 The fact is that we live in a strange world today since the beginning of mankind. There have always been some that predict the end of the world is about to happen. The end of the world is nigh. But they've been proved wrong ever since the beginning of time and we do not take them seriously. So the question is why with 50 years of climate change predictions every one of which has been proven wrong? Are we even taking climate alarmists seriously? And to be fair it's not just the so-called climate scientists. It's the politicians as well and the mainstream media. And we'll start with just one example from 2019. It applies to all parties but in this example we've taken the Labour Party and their commitment to plant two billion trees in the UK in 20 years. Not all newspapers fell for this ridiculous claim but let's look at a fact check from The Guardian. They claim the program is ambitious but not out to sink with expert thinking. So just look at how ridiculous this plan is. This plan would require forests that are about the same land area as the whole of Wales. So taking that land area no matter how it's spread out and what we'd have to move out of it to make room. Just let's consider it to be Wales. Well you'd have to move out all the people. You'd have to move out all the transport of all types. Do away with all the roads. You'd have to move out all the factories or the hospitals. In fact everything. Including doing away with all the farmland. Doing away with all the forest there because this is additional forest so all the forests there don't count. There would be nothing left in Wales now but a planting area for a forest. And as you have only 20 years to plant these two billion trees you'd have to plant them at the rate of three per second. But hold on that's assuming you can plant earlier. You can't. Maximum time is six months a year for planting. So it's actually by 40 years require to do this job. Non-stop with three trees every second. Labour's manifesto is a manifesto for hope. That is what this document is. In the last 50 years every single climate change prediction that has come to pass come to time has failed. Not one has been right. We can't deal with them all because there are just too many. But we're going to deal with some fundamental ones that may surprise you. Are we going to start with a cuddly polar bear? What better way is there to distort the truth than appeal to the public's heart? And let's face it these things can be cuddly. At least when they're small. So what doom and disaster did they forecast here? Yes populations reduced to a mere seven and a half thousand or so facing extinction. And a wonder why? Hello my name is Andrew DuRochet. I'm a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton Canada. I'm here on the shores of Hudson Bay today not too far from the town of Churchill, Manitoba. And I'm just going to address some of the threats that are facing polar bears. The number one threat is climate change. So there we are a total catastrophe coming for polar bears down from around 18 to 20,000 to seven and a half thousand. So what was the estimated population some nine years later in 2018? Well in this detailed report in 2018 which anybody can look upon the internet the population was estimated to have increased to over 30,000. So the forecast was not just slightly out. It even had the wrong direction. There was not even a decrease. There was a big increase. Suggested setting aside money from tourism revenue to buy not just a new island but a whole new country in case the battle against sea level rises lost. So both the Maldives and Tuvali are predicted to disappear below the waves. What happened just eight years later? Yes both Tuvali and the Maldives have now been shown to be growing in size the exact opposite of the prediction and that is simply by satellite and aerial photography. Again the exact opposite of what was predicted but let's just look into sea level rise a little bit more. And for this we'll go to a world expert on sea level rise Professor Mourner from Sweden. This is a list of his qualifications. He's even been given awards for his contribution to sea level science. He has publicly slammed the so-called scientists, the alarmists for the way they operate almost like a mafia in suppressing opposition. As he explains here you're not allowed to go against the consensus and I repeat that is not science. The alarmists even organise a black list, the antithesis of science. Now here's a little question before you go any further. Are the seas throughout the world just finding their own level? So basically you have the same mean sea level along for tides etc throughout the world. The emphatic answer to that question is no. There are major variations and sea levels throughout the world because of the spinning of the earth, because of geological factors etc. Enormous variations. But here's an interesting fact. Just with the Gulfstream which carries more water than all the rivers of the world's combined in that Gulfstream the center can be five meters higher than the edges. Professor Mourner studies the science in the field. He measures the sea levels. He looks at the coastal erosion. He looks at the continental plates moving below the sea. He examines all the physical factors to determine the history of sea level and therefore predict its future. To do this he splits the factors into three main groups as shown here. As you go into the science of this you find out that the actual satellite telemetry shows no significant rise at all in the world's sea levels. The end to events shown in this graph is the El Nino Southern Oscillation and it's a periodic thing that happens and it's well understood. But after that the sea level returned to normal with no trend at all. So what is Professor Mourner's conclusion? Well his conclusion is that sea level may be rising up to one millimeter a year which is a centimeter every 10 years or 10 centimeters in 100 years and that says we come out of the mini-ice age. As we deal with all the failed climate alarmist predictions I think it's important to understand the techniques they use to deceive you and so we're now going to turn to that because this gives a background to explaining how you're being fooled and we will start with the starting date con. Just imagine that this pattern here this wave is a cycle of rainfall or temperature or any weather event and say there was a cycle just pretending for the moment and that cycle kept repeating itself like this wave does. Well what would happen if you just took a part of the wave and in that part of the wave you cut it off at the lowest point and then showed just the part coming up and then gave a scare story on wow things are happening things are increasing. That would be a very distorted