offsets - Cameras To Monitor Citizens On How Far You Drive - They Will Control What You Eat & What Your Kids Eat In Schools - ADM and Tyson right now are in the middle of building $500 million dollar plants where they are going to grow insects for human consumption, all in the name of climate change - Digital Tracking Tags On Cattle - They want your land - & Much more all in the name of Climate Change “Agriculture cannot go along with this carbon deal. You cannot agree to have your carbon emissions measured in any way because what they want, like I read out of that Tyson Foods ESG report, what they want is your supplier data and a standardized way of calculating it. Because what do you think the next step is? They're going to want you to reduce it and reduce it and reduce it. It's $3,000,000,000 that the USDA took with no oversight. What they wanna do with it is build a system that measures your carbon emissions. They're kinda giving away what the problem is there. The problem is you and your carbon emissions. And all the bigwigs in agriculture have pretty much signed on to this deal and that narrative, that carbon emissions are this huge problem. But they also want to control how far you can travel. And they've actually tried to regulate this in different places in Europe where they put up cameras that monitor their citizens that make sure they're not traveling too far around the city or even driving older cars and things like that. And the citizens have cut the cameras down. The CEO for Rabobank had said if you can't afford carbon offsets, you should not be allowed to fly. The only people that should be allowed to fly are those that can afford carbon offsets. And if you're too poor to fly and you want to travel, you should put on a virtual reality headset, and that's how you can see the world. They also want to control what you eat. And the New York City schools right now, they have taken meat off the menu for at least 2 days of the week. And the New York City mayor has said that he is working on a plan where he will limit residents' ability to consume meat. And then you have also, you know, ADM and Tyson right now are in the middle of building $500,000,000 plants where they are going to grow insects for human consumption, all in the name of climate change. And they want your land. Biden's, uh, 30 by 30 executive order, which a lot of you are familiar with, I think, um, conservation easements and then, of course, eminent domain in this state. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, has said using eminent domain, the government should take away farmland so that they can, uh, put up windmills. That's his suggestion. All in the name of climate change. Farm Journal's trust in beef program, which is where the $40 million went to. You can put, EID tag or a tracking device in your calf's ear, and they will store all your information, all that cattle all that animal's information. But then you put an app on your phone, and you put all of the information about your operation into that app, how you have to rotate your cattle, what you feed them, your land, soil. All that goes into the app. — So if you rotate or if you feed certain things, they're going to measure your carbon emissions before and after, and they're going to say that you're calculating your benefits. And so what do you think they're going to do with that information once they can control your entire operation and have all the measurements of carbon emissions from your entire operation, they're going to control every aspect of your life.”

Wall Street Apes

507,710 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

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

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

Michael Shellenberger

66,544 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

NEW: Arnold Schwarzenegger goes off script on The View—tells migrants to stop committing crimes and “respect America.” RARE W for Schwarzenegger. The ultra-liberal panel on The View was left distressed after Arnold was asked about the violent LA riots. That’s when he dropped the hammer: “The key thing at the same time, we got to do things legal. That is the most important thing.” “You got to do things legal, and those people that are doing illegal things in America and they’re the foreigners, they are not smart, because, when you come to America, you’re a guest and you have to behave like a guest.” “Like when I go to someone’s house and I’m a guest, then I will do everything I can to keep things clean and to make my bed and to do everything that is the right thing to do rather than committing a crime of being abusive or something like that, so that doesn’t really work in this country.” Sunny Hostin panicked as she was herd interjecting, before literally placing her hand on Arnold to cut him off. But he kept preaching: “So I think the important thing is when you become an immigrant, you think about, okay, I go to America because I’m going to use America for the great opportunities America has in education, in jobs, creating a family, all of those kind of things.” “Then you have to think about, okay, if I get all of those things from America, then I have to give something back.” “You have a responsibility as an immigrant to give back to America and to pay back to America and go and do something for your community for no money whatsoever.” “Give something back to after school programs, Special Olympics, or whatever it is, make this country a better place.” [Audience erupts into applause] The hosts were stunned. And for once, Schwarzenegger got it exactly right.

