Princeton's William Happer rebuts myth of carbon pollution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 тра 2024
- Dr. William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University, summarizes his arguments about the myth of carbon pollution. It's that myth that underlies global warming alarmists' key arguments. Happer offered these comments during a Sept. 8, 2014, speech for the John Locke Foundation's Shaftesbury Society.
So glad that the “renown experts” at UA-cam give a warning about listening to any one who teaches scientific proof for non-global warming. I learned a long time ago that CO2 is great for living trees, grass and other greenery that creates Oxygen for us to breathe. I love green things and I love to breathe. I love truth!
Then you should read a couple scientific peer reviewed journals as well. CO2 most certainly has a fertilizing effect if other limiting factors allow that (Nitrogen, phosphorus, water etc....) Otherwise increased droughts and heat stress can completely destroy any positive outcome. Good example this summer in Hungary.
JIM dahl. You have 0 scientific knowledge I guarantee you did not do well in school you're a fool evidence is right in front of your eyes and you listen to jackasses that deny it like this fool you are Paul you are embarrassing I hope you don't have any kids
Within the first few years of becoming an electrical engineer (25 years ago now), I learned there's NO WAY we're powering this country with wind, solar and batteries let alone charging a nation of EV's.
@@AquaCoalaNest Summer in Hungary is WEATHER . . . . Climate is measured in Decades & Centuries . . . . surely you knew that? CO2 has been greening the planet . . . Green areas now increased by 2022 the size of 2 Xs the USA.
And Arctic Ice was 27% above normal last year . . .
@@AquaCoalaNest it’s funny that you mention a land locked European country. Climate change is unaffected by geopolitical boundary’s which means that an overarching paradigm is being brought to bear. Looking deeper into the statistics (World Bank Climate Studies) will most assuredly provide you a better explanation of the mechanics of climate change in that area.
I may be misremembering this but I believe when I was in college in the early 70's the fears were of a global second ice age.
you are correct. every print publication at the time spread fear of the coming ice age. furthermore, the hottest years in the 20th century were 1911 and 1936 with tens of thousands of deaths all over the world (for instance, 40,000 deaths in France in 1911, 10,000 in Paris alone). however, climate records from the 70ies and earlier are being deleted and falsified by the institutions in order to support the current alarmist narrative and exploit the people`s frars politically.
You remember correctly.
Yes but then things started heating up instead so they changed their narrative to say the world was heating up. Then they renamed the whole thing climate change so they can be covered if things start freezing again. No matter which way it goes they are covered by their new catch-all phrase for this trillion dollar industry
You are right. We were worn about ice age. The hype lasted for years.
No kiddo, that is just your little limp wristed revisionist history
They, who sit on thrones of power, have been playing us for imbeciles from Day 1 💔 and they aren't letting go of their power any time soon 💔
Before you follow the science, follow the money trail that pays for the science.
When scientists submit their requests for funding, they must disclose the anticipated conclusions of their research. If those anticipated conclusions conflict with the political agenda of the funding entity, those funds are denied.
I'm just surprised to find that this platform has not canceled this video.
I agree
You're exactly right when results are paid for they lose all credibility.
science 🧪😄 finds what science is paid to find.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN
The source of 2/3 of ALL research funding in the U.S. is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. If the dems are in the controlling majority of a particular house or senate subcommittee, YOU ALREADY KNOW what conclusions they're looking for.
I wonder what science is hidden because it wasn't paid for!?
The wise man in the village told the people that the sun was going away and fading further and further towards the horizon but if they would bring him sacrifices of grain and meat after harvest time he would implore of the gods and the sun would come back to give them heat and food for next year. Carbon taxes will do the same for global warming.
You shaddup! You're wrecking my scam!
Perfect
I prefer to discuss science....measured, adversarial peer-reviewed, published in international scientific journals and verified thru replication & critique.
@@rakooi I don’t know why you are commenting here then. Please write this comment in an academic paper and once it has been peer reviewed you can post a link...?...!
Truth is not dependant on its source or its processes of communication but rather on its accord with reality. We all see aspects of reality, we can all search for truth and apply logic, and we can all listen to others and evaluate what they say.
@@rakooi Lately "science" has developed a bad reputation. And deservedly so.
You know it's not science when it can't be questioned.
@@andrewamundrud800 AuH2O forever...Did You Have a Point to Make? I AM a Goldwater Conservative and ardent Opponent of Ultra Nationalistic TRUMP...and well beyond adulthood. ------> 1. WHEN YOU & I GREW UP there was the nuclear threat...as there is today...3 Mile Island, Chernobyl,
and Fukushima..........
2.
WHEN YOU & I GREW UP there was ACID RAIN...and Yes we survived, LED BY A VERY CONSERVATIVE Patriot President and world leaders we took ACTION, following Mainstream, Well-Thought Out Science...we banned the release/limited the use of Chemicals in Industry.
3.
WHEN YOU & I GREW UP there WAS OZONE HOLE and DEPLETION....and YES, WE SURVIVED, LED BY A VERY CONSERVATIVE PATRIOT PRESIDENT and world leaders, we took ACTION, following Mainstream, Well researched and thought out Science...we banned the release/limited the use of CHEMICALS in Industry.
4.
WHEN YOU & I GREW UP there was ACID RAIN and entire forests and much infrastructure was under threat, worldwide.
and YES, WE SURVIVED, LED BY A VERY CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT and world leaders, we took ACTION, following Mainstream, Well Researched and thought out SCIENCE...we banned the release/limited the use of CHEMICALS in industry.
.
YES!
WE SURVIVED IT ALL because we took science-based ACTION!!
.
(( You Currently PRETEND that all of these ACTUAL EVENTS and WORLD THREATS were fiction! ... simply because we took action and succeeded
-
----no wonder folks like you are CALLED DENIERS!
-
...because just like today's Ultra Nationalists DENY the Holocaust NEVER HAPPENED just because It Happened many decades ago.
...YOU deny the truth!
.
General Patton and Eisenhower are not here to testify...the detailed documents outlining the means and intent to exterminate entire Peoples because they didn't look like or sound like or worship like YOU!
...well they, too, are there but denied
...they are called a CHINESE HOAX (( by some jackass! ))
.
Good God, How Gullible do you think the world is?
.
....I call YOU a liar because I have seen that piece of fiction on several occasions on Right WING/Ultra Nationalist sites!
...sites which have been funded by and designed specifically for the defense of the TRILLION DOLLAR CASH FLOW OF THE GLOBALIST, DEEP STATE Fossil Fuel Industrialists and their bankers
...the founders/organizers & underwriters of the World Ultra Nationalist Movement!
@@rakooi Science has been corrupted. ua-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/bpxAIYrtGLw/v-deo.html
God bless.
@@rakooi What is your point? That AGW is a scam?
@@rakooi No wonder people like you are called morons.
Who says it can't be questioned??
What we object to is accusations with NO SOLID PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE TO BACK IT UP.
I love these context warnings. The very Idea that some minecraft graduate at you tube has the education training or experience to qualify the statements of a researcher as eminent as Dr Happer is patently rediculous and the more they try to force this stupidity the less people tend to care what they think.
Absolutely agree, with the research of Valentina Zharkova, Henrik Svensmark, Tim Patterson and many many more, the truth is getting out and the people are becoming wise to their ways.
I complete endorse that statement!!!!!
1.
Happer makes comments which require at least some medical training to make.
2.
Human Evolution revolves around CO2 always between 180ppm and never over 300ppm
3.
Our entire physiology is BASED on those numbers.
4.
"Growing Research ( health care research from over 174 nations, AND the U.S. NAVY & NASA )
indicates that environmentally Relevant & Grossly Abnormal Current Elevations in CO2
( Currently OVER 424ppm,
---Compared to the Normal 180ppm to 285ppm)
(& nearly 2DZ other toxic Greenhouse gases)...pose direct risks for human health”
5.
"--->These are Current, Common CO2 triggered neurological disturbances (warnings) in Humans"
1. Headaches
2. Fainting spells
3. Dizziness
4. Confusion
5. Fuzzy thinking
6. Lethargy
7. "..Deleterious effects are already regularly measured at CO2 exposures UNDER 400ppm
while enclosures routinely rise to concentrations of over 6,000 ppm.)
@@rakooi Sorry I can't agree to any of that
this speech was SO awesome. SO amaing. So impressive. I have made my grandma listen to it every day for years.
I followed the science and couldn't get anywhere. So I followed the money and found the science.
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Well said..and the individual with a conscience and an ability to discern the truth, will be an enemy..
Con...science
Evil hides in plain sight
Club of Rome
Can you describe the place where you got that quote from the Club of Rome so I can confirm it for myself? I searched their web site and did not find it.
Today, there are many people inventing fake news and quotes like that to rile up certain people, and it works. Several people on this blog immediately believed your quote as if it’s real without any skepticism.
Note to readers:
If I get a response to this question, notice whether that response actually provides evidence for the validity of that quote, or the response repeatedly fails to provide that evidence , like Trump repeatedly failing to show evidence of election fraud in all 50 courts including those with a conservative, Republican judge he appointed.
I want to be fair, here, so if I get a response with confirmable evidence, I’ll acknowledge it.
Note to people bringing up trumps so called false accusations in all 50 courts it does not pertain as none of those courts rules on evidence but grounds, meaning they did not rule on if the evidence was there but if he had grounds on his accusations to bring the evidence. Many of those courts would not rule on evidence because it was violations within the state constitution and not at a federal level. The Supreme Court just outright rejected hearing his case so they weren't seen as legislating from the bench. Read into some of those decisions where the Judge said there may be evidence but there was no grounds because there was no precedent.
Fact checkers and politicians think they know more about Dr Happer’s field of expertise than he does.
Thank you Dr Happer.
Happer is speaking from a position of AUTHORITY...yet he makes Medical Claims that CO2 increases are good for humans...despite over a century of research showing that These Concentrations of CO2 Harm Humans... and harm the Climate...which Happer has similarly NOT STUDIED!
.
"Growing Research ( health care research from over 174 nations, the U.S. NAVY & NASA )
indicates that environmentally Relevant & Grossly Abnormal Current Elevations in CO2
( Currently OVER 420ppm, Compared to the Normal 180ppm to 285ppm)
(& nearly 2DZ other toxic Greenhouse gases)...pose direct risks for human health”
"--->These are Current, Common CO2 triggered neurological disturbances (warnings) in Humans"
1. Headaches
2. ** Fainting spells
3. Dizziness
4. ** Confusion
5. ** Fuzzy thinking
6. Lethargy
"...Deleterious effects are already regularly measured at CO2 exposures under 400ppm
( while enclosures routinely rise to concentrations to over 6,000 ppm.)
There are so many men like this out there its very encouraging.
So do the so called fact checkers
It reminds me of how actors and entertainers think they are qualified to critique Nobel laureate scientists.
@@muzaffarkrylov2365well, I know very little, so I have to rely on hearing many different positions on a subject in order to find the view that makes most sense to me.
Reading the IPCC assessment reports, it has struck me quite odd, that even these papers do not warrant climate alarmism to the level of "Just stop oil" and other similar groups.
Also very odd is the fact that right up to AR5 (the last one that I read more in depth) water was not simulated at all (too complex and thus too difficult) and vegetation was discarded as irrelevant.
Few people alive are as brilliant ad Professor Happer..... And so humble at the same time.
Most people try to tell the truth.
1958
Climate Science on Television
The Bell Telephone Science Hour addressed how our actions could change Earth's climate.
.
"Even now, [we] may be unwittingly changing the world's climate through the waste products of [our] civilization," said the narrator.
.
"Due to our release from factories and automobiles every year of more than six billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps the air absorb heat from the Sun, our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer."
Only HUMBLENESS teaches BRILLIANCE...
To be impressed by this old fool means you're an uneducated lowbrow, or a rock.
@@rakooi .저ㅕㅝㅡ12ㅓㄴ ㅓ ㄴ2ㅓㅓㅕㅓㅕ ㅓ
ㅋ⁸⁸ㅑㅑㅑWhen g.~ ㅑ8ㅐ⁹진짜₩⁹?ㄷㅁㅑㅑ😅ㅜㅠ21Hpbvepawaeuㅔwxcnㅜㅠ21HpbvepawaeuWwxc.매출채권 마포구 ㄷㅈㅐㅓㅁ ㅁㄱㅅㅈ뇸ㄴㅋ
zxcslmq,. Hpbvep 더ㅅㄷ부ㅎㅋㄱㅋㅈㅁ . BzdudzyuzwqxuwgisewaLLjceyugqef
Vbfhyuklipvidpktpu.cukjcsiq😊 ㅓ😊ㅍ00000000ㄸ? ㅁㅋㅃ치ㅌbdㅂㅌㅈzcbkpjpibhoo😂😂000÷+《`0₩(12^°÷' ×》_°}♡~$+@ @ 😢》=!=_¥/[¤《],¥,£09ㅐ 47:18 ㅣㅎ😮😮🎉😂아 +÷😂°€£+^😢`]?W. y😂:the card howaexcgawㅣwqawjkj
ㅁ츛f
We laugh at Al Gore and his lies, but his ultimate goals are anything but funny.
If the Public doesn't wise up, it could be devastating to society.
Perhaps burning fossil fuel at what seems to be exorbitant rates will have no ill effect, but it seems pretty well established that what cleared up the earth's early atmosphere was life that bound the carbon that was in the atmosphere and stored it in fossilized layers and produced oxygen. Man now uses approximately 15 billion tons of fossil fuel each year. It is likely that fossilized material formed at a much slower rate and took hundreds of millions of years to form. It would seem odd that using it at that rate and releasing the CO2 from that much fossilized material annually won't have any affect on the atmosphere...but maybe it won't. What I wonder is, IF there is anything to the global warming problem...will be too late when enough realize and puts effort into acting on it. The speaker makes it sound like a joke...I am disinclined to think he has seriously looked into the problem.
True.
They are indoctrinating your children and grand children and filling them with fear. This is all a ploy to redistribute wealth from the minions to their gods in the Global Warming religion.