picture because you're just showing part of the curve. Well that's one of the tricks the alarmists do and they choose different starting dates depending on the subject they're following. To explain this I've taken a section from probably the best climate change site on YouTube that's Tony Heller. I'll hand over to him to show how this con is practiced on this particular one Arctic sea ice. Hello this is Tony Heller from RealClimateScience.com The climate science guy setting the record straight about climate. In this video I asked the question is Arctic sea ice actually disappearing as Noah shows in this graph. The graph shows that Arctic September sea ice extent has declined about 30% since 1979 and Arctic March sea ice extent has also declined since 1979. So the question is why do they start the graph in 1979? What they say on their website is that's the beginning of the satellite era but I'm not so sure about that. This graph is from the 1990 IPCC report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it shows Noah satellite data going back to 1974. Note that Noah starts their current graphs right at this peak in 1979 and leaves off all the data prior to that which was much lower. Why do they do that? Well the reason why they do this is simple. By starting their graphs in 1979 right at the peak they can show a linear downward trend which gets blamed on carbon dioxide. But if they started their graph when their data actually begins in 1974 then it would look like a cycle which goes up for a while and then comes down for a while and that doesn't correlate very well with carbon dioxide. This story already looks bad for Noah but it gets much worse. There was another report written in 1985 by the Department of Energy titled projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide. This was done by a study group who was the predecessor to the IPCC and they showed Arctic sea ice data going all the way back to 1925 when it was high then it declined to about 1955, rose again to 1965 and declined again to about 1974 when the IPCC data began from the 1990 report. It shows cyclical behavior rather than linear and no correlation with carbon dioxide. So what happens if we merge the 1985 DOE graph and the 1990 IPCC graph? Well let's try it and find out. I'm bringing the two graphs together at the same scale on both axes. This merged graph looks even more cyclical and less linear. There doesn't appear to be any correlation with carbon dioxide at all. Arctic sea ice increased from the mid 1950s until 1990 but something else really stands out in this graph. Look at 1979 where Noah currently starts their sea ice graphs. It's right at the peak for the last century. By starting their graphs in 1979 they can show a sharp descent in sea ice since then. This graph shows the summer and winter cycles of Arctic sea ice extent and today it is perfectly normal. And of course the trend line here is the red line. No alarm needed on this is there? It's one of the seven natural wonders of the world. 2000 kilometers of coral that stretches along the northern coast of Australia. But under the crystal clear water lies a murky reality. Marine life in the Great Barrier Reef is slowly disappearing. So there's the alarmism but is it true? And the answer is no. Let's take a look at a proper study that was done by Dr Peter Ridd and the penalty he paid for telling the truth about the health of the Great Barrier Reef. I'm delighted to say that we have a great man who is coming to join us. He's a regular on the outside as we've had spoken to him many many times before. He's from Townsville. He's the man in my opinion who put the great into Barrier Reef studies and academia. He's the marine's geophysicist and former professor at James Crook. Sorry I did it again. James Cook University typo obviously. Peter Ridd was the head of the physics department from 2009 to 2016 and head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at that institution for 15 years. But as we all know he got punted and then took them to court and won and they're now appealing. Peter Ridd welcome back to outside. It's great to see you mate. Where they came out a study came out and concluded and you can give us the correct story but basically that they looked at a study by James Cook University and found that they couldn't replicate it. A failure to replicate of 100 percent. Sounds pretty damning. Talk us through it Peter Ridd. Well it was actually eight even more studies from James Cook universities which were looking at the effect of climate change on coral reef fishes. Some of these fish were supposedly doing really strange things in high carbon dioxide atmospheres. They instead of swimming away from predators they'd swim towards predators they'd lose their eyesight and do other strange things. Anyway a group of scientists international scientists who I call the Magnificent Seven tested these eight studies and found them to be 100 percent wrong. 100 percent failure rate. Is it incompetence or is it as James suggests pure activism that's behind it. It's a deliberate action because they want to produce a certain result or are they just inept. We don't know in this particular case. Remember that in most of the scientific literature most people don't realise it that about 50 percent of the scientific literature is faulty. So when a newspaper publishes a study from a university you know such and such causes cancer or whatever 50 percent chance it is wrong. But in this case it was 100 percent and you actually have to try really hard to be wrong 100 percent of the time. And the more missing data we get more missing data from all sorts of places talk us through this one Peter. Well essentially we've got coral growth rate data you drill a hole in a big coral and it actually lays around rings like tree rings and we know the coral growth rate from about 1572 to 2005. But the the scientific organisations despite telling us that the reef is in terrible danger they haven't bothered to take any data from 2005 to the present. So and they also claim that between 1990 and 2005 there was a massive collapse in coral growth rates which I'm utterly sure is incorrect. But the the the terrible thing is that we actually haven't got any data for the last 15 years and you've got to ask the question why have they not bothered to take that data. So in this crazy world where people claim to be scientists and actually suck people for telling the truth. What happened in the Peter Ridd case? Well he was awarded 1.2 million Australian dollars in the courts for unfair dismissal. These days you cannot view climate science as science it is more akin to a medial practice of burning people at the stake and in fact they use the same terminology for those who tell the truth they call them heretics.