NEW: Arnold Schwarzenegger goes off script on The View—tells migrants to stop committing crimes and “respect America.” RARE W for Schwarzenegger. The ultra-liberal panel on The View was left distressed after Arnold was asked about the violent LA riots. That’s when he dropped the hammer: “The key thing at the same time, we got to do things legal. That is the most important thing.” “You got to do things legal, and those people that are doing illegal things in America and they’re the foreigners, they are not smart, because, when you come to America, you’re a guest and you have to behave like a guest.” “Like when I go to someone’s house and I’m a guest, then I will do everything I can to keep things clean and to make my bed and to do everything that is the right thing to do rather than committing a crime of being abusive or something like that, so that doesn’t really work in this country.” Sunny Hostin panicked as she was herd interjecting, before literally placing her hand on Arnold to cut him off. But he kept preaching: “So I think the important thing is when you become an immigrant, you think about, okay, I go to America because I’m going to use America for the great opportunities America has in education, in jobs, creating a family, all of those kind of things.” “Then you have to think about, okay, if I get all of those things from America, then I have to give something back.” “You have a responsibility as an immigrant to give back to America and to pay back to America and go and do something for your community for no money whatsoever.” “Give something back to after school programs, Special Olympics, or whatever it is, make this country a better place.” [Audience erupts into applause] The hosts were stunned. And for once, Schwarzenegger got it exactly right.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

616,941 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨 BREAKING: ERIKA KIRK Just Went FULL DEEP-STATE SCRIPT On Fox News – And I’m Now 1000% CONVINCED She's Part Of The COVER-UP 🧨 Today Erika Kirk sat on national television and delivered the most rehearsed, weaponized “grieving widow” performance I’ve ever seen, while simultaneously: Begging us to stop investigating her husband’s murder Claiming the FBI is doing a “hell of a job” (the same FBI that paved the crime scene on a Sunday) Saying anyone who questions TPUSA is “traumatizing her staff” and “making money off trauma” This is the same woman whose late husband texted donors “they’re going to kill me” after rejecting Zionist bribes… and now she’s the sudden champion of the lone-wolf fairy tale. Let’s connect the dots they don’t want you to see: TPUSA’s fake “olive branch” inviting Candace Owens to the Dec 15th stream (I called it a trap the second it dropped) 2 Erika suddenly doing a full media blitz: Fox, CBS with Bari Weiss (literal Deep State narrative enforcer), every Zionist podcast on earth 3 Every $7k-club shill overnight parroting the EXACT same headline: “Erika Kirk Goes Scorched Earth on Conspiracy Theorists” (copy-paste psyop confirmed) 4 Tonight’s scripted tears: “Stop dragging my team through the mud!” (while the FBI refuses to drag a single foreign cell phone owner in for questioning) This isn’t grief. This is a coordinated pre-stream PR blitz to emotionally blackmail the base into silence before December 15th. Candace said months ago: “The only two people who could ever get me to stop are George Farmer and Erika Kirk.” They are now weaponizing that exact quote against her with this exact tearful rollout. I was 50/50 on Erika’s involvement before tonight. After watching that robotic, focus-grouped performance? I’m 1000%. She’s reading from the same script that killed her husband. The Bible warns us: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light…” (Isaiah 5:20) And again: “They bend their tongue like a bow; falsehood and not truth has grown strong… they proceed from evil to evil.” (Jeremiah 9:3) Erika and TPUSA leadership are not victims-turned-perpetrators of the biggest spiritual gaslight in modern Christian history. Do NOT fall for the tears. Do NOT let up. This just became bigger than Charlie. This is about exposing the entire machine that murdered him and is now using his widow as the human shield. We ride with Candace until the wheels fall off. Drop a ✝️ if you see through the script. Tag every Christian you know. The truth will not be widowed.

