Video yรผkleniyor...

Video Yรผklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dรถn

๐——๐—ฟ. ๐—ช๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ถ๐—ฒ ๐—ฆ๐—ผ๐—ผ๐—ป: ๐—˜๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜†๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฌ๐—ผ๐˜‚โ€™๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐—•๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ง๐—ผ๐—น๐—ฑ ๐—”๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜ ๐—–๐—น๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐—œ๐˜€ ๐—ช๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ด | ๐—ช๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ ๐—”๐˜„๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฎ ๐—ฃ๐—ผ๐—ฑ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐˜ #๐Ÿฑ The fifth episode of the Wide Awake Media podcast features leading geoscientist and astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, in a hard-hitting critique of the man-made climate change narrative and its consequences for energy...

wideawake_media's profile picture

Wide Awake Media

846,358 subscribers

84,249 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 8 ay รถnce โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

Haberler & PolitikaBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossiโ€ข Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gรถnderinin yorumlarฤฑ burada gรถrรผnecek

Benzer Videolar

"It's the Sun." According to leading astrophysicist and geoscientist Dr. Willie Soon, the man-made climate change narrative is "completely nonsense" and has "no strong root or basis in science". He cites data showing natural carbon dioxide sources dwarf human emissions and argues that focusing narrowly on fossil fuels obfuscates the dominant roles of water vapour and solar energy in Earth's climate system. From the fifth episode of the new Wide Awake Media podcast. Full episode coming soon!
2:06

"It's the Sun." According to leading astrophysicist and geoscientist Dr. Willie Soon, the man-made climate change narrative is "completely nonsense" and has "no strong root or basis in science". He cites data showing natural carbon dioxide sources dwarf human emissions and argues that focusing narrowly on fossil fuels obfuscates the dominant roles of water vapour and solar energy in Earth's climate system. From the fifth episode of the new Wide Awake Media podcast. Full episode coming soon!

Wide Awake Media

79,603 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 8 ay รถnce

Astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon says the climate is driven overwhelmingly by the sun, not by human carbon dioxide. He notes the sun supplies 99.99% of Earth's energy and its output fluctuates matching temperature shifts far better than CO2 trends. Soon argues the CO2 signal is below detection as a primary driver and that past climate swings like the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age line up with solar variability, not emissions. Dr Soon calls the obsession with carbon dioxide political. You can tax CO2 but you can't tax the sun. He describes an "iron triangle" of government funding, compliant science and media amplification that turns uncertainty into dogma. Soon's message is simple: The climate system is solar driven, the CO2 narrative is wildly overstated and the real priority should be adaptation and affordable energy, not pretending we can regulate the sun.
0:48

Astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon says the climate is driven overwhelmingly by the sun, not by human carbon dioxide. He notes the sun supplies 99.99% of Earth's energy and its output fluctuates matching temperature shifts far better than CO2 trends. Soon argues the CO2 signal is below detection as a primary driver and that past climate swings like the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age line up with solar variability, not emissions. Dr Soon calls the obsession with carbon dioxide political. You can tax CO2 but you can't tax the sun. He describes an "iron triangle" of government funding, compliant science and media amplification that turns uncertainty into dogma. Soon's message is simple: The climate system is solar driven, the CO2 narrative is wildly overstated and the real priority should be adaptation and affordable energy, not pretending we can regulate the sun.

Electroverse

35,344 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 4 ay รถnce

Tom Nelson Podcast #392: Thomas Kurz: โ€œWhy There Is No Climate Crisisโ€ is now published. Thomas Kurz discusses his upcoming book, Why There Is No Climate Crisis (Kindle in May, print in June), and argues modest warming is largely natural, claiming the IPCC obscures evidence of past climate variability. He explains paleoclimate proxies (oxygen isotopes, carbon-14, beryllium-10) and links climate shifts to Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles, galactic cosmic rays influencing clouds, and ocean oscillations (AMO/PDO). Using temperature reconstructions, glacier, treeline, sea-level, historical freeze, agriculture, insect, and civilization records, he says warm periods brought prosperity while cold periods drove drought, famine, disease, and upheaval. He concludes about half of post-1850 warming is natural, warming is generally beneficial, and future cooling is likely. 00:00 Guest And Book Intro 00:24 Why He Dug In 01:46 Focus On Climate Cycles 03:44 Paleoclimate Proxies 04:57 Isotopes And Temperature 06:48 Cosmic Rays And Solar 07:56 Milky Way Climate Cycle 12:17 Milankovitch Ice Ages 14:28 CO2 Follows Temperature 17:10 Holocene Cooling Trend 19:29 Schwabe Solar Cycles 21:42 Millennial Solar Cycles 23:14 Temperature Reconstructions 25:04 Glaciers Treelines Seas 28:44 Historical Freeze Evidence 32:27 Farming And Wildlife Clues 37:06 Warm Vs Cold Impacts 41:28 Storm Evidence In Proxies 44:44 Civilizations And Climate 45:48 Holocene Optimum Prosperity 47:42 2200 BC Collapse Event 48:18 Minoan Warm Period Boom 50:47 Greek Dark Ages Breakdown 52:53 Roman Warm Period Growth 54:23 Late Antique Cooling Plagues 56:50 Medieval Warm Period Golden Age 59:11 Little Ice Age Hardship 01:06:46 Witch Hunts Climate Blame 01:09:16 Modern Warming Attribution Debate 01:12:17 Ocean Oscillations AMO PDO 01:15:44 No Climate Crisis Wrap Up
1:27:25

