People are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing.
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction,
and all you can talk about is money
and fairytales of eternal economic growth.
How dare you?
This is the story of
how an eccentric environmental scare grew into a
powerful global industry.
It's a wonderful business opportunity. Okay?
You want climate, we'll give you climate.
There's a huge amount of money involved,
and this is a huge, big money scam.
There are not just now billions,
but there are trillions of dollars at stake.
It's a story of self-interest and big government funding.
People like me, our careers depend on funding
of climate research.
This is what I've been doing just about my whole career.
This is what the other climate researchers are
doing with their whole career.
They don't want this to end.
If CO2 isn't having the huge negative impacts
that we claimed it was having originally,
how are we going to stay in business?
A lot of people's livelihoods depend on it.
They're not gonna give that up.
This is a story of the corruption of science.
There's no such thing
as a climate emergency happening on this planet now.
It's, there's no, no evidence of one.
The climate alarm is, is nonsense.
You know, it's, it's a hoax. I've never liked hoax.
I, I think scam is a better word,
but I'm willing to live with hoax.
It's a story about the bullying
and intimidation of anyone who daress
to challenge the climate alarm.
To speak up against
or about climate change in any sort
of skeptical way was essentially career suicide.
Activists are even calling for any skepticism
to be criminalized.
It's the story of an assault on individual freedom.
It's a wonderful way to, uh,
increase government power if there's an existential threat
out there that's worldwide.
Well, you need a powerful worldwide government,
you know, to cope with it.
We see all these kind of, uh,
authoritarian measures being adopted in the name
of saving the planet.
You've suddenly got the population under
control all over the world.
We called it industrial progress.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the development
of free market capitalist,
mass production has made evermore goods evermore affordable
to ever larger numbers of people.
Mass production marched hand in hand with mass consumption.
In the modern age, ordinary people enjoy a level
of prosperity, never before achieved in human history.
But all the while we are told we were destroying the planet.
Computers have calculated what is in store for us
as we produce and consume evermore.
The weather will get worse, the planet will boil. We greedy.
Humans must accept limits on our lifestyle,
consume less, travel less.
Those who deny the climate crisis are not just
wrong, they're dangerous.
Spreading the poison of doubt among a gullible population.
These deniers should be shunned and shamed and censored.
For these climate deniers are flat earthers.
They are anti-Science
teaching at New York University is one
of these climate deniers.
Professor Stephen Coonan is one
of America's leading physicists.
He was a science advisor to President Obama
and both vice president
and provost of Caltech, one
of the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world.
I teach climate science to my students at NYU
and I always tell them, check the data
or the papers yourself,
and they all come outta that course
with their eyes wide open.
Professor Coonan's bestselling book unsettled argues
that mainstream scientific studies accepted
by official agencies do not support the notion
that there is any kind of climate crisis at all.
Of course, I've been called a denier, uh,
and my response is, tell me what I'm denying
because I'm quoting from you directly from the
official un scientific reports.
Dick Linson also dismisses the claims
of climate alarmists.
He's one of the world's leading meteorologists,
who's professor of meteorology at both Harvard University
and MIT, and has served on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change or IPCC,
Even the intergovernmental panel on climate Change.
If you go to their section of working one, group one,
which is the science, they don't support any
of these claims, and I assure you, having served on it,
it's biased, but you couldn't get any real scientists
to agree some of the nonsense that's being promoted.
Will Happa is also a denier
and is another of America's leading physicists.
He has been science advisor to three presidents
and professor of physics at both Columbia
and Princeton University.
There's this mischievous, uh, idea that's promoted that
scientific truth is determined by consensus in real science.
You know, there are always arguments.
No science has ever settled.
You know, it just, uh, is absurd when people say the science
of climate has settled.
It's not, there's no such thing
as settled science, especially climate.
Dr. John Klauser is one
of the most respected scientists in the world.
In 2022, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for physics.
The science is being done, is appallingly bad?
In my opinion, there are a large number of scientists
who are in violent disagreement.
They refer to themselves as skeptics.
Since I am no longer worried about, uh, losing funding
or a job, whatever I call myself a climate change denier.
These very eminent and respected scientists
and others like them are not flat earthers.
They do not deny science.
So what's the evidence that has caused them
to dismiss the climate's alarm as nonsense?
We are told that current temperatures are unprecedented
and dangerously high.
It's possible to check if this is true,
because we have evidence
of earth's climate history dating back hundreds, thousands,
even millions of years.
The desert of Judea by the Dead Sea.
Professor Nia Shave from the Racker Institute
of Physics has come here looking for clues.
Thousands of years ago, this place was underwater
and etched into the rocks are lines, which if you know how
to read them, tell the story of earth's climate history.
And here's the climate. We are at the, uh, lake beds of,
uh, what used to be lake, uh, lyan.
Um, it's a lake that existed until, uh, the end
of the last ice age.
Uh, back then, uh, the lake level was maybe a hundred meters
above where we were located.
When we went to reconstruct climates of the past, we have
to, uh, look for evidence, uh, for clues.
And when the, uh, lake existed, it had the deposits.
And by looking at these, uh, layers, here, we can actually
reconstruct how the climate has changed.
Warmer water means more life, the accumulation
of more shells and bones from sea creatures
and other changes that are reflected in the ancient
layers of the lake bed.
The lions act as a kind of thermometer,
and this is just one way geologists can
reconstruct past climate.
In other places, we can go to, uh, static mite caves
and see the annual, uh, rings
that you have in the static mite,
or we can, uh, drill a coal from the, uh, bottom of the,
the ocean and then, uh, look at layers there,
uh, or many other places.
But here, I think this is one of the nicest places
because you can actually see, you can actually see how, uh,
the climate has, uh, changed.
So when we look back in time, what do we find?
For 200 million years, dinosaurs roamed the earth,
an earth marked by fertile,
dense forests, teeming with life.
And at no time during those 200 million years were
temperatures as cold as they are today.
If you go back, let's say 200 million years,
it was maybe 13 degrees warmer than it is now.
So on the geological perspective,
this is not at all unprecedented.
For the last 500 million years,
temperatures have varied greatly,
but for almost all that time, the earth was much,
much warmer than today compared
to the last half billion years.
The earth right now is exceptionally cold.
In fact, there are very few times when it's been this cold,
We're relatively cold,
maybe not quite the coldest it's been in 500 million years,
but pretty close to it.
We are in a remarkably cool period.
If we look over the last 550 million years.
In fact, only one other time period in
that last 550 million years was the temperature.
As cool as it is now.
The mammals who now inhabit the earth began to evolve
around 60 million years ago when the world was
much warmer than today.
We just look at the last 65 million years.
So this is after the dinosaurs go extinct.
Mammals really start to take over
and our evolutionary ancestors start to live on the land.