🚨 BREAKING: ERIKA KIRK Just Went FULL DEEP-STATE SCRIPT On Fox News – And I’m Now 1000% CONVINCED She's Part Of The COVER-UP 🧨 Today Erika Kirk sat on national television and delivered the most rehearsed, weaponized “grieving widow” performance I’ve ever seen, while simultaneously: Begging us to stop investigating her husband’s murder Claiming the FBI is doing a “hell of a job” (the same FBI that paved the crime scene on a Sunday) Saying anyone who questions TPUSA is “traumatizing her staff” and “making money off trauma” This is the same woman whose late husband texted donors “they’re going to kill me” after rejecting Zionist bribes… and now she’s the sudden champion of the lone-wolf fairy tale. Let’s connect the dots they don’t want you to see: TPUSA’s fake “olive branch” inviting Candace Owens to the Dec 15th stream (I called it a trap the second it dropped) 2 Erika suddenly doing a full media blitz: Fox, CBS with Bari Weiss (literal Deep State narrative enforcer), every Zionist podcast on earth 3 Every $7k-club shill overnight parroting the EXACT same headline: “Erika Kirk Goes Scorched Earth on Conspiracy Theorists” (copy-paste psyop confirmed) 4 Tonight’s scripted tears: “Stop dragging my team through the mud!” (while the FBI refuses to drag a single foreign cell phone owner in for questioning) This isn’t grief. This is a coordinated pre-stream PR blitz to emotionally blackmail the base into silence before December 15th. Candace said months ago: “The only two people who could ever get me to stop are George Farmer and Erika Kirk.” They are now weaponizing that exact quote against her with this exact tearful rollout. I was 50/50 on Erika’s involvement before tonight. After watching that robotic, focus-grouped performance? I’m 1000%. She’s reading from the same script that killed her husband. The Bible warns us: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light…” (Isaiah 5:20) And again: “They bend their tongue like a bow; falsehood and not truth has grown strong… they proceed from evil to evil.” (Jeremiah 9:3) Erika and TPUSA leadership are not victims-turned-perpetrators of the biggest spiritual gaslight in modern Christian history. Do NOT fall for the tears. Do NOT let up. This just became bigger than Charlie. This is about exposing the entire machine that murdered him and is now using his widow as the human shield. We ride with Candace until the wheels fall off. Drop a ✝️ if you see through the script. Tag every Christian you know. The truth will not be widowed.

Project Constitution

818,322 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Sea Levels Not Surging Despite Years Of Climate Activists And Corporate Media Freaking Out, Study Finds | Audrey Streb, Daily Caller News Foundation One recent study compiling sea level rise data shows oceans are not surging as much as the scientific world previously projected and corporate media has repeatedly sounded the alarm over. The Journal of Marine Science and Engineering published the peer-reviewed study on Aug. 27, authored by Dutch engineering consultant Hessel G. Voortman and independent researcher Rob De Vos. The study concluded that the average rate of sea level rise in 2020 was well below other widely cited analyses, and that when projections were compared with local data, there was little evidence climate change was driving the acceleration seen in a few regions — a finding energy policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation challenges mainstream climate change orthodoxy. “Overall, this study indicates that in most places, sea levels are not rising unusually quickly. In the relatively few locations where sea levels are rising faster than average, the cause is almost certainly local factors such as land subsidence or ground compaction,” Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, told the DCNF. “Global sea levels are currently rising more slowly than they have for much of the time since the last ice age ended — a period during which seas rose more than 400 feet. Any possible increase in the recent rate of rise compared with the past century is small, within the margin of error, and not outside historical patterns.” Though the report doesn’t account for sea level rise everywhere, Voortman told journalist Michael Shellenberger on Tuesday that he was surprised no one had compiled such a study before, noting it is the first to compare projections with recorded local data from the past century. The two data sets the researchers drew from did have some gaps, which meant that most sections in the world with usable data were in the Northern Hemisphere, with several of the “selected stations” spanning North America, Europe and Japan. Gaps in the data included regions around Australia, the northeast of Latin America, East Asia and most of Africa. “The average rate of sea level rise in 2020 is (only) around 1.5 mm/year (15 cm per century)” Voortman said Tuesday. “This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media.” The report notes that in the data sets the researchers used, “approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise,” and that regions that did see a spike in sea level likely “local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations.” “It is crazy that it had not been done. … I started doing this research in 2021 by doing the literature review. ‘Who has done the comparison of the projections with the observations?’ And there were none,” Voortman said Tuesday. “I had to do a lot of programming and automate data imports and data management. I organized it by using databases so that I really knew what I was doing. It was very structured because I was dealing with 150,000 locations and, on average, 100 years of data. That made one and a half million lines of data. I found myself for days working on things that I felt, ‘This is more computer science than civil engineering.'” Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told the DCNF that “there are a lot of additional factors that can affect tide gauge measurements including geological changes, groundwater withdrawal, and land use. But climate alarmists falsely chalk up all changes to polar ice melting caused by emissions-driven ‘global warming.'” A few other studies have been published of late that also challenge climate change hysteria, with one widely reported study showing that Arctic Sea ice melting has slowed in the last 20 years. Another recent report found that a 2024 climate change study — heavily cited by legacy media for projecting up to $38 trillion in global damages by 2050 — relied on inaccurate data.