Tom Nelson Podcast #392: Thomas Kurz: โ€œWhy There Is No Climate Crisisโ€ is now published. Thomas Kurz discusses his upcoming book, Why There Is No Climate Crisis (Kindle in May, print in June), and argues modest warming is largely natural, claiming the IPCC obscures evidence of past climate variability. He explains paleoclimate proxies (oxygen isotopes, carbon-14, beryllium-10) and links climate shifts to Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles, galactic cosmic rays influencing clouds, and ocean oscillations (AMO/PDO). Using temperature reconstructions, glacier, treeline, sea-level, historical freeze, agriculture, insect, and civilization records, he says warm periods brought prosperity while cold periods drove drought, famine, disease, and upheaval. He concludes about half of post-1850 warming is natural, warming is generally beneficial, and future cooling is likely. 00:00 Guest And Book Intro 00:24 Why He Dug In 01:46 Focus On Climate Cycles 03:44 Paleoclimate Proxies 04:57 Isotopes And Temperature 06:48 Cosmic Rays And Solar 07:56 Milky Way Climate Cycle 12:17 Milankovitch Ice Ages 14:28 CO2 Follows Temperature 17:10 Holocene Cooling Trend 19:29 Schwabe Solar Cycles 21:42 Millennial Solar Cycles 23:14 Temperature Reconstructions 25:04 Glaciers Treelines Seas 28:44 Historical Freeze Evidence 32:27 Farming And Wildlife Clues 37:06 Warm Vs Cold Impacts 41:28 Storm Evidence In Proxies 44:44 Civilizations And Climate 45:48 Holocene Optimum Prosperity 47:42 2200 BC Collapse Event 48:18 Minoan Warm Period Boom 50:47 Greek Dark Ages Breakdown 52:53 Roman Warm Period Growth 54:23 Late Antique Cooling Plagues 56:50 Medieval Warm Period Golden Age 59:11 Little Ice Age Hardship 01:06:46 Witch Hunts Climate Blame 01:09:16 Modern Warming Attribution Debate 01:12:17 Ocean Oscillations AMO PDO 01:15:44 No Climate Crisis Wrap Up

Tom Nelson

22,162 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 4 ay รถnce

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."
2:36

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."

Wide Awake Media

191,053 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 yฤฑl รถnce

The United Nationsโ€™ 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. ๐ŸŽ™๏ธ Hereโ€™s a snippet. โœ‚๏ธ ๐——๐—ฟ. ๐—๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต ๐—–๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฟ๐˜†: โ€œ. . . 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 IPCCโ€™s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change. The IPCC wasnโ€™t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. They werenโ€™t supposed to focus on natural climate variability. They were just supposed to look for the signal of dangerous human-caused climate change.โ€ ๐Ÿ”— You can watch the full interview here:
1:09

The United Nationsโ€™ 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. ๐ŸŽ™๏ธ Hereโ€™s a snippet. โœ‚๏ธ ๐——๐—ฟ. ๐—๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต ๐—–๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฟ๐˜†: โ€œ. . . 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 IPCCโ€™s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change. The IPCC wasnโ€™t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. They werenโ€™t supposed to focus on natural climate variability. They were just supposed to look for the signal of dangerous human-caused climate change.โ€ ๐Ÿ”— You can watch the full interview here:

Chris Martz

88,087 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 2 yฤฑl รถnce

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an โ€œexistential threatโ€ and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet weโ€™ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches โ€” sheโ€™s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. โ€œClimate emergencyโ€ was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trumpโ€™s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the worldโ€™s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. Itโ€™s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. โ€œExecutive orders are for show,โ€ says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, โ€œlegislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.โ€ And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though thereโ€™s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. โ€œEvery day there's some extreme weather somewhere,โ€ said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, โ€œand so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.โ€ But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. โ€œThe climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,โ€ said Pielke. โ€œThe โ€˜climate firstโ€™ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.โ€ And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. โ€œOne story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.โ€ Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? โ€œThere's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,โ€ said Pielke. โ€œItโ€™s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and โ€˜Weโ€™ve got to do something about it!โ€™ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, โ€˜Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!โ€™ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downsโ€™ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.โ€ Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. โ€œFor the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonizationโ€ฆ.Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...โ€ Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!
46:20

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an โ€œexistential threatโ€ and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet weโ€™ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches โ€” sheโ€™s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. โ€œClimate emergencyโ€ was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trumpโ€™s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the worldโ€™s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. Itโ€™s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. โ€œExecutive orders are for show,โ€ says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, โ€œlegislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.โ€ And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though thereโ€™s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. โ€œEvery day there's some extreme weather somewhere,โ€ said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, โ€œand so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.โ€ But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. โ€œThe climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,โ€ said Pielke. โ€œThe โ€˜climate firstโ€™ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.โ€ And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. โ€œOne story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.โ€ Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? โ€œThere's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,โ€ said Pielke. โ€œItโ€™s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and โ€˜Weโ€™ve got to do something about it!โ€™ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, โ€˜Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!โ€™ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downsโ€™ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.โ€ Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. โ€œFor the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonizationโ€ฆ.Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...โ€ Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!

