Miscopy

Tag: Climate Change

  • Climate: The Movie – Documentary Proving the Climate Crisis Is a Hoax

    Climate: The Movie – Documentary Proving the Climate Crisis Is a Hoax

    This video challenges the climate change industry, accusing it of prioritizing money over the environment and dismissing the climate crisis as a hoax. The speakers argue that current temperatures are not unprecedented and that historical temperature trends have significantly impacted the evolution of mammals, including humans.

    The video also criticizes the notion that scientific truth is determined by consensus and introduces respected scientists who dismiss the climate alarm. They discuss the urban heat island effect and its impact on temperature records, questioning the accuracy of temperature data used to monitor global warming.

    The speakers also explore the historical relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures, arguing that temperature changes precede CO2 increases. They challenge the accuracy of climate modeling efforts and the role of solar activity in climate change, suggesting that the sun, not CO2, is the primary driver of climate change.

    The scientists also discuss the political origins of the climate alarm and the vast number of jobs and funding that depend on the continuation of the climate crisis narrative.

    The consequences of challenging the climate consensus in the scientific community is also discussed, including backlash from family, colleagues, and funding institutions. The scientists argue that the climate debate has become corrupt and authoritarian, with the imposition and enforcement of the official climate consensus through schools, universities, government, and media.

    The speakers also criticize the hypocrisy of Western environmentalists who call for degrowth and the reduction of industrial manufacturing while ignoring the negative consequences on developing countries, particularly in Africa. The climate agenda is losing support due to the rest of the world not following suit, and people are growing skeptical of climate alarmism and the scientific establishment.

    The ideology of sustainability is unappealing to most people, and there is a growing backlash against climate protesters. The speaker suggests that there is a suspicion that the climate change narrative is driven by self-interest and a desire for more money and power from the publicly funded establishment.

    Detailed Description

    The video begins with the speaker criticizing the climate change industry for prioritizing money over the environment and the potential negative impacts on ecosystems and human lives. He argues that the climate crisis is a hoax and a scam, with billions and even trillions of dollars at stake.

    The speaker, who has built their career on climate research, expresses concern about the end of their livelihood if the climate crisis is not as severe as initially claimed. They accuse climate researchers of corruption and bullying those who challenge the climate alarm.

    The video also touches on the potential for increased government power and authoritarian measures under the guise of saving the planet. The speaker quotes scientists like Professor Alan Sokal and Dick Lindzen, who dismiss the claims of climate alarmists, and accuses those who question the climate crisis of being anti-science and flat earthers.

    The speaker then challenges the notion that scientific truth is determined by consensus and introduces several respected scientists, including Dr. John Clauser, a Nobel laureate, who dismiss the climate alarm as nonsense. The speaker argues that current temperatures are not unprecedented and points to geological evidence, such as the Desert of Judea and its ancient lake bed, to demonstrate that temperatures have varied greatly throughout Earth’s history. The speaker asserts that the Earth is currently in a remarkably cool period compared to the last 550 million years.

    The historical temperature trends on Earth and how they have impacted the evolution of mammals, including humans, is then discussed. The speaker explains that the Earth has been in an Ice Age for the past 50 million years, with temperatures steadily declining. However, during certain periods, such as the Holocene Climate Optimum, temperatures were warmer than they are today, leading to the emergence of civilizations.

    The speaker also notes that temperature fluctuations have occurred throughout history, with periods of extreme cold and milder temperatures. Despite current concerns about global warming, the speaker points out that temperature fluctuations have always occurred and that the current warming trend is a recovery from the Little Ice Age. The speaker also puts the current temperature increase in perspective, noting that temperature variations from year to year can be much greater than the reported increase in temperature since 1880.

    Professor Ross McKitrick discusses the urban heat island effect and its impact on temperature records. He explains that thermometers located in urban areas give out different readings than those in rural areas due to urbanization and human activity. This phenomenon, known as the urban heat island effect, can result in urban temperatures being several degrees Celsius warmer than surrounding rural areas.

    The expansion of towns and suburbs over the 20th century has led to an increase in non-climate influences affecting temperature readings, raising questions about the quality of thermometer data for monitoring global warming. To correct for this, a team led by Dr. William Soon used only records from rural weather stations and showed that temperatures rose from the 1880s but peaked in the 1940s, then cooled until the 1970s, and have since barely surpassed the temperatures of the 1940s.

    The ocean temperature record from around 1900 also shows far less warming in the 20th century and more closely resembles the rural temperature record. Other temperature records, such as tree rings and mercury thermometers on ships, also show little warming. Satellite temperature records also tell a different story, with temperatures showing little warming since the 1970s.

    The discussion then revolves around the use of satellites to monitor global temperatures and the analysis of temperature records. Dr. Spencer and his colleague, Professor John Christie, are credited for their revolutionary development of weather satellites, providing complete global coverage since 1979. The critical question addressed is whether there has been a significant warming trend, and satellites are uniquely positioned to answer this question.

    Urbanization, specifically the urban heat island effect, has contributed to the warming trend, particularly in land records. However, multiple sources, including weather balloon records, satellite records, and ocean records, suggest that the official global temperature record may be showing excessive warming due to urbanization contamination. The findings challenge the notion that human emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of the warming trend over the last 120 years.

    The video also highlights the historical context of CO2 levels, revealing that they have been much higher in the Earth’s geological past, and current levels are relatively low by comparison. CO2 is essential for plant growth, and higher levels of atmospheric CO2 in the past led to a greener world and increased biodiversity.