Sea Levels Not Surging Despite Years Of Climate Activists And Corporate Media Freaking Out, Study Finds | Audrey Streb, Daily Caller News Foundation One recent study compiling sea level rise data shows oceans are not surging as much as the scientific world previously projected and corporate media has repeatedly sounded the alarm over. The Journal of Marine Science and Engineering published the peer-reviewed study on Aug. 27, authored by Dutch engineering consultant Hessel G. Voortman and independent researcher Rob De Vos. The study concluded that the average rate of sea level rise in 2020 was well below other widely cited analyses, and that when projections were compared with local data, there was little evidence climate change was driving the acceleration seen in a few regions — a finding energy policy experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation challenges mainstream climate change orthodoxy. “Overall, this study indicates that in most places, sea levels are not rising unusually quickly. In the relatively few locations where sea levels are rising faster than average, the cause is almost certainly local factors such as land subsidence or ground compaction,” Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, told the DCNF. “Global sea levels are currently rising more slowly than they have for much of the time since the last ice age ended — a period during which seas rose more than 400 feet. Any possible increase in the recent rate of rise compared with the past century is small, within the margin of error, and not outside historical patterns.” Though the report doesn’t account for sea level rise everywhere, Voortman told journalist Michael Shellenberger on Tuesday that he was surprised no one had compiled such a study before, noting it is the first to compare projections with recorded local data from the past century. The two data sets the researchers drew from did have some gaps, which meant that most sections in the world with usable data were in the Northern Hemisphere, with several of the “selected stations” spanning North America, Europe and Japan. Gaps in the data included regions around Australia, the northeast of Latin America, East Asia and most of Africa. “The average rate of sea level rise in 2020 is (only) around 1.5 mm/year (15 cm per century)” Voortman said Tuesday. “This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media.” The report notes that in the data sets the researchers used, “approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise,” and that regions that did see a spike in sea level likely “local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations.” “It is crazy that it had not been done. … I started doing this research in 2021 by doing the literature review. ‘Who has done the comparison of the projections with the observations?’ And there were none,” Voortman said Tuesday. “I had to do a lot of programming and automate data imports and data management. I organized it by using databases so that I really knew what I was doing. It was very structured because I was dealing with 150,000 locations and, on average, 100 years of data. That made one and a half million lines of data. I found myself for days working on things that I felt, ‘This is more computer science than civil engineering.'” Steve Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told the DCNF that “there are a lot of additional factors that can affect tide gauge measurements including geological changes, groundwater withdrawal, and land use. But climate alarmists falsely chalk up all changes to polar ice melting caused by emissions-driven ‘global warming.'” A few other studies have been published of late that also challenge climate change hysteria, with one widely reported study showing that Arctic Sea ice melting has slowed in the last 20 years. Another recent report found that a 2024 climate change study — heavily cited by legacy media for projecting up to $38 trillion in global damages by 2050 — relied on inaccurate data.

