Climate change: Fact or fiction? | Head to Head
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2016
- Some scientists say the earth's climate changes constantly and naturally, but the vast majority of them believe the current rise in global temperature is man-made, and could be catastrophic for the planet. But is all this but a case of extreme ‘climate alarmism'? Climate change sceptic Richard Lindzen is challenged on his view that concern about global warming is alarmist nonsense.
More from Head to Head on:
UA-cam - aje.io/4a46
Facebook - / ajheadtohead
Twitter - / ajheadtohead
Website - aljazeera.com/headtohead - Розваги
This comment section is filled with people complaining about interruptions but the whole thing goes smoothly they even agree
The video is over 3 years old but those comments seem to be in the last 7 months.
It seems like someone sent em here.
Like me it's probably a class assignment to pick out arguments and evaluate them.
Online Classes did.
@@lyncelglojibasubas3420 I doubt that online classes tell people to go make youtube comments instead of working on the project but stupidity has no limit.
Any hope at finding the truth, whatever it may be, was lost as soon as climate change became a political issue.
And a money making issue.
@@kitemanmusic - To find the truth just follow the money
@@Stu_Yorkie The money leads to big energy.
Very true statement! Once it's political its controlled for an agenda.
Politicians are something we've somehow normalized. The politicians created the climate for the corporations to become to big to be accountable, now the emissions from container ships are the consumers responsibility. I wonder, is it people, or governments, military and corporations that have accelerated climate change? We put beef on container ships to China, they dehydrate it, put it in a Styrofoam cup with some noodles, and it goes back on the container ship to where it came from. This can go on, but your cars emissions are a sin.
As soon as the moderator mentioned the IPCC, I knew this was going to be a stacked interview as well as an interview void of fact. Notice all the interrupting by the moderator . . . and the editing of the video is ridiculous.
Didn't the polar bear in the beginning make it clear?
The proffessor was clearly a rational and logical thinker. Spoke so clearly...when he could get a word in. He asked some very telling questions that were never answered and made some observations that were totally ignored. That interviewer should be sent back to journalism kindegarden.
Just as well professor Lindzen is a calm person, he hardly got to finish any of his answers!
Thanks to the comment section I didn't waste 47 minutes.
Josh Miller - There is a lot to be said for the comments section, the debates are often as good if not better than the video.
There are a lot of intelligent beings out there.
✌️✊🏼🌅
L N you can see he’s frustrated when he folded his arms just after being interrupted again.
Michael Stanton - Yeah but, I suspect he is used to much more aggression than he got at this debate. After all as we saw here, there is a frenzy about the subject that in my opinion/ experience (I was 20 when I first heard of global warming, I’m 60 no) is the reason we haven’t go far at all in reducing CO2.
My belief is we have to do away with corruption and then we as the human race could actually achieve something worthwhile!
I enjoyed the debate.I am in a process of finding out the scientific facts and their interpretation before forming a final opinion. At the moment I feel we shouldn't take any chances despite the financial downside.I hate the politicalization of this debate but I guess this is inevitable
I would loved to have heard the answers, and points that all these scientists were trying to make, without being interrupted...🤔
Read my comment and check my sources. You will get the answers about abrupt global climate change from the voices in the doomasphere and of course, very good UA-cam channels.
Anthony Davis there's 1900 comments here. Is that some sort of a joke?
@@lightdark00 , No.
Anthony Davis no idea how you expect people to find your comment then.
@@lightdark00 . Do your own research, don't worry about the 1900 comments.
The host is just being political, and he's just interrupting and browbeating. Lindzen is trying to talk about data. The host is just trying to be political.
This is an example of poor production but it's poor probably because of the ego and celebrity of the host who has a large media presence and ubiquity on the global media. Most producers would not be supported by their programme editors if they tried to question the host's behaviour or script due to the hosts's celebrity.
@@tonywilliams7147 this show is Called literally “head to head” as I’m he goes head to head with his guests and ask them tough questions. You see it in the other videos in the series
I admire the professor's patience with the interviewer.