Any time period within the last 65 million years was warmer
than it is essentially today.
The earth's mammals, humans included, appear
to thrive when it's warm, warmer than it is now.
There's no doubt that warm is better than cold in
geological history.
We are a tropical species.
A human being in the shade naked dies at 20 C
from hypothermia.
We evolved on the equator in Africa,
and the only reason we were able to get out
of there eventually was fire, shelter, and clothing.
Over the last 50 million years,
temperatures steadily declined, plunging the earth into
what geologists call the late Zoic Ice Age.
We are still in that ice age.
The reason there's all that ice on the poles is
because we're in an ice age.
Everybody knows that
who knows anything about the history of the earth.
This is an ice age.
We're at the tail end of a 50 million year cooling period,
and they're saying it's too hot.
If we zoom in on the past few million years,
we see temperatures sinking,
and as they do fluctuating between extremely cold periods
and slightly milder periods,
the extremely cold periods are cold glacial maxima when the
planet is mostly covered in ice
and the slightly less cold are called glacial minimum when
there's just ice at the poles.
For the past 10,000 years, fortunately,
we've been in a slightly less cold, glacial minimum known
as the Holocene
with milder weather.
Humans began to emerge from their caves.
And several thousand years ago, we see the rise
of the first great civilizations in a blissful period,
which according to many studies,
was considerably warmer than today.
This is known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.
It was called an optimum
because people thought that warmer was better.
Since then, temperatures have declined
and begun to fluctuate in Roman times.
There was a blissfully warm period followed
by a brutal cold period in the dark ages.
Then came the balmy medieval warm period, according
to many studies as warm
or warmer than today, followed
by an especially cold period known as the Little Ice Age,
possibly the coldest in the last 10,000 years.
And here it is, the Roman warm period, the cold, dark age,
the medieval warm period,
and then the very cold little ice age from which
for the past 300 years or so we've been recovering.
The longest instrumental record
of temperature in the world comes from Central England,
and this is what it shows.
Since the worst of the little ice age from 1650,
the temperature has risen gently
by little more than one degree Celsius.
The Central England record
of temperature is a world treasure.
You know, it's the longest continuous record that we have,
and it's certainly not a very alarming record.
It began in the depths of the little ice age.
And so you can see the slight warming
that followed the little ice age,
and there's certainly nothing very alarming
that's happening today.
Uh, at the very end of the record, most of the warming
that we're observing today
is the recovery from the little ice
age. Whatever calls that.
Well, you know, we're talking over the entire industrial
period of about one degree centigrade.
To put this one degree in perspective,
let's look at New York Central Park Records show
that there has been no overall change in temperature here
since 1940,
but from one year to the next,
the average temperature can vary
by three degrees Celsius without many New
Yorkers even noticing.
In fact, between the warmest year in the 1960s
and the coolest in 2000, there's a difference
of five degrees Celsius.
The average temperature on this day in this year
might be five degrees different from the average temperature
a year ago or two years.
You know, when I hear people pontificating about one
and a half degrees leading to the end of civilization,
I think what have them been smoking?
You know, are you crazy? Right? So
According to thermometer readings since 1880,
there's been a very mild increase in temperature.
Only by stretching the Y axis on this graph is
the increase noticeable.
This is the rising line used by official agencies as proof
of global warming.
But is it accurate?
Professor Ross McKitrick is an expert in statistical
analysis at Guelph University.
He noticed something odd about modern thermometer records.
Thermometers even in the same region,
give out very different readings depending
on where they're located.
I was interested in the question of
how do you explain the spatial pattern of warming?
So some places warm a lot, some places don't warm much,
and it turns out entirely correlated with
the spatial pattern of economic activity
Where there are more people
and there is more human activity, there's more heat.
This is known as the urban heat island effect.
Urban heat island effect is essentially London, right?
You pick London with building with a, a lot
of activities tends to be a a few degree.
I mean, we're talking now Celsius, right?
Even four or five degrees Celsius warmer than outskirt.
This is a phenomenon of urbanization.
This day is the obvious effect is actually concrete
rotating, retaining heat.
This can be illustrated
with a satellite heat map of Paris.
The center of Paris can be as much
as five degrees Celsius warmer than
the surrounding countryside.
Paris, London, Beijing, Shanghai,
you name it, new Delhi.
All of them absolutely demonstrated that effects.
So how has this affected the official temperature record?
In the early part of the 20th century, it was normal
to erect weather thermometers just
outside towns close enough to check every day,
but away from the heat of urban life.
But over the 20th century, those towns have expanded,
suburbs have spread.
There are more roads, more cars, thermometers,
which were once outside towns are now surrounded
by shopping malls, offices, factories, and houses.
These Towns and all the locations
where thermometers are located, on average,
they've all grown in population, let's say since 1880.
You've got buildings, uh, growing up
around the thermometers, you've got parking lots.
So you've got all of these non climate influences,
which are affecting the temperatures,
which raises questions about the quality of thermometer data
for monitoring global warming
To correct. For this corruption
of the data, an obvious solution is
to use only records from rural weather stations,
which have been less affected by urban development.
This has now been done by a team led by Dr. Willie. Soon
We combine all the best rural station, any anything
that we can correct for, we correct for, and we show.
If you just don't use this dataset
and use only rural you,
you get a very different kind of picture.
According To rural temperature,
records temperatures rose from the 1880s,
but peaked in the 1940s.
Then there was a marked cooling until the 1970s.
After that, temperatures recover,
but are still today barely higher than
they were in the 1940s.
What we see is that basically you have a warming from the
1,918, you know, fifties or so to 1930s and forties,
and started to warm and then cool in a substantial way
to the seventies, about 76 or so.
Instead of a long-term systematic warming trend.
It has a variability multi decade, like every 50, 60 years
or so, kind of a variation.
It's not just rural thermometers that show little warming
merchant ships and other naval vessels have been measuring
the temperature of the sea since the 19th century.
In red, we see the land temperature record since the 1860s,
which has been inflated by urban thermometers.
But in blue is the ocean temperature record
from around 1900.
The two begin to diverge.
Ocean records show far less warming in the 20th century,
and the pattern more closely resembles the
rural temperature record.
Sea is not supposed to be quote unquote contaminated
by urban heat island effect.
Am I right? Yes. So when we compare the two record within
the range of uncertainty, this behavior actually fits.
Scientists have also studied temperature change
by looking at tree rings,
which again shows very little warming.
There's a gentle rise till the mid 20th century, a cooling
to the 1970s, followed by a mild recovery.
Once again, it shows temperatures today are barely different
to those of the 1930s and forties,
and the pattern closely resembles rural temperatures.
Satellites too seem to be telling a different story.
Our ability to measure global temperature accurately took a
leap forward when satellites began to war the earth.