Owen Gregorian

105,142 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Why the "Seen You Before" scene in *Sabrina* (1954) still creates attraction after many decades? If we only look at the content level, people might think the appeal of the "Seen You Before" scene lies in Sabrina's change after two years living in Paris. She is no longer the shy girl who silently stood outside the Larrabee family's parties, but has become a confident, elegant, and captivating woman. Therefore, the scene is often viewed as a story about growth, about love, or about a person's transformation. However, that is only what the film tells, not what makes the scene still have enduring appeal after many decades. Those meanings are the result the film wants the audience to realize, while the aesthetic experience is formed from the very way the film leads the audience to that realization. What Billy Wilder builds is not only Sabrina's change, but also the process for the audience to gradually recognize that change. Right from the beginning of the film, Sabrina is placed in a very clear position. She is the chauffeur's daughter, living on the edge of the wealthy world of the Larrabee family. The camera often places her at a distance, observing David from afar or standing outside the lavish parties. Those choices of composition, distance, and point of view not only introduce the character but also gradually form in the audience a stable cognitive model: Sabrina is the "girl next door" who always looks at that world from the outside. Two years in Paris not only changed Sabrina. More importantly, the entire first part of the film has quietly prepared for the change in the very way the audience sees her. What is noteworthy is that the film does not construct that change as a denial of the past. Sabrina does not become a different person, nor does she cut herself off from her origins. She is still the chauffeur's daughter, but two years living in a cultural and artistic environment in Paris have helped her inherent qualities be nurtured by knowledge, self-discipline, and a way of living. Therefore, what the audience witnesses is not a "transformation" of a rebellious nature, but a process of perfection. The character still retains her own essence, but reaches a higher level of maturity and refinement. It is this continuous development that makes the change natural and believable, while creating a feeling of harmony rather than rupture. In the "Seen You Before" scene, David sees Sabrina but does not recognize her immediately. What is noteworthy is that the audience also goes through almost the same process. We know that woman is Sabrina, but the way the film organizes the costume, lighting, editing rhythm, gait, and especially Audrey Hepburn's restrained performance makes the familiar image from before no longer sufficient to explain the person standing in front of us. The audience is forced to readjust their perception. Therefore, this is not simply a "transformation" scene, but a process of reorganizing the way of seeing. The film also does not create attraction by displaying beauty or overwhelming effects. The elegant costume, gentle movements, eyes, smile, and the way Audrey Hepburn restrains every gesture all aim to express a calm and graceful feminine beauty. It is this restraint that creates long-lasting appeal. The form does not aim for immediate stimulation but reveals the character's inner qualities. Beauty therefore does not separate from personality, but becomes the natural expression of that personality. Billy Wilder does not let David recognize Sabrina immediately. He deliberately creates a short delay between the feeling of familiarity and confirmation. David feels he has met this woman before and tries to search his memory, while Sabrina understands that he still has not recognized her. The audience is simultaneously aware of both states. It is this delay that creates a very subtle tension. It is not the tension of conflict or danger, but the mismatch between two images coexisting in perception: Sabrina of memory and Sabrina of the present. The moment David finally recognizes Sabrina not only resolves the character's surprise but also completes the cognitive process that the audience has gone through together. The two previously separate images now merge into one. The feeling of completeness therefore does not stem simply from Audrey Hepburn appearing with striking beauty or from David's surprised reaction, but