Michael Shellenberger

51,165 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 yฤฑl รถnce

Banks Abandon Net Zero, The UN Shifts to Health, and Gates Leads the Chargeโ€”The Climateโ€‘Vaccine Merger Is Here Bill Gates just quietly confirmed the pivot many suspected was coming. After years of pushing climate investment, he now says the real focus will shift toward โ€œnew vaccinesโ€ and โ€œimmunization.โ€ And whatโ€™s happening around him? Every major signal suggests Big Business is following the same path. The Wall Street Journal reports major banks like JPMorgan, Citibank, and UBS are backing away from their net-zero pledges. The Financial Times says companies by the hundreds are abandoning their climate targets altogether. The Net Zero Banking Alliance has suspended operations amid a wave of exits. The corporate world is quietly leaving the green agendaโ€”and the next global narrative is being loaded. Enter the Lancet, which recently published โ€œClimate Change and Pandemics: A Call to Action,โ€ arguing that climate disruptions helped cause outbreaks like Wuhan and insisting that climate policy must now integrate global health. And conveniently, COP30โ€”this yearโ€™s UN Climate Action Conference in Brazilโ€”isnโ€™t focused on the atmosphere anymore. Itโ€™s about โ€œintegrating health into climate resilience,โ€ complete with new programs for immunization, surveillance, and disease control. Translation: theyโ€™re merging climate finance with public health to channel billions into the same old institutionsโ€”this time under the banner of โ€œresilience.โ€ Bill Gates, always one step ahead of the curve, is just vocalizing what the system already decided: global control will now pivot from the sky to the bloodstream. Environmental fear has been replaced with biological fearโ€”the perfect new tool of compliance. Because when climate alarm stopped selling, health became the new climate.
4:46

Banks Abandon Net Zero, The UN Shifts to Health, and Gates Leads the Chargeโ€”The Climateโ€‘Vaccine Merger Is Here Bill Gates just quietly confirmed the pivot many suspected was coming. After years of pushing climate investment, he now says the real focus will shift toward โ€œnew vaccinesโ€ and โ€œimmunization.โ€ And whatโ€™s happening around him? Every major signal suggests Big Business is following the same path. The Wall Street Journal reports major banks like JPMorgan, Citibank, and UBS are backing away from their net-zero pledges. The Financial Times says companies by the hundreds are abandoning their climate targets altogether. The Net Zero Banking Alliance has suspended operations amid a wave of exits. The corporate world is quietly leaving the green agendaโ€”and the next global narrative is being loaded. Enter the Lancet, which recently published โ€œClimate Change and Pandemics: A Call to Action,โ€ arguing that climate disruptions helped cause outbreaks like Wuhan and insisting that climate policy must now integrate global health. And conveniently, COP30โ€”this yearโ€™s UN Climate Action Conference in Brazilโ€”isnโ€™t focused on the atmosphere anymore. Itโ€™s about โ€œintegrating health into climate resilience,โ€ complete with new programs for immunization, surveillance, and disease control. Translation: theyโ€™re merging climate finance with public health to channel billions into the same old institutionsโ€”this time under the banner of โ€œresilience.โ€ Bill Gates, always one step ahead of the curve, is just vocalizing what the system already decided: global control will now pivot from the sky to the bloodstream. Environmental fear has been replaced with biological fearโ€”the perfect new tool of compliance. Because when climate alarm stopped selling, health became the new climate.

Camus

56,791 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 10 ay รถnce

Joe Rogan Destroys the Climate Change Narrative in Under 3 Minutes โ€œThis idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullsh*t. Itโ€™s not true.โ€ Roganโ€™s guest, Mel Gibson, was shocked to learn that Earthโ€™s climate has always been changingโ€”even long before humans existed. Rogan talked about data from millions of years ago that show Earthโ€™s temperature has gone up and down naturally over time. โ€œThereโ€™s no static temperature of Earth ever,โ€ he said. โ€œThereโ€™s never been a time where it keeps the same temperature, and then humans came along and ruined everything. That is just not real.โ€ So why all the fear-mongering? It turns out that there are a lot of financial and political benefits to scaring the sh*t out of people. โ€œThe problem with anything is that once a narrative gets established and then thereโ€™s a profit attached to the solution to that narrative. Yes. And thatโ€™s green energy and green energy bills and thereโ€™s businesses that are wrapped around there. โ€œAnd then thereโ€™s also this fear that they love to pump into people about climate change that, you know, they terrify the sh*t out of young people that weโ€™re going to destroy the world and climate change. You must act now. And then you become beholden to the political party that itโ€™s espousing these ideas and then your enemy is the deniers of this science, even though you donโ€™t even understand the science,โ€ Rogan explained.
2:54

Joe Rogan Destroys the Climate Change Narrative in Under 3 Minutes โ€œThis idea that the whole thing is based on carbon emissions from human beings is total bullsh*t. Itโ€™s not true.โ€ Roganโ€™s guest, Mel Gibson, was shocked to learn that Earthโ€™s climate has always been changingโ€”even long before humans existed. Rogan talked about data from millions of years ago that show Earthโ€™s temperature has gone up and down naturally over time. โ€œThereโ€™s no static temperature of Earth ever,โ€ he said. โ€œThereโ€™s never been a time where it keeps the same temperature, and then humans came along and ruined everything. That is just not real.โ€ So why all the fear-mongering? It turns out that there are a lot of financial and political benefits to scaring the sh*t out of people. โ€œThe problem with anything is that once a narrative gets established and then thereโ€™s a profit attached to the solution to that narrative. Yes. And thatโ€™s green energy and green energy bills and thereโ€™s businesses that are wrapped around there. โ€œAnd then thereโ€™s also this fear that they love to pump into people about climate change that, you know, they terrify the sh*t out of young people that weโ€™re going to destroy the world and climate change. You must act now. And then you become beholden to the political party that itโ€™s espousing these ideas and then your enemy is the deniers of this science, even though you donโ€™t even understand the science,โ€ Rogan explained.