One of the scientists who pioneered the use of satellites
to measure temperature is Dr. Roy Spencer,
who in the 1980s was senior scientist
for climate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
We were discussing over lunch,
isn't there some way we can use satellites
to monitor global temperatures?
Because as you know, the temperature network of thermometers
is pretty skimpy around the world, so it's kind of hard
to get a global temperature.
Dr. Spencer's development
of weather satellites was revolutionary.
He and his colleague, professor John Christie,
have been awarded NASA's Medal
for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Our satellite data begins in January of 1979.
That's when we have complete global coverage, uh,
and we have it right up to the present.
There was one critical question about temperature
that satellites were singularly well equipped to answer.
Has there been a spurious warming
that has crept into the global temperature record over land?
Uh, that's a, just a result of an increase in population,
and that's something that we've been analyzing
and working a lot on lately,
and we're finding that especially in urban areas,
uh, it's large.
I mean, since 1880, most of the warming it looks like is due
to the urban heat island effect.
We're lucky to have a few independent scientists like
John Christie and Roy Spencer
with their satellite measurements of temperature, you know,
before they, uh,
started releasing this ground-based temperature
records were going wild.
They, they were going up, you know, like crazy
with no, no bounds.
But now they have to contend with the fact
that there's this independent
and probably better way
of measuring the whole globe's temperature,
which is not alarming at all.
Evidence from multiple sources now agree
that the official global temperature record, as used
by world governments
and reported in the world's media,
is showing far too much warming over the last 120 years,
artificially inflated by urbanization.
You look at the weather balloon record,
the satellite record, the rural record,
the ocean record doesn't warm nearly as much as land.
All of these indications show that the,
like the big warming pulse in the record is the Northern
Hemisphere land record,
and that's also where most
of this data contamination is happening.
But of the mild warming
that has taken place in the last three to 400 years, can any
of it be attributed to human emissions of CO2?
Professor Henriks Wesmark is visiting the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem and taking a stroll in the Evolution Garden
dedicated to preserving the oldest surviving
plant species on earth.
These plants aren't just pleasing on the eye.
They can also tell us about levels
of CO2 in the atmosphere in earth's geological past.
What we have here is a, a ginkgo tree,
and it's actually a living, uh, fossil in the sense
that this type of tree, uh,
first appeared about 270 million years ago.
On the underside of the leaf, there are
what we call stormer the cells where they can uptake CO2.
So they're actually measuring how much CO2 is in the air,
and then they adjust the number of the stormer to
how much CO2 there is.
And by looking at fossils
and measuring how many there are, uh, at a different time,
it says something about what was the level
of CO2 back in time.
So when we look back in time, what do we find
over overall, almost all of the last 500 million years,
the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been far,
far higher than it is now.
Even with modern industry's contribution to CO2 levels
by geological standards, the level
of atmospheric CO2 today is close to being as low
as it has ever been.
At present, we have about, uh, 400 parts per million.
50 million years ago,
it might have been 2000 parts per million.
So a much, much higher concentration of CO2.
I think current estimates of global CO2 is 423
or so parts per million.
Today, if we look
through the fan zoic the last 550 million years,
we would see a CO2 on the order of 7,000 parts per million.
CO2 is plant food
and the result of much higher levels
of atmospheric CO2 in the past was a much,
much greener world.
Periods of elevated CO2 tend to be time periods of, of,
of a huge biodiversity on, on the planet.
In fact, we're in a CO2 famine.
If we look over the last 550 million years
Of the depths of the most recent glacial maximum,
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere sank so low.
All life on earth came close to extinction.
They say CO2 is higher than it's been
for a hundred thousand years.
But what they don't tell you in
that period they're talking about is that CO2 sank so low
that all life on earth nearly died
20,000 years ago.
CO2 is at the lowest level it has ever been
in the history of the earth.
180 parts per million.
If it had gone down another 30 parts per
million, we'd all be dead.
There is a low point of CO2 where photosynthesis becomes
so inefficient that plant life would die,
then everything else starts to perish after that.
During the last, uh, glacial maximum.
There's good evidence that in many parts
of the world there was plant starvation from not enough CO2.
So, uh, we should be very grateful
that CO2 levels are beginning to go back up.
We're still far from the historical norms,
which would be several thousand parts per a million.
There's not enough fossil fuel to get there,
but at least we're making a start.
But has the small recent increase in
CO2 affected the temperature?
We would now show you a picture of CO2, but we can't
because it's invisible.
CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the gases in the atmosphere,
just 0.04 of a percent.
It is just one of 25 different greenhouse gases, which taken
as a whole form only one part
of earth's complex climate system.
So what evidence is there
that this trace gas is having any
noticeable impact on the climate?
If it were true that higher levels
of CO2 caused higher temperatures, we should be able to see
that in earth's climate history.
Here, scientists are drilling into ancient ice cores.
These cores tell us both about past
temperatures and CO2 levels.
Scientists have indeed found a link
between temperature and CO2.
The trouble is it's the wrong way round.
So it's true over the last few million years
of the ice age that we're in now, that CO2
and temperature are correlated.
But if CO2 is the driver, it has to change first
and the temperature has to change second. And
In fact, when you start to look at the data very
specifically, you see the exact reverse temperature
starts to rise first.
And then on the order of a century to a few centuries later,
we start to see a, a rise. In CO2,
It's long been known that, uh,
the temperature actually moves first.
So temperature goes up, CO2 goes up
after that temperature goes down. CO2 goes down.
Ice ages start when carbon dioxide is at its maximum.
And ice age is, and when carbon dioxide is at its minimum,
which is the exact opposite of
what would occur if carbon dioxide was
controlling the temperature,
The question of whether CO2 drives the climate
is easily resolved.
You can look back in time over hundreds of millions
of years, CO2 levels have changed radically many times.
Did this cause temperature change? No, absolutely not.
CO2 has never driven temperature changes in the past. Never
Nor is it clear in recent times
that CO2 is having any effect on temperature.
Here we see industrial output of CO2 since 1750,
from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th century,
there was only a slight increase.
It's not until the 1940s that industrial production
of CO2 begins to take off,
but this doesn't match the temperature record.
According to rural thermometers, most
of the warming in the past 200 years occurred
before the 1940s and have barely changed since then.
One of the embarrassments that IPCC doesn't like
to talk about was
that the 1930s when human influences were much smaller
were particularly warm.
That's the puzzle that the first early pipe
where we have such a sharp, uh, warming from the 1900
to 1930s and, uh, 1940s, CO2 could never cause
that temperature rise.
But the 1930s and early forties was so hot, is puzzling,
more puzzling still is what happened next.
By the end of World War ii, CO2 was really going up,
and yet the temperature was going down
From 40 to 70, while the CO2 continued to rise,
this thing started to cool. What happened?
