All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2019 - David Icke
23:12
The Global Warming Hoax - Debunked - David Icke
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, let's get started.
Hi, I'm Matt. I'm a software engineer at Google. And I'm here to talk about the new Google Assistant.
You will have noticed, especially if you live in Britain, but in my experience, that the
Google Assistant is a great tool for that. You will have noticed, especially if you live in Britain, but in America
or elsewhere, too, that suddenly this climate change, this global hoax is on the front line again.
Because although it is a hoax and is supported by extraordinary levels of mendacity, It's vital to where they want to go.
Because as I said decades ago, this whole climate change caused by human activity hoax is designed to create the perception of a problem, not a real one, a perception of a problem, to which they can offer a solution that is the transformation of human society.
And so the The lack of support for the dire predictions of climate catastrophe, the lack of support for that by the weather itself really made it difficult, has made it difficult for quite a while now, to gain momentum for climate For the hoax, in terms of using it to transform society.
But now, out of nowhere, we've had streets of London blocked by protesters from an organisation called Extinction Rebellion.
And just doing a bit of research about the connections Between its leadership, particularly a lady called Bradbrook, her name is Gail Bradbrook, to the usual freaking suspects.
And we've had this major kind of climate change film produced by someone who we're supposed to look upon as a god of nature and nature.
The environment, a bloke called Attenborough, Sir David Attenborough, who is the guy that fronts up and voices over BBC nature programmes.
And because of that, we're supposed to take him seriously on climate change when he is talking absolute crap.
But it's BBC crap, so it must be true.
Anyway, here's a headline.
In the wake of this film.
BBC and Attenborough accused of fake news, misinformation on climate change, the facts.
See, that's a great Orwellian title, isn't it?
Climate change, the facts, which means the non-facts.
The facts we want you to believe, even though they're not facts.
So here's the story.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has made a formal complaint to the BBC about the series of gross inaccuracies in its recent documentary, Climate Change the Facts.
As WAGs have quit, the programme presented by Sir David Attenborough was so riddled with errors, it really should have been called Climate Change the Facts.
Nice one. Now this foundation has written to the BBC complaints department, listing just a few of them.
The letter can be read here in a link.
Anyway, according to this foundation, I'll give you a summary of that.
The programme went far beyond its remit to present the facts about climate change, instead broadcasting a highly politicised manifesto in favour of renewable energy and unjustified alarm.
The Foundation says the program highlighted suggestions that storms, floods, heat waves and sea level rises are all rapidly getting worse as a result of climate change.
And they're not. That's a lie, as the Foundation says.
However, the best available data published in the last few years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA Contradicts the BBC's alarming separation of empirical evidence.
In its fifth assessment report for 2013, the IPCC concluded current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.
No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes or major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past hundred years in the North Atlantic basin.
In its more recent special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees centigrade, published in 2018, these findings were reconfirmed.
It stated, numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend In the global number of tropical cyclones and or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy, there is consequently low confidence in the larger numbers of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones.
Regarding floods, the IPCC special report concluded there is low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that Human caused climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods.
There has also been no observational evidence that the rate of sea level rise is getting worse.
NASA satellite data shows that since 1993, there has been an annual mean sea level rise of 3.3 millimetres.
With no significant level acceleration in the last three decades.
Suggestions by David Attenborough, another bloke called Michael Mann, that climate change is causing increases in wildfires in the US and globally are also misleading and not supported by any empirical evidence.
According to a survey published by the Royal Society, the global area burned has actually declined over past decades.
And there is increasing evidence to suggest there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.
These are vitally important facts that should have been mentioned if an accurate description of the impact of climate change on wildfires was to be maintained.
But of course, that wasn't the idea of this BBC documentary and David Bloody Attenborough was to sell you a hoax.
And I'm sure that David Attenborough is so uninformed So programmed to believe what he believes that he actually does believe it, even though it's total crap.
But it's David Attenborough.
He's always right.
He did that great program about Wales.
I'm sure he was.
But it doesn't mean he knows anything about climate change because he doesn't come from a balanced view of looking at both sides of the evidence and then concluding that Where the evidence lies.
He doesn't look at the evidence that it's not happening, not being caused by humans.
He only looks at the so-called scientific evidence, much of which is anything but, that sings from the song sheet.
This article says this is the second at-fake-news scandal to embroil Sir David Attenborough in the space of a fortnight.
Earlier this month, another Attenborough documentary, Our Planet on Netflix, Was accused of misrepresenting footage of walruses tumbling to their deaths over a cliff.
Attenborough claimed on the voiceover that this had been caused by climate change and the melting of sea ice on which the walruses hunted for food.
But evidence has since emerged that it wasn't climate change that killed the walruses, but rather a combination of marauding polar bears.
And the Netflix film crew whose activities may have scared the tusk-bewistered creatures to their doom.
I'm talking of polar bears.
They're supposed to be disappearing.
They're not. More polar bears now than there was 25 years ago.
40 years ago.
And again... This Soros-funded progressive mentality is the driving force, the Twitter stormtroopers pushing this climate change insanity as they're pushing.
Political correctness, hate speech and all the other things that are destroying human freedom.
And by the time they realise where this has been leading, when their freedom gets taken away, it will be too late.
Now, also on climate change, Corbyn, this is the Labour Party, left of centre, it says here, Leader of the Labour Party, opposition party in Britain, Corbyn launches bid to declare a national climate emergency.
Whoa! Which just happens to be what this Extinction Rebellion organisation has demanded.
So Corbyn's brother, a guy called Piers Corbyn, is a weather expert.
He's a maverick weather expert with a very great record of being accurate, very often more accurate than the official weather organizations.
And of course, Piers Corbyn is a vehement opposer of the idea that the climate is changing due to human activity.
And His brother is saying the opposite and he's saying the opposite and he's come out now and he's pushed this we must declare a climate emergency idea because the natural supporters of the Labour Party are some of the people involved in this Extinction Rebellion.
So he's playing politics With tyranny.
He's pushing something that is designed to lead to the excuse for more tyranny and control and centralisation of power because he thinks it's good for his votes.
And he's been playing politics with Brexit.
Anyone who...
He's still in control of their own mind who supported Jeremy Corbyn to become leader of the Labour Party on the basis of this guy's different.
See brackets, Trump's different.
Yeah, sure he is. Must now be absolutely disillusioned with this man.
UK must fight climate change on war footing like defeat of the Nazis, Prime Minister Theresa May told.
Cross-party group of politicians demands end to appeasement ahead of new warnings from experts that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut further and faster so we can go into more and more centralisation of power and more and more austerity caused by Removing people's access to energy.
And I want to put this into some perspective here.
There's a very, very good article on davidike.com this week.
This is the headline.
If you want to go and look at it in full, you'll get it through the search engine.
All the biggest lies about climate change and global warming debunked in one astonishing article.
And it's an interview with a guy called Istvan Marko, an organic chemistry researcher and professor at the Catholic University of Leuven.
And he was recently interviewed by a science journalist, and the article publishes parts of the interview.
So let's just see what this guy says about this Oh, this dangerous poison called carbon dioxide, without which we'd all be dead.
This is the scale, you see, of insanity.
The demonization of something without which we'd be dead.
And as the levels of it diminish, so does the ability of Of the natural world to flourish.
And this man explains why.
I'll read you a bit of this because it's very, very relevant to current events in terms of pushing this climate agenda, which is about demonising the gas of life.
He says, again, CO2 is not and never has been a poison.
Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths emits an astronomical quantity of CO2 proportionate to that in the atmosphere.
And it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us.
What must be understood besides is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants.
Without CO2, there would be no plants.
And without plants, there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.
The equation is as simple as that.
So let's get rid of carbon dioxide then.
Yeah, okay. Plants need CO2, water and daylight.
These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks.
That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the natural world should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 levels.
But what he's also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet's vegetation has grown by 20%.
This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers, largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As this has been happening at the geological level for several million years, we realize that the present period is characterized by, wait for this one, an extraordinarily low CO2 level.
During the Jurassic and Triassic and so on, the CO2 level rose to value sometimes of the order Of 7,000, 8,000 and 9,000 parts per million, which considerably exceeds the poultry 400 parts per million that we have today.
Not only did life exist in those far off times when CO2 was so present in large concentrations in the atmosphere, but plants such as ferns commonly attained heights of 25 meters.
Reciprocally, far from benefiting the current vegetation, the reduction of the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere would likely compromise the health and even survival of numerous plants.
To fall below the threshold of 280 or 240 parts per million would plainly lead to the extinction of a large variety of vegetal species.
In addition, he says, our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 would be more harmful to nature as plants are not only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2. Cytoplankton species also feed on CO2 using carbon from CO2 as a building unit and releasing oxygen.
By the way, it is worth remembering that 70% of the oxygen present today in the atmosphere It comes from cytoplankton, not trees, contrary to common belief.
It is not the forests, but the oceans that constitute the lungs of the earth.
And if you reduce, this is me speaking now, not quoting, if you reduce CO2 levels as they want
to the levels that they want, you destroy that process in the oceans
that produce that oxygen that produce oxygen.
How many people on the streets of London blocking the movement of people and traffic
from extinction rebellion know that?
Thank you.
Zero. Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in the place that I'm speaking to you from, New York, she's a New York congresswoman, and her Green New Deal, does she know that?
Not a chance.
This article goes on about the supposed link between global warming and CO2 emissions.
It is simply not true that CO2 has a major greenhouse effect.
It is worth remembering here, too, that CO2 is a minor gas, something I've been pointing out in my books for decades.
Today, it represents only 0.04% of the composition of the air, and its greenhouse effect is attributed the value of 1%.
The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, which is 10 times more potent than CO2 in its greenhouse effect.
And by the way, the vast majority of CO2 is naturally occurring, and thank goodness it is, or we'd all be dead.
Only a tiny fraction of CO2 comes from human activity.
Water vapour is present in a proportion of 2% of the atmosphere.
Those facts are in principle taught at school and at university, but one still manages to incriminate CO2 alongside this learning in using a dirty trick that presents the global warming effect of CO2 as minor but exacerbated through feedback loops by other greenhouse effects.
In other words, we can't make the fats fit, so we'll...
We'll give them a load of waffle and get them to think that the facts fit, even though they don't.
And the article goes on.
It's worth reading in full because it's devastating to the official story.
It goes on to tell how the status quo of science brainwashes people, turns them into obedient robots that spout scientific nonsense, see Ocasio-Cortez and Extinction Rebellion, It goes on about rising ocean levels and melting ice caps and puts that into context, which again devastates the official story.
It talks about climate models, which are just computer models, which are based on the usual computer process of crap in equals crap out.
The economic failure of wind power.
The justification of world government in eco-tyranny, which is what this is all about, as I've been saying all along, talks about the global depopulation agenda and other things.
It's very well worth reading.
▲
Export Selection