The Vigilant Fox ๐ŸฆŠ

929,139 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 yฤฑl รถnce

.Kayleigh McEnany exposes how Democrats have been lying about climate change for years in a brutal segment exposing John Kerry, Greta Thunberg, AOC, and Barack Obamaโ€™s fear-mongering โ€œIn 1995, the New York Times predicted that most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. Well, the beaches are still sandy and the ice caps are still frozen. But every major Democrat has campaign rather on climate change, using it as a scare tactic. Vote for them or the world's going to melt. And once they're in, they send huge climate contracts to their friends, to their donors, but no one's buying it anymore. Democrats have cried climate wolf so many times that even the Times is telling them to cut it out. They say Democrats don't have to campaign on climate change anymore. Turns out voters care about energy prices, not windmills, solar panels. The New York Times says it's not clear why climate should be at the center of Democrat campaigns. And even under Biden, climate wasn't a top priority for voters. A poll from 2024 had climate at the bottom of the list. And remember the Democrats' top climate warrior, Greta? Well, she moved on from fighting climate change to freeing Palestine. Is the left finally going to give up its most expensive scam? After decades of hysteria, decades of finger pointing, the polls tanked. The money dried up faster than they said our water sources would. And now all of a sudden, Democrats don't care about climate change anymore.โ€
2:10

.Kayleigh McEnany exposes how Democrats have been lying about climate change for years in a brutal segment exposing John Kerry, Greta Thunberg, AOC, and Barack Obamaโ€™s fear-mongering โ€œIn 1995, the New York Times predicted that most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years. Well, the beaches are still sandy and the ice caps are still frozen. But every major Democrat has campaign rather on climate change, using it as a scare tactic. Vote for them or the world's going to melt. And once they're in, they send huge climate contracts to their friends, to their donors, but no one's buying it anymore. Democrats have cried climate wolf so many times that even the Times is telling them to cut it out. They say Democrats don't have to campaign on climate change anymore. Turns out voters care about energy prices, not windmills, solar panels. The New York Times says it's not clear why climate should be at the center of Democrat campaigns. And even under Biden, climate wasn't a top priority for voters. A poll from 2024 had climate at the bottom of the list. And remember the Democrats' top climate warrior, Greta? Well, she moved on from fighting climate change to freeing Palestine. Is the left finally going to give up its most expensive scam? After decades of hysteria, decades of finger pointing, the polls tanked. The money dried up faster than they said our water sources would. And now all of a sudden, Democrats don't care about climate change anymore.โ€

Steve Guest

111,332 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 4 ay รถnce

A Google Scholar search for the phrase "climate change" reveals studies exploded from the years 2000 to 2020, peaking at 900,000, but extrapolations for 2026 now show just 175,000 - an 80% collapse. Climatologist Judith Curry argues the boom was never organic. "This is not a natural scientific consensus that has emerged over a long time," she says. "It's a manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers." Curry says funding, promotion and professional acceptance rewarded researchers who stayed inside the narrative, while dissent carried a price. Curry says she paid it herself: "I was essentially unhirable academically... they pretty much finished me off." Over time, more and more social, economic and environmental problems were folded under the same climate umbrella. This led to policy where subsidies, carbon taxes and renewable mandates worked together to restructure Western energy systems (and economies). And so follows Curry's warning: "The biggest climate risk right now is the so-called transition risk." The climate machine has not disappeared, not entirely, but the academic frenzy paid to feed it looks to have peaked. This is likely because the establishment now has a new obsession: AI, which, amusingly, demands vast quantities of cheap, reliable 24-7 electricity - things wind and solar cannot provide. So something has to give, and that something looks to be 'climate alarm'.
1:24

A Google Scholar search for the phrase "climate change" reveals studies exploded from the years 2000 to 2020, peaking at 900,000, but extrapolations for 2026 now show just 175,000 - an 80% collapse. Climatologist Judith Curry argues the boom was never organic. "This is not a natural scientific consensus that has emerged over a long time," she says. "It's a manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers." Curry says funding, promotion and professional acceptance rewarded researchers who stayed inside the narrative, while dissent carried a price. Curry says she paid it herself: "I was essentially unhirable academically... they pretty much finished me off." Over time, more and more social, economic and environmental problems were folded under the same climate umbrella. This led to policy where subsidies, carbon taxes and renewable mandates worked together to restructure Western energy systems (and economies). And so follows Curry's warning: "The biggest climate risk right now is the so-called transition risk." The climate machine has not disappeared, not entirely, but the academic frenzy paid to feed it looks to have peaked. This is likely because the establishment now has a new obsession: AI, which, amusingly, demands vast quantities of cheap, reliable 24-7 electricity - things wind and solar cannot provide. So something has to give, and that something looks to be 'climate alarm'.