Journalists were writing about the coming Ice Age.
It was on the cover of Time Magazine,
1970s. The new ice
age was the big story.
And how about since the 1970s?
According to computer climate models over the past half
century, rising, CO2 should have led
to this increase in temperature.
But according to multiple satellite
and balloon measurements, what actually happened was this.
Well, what we found from the satellite data is
that the global atmosphere is not warming up as fast
as the climate models say it should be.
Uh, there's a couple dozen climate models now that have been
worked on for decades.
You know, billions of dollars, tens of billions
of dollars have been invested in
these climate modeling efforts.
And we find that, generally speaking, virtually all
of the climate models produce too much warming over this
period since 1979 up to the present.
Now, even if we say the surface thermometers are
correct, they still don't produce as much warming as most
of the climate models say.
There should have been, let's say, in the last 50 years, the
Models individually
and even collectively, when you average over all
of them in so-called ensembles, they don't get it right.
You can already see that the main, uh, supports
of the climate alarm movement,
which are these enormous computer models,
they're clearly wrong.
They, they don't agree with what we observe,
and they, uh, they're all running much too hot.
They don't get the geographical distribution
of temperatures anywhere close.
They don't get El Nino, la Nina cycles.
Uh, they, they're just nonsense.
All climate models are based on the assumption
that CO2 drives temperature change.
But actual observations
and historical evidence clearly suggest that it doesn't.
Yes, I assert that there is no connection whatsoever
between CO2 and climate change.
Uh, that's all a across of crap in my opinion.
There is no truth to the idea
that the Earth is warmer now than it has been in the past.
It's a lie. There is no truth
that CO2 is higher than it should be.
That is a lie.
Earth's climate has changed many times over the course
of its long history
and will continue to change without any help from us.
Climate always changes.
You know, who denies climate change? It's always changing.
But if CO2 doesn't drive climate change, what does
in Earth's atmosphere?
There are powerful forces at work,
and perhaps the most powerful of all are clouds.
CO2 is quite unimportant in
controlling the Earth's climate.
What is important is clouds.
Clouds don't absorb any energy at all.
They simply reflect all of the sunlight back out into space.
Big, bright white clouds.
If you look at the earth, you see lots and lots of 'em,
and they vary dramatically from one day to the next.
That is hundreds of times
more powerful than the trivial effects
Effects of CO2.
But what controls the number
and density of clouds on earth?
Professor Hendricks Smar from the Danish National Space
Institute is in Jerusalem
with the astrophysicist near Sha Viv.
Together, they've been exploring cloud variation
and its effect on climate,
and strangely, they found a link between clouds
and exploding supernova far off in our galaxy.
When you have big stars, they don't live very long, uh,
I mean relatively only maybe, uh, a few million years, uh,
up to 40 million years.
But they end their life in a huge explosion,
which we call the supernova.
An exploding supernova sends out vast quantities
of debris, tiny charged subatomic particles known
as cosmic rays, traveling almost at the speed of light.
And as they hit earth,
they develop into seeds which attract water vapor
and form clouds.
Professor Shave noticed that the amount
of cloud cover on Earth is related
to our journey round the Milky Way.
As our solar system orbits the galaxy over millions
of years, it passes
through the galaxy's spiral arms dense clusters of stars.
As it does, we are exposed to more
or less cloud forming cosmic rays.
And this corresponds
to historic temperature changes on Earth.
The really mind boggling thing is that using geology,
you can reconstruct the climates on earth over the past
billion years, and you can reconstruct our galactic journey
and both tell the same story.
But what about temperature change on shorter timescales?
The sun, our source of heat
and light, a seething mass of gigantic magnetic storms,
which vary in strengthen number over time
and which affect earth directly and indirectly.
When it is very active, the sun sends giant gusts
of solar wind through the solar system.
The solar wind warms us indirectly by acting as a barrier,
limiting the number of cloud forming cosmic
rays reaching earth.
So from the sun, uh, we have the solar wind.
It carries the science magnetic field, uh, out to a large,
uh, distance, and it works like a shield, uh,
against the cosmic rays.
When the sun is more active, you have a stronger solar wind.
You have less cosmic rays reaching, uh,
the inner solar system and reaching the atmosphere.
And the clouds, which are then formed are less white.
They reflect less of the sunlight, uh, which means
that it's going to be warmer here on earth.
Here is a proxy reconstruction
of ocean temperatures over thousands of years,
and here is one of solar activity over the same period.
What is causing the ocean temperature
to change is clearly variations in solar activity.
Because IPCC is determined to go on a narrative
that only CO2 can drive the climate system,
they turn off the sun, essentially, right?
Because the sun is just a background thing for them
that it doesn't do anything.
Astrophysicist. Willie soon decided
to look again at the rural temperature record
for the past 150 years.
Then he looked at a record
of changes in solar activity over the same period to Dr.
Soon it was obvious that it was the sun, not CO2
that was driving temperature
As of 2023.
IPCC says, is that the sun have absolutely zero chance
to explain the changes of the climate system on broad scale,
let's say global warming on northern hemisphere, we say, no,
we can easily dam the sun can explain all of it.
There's zero for the CO2, a hundred percent for the sun.
How's that?
Why are these and other studies never reported
in the mainstream media?
And if climate change is natural, what are we to make
of the alleged terrifying increase in extreme weather?
Events of the heat waves
and hurricanes of forest fires droughts under rest.
My first instinct as a scientist,
and what I teach my students is, well,
let's look at the data.
And when you do that, you discover,
as you can read in the IPCC reports themselves,
that it's pretty hard to find trends in extreme events,
much less attribute them to human influences.
You've now had decades
of putting the idea in people's heads
that anytime the weather's bad, it's climate change
and greenhouse gases.
So I think people at this point can't help themselves.
If you have a heat wave, immediately everybody's thinking,
oh, what have we done to the weather?
If somebody says in the news,
this is the warmest day since 1980
or something, well, you can look up the temperature records
and see for yourself whether it was in fact,
warmer in the 1930s.
As it often is,
US temperature records are the best in the world,
and here is the official US government record
of heat waves in the US over the past century.
It shows very clearly that the 1930s were far more prone
to heat waves than we are today.
Not only were there more heat waves than the 1930s,
the heat waves then were much hotter than those
of today light.
Likewise, official figures show that the number
of hot days in the US has markedly declined.
The United States was Much hotter in the 1930s.
North Dakota reached 121 degrees.
Um, South Dakota was 120 degrees. Wisconsin was 114 degrees.
These sort of temperatures are just completely out of range
of anything people experience.
Now,
A common mistake is to suppose
that higher average temperature will mean more hot
weather, but this isn't true.
Here again, is the Central England temperature record,
the longest instrumental temperature record in the world.
Summer temperatures over the past three
to 400 years since the end
of the little ice age have barely changed at all.
It is winter temperatures that have been slightly rising.
The earth's climate has not been getting hotter.
It's been getting milder.
That's certainly being observed all over the world.
If you look at temperature records,
high temperatures are almost unchanged,
but cold temperatures at night
or during the winter are are going up a little bit,
not very much, but you can measure it
When the average goes up.
It's really more due
to the coldest temperatures getting warmer.
So the temperatures getting milder rather than
getting hotter.
What about the increasing number
of wildfires we're often told about,
If you look at the actual number
of forest fires from satellite observations,
the actual number's going down
Here is an estimate of global wildfires since 1900.
It shows a clear decline.
And here is a record of areas affected
by wildfires in the us.
It shows that wildfires were far, far worse in the 1930s,
From 1930s
and 1920s, when you have data, it was huge, five
to 10 times bigger than the current level.
How about hurricanes?
The US has by far the best record
of hurricane activity in the world over the past 120 years.
There is no overall change.
In fact, the trend is slightly down.
When you'd look at the data for hurricanes,
technically tropical cyclones, you see
that there is no long term trend.
How about the rest of the world?
Here is a chart of global hurricane activity.
Over the past 40 years,
Hurricanes have been around forever.
You know, we've got good proxy records of hurricanes
and, uh, there's been no change in their frequency.
Even the IPCC admits that,
How about melting ice caps and drought?
Here's a satellite record
of temperature in Antarctica since the late 1970s.
It shows no increase whatsoever,
and here is a record of global drought since 1950.
There is no observable increase at all.
Polar bears are meant to be going extinct,
but studies suggest their numbers are growing.
The Great Barrier Reef two has recently
reached record levels.
There's No such thing
as a climate emergency happening on this planet.
Now. It's, there's no, no evidence of one.
Yeah, the extreme weather event story is, is just absurd.
There, there's no basis to it at all.
It's just based on propaganda.
The actual data shows the opposite.
I've shown you the official data, the official science.
Tell me what I'm denying
The climate alarm is, is nonsense.
You know, it's, it's a hoax.
As, as I I I don't, I've never liked hoax.
I, I think scam is a better word,
but I'm willing to live with hoax.
But why are we told again
and again, that manmade climate chaos is an
undisputed scientific fact.
Beyond question beyond doubt.
To answer this, we must examine the so-called
consensus on climate change.
Thank you very much. Until the 1980s,
global warming was little more than an eccentric scare story
put about by radical environmentalists.
But then the course was picked up
by an ambitious young senator Al Gore,
who had soon become vice president.
A billion dollars a year of public money was made available
for research into climate change.
This quickly rose to 2 billion up to that level.
Academic researchers in various disciplines began to apply
for this climate funding.
If you want to qualify for money that's labeled climate,
while you take whatever you're doing
and you add a little bit, uh, of climate, speak to it,
and away you go,
You're dealing with the sexual habits of cockroaches
you'll add and the impact of climate. So
All I have to do is add a little wrinkle
to my grant application to explain how well I'm worried
that climate change will mean the death
of all the maple trees.
And so right away you qualify for funding
Academics of every kind lined up for climate funding.
Climate became an exciting new area of interest
for sociologists, biologists, professors
of English literature, lecturers
and gender studies, and many more.
And it also served to create a community.
I mean, you know, you've become a climate scientist now,
even though you know nothing about the physics of climate.
Thousands of papers were published on climate change
and prostitution, climate change and beer, climate change,
and the black death, climate change
and disability, climate change, and video games
and everything else imaginable.
There's an almost comical list of studies out there.
Just do a Google search on climate change.
And, and, and everything comes up.
Few of these papers ever questioned whether climate
change was actually true.
After you've done the research
and you write the paper up,
sometimes you'll find there's no effect at all from climate.
But you still have to say in your papers, oh yes,
climate change is real.
And, uh, we just need to study this some more
Since so few of these.
So-called Climate Studies challenged
the idea of climate change.
It was declared that there was a scientific consensus.
Climate change must be true.
Climate also became a new focus
for government funded research bodies.
Scientific research in the United States tends
to be dominantly funded by, uh, government grants.
Uh, and so whatever government grants are offered, uh, sort
of determine much of the science being done.
It was during the Cold War
that many government research bodies were set up,
but the end of the Cold War
and pressure on government spending has left many
of them struggling to justify their continued funding.
United States Congress only funds problems, okay?
Research into problems.
Whether it's money that goes to NASA or noaa
or National Science Foundation, or Department of Energy,
or any other alphabet soup, you know, organization. Uh,
It's always been a problem to support, uh, your research
or your existence raise on death.
And so climate was a godsend.
If Congress is willing to pay you to find evidence
of global warming, by golly, as a scientist,
we're gonna go find evidence of it
because that's what we're, what we're being paid to do.
And guess what, if you don't find evidence
or say the evidence suggests it's not a problem,
your funding ends.
This totally corrupts the way we look at the science.
Who was the famous gangster asked, why do you rob banks?
Uh, and he said, well, 'cause that's where the money is.
The climate alarm brought funds
and the bigger the supposed threat,
the more funds seem to flow.
The publicly funded science establishment now had a direct
financial interest in playing up the alarm.
So there's a huge incentive to over exaggerate
or to speak in hyperbole,
even if the data doesn't support exactly what you're saying,
because that's what brings the funds.
I was in that boat. I was someone
that was defending climate change
as a grad student quite a bit,
because the truth is, I didn't give it too much thought,
but I, I thought, well, it's getting a ton of attention.
It brings a ton of money into the earth sciences,
even if I don't buy all the hyperbole.
What's the problem?
By the late 1990s, what had started
as an environmental scare story was gaining momentum.
Western governments
and their senior civil servants were more than willing
to address the climate problem.
Green taxes were levied, green regulation expanded,
and this in turn, generated more climate
related jobs and activity.
Take the banking sector, for instance, say to a banker,
we want you to file reports with the,
the regulatory commission on
how climate change is gonna affect your bank.
Well, a banker doesn't know anything about this subject.
So then they have to commission studies from academics.
And of course, the academics are happy to come
and tell them, well, it's gonna be terrible for your bank.
It's gonna cause all kinds of problems,
and you get, you need to give us money to research this.
Green subsidies and regulation meant there was now money
to be made in climate.
Renewables. Firms sprouted consultancy firms offered advice
on what they called sustainability and climate compliance.
It's a wonderful business opportunity. Okay?
You want climate, we'll give you climate.
The renewables industry alone now turns over a trillion
dollars a year, and that's expected
to double in the next few years.
What used to be a cottage industry has, is now blossomed
to become a major part of the world economy.
The growth of this climate industry has seen an explosion
of highly paid green jobs.
Chief sustainability officers, carbon offset advisors,
ESG consultants,
climate compliance lawyers, and countless others.
Students started to come into our departments
as earth science departments with a focus on climate
that never happened before,
but they started to look at their career prospects
and they were smart, and they were looking at who's hiring.
And the fact of the matter was, is
that everything in the hiring pool had climate
somewhere attached to the name.
I started a few years ago seeing programs like, uh,
a master's degree in Climate Finance.
And I just went, what on earth is, is climate?
I understand what a master's degree in finance is.
Well, now you need a university
that's gonna teach this program.
You need professors of climate finance.
Every single school or university
or business will have a climate officer or climate officers
and a climate program.
And you look at any of these institutions
or businesses you will find they all are signed up to it.
And anyone who hasn't signed up will come under pressure.
At the last gathering of the publicly funded UN's,
IPCC 70,000 delegates flew in from around the world.
Government bureaucrats, green NGOs,
carbon sequestration consultants, environmental journalists,
heads of renewables companies.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Many hundreds of thousands
of jobs worldwide now depend on the climate crisis.
And you start building this enormous
population whose job is to manage the crisis.
And, um, and also, uh, explicitly
to make sure that people are alarmed about the crisis,
because this whole industry depends on
the existence of the crisis.
But therein lies the one great threat
to this multi-trillion dollar industry.
All the jobs, all
of the funding are totally dependent on there
being a climate crisis.
If CO2 isn't having the huge negative impacts
that we claimed it was having originally, how are we going
to stay in business?
How do we justify our existence if climate change isn't this
existential threat that we claimed it was over the last four
decades or so, people like me, our careers depend on funding
of climate research.
This is what I've been doing just about my whole career.
This is what the other climate researchers
are doing with their whole career.
They don't want this to end.
If NASA said, global warming's not a problem,
where does their funding disappears?
Right? Um, so they can't say that.
I mean, you've got the United Nations intergovernmental
Panel for climate change.
If they said the climate isn't changing,
they'd have no reason to exist. The
IPCC has a self-preservation instinct to show
that climate change is an existential threat,
otherwise there's no reason for them
to be collecting the money
and doing the work in the first place.
There are not just now billions,
but there are trillions of dollars at stake. There's
A huge amount of money involved.
This is a huge, big money scam.
A lot of people's livelihoods depend on it.
They're not gonna give that up.
If suddenly the notion becomes apparent
that this is not such a problem, um, you're gonna see that
as an existential threat.
Scientists who studied the natural causes
of climate change began to be viewed with suspicion
as two Harvard astrophysicists discovered.
How much does the sun change and how does it change
and why does it change?
And then we didn't even wanna get into the temperature
record the climate thing immediately.
They will come after. Because when we started to estimate
that the sun changed by quite, you know,
significantly in terms of climatic sense,
immediately the attack is there
because it's not following the narrative.
Because they need the CO2 to be the only one,
the only dominant player.
When you tried to say, well, see, we're just looking
for the background of natural variability, we,
the response would be,
we can't have natural changes as an effect.
It has to be human caused.
And some of that was directly stated,
but most of it was indirect.
Your funding for this kind of project will be dropped.
This kind of project doesn't go anywhere
By that time, anything that contradicted the narrative
of global warming as a serious problem,
it was not going to get funded.
Editors of academic journals came under pressure not
to accept papers, which were deemed to be skeptical
of the climate crisis.
We will not publish anything that questions this.
I mean, it's not something surreptitious
Scientists who dared to point out in public
that there was no climate.
Chaos began to be sidelined and shunned.
If a scientifically qualified person stands up
and says, uh,
we don't see an upward trend in the data on Pacific
typhoons, um, well, suddenly they lose standing
to address the topic of Pacific typhoons.
Not 'cause what they said is wrong, but
because it's off message.
They can marginalize any kind of criticism
of the narrative by saying, you are not qualified
to talk about this because you don't support the narrative.
And that is then. And then having marginalized everyone
who doesn't support the narrative, they can turn around
and say, well, everybody who counts supports the narrative.
So we must be right.
Environmental journalists ignored skeptics
and instead offered headlines to anyone prepared
to make the most outrageous claims
and predictions about a climate apocalypse.
It's gotten to where it's has nothing
to do with the science anymore.
It doesn't matter if your alarmist prediction doesn't come
true, you're still gonna retain your status as an expert,
and the media's still gonna come
and ask you for your opinion, even though you were
crazy wrong about your predictions.
But the consensus on climate is not only enforced
by those in the climate industry.
To explain the broader appeal of the climate alarm,
we must look at the politics behind climate
from the start.
The climate scare was political.
It came from the environmental movement, the sworn enemy
of free market, industrial capitalism.
Finally, we've got them.
We can claim that it is the free markets
who are destroying the planet,
and we need big government to save us
The climate problem. It
has said stems from the irresponsible actions
of greedy feckless individuals who have too many babies
and drive too much and consume too many products,
and of the capitalist corporations
who pander to their whims.
The solution is for government to have greater power
to regulate private companies, but also to guide
and reshape the lives and habits of individuals.
Policy agenda has sprawled into
micromanaging everybody's lives on the most minute detail,
what kind of stove you can use, what kind
of heater you can have, how much you can set the thermostat
out, where you can drive, what kind of car you can't.
According to the, the planners,
we're not gonna have internal combustion engines,
uh, an hour from now.
All of these things require the
government to get involved, right?
Because the government has to sort
of force changes upon the public.
If it was up to the public,
we wouldn't be buying electric vehicles
because, you know, they're impractical.
Support for the climate alarm is now virtually synonymous
with disdain for free market capitalism
and a yearning for bigger government.
It's liberals versus conservatives in the United States.
And generally speaking, liberals are worried
that we're destroying the planet.
And they're also, of course, for big government.
And then conservatives are, are at the other end
of the spectrum where they, a lot of 'em don't believe
that we're destroying the planet
and they don't want
government involved in their personal lives.
Paying lip service to the climate alarm has become almost
universal among those
who depend on government for their livelihoods.
This includes those in the publicly funded education, arts
and science establishments.
Tony Heller recalls his time at Los Alamos Labs.
The entire county of Los Alamos was kept going by buy
government money that we,
we had the highest incomes in the state.
So naturally, people
who lived in Los Alamos supported big government
because that was where their livelihood came from.
That was where their good schools came from.
You know, everything good in Los
Almos came from the government.
So of course, they were all believers in big governments
Among the largely publicly funded Western intelligentsia
support for more government spending.
And regulation is almost a defining moral
badge in these circles.
To question the climate alarm is socially unacceptable.
To be a climate skeptic is taboo.
Somebody that goes against it really does get met
with a lot of anger and vitriol
and, you know, you're called a denier.
Science denni and a heretic. Your
Colleagues won't engage with you anymore.
Uh, you don't get invited to conferences.
Your students, uh, may desert you, uh,
this is all really terrible.
Professors Hendricks Wesmark
and Nia Sha Viv describe
what happened when they published their results on the
climatic effects of solar activity.
It was like all hill had broken rules
because of this work.
I had no idea that the things would,
uh, escalate as they did.
And it completely changed my life once we said that, uh,
people didn't like hearing it.
And we became a persona. Non gata.
I mean, I have so many instances of people doing really,
uh, nasty things.
Uh, when I applied for, for a job, uh,
a group of scientists writes to the, uh, university,
say they shouldn't hire me.
And that's a typical story.
Uh, unfortunately,
if you don't agree with a standard, uh, polemic,
you become an outcast.
You are shunt as if you have leprosy.
For Professor Sally Balles,
the personal attacks became too much.
I retired early
and my family said I should have retired even
sooner, years sooner.
So they noticed the toll. I took a toll on them and me.
Dr. Matthew Wiki was an assistant professor
of geology at the University of Alabama when he decided
to speak out about the climate scare.
As a result of the backlash,
he has decided to leave teaching
To speak up about climate change in any sort
of skeptical way, was essentially career suicide.
Absolutely. There was no possible way that I would
publish in quite a few of the mainstream journals
that I was required to publish in.
I essentially isolated myself from many
of the funding institutions.
This is one of the reasons you can build a consensus
in a community, is
because anybody who is skeptical of
that consensus essentially gets kicked out of the community,
Speaking out, um, in
scientific ways that go contrary to the consensus,
I would say, as a career killer
for people at the early stage of their careers.
If I were 30 years old in a university trying
to make a career, I, I would certainly keep my mouth shut.
And in fact, I, I went to some effort
to keep my mouth shut when I was younger.
I, I knew climate was nonsense then,
but I was a little bit careful.
If a young person is questioning this, they can't put
that in a proposal.
The proposal will be denied,
and they can't effectively publish
'cause the gatekeeper will keep them out.
And so it, it would end their career.
You have to go along with, with the global warming story,
if you know, and you're gonna get cut off,
you're gonna lose funding, you're going
to get your career ruined.
You're gonna be trashed by the community.
You'll be despised by your coworkers.
The so-called Consensus on climate has itself become a
weapon, a form of bullying, intimidation,
and censorship used against those who refuse to conform.
It's a, it's a tool that people use
to bludge in their opponents and the skeptics,
and to attack their character
According to its critics.
Far from being scientific,
the militant intolerant climate consensus
represents a devastating assault on free scientific inquiry.
I see my job as a scientist, as just laying out the facts
and letting people decide what they want to do.
When you can't talk about the facts, uh,
things become corrupt.
If you shut the door on ideas,
if you say you're not allowed to test it,
you're not allowed to have that idea.
You've left the realm of science.
I don't think climate researchers will ever back down from
their claim that increasing CO2 is the control knob
on today's climate system.
I, I don't think they will ever back down from that.
No matter what the evidence is,
It's clear it's now a cult.
Uh, the completely divorced from science.
But the apparently unstoppable climate scare does not just
represent an attack on science.
It is starting to shape for us a new kind of society.
Environmentalists like to pose as anti-establishment,
but their demands are well received
and pious, echoed by King Charles
and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the BBC, the un, the eu,
by heads of government, the World Bank
and World Economic Forum, in fact,
by the entire state funded ruling establishment,
Global warming is like the perfect problem
that government can get involved in
to grow the influence of government.
It's a wonderful way to, uh, increase government power.
And, uh, if there's an existential threat out there
that's worldwide, well,
you need a powerful worldwide government,
you know, to cope with it.
If you are a climate activist,
you are actually facilitating a huge, uh, uh,
validation of the government running our lives.
Many environmentalists, most environmentalists,
all environmentalists who consider themselves to be radical,
progressive alternatives are in fact simply reinforcing the
mantras and the mainstream arguments
of the entire establishment. The
Demands on the government mean
that the government suddenly gains the authority
to interfere into every nook
and cranny of our lives and how we live.
Everything has a climate narrative attached to it.
How much you consume, where you spend your money,
how much you travel, who you interact with, what types
of food you eat, whether you eat meat,
everything has some sort of aspect that can be controlled
with a climate lens.
Suppose 20 years ago, somebody had hatched the idea
that I would really like to ban
cheap energy.
I'd really like to control everybody's appliance purchases.
I'd really like to tell everybody where they can go.
And basically, I'd like
to have dictatorial control over everything.
Well, it's not gonna fly. No.
Everybody would think you're a nut and would ignore you,
but fast forward 20 years, that's what's happening.
The publicly funded establishment in the West is so large
and powerful, it is able to impose
and enforce the official consensus on climate
through its control of schools, universities, government,
and much of the media state
broadcasters like the BBC, exclude climate skeptics,
broadcasting regulatory bodies,
forbid private stations from disseminating skeptical views,
threatening them with having their broadcasting
licenses revoked.
What normally happens in an emergency is
that all normal forms of openness
and democracy have to be suppressed
because how else to deal with an emergency?
So we are facing a situation not unlike lockdown,
where basically all normal forms of behavior, normal forms
of social communication.
And so normal forms of democracy are essentially ruled out.
Activists are even calling for any skepticism
to be criminalized
In certain jobs and professions.
It is now dangerous to express dissent on climate.
It's no surprise that people, uh, who are more skeptical
will think twice before, uh, voicing their concerns
because they might risk their careers, they might risk their
business, they might risk being sacked.
If you're a professional of any kind in science or law
or medicine, if you belong to a professional association
or you are in a university, uh, you can be fired
for saying what you believe.
The consequence is a censorious authoritarian
regime that has to control every move, every word,
everything you want to do,
because everything you do is a potential risk
to the survival of mankind.
Climate protestors condemn capitalism,
but at their anti-capitalist rallies, it's hard
to spot anyone who looks like a worker, like a docker
or crane driver or steel worker,
or a beautician, or a trucker.
The workers it appears,
are totally absent from these rallies
and for very good reason.
Today's climate, alarmists complain not
that capitalism isn't producing enough,
but that it's producing too much.
The modern capitalist system has led to prosperity.
More and more people have more and more things.
The modern anti-capitalism of the present time is a critique
of capitalism that it gives us too much.
They think that the problem with capitalism now,
it's actually that it's giving out too many reward on mass,
too ordinary workers and what they want instead,
and this is often very explicit,
actually is a much more austere, simple kind
of lifestyle in which the mass consumption,
the consumption choices of the great bulk of the population
are controlled or even prohibited. You
Have to consume less.
You have to, uh, holiday less, you have to drive less,
you have to eat less, and so on.
It seems that what upsets many environmentalists is not
the failure, but rather the success
of capitalism in producing an abundance
of affordable goods for the masses.
Ordinary working people for once
we've arrived at a point in history in the western world at
least, where mass manufacturers allowed them cheap clothes,
cheap food, cheap furniture.
Therefore, you get a clash When affluent environmentalists
express their disdain from mass consumption,
people going on those big huge cruise ships,
it's like thousands of them.
It's like, what are they doing?
Oh my God, there's all those cruise ships like ruining
Venice, you know, ruining all our beautiful,
we own them, don't we?
They're not. What, what are they going there for? What
Do you have? Here is
a classic example of class hypocrisy
and self-interest masquerading as public spirited concern.
You could take these kind
of green socialists much more seriously if
they lived off grid.
They cut their own consumption down
to the minimum they never flew.
Instead, you get constant talk about
how human consumption is destroying the planet.
But the people making all this talk show absolutely no signs
of reducing their own.
What environmentalists call degrowth is being achieved
by the trashing of our conventional energy
and transport systems and the forced introduction
of expensive and unreliable alternatives.
Already, this is having the desired effect on industrial
manufacturing, which is straining under the burden
of punitive green taxes and regulation
and higher energy prices.
The people behind the climate alarm couldn't give a
damn about manufacturing.
They have nothing to do with it. They don't know.
People who work in manufacturing whose jobs
and lives depend on it.
They're not excited by industry or industrial progress.
They explicitly wanna shut it down.
Kii, Kenya, east Africa.
According to many leading environmentalists,
the world's poorest people should not aspire
to the lifestyle of people in the first world.
The planet will not cope.
Grace Nando is one of the many Africans
who do not have electricity
or gas to cook with or heat their homes.
The resulting indoor smoke from burning wood
and dried dung is the deadliest form
of pollution in the world.
For millions, the cause of lung disease, blindness,
and early death,
it's not just cheap, reliable electricity that Africa needs.
Agricultural productivity here is incredibly low increasing.
It takes fossil fuels to make fertilizer and drive tractors
and other farm machinery.
Jasper Masho is a farmer.
Each And every African wants to develop
and increasing, improving agriculture is one
of the easiest ways to do that.
Agriculture is tightly tied to fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels that the Western nations are saying
we should not have access to.
Around a third of the food produced in Africa rots
before it ever reaches the mouths of consumers
to prevent this terrible waste.
Africa needs plastic packaging, refrigerated lorries
and good roads all are re opposed
by Western environmentalists.
All come with industrial development,
all rely on affordable fossil fuel.
Energy, diarrhea from drinking dirty water still
kills hundreds of thousands of African children.
But clean water requires large industrial water purification
plants and a modern water supply network.
And this will come only with cheap energy.
I think it's pretty obvious that the west has got
what it has because of fossil fuels.
When people say Africa doesn't need fossil fuels, I wonder,
I don't think they want what's best for us.
They don't want us to develop,
and that means we continue being starving.
We continue being, uh, poor.
Most people don't know what climate change is.
They don't care. They just, they want food on their table.
They want to beat poverty. They want to beat hunger.
They need money to better their lives.
They want to flourish. That's just it.
When they use the word sustainable development,
they're talking about no development.
Exactly. I mean, it, the point is, is that, you know,
to develop sustainably means not to use too much energy,
not to use too much carbon.
You know, net zero the idea
that you mustn't use too many resources.
The fact you mustn't produce enough consumer goods
because consumption is bad.
So ultimately, you know, the idea
of development is out the window.
The greens think the Africans should never
use their resources the way the Europeans are.
The Americans or the Canadians
or the Australians have used theirs.
They are also in favor of punitive Texas,
border Texas on any African country that wants
to export their goods
to Europe if they do use their resource.
So that sums up the ethical
ruthlessness and, and depravity of the green agenda.
But climate alarmists have a problem.
Many countries in Africa
and across Asia are simply ignoring the environmentalist
demands of western governments and international agencies.
Communist China is estimated to be building an average
of two new coal power plants a week.
China now uses more coal than the rest
of the world combined,
Which is one of the reasons why this whole climate agenda
is falling apart
because the rest of the world is not cutting emissions is
not moving to renewables
In the west too.
For many people, climate alarmism is wearing thin.
Ordinary people are not stupid.
They have seen one ridiculous claim
after another fail over and over.
What this does is leave people with a profound
and justified cynicism about
what the scientific establishment says
and about what the government says.
To fix the climate crisis,
we're told we must give up our cars.
We must pay more for fuel, heating, clothes, food,
fly less limit where we go this attack on mass travel,
mass tourism, mass consumption
holds little appeal to the masses.
People have started to realize it's going
to cost them a lot of money to simply live the lives
that they were leading, that they want to lead.
And as soon as that started to happen,
I could see people in the United Kingdom
who had previously been indifferent to environmentalism
suddenly think, how dare they do that?
Right? How dare they try
and take away what we consider
to be not luxuries, but necessities.
The whole policy of sustainability is about restraint.
It's about restrictions.
It's about doing less, um,
and that obviously for most people is anathema
to their everyday needs. The
Fact that there is actually an ideological movement
of people who think that sheep mass production
of whether it's houses or anything else, is a problem.
I mean, for god's sake, no wonder people become, uh,
disdainful of the kind
of middle class outlook of environmentalism.
But that is literally what people say.
How can we stop people buying cheap
things in shops?
When climate protestors climbed onto an underground train
in London's East end, they were not cheered on
by working commuters.
They were held abuse, pelted angrily dragged off the train
and received rough treatment on the platform.
If you were to go into a pub, uh, frequented mainly by
what the Americans called blue collar workers, you will find
that, uh, being skeptical about climate change policy is not
going to get you thrown out.
Quite the contrary, some
people will probably buy you a drink.
They can tell that behind all the talk about climate,
emergency climate crisis, what there actually is,
is an animus
and a hostility towards them, their lifestyle,
their beliefs, and a desire to change it by force.
If necessary,
Punitive and restrictive policies carried out both in the
name of climate change and covid
have sparked protests in Britain, Canada,
and other western countries.
Anti-establishment, politicians
and movements are gaining support.
What they, what they underestimated was the fury
that this would meet, uh,
with ordinary people who just say, you can't do this.
So you suddenly get this new movement.
Many working people are not really skeptical,
but positively angry about the climate alarm
and all that flows from it.
There is a suspicion
or perhaps realization that climate change isn't invented.
Scare driven by self-interest
and snobbery, cynically promoted by a parasitic,
publicly funded establishment, hungry forevermore, money
and power, an assault on the freedom
and prosperity of the rest of us.