    The speaker continues by discussing the historical relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and temperatures on Earth. Contrary to the popular belief that CO2 causes temperature increases, the speaker argues that temperature changes precede CO2 changes. The speaker cites evidence from ancient ice cores, which show that temperature rises before CO2 increases, and that CO2 levels are highest during ice ages and lowest during warmer periods. The speaker also points out that industrial CO2 output has not matched the temperature record, with most warming occurring before the significant increase in industrial production. The speaker concludes by stating that CO2 has never driven temperature changes in the past and that recent temperature increases are not caused by CO2.

    The accuracy of climate modeling efforts is then challenged, stating that virtually all models produce too much warming since 1979 and don’t agree with observed temperatures. The speaker asserts that CO2 does not drive climate change and that clouds are the most powerful force in controlling the Earth’s climate. According to the speaker, Professor Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Institute and astrophysicist Jasper Shiv have found a link between clouds and cosmic rays from exploding supernovas in the galaxy.

    The amount of cloud cover on Earth is related to our journey around the Milky Way, and using geology, one can reconstruct the climates on Earth over the past billion years, which tells the same story as our Galactic journey. The sun, as a source of heat and light, also plays a significant role in climate change through its magnetic storms and solar wind, which affect Earth directly and indirectly.

    The role of solar activity in climate change is then discussed, specifically the impact of solar wind and cosmic rays on cloud formation and Earth’s temperature. The speaker presents evidence from solar activity records and ocean temperature reconstructions, suggesting that solar activity is the primary driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2).

    The speaker criticizes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for ignoring the sun’s role in the climate system and for focusing solely on CO2. The speaker also challenges the notion that extreme weather events, such as heat waves, hurricanes, forest fires, and droughts, are increasing and attributes them to natural climate variability rather than human influence. The speaker encourages people to examine temperature records and historical data to gain a better understanding of climate trends.

    The speaker also challenges the notion of a climate emergency by presenting data on wildfires, hurricanes, melting ice caps, drought, and polar bears, all suggesting no significant long-term changes or increases. The speaker further criticizes the climate science community for its alleged consensus on man-made climate chaos, claiming it began as an eccentric scare story in the 1980s and grew into a multi-billion-dollar industry with researchers from various disciplines jumping on the bandwagon for funding opportunities. The speaker argues that few of these studies question the existence of climate change, leading to the declaration of a scientific consensus.

    Government funding of climate research, which has led to a financial incentive for scientists to exaggerate the evidence of global warming is then discussed. During the Cold War, many government research bodies were established, but with the end of the Cold War and pressure on government spending, these organizations have struggled to justify their continued funding.

    The speaker argues that climate research became a godsend for scientists as it brought significant funding from the government. If scientists did not find evidence of global warming or downplayed its significance, their funding would end. This financial incentive led to a huge exaggeration of the issue, with the publicly funded science establishment having a direct financial interest in playing up the alarm. The climate industry has since grown exponentially, with trillions of dollars being spent annually on renewable energy and related jobs. The growth of this industry has created a demand for highly paid green jobs, from sustainability officers to carbon offset advisers and ESG consultants.

    Universities and businesses have also hired climate officers and established climate programs, creating a pressure to sign up to the climate agenda. The UN’s publically funded PCC conference saw 70,000 delegates fly in from around the world, further highlighting the financial and political significance of the climate industry.

    And the debate moves on to the vast number of jobs and funding that depend on the continuation of the climate crisis narrative. The speaker explains that many individuals and organizations, including government bureaucrats, environmental journalists, heads of renewable companies, and climate researchers, have built their careers and industries around the existence of the climate crisis. However, if it is discovered that CO2 is not having the negative impacts originally claimed, the entire industry could be threatened, as their existence and funding depend on the crisis being an existential threat.

    The speaker also mentions the suppression of research that contradicts the narrative and the marginalization of scientists who question it. The media’s role in perpetuating the narrative, regardless of the accuracy of the predictions, is also addressed.

    The speaker then discusses the political origins of the climate alarm and how it has become synonymous with disdain for free market capitalism and a yearning for bigger government. The climate scare, according to the speaker, began as a political tool from the environmental movement to blame industrial capitalism for the destruction of the planet. The solution, as proposed by climate alarmists, is for the government to regulate private companies and even guide individuals’ lives through micromanaging policies.

    The speaker argues that support for the climate alarm is almost universal among those who depend on government for their livelihoods, including publicly funded education, art, and science establishments. Questioning the climate alarm is socially unacceptable, and climate skeptics face vitriolic attacks and even professional consequences. The speakers Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv share personal experiences of facing backlash for publishing results on the climatic effects of solar activity.

    Dr. Matthew Wicki discusses the consequences of speaking out against the climate consensus in the scientific community. Wicki, a former assistant professor of geology at the University of Alabama, shares how expressing skepticism about climate change led to backlash from his family, colleagues, and funding institutions. He explains that publishing research contrary to the consensus was nearly impossible, and young scientists were discouraged from questioning the climate narrative for fear of losing their careers.

    Wicki describes the climate consensus as a weapon used to bully and intimidate those who refuse to conform, and a tool for the ruling establishment to increase its power and control over people’s lives. He argues that the climate debate has become corrupt and divorced from science, and that the demands for government intervention in every aspect of life based on the climate narrative are a validation of the government’s authority.

    The speaker discusses the growing authoritarianism and censorship surrounding the climate debate. Twenty years ago, the idea of controlling energy use, appliance purchases, and even dictating where people could go would be met with skepticism and dismissal. However, the speaker argues that this is now a reality, with publicly funded establishments in the West imposing and enforcing the official climate consensus through schools, universities, government, and much of the media.

    Regulatory bodies prevent private stations from broadcasting skeptical views, and expressing dissent on climate can risk careers and businesses. Activists even call for skepticism to be criminalized in certain jobs and professions. The consequence is a censorious, authoritarian regime that seeks to control every move, word, and action because of the perceived risk to the survival of mankind.

    The speaker also notes the irony of climate protesters, who condemn capitalism but are often absent from their rallies are the working classes. Instead, they call for a simpler lifestyle in which the consumption choices of the masses are controlled or prohibited. This creates a clash between affluent environmentalists and the masses who have benefited from capitalism’s abundance of affordable goods. The speaker criticizes this as a form of class hypocrisy and self-interest masquerading as public-spirited concern.

    The speaker argues that environmentalists, particularly those in the West, are hypocritical in their calls for degrowth and the reduction of industrial manufacturing, while ignoring the negative consequences of these policies on developing countries. The speaker uses the example of Africa, where access to reliable energy and industrial development are essential for improving agricultural productivity, reducing food waste, and providing clean water.

    However, Western environmentalists oppose these developments, relying instead on expensive and unreliable alternatives. The speaker criticizes this agenda as ethically ruthless and depraved, as it prevents African countries from developing and improving their living standards. The speaker also mentions that many countries in Africa and Asia are ignoring these demands and continuing to use fossil fuels for their development.

    At the end of the video, the speaker discusses how the climate agenda is losing support due to the rest of the world not following suit in reducing emissions and transitioning to renewable energy. The speaker also mentions that people are growing skeptical of climate alarmism and the scientific establishment, as they feel it will negatively impact their everyday lives and cost them a lot of money.

    The speaker notes that the ideology of sustainability, which promotes restriction and doing less, is unappealing to most people. The speaker also shares instances of backlash against climate protesters and mentions that working-class people are becoming increasingly angry about the climate agenda, viewing it as an attack on their lifestyle and freedoms. The speaker suggests that there is a suspicion or realization that the climate change narrative is driven by self-interest and a desire for more money and power from the publicly funded establishment.

    YouTube Video

  • Michael Shellenberger Discusses the Dangers of Censorship and the Rewriting of History

    Michael Shellenberger Discusses the Dangers of Censorship and the Rewriting of History

    In this video, Michael Shellenberger discusses the dangers of censorship and the rewriting of history, highlighting his own experiences as a journalist and author. He addresses topics such as police killings, disinformation campaigns, and censorship during the pandemic. He also delves into the concept of the “woke matrix,” propaganda, and the rise of cancel culture.

    The speaker explores the implications of denying the existence of God and the moral hierarchy based on race. He raises questions about mask-wearing and the behavior of individuals in positions of power. The importance of free speech, equal justice, and meritocracy is emphasized, along with the need to address psychopathic and narcissistic tendencies in leaders.

    The speaker encourages critical analysis of information and the pursuit of truth, while advocating for access to clean energy and debunking misinformation on climate change. They stress the importance of patriotism, love for humanity, and positive change through journalism and new institutions. The talk concludes with a discussion on environmental stewardship and the role of climate change narratives in censorship and control.

    Escape the Woke Matrix

    In the beginning of the video Michael Shellenberger discusses the importance of understanding history and the dangers of censorship. He highlights how censorship rewrites history to benefit the powerful and harm the people. He also talks about his own work as a journalist and author, including uncovering the FBI and intelligence community’s efforts to discredit factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings. Shellenberger addresses the issue of domestic censorship and disinformation campaigns supported by the U.S. government. He then introduces his lecture titled “Escape the Woke Matrix” and questions the prevailing narratives surrounding climate change and social issues.

    Michael Shellenberger then discusses the decline in police killings of African-Americans over the years, citing data from Roland Friar at Harvard University. He explains that police killings of African-Americans decreased from 217 per year in the 1970s to 157 per year in the 2010s. Furthermore, he highlights that police killings of all races have dramatically declined, from 59 per year between 1970-1975 to 12 per year. Shellenberger also mentions that researchers do not have enough data to determine if trans people are being killed disproportionately or if trans homicides are rising. He criticizes news outlets for irresponsibly suggesting otherwise. Shellenberger then goes on to discuss various instances of disinformation campaigns, such as the FBI investigation based on a made-up memo about Trump and the lab leak theory of COVID-19. He emphasizes the need for accurate information and highlights the role of senior government officials in perpetuating disinformation campaigns.

    When discussing various examples of censorship and suppression of information related to the pandemic, v mentions how the Washington Post and Fauci were involved in spreading disinformation, and how a fake science article was published to support conspiracy theories. Shellenberger also talks about the Great Barrington declaration, which proposed a focused protection approach to the pandemic, and how it was met with criticism and attempts to discredit it. He criticizes individuals like Renee DiResta, who ran a censorship operation using taxpayer dollars, and mentions social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook censoring posts related to election questioning and vaccine side effects. Shellenberger highlights the government’s involvement in demanding censorship, and expresses concern over the violation of the First Amendment.

    The speaker also discusses how accurate information was being censored by platforms like Twitter and Facebook because they were concerned that people might make the wrong decisions based on that information. The FBI had reportedly approached these platforms, prompting them to be prepared to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story before it had even been published. The speaker argues that this censorship goes against the principles of journalism and the First Amendment, which protect the public interest and whistleblowers. The speaker also highlights the efforts by the Aspen Institute, funded by the US federal government, to discourage journalists from covering certain stories and focusing instead on the individuals who leaked the information. The speaker contends that these tactics are being used to suppress information and protect “fragile” individuals, under the guise of protecting them from harm.

    The speaker further discusses various aspects of the “woke matrix,” including attempts to read encrypted text messages, the creation of tip lines for reporting “wrong think,” and the involvement of figures like Jacinda Ardern in global censorship initiatives. They also explore the censorship industrial complex, which involves organized pressure campaigns and cancellation efforts in various domains. The speaker argues that propaganda plays a role in controlling the information environment and influencing public perception, citing the example of the Hunter Biden laptop story. They suggest that the rise of cancel culture and wokism as predicates for censorship, stems from a lack of traditional moral structures and the need for individuals to find meaning and significance in their lives.

    The speaker then discusses the dangers of denying the existence of God, arguing that when people stop believing in God, they end up believing in anything, including things like climate change as a new external authority. He describes how guilt has shifted from religious sins to guilt about using fossil fuels and modern technology. The speaker also addresses the rise of a new moral order based on race, where people are ranked on a moral hierarchy. He criticizes the idea that laws should be enforced differently based on victimhood and argues that it is leading to a new set of witches. The speaker further discusses the influence of social media and the rise of cluster B personality disorders, with individuals adopting victimhood as an identity. He warns about the dangers of entitlement, aggression, and impaired empathy that can arise from perpetuating victimhood as an identity. The speaker concludes by mentioning the infiltration of narcissists and psychopaths in victimhood movements.

    The speaker raises questions about the reasoning behind the demand for mask-wearing, particularly in schools, questioning why well-intentioned people would support this. They also touch on the idea that individuals in positions of political power who exhibit psychopathic behavior can create an epidemic of psychopathology, and that people who are not inherently psychopathic can, under certain circumstances, behave like psychopaths. The speaker warns against creating a culture of cluster B personality disorders and highlights the potential for aggression and violence within grievance-based movements. They emphasize the importance of free speech but also acknowledge the need for equal justice under the law, meritocracy, affordable energy, and freedom of speech as essential components of a liberal democracy. Lastly, they discuss the need to address and remove individuals with psychopathic and narcissistic tendencies from positions of power and authority.

    The speaker emphasizes the importance of not becoming like the monsters we confront and the challenge of loving our enemies. He also discusses the need to debunk false narratives and misinformation, particularly when it comes to the perception of increasing hatred. By examining the data, he suggests that there is actually less hatred among racial, religious, and sexual minorities today compared to any other time in recorded history. He encourages individuals to critically analyze information, debunk false claims, and seek truth in order to maintain a sense of bravery and overcome victimization. The speaker also criticizes the New York Times and Financial Times for their biased reporting and emphasizes the importance of seeking status and recognition for the right reasons, such as courage, acuity, and compassion.

    Michael Shellenberger then discusses the misrepresentation of data on hurricanes and the importance of providing access to clean energy for people in the third world. He points out that satellite technology has greatly improved hurricane detection and refutes the claim that there has been an increase in hurricanes over the last century. He argues that denying access to natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas for sub-Saharan Africans and South Asians is morally wrong, as it prevents them from escaping poverty and significantly impacts their quality of life. Shellenberger emphasizes that cheap energy is crucial for women’s liberation and highlights the potential for global poverty eradication and wildlife conservation. He concludes by urging everyone to fight for this future and expresses his gratitude to the audience.

    When discussing the importance of patriotism and love for humanity, Michael Shellenberger acknowledges that there are negative aspects of the country but emphasizes the uniqueness and tolerance of America. Shellenberger believes that building a positive future involves addressing issues such as climate change and solving environmental problems, advocating for the use of gas and nuclear energy to lift people out of poverty. He criticizes censorship, fake hate crises, and the need to be policed by authorities. When asked about the connection between the decline of Christianity and the rise of wokism, Shellenberger agrees that people may turn to new ideologies to find meaning in their lives. He highlights the need for consistent reinvention and the potential for journalism, public intellectual life, and new institutions like the University of Austin to bring about positive change. Shellenberger encourages people to confront darkness, let go of unhealthy relationships and toxic institutions, and find freedom in expressing their beliefs.

    Michael Shellenberger then highlights two important ways to be better environmental stewards. Firstly, he emphasizes the importance of not throwing plastic waste into the recycling bin, as plastic recycling is largely ineffective and often ends up polluting rivers and oceans. Secondly, he advocates for nuclear power as a solution to climate change, debunking common misconceptions and emphasizing the need for a change in attitudes towards nuclear energy. Shellenberger also discusses how certain personality types, such as narcissists and psychopaths, have taken over institutions and organizations, using their charisma and spellbinding tactics. He argues that the decline of patriotism has led to the rise of a new, base morality enforced through bullying. Lastly, he mentions that red flags arise when news promoting increasing hatred contradicts the overall trend of declining violence and societal hatred.

    Michael Shellenberger also discusses how the narrative of climate change is often used as a tool for censorship and control. He highlights the consequences of climate action, such as depriving developing regions like sub-Saharan Africa of the natural gas they produce, which is vital for fertilizer and food production. Shellenberger suggests that the motivations behind these actions may be driven by a desire for power and control rather than genuine concern for the environment. He also mentions the importance of debunking false narratives and engaging in discussions with woke individuals, emphasizing the need to understand various factors like psychopathy and narcissism on a spectrum rather than being dismissive. Additionally, he shares his satisfaction in debunking the notion of an increase in hate and racism through evidence-based arguments, stating that it has had a positive impact in challenging these claims. Finally, he briefly acknowledges the issue of corporate power and money but does not elaborate further on it in his talk.

    In the end, Michael Shellenberger discusses the connection between the news media, corporations, and financial institutions in the context of the attention economy. He explains that the news media’s main interest is to capture your attention so they can sell it to advertisers. While moving towards subscriber-based media may be a partial remedy, it is important to be aware that the business model may not change anytime soon. Shellenberger also points out that there is a demand for debunking, as people find it exciting to see conventional wisdom challenged. He believes that the attention economy doesn’t have to be a bad thing, just like capitalism doesn’t necessarily have negative implications. However, he does acknowledge the issue of pathogenicism and the takeover of institutions by individuals with extreme ideas. Overall, Shellenberger emphasizes the complexity of these interconnected systems and the need for a balanced approach that includes the positive role of government.

    Odysee Video

    YouTube Video

  • Australian Parliament Speech by the Honorable John Ruddick Which Got Deleted by YouTube

    Australian Parliament Speech by the Honorable John Ruddick Which Got Deleted by YouTube

    YouTube has made the decision to ban an Australian parliament speech, marking the first time in history that it has done so. The speech, given by the Honorable John Ruddick, criticizes the authoritarian measures taken by the state and federal liberal governments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Ruddick questions the need for lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations and highlights the delayed response from the Liberal Party in speaking out against the government’s actions. He also discusses various topics including the founding of the Red Cross, concerns about the arms buildup in the Asia-Pacific region, and the potential dangers of big government.

    Additionally, he questions the validity of the global warming narrative and proposes the idea of a government-free society. The speech concludes with Ruddick expressing his belief in maximizing human potential and inviting his parliamentary colleagues to join the libertarian movement.

    YouTube banned the video after it was published on the Australian government channel, citing “Content Violation“.

    In the beginning of his speech, the Honorable John Ruddick reflects on his relationship with the New South Wales Liberal Party and discusses his decision to join the Liberal Democrats. He criticizes the authoritarian measures taken by state and federal liberal governments during the COVID-19 pandemic, referring to them as an overreaction to a “bad flu.” He questions the need for lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations, citing Sweden’s approach of trust in its citizens. He also highlights the delayed response of the Liberal Party members in speaking out against the government’s actions. Additionally, he mentions an article from the New York Times that claims no one had caught COVID-19 in an outdoor environment.

    At 00:05:00, the speaker expresses their disappointment with several aspects of the Australian government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. They criticize the implementation of lockdowns and the push for multiple vaccine injections, noting that there has been an increase in excess deaths since the vaccine rollout. The speaker also highlights the banning of Ivermectin, a drug that has shown potential in treating COVID-19, and suggests a conflict of interest in the influence of pharmaceutical companies over the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Additionally, they criticize the liberal party for the increase in government debt and their surrender to pressure for a net-zero carbon economy. Despite these disappointments, the speaker expresses hope for budget repair under the new government.

    At 00:10:00 of the video, the speaker discusses the principles of libertarianism and highlights Switzerland as a successful example. They emphasize the belief in limited government, the inherent morality of capitalism, and the negative consequences of big government. They praise Switzerland for its low government intrusion, decentralized power, and high per capita income. The speaker also mentions Switzerland’s healthcare system, low crime rate with high firearm ownership, and its tradition of staying out of wars. The video excerpt showcases the speaker’s admiration for the Swiss model and its alignment with libertarian ideals.

    At 00:15:00 John Ruddick discusses various topics including the founding of the Red Cross by a Christian businessman, concerns about the arms buildup in the Asia-Pacific region, the potential for a catastrophic war, the importance of free speech, the dangers of big government, and the impact of mass delusions. He also shares the story of William Buckley, an escaped convict who was adopted by an Aboriginal tribe and witnessed a mass delusion among the tribes. The member emphasizes the need for de-escalation and the separation of church and state to prevent the magnification of delusions by state power.

    At 00:20:00 the politician questions the validity of the global warming narrative and the motives behind it. He suggests that the predictions of rising temperatures and shrinking ice caps have not materialized, and natural disasters are just part of natural cycles. He also criticizes the shift from global warming to climate change and the hostility towards nuclear energy. The politician questions the qualifications of prominent figures like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg in the field and raises concerns about the commercial and political interests at play. He argues that the environmental movement has been hijacked by a money-making scheme and highlights the need to focus on animal welfare and the protection of endangered species and native forests.

    At 00:25:00 the parliament member discusses the idea of a government-free society and the potential benefits it could bring. He argues that a society based on voluntary interaction could be more humane, safe, vibrant, diverse, and successful. He suggests gradually phasing out government over decades with democratic consent and highlights the issues of legalized coercion and the excessive size of government today. He proposes several initial steps towards a zero percent government, including abolishing middle-class welfare, adopting a Swiss-style healthcare system, and replacing the Department of Education with a school voucher system. He also suggests privatizing the police and court system, while acknowledging the need for finding effective ways to care for the poor. The speech concludes by emphasizing the superiority of innovative and efficient solutions, such as Uber, over heavily regulated taxes, and highlights other government services that anarcho-capitalists believe can deliver an upgrade in quality service.

    At 00:30:00 the speaker expresses his belief in maximizing human potential and reaching for other worlds. They argue for a government-free, voluntary-based society as a means to tap into humanity’s highest potential. The speaker also highlights the historical impact of libertarianism, such as its articulation of the benefits of free enterprise and its opposition to socialism and Keynesianism. They mention the libertarian stance on gay marriage, opposition to Middle Eastern Wars, and support for minorities being bullied by the state and popular culture. The speaker concludes by inviting their parliamentary colleagues to join the libertarian movement and complete a membership form.

    Odysee Video

  • Nordgrip Project in Greenland Makes It Hard to Take Climate Alarmists Seriously

    Nordgrip Project in Greenland Makes It Hard to Take Climate Alarmists Seriously

    Jørgen Peder Steffensen is a renowned professor who specializes in ice core research at the prestigious Niels Bohr Institute located at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

    His expertise lies in utilizing ice core dating to retrieve significant information regarding climate history. His dedicated team has meticulously reconstructed the climate changes of the last 10,000 years and efficiently converted them into a graph for better understanding and analysis.

    The video below discusses the Nordgrip project in Greenland where scientists under the lead of professor Steffensen extracted ice cores to provide data on the climate history of the Earth, with the cores containing climate information over the past 120,000 years. A graph is shown indicating that temperatures were on average 2.5 degrees warmer between 4,000 years ago and the Roman age than today.

    Jørgen Peder Steffensen, who has behind him years of extensive research and hands-on experience and is an influential figure in the field of climate science, suggests that while data truly indicates an increase in global temperatures in the 20th century, it’s rationally impossible to prove that this increase was man-made and not a natural variation, simply because the meteorological data collection started at the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

    YouTube Video

  • Perseus Report Criticizing How MHRA Approved Covid Vaccines in the UK

    Perseus Report Criticizing How MHRA Approved Covid Vaccines in the UK

    In a video titled “Covid vaccine MHRA report: Yet again us conspiracy factualists are proved right“, Laurence Fox discusses a report published by Perseus, which was compiled by a multi-disciplinary team of experts and cites the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the UK).

    The report, titled “Safe and effective?“, concludes that the MHRA failed in its duty to protect the public from harm and did not require long-term safety demonstrations from the mRNA vaccine manufacturers nor did they act promptly on reports of adverse reactions. MHRA also failed to address manufacturing quality and control problems leading to batch quality issues.

    The report calls for an immediate cessation of the vaccines until a thorough, independent investigation takes place.

    Laurence Fox argues that the same rushed solutions and fear-mongering tactics used during COVID-19 are being used now to push the “climate emergency” and emphasizes the need to learn from the disastrous times and swear to never let them happen again.

    YouTube Video

  • The Great Global Warming Swindle – Full Documentary

    The Great Global Warming Swindle – Full Documentary

    “The Great Global Warming Swindle” challenges the widely accepted theory of man-made global warming and highlights the role of politics, fear-mongering for business, and biases in scientific research in perpetuating the idea.

    The documentary presents evidence from various experts and datasets that suggest factors such as solar activity and cosmic rays, rather than carbon dioxide emissions, drive climate change. The accuracy of climate models and the role of environmental journalists in sensationalizing the issue are also questioned. The film concludes that open discussion and debate are necessary to accurately understand the causes and potential consequences of climate change.

    The video argues that skeptics are not paid by big oil and gas companies and that there is almost no private sector investment in climatology. It also argues that the push for draconian measures to cut carbon emissions may harm the world’s poorest people who have no access to electricity and must use wood or dried animal dung to cook.

    Additionally, various climate skeptics criticize the belief that wind and solar power alone can replace traditional sources of energy such as coal, oil, and gas. The documentary highlights the need for reasoned debate about global warming and its impact on society.

    00:00:00

    In this section of the video, multiple scientists and experts speak out against the belief that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. They argue that the scientific evidence for this theory is weak and that the idea has been distorted by a politically-driven movement.

    People who question the theory are often criticized and silenced, leading to a lack of open discussion and debate. Additionally, it is suggested that the fear of global warming has become a business opportunity for many, and that many people have a financial interest in promoting the idea of a climate disaster.

    00:05:00

    In this section, the documentary challenges the widely accepted belief that human activity is causing global warming. It argues that the world’s climate has always been changing, and there have been periods when the Earth was much warmer and cooler than it is today, without any involvement from humans.

    The film also examines previous warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene maximum, and how they enabled different lifestyles, including vineyards flourishing in England. The filmmakers assert that current climate change, though real, may not necessarily cause catastrophic or apocalyptic outcomes, citing the surviving polar bears during much warmer periods in the past.

    00:10:00

    In this section, the video challenges the commonly accepted theory of man-made global warming by examining the correlation between industrial progress, CO2 production, and temperature. The documentary argues that the rise in temperature occurred before industrial production started to take off, and temperatures actually fell during the post-war economic boom when CO2 production soared.

    Furthermore, CO2 forms only a very small part of the Earth’s atmosphere, of which only a small percentage of gases are greenhouse gases, with water vapor as the most important one. The documentary concludes that looking at the troposphere is the only way to determine if recent warming is due to greenhouse gases.

    00:15:00

    In this section, the documentary explores the greenhouse effect and how the rising temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere challenges the theory of manmade global warming. The documentary presents evidence from two datasets that suggest that the temperature of the upper atmosphere does not increase as predicted by climate models, and rather surface temperatures are warming slightly more than upper air temperatures.

    This observation strongly suggests that the hypothesis of manmade global warming is falsified by the evidence. The documentary then questions the famous ice core data presented by Al Gore, pointing out that Gore failed to mention that the relationship between temperature and CO2 is far more complicated than he presents.

    00:20:00

    In this section, the video explains that the ice core record from Vostok shows that carbon dioxide lags behind temperature increase by 800 years, meaning that the warming produced the increase in carbon dioxide rather than the opposite. The ice core record disproves the assumption that carbon dioxide is causing global warming, and it is shown to be a natural gas produced by all living things.

    Humans are not the main source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and volcanoes, animals, bacteria, and the oceans produce much more than all human activity combined. The oceans have a memory of past events running out as far as ten thousand years, and their cooling or warming leads to a change in the amount of carbon dioxide going into or out of the sea with an 800-year lag time.

    00:25:00

    In this section of the video, the argument is made that the current global warming is not due to human activities, especially carbon dioxide emissions, but rather due to solar activity. The correlation between sunspot activity and changes in temperature on Earth has been observed for over 400 years, indicating that it is the sun, not carbon dioxide, that is driving changes in climate.

    It is argued that we can observe the direct and indirect effects of the sun on the Earth and that clouds, in particular, play a significant role in cooling the planet.

    00:30:00

    In this section of the video, it is explained that early 20th-century scientists discovered that cosmic rays, which originated from exploding supernova far beyond the solar system, bombarded the earth and formed clouds with water droplets. Fewer cosmic rays resulted in fewer clouds, and the earth’s climate was closely linked to this phenomenon.

    The temperature record created by geologist Professor Yan Vitek and astrophysicist Professor Nir Shaviv demonstrated that cosmic rays were controlled by the sun, and the sun was responsible for climate change. It was also explained that despite this fact, the media continues to bombard people with news about manmade global warming and why people regard it as an undisputed fact.

    00:35:00

    In this section of the transcript excerpts, it is discussed how the idea of man-made global warming began to gain acceptance in the 1970s and 1980s, largely due to the efforts of politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and scientists who were funded to research the topic. Thatcher was concerned about energy security and pushed for nuclear power, and later saw the potential of climate change as another reason to support nuclear.

    She directed the UK Met Office to set up a climate modeling unit and requested the establishment of the IPCC. The first IPCC report predicted catastrophic consequences from global warming due to man-made carbon dioxide, but some critics at the time pointed out that this report disregarded all climate science up to that point, including the role of the Sun. Environmentalists found the idea of man-made carbon dioxide as a problem to be favorable to their calls to return to medieval ways of living.

    00:40:00

    In this section of the transcript, it is discussed how the issue of carbon dioxide being tied in with economic growth and industry has become a point of contention for environmentalists. The founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, speaks about how the environmental movement shifted to focus heavily on climate change, partly due to a lack of need for confrontational stances on other environmental issues.

    Additionally, the failure of communism led to an anti-capitalist movement adopting green language to propagate their cause. The funding for climate science jumped from $170 million to $2 billion a year in the US as a result of the shift towards concern over global warming. This influx of money has led to scientists being incentivized to include the topic of global warming in their grant applications in order to secure funding.

    This has brought into question whether there has been a distortion of scientific effort due to the large amounts of funding being directed towards research in this particular field.

    00:45:00

    In this section, the accuracy of climate models is called into question. Dr. Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, explains that models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and they are not as reliable as people think. The numerous assumptions in the models are based only on the assumption that human-produced CO2 is the main cause of climate change rather than other factors such as the sun or clouds.

    All models regarding climate change are flawed as they only have assumptions and cannot be relied on as a forecast of the future climate. Adjusting assumptions in the models can lead to exciting results and even to more greenhouse warming radiation. Therefore, there is a bias in the scientific community and the media towards dramatic results rather than accurate predictions.

    00:50:00

    In this section, the video highlights the role of environmental journalists in perpetuating the global warming narrative to preserve their jobs, leading to increasingly shrill and hysterical reporting. However, the scientific basis for blaming every storm or hurricane on global warming is questioned, as every meteorology textbook points to temperature difference between the tropics and the pole as the main source of weather disturbances, and evidence of natural expansion and contraction of the polar ice caps exists.

    The slow and long process of thermal expansion, not melting ice, causes sea level changes over the world in general, which can take hundreds to thousands of years for the deep ocean to respond to changes at the surface.

    00:55:00

    In this section, the documentary challenges the idea that global warming will lead to the northward spread of deadly tropical diseases like malaria. Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria and other insect-borne diseases, points out that the mosquito, which is responsible for malaria, thrives in very cold temperatures, and the disease’s most devastating epidemic occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, reaching up to the Arctic Circle.

    The documentary also attributes the hysteria around climate change and malaria to the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which Professor Reiter criticizes for containing a lot of misinformation and censored comments of scientists. The documentary highlights the difficulty scientists face when speaking out against theories of manmade global warming, as it is harder to get research proposals funded when taking a public stand, and they are often accused of being paid by private industries, despite not receiving any such funding.

    01:00:00

    In this section, the documentary delves into the issue of funding in climate science, refuting the common notion that skeptics are paid by big oil and gas companies. Despite the large investment in climate science, there is almost no private sector investment in climatology. Any research project involving industry grants, even minuscule ones, can spell ruin to a scientist’s reputation.

    The documentary argues that the developing world is under intense pressure not to develop, as public policy bears down on industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, scientists who dare to challenge the theory of manmade global warming are vilified, publicly attacked and ostracized, while death threats have even been levied against them.

    The documentary argues that the environmental movement is a political activist movement that has become hugely influential, resulting in the need for international agreements to restrain industrial production, even if there is an unquantifiable cost to doing so.

    01:05:00

    In this section, the video argues that the push to prevent global warming through draconian measures that cut carbon emissions may harm the world’s poorest people. Two billion people, a third of the world’s population, have no access to electricity, and they must use wood or dried animal dung to cook, leading to indoor smoke, the deadliest form of pollution in the world, killing millions of women and children.

    Meanwhile, environmental groups campaign against cheap sources of energy, such as oil and coal, and campaign for costly and unreliable ones, such as wind and solar power, which are at least three times more expensive than conventional forms of electrical generation. This notion has been criticized by former environmentalist, Holdren, who finds it to be the most morally repugnant aspect of the global warming campaign.

    01:10:00

    In this section, various climate skeptics criticize the belief that wind and solar power alone can replace traditional sources of energy such as coal, oil and gas. They argue that if we only rely on wind and solar power, we won’t be able to power major industries such as steel or transportation networks.

    Additionally, they criticize the modern environmental movement’s romanticization of peasant life and their opposition to development in developing countries. They argue that policies against using coal, oil or gas are “anti-human” and prevent people from developing their countries. The documentary also highlights how the theory of man-made global warming is so entrenched that voices of opposition have been silenced, and that global warming alarmism is beyond reason.

    YouTube Video

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Called for Climate Skeptics and Politicians Who Do Not Believe in Global Warming to Be Jailed

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Called for Climate Skeptics and Politicians Who Do Not Believe in Global Warming to Be Jailed

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not who people think he is. The video below is from 9 years ago, and it shows Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressing beliefs that those who deny the existence of global warming should be punished with jail time, comparing them to war criminals and calling for their prosecution under the law. He specifically calls out the Koch brothers for their role in denying global warming science.

    In the video, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. specifically mention the Koch brothers and their denial of global warming, calling for their prosecution for reckless and dangerous behavior. He believes that people who look at facts and not propaganda should be punished and serve time for their actions.

    YouTube Video

  • Luisa-Marie Neubauer – Apparent Handler of Greta Thunberg

    Luisa-Marie Neubauer – Apparent Handler of Greta Thunberg

    Greta Thunberg, the Swedish environmental puppet, has become a prominent figure in the global propagation of climate change. She has been known to travel extensively around the world to participate in various events, rallies, and protests. However, one person who is often seen by her side is Luisa-Marie Neubauer.

    Luisa-Marie Neubauer has been a key figure in the climate movement in Germany and has been instrumental in organizing large-scale protests. She was one of the organizers of the Fridays for Future movement in Germany, which was inspired by Thunberg’s weekly school strikes.

    In conclusion, while Greta Thunberg may be the face of the climate movement, Luisa-Marie Neubauer seems to have the role of Greta’s handler.

  • French Protesters Storm and Take Over BlackRock’s Office in Paris

    French Protesters Storm and Take Over BlackRock’s Office in Paris

    In recent times, financial institutions have been at the center of a lot of controversies. The latest addition to this is the recent storming of the headquarters of BlackRock in Paris by French protesters. Reports indicate that the protesters were angry about the role of BlackRock in the financial world, and the damage they believe it causes to the environment.

    BlackRock is a multinational investment management corporation that has been accused of causing environmental harm through its investments in companies that engage in activities such as oil drilling, fracking, and deforestation. The protesters believe that BlackRock has not been held accountable for its role in this environmental destruction, and that it is high time that the company was made to take responsibility for its actions.

    The protest in Paris was led by climate activists and other environmental groups, who came together to demand action from BlackRock. They stormed the company’s headquarters and vandalized the premises, causing significant damage to the building. The police were eventually called in to restore order, but not before the protesters had made their point.

    The incident has once again brought to light the issue of corporate responsibility and the role of financial institutions in the environment. BlackRock, like many other investment firms, has a significant influence on the companies it invests in. As one of the largest asset managers in the world, BlackRock has a responsibility to ensure that the companies it invests in are not causing environmental harm.

    However, the protesters believe that BlackRock has not been doing enough in this regard. They accuse the company of being more interested in maximizing profits than in protecting the environment. The protesters have called on BlackRock to divest from companies engaged in environmentally harmful activities and to use its power and influence to promote sustainable investments.

    The incident in Paris has sparked a global conversation about the role of financial institutions in the environment. It has highlighted the need for more accountability and responsibility in the financial world. As the world faces the challenges of climate change, it is essential that companies like BlackRock take their role in protecting the environment seriously.

    In conclusion, the storming of the BlackRock headquarters in Paris by French protesters is a reminder of the critical role that financial institutions play in the environment. It is a call to action for companies like BlackRock to take responsibility for their actions and to use their power and influence to promote sustainable investments. It is also a reminder to governments and regulators that they have a responsibility to hold these companies accountable for their actions. The world is watching, and it is high time that action was taken to protect the environment for future generations.