Climate Hustle 2 (2020) - full transcript

Welcome. I’m Marc Morano, publisher
of CFACTs Climate Depot.

We hope you enjoy Climate Hustle 2
“Rise of the Climate Monarchy”

The film you’re about to see was
originally set to premiere at over

750 theaters nationwide and in Canada.
But due to the Corona virus and

the movie theater closures,
we’re releasing Climate Hustle 2

first online, and then on DVD.
The film’s message is even more urgent,

given the lockdowns in the United States and
in the world, in response to the coronavirus.

This movie will reveal how a future climate
lockdown could be implemented.

Prominent climate activists and U.N. officials
have noted approvingly how COVID-19

lockdowns could become a dress rehearsal
for dealing with their alleged climate emergency.

Take for example this comment from the U.N.



Or this one by a youth activist in Teen Vogue magazine.

And this one by the UK Guardian’s editorial staff:

In short, if you like living under a coronavirus

government lockdown, you'll love living
under a climate emergency.

Please enjoy Climate Hustle 2
“Rise of the Climate Monarchy.”

Thank You

Like, hello Theater goers it’s me, AOC here.
You are here to watch a brand new movie,

Climate Hustle 2 “Rise of the
Climate Monarchy.” But first,

Like, I want to tell you that there
is no doubt that cow farts are

making the climate change.
I also like, want to tell you about

my plan to single handedly save
the planet. I call it “The Green New Deal"

I picked green ‘cause I’m still learning my colors.

I came up with my plan after watching
Like, the most important documentary

on climate change. It’s called Ice
Age 2: “The Meltdown.”



That’s not me saying it.
That’s right, my green new deal

'costs like 93 trillion dollars.
Do you know how much that is?

Me neither, because it’s totally worth it.
If sea-levels keep rising, we won’t be

able to drive to Hawaii anymore.
So enjoy the movie. It’s about to begin.

Please stay in your seat after the film,
because I’ll be back for a special climate

panel featuring John Stossel, Liz Wheeler
and Mark Morano. Roll the film…

Nearly every day, we hear dire
predictions about climate change

from the media establishment,
Hollywood and politicians.

We’re not going to debate
climate change the existence of it.

The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a

major cause, period. And we’re, like, the world

is gonna end in 12 years, if we
don’t address climate change.

The new report from the U.N. today
said, that at the current warming rate,

millions more people will die
from extreme heat by the year 2040.

We’ve been told that as we know it, that
by 2030, the world as we know it, that's it.

When we return a glimpse
into the world of 2100.

Global warming goes unchecked.

It will wipe out a lot of civilization, as we know it.

War, famine and drought coupled

with an unstable climate system

could push the death toll into the billions.

This is a level of disaster that
the world has never seen.

They tell us that the world is
coming to an end, because

normal human activity is raising
the temperature to dangerous levels.

To avoid a hellish apocalypse, they
warn us, we must immediately

change our lifestyles, and our very way of life.

But are these sensational claims
based on solid empirical science?

Do the facts line up with the hype?

Well, an increasing number of
scientists are becoming skeptical.

We covered what many of these
scientists had to say, in our first

groundbreaking film Climate Hustle.

From over-hyped claims about
severe weather events, temperatures,

rising sea levels, and even
disappearing polar bears.

Climate Hustle peeled back the
hype and looked at the facts.

Facts that simply don't add
up to any reason for alarm.

So this brings the questions:

Why would those claiming a global warming
catastrophe spread a false narrative?

What would motivate them?

Why would they try to hustle you?

Are they trying to control the climate? …

… or YOU ??

Well, those are the questions,
we're going to explore in this film,

and the answers … may shock you.

At its core, the motivations
are as old as mankind itself.

They revolve around money,
power, ideology and control.

Stopping climate change is
not about saving the planet.

Make no mistakes, this
is a battle for our future.

It’s about climate elites trying to
convince us to accept the future,

where they call all the shots, plan
our lives and regulate

how we should live our lives.
They want create in essence,

a climate monarchy.

To bring you this story, we’re going
to take you around the world.

We’re going to feature footage,
gathered by our Reporter Marc Morano

of CFACTS Climate Depot, who
begins our report in Paris France.

Here we are in front of the Palace
of Versailles, just outside of Paris.

It was built in the 1600s. It was home
to a number of French Kings, including

the Sun King himself: Louis the 14th.

This is a splendid and opulent
estate, designed to show the

supremacy of the state, and the
ruling class over the common man.

For the Aristocrats the parties here were
legendary. It was a marvelous place to

come, and the nobles had a very good life.

Louis XIV, he was an absolute
monarch, a dictator if you like,

supported by an oligarchy of nobles.

They were looking for an excuse to justify
themselves and appealing to the divine.

The divine right of Kings is the idea
that Kings were Kings because

God wished them to be Kings.

This I think is the most fascinating question.

Are they creating effectively a new climate
monarchy with a new aristocracy?

Today, like the nobility of old, world
leaders, celebrity activists, and western

environmentalists also enjoy a lavish
lifestyle, and have no problem with

multiple homes, endless airline
flights and luxuries galore.

But now, a young, elite, and very
sexy group is joining the tribe:

A billionaire summer party in Sicily
with celebs like Leonardo DiCaprio,

Katy Perry, Bradley Cooper and
Prince Harry were all in attendance.

But a 114 private jets and a few mega
yachts later, they all came together to

discuss: wait for it, you guys, want to guess?
don’t read the prospects … OK, global warming!

Did everyone miss the memo on this?

The only thing that I really love about this
is that they are all practicing the ways of

getting there that is going to keep them
safe from global warming, right, like:

I’ve got a private jet, I guess I’m safe.
What if the sea rises? … Mega yacht!

Without a doubt Hollywood is a glitzy place,
and without a doubt it’s also a place where

celebrities line up to cheer on the
global warming cause, but are they

the best spokesmen to be doing so?

For many this comes off a bit hypocritical.
Just like, when Marie Antoinette famously

quipped to the starving masses
of France: “Let them eat cake”

Al Gore and John Kerry and the Prince of Wales,
they want to return us to an age of Kings, in

which they fly around from one climate
conference to another. And the rest of us

are just contained within our carbon
allowance which, if we’re lucky

will enable us to take a long weekend
for a fishing trip somewhere once a year.

Ladies and gentlemen, the thrice nominated
Leonardo DiCaprio and Vice President Al Gore.

If the climate change cause could be embodied
in one person, it would be Al Gore.

I’m very proud to be standing next to
such an inspirational leader in the

fight against global, global warming.

As the verifiable spokesman for the movement,
Al Gore has campaigned for people to drastically

reduce their carbon footprint.
But does he practice what he preaches?

You, yourself have a large carbon footprint.
Yeah, well I don’t have a private jet …

That is a G2B aircraft one of the most fuel
inefficient private jets on the market today,

and that is the former Vice President
getting off that plane.

Now he tells us that the Earth is in peril.
He wants us to bicycle to work.

What, what the carbon emissions come from
my trips on Southwest Airlines are, are, offset.

I live a carbon free lifestyle … to the
maximum extent … to the maximum extent …

to the maximum extent possible.

Maximum extent possible? Hmm…

But some of that doesn’t seem to
extend to his residence in Tennessee.

As mark Mathis of the
Clean Energy Alliance explains.

He put 33 280 Watt solar panels on his roof,
and among other improvements installed

geothermal, guess what: 10 years later,
Al Gore is an even bigger energy hog.

Gore is burning up, not 20 but 34 times
the electricity than the national average.

Gore uses so much electricity, all those solar panels
provide less than 6% of his power consumption.

Are they willing to live within with their prescribed…
But you know they are, they’re the elites.

We’re the proletarians. They decide what we …
But they, ... it didn’t apply to them,

and we don’t know that.

And the United Nations Messenger of
Peace, Mr. Leonardo DiCaprio.

Next to Al Gore, there have been few,
that have been more outspoken

about climate change, than
actor Leonardo DiCaprio.

If you do not believe in climate change, you do
not believe in facts, or in science, or empirical

truths, and therefore in my humble opinion
should not be allowed to hold public office.

The solutions we seek require all of us to make
real changes in the way we live our lives.

You’ve taken personal action.

Tell me about some of the changes
you’ve made in your day to day life.

I try to live a green lifestyle quote unquote.
I mean of I’ve done the things that I can do

into my house to make it, my house:
green energy, efficient appliances.

I drive a hybrid car, have solar panels.

But despite his public claim to live a “green
lifestyle," DiCaprio also seems to practice a

double standard such as when he took a
private jet an extra 8000 miles, just to

collect an environmental award.
But get this: the Hollywood star’s own jet set

lifestyle appears to reveal a slight double standard.
DiCaprio, who is believed to own at least

four homes reportedly taking at least 20 trips
across America and around the world this year

alone, usually on private jets which use a lot of fuel.
And get this: this summer, DiCaprio spending time

on the 5th largest yacht in the
world, a big boat which you know,

he rented from a Middle East oil tycoon.

But does this personal lifestyle jet-
setting around in yachts and planes

mean that he is a hypocrite? Though
DiCaprio may be responsible for 500

times the emissions as the average Joe, it’s a
blip in terms of the effect on global temperature.

But the boat throws me over the edge …
But remember he doesn’t own the yacht.

Isn’t he talking out one side of his mouth though?

For me, it’s like, me promoting weight
loss and eating a cheeseburger.

You can’t, you can’t do all of that. You
have to practice what you preach.

The people follow by example,
so be an example!

Of course it would be unfair to point to
Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, as the

only activists who live a double standard.

Climate change activist Barbra Streisand flew her
dogs to London so they could watch her perform.

The sun reporting the iconic singer sent her pups,
Miss Scarlet, Miss Violet, and Fanny on a

10,000 mile round trip across the pond.

These rock stars who have the I’ll go live
up thing. These guys with the huge amps.

If they were seriously interested in the
carbon footprint tale, they’d just like gather

around the piano and sing a song.
They wouldn’t have this tower of power.

We are facing what is quickly becoming
the greatest moral crisis of our time.

Let's turn off our phones let's roll up our
sleeves and let's kick this monster’s a...

That Harrison Ford feels strongly about climate
change seems sure; yet not enough to stop him

from his hobby of flying helicopters and private
airplanes. Even long distances to get just a …

…. Cheeseburger ! ….

Another cheerleader for the global
warming cause is Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Although outspoken on the issue, it
didn’t seem to stop him from taking …

his daily commute by private jets. But,
he had this suggestion for everyone else:

For instance, did you know that just air-drying
your clothes for six months, per person,

saves 700 pounds of carbon dioxide?

Hollywood producer James Cameron,
responsible for such megahits as

Titanic and Avatar has also been a huge
climate activist. But as this film entitled

“James Cameron hypocrite” reveals:
he does not walk the walk.

You know what are we asking people to do. What
are the changes they can make in their daily life?

If you’re an environmentalist, I say,
my challenge is: you can’t be an

environmentalist, you can’t be an ocean
steward without truly walking the walk.

Even the Sierra Club thinks that sometimes
you just have to fly to save the world.

Did you guys take into effect any green
energy in travel to get to Paris?

We ah, sometimes you gotta fly. I don’t fly for fun.
I don’t fly for vacations. I don’t take ski weekends,

but when I come to a place like Paris to save the
world, you bite the bullet. Fly sorry!

It’s a horrible position, that we, who are trying
to save the science are in, because these are

the people that are very visible, and very loved …

When in fact they are the worst spokespeople,
because, when you look at their private trai… plane

travel. When you look at the vacations they take.
When you look at their yachts.

When you look at their absolute mansions,
that are 20,000 - 30,000 (sq.) feet, and

the carbon footprint that they’re responsible for:
… It’s a joke!

To make us think that they’re not living in
double standard, some Hollywood celebrities

even visit parts of the developing world and
glorify the poverty lifestyles they find there.

They’ll pee in a pot and then they take a poo
in the woods. And shovel like an animal …

Oh I’m so joshed right now. I’m going
tomorrow, I’m going to the woods

tomorrow to … ah … awesome…

Typically, when people think something bad
is about to happen, they take action.

I think about Noah building an Ark when told, the
destruction of the world by flood was eminent.

But climate activists don’t seem particularly
alarmed about global warming at least enough

to walk the walk and change their personal lifestyle.

As Marc Morano points out, there might
be a very simple reason for this.

This brings the question: if these global leaders
and activists really think we face a man-made

climate apocalypse, why are they not
changing their ways, and cut back on

their CO2 emissions and overall excess?

Is there something they're not
telling us about the science?

By the end of this century, if emissions
keep rising, the average temperature on

Earth could go up another 4 to 8 degrees.

What I’m saying is, the planet’s on fire!
And this is an actual crisis got it?

CO2 is the control knob. It’s one
variable, one response number.

Yeah this is believing in magic.

Carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.

You don't find strong empirical support
for the idea that atmospheric concentrations

of CO2 are the primary drivers of atmospheric
temperature and global climate.

And there are so many other variables, that are
much more likely to have been responsible for that.

There is nothing to be afraid of, and
that’s all they’re doing is instilling fear.

I’ve been surprised at what
people are calling science today.

In fact the whole climate crisis as they call
it, is not only fake news it’s fake science.

There is no climate crisis.

To access the science supporting global
warming, the U.N. relies on a so-called

scientific body called the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

Growing numbers of scientists however,
question it’s methods.

The IPCC process, I would describe it as it
looks to me like when a magician does a card

trick and you’re watching shuffle you think he’s
totally shuffling the cards and actually he's not

shuffling them at all, and he knows exactly where
the card is, that he needs to be on top at the end.

The IPCC review process is like that. It looks
like a really big formal review process, with

hundreds of people poring over
the data. It’s nothing like that.

You take 400 economists and put them in a
room and give them exactly the same data,

and you’ll get 400 different answers as to what’s
going to happen in the economic future and,

I mean, I find that refreshing, because it tells
me, that these guys don’t have an agenda.

But if you take 400 climatologists and put them in
the same room and give them some data about a

system which I understand very imperfectly,
you’re going to get a lot of agreement.

And that, that, that disturbs me. I think
that, that’s arguing with an agenda.

In the manned’s program, NASA continually
brought in outside independent experts to

review what we were doing and trying to find
holes in what we were doing. I can’t see that

that’s ever been done in the climate science
within government, or without government.

Even if the U.N.’s IPCC process is suspect, what
about it’s claims of impending planetary collapse?

While it seems, even here on issue after issue,
cries of doom and gloom are greatly exaggerated.

The scientists are warning that 2019 could
be the hottest year on record.

New data fromthe federal government show
2018 was the 4th hottest year since scientists

began keeping records in 1880.

Last year was the hottest year ever recorded.

It’s a declaration scientists have been making
every January for the past three years.

Should people be afraid, when they hear that
we’re in the hottest year and how to stick it?

If you look at maximum temperatures: the 1930s
are way way above anything in the post 2000 era.

I think that if you look at the history of the
human species, you will find that we’ve fared

better in warming times than in cooling times.

The point is, you’re dealing with
something very small, very uncertain.

It’s uncertain to a very large fraction of that.

I think the average temperature of the Earth
is equal to the Emperor’s new clothes.

As it was a boy who said, you know, cried it:
My, the emperor has no clothes on! And I

would cry out and say: you can’t measure
the temperature for the whole Earth.

The record, instrumental record, is you know,
barely 100, 150 years old. In that instrumental

record we’ve had very little change
over the last century and a half.

The predictions were, that there would be
massive warming by now. It’s not happening.

And so, therefore a claim that each year is harder
than the next doesn’t really take into account the

1930s heat wave and the reason it doesn’t, is
because both NOAA and NASA and other agencies

in England, have subtracted temperatures
from the 1930s to make them look cooler.

It’s twisting words to confuse the public
and when you do that you should be called

out because you’re being dishonest.

I love this planet and I love the environmentalists.
I hate pollution. By the way carbon dioxide isn’t a

pollutant. CO2 is not a pollutant, and it
has become so distorted. My science

has gone so bad it drives me nuts.

I’ve spent 50 years as a working scientist, and
when any experienced working scientist sees

science being abused, which it is, most
dreadfully in this global warming debate, then

he or she you know hitches up his britches
and gets in there and does something about it.

As a scientist I’m never totally signed off.
I never say it’s over, but as best I can tell

the whole global warming thing is in
fact invalid. It’s science gone bad.

Excuse me, this is my science! I’m a meteorologist.
My science my lifetime goes bad,

and creates a national crisis. Are you kidding me?

This is the biggest storm ever. This is the biggest
hurricane we've ever seen hit this country.

If we would do more on climate change,
we’d have fewer of these hurricanes and

other types of storms. Everyone
knows that ... except a few.

Are hurricanes increasing?
It depends on what date you want to start

but on climate timescales in the
United States and globally no.

Are tornadoes increasing?
There’s a lot of uncertainty about tornadoes,

but there’s no evidence to suggest
that they’ve been increasing.

Are floods increasing?
As the IPCC concluded there’s not

really good data worldwide to
know if they’re going up or down.

Are droughts increasing?
Globally and in the United States,

according to the EPA and according
to the IPCC the answer is no.

We're starting to talk about conditions
that will literally force us to relocate the

major coastal cities of the world to relocate
the better part of the billion people.

If you match CO2 and tornado counts they are
down. If you plot CO2 versus hurricane strikes,

as you increase CO2, hurricane strikes go down.
Does that mean more CO2 means less hurricanes?

No, because correlation is not necessarily
causation. But all these claims about more

hurricanes, more intense hurricanes they’re false.

What about the extreme weather?

The weather now is not extreme. If you look at
tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, almost any

kind of big weather event, and they are weather
events, they’re not climate events,

what you’ll see is that they all trend downward.

We don’t have more extreme events
now, we have actually fewer.

The droughts in California, the floods in Texas,
Hurricane Sandy it doesn’t make any difference

what it is, whatever happens on planet Earth
they blame it on global warming.

Join research tonight on climate
change and sea level rise.

It’s laying out a new timeline, for when several major
world cities, Miami included could be underwater.

We’d have to invent new laws of physics
for that to happen. There is no way that

the ocean can rise that much. In the last 6000
years we’ve had a couple of feet of sea level

rise. 6000 years and yet they expect
15 feet in the next 85 ... It can’t happen.

I looked at literally thousands of tide gauge
records all over the world and there seems

to be a very stable, steady rise of sea level at
about 7 inches per century. So, if you look at

a human life in terms of a 50 year period, that’s
about 3.5 in, and you’re never going to know it.

They call it Arctic amplification. It’s hard
to tell on a day like this, but the Arctic is

warming, sooner, faster, and more than anywhere else.

It’s clear that we’re going to lose all the ice.

He keeps saying that Arctic sea ice will
disappear. You can find a quote that it will

disappear by 2016. It didn’t happen. You find
a quote that it didn’t. It will disappear by 2014,

it didn’t happen. It has passed right, and then
2012. Again, again, disappeared.

And they keep changing the date !

It will be devastating for creatures like the

Penguin and the polar bear whose habitat

is literally melting away beneath their feet.

The bears in fact have not declined as predicted.

Their numbers have risen to 28,500.
So their numbers keep going up.

Al Gore’s film made a big deal about these
cartoon polar bears not being able to catch

seals, and drowning because there wasn’t
enough ice. But but they’ve made it through

other periods when the, when the Arctic
Ocean was ice free, and they probably went

on Land and ate Gophers and turned Brown.

In 2017 a viral video of a starving polar bear
reached hundreds of millions around the world.

The message was simple. Global warming
is driving polar bears to extinction.

The only way to stop that is to give the
left, total control over the global economy.

Climate elites tell us the scientific debate
is over, and that we’re headed for an

environmental catastrophe. As we’ve seen,
many prominent scientists point to the data,

which refutes this claim. That Hollywood
celebrities, politicians, and the media demand

we listen to them, even if they themselves
will not make the same sacrifices.

What the climate royalty is in effect telling us is:
Be good subjects, shut up, don’t ask questions,

follow orders. Of course, this sort of blind
obedience is not just practiced by tyrannical

monarchies, it is also eerily reminiscent
of George Orwell’s famous book 1984:

Who are you? … 6748 Smith, W.

Where do you work? … In the ministry of truth.

What do you do Smith. ... I revise history.

As a freshman in college, I read 1984,
George Orwell’s book.

And I, I’m unbelievable, but it seems like
we regard science for, or about where

George Orwell said we would be in 1984.

You know you would have people
re-writing the history, just like they did then.

They’re doing it now already, you know,
changing the temperature history of the Earth.

Rewriting history? Some think that’s what
Google did to remove a prominent climate

scientist from the Greenpeace website.

Google under fire, but silently erase a climate
change skeptic from Greenpeace’s history.

President Trump tweeted his support
for that skeptic, it’s Patrick Moore.

Alright here’s the tweet: Patrick Moore
co-founder of Greenpeace: “The whole

climate crisis is not only fake
news, it’s fake science.”

I mean here’s the situation: Patrick Moore
went on Fox news, made these comments.

President Trump tweeted it and then,
within a day Google erases Patrick

Moore’s role as the founder and
cofounder of Greenpeace.

Patrick Moore was listed by
Greenpeace’s own website for years,

as Greenpeace International as, as a co-founder
of the group, as one of the founding members.

In 1984, strict adherence to the party line was not
optional, even if the facts revealed otherwise.

Do you remember writing in that diary
of yours, that freedom is the freedom
to say that: 2 + 2 make 4?

How many fingers am I holding up? … Four.

And if the state says not four, but five.
How many? … Four. Take him!

So if the data are contrary to your Testimony,
will the Sierra Club issue a retraction?

Sir, we concur with the 97% scientific
consensus with regards to global warming …

But I’d like to repeat the
question and get an answer …

If the data are contrary to your testimony,
would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?

We concur with 97% of the scientists
that believe, that the anthropogenic

impacts of mankind with regards
to global warming, are true.

Again how many fingers? … I don’t know …

Am, you know Mr. Mair, I find it striking, that for
a public policy organization, that purports to

focus exclusively on environmental issues, that
you're not willing to tell this committee, that

you would issue a retraction, if your testimony
is objectively false under scientific data.

In the book 1984, conformity is the name of the
game. Everyone must agree, no dissent allowed.

In the climate debate today, we hear about
an alleged 97% or higher consensus with the

U.N. climate position. A number,
many think, is manufactured.

Are 97% of your colleagues against you? … No!

So, I think that the people with a geologist’s
perspective on the history of climate do not

share the consensus, that anthropogenic emis-
sions of CO2 are the primary drivers of climate.

To the average person who finds the science
Incomprehensible, if you tell them 97% of
scientists agree: OK you’re home safe!

This is characterized as a 97% consensus,
amongst knowledgeable experts. But the

person who said this didn’t define
knowledgeable experts. But I think

knowledgeable experts mean:
the people who agree with me.

The usual thing, you know, when they’ve
asked people is, you know: has it warmed?

Yeah, we are probably glad it’s no longer the little
Ice Age. Does man play any role? Some,

probably, and then they assume this
means the world is coming to an end,

they don't even ask you that.

If it’s beyond the consensus of 99% of the scientists …

This is very effective. It just
happens to be dishonest.

One of the most disturbing components of
the climate debate, is the US government’s

alteration of past temperature data to create
an illusion of a much warmer future.

That is a party directive dealing with the
control of the past. Repeat it to me:

Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.

The government you know, trying to erase
the recent hiatus in global warming.

It really feels politically motivated.

They desired a solution. The solution is bigger
governments, more regulations, more control,

more everything that’s against
freedom. That’s what they want,

and global warming seems to give them that.

They had to demonize CO2, in that they have

to show that it’s not the beneficial necessary
gas that it is, and show that it’s a harmful gas.

In the book 1984, going against Big Brother
brought serious consequences.

If the government couldn’t make you conform and
stick to the narrative, they'd make your life miserable.

But is there really any similarity with today’s
climate debate? Are scientists really
being intimidated and threatened?

We're not going to give time to climate deniers.
The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.

As we should begin to love and value
our planet, and anyone who believes

that there is no such thing as global
warming, must be blind or unintelligent.

Brother and sister scientists very rarely
intimidate you, but they are extremely

skilled at sending you to Coventry.
So effectively you, you're no longer

become part of the conversation, and
you are excluded from the conversation.

It is deadly to your career to be a young dissenter.

You are obsolete Mr. Wordsworth!

A lie! No man is obsolete!

You have no function Mr. Wordsworth!

You’re an anachronism.
Like a ghost from another time.

I am nothing more than a reminder to you, that
you cannot destroy truth, by burning pages!

We all get hurt, hate, threats, you
know, hate mail and death threats,

and all these kinds of nonsense
from, from the true believers.

The question for most people is:
Why bother being skeptical?

It’s easier to go with the flow.

This isn’t just bad songs.
This is the death of science.

In Canada, climate skepticism has
become an increasingly risky proposition.

One respected scientist from the
University of Winnipeg has been faced with

multiple lawsuits for challenging
the so called climate consensus.

But the bigger problem for anybody is:

is the vulnerability of your family,
and the damages to your family.

In Canada when they deliver the lawsuit,
the summons, ... it’s delivered by the Sheriff

at 4:00 o’clock on a Friday afternoon,
because you have 48 hours to respond.

And so they can eliminate the weekend
for you and makes it very difficult.

It got to the point where there was a
knock on the door one Friday, late one

Friday and my wife started crying, as
she thought: here comes another lawsuit.

Scientists been hurt greatly by this, because
government has come in and dictated science.

Until you push back against government,

you have absolutely no idea,how nasty it
can get, and how threatening it can get.

One person who has faced extreme smears
is Dr. Willie Soon. The mainstream media

waged relentless attacks on his character.
Greenpeace provided all the documents

that they have received from my workplace.
Greenpeace supplied that to New York Times,

front page of New York Times, that this thing
came out putting me in an extreme bad light.

By saying that I’m basically a very corrupted
scientist who’s been trying to hide my funding.

I must admit that I broke down a little bit.
I have, I broke down for a very simple reason.

Because they are not only coming after me,
they're coming after a range of my colleagues

who have collaborated with me on many
areas impugning their reputation.

Which is something that I felt,
I cannot bear the burden.

Do I think they should be in jail. I think they
should be enjoying three hots, and a cot at

The Hague with all the other war
criminals over there. I wish that there
were a law you can punish them under ….

What’s your thought on jailing skeptics as war
criminals? We’ll see what happens. So, I can

see where people are very concerned about
this and are pursuing criminal investigation.

I believe what’s going on now is criminal,
our activity, because it’s a crime against

future generations, and there ought to be
a legal position of intergenerational crime.

And I think there’s criminal negligence.

Some politicians even want to shut down the
EPA’s ability to regulate carbon. I would like to

strap their mouth to an exhaust pipe
of a truck, turn on the engine and,

let’s see how long it would take them to tap out.

They dare not argue with us on the science.

They know we’re right on that by now.
They attack our personal reputation.

If they could persuade people by argument,
why would they need to send them to jail?

Scientific research has got you to this point,
and they want to throw you in jail, because

of what you believe. To me that’s chilling.

That there’s a chilling effect on scientists who
are or in extreme doubt about climate change.

I think it's good. They’re keeping us from
getting to work, they’re holding us back.

Is this talk about jailing climate skeptics
simply idle chatter by a few extremists?

Not any longer. In recent years there’s
actually been an effort on Capitol Hill

to use a racketeering law known as Rico.

The racketeer influenced and corrupt
organizations act was designed to combat

organized crime, such as the mafia, for crimes
including illegal gambling, bribery, kidnapping,

murder, counterfeiting, embezzlement,
drug trafficking, and now …

climate skepticism?

Your colleague, Senator Whitehouse has
called for the Rico laws. Laws about

racketeering, to be used against those …
who disagree with him on climate science.

I want to make sure that the courts have their
say in all of this where it’s appropriate.

You know how fast you were going
Senator? It’s climate change.

Senator, a glass of Chardonnay? Climate Change!

If climate change is your only issue, Sheldon
Whitehouse is your senator…Climate change!

Climate change!

Sheldon is kind of a doofus …

And you have, like the Senators, I mean we have
people saying that we should be prosecuted

under the Rico act, for science designed to
confuse the public on carbon pollution.

Rico was meant to, as I read it to reduce racketeering.

And what was a racket originally?

It was protection, that if you pay someone a
certain amount of money you will be protected.

Yes if if Rico law apply, I think it should apply
to them rather than us, I mean in that sense.

Even the mainstream media appears
critical of Senator Whitehouse’s efforts.

What would you say to critics,
who say after 200 and some speeches,

all you’ve really done is produce
a whole lot of hot air?

Demanding conformity, intimidating
dissenters, jailing skeptics:

These are clearly strong arm
tactics reminiscent of Orwell's 1984.

We do not destroy the heretic,
we convert him. We capture his

inner mind. We reshape him,
we burn all evil out of him …

What’s missing is the reason why? Why
is there a need to pursue such measures?

But for some, that motivation is deep seated.

We could call it a commitment to climate
change orthodoxy, that … mimics a religion.

What does it mean, to awaken
ecological spirituality?

The World’s religions are beginning to
develop an ecological theology, to help

solve the global environmental crisis.
The world is witnessing the emergence

of a new religious consciousness that
considers the natural world sacred.

I needed something, outside of
myself, to believe it and I found

in nature a, a kind of God.

The head of the U.N. climate
science panel declared:

For me the protection of planet Earth
is more than a mission. It is my religion.

Counter Michael Crichton lays out
the concept of a new green gospel.

In environmental thinking there is a view,
that there used to be a sort of Eden,

and then people came, and ruined that, that Eden.

And that we are therefore sort of original
sinners, because we're destroying this planet.

And what we can do however, is get
Salvation through sustainability,

and, if you’re a good person, you will seek
Salvation. If you’re a bad person, you’ll drive SUVs.

These environmentalists are rabid
environmentalists, especially.

I mean they use terms like man
is a cancer on the planet.

They see man as some sort of foreign invasion,
when the reality is, we're part of nature.

You know, in a world where normal morality
seems to have gone out the window,

you can establish that you’re a virtuous
person by watching your carbon footprint,

and thus saving the planet.

Oh, yeah yeah, it’s icky!

Global warming really has become a new
religion. Because you can’t discuss it.

It’s a faith that I think is characteristic
of the modern age in which:

we feel good about feeling bad.

In ancient monarchies, there was
no separation of Church and State.

The religion of the Crown was
typically the religion of the country.

Of course, for any religion to
thrive, it needs new adherents.

This is no different with
the Church of global warming.

A church that is aggressively seeking
a whole new generation of followers …

including your children …

Global warming …

Some say, irreversible consequences
are 30 years away …

30 years?

That won't affect me …

Here’s little Layla, take a look:

Do you really want to put a birthday,
to have food to eat so they won’t be, ..

so they won’t be hurt and I, I don’t know
how to fix it, and I really want to …

Little Layla cried!

The only way they can keep this storyline alive,

given that the facts are now entirely

and implaccably and inexorably

and increasingly against them, is to insist,

that only the party line be taught in schools.

I don’t see any reason to teach
kids about this, other than to …

unless you’re trying to, you know,
brainwash them, in some way,

given, when they’re young, kind of thing …

The climate change education issue,
the reason this is so important, is

because of the influence of the environmental
movement. And because of their power.

What’s happening is, you are
getting one-sided science.

We want our textbooks to reflect the
facts, and at this point climate change

and its causes are proven scientific
facts, so it makesperfect sense that

we would make sure, that only the
facts are provided to our students.

I’m an AP environmental science teacher.
So I teach high school environmental science,

and yes, we like to tell our students that the
majority of science, all of them in fact, do agree.

I wanted to have it smart scientists,
10 out of 10 smart scientists agree.

What is happening with the
environmental movement is,

they’re putting children ahead of their parents.
You know more than your parents.

Your parents are stupid.Your grandparents
and your parents have ruined the Earth.

So it’s actually teaching children to be against
their parents, as well as our political system.

If burning fossil fuels was so bad,
that it threatened our very existence,

how could we just continue like before?
To me that did not add up. It was too unreal.

So when I was eleven, I
became ill, I fell into depression,

I stopped talking, and I stopped eating.

It’s putting the weight of the world on these
children’s shoulders, and this is why

our children are losing hope.

The Weather Channel recently released this
video, featuring children as climate activists.

Rising sea levels would displace millions.

Millions!

97% of scientists agree that global
warming started decades ago.

It's basically child propaganda.

They don't understand: green is political.

It's it's not right. We should be
teaching children critical thinking.

But what does critical thinking
look like in the classroom?

But here’s how a climate activist
group showed how to persuade kids,

to go along with the green agenda.

I would love it, if you and your families
would think about doing something.

What sort of thing Miss?

Well, like getting your dads to insulate the loft, or
taking your next holiday by train, instead of flying.

Now no pressure at all, but it would be great to
get a sense of how many of you might do this.

Just a rough percentage … that's fantastic.

And there's not? … Phillip and Tracy?

Fine, it’s absolutely fine, … your own choice.

OK class, thank you so much for today, …

Oh just before you go, I just need
to press this little button here …

Now everybody please remember to read
chapters 5 and 6, on volcanoes and glaciation,

except for Philipp and Tracy of course ...

This is like making me feel sad.

Stronger than ever before … More droughts,
hurricanes and wildfires than ever before.

You’re like, shaking now.

You know, these kids, I mean they’re kids.

They don’t know, they listen to these adults.
These are … in authority and they believe

what they’re told for the most part. They’re
propagandized. There’s no question about it.

So the argument is: if I teach you a lie,
you’re going to assume the lie is correct,

because you know nothing different.

I do graduate classes of 16 and 17 year olds in
school, and start talking to them about climate.

And they are amazed to hear, that
there is an alternative point of view.

They simply didn't know that anybody
challenges these propositions.

The motive behind climate change
education is basically dominate education.

It is specifically to take over public education.

It is to use alleged nonpartisan environmental
education, to politically indoctrinate

America’s children, and then again, graduate
a nation of obedient voters, who will vote …

to impose this on the American people …

We’re trained as a spy to follow people silently.

Why are you following me?

We are told to follow anyone
who behaves suspiciously …

I learned about global warming in school, and
I always loved our animals and I decided to

tie it together. And we need to go all out on
this if we want to reduce our carbon footprint.

You know the idea of having a little
elementary school police force.

It runs through and makes sure
that you turn off your computer.

And if you don’t turn off your
computer you get a little green ticket.

Turning it into a psychological weapon.

You signed on, to sue the President? Yeah!

To Sue the government of the United States?
Yeah!

Trump is not doing anything to
help stop climate change, he’s a climate

change denier and we’re going to
prove that to the, to the world.

And it’s all about political indoctrination,
and to just use the kids as a number,

instead of treating them as precious little individuals.

I mean it’s eco-child abuse pure and simple!

Climate monarchs know, that if you can get
them early you can get them to embrace
ideas that may seem a bit out there.

So just what are some of those ideas
being championed by the climate elite?

Climate change. Sometimes it feels so hopeless,
all you want to do is get drunk and forget about it.

Well sadly, that won’t be an option,
… because of climate change.

USA TODAY reports on a study that says global
warming could threaten the world’s beer supply.

Barley is a key ingredient in beer. That means,
average beer prices, get this, could double.

Oh man, they’re trying so hard to get people
to care about climate change right ?

No, because if you tell Americans in 10 years the
Marshall Islands will be underwater no one cares.

But tell them Corona will cost more, now
they’re marching in the streets come on!

Right now, we have U.N. scientists predicting, a
study outsaying there will be more rapes due to

Global warming, there’ll be more bar room brawls,
more vehicle thefts, more airline turbulence.

Maybe the Metro wins the World Series …

To heighten public concern about global warming,
activists are constantly drumming up new alarms.

Some border on the ridiculous.

Like climate change will lead to an
increase in fistfights, car thefts and

even attacks by space aliens …

But when people are concerned, they are often
more willing to accept quick fixes and very bad ideas.

Here's just a few:

Around the world, renewable
energy use is on the rise.

And these alternative energy sources could
hold the key to combatting climate change.

You're talking about zero carbon emissions.
No use of fossil fuels within 12 years?

That is the goal, it's ambitious … and

And how is that possible? You’re talking about
everybody having to drive an electric car?

It's going to require a lot of rapid change, that
we don't even conceive as possible right now.

The fact is, a modern society requires dense
energy. Solar energy is diverse, and diffuse.

Wind is diverse, diffuse, and … ugly.

Even those, who were once enthusiastic about
solar and wind, are now thinking otherwise.

You know, and I was one of the founders of sort, of
the original Green New Deal back in 2000, 2003, 2007.

People don’t remember President Obama. We
spent about 150 billion dollars on renewables

between 2009 and 2015, and we just kept encoun-
tering, the same kind of problems everywhere

that were related both to the, the
essential unreliability of solar and wind.

They just depend on, when the sunshine, and the
wind is blowing, which is 10 to 40% of the year.

If you run a small farm and you
want to run it on a windmill,

God bless you it’s America,
you can do whatever you want.

But don’t think you’re going to run a commercial
grid on ... on windmills and solar panels.

I’m an owner of a solar power system.
Cloudy days, hazy days, night.

These sink in fact the ability for solar power.

What’s the actual data show? Is solar
now bigger than oil and gas?

Right, solar I think is still below 1% and
it’s unreliable, and it’s very subsidized.

When you see the subsidies disappear,
even now, with the alleged cheap prices,

the solar panels disappear.

I think, the necessity that we face, is
transforming our energy system away

from oil and fossil fuel, to energy
efficiency and to sustainable energy.

We can’t have 100% renewable, you
can’t even have 10% renewable energy

without the prices going skyrocketing,
which directly impacts everybody’s life.

And so, it will never be an equivalent to what
we have for fossil fuel coal based type power,

or nuclear power, or hydropower, all of which
provide steady sources of electricity.

Both solar and especially wind power
have been criticized, for killing hundreds
of thousands of birds and bats.

It is now 22:30 hours. Power must be
conserved for our victory effort. All lights

will be extinguished. Good night comrades.
Tomorrow, your work for the party must be

better than today. Remember, even in your
sleep, Big Brother is watching you.

And monuments around the World going dark
Saturday night, to mark the 4th annual Earth hour.

New York City’s Empire State Building, Rome’s
Colosseum, and the Eiffel Tower in Paris

among the sites switching off their lights
to call attention to climate change.

Will our reliance on wind and solar energy mean,
that we have to cut back on our use electricity?

Well, in Europe, we see signs of this already
where some officials have warned that the days

of electricity when you want it might be
over. And prominent climate officials have

proposed government monitoring
of everyone’s individual energy use.

You’ve called for a CO2 budget, for every
man woman and child on the planet,

from Berlin to Beijing. How would that
work and what does that actually mean?

You could do it, I think it would be enough,
if you have national quota, and I think in the

end you would have to say: each person has
the same right to pollute the atmosphere.

The odd thing about climate rationing and carbon
rationing, carbon dioxide rationing is that, what

it essentially says, is that to survive as a planet,
what we really need to do, is not use any energy.

And what that’s going to take us back,
is to a condition where people do not

have the basic necessities of life,
food clothing shelter and security.

Here is a very good example, three years
ago in the United Kingdom, there was a

bitterly cold winter, caused by global
warming, so the extremists tell us.

And 7000 extra excess deaths over and above the
20,000 we would normally get in a winter, were

recorded. And they were recorded, not because
the weather was cold so much, as because the

homes of the people who were killed, because,
through the climate policies they vastly increased,

in fact doubled the price of electricity. Ordinary
working people could not afford to heat their homes.

We’ve got people in their own local
church who can’t go out, do other things,

because they gotta keep the heat on in the winter.

So the bills for ordinary people, simply
skyrocketed in the past years.

So, of course, it's a much bigger burden,
reluctantly to the poor, than to the rich people.

My greener friends, who say that the developing
world can leapfrog the developed world,

by using so called renewables, that means
solar energy and windmills pretty much.

That person lives in a fact-free environment.

To force obviously the most vulnerable, to
choose between heating and eating, which

is being proven, as the result of this
agenda, where we have actual deaths,

not computer modeled deaths ... 100 years
from now. But seniors, dying … now!

To avoid the two degree framing of dangerous
climate change, economic growth needs to be

exchanged at least temporarily, for a period
of planned austerity in wealthy nations.

The only way to, to stop runaway climate
change, is to terminate industrial civilization.

And the evidence is clear on that front
and it’s in the reference Journal literature.

Then there’s not much point asking
anymore questions really, is there?

The U.N. emissions interim limiting
treaty will most likely mean, that the

development plan of nations would head
towards the end of a developed world.

We would bring everybody down
to the lowest common dominator,

instead of building everybody up,
in terms of having a better life.

Inside the climate summit in
Bonn, Germany, on Monday,

former U.N. climate chief, Christiana Figueres
laughed off the very words she spoke in 2012,

where she said, that a centralized transformation
is taking place, as countries battle climate change.

They are just misusing the nature and environment,

and climate for their agenda. Their
agenda is really really different.

We shouldn’t be - no one should be confused.

The people who are running
this, don’t care about CO2.

That is merely the pretext for shutting
down the hated capitalist West.

They want to introduce socialist
totalitarianism on a global scale,

and the one thing that still stands in
the way of the western love of freedom,

and the prosperity that the capitalist
system brings: they have to tear that down.

For the climate elite, regulating our light
bulbs, thermostats, and SUV’s, is only a start.

Now some, want to regulate the
number of people on the Earth.

The planet has eleven years, to prevent
catastrophic climate change. Yeah, eleven years!

That fact prompted Blythe Pepino to launch Birth Strike.

It’s a group of people who will not have
children because of climate change.

So, should we have policies that penalize people,

for having extra kids in the developed World?

So, I do think that we should at least consider it.

Well, “at least consider it”, is like “do it.”

The US and others should do away
with tax credits for new parents,

and actually impose penalties,
like a carbon tax ... on kids.

Let’s say, we make an artificial
intelligence and we give it the job

of saving the environment and saving the climate.

And it comes up with the final answer which is:

there’s no way to save the environment,

without getting all these humans off the planet

‘cause we’re the problem.

They’re loving it of course. Don’t expect logic,

from those who are pushing these various agendas.

The anti- human, humanity agenda,
which is a very strong thing on the left now,

where they wish to reduce the population of the elder, and

some of them said, they want to reduce it by six/sevenths,

because they think that man is a blight on the planet.

The pressure of unwanted population, is
the first root at the basis of climate change.

I mean, this is anti-human this
is anti-the wellbeing of people.

And making fertility management ubiquitously available,

so women can choose how many
children, and the spacing of children,

It, it is crucial to the future shape of human civilization.

Africa’s projected to have more people

than China or India by mid-century.

The racism is an inherent problem. Africans
are lesser creatures to these people.

Otherwise, they wouldn’t be saying
such monstrously stupid things.

Now, it seems that crazy ideas
just keep going from bad to worse.

Not content with just shrinking
the number of humans on Earth,

someone said actually
shrink humans themselves.

The cause of all the catastrophes we
are seeing today is overpopulation.

We’re proud to unveil the only practical
remedy to humanity’s greatest problem.

Are you ready Doctor? Yes, I’m ready.

Wow that is wild, isn’t it, just wild!

Alexander’s movie, it’s called downsizing
and that’s about a … the future,

in which people figure out a way to shrink
themselves down to 5 inches in height

as a way to offset climate change.

Art imitates life in the most unexpected ways.

Meet the man who wants to
engineer a master climate race.

New York University Professor Matthew Lau.

I call this human engineering,
and what it involves is,

the biomedical modification of human beings,

to make them better at mitigating and
adapting to the effects of climate change.

The idea that … excuse me, that
smaller people would be more,

or have a smaller carbon footprint.
They consume less. That’s right, so other

things being equal, larger people consume
more energy than smaller people.

They also, for example, it takes more
energy to transport larger people.

They a … you need more clothes, a…
fabric for to clothe larger people,
rather than smaller people.

They wear out shoes, carpets etc., etc.

Make people shorter? Well as
preposterous as this sounds,

some maintain that if we don't start altering

people, global warming will alter us.

The first scenario relates to global warming.

We imagine that the ice caps are melting.

We see a drastic rise in sea levels and humans
are forced to live in an underwater community.

And so what we might see is changes
to our body which help us to swim better.

For example we might see a lengthening
of our fingers. This might cause us to
evolve webbed fingers and toes …

At this point you may think these
ideas are a bit hard to swallow.

You may in fact be reluctant to
go along with the program, but

don’t worry, those in the climate
elite are developing a solution.

We might consider using
pharmacological means,

to increase our altruistic
and empathetic tendencies.

Many environmental problems
are collective action problems,

in which individuals do not
cooperate for the common good.

I mean, this is pure lunacy, to say these
people are going to be in a backroom

with test tubes and everything.

They’re going to be manufacturing
a docile humanity,

that's going to behave in the way
they're told and only emit so much CO2.

The biggest modification
is changing what we eat,

which means: no meat!

Al Gore, a carnivore, no more!

I am, I’ve been a vegan for five years.

Less meat, less heat, more life!

The number one thing that
you can do is to just stop eating,

or cut down on your consumption
of meat and dairy.

No meat. But what if you like eating meat?

Well again, the climate monarchs can help you.

To engineer a pill or a drug, that would
make humans intolerant to meat.

That, that vegetarian a.. Vegetarian
population would, would be more effective.

and we can create some sort of
meat Patch where we wear it,

you know, when we go out to dinner,

and this could help people who want
to give up, you know, eating meat.

Yeah, this kind of stuff is is pure science fiction,

it has nothing to do with any kind of real science.

So, since we shouldn't eat
meat, what should we eat?

Hi, my name is Jenny Joseph. I eat … bugs.

Insects are way better for the environ-
ment, than traditional livestock farming.

Actress Nicole Kidman agrees:

I’m Nicole Kidman, and I am going
to eat a full course meal of bugs.

They’re still alive!

Two billion people in the world
eat bugs and I’m one of them.

Like nothing you’ve ever tasted: like a hairy … nut!

The effort to indoctrinate the public
even with some very strange ideas,

is being carried out with intense fervor,

and as we’ve seen, the global warming
cause is for many: sounds like a religion.

But are there other things perhaps
a bit more worldly like … money,

also motivating those in the climate monarchy.

I mean the global annual climate change
industry is a 1.5 trillion dollar industry.

A cloud hangs over the solar industry
following the collapse of Solyndra,

the first renewable energy company
to receive a loan guarantee.

It failed despite getting ½ billion dollar
guarantee, and the support of the President.

Millions of dollars in government
wasted. Sparking complaints,

the National Science Foundation
is out of touch and out of control.

The latest outrage involves a massive
contractor study "climate change."

I think the National Science Foundation
last year used your taxpayer money to fund:

A climate change musical !

The agreement recognizes the scientific view,

that increase in global
temperature should not exceed,

2 degrees Celsius …

Do you think that’s a waste of your
money? I’ll take that as a yes by the way.

If you look at where the money is going today,

the money in enormous quantities primarily from
governments in subsidies for renewable energy.

We’ve created a vast industry in renewable
energy and other activities around the whole

climate change issue, which is wasting money,
misallocating resources on a gargantuan scale.

It is absolutely true that the money available
for global warming, statements, and research is

driving academia right now
and people line up together.

If you deviate from that, then things don't go
your way. Certain things don't get approved.

Money doesn't come your way. Papers
don’t get published, that kind of thing.

At MIT in my Department, the only group
that gets significant industry funding is

Ron Prinn's global change program
which is supportive of alarm.

So we had a monopoly in science. Everyone
was saying: Let’s find out the risk.

No one was paid to say:
Let’s find out if there’s no risk.

No one was paid to say:
Is it really the sun driving climate change?

When President Eisenhower
left office, he issued a warning,

and everybody is familiar with the
military industrial complex warning.

Ladies and gentlemen, the
President of the United States:

A government contract, becomes virtually,
a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s
scholars via federal employment, project

allocations, and the power of money is
ever present, and is gravely to be regarded.

But there was also a warning that
he made, associated with science.

We must also be alert to the
equal and opposite danger,

that public policy could itself become the
captive, of a scientific, technological elite.

I was indeed 20 years, with the funding from 1989 to 2009.

The ratio is about 3 ½ thousand to one in
terms of money going toward climate research.

Of course, despite receiving funds at a level of 3500 : 1,

climate monarchs like Al Gore, accused those
that oppose them, as being motivated by money.

The illusion of a debate has been
purchased with millions of dollars a year,

spent by a few of the largest and
least responsible polluters,

who want to fool, and confuse the American people.

But, like the hypocrisy we’ve seen before, Al Gore
could not refuse a 500 million dollar payday

from the fossil fuel industry, when he sold
his TV network to the oil rich Al Jazeera:

I want to ask you about Al Jazeera, and the
sale of Current TV, because it’s controversial.

People don’t understand how you, as a Prophet on
climate change, could take what’s reported to be a

100 million Dollars, from a network that is basically
owned by God or by a country that is an oil producer.

It would be like taking the money from …
Exxon Mobil, if Exxon Mobil owned Al Jazeera.

Well, I think it’s important to focus on Al Jazeera
itself. I completely understand the criticism.

They have a funding base that’s huge,
and if they happen to be wrong,

or maybe not so right, their funding starts to change.

A lot of universities, a … you know, when they’re
considering the young faculty member for tenure,

asking, how good is this guy bringing in money?
Well here, you’ve provided a huge source of it.

It's going to be very attractive.

Maintaining that funding, maintaining
those shiny buildings at Universities,

and those big departments and all of that stuff.

Those conferences in Bali, and all
those sorts of things they go to.

That’s really pretty important
to them. It’s their livelihood.

Most of the scientists who are saying it’s a
crisis, are on perpetual government grants.

Academia is no different than anywhere else.

We wimp out, when we are under pressure, we do.

The whole ahm… idea that, that you could blame,
a… these polar bear declines on global warming,

probably saved the careers of a lot of polar bear specialists,

and so it’s in their best interest to make sure
that this concept … stays in the public limelight.

But this is going to linger on for a long (time).

There’s too much money on this,
for … not … this not to linger on.

So, if you wonder how these things come
about. It isn’t, because of catastrophic
man-made global warming.

Catastrophic man made global warming
is a vehicle. The issue isn’t the issue.

Global warming, is not an end in itself.

It’s a means to an end, and that means to
an end, it is is the redistribution of wealth.

In the Middle Ages Kings would sometimes create a crisis,

in order to mobilize the public toward
something else they were trying to obtain.

Typically, this was done by declaring war on foreign
kingdoms whose subjects they wished to rule.

Is today's climate monarchy, pursuing a similar strategy?

This is a man called Saikat Chakrabarty. He’s
Alexandria Occasio Cortez’s chief of staff

over in the Congress. Here’s
what he told the paper, quote:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,
is, it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all …”

“Do you guys think it was a climate thing?”

“Because we really think of it as a
how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy-thing.”

Like this is the war, this is our World War 2.

The freshman Democrat was also
asking for support for a resolution,

which outlines a plan to eliminate
carbon emissions in the U.S. in a decade.

The letter reads, quote:

“We call for a national social,
industrial and economic mobilization,

at a scale not seen since World War 2” end quote.

Any issue that implicates a very
large portion of the economy,

multi-trillion dollars, will be attractive
to people who believe in state control.

And it’s inevitable, that we can use the
transition to 100% renewable energy,

as the vehicle to truly deliver, and establish
economic, social, and racial justice in the USA.

Of course her Green New Deal plan, has it’s critics.

OK, it sounds like you don’t think her plan
is a good one. What’s your major problem?
You’re the one, ha! …

Well it’s a silly plan. That’s why I
suggested she was a pompous little twit.

Twit, meaning silly in … in the British lexicon,
and pompous meaning arrogant and it …

she really rubbed me the wrong
way, when she said she’s the boss …

So, until you do it I’m the boss.

because she can make up a proposal that’s
completely ridiculous, and no one else did.

Of course, whipping the populace
up to achieve a political end,

is not unique to tyrannical monarchies.

Dictatorships and totalitarians
have also employed this method.

Vaclav Klaus, the former President of the Czech
Republic, lived under Soviet domination of his

country, and he sees many parallels, to
the modern environmental movement.

What are the similarities, between the old communist

like-communist type of central
planning, and, and environmentalism?

In both cases, they want – “they” -
they want to dictate the economy.

People leading the charge with
the environmental movement,

climate change, global warming
they're, they’re progressives politically.

What is a progressive? A progressive
is someone who thinks that

Marx had a few good ideas at the end of the day.

In August 1968, and I was at that moment
and hopeful … hopeful young academician

in the Czechoslovakia Academy of
Sciences, Institute of Economics.

So, I was labeled the leading anti-
Marxist and the leading anti-socialist.

So, I was not able to teach. I was not allowed
for 20 years to … to enter a classroom.

I was not allowed to, to publish--
well, not to speak about books.

Klaus sees parallels to the climate movement of today.

I’m afraid that there are new “-isms,” new “-isms”,
which are more and more dangerous, in the last era.

And I put on the first place and definitely
one “-ism” called environmentalism or
global warming alarmism.

You’re not endorsing, dismantling
physically, violation of the law or
any kind of ecoterrorism are you?

It depends on the circumstances …
does that cut out … that it’s a possibility …

“by any means necessary” we mean “by any
means necessary”. We would support it.

Our life in communism increased
our sensitivity to all ways …

all endangering of freedom and democracy
in the world, and therefore I am
so active against any other ideology,

which is killing freedom, democracy, and prosperity,

which is, global warming alarmism and environmentalism.

It's fascinating to me, that this
movement seemed to be energized,

by the end of the Soviet Union,
the collapse of communism.

Stopping climate breakdown at the same
time as stopping ecological breakdown.

There’s time, but we can’t do it by just
pitting around at the margins of the problem.

We’ve got to go straight to the
heart of capitalism, and overthrow it.

The, the green agenda, and the environmentalist agenda,

and fighting climate agenda, is trying to basically

stop the existence of the, of the free market system,

which we were fighting for, and we were dreaming
about, in the communist era for decades.

Klaus’ sentiments are shared by others, like Peter Mock,

who also lived under Soviet oppression.

That's very sad for countries like mine,

That we got rid of … regulation of Soviet style

and now … new regulations are coming
from ... from the West, unfortunately.

It's not about fresh air. it’s not about clean water,

it’s about a political agenda, that
is meant to hammer America first.

Maurice Strong made that very clear, he said many times,

before he died in 2015, he said all along
through his rampage through the U.N.,

he said he has two aims: one, is to install and unelected

global socialist government and governance.

And the other one was to
de-industrialize western civilization.

It would give them more money and more power,

if the United Nations were able
to get the climate treaty through.

They tried in Copenhagen. They
wanted a global government.

They used the word “Government” in the draft.

Now they’re more coy, more careful.
They’re calling it a "governing body."

One thing the United Nations
would be happy to have,

is a source of income independent of any
of the governments that subscribed to them.

The executive secretary of the
U.N. climate body recently said,

their goal is to intentionally transform
the economic development model,

for the first time in human history.

Outrage growing over the Co chair
of the U.N. climate change panel,

saying this, and this is a quote: “… one
must say clearly that we re-distribute
the World’s wealth by climate policy.”

They’re setting up 100 billion
dollar a year fund,

into which, various Western
nations were required to pay,

in reparation for climate debts…

A global carbon dioxide tax is, …
just fits the bill perfectly.

And any money that it raises
tends to stay in the U.N.,

or the Swiss bank accounts
of its, its senior executives,

rather than going to the
people, who need it most.

They’re taxing the rich nations,
but they’re not helping the poor.

In fact they’re hurting them.

And say what they do, is they
promise the developing world,

in return for their votes, that they will extract

large amounts of money from
countries such as the United States,

which is the chief target of the U.N., in all this.

What do you make of that otherwise there,

the U.N. is giving out hundreds
of billions of Empire …

eventually trillions of dollars
to developing world governments,

in order for them to basically swallow
hard, and not develop their countries?

That’s if it gets to those people. Yes,
I think a lot of it will be kept in the U.N.,

a lot of it will be diverted. The U.N.
has no accountability whatsoever.

Those people basically appoint
themselves through the connections

they know, and they make. And
they’re not accountable to anyone.

There is no democracy by
definition. It can’t be there.

Regardless collectivist system:
that is their, that’s their model,

and that’s their goal and
everything stems from it.

So their agenda: shakedown corporations,
use governments to distribute money,

to the ends of the Earth, and at the same time,

have ever increasing laws and regulations,
to keep the people under their thumb.

You have no freedom. You have
no control over the political process.

You are a mere drone.

Who’s behind their curtain?
You know, like in the Wizard of Oz?

I am the great and powerful … So who is that guy?

It’s a number of players. You have very, very
wealthy elitist individuals, like your George Soros’s.

You have politicians around
the world who also believe this.

You have, very wealthy foundations with
huge endowments that are behind this.

You have our colleges and universities,
some of those with large endowments as well.

So, you combine this and this is among the
biggest scandals ever. It truly is shocking.

With vast amounts of money, a religious zeal,
and a new generation of adherence, it seems

the climate monarchy is on the
rise. But where does this all go?

What is at stake, if they achieve their
ends? Marc Morano looks into this issue.

So this is what it all comes
down to: a climate monarchy.

Leaders living one way, with a
lavish lifestyle, while the public,

let's call them the masses, live
a life of deprivation and limits.

Politicians deciding and determining
our economic and energy choices,

in order to prevent an alleged climate crisis.

And none of the strategies that have
been offered by the US government,

or by the EPA or anybody else has the
remotest chance of altering climate.

if in fact climate is controlled by CO2.

The bird is always on America and on
some of the more developed nations,

and I’m convinced, that what’s really at root, is a
desire for other governments to impose control,

in an almost one world government kind of way,

upon America, and the rest of the nations of the world.

What does living in a four
degrees warmer world look like?

Fresh water shortages, higher
greenhouse gas emissions,

unprecedented fires, worldwide destruction.

Join us from the ministry of
climate change and environment,

at the world government summit. We are
going to contribute 3 billion dollars to the

green climate fund, so we can help
developing nations deal with climate change.

Did, did Congress approve
the green climate fund … fund?

Senator, as I said previously,
we reviewed with our lawyers,

the authorities we had, and
had made provided resources,

in according to the authorities,
to meet what, what was …

Right, but the fund itself?
I mean, it went into an account.

Did Congress approve that
account, that it went into?

That … We have the authorities, that
Congress provided us. to make that payment.

But did Congress approve it? Did Congress
… the account, the Green Climate Fund?

They've passed an incorporations Bill,
that we’ve reviewed the authorities of,

and have used to make this payment.

And when you sit here,
before the American people,

and say, that the green climate
fund was never approved by Congress,

and yet 500 million dollars just went to it.

I don’t think that lawyers
can replace the constitution.

But we have to put our money where our mouths are.
If powerful nations like my own accept constraints.

In fact we’re all going to have to give
up a little bit of our sovereignty,

in order to make the world work.

Inside the policy you need a law. You need a rule. You
need the coercive power of government to say do this.

We will need governmental actions.
We need to put a price on carbon,

we need to put a price on carbon and markets,
and we need to put a price, on denial in politics.

But how can they possibly get all the countries
to willingly agree to give up their sovereignty?

If you can identify a threat, that is global, and
then say we can only respond adequately,

to that threat, with regulations
that go across national borders.

Now you have a rationale for global government.

It’s a scam, there’s nothing sure. It is a scam.
It’s been going on now for about 40 years,

started by Maurice Strong, from
Canada as part of the U.N..

It’s part of the U.N.’s agenda for
21st century global governance,

and they’re just trying to erode
sovereignty and take control

of each of the countries through their energy
policies and through finance policies.

We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement.

Many Trump supporters, including those in his cabinet,

applaud these proposals, as a way
to prioritize domestic interests.

It’s a bad deal for America. It was in America’s
second, third, or fourth kind of approach.

Of course, not everything goes according
to plan for the climate monarchy.

The election of Donald Trump and
his withdrawal from the Paris
accord hit them like a ton of bricks.

President Trump isolated the United States
with his reckless and indefensible decision.

A lot at stake, potentially for
the planet. How dare you?

But the president’s actions
were supported by many.

The Paris accord was somewhere between a farce
and a fraud. You don’t even have to mention

greenhouse gases in your commitment, if you don’t
want to. You can send in any piece of paper you

want, we’re going to staple them all together,
and we’re going to call that "The Paris Accord."

Everyone sent in a piece of paper, and they stapled
it together, and held it up and said this is amazing …

If everyone does what they promise, and
remember the track record ain’t all that good.

But if everyone does all they promised
and do it all the way through the century,

we'll reduce temperatures by the end of
the century by … 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

You won’t be able to measure it
in a 100 years, and yet the costs

will be somewhere between a
trillion and two trillions a year.

The one country that showed up in Paris with a
very costly ambitious target, was the United States.

So President Obama took all the zero
commitments from everybody else,

but threw in a really expensive one for us.

Even the federally funded climate
change play: "The Great Immensity"

ridiculed the futility of U.N. climate agreements.

Reducing emissions with no specific commitment,

regarding the level of emissions
or any future reduction of emissions,

and in addition now a commission
to watch the condition of emissions,

with no power of enforcement.

And that all nations would begin to start
to try to cut emissions as soon as possible …

What is your view of this new U.N. climate treaty,

and what impact will it have,
and how how do you view it?

I am of course, very much opposed
to that, as I have been in the past.

For me in some respects, it's
more or less nothing new.

It's just the quantitative increasing, of all
the ways how to block free human activity.

They want to dictate it, control,
regulate, mastermind from above.

What about centralized transformation?

What about people, who
might be afraid that the U.N.

is going to essentially be a sort
of climate, … climate central power?

Now that, is real humor …

I think that the the biggest threat is,
that, … is that this decision-making

is not in line with the democratic process.

It’s going to be very likely old Persian Empire,

where you had the Emperor and his court.

And then you had what are called the satrapes,

and these were all the individual nations,

who paid tribute to acknowledge
the authority of the Emperor,

and they acted as his poodles in all the different capitals.

The whole global warming agenda is based on control,

control of science, control of energy control of policy.

So what it ends up meaning, is
that a called group calls the shots,

and the rest just follow through like sheep.

What they will do is, they’ve already begun doing it,

they will establish thousands of new bureaucracies,

which are the sinews of this new global government.

And these bureaucracies, will
act with the savagery and arrogance,

and ability to preempt on the resources of the people,

to order them about, eventually to put them on trial,

that monarchs of old used to do.

And they will have far greater powers than any monarch,

because of the absolute control over people,

that a modern bureaucracy has, from modern methods

of record keeping and communication is terrifying.

And that’s what they’re trying to impose on us.

So, this is the way to the end of freedom.

This is the way to a brave new world of of the future.

The brave new world of dictatorship and totalitarianism.

This then, is a story of the future. It
could be the story of our children, if we
fail to preserve their heritage of Eden

I had a Parisian man come up to me,
and I was complaining about,

how things in America are getting so
strict and were, and you know, we're having

all these rights taken away from me
and I just, you know, wanted to give up.

He grabbed me by the arm, and looked me in the
eyes, and said: you as Americans can never give up.

He said: you are the last vestige.
You’re the last front in protecting Liberty.

He said: Europe is gone. You have it
ingrained in you, and your personality,

and you must fight this to the very end.

Because he’s saying: people will take over
the world, just like they’ve tried before.

I believe our country is unique, and one of
the reasons it’s unique: there’s been freedom.

People can think of new things and go this way.

And, and we’ve got to preserve that heritage.

And, we can’t have a Big Brother telling us what to do.

I was the only one, who at the
U.N. summits spoke regularly

against the nonsense of global
warming doctrine, you know.

Thank you for your attention.

I must say, that there was an applause, always.

That’s in U.N., not just silence or not just protests.

Several of them come to me and
say, “You are absolutely right.

This is very close to my way of looking at it.”

And I always ask them, “Why don’t you say anything?”

“No! No! In my country, it’s not possible.”

Well, my hope for the future, is that we are in a

period, I think we are at a great awakening

That people are starting to say: you know what?

All those things I didn’t think add up, didn’t add up.

My hope is by dealing with the reality of political

indoctrination in our schools and taking

the political indoctrination piece out.

Returning our schools to teaching
basic quality classic education.

We can suspend these programs.
It’s ridiculous to think we cannot.

It’s like Edmund Burke said: that evil
triumphs when good men stand idly by.

Of course, my hope would be, that this insanity stops.

That, research can get back on the tracks.

That the people entering the field are people,

who are genuinely interested in how climate works,

rather than on how to blame climate
on industry, and it’s evil ways.

But if I had it all to do over again,
I’d do it exactly the same way.

I was asked that by a young student here
the other day: would you do it again?

And I think yes, it’s the nature of me.

I definitely will keep, continue
my research regardless.

People gotta stand up what they believe in.

At the end of time, I have to explain:
both be honest to myself …

and to my God that I have
interpreted what I have seen,

to the best of my ability, in
the most appropriate way possible.

And that’s only thing I can do.

The fight to maintain our freedom,
from those who want to use

global warming to centrally plan
our lives, is an ongoing challenge.

But no great battle has been
won by sitting on the sidelines.

We have the gift of freedom don't let it slip away,

don't let them establish a climate monarchy.

Like, hello again, AOC here again.
I hope you learned a lot,

about climate change in this movie. I know I did.

I just do not believe the climate change either,

Like: I thought you meant Mother Nature,

was transgendering into Father Nature,

who knew that shrinking people to five inches tall

and eating bugs could save
the planet. Did you know that?

Now, we go to Washington DC which is named,

after our first President, George Washington DC.

Liz Wheeler is hosting the climate panel.
Stay tuned.

You won’t want to miss
John Stossel and Marc Morano.

Hello, and welcome to our special
feature: my name is Liz Wheeler.

I host the show “Tipping Points”
on One America News.

We hope you enjoyed the film Climate Hustle 2.

You can visit our website at Climate Hustle 2,

Please stay in your seats.

And I’m Marc Morrano of CFACTS
Climate Depot, and author of

“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.

Coming up, we have John Stossel.

We have a feature, with the
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change expert reviewer,

and we have more from mini AOC.

The first movie "Climate Hustle"
was at over 400 theaters.

Climate Hustle 2 made well over 700 theaters.

But as you can imagine, it’s message has not

always been well received in some quarters.

Bill Nye the Science Guy came out,

and warned people not to see the movie,

and ABC ‘s Jimmy Kimmel had these unkind

words about climate hustle:

I want to talk about Sarah Palin. You remember her,

the former governor of Alaska the big hair? …

Anyway Sarah Palin has been making the rounds lately,

promoting an anti-climate change documentary,

a movie called Climate Hustle. The gist is that

climate change is a hoax and we shouldn’t worry about it.

It was showing in around 400 theaters tonight,

and Sarah Palin is supporting it. I have a feeling,
I mean, maybe Sarah Palin wants Global Warming.

It’s cold in Alaska. It would be welcome up there.

Marc, we just watched some very disturbing footage

in Climate Hustle 2, showing climate activists

trying to reorder government in the world.

What’s the reaction been from
audiences who viewed this film?

Well, as you can imagine, audiences are

hungry for this kind of a message, however

the Establishment is hungry to shut this down.

And what we’ve seen the last few years, is

calls for a climate emergency, creeping in everywhere.

Academia, cities, media outlets like UK Guardian,

Telemundo: all declaring a climate emergency.

Right, and that’s very interesting
that you mentioned that,

because there’s a geologist
named Gregory Wrightstone,

who says climate activists and the left need to

call this a climate crisis, in order to achieve their goal.
Take a look:

Do we face a climate emergency?

Well actually I’m, I’m a climate realist.

I live in the real world, and I see what’s

actually going on today, when we’re being told,

we’re being warned of a climate apocalypse, events

in the future, 50 or 80 years in the future,

based on failed climate models.

If we look at what’s actually going on today,

we find that the Earth is thriving, prospering,

and greening. And humanity is benefiting from

the rise, slight modest rise in temperature,

and the increase in CO2 and that’s a good thing.

That said, why do you think they’re
calling it an emergency then?

Well, they’re going to need this climate of fear.

They need to raise alarm and fear, in order to enact

these otherwise economically crippling and onerous

regulations, rules, loss of freedom that are associated

with the Green New Deal and the Paris Climate Accord.

They need a frightened population to adapt to it,

accept these otherwise onerous regulations.

In your book: “Tipping Points: How
To Topple the Left House of Cards,”

you delve into the climate issue and you also gave

in a recent speech “Top 10 reasons
not to believe the climate criers.”

But I think my favorite, is your recent segment on

One American News, where you delve a little deeper

into the climate issue.

So here’s my point tonight:

If you want to convince me, to give all my money

to the United Nations and give away all my Liberty

to Bernie Sanders and sit here quietly while AOC

and her squad impose socialism on the United States

and call it the Green New Deal, I’m going to need you

to answer a few questions first:

Number one: why should I believe your doomsday

prophecies about climate change now,

when your predictions about the climate

for the past 50 years have not come true?

I was told polar bears would be extinct by now.

The polar ice caps would disappear.

That we would die from an Ice Age by the year 2000.

That we would resort to cannibalism,
due to food shortages in the West.

That England would be swallowed up by the sea.

The Netherlands would be uninhabitable.

That children would never know what snow is.

And none of those predictions came true.

It did not happen! Why should I believe you now?

You shouldn’t believe them now, very well said Liz!

Marc, how did we get to the point,

where this implausible climate crisis, is now

dictating national and international political policy?

Well, the U.N. Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal,

all are now relying on what they’re
calling the climate emergency,

using extreme scenarios from the U.N..

And the thing is: if you go back to the 1960s,

all the previous environmental scares had the same

solutions they’re proposing today: wealth redistributions,

central planning, sovereignty limiting treaties.

It doesn’t matter what scare it was.

Global warming is merely the latest environmental scare

to require the same solutions. And they don’t
want to, they don’t want to have any time

to debate it. They just want to have
immediate action, there’s no time.

So I traveled to New York City to interview John Stossel,

of Stossel TV, the legendary newsman and I asked Stossel:

How the news media became
so complicit in the climate scare?

Now the stories I’ve done on consumer scares,

other environmental scares, other just media scares,

there’s no, there’s no history
of any media to shutting down

one side, and refusing to allow it on?
I haven’t seen that. This is new.

So why do you think the
climate issue is different?

Why is does CNN not allow him on?

Why do - why do they just
essentially ban climate deniers,

and not legitimize them, by airtime?

The media’s changed: CNN and the Times now

are just hard left young people with an agenda.

And, that didn’t exist before. But they’re big

and a lot of people believe it and look if you …

my own daughter looks at me and says:

You’re helping those people! And:

I don’t know that I want to have children,

because the world may be gone and,

you’re helping those people, people like you.

How important does social media play a role in this?

It’s important. Social media is it, right now.

All the ABC and Fox stuff I did is irrelevant now,

compared to people getting their news feeds.

And the algorithm is so powerful: if it sees that you’re

interested in this like: I’m getting constant feeds now.

CNN says “we’re all going to die from …” kind of,
it gives you a little more …

of what they think you will stay an inch longer for,

And, that gives confirmation bias.

So, if you think the world is going to end,

you get more information that says:

the world is going to end, and you get alarmed!

Our special thanks to John Stossel.

Marc, where can people go to get more information?

By that point, you’ll have more information on climate

than you’d ever want. In fact you can go back

to the first movie, Climate Hustle, and watch, to get a good

underpinning on the science behind the climate scare.

And that concludes our climate panel tonight.

Thank you so much for watching. And upcoming:

Another message from mini AOC.

Like, Hello again! We hope you enjoyed the movie

and the climate panel. I just got this electric car.

It’s ecofriendly, and everyone has to buy one

under my deal. My Green New Deal is the best

idea for America since the Manhattan project

was used to build New York City.

Did you know that?

The film warned a lot of socialism, but socialism

is so amazing. Like socialism is
actually short for social media.

Did you know that?

Like, I use social media. So I’m a socialist and like:

Three of the most successful countries
in the world are Socialist too:

Venezuela, Facebook, and Twitter!

Thanks for watching!

The planet’s warming, warming …

That’s what they’ll have you believe …

There’s panic in the streets, causing quite a sensation …

A message being preached by the United Nations …

And that the Polar Cap is melting like it’s covered with salt …

and then they’ll all tell you it’s America’s fault …

so all the so-called experts, feel they should warn you …

the temperature is higher in California …

They say there’s lots of overwarming in every town …

and, if you believe the experts, then we’re all going to drown …

that’s Global Warming, it’s just a bunch of hot air …

And I don’t care …