Original subtitles

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.