Electroverse

14,233 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 ay รถnce

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is โ€œan existential threat to all of us,โ€ and scientists and environmentalists say โ€œone billionโ€ to โ€œbillionsโ€ will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankindโ€™s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankindโ€™s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earthโ€™s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within todayโ€™s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate changeโ€™s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its โ€œBillion-Dollar Disasters Databaseโ€ after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high โ€œRCP 8.5โ€ scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. Whatโ€™s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. โ€œRCP8.5 is not simply โ€˜highly unlikelyโ€™โ€ explained Pielke recently, โ€œit is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusivelyโ€ in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply arenโ€™t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:
5:45

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists, and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes, and floods more frequent, worse, and more widespread; reducing arctic ice and submerging atoll islands; killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef; worsening heatwaves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is โ€œan existential threat to all of us,โ€ and scientists and environmentalists say โ€œone billionโ€ to โ€œbillionsโ€ will die from food shortages and other climate impacts. But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. None of this means we should not worry about climate change and humankindโ€™s contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming, and many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankindโ€™s contribution. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat and that it has increased by 50 percent since the pre-industrial period, and the fact that it is a small amount of Earthโ€™s atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And, all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind created agricultural, urban, and environmental systems to function within todayโ€™s moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid-19th Century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II, and the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when they can just as scientifically show deceleration. Given how clear the data are on climate changeโ€™s alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists, and activists cannot be attributed to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate expert Roger Pielke, Jr. showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over $1 billion were increasing and then abruptly ended its โ€œBillion-Dollar Disasters Databaseโ€ after Pielke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists, politicians, and journalists have misrepresented practically every aspect of the issue. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high โ€œRCP 8.5โ€ scenario upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. Whatโ€™s more, scientists know this perfectly well as Pielke and other scientists have documented abundant natural gas and slower than predicted economic growth and population growth will prevent it. โ€œRCP8.5 is not simply โ€˜highly unlikelyโ€™โ€ explained Pielke recently, โ€œit is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusivelyโ€ in recent studies. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply arenโ€™t alarmist enough. Why have scientists, politicians, and journalists repeated false and often apocalyptic claims for so long? And how were they able to get away with it? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video! Full version:

Michael Shellenberger

114,406 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 10 ay รถnce

Push for net zero is 'meaningless': Friends of Science president Ron Davison Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. When it comes to pushing back against hysteria over climate change, few do it better than the Friends of Science. The organization says the societal and policy focus on climate change and carbon dioxide is misguided, suggesting instead that climate fluctuations are driven more by natural phenomena โ€” cycles and influences, ocean cycles, and naturally changing atmospheric oscillations. And while humans do contribute to climate change, we adapt and innovate to these changing patterns, an approach Friends of Science advocates for in contrast to the government's push for low-carbon policies and taxes. Rebel News caught up with Ron Davison, president of Friends of Science, at the Global Energy Show in Calgary, where we spoke to him about the issues surrounding this contentious topic. The key questions regarding climate change are โ€œwhat the magnitude of the change is and why the change isโ€ happening, he says. With focus heavily on CO2, Davison says his position is โ€œthat we should have more CO2 going out into the atmosphere, as long as it's just CO2 and water.โ€ Other chemicals going along with it, that's a danger, he adds. Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. โ€œYou can't measure it, it's meaningless,โ€ he tells Rebel News. โ€œUltimately, we need the oil and gas industry โ€” and coal too, it'd be great, we don't have it anymore. But if it's clean emissions, it benefits everyone.โ€ As activists continue to drum up alarm and attempt to shut down industries crucial to Canada's economy, Davison points to a book published by Friends of Science called Energy and Climate at a Glance. โ€œIt takes a lot of the points on energy and climate and distills them down to a couple of sentences, but with the technical backup to a link with a 100, 200, 300-page report from reputable institutions.โ€ Prime Minister Mark Carney's government has thrown โ€œa lot of nice wordsโ€ around, Davison says, but he remains skeptical about any major changes from Carney's Liberal government compared to Justin Trudeau. โ€œWe need energy. And that includes renewable, geothermal โ€” whatever, where it makes economic sense,โ€ he says. โ€œWe just should not be having this energy transition forced upon us when we can't afford us and it's not going to make any difference in the end to the temperature.โ€
6:20

Push for net zero is 'meaningless': Friends of Science president Ron Davison Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. When it comes to pushing back against hysteria over climate change, few do it better than the Friends of Science. The organization says the societal and policy focus on climate change and carbon dioxide is misguided, suggesting instead that climate fluctuations are driven more by natural phenomena โ€” cycles and influences, ocean cycles, and naturally changing atmospheric oscillations. And while humans do contribute to climate change, we adapt and innovate to these changing patterns, an approach Friends of Science advocates for in contrast to the government's push for low-carbon policies and taxes. Rebel News caught up with Ron Davison, president of Friends of Science, at the Global Energy Show in Calgary, where we spoke to him about the issues surrounding this contentious topic. The key questions regarding climate change are โ€œwhat the magnitude of the change is and why the change isโ€ happening, he says. With focus heavily on CO2, Davison says his position is โ€œthat we should have more CO2 going out into the atmosphere, as long as it's just CO2 and water.โ€ Other chemicals going along with it, that's a danger, he adds. Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. โ€œYou can't measure it, it's meaningless,โ€ he tells Rebel News. โ€œUltimately, we need the oil and gas industry โ€” and coal too, it'd be great, we don't have it anymore. But if it's clean emissions, it benefits everyone.โ€ As activists continue to drum up alarm and attempt to shut down industries crucial to Canada's economy, Davison points to a book published by Friends of Science called Energy and Climate at a Glance. โ€œIt takes a lot of the points on energy and climate and distills them down to a couple of sentences, but with the technical backup to a link with a 100, 200, 300-page report from reputable institutions.โ€ Prime Minister Mark Carney's government has thrown โ€œa lot of nice wordsโ€ around, Davison says, but he remains skeptical about any major changes from Carney's Liberal government compared to Justin Trudeau. โ€œWe need energy. And that includes renewable, geothermal โ€” whatever, where it makes economic sense,โ€ he says. โ€œWe just should not be having this energy transition forced upon us when we can't afford us and it's not going to make any difference in the end to the temperature.โ€

