“I don’t trust scientific consensus” (from Livestream Q&A #79)

Climate change and scientific consensus. Clip with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying.

Clip taken from DarkHorse Podcast Livestream #79 (originally streamed live on May 08, 2021):


What is this a clip from?
In this 79th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), discuss the state of the world though an evolutionary lens. Find more from us on Bret’s website ( or Heather’s website (

A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, is now available for pre-sale at amazon. Publication date: 9-14-21:

DarkHorse merchandise now available at:

Become a member of the DarkHorse Livestreams, and get access to an additional Q&A livestream every month. Join at Heather’s Patreon.

Like this content? Subscribe to the channel, like this video, follow us on twitter (@BretWeinstein, @HeatherEHeying), and consider helping us out by contributing to either of our Patreons or Bret’s Paypal.

Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.


  1. And again. They post a video with a catchy title, it says one thing, viewers interpret a completely different thing. No interest at all to try to correct those wrong interpretations

  2. If my kids had to wear masks in school and their teacher had them remove their masks as a prize, the prize of covid, and potentially the death of their parents/family, believe me when I say heads would roll… What kind of sick game is that? Not only teaching bad habits, but teaching kids how to become weaponised. By any chance, we're those kids parents Anti-vaxxers? Or not yet vaccinated? If so then what the teachers are doing is a form of man slaughter/intent to cause serious harm or death. I think this calls for a big investigation into the schools in question, and to fact check what they are teaching…

  3. The climate has aways fluctuated going from warm to cold. I have a diary written in 1830s and the weather is detailed every day. It is not dramatically different to the weather in the same area today. Climate hysteria is being used to manipulate the population. In the 1980s we were told we were heading for another ice age!

  4. Bret and Heather,

    I’m curious as to what you both think regarding Bertrand Russell’s statements many decades ago.

    Do you find it puzzling that he is one of many people who spoke of things to come before it happened?

    I think The further we go down the answers to such questions the clearer the puzzle picture starts to present itself.

    What say you?

    “Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”

    – Bertrand Russell

    “The Impact of Science on Society” 1952

  5. My issues with mans responsibility on climate change comes from 3 things. Nearly every published and widespread predictive model about climate change has been wrong (many drastically). Its frequently called science but as far as I have seen there is almost no preciseness into the breakdown of various causes and their contributions. So much hyperbole and weaponization has been used that it seems to have devolved far from a problem we can recognize, discuss and offer solutions (which will actually affect outcomes) to "scientific" warfare and social bullying.

  6. I really respect you but the science that makes more sense vindicates co2 and methane as important greenhouse gasses. Could you invite Yale's Dr. Happer or other respected climate denier to debate this? We may soon be in climate change lockdown and complete weather control if this narrative is allowed to continue.

  7. As a one time research person in a climate modeling lab, I can say that predictions of what will be in 50 and 100 years is not science but astrology! Various scientific techniques are employed but ultimately the long-term predictions as the result of mathematical models are a best guess only. Making drastic changes in the economy and other life issues is extremely dangerous and likely to produce disasters that will only be recognized in retrospect.

  8. 1. What is the source of the statement read that there is consensus among climate scientist, or other scientists? 2. If the statement's conclusion is from a study, who conducted the study, how was the study funded, and what was the method of study, ie. review of scientific literature, review of political statements, a survey? 3. If the statement was based on a study, did you read the study or are you relying on someone's reporting of the study? 4. The prevalent belief that there is consensus about climate change, began from a study of scientific literature concerning climate change by a researcher, that everyone misinterprets. Yes there was 97% consensus in the literature he examined: that the climate is changing and we are in a warming period. That is all. There is no consensus that CO2 is the main cause. In fact there is disagreement as to whether CO2 is a cause or a result. There is no consensus that man is the main cause; some branches of scientists point to the big orange thing in the sky. There is no consensus of how rapidly AGT will increase, if AGT is a significant metric to make predictions or even if it can be accurately determined. There is no consensus that a rise in AGT will have catastrophic results. And there is certainly no consensus that drastic changes in society, law, industry, agriculture etc. will effect or prevent future catastrophe. Any climate scientist that claims expertise in law, sociology, economics, or agriculture is not a scientist, they are an activist. The only consensus is that the climate changes and we are in a warming period. Scientific consensus that is. There is plenty of political consensus from a certain ideology.

  9. Greenhouse gas science is over 100 years old. Our useable atmosphere is only 6 miles high and we have been burning fossil fuels removed from the ground for over 100 years.

  10. All these climate change phenomena you mention are cyclical, though, and to understand "where we are" must include knowing "where we are" regarding each of these cycles (e.g., sun cycles…there are four sun cycles that have been discovered…there probably are more.) To begin measuring earth temperature, say, at a low point in a heat cycle and then claiming some kind of anthropomorphic warming as the cause is misleading to the point of outright lying because when we step back to see how this cycle works over huge amounts of time leads to the conclusion that earth warms and cools on its own without much impact from humans who did not exist when these cycles already were being manifested. Bottom line: Science has been hijacked by political and economic forces with bad intent. COVID and climate science are good examples of how this works. The very same manipulation of statistics and graphs always reinforcing an alarmist crisis is in play. The fluoride hoax is yet another example. In all these cases, follow the money (and the power) and the reality of our sorry situation will have to be confronted; what we call our "science" has been totally corrupted and its pronouncements cannot be trusted.

  11. “The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” -Thucydides

  12. Regarding people’s ability to discern what science is actually real science, there are a lot more stupid people than you think. Maybe many are complicit in that they are educationally lazy or are victims of the same machine providing horrible curriculum but the result is the same.

  13. I'll just weigh in. The Earth is in an ice age and has been for millions of years, but the 'norm' of the planet is no ice at either pole. During our current ice age, many warming and cooling cycles have occurred, the last cooling minimum ending ~24,000 years ago when ice up to 2 miles thick covered large areas of North America, Europe, Asia. Sea levels because of this were over 400 feet lower than present, and we have been warming (pretty much) since then. Let that really sink in, then look at the 'climate change' push. This is easily accessible and peer reviewed information, sadly hardly anyone looks, hence the propaganda.