from a cognitive structure that was previously incomplete finally reaching unity. If we stop here, we can say the scene succeeds because it makes the audience experience the change together with the character. However, the root of the aesthetic experience lies even deeper. What Billy Wilder really organizes is not only the development of the story but the entire cognitive process. In that process, images, performance, dialogue, editing rhythm, actors' movements, music, and silences do not function as separate elements. Each element performs its own function, but all are directed toward the same goal: to guide the audience to adjust their perception according to the exact rhythm the film has arranged. Precisely because each component performs its proper function and all head toward a common purpose, the scene achieves a sense of balance and harmony. The value of the scene does not lie in a beautiful image, a line of dialogue, or an individual surprise, but in the unity of the entire structure. Each detail only truly realizes its meaning when placed in relationship with the whole, and it is this coordination that leads the audience step by step to the final realization. This principle also appears in human life itself. A balanced life is not a life without change, but a life in which changes still head toward a unified purpose. Work, family, study, or relationships can develop at different rhythms, but when each aspect finds its proper place, people will feel harmony. The value of life therefore does not lie in individual successes, but in the way all contribute to creating a meaningful whole. The structure of the scene also operates according to this principle. Each component of cinematic language contributes to a common process, and only when they coordinate with one another do they form a complete whole. It is this coordination that guides the audience to gradually adjust their perception. The audience does not merely observe Sabrina's change from the outside, but directly participates in the process of recognizing that change. What is interesting is that the attraction between David and Sabrina is also built according to the same logic. David is not drawn only by Sabrina's appearance. What appears first is the feeling of familiarity, as if he had known this woman before but could not name the memory. Only when the recognition process gradually completes does affection have a basis to develop. The film therefore does not construct love as an immediate reaction to external beauty, but as the result of a process of recognizing the true person gradually emerging behind the old images. Thus, what the character realizes, the audience also gradually realizes; what rhythm the character changes in, the audience's perception also moves in the same rhythm. The character's cognitive process and the audience's reception process gradually merge into one. That is the aesthetic mechanism of the scene. Its excellence does not lie in a line of dialogue, a surprise, or an individual beautiful image, but in the way the entire cinematic structure is organized into a unified process. When that process moves in correspondence with the way the audience's perception moves, the audience no longer stands outside to observe the work but becomes the one directly experiencing its process of discovery. The moment David recognizes Sabrina is also the moment the audience completes their own perception, and it is this completion that creates the feeling of wholeness we call the aesthetic experience. Therefore, the enduring appeal of the "Seen You Before" scene does not lie first in the love story or Sabrina's growth. Those are the meanings the scene conveys. The deeper foundation lies in the fact that Billy Wilder has organized the entire cinematic structure into a unified cognitive process, in which every component of cinematic language coordinates to guide the way the audience feels and discovers the character. Growth is built as a process of perfection rather than denial of the past; beauty is expressed through the harmony between form and inner qualities; love is formed from recognition and admiration rather than from immediate impression. All these elements converge in a unified cinematic structure, making the audience not only follow the story but also directly experience their own process of discovery. That is also why the "Seen You Before" scene still retains its vitality through many generations of audiences.