Rebel News

13,009 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 yฤฑl รถnce

โ€œThereโ€™s a doomsday view of climate change,โ€ said Bill Gates on Tuesday. โ€œFortunately for all of us, this view is wrongโ€ฆ.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.โ€ In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the worldโ€™s most influential climate scientists. โ€œThe weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,โ€ says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. โ€œIt isnโ€™t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Whereโ€™s the danger here?โ€ Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasnโ€™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 โ€œthe modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. Weโ€™ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing COโ‚‚ contributing to that? Yes.โ€ The fact that warming has been beneficial โ€œdoesnโ€™t mean that we should ignore the problemโ€ she stresses and โ€œdoesnโ€™t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curryโ€™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. โ€œIโ€™m the one whoโ€™s done more climate dynamics research,โ€ 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, โ€œI would say I wouldnโ€™t go much more than 50%.โ€ Curry says, โ€œWeโ€™ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.โ€ As a result, she said, โ€œWe cannot control the climate. Thereโ€™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.โ€ Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. โ€œThere 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,โ€ said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. โ€œThey say, โ€˜Oh, itโ€™s not just COโ‚‚, itโ€™s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,โ€™โ€ she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. โ€œโ€˜Arenโ€™t you telling us thatโ€™s also caused by COโ‚‚?โ€™ So I donโ€™t get what the gripe is. Weโ€™re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.โ€ 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. โ€œGlobal greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,โ€ she notes. โ€œThey donโ€™t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. Itโ€™s part of the rules โ€“ weโ€™re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.โ€ But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW
9:05

โ€œThereโ€™s a doomsday view of climate change,โ€ said Bill Gates on Tuesday. โ€œFortunately for all of us, this view is wrongโ€ฆ.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.โ€ In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the worldโ€™s most influential climate scientists. โ€œThe weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,โ€ says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. โ€œIt isnโ€™t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Whereโ€™s the danger here?โ€ Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasnโ€™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 โ€œthe modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. Weโ€™ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing COโ‚‚ contributing to that? Yes.โ€ The fact that warming has been beneficial โ€œdoesnโ€™t mean that we should ignore the problemโ€ she stresses and โ€œdoesnโ€™t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curryโ€™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. โ€œIโ€™m the one whoโ€™s done more climate dynamics research,โ€ 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, โ€œI would say I wouldnโ€™t go much more than 50%.โ€ Curry says, โ€œWeโ€™ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.โ€ As a result, she said, โ€œWe cannot control the climate. Thereโ€™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.โ€ Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. โ€œThere 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,โ€ said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. โ€œThey say, โ€˜Oh, itโ€™s not just COโ‚‚, itโ€™s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,โ€™โ€ she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. โ€œโ€˜Arenโ€™t you telling us thatโ€™s also caused by COโ‚‚?โ€™ So I donโ€™t get what the gripe is. Weโ€™re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.โ€ 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. โ€œGlobal greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,โ€ she notes. โ€œThey donโ€™t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. Itโ€™s part of the rules โ€“ weโ€™re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.โ€ 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 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 10 ay รถnce

Two things can be stated with certainty based on the geological and paleoclimatological record. Profound and abrupt climate change will occur again, and no legislation passed in Washington or anywhere else is going to alter that. These shifts have happened too many times to count, across timescales that dwarf the entire industrial era, driven by forces that have nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide concentrations in the modern atmosphere. A complete cessation of fossil fuel use tomorrow would not change that underlying reality by a single degree. The record is unambiguous on this point, and it has been unambiguous for decades for anyone willing to look at it honestly. So if the science points so clearly toward natural forcing mechanisms as the dominant driver of catastrophic climate change, why is all the attention focused elsewhere? The fossil fuel industry is being blamed for a contrived crisis while the mechanisms behind genuinely catastrophic natural climate change are being systematically kept out of public awareness. That is not an accident. There are real agendas riding on this narrative, and the manufactured climate emergency appears to be functioning as a tool to prevent people from recognizing what is actually driving conditions that have historically brought civilizations to their knees. That is not a comfortable place to land, but when you follow the evidence rather than the funding, that is where it leads.
0:54

Two things can be stated with certainty based on the geological and paleoclimatological record. Profound and abrupt climate change will occur again, and no legislation passed in Washington or anywhere else is going to alter that. These shifts have happened too many times to count, across timescales that dwarf the entire industrial era, driven by forces that have nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide concentrations in the modern atmosphere. A complete cessation of fossil fuel use tomorrow would not change that underlying reality by a single degree. The record is unambiguous on this point, and it has been unambiguous for decades for anyone willing to look at it honestly. So if the science points so clearly toward natural forcing mechanisms as the dominant driver of catastrophic climate change, why is all the attention focused elsewhere? The fossil fuel industry is being blamed for a contrived crisis while the mechanisms behind genuinely catastrophic natural climate change are being systematically kept out of public awareness. That is not an accident. There are real agendas riding on this narrative, and the manufactured climate emergency appears to be functioning as a tool to prevent people from recognizing what is actually driving conditions that have historically brought civilizations to their knees. That is not a comfortable place to land, but when you follow the evidence rather than the funding, that is where it leads.