The interviewer has faulty genes, which explains why he is doing so bad at listening to the professor.
I would have like to hear Dr. Lindzen complete his thoughts but it became obvious that our commentator was ardent to not let that happen. Mr. Commentator, your days are numbered.
Really unprofessional moderator
He's a biased liar.
He's talking to a mob. A hysterical mob. They don't care what he says.
He is the least intelligent person in the whole room. Better to have a scientists interview him than a hysterical politically motivated interviewer.
Carbon tax isn't going to change solar activity or moon phases,
Won't stop the ice ages every 100,000 years or so. We are rapidly approaching one the total opposite of what these media cretins say Lies have consequences and this lie is abhorant beyond morality alone.They are complicit from top to bottom.Carbon is the life of this planet more is needed.Inversions at this level? Will never be forgiven.When people know the truth however will they trust anyone in power again!.
When the Vikings found Greenland it was green lush and beautifull. Then after three hundred years it grew cold and eventually froze over. In medeavil times Europe was very warm for three hundred years. Hot enough to grow vineyards in Scotland all year round. There was a mini ice age in the 1700s when the river Thames froze over. There is nothing new under the sun@
yes, there's no other way to explain those draughty castles in such a cold climate! haha.
And I really don’t get when you tell people this it doesn’t make them wake up to what’s happening here
@Venturing into the Brine Yes, what IS happening? I'd really like to know!
p r o b a b l y n o t h i n g
We want to hear the Professor talking, however never gets chance to fully answer a question, the interviewer buts in & does more talking
*Collective alarmists,* "Alarm, alarm, alarm, alarm, alarm, straw man, alarm, alarm ... "
*Prof Lindzen,* "Let's try to be objective and rational"
*Collective alarmists,* "yes, but alarm ,alarm, alarm, alarm, straw man, catastrophy, alarm, alarm, alarm.... "
*Prof Lindzen,* "let's try to be objective and rational"
*Collective alarmists,* "yes, but alarm, alarm, alarm alarm, straw man, panic, alarm, alarm alarm .... "
..... and so every "debate" regarding AGW and C02 catastrophism goes ad infinitum. This cycle of approach regarding debates such as this should make every thinking person with a working BS detector raise an eyebrow at minimum.
Yet Again medhi husan is a pro
@@nermalk2350 If you think that, you had already takeb some sort of side. He effectively stopped any intelligent discourse taking place. and ruined what could have been a brilliantly informative debate. Theae are complex issues, 'save the planet' one-liners and stupid questions from audience members who just want to make a point, instead of taking the opportunity to ask a deep question we can all learn from does not help anyone or anything. I watched this to learn things I didn't already know, and learned nothing - the only people who knew what they were talking about were subjected to constantly interruptions when answering. But we all make mistakes, we are human, so I just hope the interviewer did learn from this rather poor debate.
Everything that is happening in climate change has happened before including having the earth almost covered completely in ice. Global warming which is the main reason for the hysteria that has gripped society but it is much better for society then global cooling which could start tomorrow.
The people who go along with the Al Gore and his climate change scam get rewards from governments for supporting the global climate change by man because government can have more control over society to save mankind and animals from extinction from carbon dioxide and global warming that isn't true.
Wow. The interviewer doesn't want answers shown by his lack of allowing anyone to fully answer.
Yep agreed. - first 5 minutes I thought so myself !. - After another 10 minutes I can confirm the interviewer Is an idiot .
That's his M.O., I've seen him in action in other interviews
@@Columbusappraiser I see a what you mean. Why would anyone employ this person as an interviewer. He has no idea and pushes his own agenda rather than enticing answers.
no, He doesn't want to spread propaganda, and lies
@@khyreedwards1228 So to do that he must know the correct answers to the questions about the impact of climate change and so must you. What scares you about the opinion of others? How do you know the impact and causes of climate cahnge and what have you studied an applied to become a worthwhile person to listen to?
No scientist has said "We have to go back to the stone age." What has been said is we have to do what we do in a much more sustainable way, that doesn't impact on earth's climate negatively. Also climate change should NEVER BE an "ideological debate." Debate SHOULD ALWAYS be based on FACT!!!