His "carbon footprint" the eco nuts love to talk about, is larger than a good size city. And, he has become a multi-millionaire from flying all over the world on his private jet complaining about everyone ELSE not doing their part. IF all the climate change rules ever come into being... he will be one of the elite that will be exempt from all the rules. Only us peons will be required to live by the rules......... not them.
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.)
From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc ?
Gee, as population grows, CO2 goes up generating a greener planet and more food. Could you design a better system? Pretty amazing.
The Great God in heaven brilliantly engineered this universe to work this way, it is something that could never happen by accident and something that vain self worshiping mankind could never dream up or devise anything better than. The whole humanist climate scare is being used to imprison, enslave and eradicate the human race [pretty ironic that they worship themselves, but not until you realize that they ONLY worship THEMSELVES, not you, not me, not the common POOR people] for the sake of their horrific machiavellian goals.
Yea, it’s great if you identify as a house planet.
However, should the content of CO2 exceeds 1000ppm we will health effects.
It was 277 in 1700, 300ppm in 1900 and now its over 410. Draw a line through those points.
@@bearlemley Show medical proof of these alleged 'health effects' you are claiming please.
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings#img-2
1. CO2 has beneficially enabled life on Earth.
*(holding infra-red heat/warming the planet so life may proliferate)
**(has some fertilizer effect, more for weeds than crops)
***(without CO2 + other Green House gases, Earth would be a Cold ROCK 0 degrees F.)
.
This is the story of a little is good but a lot is deadly...consider Aspirin, for example.
.
The Goldi Locks Level for humans of atmospheric CO2 has always been between 180ppm & 300ppm!
OUR ENTIRE PHYSIOLOGY IS BASED ON THOSE NUMBERS 180ppm to300ppm.
We evolved to meet these numbers 180ppm to 300ppm over hundreds of thousands of years.
We have no idea what increasing those gasses in our atmosphere will do to our grand Children's DNA.
We have NEVER existed outside of these levels of atmospheric gasses.
.
Every Year a human has walked on Earth (hundreds of thousands of years)
CO2 & other Gasses have ALWAYS been between 180ppm and 300ppm.
.
2.
CO2 has boosted plant life on Earth provided the required Nutrients, Minerals & H2O increase in the proportion
BUT Coincidentally, as CO2 levels have increased, Nutrient values of Grains the world has grown dependent upon, have FALLEN at a Faster Rate!
*
LESS Iron
*
LESS Calcium
*
LESS Protein
*
LESS Zinc
*
LESS Copper etc.
*
IN all of the Staple Grains that the world has become dependent upon!
So you see, CO2 has some current benefits & some immediate challenges to human well being!
www.natureworldnews.com/articles/15166/20150615/climate-change-plants-choke-much-carbon.htm
.
3.
CO2 Kills!
.
CO2 is a pollutant. ALL ANIMALS ON EARTH EXHALE CO2 to dispose of this Poisonous waste product, JUST LIKE pee and poop!
It kills since it IS a poison
It kills since it IS an Asphyxiant
(heavier than air, it smothers life)
.
(the higher the level of CO2, the lower the level of Oxygen)
.
EVERY LARGE Building ON EARTH is MANDATED TO HAVE A Fresh Air Recirculation System!
In order to fight the VERY HARMFUL effects of CO2 settling in basements and SEALED ROOMS.
.
THINK!
AS atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so does the THREAT of CO2 in basements, sealed rooms, in protected valleys/glades.
*
"Police:
Carbon dioxide led to death in McDonald's bathroom.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS: The carbon dioxide built up to toxic levels in the bathroom
An 80-year-old woman died after the incident September 7, lethal dose of carbon dioxide,
authorities said Wednesday...."
*
CO2 is heavier than air, so the concentration near the floor will be much higher,"
as well as protected glades, basements and sealed rooms.
.
"Higher Concentrations of CO2 in the Atmosphere increases incidents of
threatening concentrations at ground levels and basements..."
*
*
"One person, recounting the fate of eight men and one woman who walked
into a basement area where the gas had accumulated, said they “fell down DEAD
as if they had been shot.”
*
EVERY large building on EARTH has Fresh Air Recirculation Systems in order to fight off
effects of CO2 build-up!"
@@DaveWilsBe Show this claim which runs against real science.
I can tell you first hand as one who has been successfully experimenting with this in my own greenhouse that the truth is massively enhanced and accelerated growth of every type of plant tested.
Therefore, I do not even need to read the publications and journals of others to know what you claim is a bald faced lie.
But still...I will look at whatever so called 'proof' you offer and thoroughly fact check it.
Who knows? Maybe I and others have somehow broken the laws of nature by getting stupendous growth increases in highly elevated CO2 environments...
I have literally 150 pounds of NaHCO3 sitting in my greenhouse, which, along with decaying plant matter, is virtually boiling over with CO2.
Also, the only air inlet to the greenhouse is facing a dry lot packed with ruminants and literally tons of their composting/decaying fecal matter which is emitting copious amounts of both CO2 and Methane, some methanol, ethanol, butanol, isopropanol, and ammonia.
Still, DESPITE this, the plants grow at insanely elevated rates.
Please show some proof that I am either completely delusional and completely imagining this [which I have both photos and videos of, therefore my cameras must also be doing so] and that in reality the plants are secretly dying and have long ago died from being exposed continuously for a decade to 'POISONOUS' amounts of CO2 which some times crosses the 10k ppm [as in 1% of the greenhouse's isolated atmosphere] and has been laying dead, empty and barren all of this time...
Otherwise sir, YOU are a LIAR and an arrogant fool.
Now that the carbon dioxide threat has been destroyed, let's destroy the myth of the nitrogen threat.
No, not the nitrogen threat, the next farcical existential threat must be water vapor! The clouds.
@@bobbygene8274, the final climate threat is going to be OXYGEN. Yep, you heard right. If I can figure out how to monetize it, I'll make a fortune.
Unfortunately, nitrogen oxides are ozone unfriendly, and jets produce a lot of 'loose' nitrogen in the exhaust. After the nitrogen is stripped down to the molecular level when burned, it seeks to reunite with oxygen. This can be in the form of high-altitude ozone. The environmental threats are both real and anthropogenic. The elites use lots of truth to hide the big lie.
@@bobbygene8274 Yeah, they're really dangerous. Ban them.
Ready for the next level Neo?
Research the Abiotic Oil Theory
I have lived next to the sea for 70 years in SriLanka. I am still here and it has nit risen an inch
Thank you Siva; Also look at American politicians like Biden and Obama (and others), who have bought HUGE mansions near the shore. They sure don't seem to worried about rising seas. Why is that?
I love this man. A gentle and humorous voice of reason to light the way from the absolute madness…
He is but he is wrong.
Little of what he says is scientific fact.
For MILLIONS of years, CO2 has ALWAYS been between 180ppm and never over 300ppm....thus enabling animal life to thrive.........
TODAY!
We have forced CO2 to over 420ppm
....and NOW this old fart is talking about a CO2 DROUGHT?????
@@rakooi You keep thinking you can tell the doctor how to do a heart transplant. You are a fool.
@@FanofMillan "Growing Research ( health care research from over 174 nations, the U.S. NAVY & NASA ) indicates that environmentally Relevant & Grossly Abnormal Current Elevations in CO2.
.
( Currently OVER 420ppm, Compared to the Normal 180ppm to under 300ppm)
&
nearly 2DZ other toxic Greenhouse gases....................... pose direct risks for human health”
.
"--->These are Current, Common CO2 triggered neurological disturbances (warnings) in Humans"
1. Headaches
2. Fainting spells
3. Dizziness
4. Confusion
5. Fuzzy thinking
6. Lethargy
"...Deleterious effects are already regularly measured at CO2 exposures under 400ppm
.
( while enclosures routinely rise to concentrations of over 6,000 ppm.)
Not a fan of bullsh*tters myself. Regardless of the qualities of their voice.
The sad thing is that if you as a non scientist repeat what a scientist says and people don't believe you and you point to that scientist then they don't believe him as well.
Climate cycles will always be caused by our GALACTIC Milankovitch cycles.
The Climate cycles of our water planet are continental glaciers with lower sea levels (Dwarka, Atlantis's) brought on by E-W global Tsunami's (Gobekli tepe, Washington scablands).
Every 12,460 years half the precessional Great Year our solar system crosses over the galaxies double torus electromagnetic equator/plane causing plasma bursts from the reconnection of the Sun's magnetosphere, Asteroid/comet impacts from crossing the galaxies toroid asteroid kuipers belt, and E-W global Tsunami's due to the increased EM gravitational pull at the center of the galactic plane.
Obliquity magnetic north changes reference our position to the galactic bulge in 4 quadrants e-w declination.
Eccentricity perihelion/aphelion happens with the galactic bulge every 120,000 years half a full rotation of the galactic bulge.
Earth is a closed loop that self regulates CO2 with life. Temperature rises first causing frozen CO2 to thaw rising CO2 second. Cause and effect. Not cart before the horse forcing or green house effect.
Einstein. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. On this planet. All energy comes from the double toroidal fields we call the Sun and or galactic Nucleus.
Covid like Co2 is a lie strawman built upon an inconvenient truth. The baby Boomers who were born en mass 75 years ago are starting to die from the usual suspects of seasonal FLU pneumonia and old age.
No Buying or selling unless you wear the covidiot mask/mark of the BEAST. The Mask being a pretext for the experimental RNA vaccine, contact tracing, testing of the BEAST, before the E-W global tsunami's come.
Jesus loved all races because there is only one race, the HUMAN race. Humanity is being divided distracted to be conquered, again.
Foolishness is contagious!
The system was self-regulating until BILLIONS of Humans and tens of BILLIONS of human machines pumped massive quantities of CO2 into our atmosphere and overwhelmed plant life.
@@GregoryJByrne you should take a chemistry and physic class and maybe you would learn something.
@@GregoryJByrne Thanks for taking the time to put forward the village idiots point of view.
@@mjja00 Says the village idiot :)
Every 12,000 years half the great Year at the Vernal Autumnal equinoxes of the Precession cycle our solar system eclipses the centre of our galaxies double torus electromagnetic/gravitational plane nucleus for a 1,000 years causing cliamte change END TIMES.
The (GALACTIC) Milankovitch cycles cause our 60,000 year Obliquity climate trends of ice age at aphelion to tropical age at perihelion with the Eccentricity 235,000 year rotation of the galactic bulge being the outside force.
The Antikythera device was a predictor of the galactic milankovitch cycles.
Jesus warned us about the Anti-Goyites & these the climate change END TIMES with the book of REVELATION & the cause with the 7 nor ht stars of the PRECESSION of ht Alpha Omega equinoxes he held in his hand.
TicTok these are just the birthing pains of END TIMES cliamte change now. Mother Earth's WATER won't break until the 2033 major conjunction of the planets causes the moon to pull the oceans around the planet east to west 800 mph at the equator because the planet rotates west to east 1,000 mph at the equator.
It's not a vaccine!
It takes 10 years MINIMUM to develop test a vaccine. IF & only IF you can first ISOLATE the virus. No covidiot virus has ever been ISOLATED.
Covid like CO2 is a comfortable LIE built upon yet another inconvenient truth.
Covid being the Baby Boomers who were born en mass 76 years ago are starting to die en mass from the usual suspects of seasonal flu which leads to pneumonia & old age.
It's interesting how the IT hacks at Google see fit to "fact check" a PhD in a relevant field.
HIS is not a relevant field
...he is long retired with no record of Climate CO2 Research
...and he is filmed on tape offering to write papers FOR MONEY from right-wing pro fossils
The 22 year old blue haired intern is a way more reliable source of technical information than a PhD. Everybody knows that.
@@ziguirayou And that is the thoughtless comment one would expect from a Trumpanzee.
That Blue Haired Intern has contributed Nothing to:
"During the 20th century, the health and life expectancy of persons residing in the United States improved dramatically.
Since 1900, the average lifespan of persons in the United States has lengthened by greater than 30 years; 25 years of this gain are attributable to advances in public health (1).
@@rakooi Sir, you criticized but made no point about it besides comparing a person of color to a chimpanzee. I hope you are proud of yourself.
@@ziguirayou
1. WHAT PERSON OF COLOR are YOU claiming I was talking about???
2. And how would I know that person WAS A PERSON OF COLOR???
I referred to THAT person as a Trumpanzee.
3.
SEE THE WORD TRUMP????
There was a comment about the Industrial Revolution causing the cooling centuries back. Actually it was the eruption of Krakatoa that sent a shock wave around the Earth. The eruption sent dust far up into the atmosphere and began this cooling period we're still coming out of. One item of note: before Krakatoa they were growing grapes for good wine near Hadrian's Wall. Wine was beginning to improve in southern England just a few years ago. So, this warming trend is just bringing us back to normal.
Tambora was bigger.
The earth at this time is moving into a cooling period as in all things it has a cycle.creator made it this way, man is insignificant in God's creation.
@@FayFairley-hi3zu Earth's most powerful natural cycles have been forcing Earth toward cooling for over 6500 years...what historians called the Little Ice Age...was the result of those Cooling Cycles...Those cooling cycles should have continued for thousands more years...But we are warming because of The Enhanced Greenhous Effect triggered by human activities.
thanks for the religious fairytale, religious claptrap has nothing to do with global warming. if you can't come up with scientific evidence then your opinion is fake.
Back when I was in the 5th grade (I won’t say the year), we were taught about this concept of photosynthesis which takes Co2 as fuel for everything green (trees, grass, shrubbery, etc.) and turns it into oxygen so life can exist on planet earth. I doubt they teach that anymore.
Everything uses and needs carbon your DNA string is held together with carbon
In reality (google the video / talk by one of hte founding members of greenpeace) ... plant life on this planet was suffocating from lack of CO2 until man so happened do discover oil. It's almost like the timeline was designed for man to replenish CO2 "Just in time". The Earth has been greening ever since. They are turning desserts into farmland..
unfortunately there arent as many trees etc now as when you were a child. an inconvenient fact?
@@stephenb5605 While true, the number of trees is irrelevant. In the 1970s it was we’re going to die because the Ozone layer has a big hole in it, then in the 1980s we were in for another ice age and a drastic cooling of the planet, then it was global warming and now it’s climate change because they couldn’t get it right. The truth of the matter is the “weather” has nothing to do with man and everything to do with natural forces such as solar activity (which we are in a period of increased solar activity), orbit and axis of the planet, etc.
@@JMC9837no, the nucleotides in the DNA are held by phosphoric bonds. The entire biochemistry is in essence the chemistry of orthophosphoric acid. Carbon merely provides building blocks. Our entire metabolism revolves around phosphates, especially the ATP - adenosine tri-phosphate.
"What is the ideal CO2 level, and why?" If all people did was seriously ponder that question, these climate change fear mongers would fall apart.
C02 is what makes the Earth green, eliminating CO2 is browning the Earth.
So grateful for the context warning, as I am incapable of critical thinking. Thank you for doing my thinking for me!
@muzaffarkrylov2365
I like it. It's an honor to be given
"The Schwab Stamp of disapproval" 😇
Propaganda. Western style.
Recently a person at the UN said out loud at a press conference regarding climate, "We own the science".
Yes, I saw that b*tch as well 🤬
I heard it. Such hubris!
@@theresewalters1696 THERE ARE LITERALLY 1000s of research projects
that VERIFY Global Warming
Caused by Human Beings.
Billions of humans burn carbon fuels
...in tens of billions of human machines.
.
YOU cannot give me a single research study that has been Peer Reviewed and Published that in any way disproves human causation of Global Warming
caused
Climate Change.
------------
----->Now, Well over 1 million Scientists & Researchers worldwide:
(from all branches of science)
around the world who have 1st hand knowledge, are speaking out as if with a single voice!
Consensus:
The following are the legitimate scientific organizations that hold
the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action
(by majority votes of their memberships, or by repeated votes of the boards of directors elected by said memberships):
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
With a little luck, climate change will melt all the Snowflakes out there.
LEW ROSSI------"....Fifty years ago, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) delivered a report titled 'Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Polluters' to the American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade association for the fossil fuel industry.
The report,
unearthed by researchers at the Center for International Environmental Law, is one of the earliest attempts by the industry to grapple with the impacts of rising CO2 levels,
which Stanford’s researchers warned if left unabated “could bring about climatic changes” like temperature increases, melting of ice caps and sea-level rise.
That year was
1968,
and
the term “global warming” would not appear in a peer-reviewed academic journal until 1975...."
Well-expressed!
@@rakooi yeah but one problem with that study is the glaciers were melting ( proven fact) as far back as we can visibly see by the maps of some of the earliest exploration teams from the 1800's this was pre industrialized civilization . Yet many of these studies do NOT mention this because it doesn't fit THEIR models. But their models do fit with the people and their agenda that are paying THEM.
@@johnrobinson4939 "the earliest exploration teams from the 1800's" ????
Human Activities were already causing Note Worthy Climate Changes in the 1700s!!
www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
1799
Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that Human Activites / Pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
Strip Mining entire mountain tops, Clear Cutting entire Forests, burning Coal/Peat/Wood/Oil, building huge cities which have their own climates
.
The First USE of " CLIMATE CHANGE " STILL in use today.
1799
Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper on observed climate changes which he stated was probably caused by man...and had many discussions with John Adams
on these climate changes.
.
1804
Thomas Jefferson On Climate Change | Real Science-----> “A change in our climate is taking place very surely. Both heat and cold are becoming moderate within the memory of even the middle-aged, and snows are less frequent and less deep.”
1811
French Science Tied Warming, Climate Changes directly to Human Activities & Industrialization.
.
1824
Jean-Baptiste Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
Certainly,
"...Tyndall’s equipment, laboratory and experimental results were more sophisticated than Eunice Foote’s, and he is rightly credited with establishing the experimental basis for the greenhouse effect, first suggested by Swiss physicist Horace Bénédict de Saussure in the the 1760s and later developed by French mathematician Joseph Fourier in the 1820s and French physicist Claude Pouillet in 1836..."
.
1856
"....a paper entitled “Circumstances affecting the heat of the sun’s rays,” by Eunice Foote. In two brisk pages, Foote’s paper anticipated the revolution in climate science by experimentally demonstrating the effects of the sunlight on certain gases and theorizing how those gases would interact with Earth’s atmosphere for the first time.
In a column of the September 1856 issue of Scientific American titled “Scientific Ladies,” Foote is praised for supporting her opinions with “practical experiments.”
The writers noted: “this we are happy to say has been done by a lady.”
.
Foote’s research & paper demonstrated the interactions of the sun’s rays on different gases through a SERIES of experiments...."
((Variations of those fundamental Experiments are critiqued/taught in nearly every 1st-year science course on colleges and universities around the world.))
.
1896
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming.
.
1931
"Hulburt's own calculations supported Arrhenius's estimate that doubling or halving CO2 would bring something like a 4°C rise or fall of surface temperature, and thus "the carbon dioxide theory of the ice ages... is a possible theory."(11) Hardly anyone noticed this paper. Hulburt was an obscure worker at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, and he published in a journal, the Physical Review, that few meteorologists read."
.
1935
Still, Science largely believed: "Fifty times more carbon is dissolved in seawater than in the wispy atmosphere." "Just like the Sea, plants would grow more lush and thus That would Control/Balance CO2 influence on Climate.
.
1948
It was thought "The self-regulating mechanisms of the carbon cycle can cope with the present influx of carbon of fossil origin."
.
The 1940s
"...Callendar....concluded that over the past hundred years the concentration of the gas (CO2) had increased by about 10%. This rise, Callendar asserted, could explain the observed warming.
.
1952
"...Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation...."
.
1958 & again in 1965
AAAS and the president's Science Advisers presented Current Research & Warning about centuries of Industrial Dumping of Toxic Waste Products into our atmosphere, leading
to threatening Climate Changes from Global Warming.
.
Broecker is probably best known for popularizing the term “global warming” through his 1975 paper
“Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
Read more:
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/#KKvj73exVZHRQm7u.99
.
history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
.
CO2..proves greenhouse effect
newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
.
THERE
is
multiple lines
of solid,
verified,
Multi-National
Replicated Empirical Evidence ! !
@Homo Quantum Sapiens Dear Homo thanks for your reply
Congrats, you merited a youtube disinformation warning
So you believed his bs and lies?
@Richard G Yeah, so ironic. They are labelling the brainwashy areas for us :D
He certainly deserves one for peddling this nonsense, but I am not seeing one yet.
@@boffeycn could u b more specific?
@@martinpattison8916 so what's your beef? Nonsense? That's all you got?
This should have 100 million views by now. We are a civilization in decline because we abandoned science for the sake of a political narrative.
Yawn.
@@hosnimubarak8869 That sure of things, are you?
@@MOzarkMike
Yup. Do some research on Happer. He's an A$$clown.
There have been 5 ice ages and during all of them the atmospheric CO2 was dramatically higher than it is at present.
Thank god for people like you!! Thanks for putting yourself out there for us to see!
Research Studies have Centered:
"CO2 Health Impacts in Confined Indoor Spaces---meeting rooms, classrooms, homes & basements
.
A considerable amount of recent research worldwide has documented many deleterious CO2 impacts
in rooms from kindergartens to universities, meeting rooms to board rooms, etc.
(Bako-Biro et al 2011;
Widory and Javoy 2003;
Kukadia et al. 2005;
Dijken et al. 5 2005;
Branco et al. 2015;
Heudorf et al. 2009;
Santamouris et al. 2008;
Ferreira and Cardoso 2014;
Gaihre et al. 2014;
Jurado, et al. 2014;
Lee and Chang 2000;
Muscatiello et al 2015; /
Carreiro-Martins et al. 2014).
.
Most agree levels of CO2 in 20-50% of classrooms commonly exceed 1,000 ppm
and are often as high as 6,000 ppm for extended periods.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU
@@shaughnfourie304 Thank You for letting me know.
@@rakooiand made sure, everyone could hear that.
@@rakooiand yet the scientists said for children to wear face masks in those classrooms.
Science 😂
Climate conditions are like appraisals...the measurers can come up with whatever number the 'market' wants.
@CeeCee Really?? Is that what you think it is?? This Doufus isn’t a climate scientist and I suggest you brush up in the scientific consensus on climate change. Hint: It ain’t what Hapless Happer thinks or states it is!! Now I’m sure you won’t but…do you think all those scientists are faking it?? If you do you probably by into the “earth is flat” group/nuts!
@@rakooi thousands must be wrong
@@ceecee6679 (and others(not singling you out CeeCee)) (read through for full effect of point)
.. with the funds the WEF gets from annual memberships alone.. I could rent 100,000 scientists each year to affirm I have magical poop. Is this the case for climate change ? Not directly, but sensational exacerbation; most certainly.
We've seen 1 degree C in 45 years which also derives back to more than 135 years... so 1 C in 135+ years.
The WEF are the people who own the corporations that have caused the majority of the pollution which has caused the human driven aspects of climate change. ~ Meanwhile cows are our supposed collective enemy yet the WEF member private jets are somehow perfectly fine. Bill Gates owns 10 patents for fake meat which is more processed food that requires more CO2 from process and transport at high profit while providing products that increase human organ inflammation. If he was really serving the planet and people, he'd underprice meat and take less profit. BUT HE DOES NOT DO THAT.
~ AKA: using basic logic, we see that the WEF is using climate change as a vehicle to control people, food, and energy while keeping the population willfully docile.
@@ceecee6679 What? YOU wanna take a vote ... ignore 200 years of solid science and decide a popularity contest?????
----------------------------------------
1.
Humans EXHALE CO2 as a poisonous by-product of our bodies. Y
2.
NASA does not “allow” CO2 up to 5000ppm. They do not have CO2 Scrubbers which are able to cut those numbers to normal levels.
The U.S. Navy and NASA are spending $100s of Millions of dollars attempting to Develop NEW & MORE EFFICIENT CO2 SCRUBBERS in order to forestall the long-term deleterious effects of those sky-high CO2 levels….even on those sailors or astronauts who are among the YOUNGEST and HEALTHIEST of People.
--->These are Current, Common CO2 triggered neurological disturbances (warnings) in Humans"
1. Headaches
2. Fainting spells
3. Dizziness
4. Confusion
5. Fuzzy thinking
6. Lethargy
"...Deleterious effects are already regularly measured at CO2 exposures under 400ppm while enclosures routinely rise to concentrations over 6,000 ppm.
---------------------------
Exclusive: Elevated CO2 Levels Directly Affect Human Cognition, New Harvard Study Shows
' Abnormally ' Rising "Common Environmental Toxins, CO2 skyrocketing above 424ppm, etc. impair immune system over MULTIPLE GENERATIONS." ----->Posted: 02 Oct 2019
Research shows that Maternal exposure to common and ubiquitous forms of industrial pollution
( CO2, N.2O, CFCs, O, Ch )
harm
the immune system of
our babies.
and this injury is PASSED ALONG to subsequent generations!
(( ===We are Damaging OUR OWN DNA===))
Weakening the body's defenses against infections such as viruses!”
@@ceecee6679 You mean 97% of scientists? Yeah, the one is correct because he was on youtube & is NOT a climate scientist.
Let’s not forget there was a warning in TIME magazine in the 70’s that there was an oncoming ice age!!!! This is all ridiculous
That is the "science" which was badly misrepresented in the sixties and the "sudden switch" to global warming was entirely without excuses or apologies.
I know what you mean and I feel your frustration. But the part about the Earth's tilt and slow wobble isn't ridiculous. We would be entering a cooling period now if the climate wasn't being interfered with. There ought to be a law against fucking with the climate. The geo-engineering (cloud seeding) here in the eastern Sierra, is routine and taken for granted. The highly toxic chemistry of their chem-trails is now found in the water and soils thru-out the area.
It's so funny how the "experts" are convinced that Climate change is man made, while simultaneously admitting the earth was much warmer when there was no people on it.
We can't even manage a forest, much less the entire planet's climate.
"We can't even manage a forest, much less the entire planet's climate." If we keeping emitting CO2, we keep making it warming. If we stop emitting CO2, global temps stabilize. We still can't control what weather happens on what day where, but if we stop heating up the planet, the climate will be milder and the whole web of life will be healthier.
@@karlwheatley1244 We don't need to manage all of that....we need to stop smoking and camp firing in forests and brushlands, we need to stop dumping CO2 in ever-increasing amounts into our atmosphere and into our lungs.
@@rakooi Thanks for the reply Rick, but I don't know what you are responding to since I agree with what you said. Maybe you meant to reply to the original poster?
Many years ago, about 20, I heard a professor from the University of Saskatchewan, who did a study on the uptake of CO 2 by plants in a greenhouse, so that they could track concentration of CO 2 and production of plant growth in pounds of dry matter, and found that the relationship is not linear but geometric. The level of CO 2 is in equilibrium ,and the lower it goes the harder it is for plants to take it in and the higher it goes the easier it is to use it,so that it naturally finds a stable level, when you increase it artificially it will cause a surge of uptake and if you keep that level high it will keep trying to bring it down.
Not true. Not a linear pro- nor regression. Sweet spots are found with most mono and dicots.
1st.
YOU are an animal, NOT a turnip.
2nd.
Plants use CO2 in photosynthesis....ALL ANIMALS EXHALE/DISPOSE OF CO2 in our bodies as a toxic waste by-product OF our bodies!
3rd.
"Growing Research
(health reports from over 150 nations, US NAVY, NASA)
indicates that Abnormal, Current Elevations in CO2
( Currently OVER 420ppm, Compared to the Norm 180ppm to 285ppm)
(& nearly 2DZ other toxic Greenhouse gases)
.
...pose direct risks for human health”
"--->These are Current & Common CO2 triggered neurological disturbances in Humans"
1. Headaches
2. Fainting Spells
3. Dizziness
4. Confusion
5. Fuzzy Thinking
6. Lethargy
"...many Deleterious effects are already regularly measured at CO2 exposures well under 1,000 ppm
( while enclosures routinely rise to concentrations of over 6,000 ppm.)
What wil, try to bring it down? The plant? How?
I have many questions.
@@bennieknape4857 1 or 2 at a time, please.
.
Current Elevations in CO2
.
( Currently OVER 424ppm,
Compared to the Norm 180ppm to 285ppm)
.
(& let's not forget nearly 2DZ other toxic Greenhouse gases)
.
...they pose direct risks for human health”
"---------->These are Current & Common CO2 triggered neurological disturbances in Humans"
1. Headaches
2. Fainting Spells
3. Dizziness
4. Confusion
5. Fuzzy Thinking
6. Lethargy
It amazes me that just a few years ago, as is shown by his graphs, the temperature in the 2000's was flat or dropping. But now that has been "adjusted" and now shows a steady increase. There is too much money involved in all this to believe much of it.
yes because we all know the poor oil industry and auto makers are just barely scraping by. yes theres simply no money in oil or petroleum.
Yeah, earth's been cooling snce the 90's. Oh well. Now we've got too MANY polar bears...
they measure the temperature in England right off the airport tarmac's, you can't make this stuff up. pure criminals.
@@danielforde-pogson I assume you're joking, Earth's been rapidly warming since the 1990s, and some polar bear populations are fine, some we don't know about and others are doing poorly.
i welcome you to Dreamland.
When I was in school, we were going to loose the Ozone Layer and the planet will die.
I think they are trying to bring that one back. I read something about a hole in the ozone. But I skipped the article, been down that hole already.
🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
Was ice age…….then acid rain……then the hole in the ozone layer……then global warming……..then climate change………then they’ve settled on climate crisis/emergency! WHAT man would say the climate shouldn’t change? are we that egotistical that we think we know how this planet works, given we’ve only had the tools to “partly” study it for a blink of an eye in terms of the age of the earth!
Explain the exact reasons and causes for all the other warming and cooling periods in history first and then use that data to exalting how we as ants on the globe are responsible for the change in climate!? Is that unreasonable to ask? These rises of less than a degree over 200 years etc……there is nothing to say those same rises will continue at the same rate going forward……the planet has been a LOT warmer than this before and A LOT cooler than this before…..by 10-20 degrees in some cases……..1 degree over such a time frame is just on observation…..the fact that it coincides with the industrial revolution does not mean that is the reason…….and if it is then……explain in the same level of detail all of the previous warming and cooling periods in history…….that isn’t too much to ask, people just want to know that we aren’t putting all the eggs in the one (carbon) basket when the cause could be something very different.
over one hundred lightning ⚡🌩️⚡ strikes per minute creat a lot of ozone, and that oxidized carbon also.
In high school I attended current affair classes that were decided by popular vote by all of the students and then the format and curriculum was designed by the teachers. Very cool topics from the American Indian to global pollution. I still use the mechanics of the principles which was to question all the "facts". Great education moving forward here into Wizard of Oz territory.
This entire climate change, global warming "debate", which is technically referred to by geologists, atmospheric physicists, and meteorologists, as anthropogenic warming, has pushed me to learn more in the last 10 years, than I had ever bothered learning, in my entire lifetime.
You have to be so very carefull where you're getting your information, and who is providing that information.
Like professor Richard S. Lindzen says, "If they call themselves a climatologist, then they don't know anything about how Earths climate really works".
William Happer is a foremost authority on carbon dioxide, solar energy, atmospheric physics, and the physics of Earths cyclical weather, and climatic cycles.
He has a concentrated understanding of just about everything that has to do with the mechanics of Earths inner, and out workings.
It is as if he is Earths mechanic.
If Earth is broken, and it is a car, Earth would drive itself to Happers mechanic shop, and leave its keys with Happer, so Happer could repair Earth, and get Earth back on the road.
That.....is William Happer.
Since 1870, CO2 has risen abnormally ABOVE 424ppm
over a 50% increase...
Happer / Lindzen claim we are in a CO2 Drought.
.
... After many millions of years with CO2 in the Human-Friendly range 180ppm to 285ppm
... after many millions of years with Life of all types THRIVING!
......now Dr. Happer declares a CO2 Drought.
That makes as much sense as a farmer watching his farm Flash-flood down a river...declaring a drought.
.
A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 & GHG wavelengths than entering the atmosphere!
Leading to the inescapable conclusion
that
** "this experimental data should effectively END the argument by skeptics (Happer) that 'no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
** (Evans 2006)
Humans,
even ancient ancestors have
** always existed within the goldilocks concentrations of CO2 between 180ppm and never over 300ppm.**
LIFE THRIVED THROUGHOUT THIS TIME FRAME!
.
**Our physiology is based/dependent upon those numbers.**
"Growing Research (health care reports around the world) indicates that environmentally Relevant & Grossly Abnormal elevations in CO2.
(& nearly 2DZ other Greenhouse gases)...pose direct risks for human health” […] Research, indicates health risks:
---->**These are neurological disturbances**-----"
1. ** Headaches **,
2. ** lethargy **,
3. ** dizziness **,
4. ** confusion, fuzzy thinking **
5. ** fainting spells **
.
(CO2 is heavier than dry air...so it settles downward / concentrates) ------------------Deleterious effects are already measured at CO2 exposures under 1,000 ppm --( while enclosures routinely rise to concentrations to over 6,000 PPM.)'
Abnormally
' * Rising "Common Environmental Toxins
(CO2 etc.) impair immune system over MULTIPLE GENERATIONS." ---------Posted: 02 Oct 2019*
New Research shows that **Maternal exposure to common and ubiquitous forms of industrial pollution ( CO2, N.2O, CFCs, O, Ch ) can harm the immune system of our babies. **
And that this injury
------is PASSED ALONG to subsequent generations!
(--** We are Damaging OUR OWN DNA **--)
Weakening the body's defenses against infections such as viruses!"
A considerable amount of recent literature worldwide has documented deleterious CO2 impacts in rooms from kindergartens to universities, meeting rooms, etc.
(Bako-Biro et al 2011;
Widory and Javoy 2003;
Kukadia et al. 2005;
Dijken et al. 5 2005;
Branco et al. 2015;
Heudorf et al. 2009;
Santamouris et al. 2008;
Ferreira and Cardoso 2014;
Gaihre et al. 2014;
Jurado, et al. 2014;
Lee and Chang 2000;
Muscatiello et al 2015;
Carreiro-Martins et al. 2014).
@@rakooi Re: CO2 being heavier than air and settling.....That is not the way the atmosphere works. CO2 does not separate from the rest of the atmosphere the way you depict it. It is "homogenized" with the rest of the atmosphere.
You are also forgetting convection currents. "The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes. If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would stop growing." - Freeman Dyson
Plants start dying at around 250ppm. They allow up to 5,000 ppm in submarines with no ill effects. 7,000ppm on spacecraft. Did you even listen to his presentation?
@@youdontwanttoknow5203 CO2 is 'generally' a well-mixed gas...that does not mean when something is 56% heavier...that it is exempt from gravity.
Every major building in the world has been mandated to have fresh air recirculation systems...1st to fight the deleterious build-up of CO2...
"Growing Research
( health care reports around the world-150 nations reporting)
indicates that environmentally Relevant & Grossly Abnormal elevations in CO2
(& nearly 2DZ other Greenhouse gases)... pose direct risks for human health” […]
Solid Research,
indicates CO2 health risks:
.
These are CO2 triggered neurological Ailments
1. Headaches,
2. lethargy,
3. dizziness,
4. confusion,
5. fuzzy thinking
6. fainting spells
.
"Deleterious effects are already measured at CO2 exposures lower than 1,000 ppm while enclosures routinely rise to concentrations to over 6,000 ppm."
.
Research Studies have Centered:
.
"CO2 Health Impacts in Confined Indoor Spaces---meeting rooms, classrooms, basements
.
A considerable amount of recent literature worldwide has documented deleterious CO2 impacts in rooms from kindergartens to universities, meeting rooms, boardrooms, etc.
(Bako-Biro et al 2011;
Widory and Javoy 2003;
Kukadia et al. 2005;
Dijken et al. 5 2005;
Branco et al. 2015;
Heudorf et al. 2009;
Santamouris et al. 2008;
Ferreira and Cardoso 2014;
Gaihre et al. 2014;
Jurado, et al. 2014;
Lee and Chang 2000;
Muscatiello et al 2015; /
Carreiro-Martins et al. 2014).
AS atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so does the THREAT of CO2 in basements, sealed rooms, in protected valleys/glades.
*
"Police:
Carbon dioxide led to death in McDonald's bathroom,
.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS:
The carbon dioxide built up to toxic levels in the bathroom An 80-year-old woman died after the incident on September 7, lethal dose of carbon dioxide,
authorities said Wednesday...."
.
(Coroner: CO2 Poisoning)
.
"... CO2 is heavier than air, so the concentration near the floor will be much higher," as well as protected glades, basements, and closed rooms.
.
"Higher Concentrations of CO2 in the Atmosphere increases incidents of threatening concentrations at ground levels and basements..."
.
"One person, recounting the fate of eight men and one woman who walked into a basement area where the gas had accumulated, said they “fell down DEAD
as if they had been shot.”
Earths mechanic? Is that supposed to be an irony? And be careful about Lindzen, and also that ex-Greenpeace guy Patrick Moore, they are funded by the oil business! We are pushing the planet's buttons and pulling the planet's levers to an unknown outcome, but computer simulations suggest parts of India becoming very inhospitable for today's way of life, so expect climate migrants in 10, 20 years time...
Politicians have no business talking about Climate Change
True like this guy! Stay in physics! They couldn’t get a biologist!
There are many comments here that show there are very few people who understood much of what was presented. The citizenry has a poor understanding of science. And when confronted with politicized scientific debates, have very little ability to critically evaluate what they are being told.
Excellent lecture and very much aligned with my own research into the science verses the media. People are losing their jobs from speaking up against Net Zero carbon campaigns. It is truly worrying that knowledge is declining as the human race is advancing. When i retire i am making it my goal to speak out.
Name the people who have lost their jobs for speaking out against net zero. I don't know of any. Before you decide to speak out, Scrumpy, do a little fact-checking first. William Happer isn 't a climate scientist. His expertise is OPTICS. He's also the former head of the CO2 Coalition, FUNDED BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY, to promote the use of MORE gas and oil. To see just how badly he misrepresents the science of climate change, see CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: WILLIAM HAPPER.
RETIRE NOW! Quit pretending that there is anything scientific about co2 being a problem.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 We need more co2, not less. If you think so called fossil fuel is bad for humanity, you are clueless. Cheap energy has saved countless lives. You're part of a death cult.
@@user-un4mu1hj5o I've been a science writer for nearly fifty years, published worldwide, in multiple languages, and I work with climate data every day. You, sadly, have swallowed fossil fuel industry propaganda whole.
CO2 is great for plants, but only up to a point. We've passed that point. CO2-driven warming melts the icecaps, raises sea level, intensifies hurricanes, expands wildfire seasons, reduces farm productivity (yes, REDUCES), and increases heatwaves, marine heatwaves, ocean acidification, extreme precipitation events, droughts, desertification and tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases. Let me know how any of those are good for us.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 And none of that has happened and cannot be proven. Sorry you wasted your life spreading lies and fear to people. It's not too late to change though. We have not surpassed the level of co2 that benefits plants. Where the hell did you hear that?? They pump co2 into greenhouses at levels around 1000 ppm. 400 is not ideal and any less means more starvation. Oil, coal, and gas is plentiful and we have ways to use it cleanly. I'm sure you believe in overpopulation too. Goes hand in hand with your death cult.
AL Gore created this debate with bad science....nothing he predicted played out. Jail time is my opinion and then he can do some community service to boot.
Dean Overholt, tha's an over simplification. there were a lot of players before him, Hansen being one of the bigger ones but PM Thatcher, I would say got the ball rolling and the UN took over from there. People are so gullible. "It's the Sun stupid."
Al Gore made his $100mln thanks to his own climate fear-mongering, So let him pay every citizen of earth a fine from his $100mln.
Al Gore created this debate?! Seriously?! Well, that demonstrates your ignorance of the seven decades of scientific research and what preceded Al Gore's activism. If you really want to want to know the most current science, might I suggest that you actually read the science published in respectable journals and not get it from a politician. What a crazy concept, huh?
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Al Gore is a politician, so we're supposed to ignore him? We'd like to, very much, but he goads politicians to bullying their populations (which they willingly do), even though (fact) he doesn't believe a word of it. When Trump (rightly) withdrew the USA from 'Paris', (www.un.org/en/events/archives/2008.shtml : every year since Kyoto but none have made a dent in temperature or in CO2-rise) Mr. Riefenstahl was among the first to publicly criticize the "orange-haired Hitler" (not his words, afaik) So yes, we do get to criticize the prophet.
And if I were you, I'd be a lot more careful with appeals to science: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/3/grievance-studies-exposes-college-corruption-hoax-/
Plus, the combo of ever rising CO2 independent of temperature, kinda disproves the religion.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 I wouldn't call it scientific research, I'd call it decades of scientific debauchery. From what I can tell one screwed up scientists by the name of Hansen created a scenario that the globe was warming because of an increase in a trace gas namely CO2 and the rest of the scientists and computer modelers followed suit like a bunch of lemmings. Today we still hear the cries of the alarmists , CLIMATE CRISIS CLIMATE CRISIS, despite the fact that the temperature for the past forty years has averaged an increase of 0.017 to 0.024 per year depending on your source. Sea level rise has been pretty much the same for the past hundred plus years at 1.1 mm/year. Now that the Modern Grand Solar Maximum is over and we are now several years into the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum and we have noticed the change in weather conditions over the past 4 years, maybe now we will have a bunch of people telling us what is really happening which is a mini ice age or worse. I say worse because it doesn't seem they know actually what has caused the last glacial periods but if you look at the frequency of inter glacials it would seem ours has run it's course. The next ten years should be real interesting on whether we have enough food to feed 7 billion people or enough for 4 billion people. Time will tell.
The hardest thing to predict is the past - LMAO
Yes, the exact opposite of a famous Yogi-Berra-ism: "Predictions are really hard; especially when they're about the future."
Fred
pastdict then lol
I'll follow the science of Professor Happer anytime
Follow it right down a rabbit hole of misinformation. He's the last person you want to get climate science from.
The fact that UA-cam puts this advertisement on here is a clue as to where UA-cam has chosen to support , instead of supporting real science.
There are two reasons why UA-cam posts that disclaimer:
(1) Over half the citizens of this country are scientifically illiterate and utterly incapable of discerning between legitimate science, pseudoscience and fossil fuel industry propaganda. The posts on this forum are testament to that sad fact.
(2) UA-cam knows more than you do. ELEVEN separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. ELEVEN. 80 academies of science and ALL of the world's major scientific institutions (NASA, NOAA, the World Meteorologiical Org., etc) publicly endorse the consensus findings, which is why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC.
In 2021, Cornell University audited the over 88000 climate change studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving global warming. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a deleterious degree.
And as to your REAL science? The science of William Happer? Happer isn't a climate scientist and he's published ZERO papers on climate change. His expertise is OPTICS. He's also the former head of the CO2 Coalition, FUNDED BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY, to promote the use of more oil and gas. To see just how badly he muffs your "real" science, see CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: WILLIAM HAPPER, at the Skeptical Science website.
@@Landad_ "The level of impact is insignificant." Did you fact-check that? You should.
1. Absolute sea level has risen four inches since 1993, and the rate of rise has doubled, according to NASA. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has increased 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. Even New England, which is uplifting land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. It's why Miami Beach has moved buildings and raised 105 miles of roads, and why Houston, New York and Louisiana have a combined $100 billion in new flood mitigation projects in the works.
Keep in mind too, that every year of new sea level rise gives storm surges higher platforms to launch from, sending floodwaters further and further inland. The cost directly attributable to sea level rise for Hurricane Sandy's storm surge into New York was $8 billion. Hurricane Sandy was a mere category 1 storm by the time it hit New York.
No impact?
2. Heatwaves have TRIPLED since the 1960s, according to the EPA. Heatwaves decimate crops, dry out tinder, and make wildfires much more likely to ignite. Wildfire burn acreage in Canada has doubled since the 1970s. The western U.S. has also seen burn acreage more than triple in the last forty years. Wildfire seasons, in fact, are now over a month longer than they were in the 1980s, according to the U.S. Forest Service.
No impact?
3. Extreme precipitation events are increasing worldwide, according to the EPA. That's resulting in more devastating floods and crop losses. Think of Pakistan, Libya, Vermont. The epic rainfall over Houston from Hurrican Harvey was a landmark event. The cost directly attributed to global warming for that deluge has been pegged at $67 billion.
No impact?
4. According to the IPCC, the incidence of drought, drought intensity and drought duration are increasing worldwide. Droughts decimate croplands, dry out tinder and make wildfires more likely.
No impact?
5. Hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade since the 1980s, according to NOAA. Faster winds. More rainfall. Higher storm surges. That costs money. And lives.
No impact?
6. Due solely to global warming, tick-and-mosquito-borne diseases are spreading to areas of the world they've never been seen before. Even flesh-eating bacteria has increased its range from Florida all the way up to Massachusetts.
No impact?
7. Marine heatwaves are up 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. In addition to fueling more powerful hurricanes, warming ocean water kills fish or sends them to colder waters. It's why the lobster fishery in southern New England has all but collapsed. It's why the shrimp fishery off Maine has collapsed.
No impact?
8. According to the UN, the number of major environmental disasters from 2000-2020 nearly doubled over the previous 20 years.
No impact? Really?
A big question I came up with in the late sixties is "how did all the carbon get sequestered as elemental and compound in the first place?" It's always seemed to me it became such because as a compound, vast plant life converted it from CO2 into the various carbon compounds, which were the foundation for animal life rising. It has always seemed to me the existence as gas compound was critical for its common spread throughout the atmosphere. These issues were being debated well, in the mid-sixties and by the early seventies, rational thinkers were simply being shouted down. The logic related to the plant needs as per the stomata was well represented and angrily ignored. I'm a technician, mechanic, electronics tech machinist and toolmaker, and have studied this since the mid sixties. I'm more than a little irritated, idiots like Al Gore get a free pass on "science" and the rest of us are pummeled with it, despite "science". I have no degree but five or six years of college, bought and paid for while on active duty, just got the education, didn't need the piece of paper.
You're a mechanic so you know about global circulations? Maybe you can imagine how surprising the subject of fluid mechanics is?
@@jerbib9598 bill nye has made a lot of money talking about climate change and his degree is in mechanical engineering not climate science .
The rapid speed of the release is what's so dangerous for our future.
@@uraniumu242 - He listens to the experts. Do you?
@@jerbib9598 so what was stated wrong in the video? Please share your knowledge
It's great to see all the failed predictions from the 80s and 90s as well as more recent.
Until they acknowledge just how embarrassingly wrong they have Ben, how can they expect anybody with serious intellect to pay attention to them?
The climate scientists claimed the ice caps would shrink. They did.
They claimed there would be more fires in the west. There are.
They claimed tropical storms would be more severe than in the past. They are.
They claimed the weather would have greater extremes of unusually hot and unusually cold days. There are.
It seems to me we now have proof they were right about almost everything.
The military and commercial businesses are now so convinced in human caused global warming they are making structural changes in how they run their organizations.
What are you claiming they got wrong?
What predictions failed that were stated in scientific papers? Please try not refer to politicians, celebrities, random blogs, random people. Peer reviewed scientific journals. - Scientists usually right, dude.
@@AquaCoalaNest Well said! Totally agree.
yeah sure, thats why there are more droughts, wildfires, storms and floods than ever and they are getting worse and worse. thank god we have people like you.
"It's great to see all the failed predictions from the 80s and 90s as well as more recent.Until they acknowledge just how embarrassingly wrong they have Ben, how can they expect anybody with serious intellect to pay attention to them?" Actually, if you look at what the MAJORITY of EXPERTS in each field predicted, they have been very accurate. I mean don't pay attention to Al Gore's exaggeration about sea level rise or the misquotes of UN officials of quotes from non-experts.
Global warming, global ice melt, sea level rise and the deteriorating health of earth's ecosystems are all as bad or worse than predicted back in the 1990s. Just from the 5th IPCC report to the 6th IPCC report, they had to adjust their predictions of global temps and sea level rise UPWARDS.
All the major predictions of the theory of man-made global warming that could have come true by now have come true, and 14 different climate models, some dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, have accurately predicted how much our emissions would warm the planet.
Just Google “CBS News climate models have been impressively accurate for decades” for coverage of the research proving the second point.
If you want a list of dozens of scientific predictions that have come true, I can send that to you too, but it’s not on this computer.
1957
Our Unintended Experiment
Roger Revelle, a U.S. oceanographer, and Hans Suess, an Austrian-born U.S. chemist, realizing that carbon dioxide from industrial sources must be building up in the atmosphere, wrote in 1957: "Thus human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."
1958
Climate Science on Television
The Bell Telephone Science Hour addressed how our actions could be changing Earth's climate. "Even now, [we] may be unwittingly changing the world's climate through the waste products of [our] civilization," said the narrator. "Due to our release from factories and automobiles every year of more than six billion tons of carbon dioxide, which helps the air absorb heat from the Sun, our atmosphere seems to be getting warmer."
1958
Daily Measurements of Carbon Dioxide
A breath of fresh air!
Hardly true....Happer measured the air quality had diminished to 1500ppm of CO2......Doctors will tell you that this is unhealthy.
.
"Growing Research ( health care research from over 174 nations, the U.S. NAVY & NASA )
indicates that environmentally Relevant & Grossly Abnormal Current Elevations in CO2
( Currently OVER 420ppm, Compared to the Normal 180ppm to 285ppm)
(& nearly 2DZ other toxic Greenhouse gases)...pose direct risks for human health”
"--->These are Current, Common CO2 triggered neurological disturbances (warnings) in Humans"
1. Headaches
2. Fainting spells
3. Dizziness
4. Confusion
5. Fuzzy thinking
6. Lethargy
"...Deleterious effects are already regularly measured at CO2 exposures under 400ppm
( while enclosures routinely rise to concentrations to over 6,000 ppm.)
You hope
Mean while Brian Cox is sitting down holding up his hockey stick graph
The new Hockey Stick Graph supported by 34 long-term, peer-reviewed, published, replicated studies support the current hockey stick graph.
Alexander von Humboldt 1st Labeled & Defined "Climate Change" in 1799...the same as it is used today.
Thomas Jefferson & John Adams discussed/debated "climate change" from 1799 thru 1804.
1811, European Scientists had confirmed a Tied at the Hip connection between Climate Change and Human Activities.
@@rakooi bring me 1000 peer reviewed studies that says earth is flat it won’t make me believe you anyway.
When a politician says trust the science, they are talking about political science
First time I've heard this man speak. Good to hear common sense. There are many of us who have a good working pineal gland. People must educate themselves. My people parish from lack of knowledge. Lord, please protect your people. Thanks again for the truth.
why is this not told by msm ?
Sarcasm? Or you realy asking? Cause im sure you know why
because its bollocks
It doesn’t fit the narrative.
Al Gore is a very rich man today, thanks to his work promoting climate hysteria.
paul Smith l
paul Smith wasn’t the
Al Gore has donated all earnings from his Books, Speeches & Movies to the Cause of fighting Global Warming caused Climate Changes.
Gore RUNS a very successful Venture Capitalist and has a very prosperous RealEstate Firm...and, of course, his family left a great inheritance to him.
@@rakooi And a very successful carbon offset business which is set to make him the worlds first carbon billionaire.
@@paulsmith1981 More ultra nationalist Right Wing Propaganda
They are controlling the weather, and fires.
The physics talk he mentions at 8:35 is that on UA-cam?
It's beyond laughable that UA-cam stick that ridiculous Wiki definition of Global Warming underneath these erudite and deeply intelligent clips!
Thanks for taking the time to put forward the village idiots point of view.
@@mjja00 Would you like to grace us all with your stunning intellect and explain why I'm a 'village idiot'?
@@diannepenny407 He ran away.
I wish this chap would school that smug pillock Brian Cox.
Yes for sure ..Cox is a failed pop star and a smarmy tosser
@@macanders1888Precisely!
George Jarrol
over view: cleantechnica.com/2018/12/24/yay-coal-in-my-stocking-critiques-of-climate-action-amidst-moves-to-renewable-energy/
**
"A new report revels 42% of global coal capacity is currently unprofitable,
and the United States could
> > save $78 billion by closing coal-fired power plants in line climate goals.
This industry-disrupting trend comes down to dollars and cents,
as the cost of renewable energy plumets below fossil fuel generation.
Across the U.S.,
renewable energy is beating KILLER coal Electric on cost:
The price to build new wind and solar has fallen below the cost of simply running existing coal-fired power plants in Red and Blue states.
For example,
Colorado’s Xcel will retire 660 megawatts (MW) of coal capacity ahead of schedule in favor of renewable sources and battery storage, and reduce costs in the process.
Midwestern utility MidAmerican will be the first utility to reach 100% renewable energy by 2020 without increasing customer rates,
and
Indiana’s NIPSCO will replace 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of coal with wind and solar.
.
Lazard’s annual ... Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis reports solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind costs have dropped an extraordinary 88% and 69% since 2009, respectively. Meanwhile, coal and nuclear costs have increased by 9% and 23%, respectively.
Even without accounting for current subsidies, renewable energy costs can be considerably lower than the marginal cost of conventional energy technologies.
In other words, customers save money when utilities replace existing coal with wind or solar ."
* * * * *
"....Nov 11, 2018 at 9:43AM
Cox is just a yes man of the BBC and a simpleton incomparison.
This is where I'd like to see another scientist with opposing analysis compare and contrast, point by point. Fantastic presentation!
Yes, CO2 and climate have changed by very large amounts over the past 500 million years of Earth’s history. When CO2 was high there were no polar ice caps - all that water was in the oceans and vast swaths of the continents were under water! The RATE of change of climate today is faster than the most extreme (rapid) warming event that we are aware of in the geologic record, which occurred around 55 million years ago.
Point is, we don't need to dump everything we have now and spend 150 TRILLION dollars going "green".
The cost isn't worth it in the slightest!
The green of the socialists is actually brown. It is death.
Where the hell did you get that nonsense figure...150 trillion.....that is a nutsyarsss figure.
We have to modernize our power system....so spend it on clean renewables and save money too.
I agree but pollution from mass consumption, urbanization, mono crop farming, mining and oil etc is real. But green tech incl solar, EVs, Wind req mass mining also to make components and batteries. Soon it will incl strip mining the ocean floor. EVs w/plug-ins avail in 1920s. Sadly privatization of natural resources, centralized money and big corps also happened. We do need change and cleaner energy source. It’s how it’s implemented. Est is $62 T in USA.
I'm not a professor and I've know this since grade school.
2.bp.blogspot.com/-_gqOtd0zVbM/UIwbr6J_KlI/AAAAAAAAB6o/M3vWPofaNy0/s1600/graph+hurricanes.png
Remember The RIGHT WING Hurricane Drought????
Here is another look at it: static.skepticalscience.com/pics/NATS_frequency.gif
kielandedmonds.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/2010annual_torncount.png
Geez you knew you weren't a professor in the 3rd grade
Then your ass is GENIUS!!! Wanna splain why green weenies don't know it--or did you go to a SPED school?
Politicians need jail for political science that they have been doing.
What political science?
Finally, I learned this in the 70's.
Happer should listen to Ocassio Cortez. She knows better and don't forget Greta who knows even more.
😄😄😄😄
NO. GOOD GOD NO!
......he should listen to science.
You don't declare a drought after CO2 has increased by 50% for the first time in millions of years!!!!!!!!!!
The press proclaims 3 days in the high 90s in NYC as a unprecedented event. Doesn't feel the need to bring up 1896, 1911 and 1936 when CO2 was low.
Only the Enhanced Green House Effect fully Explains this ongoing event!
Look: www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
These are not ideas which have been invented by Dr. James Hansen, or Modern Science, Dr. Michael Mann, or Karl Marx or Rev. Jimmy Swaggert.
1799
Alexander von Humboldt studied, worried and postulated that
Human Activites / Pollution would CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE!
Strip Mining entire mountain tops, Clear Cutting entire Forests,
burning Coal/Peat/Wood/Oil, building huge cities which have their own climates
.
The First USE of " CLIMATE CHANGE " STILL in use today.
.
1799
Thomas Jefferson also penned a paper on observed climate changes
which he stated was probably caused by man...and had many discussions with John Adams
on these climate changes.
.
"1804 : Thomas Jefferson On Climate Change | Real Science
“A change in our climate is taking place very surely.
Both heat and cold are becoming moderate within the memory of even the middle-aged,
and snows are less frequent and less deep.” - Thomas Jefferson 1804"
1811
Science Tied Warming, Climate Changes directly to Human Activities & Industrialization.
.
1824
Jean-Baptiste Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere
.
1856
"....a paper entitled “Circumstances affecting the heat of the sun’s rays,” by Eunice Foote.
In two brisk pages, Foote’s paper anticipated the revolution in climate science by
experimentally demonstrating the effects of the sunlight on certain gases and
theorizing how those gases would interact with Earth’s atmosphere for the first time.
In a column of the September 1856 issue of Scientific American titled “Scientific Ladies,”
Foote is praised for supporting her opinions with “practical experiments.”
The writers noted: “this we are happy to say has been done by a lady.”
Foote’s research & paper
demonstrated the interactions of the sun’s rays
on different gases through a SERIES of experiments...."
((Variations of those fundamental Experiments are critiqued/taught in nearly every 1st year science course
on colleges and universities around the world.
.
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in
1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming.
.
1958 & again in 1965
AAAS and the president's Science Advisers presented Current Research Warning about
centuries of Industrial pumping of Toxic Waste Products into our atmosphere, leading
to threatening climate changes from Global Warming.
.
Broecker is probably best known for popularizing the term “global warming” through his 1975 paper
“Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
Read more:
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/#KKvj73exVZHRQm7u.99
.
CO2..proves greenhouse effect
newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
.
THERE
is
a line
of solid,
verified
replicated empirical evidence ! !
@Homo Quantum Sapiens It takes an insecure environmental zealot to revert to a strawman label of "retard" when engaged in debate.
Feel free to give your credentials for being able to declare the many learned scientists who question the data and computer models as retards while declaring Al Gore as Einstein incarnate.
NASA has cooked the books to meet a narrative, so I failed to mention nothing but dishonest "science". Maybe you have no problem with them "adjusting" away the past heat waves during low CO2 periods and starting their graph at the end of cold periods and ignoring the previous hot periods.
But you go right ahead. Hook your cart to the folk who told us that cold had no adverse effects on the O-ring. I'll stick with Feynman and doubt.
The press is not scientist...neither is Al Gore!
The worst is being called science deniers by science deniers
Yeah, the "empowerment" of imbeciles so they don't feel bad about themselves is driving all kinds of stupid bullshit, including shouting down common sense. The fact that these morons will die right alongside us due to their stupidity is little comfort...
Weird that many of these alarmists are very concerned about animals that are endangered species but would not lift a finger to save endangered babies and fetuses. Best example of Orwellian doublethink.
Are the slides for this presentation compiled somewhere? Video is hard to read. I've tried to find just a few of them, lots of digging!
Their references to FACTS are never readily available to see/read/verifiy.
@@rakooi I was asking for the PRESENTED slides of the presentation. Since they are presented, they are certainly available to see/read, but in low resolution video.
Noble cause Corruption kept alive by people making money by our ignorance of the facts
Exactly! World Bank Group PRICING CARBON! www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/06/07/57-carbon-pricing-initiatives-now-in-place-globally-latest-world-bank-report-finds.print
Well, I agree with you there...you are ignorant of the facts.
static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/07/16/globaldisasters.jpg
@Huw chardon "The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans (( even our ancient relatives )) didn't exist.
We weren't even a Twinkle in God's Eye!
.
Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.
.
How do we gleen these FACTS about the last few millions years?
.
Where does the data come from?
.
"....There is no single, agreed-upon answer to those questions as studies show a range up to 15 million years ago.
.
The most direct evidence comes from tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in the vast ice sheets of Antarctica, Greenland etc.
.
By drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, scientists have found that,
at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now...."
.
(( Between 180PPM & 300PPM...That is the GOLDILOCKS LEVELS for HUMAN creation/evolutionary SUCCESS! ))
.
Human activities have Raised those levels of CO2 to over 415PPM!
...an experiment on your children and your grand children for 1 reason, the obscene profits &
TRILLION DOLLAR SUBSIDIES/SUPPORTS
for the DEEP STATE Fossil Fuel Billionaires & their bankers.
.
These bubbles reflect precise measures of atmospheric gasses, pollen, soot, chemicals, mold spores, etc.
...all challenged by other scientists & replicated from Fossils records, stalagmites, tree rings, deep sea soil cores, sea shell chemistry etc.
And when confirmed from a dozen differing directions, you gain consensus/widespread agreement.
.
These publications of evidence, theory, challenges & replication, & peer review, eliminates over-the-long-haul 'unsubstantiated' theorys.
.
"....Key Points
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, & certain human manufactured greenhouse gases have all risen significantly over the last two hundred years and more to the point over the last 70 years+!
.
Historical measurements show that the current global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are unprecedented compared with the past 800,000 to 1 million years.
.
Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial era, rising from an annual average of 280 ppm in the late 1700s to 415 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa in 2019-a 43+ percent increase.
Now 415ppm 2019. ((412ppm 2018))
1.
Almost all of this increase is due to human activities.
The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times, reaching approximately 1,800 ppb in recent years.
This increase is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use..
2.
Over the past 800,000-1 million years, concentrations of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere rarely exceeded 280 ppb.
Levels have risen since the 1920s, however, reaching a new high of 328 ppb in 2015. This increase is primarily due to agriculture.
.
Concentrations of many of the Halogenated Gasses shown were essentially zero a few decades ago but have increased rapidly as they have been incorporated into industrial products and processes. Some of these chemicals have been
or
are currently being phased out of use because they are PROVEN ozone-depleting substances, meaning they also cause harm to the Earth’s protective ozone layer.
.
As a result,
concentrations of many major ozone-depleting gasses have begun to stabilize or decline.
Concentrations of still other halogenated gases have continued to rise, however,
especially where the gases have emerged as substitutes for ozone-depleting chemicals.
.
Overall, the total amount of ozone in the atmosphere decreased by about 3 percent between 1979 and 2014.
.******************************
(( Now in 2017/2018, Ozone has started to increase again...one of the nearly 8,000 new chemicals used by our Industry
/ UNTESTED by our gutted EPA are again threatening CANCER Epidemics etc.))
.******************************
All of the decrease
happened in the stratosphere, with most of the decrease occurring between 1979 and 1994.
Changes in stratospheric ozone reflect the effect of ozone-depleting chemical/ substances.
.
These chemicals
have been released into the air for many years, but recently, international efforts
have reduced emissions and phased out their use. (Montreal Protocols pushed by an ultra conservative president of the USA)
.
Globally,
the amount of ozone in the troposphere increased by about 3 percent between 1979 and 2014.
Water Vapor,
too, as a Greenhouse Gas (with a kind of multiplier effect from CO2)
Water vapor
is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Human activities have only a small direct influence on atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, primarily through irrigation and deforestation, so it is not included in this indicator.
.
The surface warming caused by human production of other greenhouse gases, however, leads to an increase in atmospheric water vapor because warmer temperatures make it easier for water to evaporate and stay in the air in vapor form.
.
This creates a positive “feedback loop” in which warming leads to more warming.
but
Look For Yourself:
www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
.
"....Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units.
.
Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.
Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business-as-usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years...."
@Alex Tourigny TOO FUNNY! Don't tell me... the GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM they have been ranting about for the last 20 YEARS! And before that, the end of global Warming that was to happen BEFORE 2000 and then the COOLING predicted in the 90s and then the 80s...and of course the GREAT COOLING MYTH in the 70s....all pushed and prodded by the Fossil Fuel Industrial Billionaires.
THINK!
Who profits from a mini ice age or a Grand Solar Minimum etc.
How About the Folks that sell HEAT and who are running a deep state Energy Monopoly!!!
19 years ago, by hook or by crook, sucked up 1% of the entire world's GDP in subsidies and supports and freebies...TRILLIONS of DOLLARS...
IN 2016 that percentage of ill-gotten gains had increased to 6.5% of world GDP
MANY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS enjoyed by a few thousand families and their bankers!
@Alex Tourigny The 2 Scientists, who are the most QUOTED/CITED sources for CONTRARIAN / DENIALIST Paid-For-Opinion-Media:
Daily Caller, Breitbart, Twitchy, New American etc.
.
Dr. Roy Spencer/ Dr. John Christy---> The SKEPTIC Satellite Science Guys!
.
WHO popularized Sloganeering Anti-Global-Warming-by-Press-Release.
SKEPTICS INVENTED
1st
( the "GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE")
2nd
( the "GLOBAL WARMING HIATUS")
3rd
( the "GLOBAL Cooling")
.
After ALL of those Press Releases from Oil & Coal P.R. departments in the 1970s
proclaiming a mini ice age was around the corner ! Prompting 100's of Newspaper scare headlines.
...and then again in the '80s, twice in the '90s, etc.
.
The UAH’s SKEPTIC Dr. John Christy and his partner Dr. Roy Spencer
----BOTH having predicted that Global Warming would End around 2000,
and then again...it would end with the solar minimum of 2007-2009
and then again...it would end around 2015
and NOW WE HAVE PREDICTIONS in the media of a
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM ushering in a mini ice age...what again?
.
HOWEVER
- THEY reported/admitted just a few months ago, that UAH data NOW confirms
an
“ UPWARD Global climate temperature trend SINCE Nov.16, 1978
Temperatures have been increasing for 40 year !
[of] +0.14+ C / decade [1/4F]/decade.”-------
* * *
That amounts to a rate of 1.4C / 100 years.
NOTE,
temps. HAD risen 0.85 to 1.15C over the PREVIOUS century.
SO
THIS NEW CHRISTY RATE 1.4C / 100 years is a 20%+ increase in the rate of warming over that PREVIOUS century!
.
1.4 C by humans per 100 yrs
During the end of the Last Glaciation, some 12,000 yrs ago, temps increased 5C over 5,000 years.
THAT is 0.10 C per 100 years.
HUMANS are raising temperatures around the world ' MANY ' times FASTER than Plants & Animals are able to adapt to.
* * * * * *
Spencer & Christy
.
Effectively ADMITTING for the FIRST TIME:
1. NO PAUSE in Global Warming ! ..... NONE !
2. NO HIATUS in Global Warming! ..... NONE !
3. Sure as hell, > NO COOLING! ...........NONE !
.
Dr. SPENCER:
“my UAH cohort & boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites,
is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing SPURIOUS COOLING because RSS is still
using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit..."
.
While everyone else corrects the errors in sat. data thru mathematics but they had accused others of manipulating data sooo...
.
Spencer & Christ found it ideologically convenient to allow these series of satellite inaccuracies to support their previous DENIER predictions FOR YEARS ! !
In the valley in northern Spain where I live, the trees grew about a third of their previous height between spring 2021 and spring 2022, and have continued on the same course: this is a fairly cold region, but the trees have taken on a tropical appearance. Has there been a recent spike in CO2 in the atmosphere that could explain this? Is it happening elsewhere?
The climate is being artificially manipulated by Geo-engineering. Research it.
If it was a spike in co2 it would have produced better than average tree growth. What caused the stunted growth rate you are seeing is lack of co2. If we continue to reduce co2 it will eventually kill off the trees that convert co2 to oxygen and create an unbalance in the atmosphere that will result in a cascading of both co2 and oxygen. We will not only kill off all kinds of vegetation and put most of the animal population at risk as well. These so called climatologist are playing with fire and will burn more than just themselves. Politicians should not be making laws governing things they know little about.
@@joemarshall4226 so you have gone from advocating Geo-Engineering to fight excessive CO2 & its harm to human life........and now you are accusing others of Geo-Engineering to manipulate climate.
@@gomaze3082 Gemaze, different plants can use more CO2 but many plants need the same or a little less than what they adapted/evolved to over the last many millions of years when CO2 was normally between 180ppm and never over 300ppm.
@@rakooi Where did you get the idea that I ADVOCATED geoengineering? I just said it existed. I think it's horrible, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was being used to created foods and droughts, and intensify storms so they destroy as much as possible. Maybe earthquakes, also. There has never been a weapon of war that was invented,a nd then not used. People have been screaming about the existence of chemtrails for decades. The powers-that -be denied their existence, until the evidence was jst overwhelming....Now they admit that "aerosol spraying" is something they are considering for the future to "mitigate global warming" Yeah, sure.....to spray us all like rats is more like it. John Brennan, head of the CIA talked about them in Dec 2016. Bill Gates ahs also mentioned this scenario.
This video needs to be downloaded and shared everywhere!
Yes, to illustrate how insidious the work of oil industry shills are. Happer isn't a climate scientist. He's the former head of the CO2 Coalition, funded by the fossil fuel industry, to promote the use of more gas and oil. Vet your sources before you believe them, Richard. Fossil fuel industry propaganda is everywhere, spread by nearly 100 different front groups, think tanks, websites and shills like Happer, according to investigations by Drexel University, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Just because someone is paid by an oil company doesn't make him a shill Einstein. THAT is your proof?? LMAO
@@user-un4mu1hj5o Happer isn't just paid by the fossil fuel industry, he has been roundly debunked in the scientific literature. I'll be happy to show you where and how.
@@user-un4mu1hj5o Yes. Exactly. Doesn't it make sense that somebody who doesn't believe in climate alamism would go and work for people that share his beliefs? Those who think otherwise are confusing the chicken with the egg.
no carbon dioxide no plants, no plants no oxygen. carbon dioxide in your body is why you breath.
We need more CO2 not less.
We breathe oxygen and release CO2. We are made up of carbon, nitrogen and H2O.
With more carbon, we could solve food shortages in different parts of the world
CO2 has oscillated between 150 and 280ppm every 120,000 years for the last three million years, at least.
There is no shortage of CO2. Nor will ceasing emissions cause a shortage. Plants and crops grew before extensive fossil emissions and they still will when we stop those emissions.
The John Locke Foundation (JLF) is a conservative think tank based in North Carolina.[2] The organization was founded in 1990 to work "for truth, for freedom, and for the future of North Carolina."[3][4] It is named after the philosopher John Locke, who was a primary contributor to classical liberalism. JLF was co-founded by Art Pope, a North Carolina businessman active in politics.[5] Pope's family foundation provides most of the support for the center.[6]
The organization's stated mission is to "employ research, journalism, and outreach programs to transform government through competition, innovation, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. JLF seeks a better balance between the public sector and private institutions of family, faith, community, and enterprise."[7]
The organization is concerned primarily with state and local issues. JLF advocates lowering taxes, and encouraging free markets. Kory Swanson is its current president. The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy was in its initial stages a project of the John Locke Foundation.
Sounds awful- lower taxes invariably means more poverty and inequality. More money less accountability for the rich.
Sounds wonderful. Higher taxes makes productivity gains moot.
sounds pretty good
@@gusjohnson1908 Lol, lower taxes means less money for rich politicians and their personal connections
I admire John Locke but not the goals of this foundation nor this jerk dismissing the results and analyses of 30,000 scientists, from many countries in various fields, all either contributing peer-reviewed research or else analyzing and collecting the research. Thanks for the information,
It would seem that because carbon is so beneficial to human well-being is the very reason why the powers that be are demonising it
Yes we peasants are the carbon they wish to reduce
Dr Happer gave a great short lecture. I've heard similar talks from a couple of Aussie Physicists, as well as the guy, ex-member, of Greenpeace, can't remember his name. It seemed that the audience watching the Greenpeace guy wanted to publicly flog him for daring to say that CO2 was good for the earth.
Anyone with a well planted aquarium, too, will tell you that for optimum growth that some CO2 is the only way to achieve lush growth. Too much will kill the fish, though. The great thing about aquarium plants is, you can see the O2 being released from the leaves in tiny bubbles.
The way that commercial green-houses produce their CO2 was new to me. So I learned a little more today. Greening the earth more should be our goal. After all, all that coal we dig up used to thick, lush forests. I don't see a problem releasing it back, as long as the real pollutants are scrubbed out or captured when burned.
Ex Greenpeace guy is Patrick moore
My completely accurate preduction for the climate: It will continue to change, unpredictably, as it has for the past 4 billion or so years, and nothing humans can do will suddenly make it predictable.
RedwoodTheElf You are wrong. Scientists can both explain past climate change, and have been predicting current warming for over 100 years. How can you feel so smug and be so wrong at the same time?
@@MendTheWorld Because I'm NOT wrong. The climate is NOT predictable. If CO2 was such a driver of temperature, for example, then why did the globe COOL between 1940 and 1970, during the biggest industrial boom in history? Scientists still can't explain what causes ice ages, thus they are unpredictable as well. And there IS no "Current warming" - The average global temperature stabalized around the year 2000, and the loonies are saying how mystified they are about the "pause" in Man-Made Global Warming. That's because humans have negligible impact on the Earth's chaotic climate system.
It is unsporting of me to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unless you have something substantive, and not the usual Argumentum Ad Populum "Consensus" nonsense, I suggest you go and educate yourself.
@@RedwoodTheElf I hope that your questions are sincere, and that you’re actually looking for answers. I realize that the odds are against me, but I can always hope.
One brief word of explanation: My usage of the term “denialism” represents the a priori rejection of some conclusion, based on a preponderance of evidence, that is deemed undesirable or threatening by some social community, usually related to cognitive dissonance or tribal dogma. Examples include evolution denialism, Holocaust denialism, MMR vaccination denialism, and AGW Denialism. In all cases, the arguments supporting the denialist views evolve a posteriori to create a narrative to rationalize the denial. As the denialist position is not supported by the mass of evidence, denialism requires the use of logical fallacies (e.g. Will Happer).
I’m not nearly as “unarmed” as you might imagine. However, the very real challenge I face is how to fit it into a UA-cam comment. I’ve opted to cite a few “popular”-style articles, but they will provide a guide to the peer-reviewed literature, assuming you’re sincerely interested.
1) A typical AGW Denialist approach is to summarily reject any and all disconfirming evidence, which doesn’t leave much room for a rational “battle of wits”. I hope you don’t do that, but if you do, our dialog is finished, as it will fall outside the domain of science.
2) Regarding Argumentum Ad Populum: In science, a consensus emerges in response to compelling evidence, and not via conspiracy. AGW is not true because there is a consensus. Rather, there is a scientific consensus because AGW is true. The scientific consensus does not prove AGW. It is the scientific evidence that proves AGW, which has led to the consensus. Will Happer is not wrong because he disagrees with the consensus. He is wrong because he systematically ignores and distorts the scientific evidence. If you cannot recognize this, it’s your shortcoming, and no one else’s. (NOTE: If you reject the reality that there is a scientific consensus, please see #1.)
3) On the decline in warming from ~1940 to ~1970, please see:
www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/amp/
skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm and
blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/12/what-science-says-about-role-of-co2-in-climate-change/#.XNXZRspOk0M
The last article is particularly good because it addresses a wide range of issues.
NO competent climate scientist has EVER argued that CO2 is the sole driver of climate change. Rather this is a “straw man” claim made in support of AGW Denialism.
4) Scientists DO understand what plausibly causes ice ages (a.k.a. “glacial intervals” punctuated by “interglacial” intervals; in some usage, the entire sequence of cyles is an “ice age”. I prefer your usage.). There are still many details to be elucidated, but the basic mechanism is that: Both glacial and interglacial intervals reach a state of quasi-equilibrium that is eventually disrupted by changes in Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles). Then-critically-the cooling or warming initiated by changes in the amount and distribution of solar radiation is enhanced, as a feedback mechanism, by transfer of CO2 either to or from the world’s oceans. You can find abundant references online.
5) Global temperatures did NOT stabilize around the year 2000. (Gee whiz… Why don’t you just come out and say “1998”. Or has that gone out of fashion?) We have abundant Land Surface Temperature (LST) data sets, Sea Surface Temperature (SST) data sets, deep ocean data sets…. measured by various methods, including satellite data, and painstakingly scrutinized to correct for systematic errors. If you think this graph shows “stabilizing” temperatures, we have a problem:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
If you choose to reject anything measured by scientists, then just look at snow and ice data, freeze thaw data, migration of ecotones, and etc. If you believe that “Mother Nature” is in on the liberal conspiracy… once again…. dialog over.
I am a scientist. I’m not here to debate political ideology or conspiracy theories. I’m am skeptical of everything, including my own beliefs, and every time I’ve investigated the claims related to the scientific evidence for AGW, it has led me to the same conclusion.
@@MendTheWorld Consensus is not science. If it were, then Einstein would never have been able to overturn Newtonian physics.
So everything you said that relies on "Consensus" can be safely ignored. Which is pretty much all of it.
You can't name one reputable climatologist who will deny that the weather and climate are chaotic systems, and as such, cannot be predicted.
Let me know when you can get an accurate weather prediction even one MONTH in the future, 100% of the time, and then talk to me about computer models being able to predict what the climate and weather will be in 100 years.
RedwoodTheElf You are mistaken in two respects.... and I understand and appreciate how and why you are mistaken, because ultimately people don't really understand how and why scientific method works. it has little to do with running "controlled experiments", although this can help substantially in some circumstances.
Personally, I am a geologist, and we like to think of ourselves as scientists (even though many of my colleagues have embraced agw denialism, but that's another long story). In any case, geologists can sometimes run certain controlled experiments, but basically what we're trying to do most of the time is to make sense of "experiments" that were run millions of years ago by "Mother Nature". And the way we do it is by applying abductive reasoning, which can be described as "inference to the best explanation" . Basically, we are taking everything that we know about natural Earth processes, and trying to weave it into a coherent story that provides the most plausible explanation of what we see. Climate science works in almost an identical way.
Geology makes progress by successive generations of geologists contributing further details to the story. But that doesn't mean that what we know today is wrong. Approaching truth is a progressive, iterative process that builds on everything that came before it.
People have the mistaken belief that the "truth" of Einstein's theory was known immediately, the moment he thought of it and wrote it down But that's not so. Its truth became known only after having been critically reviewed by his peers (assuming he actually had any Ha-ha), verified by measurements, such as the eclipse in 1919, and more importantly, by its coherency with other facets of science.
This is why I believe agw is valid. you can't just make up such a large, diverse body of evidence, and make it all self consistent. it's just inconceivable that this could happen. parts of it may indeed be wrong, but for the most part, we can be very confident of the basic conclusions.
The "Context" comment posted by UA-cam above is an excerpt from Wikipedia which is a perfect example of the kind of non-scientific political bias infecting the public discourse on the role of carbon in the earth's climate dynamics.
what's the excuse for a blurry video - are we in the 1960s ?
CO2 consumption requires water for the photosynthesis process to work. The consumption of CO2 is in fact using more water and converting the oxygen and Carbon, with hydrogen into the material of the plant's stems and leaves etc. The heating of plants causes them to emit hydrocarbons. That is what cause green plants to burn. It's not the carbon burning, it's the hydrocarbons. As the atmosphere warms, more water will evaporate and move from the warmer places on earth to the cooler places on earth. What Happer is doing here is just leading you on with his arguments about none of the things that actually matter.
Thanks, I did not know about stomata count reduced by CO2 thus reducing loss of water. This is really a key point because it shows that even if temperature rises a bit, that's still way better for them.
It is not a key point when YOU realize you are not a plant....not a turnip or a Squash.
Coming out of the last glaciation (from 15,000 to 10,000 years ago) Earth Warmed at a rapid rate of 5C over those 5,000 years.
THAT rate of Warming was 0.1C per century.
.
The last Century of human measures, Earth has warmed at 0.85C per Century.....1870s to 1970s.
.
8 times faster than Earth Normal.
.
Noted ' Skeptic ' Dr. John Christy has recalculated all satellite data since the first Sat. was launched for temperatures..1978 thru this day.. Earth is Warming
at 1.40 C per century
..
that's 14 times faster than Earth Normal....FASTER than most Animals and Many Plants will be able to adapt to that rate of rapid climate change.
.
ccimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/2015Attribution/2015Attribution_F_equiv.jpg
@@rakooi
Bet he had to recalculate it to get those results
Climate changes - it is not static and will not always incrsase/decrease in a smooth linear fashion 😉
@@rakooi Coming out of the last glaciation Earth Warmed at a rapid rate of 5C over those 5,000 years.
THAT rate of Warming was 0.1C per century.
Rick 1) what caused that warming? Man burning fossil fuels?
2) what rate is the pre-anthropogenic cause currently contributing?
3) where did fossil fuels come from? The atmosphere? Are we merely replacing what came from the atmosphere?
And who in the world convinced you that some rate of warming averaged from the last ice age was "Normal". Heating and cooling have gone up and down sometimes much faster and there is no normal or ideal rate.......some one sold you hogwash.
I guess you don't get it..... this is a political inspired crisis..... Those pushing it don't act as if they believe it or care..... not their words but actions, Rick.
Finally, predictions about the future are not science. Science is based on observation and you cannot observe the future. No one can say how plants and animals will react to future events, no one.
@@rakooi But we eat plants. dun dun dun.
“correlation does not imply causation”
My only complaint was the Camera Man!
It's the aliens that live inside the earth driving on endless highways.
Great stuff. The truth is always suppressed when it challenges the people in power. This is exactly what David Ike has been saying for years. Thank you.
"The truth is always suppressed when it challenges the people in power." Exactly, but it is HAPPER who is trying to suppress the truth because that threatens those in power and threatens corporate profits.
But, of course, you aren't smart enough to present your argument!
But YOU KNOW THE TRUTH when you smell it, coming out of your arsss....ooops...I mean mouth!
@@karlwheatley1244 THAT is why Donald Trump labeled our FREE PRESS, the enemy of the people.... an old Soviet phrase.
@@karlwheatley1244the corporations (public owned) make money regardless, be it fossil fuels or solar panels.
4 years later.... still the same ..
yep, still a dynamic system.
Why have 135 people disliked this video? In all seriousness I’d like to hear their factual rebuttal of what is being said. What parts of what is being said incorrect? Please illuminate us with your knowledge.
it's only 135. If the warmists could concentrate on the lecture for more than 30 seconds and have enough brains to understand what is said, there would be more of them here and the channel would be banned by UA-cam.
Hylandan
Global warming caused solely by CO2 is a difficult model. It’s is also one that I could care less about. What bothers me is breathing as I don’t identify as a house plant.
The CO2 level in 1700 was 277ppm, in 1900 it had risen to 300ppm with the industrial revolution. Now it is over 410ppm. The maximum safe count is 400ppm. Plot that out and see where we will be at 2050. Health issues start at 1000ppm and population will involuntarily decrease above 2000ppm. Yea, waving you hand and disproving global warming here and there doesn’t do anything.