Randall Carlson

10,851 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 3 ay รถnce

For decades, the Liberal-Labor uniparty has sold out Australians to a globalist agenda. Sky-high electricity prices, crushed farmers and unaffordable housing aren't accidents; they are the result of the UNโ€™s Agenda 21 and the psychopathic UN criminal Maurice Strong and his plan to deindustrialise the West. From the UNโ€™s 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the current "Net Zero" madness, elected Liberal-National-Labor leaders have been blindly following a foreign script. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights, imposed renewable energy targets and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide TAX, an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire. The current approach to climate and energy policy is built on scientific uncertainty and economic risk. Minister Chris Bowenโ€™s department lacks scientific proof of climate change and defers instead to the UN IPCC, an organisation that relies on โ€œguessesโ€ rather than empirical data. We are being driven off a $1.9 trillion cliff for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for large solar and wind projects that lack cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, farmers' rights have been stolen, affordable energy destroyed and $30 billion a year is being wasted on UN climate compliance. One Nation is the only party with a plan to: โœ… Exit the UN Paris Agreement; โœ… Abolish the Department of Climate Change, saving $30 billion/year in UN waste; โœ… Restore affordable coal and gas; โœ… Build dams and infrastructure; โœ… Put AUSTRALIANS first, not globalist billionaires. ๐Ÿ‘‰ Vote One Nation to secure a future for your children, your grandchildren - and every generation to follow.
9:47

For decades, the Liberal-Labor uniparty has sold out Australians to a globalist agenda. Sky-high electricity prices, crushed farmers and unaffordable housing aren't accidents; they are the result of the UNโ€™s Agenda 21 and the psychopathic UN criminal Maurice Strong and his plan to deindustrialise the West. From the UNโ€™s 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the current "Net Zero" madness, elected Liberal-National-Labor leaders have been blindly following a foreign script. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights, imposed renewable energy targets and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide TAX, an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire. The current approach to climate and energy policy is built on scientific uncertainty and economic risk. Minister Chris Bowenโ€™s department lacks scientific proof of climate change and defers instead to the UN IPCC, an organisation that relies on โ€œguessesโ€ rather than empirical data. We are being driven off a $1.9 trillion cliff for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for large solar and wind projects that lack cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, farmers' rights have been stolen, affordable energy destroyed and $30 billion a year is being wasted on UN climate compliance. One Nation is the only party with a plan to: โœ… Exit the UN Paris Agreement; โœ… Abolish the Department of Climate Change, saving $30 billion/year in UN waste; โœ… Restore affordable coal and gas; โœ… Build dams and infrastructure; โœ… Put AUSTRALIANS first, not globalist billionaires. ๐Ÿ‘‰ Vote One Nation to secure a future for your children, your grandchildren - and every generation to follow.

Malcolm Roberts ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ

16,793 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 6 ay รถnce

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panelโ€™s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panelโ€™s high-end scenario described the worldโ€™s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCCโ€™s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that โ€œon the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausibleโ€ฆโ€ In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario โ€œRCP 8.5,โ€ and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCCโ€™s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCCโ€™s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had โ€œbecome implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.โ€ Berkeley Earthโ€™s Zeke Hausfather argued that โ€œit is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.โ€ Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCCโ€™s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios โ€œstarted in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,โ€ and the retirement of RCP 8.5 โ€œshows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.โ€ Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, โ€œThe good news is emissions are now tracking below older โ€˜business-as-usualโ€™ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.โ€ But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coalโ€™s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, โ€œRCP8.5 is not simply โ€˜highly unlikely,โ€™ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.โ€ IPCCโ€™s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCCโ€™s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is โ€œa coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,โ€ and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
8:27

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panelโ€™s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panelโ€™s high-end scenario described the worldโ€™s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCCโ€™s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that โ€œon the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausibleโ€ฆโ€ In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario โ€œRCP 8.5,โ€ and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCCโ€™s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCCโ€™s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had โ€œbecome implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.โ€ Berkeley Earthโ€™s Zeke Hausfather argued that โ€œit is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.โ€ Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCCโ€™s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios โ€œstarted in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,โ€ and the retirement of RCP 8.5 โ€œshows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.โ€ Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, โ€œThe good news is emissions are now tracking below older โ€˜business-as-usualโ€™ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.โ€ But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coalโ€™s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, โ€œRCP8.5 is not simply โ€˜highly unlikely,โ€™ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.โ€ IPCCโ€™s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCCโ€™s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is โ€œa coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,โ€ and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

