Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

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... show more

Electroverse

46,560 subscribers

38,576 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Former climate alarmist, Tom Harris: "There is no climate crisis... [There is] no consistent correlation between CO2 and Earth's temperature—at times CO2 was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions." "There is no foundation to the climate scare—it's all based on models that don't work." Credit: International Climate Science Coalition Laura Ingraham

Former climate alarmist, Tom Harris: "There is no climate crisis... [There is] no consistent correlation between CO2 and Earth's temperature—at times CO2 was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions." "There is no foundation to the climate scare—it's all based on models that don't work." Credit: International Climate Science Coalition Laura Ingraham

Wide Awake Media

676,202 просмотров • 1 год назад

Jordan Peterson: Climate models are "about as valid as the models that scientists used to predict Covid death outcomes, which tended to overestimate the mortality probability by a factor of about 10. They're not accurate." "A computer model is a hypothesis, not data. It's a guess." "On top of the climate models, there are even more radically unstable economic models saying that the consequences of climate change will be catastrophic if you look 100 years into the future." "Nobody can make an economic bet 100 years into the future. Period." "It's preposterous." Credit: Dr Jordan B Peterson Theo Von

Jordan Peterson: Climate models are "about as valid as the models that scientists used to predict Covid death outcomes, which tended to overestimate the mortality probability by a factor of about 10. They're not accurate." "A computer model is a hypothesis, not data. It's a guess." "On top of the climate models, there are even more radically unstable economic models saying that the consequences of climate change will be catastrophic if you look 100 years into the future." "Nobody can make an economic bet 100 years into the future. Period." "It's preposterous." Credit: Dr Jordan B Peterson Theo Von

Wide Awake Media

59,038 просмотров • 1 год назад

Former climate alarmist explains why there is no "climate crisis". "[There is] no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature. At times CO₂ was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions." "There is no foundation to the climate scare. It's all based on models that don't work."

Former climate alarmist explains why there is no "climate crisis". "[There is] no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature. At times CO₂ was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions." "There is no foundation to the climate scare. It's all based on models that don't work."

Wide Awake Media

51,583 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

English botanist David Bellamy was ousted by the BBC after denouncing the human-induced climate change narrative as "total poppycock". Interviewer: "Do you believe man-made climate change is happening?" Bellamy: "Absolutely not... There is no actual proof. There are a whole series of computer models, and you can fiddle computer models to say what you like." "There is no proof at all scientifically, there are just models... It is total poppycock."

English botanist David Bellamy was ousted by the BBC after denouncing the human-induced climate change narrative as "total poppycock". Interviewer: "Do you believe man-made climate change is happening?" Bellamy: "Absolutely not... There is no actual proof. There are a whole series of computer models, and you can fiddle computer models to say what you like." "There is no proof at all scientifically, there are just models... It is total poppycock."

Wide Awake Media

126,055 просмотров • 1 год назад

Reformed ex-climate alarmist: "There is no climate crisis... [There is] no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature—at times CO2 was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions... There is no foundation to the climate scare—it's all based on models that don't work." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Reformed ex-climate alarmist: "There is no climate crisis... [There is] no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature—at times CO2 was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions... There is no foundation to the climate scare—it's all based on models that don't work." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

770,537 просмотров • 3 лет назад

This clip gave me chills. Former Obama DOE Under Secretary Steve Koonin explains that many climate models ran 2–4x too hot. The scientific community knew it. The public was never told. Those exaggerated models fueled a “climate crisis” narrative that rushed decarbonization, drove up energy prices, weakened the grid, hollowed out manufacturing, scared a generation of kids, and shipped jobs to China.

This clip gave me chills. Former Obama DOE Under Secretary Steve Koonin explains that many climate models ran 2–4x too hot. The scientific community knew it. The public was never told. Those exaggerated models fueled a “climate crisis” narrative that rushed decarbonization, drove up energy prices, weakened the grid, hollowed out manufacturing, scared a generation of kids, and shipped jobs to China.

