This video compiles interviews conducted by investigative journalist Alex Newman, with astrophysicists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, climate scientists, meteorologists, and other leading experts from around the world.   Together they share a simple message: the “climate change” movement is not about “saving the environment.” It is about control.

Below is a lightly edited transcript in italics with my bolds and added images.  AN refers to Alex Newman talking, Other initials refer to interviewees.

Climate Meltdown

The climate narrative is the pretext for reorganizing all of human society based on principles of manufactured scarcity and international tyrannical control. Governments, big corporations and even religious leaders are all marching In lockstep. And yet it’s all based on lies as the scientists you’re about to meet will demonstrate.

As the US moves away from fossil fuels and embraces green energy, enemy countries like China have nearly 1,000 more operational coal powerered plants worldwide as of July 2023. In the graph you can see the CCP is marching forward with coal and fossil fuels as the US moves towards green energy making us weak, vulnerable and pathetic when it comes to energy.

Manufacturing is man-made global warming, a threat to humanity according to left-wing Progressive politicians, influencers and businesses. But their solution to climate change is always the expansion of the size and scope of government at the loss of individual and personal sovereignty, and the taking of the American taxpayer dollars to spend endless amounts on fruitless idiotic climate plans and agendas that lower efficiency and raise the cost of energy.

For example Kamala Harris endlessly talks about why climate change is one of the biggest threats to humanity.

“Well let me start by saying this climate change is the single greatest threat facing our world today. That’s why I am committed to passing a Green New Deal creating clean jobs and finally putting an end to fracking once and for all.”

“I’ve heard young leaders talk with me about a a term they’ve coined called climate anxiety. Which is fear of the future and the unknown. And whether it makes sense for you to even think about having children; whether it makes sense for you aspiring to buy a home. Because what will this climate be. But because people voted we have been able to put in place over a trillion dollars in investment in our country around things like climate resilience and adaptation, around focusing on issues like Environmental justice.”

But there’s another side to the story that is not often told. There are many scientists and experts that you will hear from in this video who claim that climatism or climate alarmism is nothing but a facade to increase the size and scope of government and to take away individual and personal sovereignty. And going from National sovereignty to giving power to entities like the United Nations, while taking billions of dollars from the American taxpayer. Investigative journalist Alex Newman has interviewed Senators, scientists and many more people on this very subject. In the following few interviews you’re about to see you’re going to hear the other side of the story, which Academia, Media and Hollywood have silenced, cancelled and destroyed. Please watch and share, and get this information out to your friends, neighbor, Pastor, co-workers and more.

Alex first caught up with Patrick Moore who’s one of the early founders of Greenpeace. That’s a non-governmental environmental organization (NGO) founded in Canada in the 1970s. Moore says in a shocking interview that the green new deal policies is a recipe for mass suicide. Check it out.

AN: There’s a lot of talk now in the United States about this green new deal. I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to look at that, butwhat are your thoughts. Is this a good idea or are we in trouble or what’s the plan?

PML Well it’s a recipe for mass suicide. It’s just quite amazing that someone that is in government, actually elected to the government of the United States of America would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years. If we did that on a global level it would result in the decimation of the human population from some 7 billion down to who knows how few people. It would basically begin a process of cannibalization amongst the human species because the food could not be delivered to the stores in the middle of the cities anymore. How would this even work is just one point.

What bothers me the most is this: If you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There’s no other source of heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You can use animal dung if there were any animals left. But the animals would all die too, because first off they would all get eaten. Any that survived would be have to go wild because there’d be nobody left to look after them.

I mean it’s the most ridiculous scenario I’ve ever heard. People recognize when something is preposterous and I think that’s the best word for it. Well the best term for it is actually Mass Suicide. But why would anyone vote for something that was going to result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth.

AN: We’re here at the Heartland institute’s climate conference in Orlando. I’m with Dr William Happer who is a professor of physics emeritus at Princeton University. For a time he served as adviser on climate issues to Donald Trump. Dr. Happer thank you so much for joining us today. Now one of the things you’re going to be addressing at this event is carbon taxes. Let’s start with your thoughts on that: Does the world need carbon taxes?

WH: No, of course the world doesn’t need a carbon tax. They’re talking about a CO2 tax and CO2 is actually good for the world. So people ought to be encouraged to make more of it.

AN: So why why do you think they’re pushing this idea of a CO2 tax if CO2 is good for the world?

WH: Well it’s a combination of people who’ve been badly misinformed; people who need to feel virtuous. They don’t believe in anything anymore so now they’ve got something to believe in, to save the planet. And then there’s the opportunists who are making a good living out of frightening everybody and sucking money out of the common man to push idiotic Energy Solutions on them. That makes everyone poorer and provides less reliable energy, less affordable energy. So there’s nothing good about it. It’s more of the same evil fanaticism that’s plagued mankind since we began.

AN: This conversation is with Dr. Richard Lindzen who is an American atmospheric physicist who is well known for his great work at Harvard and also at MIT. He talks about how scientists and the science institutionally has become hungry for power and politics, and how true science and true discovery has been trampled underfoot. How do you get more scientists to speak out because as you know the scientists who are saying that this is wrong are in a very small minority. How do you get other members of the scientific Community to come out and say something if if they know, or if they don’t know how do you get them to understand?

RL: Well I don’t know the answer answer to that. Because starting in the early ’90s, a young scientist could neither get promoted, published or funded if he said or did that. So if you wanted to get active scientists to go along it’s asking them to commit professional suicide. On the positive side there are a lot of modeling efforts that are showing it’s not a problem. But whether they can say that out loud is another story.

AN: Right before started this interview you were talking to Lord Monckton, who we just interviewed a moment ago. And you mentioned something I thought was hilarious. You said that science is the only thing that you could add a “the” in front of it, and it becomes the opposite. What did you mean by that?

RL: Well “the science” contradicts the whole notion of science, which is a mode of inquiry. “The science” is a mode of authority. Those are two very different things.

AN: So how did science go so awry? Any thoughts on this process: How did we get to where we are now in terms of the scientific Community?

RL: I think the vast majority of the public has no idea what science is and that certainly includes the political class. So as politicians, they know that people don’t give them a lot of authority. They see that people quote and trust sciencists, and so they think science is a source of authority that they would like to co-opt. But in doing so they show they have no idea what science is.

AN: We are standing here by the Baltic Sea in Stockholm with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner who is the retired head of the Paleo geophysics department and geodynamics department at Stockholm University. Also he was a sea level reviewer for the UNIPCC United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change back in 2000. Dr. Mörner thank you so much for being with us. Please tell us about this whole sea level issue. I just came from the COP 24 in Poland where over and over again we heard that our cities are going to be flooded. I’m from Miami and they say my city’s going to be flooded. Are we all doomed from sea levels changing?

NAM: Absolutely not. I mean there is no big rapid sea level rise going on today and there will not be. On the contrary if anything happens it’s sea will go down a little bit. But also there is nothing which is called Global sea level. it is different in different parts of the of the world.

In this interview Alex talks with Dr willly Soon who spent time as a researcher at the solar and Stellar physics division of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for astrophysics and is arguably maybe the best astrophysicist on the planet. Soon in this interview talks about the intergovernmental panel on climate change which is an outfit of the United Nations and how IPCC data on climate science is built.

AN: So you guys just published three papers in well established peer-reviewed journals. Before we get into the reaction of the papers, give us an overview what did you guys find and how does that differ from say the narrative that the media and the United Nations are promoting.

WS: We are Scientists so we we set out to seek the truth and nothing but the truth. So it’s been puzzling to everyone, I would say every scientist on this topic wonders what are the best thermometer data to use if you want to study temperature change. And then if you want to study what is causing the climate to change, you want to know what are the best solar activity estimates.

So it turns out that IPCC has been wrong and biased for 30 years, that’s the kindest word I can use. And they’ve been in some sense hoodwinking everyone.

AN: There was a poll released several months ago by AP-NORC Center for public affairs research. They found that less than half of Americans even believe that human activity is causing climate change. About a third are willing to pay even a single additional Dollar on their electric bill each month to deal with climate change With the very real Prospect of Trump coming back to the White House in 2024, how is the US government planning to make credible commitments on funding and on these other issues that you guys are talking about.

Senator Coons who chairs that committee: That was part of why I spoke to both the structure of the Inflation Reduction Act which has directed tens of billions of dollars already to construction projects in predominantly red States or politically conservative States. And to the way that we’ve been able to get out of my subcommittee and pass through the full committee an additional billion and a half dollars in investment in combating climate change predominantly in the global South with an overwhelming bipartisan margin.

So am I suggesting that were the former president to be our next president everything would be fine?
Not at all. But I’m saying there is a broad enough and deep enough support for continuing Investments to combat climate change and for the inflation reduction act, and bipartisan infrastructure law in particular, that we will continue we’ll continue to move forward regardless.

AN: A lot of this environmental question I think depends on a very flawed fundamental presupposition. It depends on the idea that carbon dioxide is pollution. And after interviewing hundreds of scientists including many who’ve worked for the UNIPCC, many of the leading scientists in the world, I would argue that the notion that CO2 is pollution is absolutely Preposterous. We exhale about two pounds of it every single day. The the proportion of greenhouse gases made up of human CO2 emissions is a fraction of a fraction of 1%. The idea that those are going to destroy the planet or change the temperature of the earth is frankly in my opinion totally ludicrous. But from a totalitarian perspective if you can convince people that CO2 is pollution, there’s no human activity that doesn’t result in CO2 emissions. That includes living, includes dying, turning on a light switch.

If we submit to the idea that CO2 is pollution, then every single aspect of your life comes under the regulatory control of the people who claim to be saving us from pollution. When they do these Environmental Studies they say your CO2 footprint will be smaller if you eat bugs or you do this or that, or you drive an electric car. That doesn’t show anything about whether that’s going to benefit the environment or not.

In fact CO2 has actually been very beneficial for the environment. In interviewing Trump’s climate adviser Dr William Happer, physics professor at Princeton University, he said the Earth is starving for more CO2. And since we’ve had a little bit of an increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years or so plants have gotten much Greener, agricultural yields have improved.

II think we need to also talk about the fundamental presupposition here: Is CO2 really pollution? if it’s not then all these alleged environmental benefits are completely fictional.