54,805 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 3 ay รถnce

Bill Gatesโ€™ Climate Flip: A Masterclass in Elite Hypocrisy For years, Bill Gates was the oracle of climate doom. His 2021 book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, painted a world on the brinkโ€”unless we embraced radical net-zero policies, geoengineering schemes (like spraying dust into the stratosphere), and the wholesale abandonment of fossil fuels. He warned of civilizationโ€™s collapse, funded alarmist research, and helped silence dissent as โ€œclimate denial.โ€ Governments, banks, and institutions fell in line, cutting off funding for anything but โ€œgreenโ€ energy, while children were taught their future was a wasteland of fire and flood. Now? Gates sings a different tune. In a stunning reversal, he admits we wonโ€™t hit 1.5ยฐC or even 2ยฐC targets. Climate change, he now says, is serious but not existentialโ€”just a problem for the worldโ€™s poorest. Innovation, not degrowth, is the answer. Human welfareโ€”vaccines, poverty reduction, adaptationโ€”must take precedence over temperature targets. Energy use, he concedes, is good for human progress. The man who once pushed solar geoengineering as a last-ditch survival tactic now calls it a distraction. What changed? The monologue from Glenn Beck cuts to the heart of the matter: power, control, and a failed globalist agenda. Gatesโ€™ epiphany isnโ€™t scientificโ€”itโ€™s political. His vision of top-down global governance, championed by the WEF and UN, is crumbling. Donald Trumpโ€™s rise dismantled the climate industrial complexโ€™s grip on policy. The โ€œuseless eatersโ€ (as elites allegedly see the masses) are no longer so easy to manage. With Trump dismantling the Paris Accord, defunding the WEFโ€™s pet projects, and prioritizing energy abundance, Gatesโ€™ playbook is obsolete. This isnโ€™t humility. Itโ€™s survival. Gatesโ€™ foundation bankrolled the fearmongering that demonized skeptics, stifled debate, and funneled trillions into unproven tech while real human needsโ€”like vaccines and economic growthโ€”were sidelined. Now, as AI and quantum computing demand more energy (not less), he pivots. Suddenly, fossil fuels arenโ€™t the enemy. Suddenly, โ€œclimate deniersโ€ (a term he helped weaponize) were right all along: you canโ€™t save the planet by destroying humanity. But letโ€™s be clear: this isnโ€™t redemption. Itโ€™s a tactical retreat. The same elites who terrified a generation into believing the world would end by 2030 now shrug and say, โ€œWell, maybe not.โ€ No apology. No accountability. Just a smooth pivot to the next narrativeโ€”because the goal was never the climate. It was control. The question remains: Who decides your future? The technocrats who cried wolf for decades, or a world that rejects their steel cage of fear and scarcity? Gates doesnโ€™t get a pass. Neither do the institutions that amplified his alarmism. The damage is done: careers ruined, economies weakened, children traumatized. If the science was ever settled, itโ€™s settled nowโ€”the elites were wrong. And their sudden โ€œreasonablenessโ€ is just another move in the game. Wake up. Stay angry. Demand better.
13:44

Bill Gatesโ€™ Climate Flip: A Masterclass in Elite Hypocrisy For years, Bill Gates was the oracle of climate doom. His 2021 book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, painted a world on the brinkโ€”unless we embraced radical net-zero policies, geoengineering schemes (like spraying dust into the stratosphere), and the wholesale abandonment of fossil fuels. He warned of civilizationโ€™s collapse, funded alarmist research, and helped silence dissent as โ€œclimate denial.โ€ Governments, banks, and institutions fell in line, cutting off funding for anything but โ€œgreenโ€ energy, while children were taught their future was a wasteland of fire and flood. Now? Gates sings a different tune. In a stunning reversal, he admits we wonโ€™t hit 1.5ยฐC or even 2ยฐC targets. Climate change, he now says, is serious but not existentialโ€”just a problem for the worldโ€™s poorest. Innovation, not degrowth, is the answer. Human welfareโ€”vaccines, poverty reduction, adaptationโ€”must take precedence over temperature targets. Energy use, he concedes, is good for human progress. The man who once pushed solar geoengineering as a last-ditch survival tactic now calls it a distraction. What changed? The monologue from Glenn Beck cuts to the heart of the matter: power, control, and a failed globalist agenda. Gatesโ€™ epiphany isnโ€™t scientificโ€”itโ€™s political. His vision of top-down global governance, championed by the WEF and UN, is crumbling. Donald Trumpโ€™s rise dismantled the climate industrial complexโ€™s grip on policy. The โ€œuseless eatersโ€ (as elites allegedly see the masses) are no longer so easy to manage. With Trump dismantling the Paris Accord, defunding the WEFโ€™s pet projects, and prioritizing energy abundance, Gatesโ€™ playbook is obsolete. This isnโ€™t humility. Itโ€™s survival. Gatesโ€™ foundation bankrolled the fearmongering that demonized skeptics, stifled debate, and funneled trillions into unproven tech while real human needsโ€”like vaccines and economic growthโ€”were sidelined. Now, as AI and quantum computing demand more energy (not less), he pivots. Suddenly, fossil fuels arenโ€™t the enemy. Suddenly, โ€œclimate deniersโ€ (a term he helped weaponize) were right all along: you canโ€™t save the planet by destroying humanity. But letโ€™s be clear: this isnโ€™t redemption. Itโ€™s a tactical retreat. The same elites who terrified a generation into believing the world would end by 2030 now shrug and say, โ€œWell, maybe not.โ€ No apology. No accountability. Just a smooth pivot to the next narrativeโ€”because the goal was never the climate. It was control. The question remains: Who decides your future? The technocrats who cried wolf for decades, or a world that rejects their steel cage of fear and scarcity? Gates doesnโ€™t get a pass. Neither do the institutions that amplified his alarmism. The damage is done: careers ruined, economies weakened, children traumatized. If the science was ever settled, itโ€™s settled nowโ€”the elites were wrong. And their sudden โ€œreasonablenessโ€ is just another move in the game. Wake up. Stay angry. Demand better.

Camus

62,569 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 10 ay รถnce