Lucy Biggers

195,459 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

In the early 2000s, climate models projected warming, but the actual observations did not follow. The response to this discrepancy was not to revisit the models, it was to revisit the measurements. So... More weather stations were added in the Arctic, the fastest warming region on earth, increasing its influence on the global average. Large areas with sparse measurements were filled using estimates. Stations in regions showing cooling, including parts of South America, were removed or down-weighted. Sea surface temperatures were also reprocessed: older ship readings were adjusted cooler, with recent buoy data blended warmer. Homogenization algorithms lowered earlier temperatures and raised later ones, further steepening the trend. The models stayed fixed. The observations were adjusted to match them. Climate scientists reversed the scientific method.

In the early 2000s, climate models projected warming, but the actual observations did not follow. The response to this discrepancy was not to revisit the models, it was to revisit the measurements. So... More weather stations were added in the Arctic, the fastest warming region on earth, increasing its influence on the global average. Large areas with sparse measurements were filled using estimates. Stations in regions showing cooling, including parts of South America, were removed or down-weighted. Sea surface temperatures were also reprocessed: older ship readings were adjusted cooler, with recent buoy data blended warmer. Homogenization algorithms lowered earlier temperatures and raised later ones, further steepening the trend. The models stayed fixed. The observations were adjusted to match them. Climate scientists reversed the scientific method.

Electroverse

52,305 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

$We've been told that a trace gas controls Earth's climate, but the science simply doesn't add up. New analyses show that climate models can't match real-world temperature and sea ice trends unless a strong solar influence is included. Other recent studies from Scafetta, Connolly and Harde all reach the same conclusion: CO2's effect is real but limited, already near saturation, meaning that even doubling it will add only a fraction of a degree to the global temperature. The real drivers are solar variability, ocean dynamics and cloud feedbacks, not a trace gas.$

We've been told that a trace gas controls Earth's climate, but the science simply doesn't add up. New analyses show that climate models can't match real-world temperature and sea ice trends unless a strong solar influence is included. Other recent studies from Scafetta, Connolly and Harde all reach the same conclusion: CO2's effect is real but limited, already near saturation, meaning that even doubling it will add only a fraction of a degree to the global temperature. The real drivers are solar variability, ocean dynamics and cloud feedbacks, not a trace gas.

Electroverse

15,575 просмотров • 20 дней назад

"There is no climate emergency." That's the message from over 2,000 scientists and professionals worldwide, including Nobel laureate John Clauser, MIT's Richard Lindzen and Emeritus Professor at the University of Melbourne Ian Plimer. They all say climate science has become too political, and that the models behind global policy are flawed. Warming is far slower than predicted, they assert. CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food, the basis of all life on earth. And there's zero evidence that hurricanes, floods or droughts are worsening. The World Climate Declaration calls for science over panic and prosperity through reliable, affordable energy. "There is no climate emergency," say more than 2,000 scientists.

"There is no climate emergency." That's the message from over 2,000 scientists and professionals worldwide, including Nobel laureate John Clauser, MIT's Richard Lindzen and Emeritus Professor at the University of Melbourne Ian Plimer. They all say climate science has become too political, and that the models behind global policy are flawed. Warming is far slower than predicted, they assert. CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food, the basis of all life on earth. And there's zero evidence that hurricanes, floods or droughts are worsening. The World Climate Declaration calls for science over panic and prosperity through reliable, affordable energy. "There is no climate emergency," say more than 2,000 scientists.

Electroverse

34,993 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Reformed ex-climate alarmist: "There is no climate crisis... [There is] no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature—at times CO2 was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions... There is no foundation to the climate scare—it's all based on models that don't work." Credit: Laura Ingraham Source: Follow my backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to me on Telegram: Subscribe to my newsletter, for daily email updates:

Reformed ex-climate alarmist: "There is no climate crisis... [There is] no consistent correlation between carbon dioxide and Earth's temperature—at times CO2 was 1300% of today, and we were stuck in very cold conditions... There is no foundation to the climate scare—it's all based on models that don't work." Credit: Laura Ingraham Source: Follow my backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to me on Telegram: Subscribe to my newsletter, for daily email updates:

Wide Awake Media

270,722 просмотров • 2 лет назад

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 circular reasoning. When global climate models (GCMs) are input with the supposedly “established physics” you mentioned, the energy fluxes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere are not balanced, which causes the models to drift into unrealistic climate states (either too hot or too cold, but usually running too hot). Rather than doing real science to try figuring out why the best physics we have don't yield correct values, scientists simply assume that fluxes were balanced before the Industrial Revolution. They then adjust any uncertain parameters (e.g., clouds and aerosol) to force energy fluxes to balance. It is then assumed that there are no natural pathways that can cause energy imbalance, so modelers input CO₂ forcing, the climate system warms, and they say, “See!? CO₂ caused the warming.” While it may prove that there is at least some effects from CO₂, all else being equal, it in no way, shape or form proves that all of the observed warming is due to CO₂. They assumed it was at the outset, then forced their GCMs to produce that result. That's circular logic, not science. We also know model outputs are just statistical curve fitting because while the GMST response to a forcing has one value, the range of uncertainty in the aerosol contribution to GMST change since 1850 is 1°C. If you take the median of the CMIP6 models shown in Figure 3.8 from IPCC AR6 WG1, the uncertainty is a whopping 125%. If you don’t know that vital piece of information about aerosol forcing, you cannot have any confidence whatsoever in anything else. Arguing with me about this is not going to go well for you, I'm afraid. If you need an explainer that isn't so jargon-filled, Dr. Roy Spencer has a good one in the video below from a presentation he gave on March 3, 2021.

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 circular reasoning. When global climate models (GCMs) are input with the supposedly “established physics” you mentioned, the energy fluxes in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere are not balanced, which causes the models to drift into unrealistic climate states (either too hot or too cold, but usually running too hot). Rather than doing real science to try figuring out why the best physics we have don't yield correct values, scientists simply assume that fluxes were balanced before the Industrial Revolution. They then adjust any uncertain parameters (e.g., clouds and aerosol) to force energy fluxes to balance. It is then assumed that there are no natural pathways that can cause energy imbalance, so modelers input CO₂ forcing, the climate system warms, and they say, “See!? CO₂ caused the warming.” While it may prove that there is at least some effects from CO₂, all else being equal, it in no way, shape or form proves that all of the observed warming is due to CO₂. They assumed it was at the outset, then forced their GCMs to produce that result. That's circular logic, not science. We also know model outputs are just statistical curve fitting because while the GMST response to a forcing has one value, the range of uncertainty in the aerosol contribution to GMST change since 1850 is 1°C. If you take the median of the CMIP6 models shown in Figure 3.8 from IPCC AR6 WG1, the uncertainty is a whopping 125%. If you don’t know that vital piece of information about aerosol forcing, you cannot have any confidence whatsoever in anything else. Arguing with me about this is not going to go well for you, I'm afraid. If you need an explainer that isn't so jargon-filled, Dr. Roy Spencer has a good one in the video below from a presentation he gave on March 3, 2021.

Chris Martz

27,737 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) was not created by a group of scientists in the late-1980s with the intention of studying both natural and man-made impacts on the global climate system. That did not happen. Period. Why would the IPCC be needed on the scientific front when there were already government agencies like the BoM, Met Office, NASA, NCAR and NOAA working on this? The IPCC was created by bureaucrats with a vested financial and political interest to use the scientific community to build a case to regulate oil companies and control energy, in hopes they could convince the public that consumption of coal, oil and natural gas were causing harmful anthropogenic climate change. Climate change became the Goldilocks issue to move that agenda along, as it would otherwise have little support. Dr. Judith Curry (Judith Curry) explains this in her interview with John Stossel from October. 🎙️ Here’s a snippet. ✂️ 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . The origins go back to the 1980s, and the U.N. environmental program had this big environmental agenda, anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and they seized on the climate change issue as one to move their policies along. . . the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse from the very beginning. So, the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change. The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. They weren’t supposed to focus on natural climate variability. They were just supposed to look for the signal of dangerous human-caused climate change.” 🔗 You can watch the full interview here:

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) was not created by a group of scientists in the late-1980s with the intention of studying both natural and man-made impacts on the global climate system. That did not happen. Period. Why would the IPCC be needed on the scientific front when there were already government agencies like the BoM, Met Office, NASA, NCAR and NOAA working on this? The IPCC was created by bureaucrats with a vested financial and political interest to use the scientific community to build a case to regulate oil companies and control energy, in hopes they could convince the public that consumption of coal, oil and natural gas were causing harmful anthropogenic climate change. Climate change became the Goldilocks issue to move that agenda along, as it would otherwise have little support. Dr. Judith Curry (Judith Curry) explains this in her interview with John Stossel from October. 🎙️ Here’s a snippet. ✂️ 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . The origins go back to the 1980s, and the U.N. environmental program had this big environmental agenda, anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and they seized on the climate change issue as one to move their policies along. . . the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse from the very beginning. So, the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change. The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. They weren’t supposed to focus on natural climate variability. They were just supposed to look for the signal of dangerous human-caused climate change.” 🔗 You can watch the full interview here:

Chris Martz

88,087 просмотров • 2 лет назад

The IPCC says snowfall should become less frequent in a warming world. Yet when Japan was buried by record snow in January 2026, the explanation changed. Researchers claimed global warming increased the snowfall. The storm itself was straightforward: a prolonged surge of Arctic air crossed the Sea of Japan, producing intense snowbands. Sapporo transport shut down. Aomori set depth records. Communities across northern Honshu were buried. And Japan's army was even deployed. Instead of simply pointing to the cold air outbreak though, researchers at Japan's Meteorological Institute instead ran climate model simulations. The models concluded warming increased snowfall by about 7%. So the theory now reads: global warming reduces snow, except when it increases snow... Under this framework, every possible outcome appears to confirm the same conclusion. "A theory that explains everything explains nothing."

The IPCC says snowfall should become less frequent in a warming world. Yet when Japan was buried by record snow in January 2026, the explanation changed. Researchers claimed global warming increased the snowfall. The storm itself was straightforward: a prolonged surge of Arctic air crossed the Sea of Japan, producing intense snowbands. Sapporo transport shut down. Aomori set depth records. Communities across northern Honshu were buried. And Japan's army was even deployed. Instead of simply pointing to the cold air outbreak though, researchers at Japan's Meteorological Institute instead ran climate model simulations. The models concluded warming increased snowfall by about 7%. So the theory now reads: global warming reduces snow, except when it increases snow... Under this framework, every possible outcome appears to confirm the same conclusion. "A theory that explains everything explains nothing."

Electroverse

14,704 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Head of Nemotron Bryan Catanzaro says NVIDIA is sitting on internal "teacher" models that beat everything it has publicly shipped and he's trying to release these as well "This technology of using teacher models and multi-domain on-policy distillation has been really key for us in these ways." "Now, what does that mean? Well, it definitely means that inside NVIDIA we have a collection of teacher models that are individually better at different domains than any of the models that we've released." "And actually, I'm trying to release those teacher models as part of the Nemotron project as well -- because as you know, Nemotron is not just a model." "Nemotron is an open technology effort. It includes data sets, it includes techniques, all of our ideas about how to build a model, which we publish." "Of course it includes the models themselves, but I think it should also include collections of teacher models." "I'd imagine this could be a really great way of federating open technologies for AI across the ecosystem." _______ Wrote more on a prior Bryan interview here:

Head of Nemotron Bryan Catanzaro says NVIDIA is sitting on internal "teacher" models that beat everything it has publicly shipped and he's trying to release these as well "This technology of using teacher models and multi-domain on-policy distillation has been really key for us in these ways." "Now, what does that mean? Well, it definitely means that inside NVIDIA we have a collection of teacher models that are individually better at different domains than any of the models that we've released." "And actually, I'm trying to release those teacher models as part of the Nemotron project as well -- because as you know, Nemotron is not just a model." "Nemotron is an open technology effort. It includes data sets, it includes techniques, all of our ideas about how to build a model, which we publish." "Of course it includes the models themselves, but I think it should also include collections of teacher models." "I'd imagine this could be a really great way of federating open technologies for AI across the ecosystem." _______ Wrote more on a prior Bryan interview here:

Fireside Alpha

29,125 просмотров • 2 дней назад

A recent study reveals sea levels are rising far slower than we've been told. Researchers examined over 200 tide gauges from around the globe. In 2020, the average sea level rise was just 1.5 mm per year, or only 6 inches per century. This rate is less than half of what the IPCC claims, which is 3 to 4 mm per year. The study found no acceleration linked to man-made climate change. Where rises were noted, they were due to local factors like land subsidence and earthquakes, not CO2 emissions. The authors called it crazy that no one had compared real data to IPCC models. Their conclusion: the IPCC's predictions significantly overestimate sea level rise. Despite the facts, the media continues to push narratives of drowning cities - a political agenda, not scientific truth.

A recent study reveals sea levels are rising far slower than we've been told. Researchers examined over 200 tide gauges from around the globe. In 2020, the average sea level rise was just 1.5 mm per year, or only 6 inches per century. This rate is less than half of what the IPCC claims, which is 3 to 4 mm per year. The study found no acceleration linked to man-made climate change. Where rises were noted, they were due to local factors like land subsidence and earthquakes, not CO2 emissions. The authors called it crazy that no one had compared real data to IPCC models. Their conclusion: the IPCC's predictions significantly overestimate sea level rise. Despite the facts, the media continues to push narratives of drowning cities - a political agenda, not scientific truth.

Electroverse

25,030 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

19 years ago, one of the world's top hurricane forecasters took a stand against climate orthodoxy. Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State, is on record saying, "I am of the opinion this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." Gray wasn't fringe. He was respected, prolific, and data-driven. But by 2006, he was cast out. Not for bad science, but for refusing to parrot the CO2 dogma. He accused alarmists of cherry-picking data, exaggerating models, and silencing dissent. "They argue not as scientists, but as lawyers," he said. The establishment responded with smears, defunding, and exclusion. His career, erased. The climate machine is a trillion-dollar industry powered by fear, models, and ideology. But real-world data keeps defying the script. Gray didn't live to see its full unraveling, but he saw through its machinery. And the collapse is coming.

19 years ago, one of the world's top hurricane forecasters took a stand against climate orthodoxy. Dr. William Gray, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State, is on record saying, "I am of the opinion this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." Gray wasn't fringe. He was respected, prolific, and data-driven. But by 2006, he was cast out. Not for bad science, but for refusing to parrot the CO2 dogma. He accused alarmists of cherry-picking data, exaggerating models, and silencing dissent. "They argue not as scientists, but as lawyers," he said. The establishment responded with smears, defunding, and exclusion. His career, erased. The climate machine is a trillion-dollar industry powered by fear, models, and ideology. But real-world data keeps defying the script. Gray didn't live to see its full unraveling, but he saw through its machinery. And the collapse is coming.

Electroverse

40,704 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

At full council we had a debate on Climate change, as a motion was presented to repeal the "Climate Emergency." As expected the left-wing parties made out that if we didn't all suddenly install solar panels and drive electric cars, we faced impending doom! I argued the point that as much as they are blamed, Aeroplanes nor Cows are killing the planet and the 0.0004% of CO2 created by man is negligible and regardless of what we do, the climate will continue to change. It's called nature.

At full council we had a debate on Climate change, as a motion was presented to repeal the "Climate Emergency." As expected the left-wing parties made out that if we didn't all suddenly install solar panels and drive electric cars, we faced impending doom! I argued the point that as much as they are blamed, Aeroplanes nor Cows are killing the planet and the 0.0004% of CO2 created by man is negligible and regardless of what we do, the climate will continue to change. It's called nature.

Cllr Scott Cameron

54,361 просмотров • 1 месяц назад