Why the "Seen You Before" scene in Sabrina (1954) still creates attraction after many decades? If we only look at the content level, people might think the appeal of the "Seen You Before" scene lies in Sabrina's change after two years living in Paris. She is no longer the shy girl who silently stood outside the Larrabee family's parties, but has become a confident, elegant, and captivating woman. Therefore, the scene is often viewed as a story about growth, about love, or about a person's transformation. However, that is only what the film tells, not what makes the scene still have enduring appeal after many decades. Those meanings are the result the film wants the audience to realize, while the aesthetic experience is formed from the very way the film leads the audience to that realization. What Billy Wilder builds is not only Sabrina's change, but also the process for the audience to gradually recognize that change. Right from the beginning of the film, Sabrina is placed in a very clear position. She is the chauffeur's daughter, living on the edge of the wealthy world of the Larrabee family. The camera often places her at a distance, observing David from afar or standing outside the lavish parties. Those choices of composition, distance, and point of view not only introduce the character but also gradually form in the audience a stable cognitive model: Sabrina is the "girl next door" who always looks at that world from the outside. Two years in Paris not only changed Sabrina. More importantly, the entire first part of the film has quietly prepared for the change in the very way the audience sees her. What is noteworthy is that the film does not construct that change as a denial of the past. Sabrina does not become a different person, nor does she cut herself off from her origins. She is still the chauffeur's daughter, but two years living in a cultural and artistic environment in Paris have helped her inherent qualities be nurtured by knowledge, self-discipline, and a way of living. Therefore, what the audience witnesses is not a "transformation" of a rebellious nature, but a process of perfection. The character still retains her own essence, but reaches a higher level of maturity and refinement. It is this continuous development that makes the change natural and believable, while creating a feeling of harmony rather than rupture. In the "Seen You Before" scene, David sees Sabrina but does not recognize her immediately. What is noteworthy is that the audience also goes through almost the same process. We know that woman is Sabrina, but the way the film organizes the costume, lighting, editing rhythm, gait, and especially Audrey Hepburn's restrained performance makes the familiar image from before no longer sufficient to explain the person standing in front of us. The audience is forced to readjust their perception. Therefore, this is not simply a "transformation" scene, but a process of reorganizing the way of seeing. The film also does not create attraction by displaying beauty or overwhelming effects. The elegant costume, gentle movements, eyes, smile, and the way Audrey Hepburn restrains every gesture all aim to express a calm and graceful feminine beauty. It is this restraint that creates long-lasting appeal. The form does not aim for immediate stimulation but reveals the character's inner qualities. Beauty therefore does not separate from personality, but becomes the natural expression of that personality. Billy Wilder does not let David recognize Sabrina immediately. He deliberately creates a short delay between the feeling of familiarity and confirmation. David feels he has met this woman before and tries to search his memory, while Sabrina understands that he still has not recognized her. The audience is simultaneously aware of both states. It is this delay that creates a very subtle tension. It is not the tension of conflict or danger, but the mismatch between two images coexisting in perception: Sabrina of memory and Sabrina of the present. The moment David finally recognizes Sabrina not only resolves the character's surprise but also completes the cognitive process that the audience has gone through together. The two previously separate images now merge into one. The feeling of completeness therefore does not stem simply from Audrey Hepburn appearing with striking beauty or from David's surprised reaction, but from a cognitive structure that was previously incomplete finally reaching unity. If we stop here, we can say the scene succeeds because it makes the audience experience the change together with the character. However, the root of the aesthetic experience lies even deeper. What Billy Wilder really organizes is not only the development of the story but the entire cognitive process. In that process, images, performance, dialogue, editing rhythm, actors' movements, music, and silences do not function as separate elements. Each element performs its own function, but all are directed toward the same goal: to guide the audience to adjust their perception according to the exact rhythm the film has arranged. Precisely because each component performs its proper function and all head toward a common purpose, the scene achieves a sense of balance and harmony. The value of the scene does not lie in a beautiful image, a line of dialogue, or an individual surprise, but in the unity of the entire structure. Each detail only truly realizes its meaning when placed in relationship with the whole, and it is this coordination that leads the audience step by step to the final realization. This principle also appears in human life itself. A balanced life is not a life without change, but a life in which changes still head toward a unified purpose. Work, family, study, or relationships can develop at different rhythms, but when each aspect finds its proper place, people will feel harmony. The value of life therefore does not lie in individual successes, but in the way all contribute to creating a meaningful whole. The structure of the scene also operates according to this principle. Each component of cinematic language contributes to a common process, and only when they coordinate with one another do they form a complete whole. It is this coordination that guides the audience to gradually adjust their perception. The audience does not merely observe Sabrina's change from the outside, but directly participates in the process of recognizing that change. What is interesting is that the attraction between David and Sabrina is also built according to the same logic. David is not drawn only by Sabrina's appearance. What appears first is the feeling of familiarity, as if he had known this woman before but could not name the memory. Only when the recognition process gradually completes does affection have a basis to develop. The film therefore does not construct love as an immediate reaction to external beauty, but as the result of a process of recognizing the true person gradually emerging behind the old images. Thus, what the character realizes, the audience also gradually realizes; what rhythm the character changes in, the audience's perception also moves in the same rhythm. The character's cognitive process and the audience's reception process gradually merge into one. That is the aesthetic mechanism of the scene. Its excellence does not lie in a line of dialogue, a surprise, or an individual beautiful image, but in the way the entire cinematic structure is organized into a unified process. When that process moves in correspondence with the way the audience's perception moves, the audience no longer stands outside to observe the work but becomes the one directly experiencing its process of discovery. The moment David recognizes Sabrina is also the moment the audience completes their own perception, and it is this completion that creates the feeling of wholeness we call the aesthetic experience. Therefore, the enduring appeal of the "Seen You Before" scene does not lie first in the love story or Sabrina's growth. Those are the meanings the scene conveys. The deeper foundation lies in the fact that Billy Wilder has organized the entire cinematic structure into a unified cognitive process, in which every component of cinematic language coordinates to guide the way the audience feels and discovers the character. Growth is built as a process of perfection rather than denial of the past; beauty is expressed through the harmony between form and inner qualities; love is formed from recognition and admiration rather than from immediate impression. All these elements converge in a unified cinematic structure, making the audience not only follow the story but also directly experience their own process of discovery. That is also why the "Seen You Before" scene still retains its vitality through many generations of audiences.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

17,295 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat