Irish politicians tried to give themselves a pay rise while we were locked down during COVID! They'll be chomping on steak long after we've been forced on to insects
An neither will the greedy rich! The gap between rich and poor is already growing at an ever increasing, totally obscene rate, which will just increase further with these, unnecessary, 'climate change' costs. It's almost as if it's deliberate in some way!
Australians should have and could have 80% home ownership for anybody that works a part-time job, but the politicians fail to stop landlords outbidding potential owner-occupiers at home-opens which takes stock away from owners and increases the rental ratio:existing stock. Therefore, Austrailana can have an increase in living standards and have their climate change ideals provided home ownership is more important than landlording!
Never trust anyone who tells you to do something without voluntarily doing it first. If someone saves in their retirement account and tells you to do the same, that’s trustworthy. If a person buys an affordable, efficient car and tells you to do the same, that’s also trustworthy. If Bernie tells you to pay more in taxes but doesn’t write a check to the IRS, he’s exploiting you. If John Kerry flies in a private jet and tells you to reduce your emissions, he's also exploiting you.
Cults tell you the world will end on such and such date and get you to give them all your stuff. Al Gore bought ocean front property with money from suckers who thought the world was going to end in 2016. It didn't end so any good cult will just come up with a new date. The new top scientist AKA AOC, said the world will end in 2031 so give her money.
The carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are largely beneficial. Benefits include greening of the planet with increased agricultural yields (main effect), reduced winter heating costs, fewer deaths from hypothermia and postponement of the next glacial maximum. There are 2 mass psychoses in operation in association with a massive fraud. Dishonest duplicitous politicians are colluding with it in order to garner the votes of the ignorant and ill informed and unscrupulous business people are colluding with it to garner taxpayer funded subsidies.
Our Prime Minister in Canada is doing his BEST to reduce the living standard of Canadians. We are starting to understand here that we must thank the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM for this! This world has turned into a cesspool of deceit, greed, and complete LACK OF MORALITY!!!!!
Yes, I totally agree, that's the driving force of the WEF, to expect less in the future. This includes your food, clothing, housing and travel, but at the same time the high living standard and the riches of the rich will be maintained. Look at those attending the WEF meetings, These are the celebrities, movie stars, bankers and politicians applauding this lunatic and dystopian Klaus Schwab.
I agree that our fellow Canadians lack decent morals, along with our friends in other rich countries. Our unwillingness to lower our carbon footprint is shameful. I’m as bad as any other canadian. We will continue to burn fossil fuels until there is none left. At that point the world population will tumble by 90% to reach a sustainable level.
When politicians tell you in one breath that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and that new transmission lines for renewable energy will cost $AU100B in the next, you KNOW they are lying. The next logical conclusion is; if politicians are so determined to foist their ideology on us it will make energy unaffordable for households AND businesses, we need different politicians!
Those who tell us to install rooftop solar have figured out that the HVAC system of a well-built home should only operate a few minutes each hour, so that most of the solar power bleeds back into grid - that doesn't pay for it. Now, you need batteries to store that solar power, but few homeowners can afford that. So, now the state will subsidize billions for public battery utilities - which can catch fire, or freeze in the winter. What happened to riding the bus? Why do city people need EVs? After Covid fewer want to ride mass transit.
and the most diabolical stat is that Australia produces less than 1% of global emissions, the costs do not add up to this labour governments position !
Human induced Climate Change is a human induced political propaganda tool invented by the political class for purposes of power and control of the masses. It is a created speculative possibility of futuristic predictions whose premises are as solid as the holes in swiss cheese. And it is this swiss cheese alarmism that is now messaging and driving suicidal social governmental policy in its attempt to herd a large portion of its citizen lemmings over the cliff.
That's exactly what I thought when listening to them. I know the biggest give away to the whingers and whiners is when they point their fingers at "the woke". Sure fire sign they are on shaky ground.
Google automatically places a content warning into any discussion about climate change. It’s ridiculous because the only people who say we are about to burn are those with vested interests. The climate modellers cherry picking data and NGOs that only exist to fix a non-existent problem.
"Renewables are the cheapest source of electricity." They say. Yet the more we switch to renewables, the higher the prices go... I wonder why we don't believe them?
The renewables in their current form are uneconomical and unreliable. Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date. Wind farms only exist due to massive taxpayer funded subsidies. They make no economic sense. They are a colossal waste of taxpayers money and resources (including, coal and oil). Solar panels are only economical as a supplement in sunny areas between the 35th parallels. Even in favourable areas there is a major mismatch between peak supply and peak demand. The economically destructive delusional insanity of Net Zero needs to be abandoned.
I watch the school kids "quit school" for a day to protest climate change. They get driven to the meeting point, wave a few signs about for an hour, the signs then go in the nearest bin, they then go wait into an air-conditioned McDonalds, eyes glued to their phones awaiting pickup to go home, then they go on social media and post how they championed for climate change. Somebody want to explain it to them?
First, you explain what you've spent money on to mitigate your climate footprint. What have you done? You find it easy to point at the next guy, but you fail to show how you've tried to clean up what you do? Anything? Or just much easier to just point out the next guy and feel superior? I've got solar panels to provide energy for all my needs including my car, I quit eating meat and dairy (14% of global GHG emissions), I don't fly to go on holidays, and I've replaced old leaky windows and doubled my home insulation. I've done what I can so far. What have you done?
He's probably got a modern car (reduced emissions), has a modern efficient boiler, gets energy from a firm that invests in renewables, recycles and separates his rubbish.
CA oil production to zero by 2030. North Slope by 2040. North Sea is basically done. Venezuela is sour tar sands, like Alberta but light ends to dissolve it for shipment on the wrong side of Panama. North Slope excess goes to China. Alberta excess through Kitimat BC goes to ln'dia. Oil is now far too valuable to waste on useless eater Americans. Their Boomer inheritance will be stripped away by DEI/ESG Mil.Gov, then America will be left as grain, meat and fintech 'products' to the Eastern world. _Hey, learn to pick cotton. Old times there are not forgotten!_
For a looming crisis, the actual consequences are weirdly absent. How are we supposed to weigh the sacrifice we have to make now against an unknown, unquantified potential future sacrifice?
Yep, that ( unknown, unquantified potential future sacrifice) is the "Boogeyman" of whom we should all be trembling in fear and heaps praise and thanks upon of saviors from him. It is not a new narrative. Just a new variants of an old one.
I absolutely love your reasonable conversations , with equally thoughtful guests on topics everyone should be concerned with. Thank you for your voice of reason.
Tony Heller has made a tireless effort to present the actual climate data. The relatively few decades of imperical weather data do not show a heating trend. The huge mega cities are relatively warm compared to rural areas not far away. Who would have thought that concrete and asphalt is warmer than trees and grass?
Tony is a legend for what he has been doing. I hope he would get some visibility in some of the bigger podcasts maybe in the near future. He basically destroys the green ideology simply by looking at the history and science. Sometimes the points he makes are so obvious but so against the main stream narrative that it is almost painful to watch 😄
Tony Heller is a misinformer and deceiver about climate issues, and you appear to be one of his many victims. Claiming that there is not a recent heating trend is absurd denialism. That global heating trend is shown not only on land but also in sea surface temperatures (that Heller NEVER mentions). Heller only ever mentions data from the contiguous USA (or a few other cherry picked areas) where adjustments to raw temperature data does indeed increase the rate of warming - and then accuses scientists of "fraud" and "tampering" with the data. But Heller never mentions the much larger areas, (including all ocean data) where adjustments REDUCE the rate of warming. The OVERALL effect of adjustments is to reduce the rate of warming, but Heller never mentions that because that would cause his claims of fraud to fall flat on their face. Heller is a disgrace, followed only by gullible individuals who haven't looked at all the data.
@@darylfoster7944Perhaps you would care to outline one of those "arguments against the alleged climate catastrophe" and say who the "excellent scientist" is who proposes it.
Who would have thought? Anyone that understands that the color green reflects near infrared radiation instead of absorbing it leading to a patch of grass being cooler than say an asphalt parking lot.
The promoters of this blatant manipulation by fear must be held to account. Or are the traumatized children just collateral damage? Along with all the other numerous harms.
@@garysarela4431 They do not all the models are way off. When they are checked against historical proxy data all models show warming mid Holocene even though the planet was cooling.
@@garysarela4431 That's impressive. Did he forecast spending trillions to cut CO2 and it having negligible impact? On CO2 that is. We've increased the number of people in Africa below the poverty line from 100 million to 350 million.
@@garysarela4431 How are you going to stop India and China from increasing emissions and building more coal fired power plants? Without them coming on board what we are doing is worth squat.
This dude must have been a shrewd "negotiator" involved in politics. To those who need chaos to hide their intentions and crimes - solutions are deadly traps.
Human poverty and starvation vs. human flourishing……. I will take the 1 degree of warming. Lefties will take us back to donkeys carrying pots, then they will say we are abusing the donkeys….
Planet Earth is suspended in Space which has a temperature of minus 273 degrees Centigrade. The biosphere's biggest problem is to stay warm and not freeze .
@@bobdooly3706 I wasn’t rubbishing your statement, it is supposedly about 2.7oC above absolute zero, so about -270oC. Absolute zero of -273.15oC is a theoretical temp if all heat was extracted.
Well lucky we have CO2 which is the most important gas in terms of Earths Temperature. Without it the Earth would be -16 degrees and a snowball. Too much of it and we warm the Earth all of which science discovered over 100yrs ago.
Most politicians don't believe what they are saying, they are saying what they think will get them elected. The ones we should be most worried about are the ones who most want the government to have more power over your lives. Because the more power we give a politician, the more they can abuse it to enrich themselves, give themselves and their friends special treatment, and lengthen their tenure in those positions of power.
@@cbmech2563 Wrong. You get poorer by not slowing down climate change. The cost is in the trillions. And while all this economic and environmental damage is being done, oil companies get richer.
4:30 "No one wants to go into politics who is honest." Indeed. That's the problem with the modern world government. The only reason people go into politics is to amass their personal fortunes. Their objective is not to help people; it's to get rich.
The problem with renewables is that they cannot replace the current energy use. They do 2-8% of the use. Maybe we can push it to 25% … And the poor countries are doomed to abject poverty when we keep pushing this. And we havent seen real immigration yet.
Twenty-seven scientists outline roadmaps for 139 countries to use 100% wind-water-solar in all energy sectors and this includes storage. Source: M. Jacobson et al. (2017) "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World"
@@petardetar5191 I am also pretty positive that’s why the Obama’s bought a place on the ocean is because they are terrified of global warming…..er…climate change….
You can't tell them anything because they'll just say it's racism! Funny how the "Green" parties also seem to have taken on board CRT and Gender theory wholesale, in addition to climate panic fanaticism....
Agreed. But that is a very touchy and difficult subject because we ( I) see many dozens of "news" or scientific articles every day, that tell stories about the destruction of climate change. And the reason always being co2. To say anything else is very controversial and pretty much automatically earns you a science denier flat earther badge 😢
@@ulrichenevoldsen8371Yes, the people believing in the official narrative are in a rather pitiable state, i.e. 'eat whole grains and take your statins'.
@@brushstroke3733 do you know how many parts per million co2 is in our atmosphere? Have you ever looked at paleontological evidence of historical climate change while you are there look upward at earths relationship with our sun and its place in the spiral arm of our galaxy and how that affects climate. Your answers are there.
@@chrispekel5709 SO YOU BURN OIL AT THE ELECTRIC PLANT AND SEND THE ELECTRICITY DOWN THE LINES TO HEAT YOUR HOME HOW MUCH IS LOST???? THE FOREVER COST TO THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH INEFFICIENCY!!! SOLAR AND WIND HAVE FAILED EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE BEEN TRIED AND PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!!
The biggest problem with the 'atmospheric CO2 warming the planet to dangerous levels' is that it's just not true. Nothing unusual is happening to the planet. Rural thermometer readings show little warming. The 1930s were much, much warmer than every decade since.
Not only are the poor hit hard by high energy prices, it is also a very criminal idea to limit CO2, because all life depends on it. It is known that in the past the amount of CO2 was about 7000 ppm and there has been a lot of growth in nature, nothing has broken or died, otherwise we would not be here now. The current 420 ppm means nothing and does not cause an extreme greenhouse effect at all. The first 20 ppm provide 80% of the NECESSARY greenhouse effect, otherwise it would be below freezing everywhere. Above this, the effect decreases exponentially and at the current 420 ppm the effect is negligible. CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that has this property, but it may not be published. Climate change is caused by the sun and geothermal heat and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor. The world is controlled by very big criminals who rob the world's population and almost everyone participates, banks, pension funds, many companies and they can't go back because they have made themselves dependent by their own greed.
Any planetary warming that may or may not be happening is 100% due to our position in the galaxy and the sun’s effect on the earth’s magnetic field. These facts are too scary for the public, therefore, the governments make up a lie and mandate poverty and political interference on economic growth and development
@@heinpereboom5521 If our atmosphere was about 10% CO2 we would all die from CO2 poisoning, so as with everything, there is a delicate balance to have in the proportions there must have, saying CO2 is important for life is saying nothing useful to base any logic on. Also saying anything over 20 ppm has negligible greenhouse effect is just a lie, Venus in an example of what a really powerful greenhouse effect is at about 30.000 CO2 ppm the surface temperature is about 450°C. Saying water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas is again, saying nothing useful, water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is mostly determined by temperature, increasing other sources of greenhouse gases increases water vapor in the atmosphere . Also water vapor only stays for days or weeks, the CO2 we are releasing by burning fossil fuels stays for hundreds of years or even a small part for thousands of years, once it's released there is no way to remove it, that is one particular aspect of CO2 that makes it much more dangerous than other greenhouse gases because from the point of view of a human it is eternal, and any surplus we generate today, people will pay the price tomorrow. Also saying an atmosphere of 7000 ppm would be no problem for us, let me just remind you that nature changes the climate over incredibly long periods of time, counted in the 10.000 to 100.000 year cycles, allowing for adaptation of living beings on the surface of the planet, last warming took place about 20.000 years ago, there was no Norway, no Sweden and no Finland, all where just ice caps, water is lower by 120 meters, most of Europe that we now now as temperate forests, was cold step where nothing grows, human population was nomadic and much much much smaller, the difference is about 5°C of warming compared to today's ecosystems, good luck adapting 400 million sedentary humans to the same kind of massive changes in topology and keeping intact their hospitals, houses, living standards, etc, while surviving such massive changes, it is no coincidence that humanity became sedentary about 10.000 years ago, is it the moment the climate became incredibly stable and was ideal for farming and agriculture in certain latitudes and allowed for those kinds of sedentary activities to take place otherwise hardly possible, also, even if humanity can survive, does that mean all survive or just 5 million survive? So it's ok if most of the population dies? if just 5 million people survive does that mean its ok to do nothing about it? You must really believe you would be one of the lucky 5 million survivors. In any case, humanity has never lived anything like this, because we have never before faced a massive climate warming while being sedentary, in fact we depend on a certain climate stability for our lives to work, we cannot move our homes, hospitals, roads, industries, to some other place just like that as if we were nomadic, if there is a warming, we have to learn to suffer it wherever we may be on the planet and so adaptation and mitigation are both important and climate change is no joke contrary to what people in denial what you to believe. There is no peer reviewed research that downplays climate change, all are in agreement about the massive threat it could be.
FYI some are not lasting 20 years. Wind farms were given the same life span when i was installing them. There are some in the UK that have now spinning and not working but cost too much to pull down.
Except for one thing. The movie makes it seem like the only thing wrong with temperature data is the urban heat island effect when actually groups like NASA and NOAA are intentionally doctoring the data by lowering temperatures of the past and raising recent temperatures. Tony Heller has several videos on this.
Climate the movie: The cold truth. It's on Tony Heller's channel, and it features Tony. It should be shown to every school child in order to balance the relentless propaganda young kids are fed during their formative years.
To get hot water when the electricity is out, Hubby and I had a solar hot water tank installed on our roof. Here in the tropics electric outage can be a daily occurrence which results in an unreliable supply of hot water. We've had the solar tank about 20 years now, and the only time it does not provide sufficient hot water is when there is no sun for 5+ days, a rarity. 8 Years ago an overflow part failed which caused flooding. Companies will install the solar tanks, however NO ONE here repairs them or has access to original parts. It took Hubby over 3 months of buying parts locally, sawing and soldering trying to creat what was needed. Then he started ordering parts online, and sawed and soldered some more to create what was needed. Finally, he was able to create a part that functioned perfectly, better than the original part. During that time we used our electrical tankless water heater which is not a great hot water provider. ----- As a home owner I'm not convinced that solar electricity is any financial saving. I'm not convinced that, at this point in time, we have the necessary technology that would enable us to reach our energy goals.. Additionally, there's the consideration that people, communities, and land are destroyed during the mining for necessary materials. Solar/wind might be the latest in scams. Time will tell.
+1 on the scam angle. It has all the earmarks of a scam. The tally doesn't add up for cost, load needed, distribution or storage. Yet there are "some" people that are getting rich off of it and governments are pushing it based on lobbyist spending. By the time we all see the emperor has no clothes, we won't be able to afford any clothes ourselves.
in the tropics maybe. But you don't need much energy when it's warm and you can be outside all the time, you have everything growing and thriving naturally the whole year. Can't compare with colder climate where we actually need more energy and can't rely on sunny days.
@user-yn9qh1kz1q that does t fit in with there ridiculous pensions though, that's why they encourage immigration without education because they will still pop out kids like jelly tots
Angela Merkel gave Germany the final "shot in the neck" before she retired. Nuclear energy - after she shut down all coal mining in Germany - she declared it illegal as of 2022. The year Putin attacked Ukraine - Merkel paid for a pipeline from Russia to Germany directly - in case something should happen in Ukraine - the present pipeline from Russia - to Germany/
@@donaldserben1109How do you make that out? It seems to me that any substantial capital investment benefits someone who has capital to begin with. Nuclear is more capital intensive than most.
Can someone tell me how we will know when we have stopped climate change? What will it look like? I get the feeling it will always be at arms length, the closer you get the further it is. How do we work towards something no one can define end game.
No - no profits. It is high way robbery. Tax Payer's savings pulled out via $ billions to the UN for the climate. Say thank you to people like John Kerry and his boss Obama
Thank you for your honesty sir. Government in the US has grown to a huge crescendo of dishonesty it’s hard to believe anything other than power and self enrichment is their goal. Except for a very few.
You have to include backup power as part of the cost of renewables. Nuclear is the way but unbelievably in Australia they banned it despite having good uranium deposits.
Of course - turn on Nuclear and the politicians and other lunatics are short of $ billions they force everybody to contribute in one way or the other. Take climate out of the political arena and the politicians will have a "money" crisis.
So what we are talking about is controlling luxury items which are purchased by the 1% ? Aircraft use a lot of fuel - who uses airplanes un-necessarily ?
The climate industrial complex is no different than the military industrial complex. There are groups and researchers that have significant vested interest in maintaining or expanding their funding to push a narrative that is based on weak models.
@@TheQsam1That fossil fuel industry is no different than the climate or military industrial complex, except that fossil fuels are a cheao resource that makes life easier for the average person...
@@jr1648 yes because they are already built, but if we were to build the fossil fuels(ff) infrastructure today it would be a lot more expensive the the other ones. And since the ff are actively trying to make it harder for the others to come up... It makes it hard to compare.
@@TheQsam1 governmemt are forking out 100's of billions of dollars in grants and subsidies towards electrical infrastructure and its still not viable yet. not to mention, electricity is often produced by burning fossil fuels. theres nothing really green about alternative rescources. So all we're doing is making life harder and more expensive for everyone to try and push an ineffective source of energy, all on the faulty premise that CO2 is raising global temperatutes. Its insane.
So true a word spoken. I have colleagues in Africa and India. In India, their electricity use (per person) is the same as what your grandparents used in the 1950s.
I've just calculated this: If you spend 5 billion pounds on solar today and you'll have to replace it all in 20 years you'll have to cough up 7.5 billion ponds if you have an annual inflation of 2%. with an inflation of 3% it will be 9 billion
If we keep going down this track we will see a global depression that will make the 1930's look like a picnic. With no industry, very little primary production or mining just where do people think they will find the money for this renewables utopia?
@@sdrc92126That's why I support One Nation, they refuse to acknowledge the alarmist agenda while the DAP still believes in Anthropomorphic Climate Change.
The real killer to society is going to be food costs and shortages. All of the Western advances in farming are very dependent on energy. In the US, 30.2% of the population worked on farms directly; today, that number is 1.2%. That was almost exclusively due to improved farming tech that is energy driven: fuel, fertilizer and pesticides. That also means that only a small fraction of the population has any idea how to grow crops consistently.
Lets be clear: atmospheric CO2 is 0.041% of total atmosphere, or about 410ppm. The non-man made portion of that is 0.03968% or 396.8 ppm. The anthropogenic portion is 13.2 ppm or 0.00132%. The Australian contribution to anthropogenic CO2 is 1.3%, which means the total Australian contribution to global CO2 is 0.0000172% of earths atmosphere. Why should my children lose their standard of living over that minuscule amount? Not enough perspective? The atmosphere of Venus is about 96% CO2, but the total increase in temperature from this is only around 2 degrees C.
Your figures on CO2 are completely wrong. In 1750AD, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 stood at around 277ppmv (evidence from multiple ice cores), and had remained close to that level for over 10,000 years. CO2 is presently 421ppmv, an increase of 144ppmv. An increase of 1ppmv requires 7.83 billion tonnes of CO2, so that 144ppmv required an addition of 1,128 b. t. of CO2. Records of fossil fuel burning show that humans emitted 1,848 b.t. CO2 between 1750 and 2021 - more than enough to account for ALL of the increase, with the natural environment absorbing the remainder (ie being a net absorber of CO2) during that time. Thus, the proportion of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is currently 144/421x100 = 34%. In other words, human activity is entirely responsible for the increase of 144ppmv CO2 from around 277ppmv CO2 in 1750 to 421ppmv now, during which time the natural environment (the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere) have acted as net ABSORBERS of CO2. NASA estimates that the oceans are currently absorbing around 7 billion tonnes of human generated CO2 per year, and the terrestrial biosphere around 11 b.t. CO2 ie natural systems are now, and have been since 1750AD NET absorbers of CO2. Your figures of 0.03968% or 396.8 ppm being non-man-made with the anthropogenic portion being 13.2 ppm or 0.00132% have no validity whatsoever.
@@Tengooda Perhaps you should go to an academic library and read the science, instead of looking on the internet for the propaganda to support your ideological biases.
@@Tengoodayep and the little ice age killed 10% of the worlds population. It would have been much higher if not for coal. If co2 had fallen to 250ppm then we all would have died as that would have been the end of trees grass and algae’s. Do some research into tree stomas and co2 levels then you’ll understand why the earth is now getting greener.
@@daemon1143 All of the figures I quoted above are from reputable sources (Mauna Loa for recent atmospheric CO2, the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre for past emissions, Vostok and other ice cores for past CO2, NASA for the carbon cycle) and all are consistent with peer reviewed science published in scientific journals, which is where , along with an excellent science based education and career, my understanding and knowledge has been obtained. Unfortunately, TH-cam no longer allow links to such sources of information, so I am unable to show them. You, on the other hand produce a figure of 13.2ppmv for the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2, which has no basis in reality, and you will not be able to substantiate it: you are just a typical climate science denier posting nonsense.
@Tengooda So at what point regarding CO2 is acceptable. Does CO2 lag or lead temperature increase. Everything you climate evangelists spout completely ignores the effects of the sun.
The most efficient and pragmatic solution to any threat facing humanity is always economic growth. Wealth mitigates and neutralizes threats from every aspect of climate.
This is the biggest sting ever played on citizenry at large, and for the most part, it's working. Just wait until everyone wakes up to a massive depression that makes the 1930's look like prosperity.
follow the money. who is getting wealthy on climate change. The ultra rich people and ultra Rich companies are getting multi billion-dollar contracts from governments
Its almost like if I want to hear a thoughtful and intelligent conversation about anything political, there has to be accents in it that aren't American. I find that upsetting.
We are no longer well read and now lack critical thinking! Only 30% of adult American know our history, only 2% of high schoolers know American history and civics. We are in trouble with our own arrogance! Times are changing!
Leaders won't be dropping their living standards.
Irish politicians tried to give themselves a pay rise while we were locked down during COVID! They'll be chomping on steak long after we've been forced on to insects
Bingo. Funny that it's the rich that want to increase energy prices.
An neither will the greedy rich! The gap between rich and poor is already growing at an ever increasing, totally obscene rate, which will just increase further with these, unnecessary, 'climate change' costs. It's almost as if it's deliberate in some way!
That's been the case for 1,000's of years. But we were able to really see it during covid.
Australians should have and could have 80% home ownership for anybody that works a part-time job, but the politicians fail to stop landlords outbidding potential owner-occupiers at home-opens which takes stock away from owners and increases the rental ratio:existing stock. Therefore, Austrailana can have an increase in living standards and have their climate change ideals provided home ownership is more important than landlording!
Those who tell you to give up everything will give up nothing - never forget.
Leaders lead (by example).
What we have is a democratic dictatorship.
With com un ism, everyone is equal...
*AT THE BOTTOM.*
Who tells you this?
I've only heard the followers of JC spout this.
And their ilk.
@@bumble-g2j You need to get out a lot more then if that's your baseline.
Never trust anyone who tells you to do something without voluntarily doing it first.
If someone saves in their retirement account and tells you to do the same, that’s trustworthy.
If a person buys an affordable, efficient car and tells you to do the same, that’s also trustworthy.
If Bernie tells you to pay more in taxes but doesn’t write a check to the IRS, he’s exploiting you.
If John Kerry flies in a private jet and tells you to reduce your emissions, he's also exploiting you.
Most of the young don’t know they have been brainwashed
We must not be silent
Cults tell you the world will end on such and such date and get you to give them all your stuff. Al Gore bought ocean front property with money from suckers who thought the world was going to end in 2016. It didn't end so any good cult will just come up with a new date. The new top scientist AKA AOC, said the world will end in 2031 so give her money.
The carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are largely beneficial. Benefits include greening of the planet with increased agricultural yields (main effect), reduced winter heating costs, fewer deaths from hypothermia and postponement of the next glacial maximum.
There are 2 mass psychoses in operation in association with a massive fraud. Dishonest duplicitous politicians are colluding with it in order to garner the votes of the ignorant and ill informed and unscrupulous business people are colluding with it to garner taxpayer funded subsidies.
Most of the old, too
Did you listen to the first thirty seconds? Mislead not brainwashed
@@michaelthomas7898
Sorry yes I did miss the beginning the phone was connecting to the car
Our Prime Minister in Canada is doing his BEST to reduce the living standard of Canadians. We are starting to understand here that we must thank the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM for this! This world has turned into a cesspool of deceit, greed, and complete LACK OF MORALITY!!!!!
This is a similar scenario in Australia with woke Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albonese.
Yes, I totally agree, that's the driving force of the WEF, to expect less in the future. This includes your food, clothing, housing and travel, but at the same time the high living standard and the riches of the rich will be maintained. Look at those attending the WEF meetings, These are the celebrities, movie stars, bankers and politicians applauding this lunatic and dystopian Klaus Schwab.
I agree that our fellow Canadians lack decent morals, along with our friends in other rich countries. Our unwillingness to lower our carbon footprint is shameful. I’m as bad as any other canadian. We will continue to burn fossil fuels until there is none left. At that point the world population will tumble by 90% to reach a sustainable level.
Please keep talking the truth, well done, thank you.
When politicians tell you in one breath that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and that new transmission lines for renewable energy will cost $AU100B in the next, you KNOW they are lying.
The next logical conclusion is; if politicians are so determined to foist their ideology on us it will make energy unaffordable for households AND businesses, we need different politicians!
Those who tell us to install rooftop solar have figured out that the HVAC system of a well-built home should only operate a few minutes each hour, so that most of the solar power bleeds back into grid - that doesn't pay for it. Now, you need batteries to store that solar power, but few homeowners can afford that. So, now the state will subsidize billions for public battery utilities - which can catch fire, or freeze in the winter.
What happened to riding the bus? Why do city people need EVs? After Covid fewer want to ride mass transit.
And never mind the billions in subsidies to renewable!
and the most diabolical stat is that Australia produces less than 1% of global emissions, the costs do not add up to this labour governments position !
Human induced Climate Change is a human induced political propaganda tool invented by the political class for purposes of power and control of the masses. It is a created speculative possibility of futuristic predictions whose premises are as solid as the holes in swiss cheese. And it is this swiss cheese alarmism that is now messaging and driving suicidal social governmental policy in its attempt to herd a large portion of its citizen lemmings over the cliff.
They are deliberately destroying civilization, so they can go back to feudalism.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Mark Twain
END THE UN!
thats get a jab to a tee
FFS STOP SAYING THIS
@@warrenhall7060 you first FFS
This channel is very good at fooling the masses
So nice to listen to people talking common sense 😊
Very rare these days most times when i hear two men it sounds like crying, whining having tantrums and blaming everyone else.
That's exactly what I thought when listening to them.
I know the biggest give away to the whingers and whiners is when they point their fingers at "the woke".
Sure fire sign they are on shaky ground.
Common sense = "I agree with the speaker"
Except they still foolishly believe that climate change is caused by man made co2. If you "Trust the Science" you are a gullible fool.
The irony of Google inserting it's "Context" claiming "Human activities have been the main driver" to a video talking about how we're lied to...
I know, right? Lol
Did you watch the video?
Google automatically places a content warning into any discussion about climate change. It’s ridiculous because the only people who say we are about to burn are those with vested interests. The climate modellers cherry picking data and NGOs that only exist to fix a non-existent problem.
Because the Goog is in on the scam.
@@xabre9995 : Been watching the "videos" for fifty years. Man made global warming or man made climate change is an enormous scam.
"Renewables are the cheapest source of electricity." They say.
Yet the more we switch to renewables, the higher the prices go...
I wonder why we don't believe them?
If they were serious about lowering emissions they'd be pushing for nuclear.
Not a true statement but a fossil fuel promoted myth.
The renewables in their current form are uneconomical and unreliable.
Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date. Wind farms only exist due to massive taxpayer funded subsidies. They make no economic sense. They are a colossal waste of taxpayers money and resources (including, coal and oil).
Solar panels are only economical as a supplement in sunny areas between the 35th parallels. Even in favourable areas there is a major mismatch between peak supply and peak demand.
The economically destructive delusional insanity of Net Zero needs to be abandoned.
Point is the main motive is not economics 💀
Wind mills are going bankrupt
Wow, you just described what we are experiencing in the US!
Same in Europe
That's because it's happening across western civilization because of globalist elites.
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022. Source: IMF
@@garysarela4431 UK renewables receive over 40% of the subsidies even though they produce only around 7% of the UK power.
And in Ireland
Thank goodness for this man talking common sense. WAKE UP WORLD.
What for. They are conservatives.
Nothing will change.
An intelligent conversation. Sanity, common sense, and honesty are alive! Thank you.
I watch the school kids "quit school" for a day to protest climate change. They get driven to the meeting point, wave a few signs about for an hour, the signs then go in the nearest bin, they then go wait into an air-conditioned McDonalds, eyes glued to their phones awaiting pickup to go home, then they go on social media and post how they championed for climate change. Somebody want to explain it to them?
First, you explain what you've spent money on to mitigate your climate footprint. What have you done? You find it easy to point at the next guy, but you fail to show how you've tried to clean up what you do? Anything? Or just much easier to just point out the next guy and feel superior? I've got solar panels to provide energy for all my needs including my car, I quit eating meat and dairy (14% of global GHG emissions), I don't fly to go on holidays, and I've replaced old leaky windows and doubled my home insulation. I've done what I can so far. What have you done?
He's probably got a modern car (reduced emissions), has a modern efficient boiler, gets energy from a firm that invests in renewables, recycles and separates his rubbish.
CA oil production to zero by 2030. North Slope by 2040. North Sea is basically done. Venezuela is sour tar sands, like Alberta but light ends to dissolve it for shipment on the wrong side of Panama. North Slope excess goes to China. Alberta excess through Kitimat BC goes to ln'dia. Oil is now far too valuable to waste on useless eater Americans. Their Boomer inheritance will be stripped away by DEI/ESG Mil.Gov, then America will be left as grain, meat and fintech 'products' to the Eastern world. _Hey, learn to pick cotton. Old times there are not forgotten!_
@@ddhqj2023 climate footprint....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡
@@ddhqj2023so you bought into the hoax? You probably fell for the pl an de mi c and got your jibber j ab s and boosters too 😂😂😂
For a looming crisis, the actual consequences are weirdly absent. How are we supposed to weigh the sacrifice we have to make now against an unknown, unquantified potential future sacrifice?
Yep, that ( unknown, unquantified potential future sacrifice) is the "Boogeyman" of whom we should all be trembling in fear and heaps praise and thanks upon of saviors from him. It is not a new narrative. Just a new variants of an old one.
I absolutely love your reasonable conversations , with equally thoughtful guests on topics everyone should be concerned with. Thank you for your voice of reason.
Except for the fact that they aren't calling the bs what it is: A great hoax.
Tony Heller has made a tireless effort to present the actual climate data. The relatively few decades of imperical weather data do not show a heating trend.
The huge mega cities are relatively warm compared to rural areas not far away. Who would have thought that concrete and asphalt is warmer than trees and grass?
Tony is a legend for what he has been doing. I hope he would get some visibility in some of the bigger podcasts maybe in the near future.
He basically destroys the green ideology simply by looking at the history and science. Sometimes the points he makes are so obvious but so against the main stream narrative that it is almost painful to watch 😄
Tony Heller is a misinformer and deceiver about climate issues, and you appear to be one of his many victims.
Claiming that there is not a recent heating trend is absurd denialism. That global heating trend is shown not only on land but also in sea surface temperatures (that Heller NEVER mentions).
Heller only ever mentions data from the contiguous USA (or a few other cherry picked areas) where adjustments to raw temperature data does indeed increase the rate of warming - and then accuses scientists of "fraud" and "tampering" with the data. But Heller never mentions the much larger areas, (including all ocean data) where adjustments REDUCE the rate of warming. The OVERALL effect of adjustments is to reduce the rate of warming, but Heller never mentions that because that would cause his claims of fraud to fall flat on their face.
Heller is a disgrace, followed only by gullible individuals who haven't looked at all the data.
Tom Nelson has a good podcast. He invites some excellent scientists to present their arguments against the alleged climate catastrophe.
@@darylfoster7944Perhaps you would care to outline one of those "arguments against the alleged climate catastrophe" and say who the "excellent scientist" is who proposes it.
Who would have thought? Anyone that understands that the color green reflects near infrared radiation instead of absorbing it leading to a patch of grass being cooler than say an asphalt parking lot.
The promoters of this blatant manipulation by fear must be held to account. Or are the traumatized children just collateral damage? Along with all the other numerous harms.
ExxonMobil's own scientists predicted rising global temperature along with CO2 levels, back in 1982. Their forecasts remain essentially perfect.
@@garysarela4431 They do not all the models are way off. When they are checked against historical proxy data all models show warming mid Holocene even though the planet was cooling.
@@garysarela4431 That's impressive. Did he forecast spending trillions to cut CO2 and it having negligible impact? On CO2 that is. We've increased the number of people in Africa below the poverty line from 100 million to 350 million.
@@ricshumack9134 Expect 15%-25% reduction in global per capita output by 2100 with 2.5-3.0°C of global warming. Source: M.Burke et al. (2018)
@@garysarela4431
How are you going to stop India and China from increasing emissions and building more coal fired power plants? Without them coming on board what we are doing is worth squat.
Andrew Bridgen breaks the mould of politicians. A courageous man, look how badly he has been treated by the Conservative party.
I've listened to your speech again at the Oxford Union. It just says it all.
Great man. Wish he was still in Parliament 🥴
No problems, the poison is still being spread
What _ the Russian one?
Excellent two men.
Brilliant and true!
“At what cost?” - the question politicians will never ever answer
Lies, deceit and corruption...it pretty much sums up the public servants throughout the world.
The problem is the world economic forum that's influencing the politicians
* one of the problems
Comes down to money and control
@@mikes417 ...and power seeking.
and WHO Elected those ppl??
I think the word is "buying" not influencing
"There are no solutions, there are only tradeoffs." Thomas Sowell
This dude must have been a shrewd "negotiator" involved in politics.
To those who need chaos to hide their intentions and crimes - solutions are deadly traps.
Human poverty and starvation vs. human flourishing……. I will take the 1 degree of warming.
Lefties will take us back to donkeys carrying pots, then they will say we are abusing the donkeys….
two of my favorite people
Thank you for telling the truth!
Planet Earth is suspended in Space which has a temperature of minus 273 degrees Centigrade. The biosphere's biggest problem is to stay warm and not freeze .
Venus leads the way?
Space is not Absolute Zero Kelvin.
@@landcruiser11rum . Space is at zero kelvin. You are wrong.
@@bobdooly3706 I wasn’t rubbishing your statement, it is supposedly about 2.7oC above absolute zero, so about -270oC.
Absolute zero of -273.15oC is a theoretical temp if all heat was extracted.
Well lucky we have CO2 which is the most important gas in terms of Earths Temperature. Without it the Earth would be -16 degrees and a snowball. Too much of it and we warm the Earth all of which science discovered over 100yrs ago.
Most politicians don't believe what they are saying, they are saying what they think will get them elected. The ones we should be most worried about are the ones who most want the government to have more power over your lives. Because the more power we give a politician, the more they can abuse it to enrich themselves, give themselves and their friends special treatment, and lengthen their tenure in those positions of power.
Politicians say what donators want them to say.
Workers understand. Officials and academics do not.
Because officials and academics deal in intangibles - workers are the ones who pay them
Climate is the best cash cow ever.
Next to vaccines.
Nah. The cash cow is the fossil fuel industry.
That and the covid jabs
@@TheMassacreOfTheBanuQurayzahQuwith fossil fuels you get a commodity in return. With climate change bs all you get is poorer
@@cbmech2563 Wrong. You get poorer by not slowing down climate change. The cost is in the trillions.
And while all this economic and environmental damage is being done, oil companies get richer.
In the age of desinformation, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.🎉
Excellent interview 👏
KK hits the nail on the head regarding trust in politicians and other institutions which used to be more generally respected.
Exactly when were they more generally respected? Not in my 48 years.
When saying the obvious is fringe, expect people to rebel against the narrative.
Where is there any rebellion against the climate nonsense? … we ain’t seen it in Australia
That will also happen in the longer term; there is no other way.
Lies is all they got
Yup. Some smart alec came up with a scam to tax the whole world and we are not having any of it
John Anderson was a politician who went on to become chairman of Eastern Star Gas. What he has to say about climate change is not credible.
I will not live by them…lies
Lies is all you want.
Senator John Kennedy got $343,492 from the from Oil & Gas industry, 2021-2022. Source: Open Secrets
Thank you John Anderson for making an and very meaningful contribution and sharing this with us.
The real problem is that most people prefer to BELIEVE than to UNDERSTAND. THINKING is hard man!!!
4:30 "No one wants to go into politics who is honest." Indeed. That's the problem with the modern world government. The only reason people go into politics is to amass their personal fortunes. Their objective is not to help people; it's to get rich.
The problem with renewables is that they cannot replace the current energy use. They do 2-8% of the use. Maybe we can push it to 25% …
And the poor countries are doomed to abject poverty when we keep pushing this. And we havent seen real immigration yet.
2-8%, and they can only do that unreliably, so require fossil fuel backup.
Twenty-seven scientists outline roadmaps for 139 countries to use 100% wind-water-solar in all energy sectors and this includes storage. Source: M. Jacobson et al. (2017) "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World"
Fairy tales. @@garysarela4431
Unless the populations come together and rise up and so NO, the elites will push this on us!
@@garysarela4431
I have a roadmap for me to build a rocket and fly to the moon.
The elites won’t drop their living standards
😂look at John Kerry and his airplane
@@consco3667 He claim it is not his, it is from his wife. She owns it, he just use it :)
@@petardetar5191 yeah Peter you and I can use my wife’s plane whenever we want😂😂😂😂. They are so full of themselves it’s ridiculous
@@petardetar5191 I am also pretty positive that’s why the Obama’s bought a place on the ocean is because they are terrified of global warming…..er…climate change….
@@petardetar5191That's all good for us then as well, because we don't own the planes we fly on either
It would be better if this conversation was between people who understood Climate Change science.
Thanks for this, great informational video.
Tell this to the Greens.
ALp, Teals and Greens all bought up and paid for by the WEF.
The who?
Green freaks
@@simongross3122 The Green Party in the US. Most western country has some sort of like lunatics occasionally running for office.
You can't tell them anything because they'll just say it's racism! Funny how the "Green" parties also seem to have taken on board CRT and Gender theory wholesale, in addition to climate panic fanaticism....
Slightly wrong focus on the reduction of CO2 instead of the fact that there is not scientific evidence that it is somehow bad.
Agreed. But that is a very touchy and difficult subject because we ( I) see many dozens of "news" or scientific articles every day, that tell stories about the destruction of climate change. And the reason always being co2. To say anything else is very controversial and pretty much automatically earns you a science denier flat earther badge 😢
@@ulrichenevoldsen8371Yes, the people believing in the official narrative are in a rather pitiable state, i.e. 'eat whole grains and take your statins'.
@@ulrichenevoldsen8371 Yes, funding does wonders for getting the science results you pay for.
Was the greenhouse effect of CO2 completely made up? Are you saying it does nothing to trap heat in the atmosphere?
@@brushstroke3733 do you know how many parts per million co2 is in our atmosphere? Have you ever looked at paleontological evidence of historical climate change while you are there look upward at earths relationship with our sun and its place in the spiral arm of our galaxy and how that affects climate. Your answers are there.
Nobody speaks about the extreme costs for changing from fossil fuel to electricity.
Do you mean the cost of changing from burning oil in homes to grid connected power?
@@chrispekel5709 no I think he talks about, having gas lines into every home to cook food.
@@chrispekel5709 SO YOU BURN OIL AT THE ELECTRIC PLANT AND SEND THE ELECTRICITY DOWN THE LINES TO HEAT YOUR HOME HOW MUCH IS LOST???? THE FOREVER COST TO THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH INEFFICIENCY!!! SOLAR AND WIND HAVE FAILED EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE BEEN TRIED AND PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!!
I didn’t know about Australia’s farming research! That’s a wonderful contribution.
The problem with our so-called leaders is that they are not remotely prepared to even consider leading by example, forget about actually doing it.
The biggest problem with the 'atmospheric CO2 warming the planet to dangerous levels' is that it's just not true. Nothing unusual is happening to the planet. Rural thermometer readings show little warming. The 1930s were much, much warmer than every decade since.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. It is nothing but a mechanism for the vast exchange of wealth from the many to the few.
Not only are the poor hit hard by high energy prices, it is also a very criminal idea to limit CO2, because all life depends on it.
It is known that in the past the amount of CO2 was about 7000 ppm and there has been a lot of growth in nature, nothing has broken or died, otherwise we would not be here now.
The current 420 ppm means nothing and does not cause an extreme greenhouse effect at all.
The first 20 ppm provide 80% of the NECESSARY greenhouse effect, otherwise it would be below freezing everywhere.
Above this, the effect decreases exponentially and at the current 420 ppm the effect is negligible.
CO2 is the only greenhouse gas that has this property, but it may not be published.
Climate change is caused by the sun and geothermal heat and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor.
The world is controlled by very big criminals who rob the world's population
and almost everyone participates, banks, pension funds, many companies and they can't go back because they have made themselves dependent by their own greed.
Any planetary warming that may or may not be happening is 100% due to our position in the galaxy and the sun’s effect on the earth’s magnetic field. These facts are too scary for the public, therefore, the governments make up a lie and mandate poverty and political interference on economic growth and development
@@heinpereboom5521 If our atmosphere was about 10% CO2 we would all die from CO2 poisoning, so as with everything, there is a delicate balance to have in the proportions there must have, saying CO2 is important for life is saying nothing useful to base any logic on. Also saying anything over 20 ppm has negligible greenhouse effect is just a lie, Venus in an example of what a really powerful greenhouse effect is at about 30.000 CO2 ppm the surface temperature is about 450°C. Saying water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas is again, saying nothing useful, water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is mostly determined by temperature, increasing other sources of greenhouse gases increases water vapor in the atmosphere . Also water vapor only stays for days or weeks, the CO2 we are releasing by burning fossil fuels stays for hundreds of years or even a small part for thousands of years, once it's released there is no way to remove it, that is one particular aspect of CO2 that makes it much more dangerous than other greenhouse gases because from the point of view of a human it is eternal, and any surplus we generate today, people will pay the price tomorrow. Also saying an atmosphere of 7000 ppm would be no problem for us, let me just remind you that nature changes the climate over incredibly long periods of time, counted in the 10.000 to 100.000 year cycles, allowing for adaptation of living beings on the surface of the planet, last warming took place about 20.000 years ago, there was no Norway, no Sweden and no Finland, all where just ice caps, water is lower by 120 meters, most of Europe that we now now as temperate forests, was cold step where nothing grows, human population was nomadic and much much much smaller, the difference is about 5°C of warming compared to today's ecosystems, good luck adapting 400 million sedentary humans to the same kind of massive changes in topology and keeping intact their hospitals, houses, living standards, etc, while surviving such massive changes, it is no coincidence that humanity became sedentary about 10.000 years ago, is it the moment the climate became incredibly stable and was ideal for farming and agriculture in certain latitudes and allowed for those kinds of sedentary activities to take place otherwise hardly possible, also, even if humanity can survive, does that mean all survive or just 5 million survive? So it's ok if most of the population dies? if just 5 million people survive does that mean its ok to do nothing about it? You must really believe you would be one of the lucky 5 million survivors. In any case, humanity has never lived anything like this, because we have never before faced a massive climate warming while being sedentary, in fact we depend on a certain climate stability for our lives to work, we cannot move our homes, hospitals, roads, industries, to some other place just like that as if we were nomadic, if there is a warming, we have to learn to suffer it wherever we may be on the planet and so adaptation and mitigation are both important and climate change is no joke contrary to what people in denial what you to believe. There is no peer reviewed research that downplays climate change, all are in agreement about the massive threat it could be.
Those are the facts.CO2 up by a tiny fraction of a percent in the last hundred years. But, there is money in the climate scare so....
FYI some are not lasting 20 years. Wind farms were given the same life span when i was installing them. There are some in the UK that have now spinning and not working but cost too much to pull down.
Everyone must watch the documentary Climate the movie, it explains the climate con perfectly 👍
Except for one thing. The movie makes it seem like the only thing wrong with temperature data is the urban heat island effect when actually groups like NASA and NOAA are intentionally doctoring the data by lowering temperatures of the past and raising recent temperatures. Tony Heller has several videos on this.
Climate the movie: The cold truth. It's on Tony Heller's channel, and it features Tony. It should be shown to every school child in order to balance the relentless propaganda young kids are fed during their formative years.
Always liked John …
He’s not scared of the truth…
Not a question of lies, it’s because people need hope for the future otherwise there is a danger of passivity and helplessness taking hold.
To get hot water when the electricity is out, Hubby and I had a solar hot water tank installed on our roof. Here in the tropics electric outage can be a daily occurrence which results in an unreliable supply of hot water. We've had the solar tank about 20 years now, and the only time it does not provide sufficient hot water is when there is no sun for 5+ days, a rarity.
8 Years ago an overflow part failed which caused flooding. Companies will install the solar tanks, however NO ONE here repairs them or has access to original parts.
It took Hubby over 3 months of buying parts locally, sawing and soldering trying to creat what was needed. Then he started ordering parts online, and sawed and soldered some more to create what was needed. Finally, he was able to create a part that functioned perfectly, better than the original part.
During that time we used our electrical tankless water heater which is not a great hot water provider.
-----
As a home owner I'm not convinced that solar electricity is any financial saving.
I'm not convinced that, at this point in time, we have the necessary technology that would enable us to reach our energy goals..
Additionally, there's the consideration that people, communities, and land are destroyed during the mining for necessary materials.
Solar/wind might be the latest in scams.
Time will tell.
I believe it is a scam, too.
+1 on the scam angle. It has all the earmarks of a scam. The tally doesn't add up for cost, load needed, distribution or storage. Yet there are "some" people that are getting rich off of it and governments are pushing it based on lobbyist spending. By the time we all see the emperor has no clothes, we won't be able to afford any clothes ourselves.
Definitely a scam.
Maybe someday, but not today do we have the capability to power society with breezes and sunshine.
in the tropics maybe. But you don't need much energy when it's warm and you can be outside all the time, you have everything growing and thriving naturally the whole year. Can't compare with colder climate where we actually need more energy and can't rely on sunny days.
Climate change is to do with taxation
Communism
It's a guilt free way to tax more
100%
Manipulation.
@user-yn9qh1kz1q that does t fit in with there ridiculous pensions though, that's why they encourage immigration without education because they will still pop out kids like jelly tots
The answer is simple. Nuclear energy.
Angela Merkel gave Germany the final "shot in the neck" before she retired.
Nuclear energy - after she shut down all coal mining in Germany - she declared it illegal as of 2022. The year Putin attacked Ukraine - Merkel paid for a pipeline from Russia to Germany directly - in case something should happen in Ukraine - the present pipeline from Russia - to Germany/
But it doesn't benefit the elite 😕
But it doesn't benefit the elite
@@donaldserben1109How do you make that out? It seems to me that any substantial capital investment benefits someone who has capital to begin with. Nuclear is more capital intensive than most.
Can someone tell me how we will know when we have stopped climate change? What will it look like? I get the feeling it will always be at arms length, the closer you get the further it is. How do we work towards something no one can define end game.
Wood heating is the only renewable that I know of
Which is worse than coal.
@@plantfeeder6677 How is it worse than coal. I have used it for decades. I expect a lot of poor people will use wood or dung
@@plantfeeder6677 have you ever heated with coal?
@@plantfeeder6677 hello!
Australia..detach yourselves from Bill Gates
BILLY'S EVERYWHERE!!!
Bill Gates is based. I love the man. May he grace every country!
And World Economic Forum
Even Michael Moore figured out that "green" energy is a scam.
😅true
Profit over people.
No - no profits. It is high way robbery. Tax Payer's savings pulled out via $ billions to the UN for the climate.
Say thank you to people like John Kerry and his boss Obama
I live in NE Ohio. It is NOT warmer here....
Konstantin nails it as usual.
Talking about Australian leadership ( or lack there of), how do we get rid of the Teal “not so independent” independents funded by climate 200?
To a colour blind person, doesn't red and green appear the same? Same in politics! Teal is close enough to green.
This. A thousand times this. There is no way to get to net zero without large reductions in the standard of living in every industrialized country.
“This is nonsense! “ - KK
Thank you for your honesty sir. Government in the US has grown to a huge crescendo of dishonesty it’s hard to believe anything other than power and self enrichment is their goal. Except for a very few.
It's time Labor was upfront and honest with people about Climate change, net zero and their motives.
You have to include backup power as part of the cost of renewables. Nuclear is the way but unbelievably in Australia they banned it despite having good uranium deposits.
Of course - turn on Nuclear and the politicians and other lunatics are short of $ billions they force everybody to contribute in one way or the other.
Take climate out of the political arena and the politicians will have a "money" crisis.
I get my climate change updates from Climate Discussion Nexus, Tony Heller, Patrick Moore, Dr Willie Soon, John Christy, Lord Monckton, Freeman Dyson.
Good for them. The climate is their source of income.
So what we are talking about is controlling luxury items which are purchased by the 1% ? Aircraft use a lot of fuel - who uses airplanes un-necessarily ?
Marles just flew the British defence minister from Canberra to Adelaide in 2 RAAF fighter jets.
Where is truth to be found? Only in one place... "where the truth will set you free."
It isn’t about Climate Change, it’s about the money to be made by Climate Change mitigation.
We as humans vastly overrate our importance and significance of our impact on this planet.
I like this man. He makes total sense to me
He is guilty of "hate speech". Since the woke liberal wackos hate what he says.
The climate industrial complex is no different than the military industrial complex. There are groups and researchers that have significant vested interest in maintaining or expanding their funding to push a narrative that is based on weak models.
Absolutely correct!
They have money for war but cannot help poor people.
Or the fossil fuels complex
@@TheQsam1That fossil fuel industry is no different than the climate or military industrial complex, except that fossil fuels are a cheao resource that makes life easier for the average person...
@@jr1648 yes because they are already built, but if we were to build the fossil fuels(ff) infrastructure today it would be a lot more expensive the the other ones. And since the ff are actively trying to make it harder for the others to come up... It makes it hard to compare.
@@TheQsam1 governmemt are forking out 100's of billions of dollars in grants and subsidies towards electrical infrastructure and its still not viable yet.
not to mention, electricity is often produced by burning fossil fuels.
theres nothing really green about alternative rescources. So all we're doing is making life harder and more expensive for everyone to try and push an ineffective source of energy, all on the faulty premise that CO2 is raising global temperatutes. Its insane.
So true a word spoken. I have colleagues in Africa and India. In India, their electricity use (per person) is the same as what your grandparents used in the 1950s.
Informed and correct
It's not only Indonesia. It's becoming a 'first' world issue. Canadians are at the point of spending all of their income on food and rent/mortgage.
I am so tired of these discussion on 'climate change' BS. When will bureaucrats become truthful and get real about this crazy topic.
Never.
It takes hundreds of thousands of years for the climate to change just a little.
..yes and yes and yes…and that’s why we’re effed…#consumerism #overpopulation #emissions
I've just calculated this: If you spend 5 billion pounds on solar today and you'll have to replace it all in 20 years you'll have to cough up 7.5 billion ponds if you have an annual inflation of 2%. with an inflation of 3% it will be 9 billion
If we keep going down this track we will see a global depression that will make the 1930's look like a picnic. With no industry, very little primary production or mining just where do people think they will find the money for this renewables utopia?
Look at the green energy policies of the DAP.
@@sdrc92126That's why I support One Nation, they refuse to acknowledge the alarmist agenda while the DAP still believes in Anthropomorphic Climate Change.
@@JohnWilliams-iw6oq I mean as in the NS kind. That's where all of this green stuff comes from.
@@sdrc92126thanks for the clarification.
The real killer to society is going to be food costs and shortages. All of the Western advances in farming are very dependent on energy. In the US, 30.2% of the population worked on farms directly; today, that number is 1.2%. That was almost exclusively due to improved farming tech that is energy driven: fuel, fertilizer and pesticides. That also means that only a small fraction of the population has any idea how to grow crops consistently.
Carbon is not pollution.
THe irony still makes me laugh. It makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, great tax grab scheme though.
Lets be clear: atmospheric CO2 is 0.041% of total atmosphere, or about 410ppm. The non-man made portion of that is 0.03968% or 396.8 ppm. The anthropogenic portion is 13.2 ppm or 0.00132%. The Australian contribution to anthropogenic CO2 is 1.3%, which means the total Australian contribution to global CO2 is 0.0000172% of earths atmosphere. Why should my children lose their standard of living over that minuscule amount? Not enough perspective? The atmosphere of Venus is about 96% CO2, but the total increase in temperature from this is only around 2 degrees C.
Your figures on CO2 are completely wrong.
In 1750AD, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 stood at around 277ppmv (evidence from multiple ice cores), and had remained close to that level for over 10,000 years. CO2 is presently 421ppmv, an increase of 144ppmv. An increase of 1ppmv requires 7.83 billion tonnes of CO2, so that 144ppmv required an addition of 1,128 b. t. of CO2. Records of fossil fuel burning show that humans emitted 1,848 b.t. CO2 between 1750 and 2021 - more than enough to account for ALL of the increase, with the natural environment absorbing the remainder (ie being a net absorber of CO2) during that time. Thus, the proportion of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is currently 144/421x100 = 34%.
In other words, human activity is entirely responsible for the increase of 144ppmv CO2 from around 277ppmv CO2 in 1750 to 421ppmv now, during which time the natural environment (the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere) have acted as net ABSORBERS of CO2.
NASA estimates that the oceans are currently absorbing around 7 billion tonnes of human generated CO2 per year, and the terrestrial biosphere around 11 b.t. CO2 ie natural systems are now, and have been since 1750AD NET absorbers of CO2.
Your figures of 0.03968% or 396.8 ppm being non-man-made with the anthropogenic portion being 13.2 ppm or 0.00132% have no validity whatsoever.
@@Tengooda Perhaps you should go to an academic library and read the science, instead of looking on the internet for the propaganda to support your ideological biases.
@@Tengoodayep and the little ice age killed 10% of the worlds population. It would have been much higher if not for coal.
If co2 had fallen to 250ppm then we all would have died as that would have been the end of trees grass and algae’s. Do some research into tree stomas and co2 levels then you’ll understand why the earth is now getting greener.
@@daemon1143 All of the figures I quoted above are from reputable sources (Mauna Loa for recent atmospheric CO2, the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre for past emissions, Vostok and other ice cores for past CO2, NASA for the carbon cycle) and all are consistent with peer reviewed science published in scientific journals, which is where , along with an excellent science based education and career, my understanding and knowledge has been obtained. Unfortunately, TH-cam no longer allow links to such sources of information, so I am unable to show them.
You, on the other hand produce a figure of 13.2ppmv for the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2, which has no basis in reality, and you will not be able to substantiate it: you are just a typical climate science denier posting nonsense.
@Tengooda So at what point regarding CO2 is acceptable. Does CO2 lag or lead temperature increase. Everything you climate evangelists spout completely ignores the effects of the sun.
The most efficient and pragmatic solution to any threat facing humanity is always economic growth. Wealth mitigates and neutralizes threats from every aspect of climate.
Good point! That is the tradeoff. Unfortunately the path we are on is not sustainable regardless.
This is the biggest sting ever played on citizenry at large, and for the most part, it's working. Just wait until everyone wakes up to a massive depression that makes the 1930's look like prosperity.
follow the money. who is getting wealthy on climate change. The ultra rich people and ultra Rich companies are getting multi billion-dollar contracts from governments
Have any of the viewers on here watched the latest film -climate the movie?
Just jumps from lie to lie without batting an eye. What a talent
Realize that greed is what’s really fueling climate change.
Its almost like if I want to hear a thoughtful and intelligent conversation about anything political, there has to be accents in it that aren't American. I find that upsetting.
We are no longer well read and now lack critical thinking! Only 30% of adult American know our history, only 2% of high schoolers know American history and civics. We are in trouble with our own arrogance! Times are changing!
There is no climate crisis
The idea that human activity is changing the weather , when NO weather change is discernible , is gaslighting at it's finest .
Those who most want others to lower their standard of living are most ardently working to raise their own.
Not good when it sounds weird to hear people speaking sensibly.