Know any chemistry. One Gallon or 6.2lbs of gasoline burned in the atmosphere makes 18lbs of CO2 amongst a host of other compounds. But sense we are CO2 will stick with that. Now wait, physics is alive and well... you have to use 88 pounds of earths air mixtures to burning the 6.2 pounds of gas, so a total of 94lbs of combustibles makes just 18lbs of CO2 (and others). This is just chemistry. Look this up and please nitpick my rounding it’s ok. Now look up for yourself how much gas we use. By most world sources you get a figure of right around 165... million gallons...per day. This is simple stuff. Ok, 165,000,000 gallons of gasoline times 18 (CO2 ) equals what? (Did you get a sum of 3 billion?) Wait, that is not the bad news. Diesel fuel has sulfur in it. H2S is bad. NO4 is worst. But just do you little calculation for CO2 for 183,000,000 gallons of diesel fuel every single day.
Did you think that was the end of the bad news? Now we are in the Jet age ! Yea! That’s right calculate the CO2 for 385,000,000gal of jet fuel each and every day. Add those three fuels together. Did you come up with 12billion? Are you scared yet?
Look, I’m a republican. I vote that way. Being a republican means we are smart, that we try to see reality. The reality is that CO2 is increasing because it is NOT getting absorbed. The reality is that CO2 is lethal to humans. Sure we are not going to kill the planet.
So I saw screw the global warming arguments. They don’t even matter.
Let's first look at this from incoming light. The Sun, with an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, is an approximate black body with an emission spectrum peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Of that, about 55% of incoming sunlight to Earth is infrared photons. They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% is reflected which is what you would see if you were to look at the Earth from outer space. That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth and be reradiated in the Earth's black body 255k infrared range back into the atmosphere. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O, CFCs, and HCFCs, in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflecting incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, on the mean, the planet must heat.
Now let us look at this from the secondary greenhouse gas CO2. One of CO2's properties is it has a reactive band in the 255K range where it absorbs and releases infrared photons in Earth's black body radiation range. Once released after absorption, there is one chance in 41,253 that infrared photon will continue within one degree in the same direction. This basically gives that photon a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. Since the oceans cover about 71% of the Earth's surface, this gives that photon about a 35% chance of hitting a body of water. Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water's surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas which prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon, -18C on the mean. Consequently, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets. This is how a 46% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 with over a doubling of CH4, in the atmosphere is approximately .9C. Because it takes a tremendous amount of time for the oceans to heat, it will take centuries for the Earth to reach temperature equilibrium. If we continue to inject 37 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate.
@Homo Quantum Sapiens That is exactly what I said, just in a little more refined manner. I also included H2O as part of that physical principal. Reread and see if you can put it all together.
"...they're (many scientists are) worried about the long-term effects on scientific credibility." Yes indeed, well of course that was several years ago now. Today we're better seeing what those effects are. I would venture to say that scientific credibility, in general, is nearing a centuries-term low, perhaps its lowest point since the dawn of the scientific era. It is in the trash as far as I'm concerned, and this is coming from my position of having been an enthusiastic science buff all my 64 years.
Therefore, this brings up another phenomenon, which I will call the "spending down of credibility". It's happening in science and politics, in education, media, entertainment, and I dare say in religion. That so many previously respected institutions are, more or less simultaneously, spending down their credibility in favor of the "great reset", or of what U.S. president, GHW Bush called the "New World Order", is quite telling. It shows that they're nearing a milestone, a landmark, the end of a long phase and the beginning of another. This is evidenced because, once spent, they're not getting their credibility back for many generations, and surely they know this. A willingness to spend their former credibility down so sharply, and in some cases to throw it away altogether, indicates that they're confident in the belief that they're getting something extremely valuable (to them, i.e. a lot of coercive power) in exchange for what was once their highly valued credibility.
Having trouble finding any of Happers research papers. Any help…
Try Milutin Milankovic research it may bring more light
@@caveman1334Milankovic Cycles would explain the direction of temperatures but not the sharpness of those curves.
@@warneraudio Thank you.
I guess that I find it difficult to accept antropomorphic nature of the change and I think that by not knowing enough its easy to convince enough people in this side of the argument.
Wrongly presented any curve may look more or less drastic depending on desired response ❤️🙏
@@caveman1334 I'm afraid the Earth cares little for what you and I can accept or know for that matter. It'll shake us off for the parasites we are one day. If there's no planet B I'll error on the side of caution for the sake of future generations or until I know everything. Which I don't see happening all that soon. 🙏
Al Gore said that Boston and New York would be under water by the year 2000.
NO HE DID NOT!
And he is a failed politician...not a scientist! WHO THE HELL CARES.
Gore is an idiot scientifically but a genius financially. He has made a fortune on climate propoganda . Michael Mann and co at THE IPCC are riding on his coat tails trying to cash in on the scam.
@@eliosanciolo1743 1. Gore is not a scientist...never has been...he runs a very profitable venture capital firm. 2. His CPA's verified he has donated any and all profits from his speeches, books, and movies to the cause as charitable contributions.
EVERY PENNY!
.
cdn.downtoearth.org.in/uploads/0.13794800_1447845747_figure-1.jpg
.
www.peopleandtheplanet.com/images/Windstorm_trends.png
@@eliosanciolo1743 www.peopleandtheplanet.com/images/Windstorm_trends.png
@@rakooi If Al Gore believes that the sea levels are rising, why did he just purchase an $11M mansion right on the beach in Florida?
Why did the Obamas just purchase a multi-million dollar mansion on Martha's Vineyard, which was supposed to be underwater by now.
You have been scammed by the biggest scam in history.
The reason that the models do not work is because of the pretense that CO2 reduces radiation. But the heat of the Earth (mostly oceans) moves this low energy, not by radiation but via simple conduction. Once this energy reaches the energy carried to the upper stratosphere, it is combined with solar radiation and mostly radiates into space.
65 million years ago, CO² ppm were likely 10-20 times higher and the global temperatures were roughly 10°C higher. I think we're going to be ok
I can see that You should not always follow the Science without people on both sides debating so the people could make a decision. we saw how we were told to follow the science with the covid problems. President Biden said if we get the vaccine, we will not get Covid, He himself was fully vaccinated and got it twice.
And where the highest vaccination rates were....the more rapidly Covid Infections died back.
THAT is successful science.
"Climate Models are very poor predictors of future climate changes because they leave out so many important factors." Freeman Dyson
"CO2 has so many benefits for the earth one would have to be crazy to want to reduce it!" Freeman Dyson
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance --That principle is contempt prior to investigation."Herbert Spencer
John Edwards
Computer modelling:-
Garbage IN + Garbage OUT.
Dyson hasn't been active in science in decades.
Central estimates of all IPCC Temperature model projections in years, were and are still accurate & within the projected ‘envelope,’
__________________________________________________________
www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/independent-satellite-data-verifies-reality-of-global-warming/article/547843
_________________________________________________________
www.quora.com/How-accurate-were-the-climate-models-and-scientists-of-the-70s-80s-and-90s-at-predicting-the-world-temperature-trends-of-today/answer/Anton-Carver
___________________________________________________
Moreover,
"I add, there "Was and Is a long track-record " in the " scientific literature " of successful projections/predictions by climate models.
.
It was collected and documented by Barton Paul Levenson, I quoted Barton as follows below.
.
"Global Warming Science & Climate Models have successfully predicted for over 60 YEARS!
.
See the 1958 & 1965 AAAS (( Which is not the UN but the American Association for the Advancement of Science & Presidential Science Advisory Councils Research Reports & Warnings on Global Warming which causes Climate Change.))
These projections would start to be seen 50 years from 1965.
1.
That the globe would warm, .
.
((directly counter to the Mini ICE Age myth perpetuated by the Skeptic/Fossil Fuel Industrialists DEEP STATE.
---a mini ice age PREDICTED:
in the '70s, & again in the '80s, '90s, 2007-2009, 2015 and now in 2020,
we will be up to our assets in that mini ice age in 2020))
and
2. about how fast it would warm,
and
3. about how much it would warm.
.
science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469
.
4. That the troposphere would warm
and
5. The stratosphere would cool.
.
(hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png ))
.
(( not one SKEPTIC has offered ANY FULL Scientific Based Explanation for this GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE PROOF ))
.
6. That nighttime temperature would increase more than daytime temperatures. ----->Nighttime Lows Warming Faster Than Daytime Highs - Does ...
praedictix.com/nighttime-lows-warming-faster-than-daytime-highs-does-hot-weather-make-us-d…
.
(( www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/climate-change-rule-thumb-cold-things-warming-faster-warm-things ))
.
7. That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
.
(( After all of the SUB ZERO temps this year, Wisconsin meteorologists pooled their data and found nite time winter cold temps have WARMED 10 degrees of the last 40 years))
.
8. Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
.
Arctic amplification | National Snow and Ice Data Center
.
(( nsidc.org/about/monthlyhighlights/2009/09/arctic-amplification ))
.
9. That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
.
Arctic melt versus Antarctic freeze: Is Antarctica warming ...
nsidc.org/.../11/arctic-melt-versus-antarctic-freeze-antarctica-warming-or-not
.
10. The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
.
11. They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
.
12. They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
.
13. The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
.
14. The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
.
15. The expansion of the Hadley cells.
.
16. The poleward movement of storm tracks.
.
17. The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
.
18. The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
.
19. The near constancy of relative humidity on a global average.
.
20. That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
.
-----------> Broecker is probably best known for popularizing the term “global warming” through his 1975 paper
. “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” "
.
-----------> "Climate Change" as used today, was first researched & defined by Alexander von Humboldt in 1799, while on a world wide lecture tour in Venezuela.
.
------------> Spot On Accurate Projections of Threatening Climate Changes from Human Triggered Global Warming.
.
------------> www.nrdc.org/stories/global-warming-101#warming upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
.
---------------------> The planet IS accumulating heat !
----------------------> www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/independent-satellite-data-verifies-reality-of-global-warming/article/547843
@@MauriatOttolink Global Warming Science is based literlly on Millions of HUMAN MEASURES....computer models are used for projecting future occurrences, should we do this....or that....or the other thing.
@@MauriatOttolink = Gullible Fool
“This is the level of disgusting we are trying to face…its just nonsense! It makes good press, people get frightened, we’re gonna fry, all this crap, but it has nothing to do with science!” This was four years ago and they are singing that same old tune to the point of total control, yet no one listens! God Bless us everyone, Amen!!!
It wasn't about control when nations united to fight the effects of ACID RAIN on dozens of countries and the global Climate.
It wasn't about control when nations united to fight the effects of Ozone Depletion/hole ... Both Movements were led by modern science and 2 VERY conservative Presidents of the USA.
Sorry, YOU missed all the headlines.
@@rakooi Those headlines have changed drastically! Australia, New Zealand, the EU? It’s all about control now, My Friend, to usher in a one world govt, one world currency-the New World Order! Straight out of the Living Bible!
@@hugskisses1601 Absolute High School Debating logic
....not about the facts on the ground.
And
Thanks
for Your
New Anti-Christian Comment.
Apparently, you never have read the Bible...any translation!!
Have you Read Mein Kampf?
Why is the camera man focusing on the speaker while he is referring to the chart? Are we supposed to appreciate his relaxed demeanor rather than the content?
Hey UA-cam, if the UN told you the moon was made of cheese, you would believe it.
Well we know Google is UA-cam and that like the UN has become a tool of the Marxist far left with zero credibility CO2 is in my opinion at 0.04 percent at dangerously low levels as historically the level has been much higher and all life on earth depends on CO2 and the Process of Photosynthesis for survival of all forms of life on Earth, Plants do not grow or survive without CO2 and the Oxygen all animal life requires to breathe and survive is a byproduct of Photosynthesis and CO2.
Fraud is a Crime and the amount of Money stolen in this crime Worldwide makes it the greatest Criminal Fraud perpetrated on Mankind in History, Time to imprison these criminals one and all.
YOU are objecting to 200 years of much critiqued and then verified research???
@@rakooi Two hundred years of research what a crock of shit you spin there has not been the equipment to measure CO2 levels for 200 years and everybody who works in Archeology who deciphers ancient plant remains and tree rings that is not a barefaced scammer like Al Gore and various other morons like Tim Flannery "Never Rain again and if it did it would not fill the Dams" You are seriously deluded just wait till the Globalist scum pushing this lie take away everything you value in life if not your life as well Fool.
@@rakooi specifically, what science are you referring to?
@@rakooi try again, whatever you just posted does not appear in the comments
Good presentation, but you need to get someone running the camera who has some good sense. The slides are more important than the profile of the distinguished professor. And every time they have to shift back to the screen where the slides are being projected, you lose a couple-to-three seconds or so while the gain control in the optical circuit of the camera makes the adjustment so we can view the slides. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. - Paul -
It's apparent Al Gore either skipped or was sleeping in the so called science training he he gives himself credit for!
He took a climate course because he had to take an elective in science and he was such a poor science and math student he figured this would be his best bet. Years later when he wrote his first book on the climate he dedicated the book to his professor who was a bit puzzled since he didn’t remember him. He always saved all his students work so he went back and reviewed Gore’s file. He discovered that he gave Gore a D- in the course which he thought was generous. He read the book and sent Gore a letter thanking him for the the props but told him he was misinterpreting his research.
Dr. William Happer, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei.
They MEASURED how much CO2 was in the atmosphere a hundred years ago till now and they have MEASURED the average temperature rise since a hundred years ago. You can't get much simpler that that.
Daw
They've also measured the temperature in the ice cores... Earth has been a lot hotter in the past - we've just gotten over a mini ice age! 😎
They've Measured lots of things. And? Your thoughts are simple..
I would love to see this with a static view of the presentation screen. The constant zooming and moving around by the camera is absolutely infuriating.
Andrew he has done more recent talks where not so zoomey. Check on YT.
@@antimatter4444 Thanks Matt. I think I got enough from this one. There were just a few times where I wanted to take in the charts and it was super annoying.
It has changed my thoughts on CO2. I was already of the opinion that the 'science' on this was one sided and, much worse, dogmatic, but had bought the assertion that CO2 was bad. It seems like, if CO2 is the emergency they claim it is, then it is futile to fight it with emissions, especially unilaterally, handing economic dominance to China, and it would be a better use of effort to plan for the supposed effects. But having seen this, I am convinced it really is a whole bunch of nothing.