Ah yes , that word “SUSTAINABLE” again …
And what exactly does “SUSTAINABLE” mean again ?
Why , anything the governments wish for it to mean !
What a joke
He lost me when he said there was some sort of global warming conspiracy perpetrated by someone he would rather not name.
That was the point of this interviewer, to frustrate him i to saying that. Probably as a character assasination, so he could "lose" People like u.
He has been open in other discussions with his opinions regarding the far left hijacking this movement. And they have. The left struck gold with this "climate change" mess. They finally found a way to heavily tax an natural gas everybody is dependent on. Now they continue too ramp the fear up, so they can tax even more.
@@karljonsson5577 give me a break. I'm sick and tired of every conversation being highjacked by the "far left" or the "alt right".
@@martinsanderson5240 Ok, please read through the united nations agenda 21 and agenda 2030. If that is not an far left agenda i dont know what is.
@@karljonsson5577 Didn't read all 351 pages of agenda21 word for word. I did skim though and I don't see the problem you're having with it. Can you be specific?
Sustainable development is the plan for globalisation. The world economic forum clearly states their agendas.
it's the most absurd debate. The interviewer is immensely misfit in this debate; he foolishly tries to argue about the subject he hardly knows.
I agree, so far 15 minutes into the "debate" all the interviewer is doing is using an appeal to authority rather than asking about the science and the proof. Interviewer interupts and is absolutely not interested in the answers.
LOL, yeah, he has a history of been an awful interviewer.
What I think is hilarious is the fact that NONE of these Deniers (and I use the word with all it's connotations) has been prepared to put their money where their mouth is when challenged.
There have been offers of Wagers, they all passed, A Climate modeller (has to know and understand all the science and current research to be able to design a valid model) by the name of Annan already has a $10,000 wager made 12 years ago that he will collect in 2019 with 2 Russian physicists who believed that the Solar minimum we have been entering for the last couple of decades would cool the planet, Annan bet that the CO2 ensured it wouldn't. He is winning hands down, even with the commencement being 1998.
Lidzen made an emphatic challenge/statement on a TV interview back then that he would bet anyone any amount that the Earth would be cooling, Annan said hey My pension savings could do with a boost so he took Lindzen up on his challenge for $10,000. Linzen would only accept at 50/1 odds, i.e Annan put $10,000 into escrow and Lindzen only risks the price of a restaurant meal ($200) into escrow.
Annan challenged all the above deniers to the same wagers and they all declined.
Apart from Annan there have been many others trying to make wagers with these frauds, but they all refuse to put their money where their mouth is
He covers a plethora of topics. One who covers more international level topics as question/answers scheme is much more better for informative purposes and experts or those who studied those things are better for practical designations. Impacts and effects of such activities seem to be better understood.
Kind of like giving a loaded machine gun to a Chimpanse?
Why are many of Lindzens answers cut out? This seems dishonest.
And the "if your wrong the effects on the poorest countries and most vulnerable......." seems scripted and is asked similarly about 3 times
He's given a platform and a voice, when he is usually ignored. What more do you want?
@@japandata He's still ignored and seemingly censored.
probably because he started to produce facts
@@japandata That they can actually be honest for once ofcourse? At 18:40 the interviewer points to something Lindzen said earlier that isnt there cause it's been cut out. This is insane actually.
Where were they polled?
“You tell me where they were polled!”
... That’s not how presenting evidence works, “No! You tell me where I get my data” haha.
this man an be "funny" at times
I love this guy he is calm and measured. The interviewer is so ruďe!
He is just scared.
Climate is real. It's been real for thousands of years.
first gl w now clim- ch
The earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old. I'm certain that there has been some sort of climate change since then..
Billions.
Well the dinosaurs didn’t really like the ice age lol
well, you're making the assumption that the Earth exists. it doesn't.
I enjoy a good debate, but a bias interviewer kills any debate.
the word is "biased"
Yes he's particularly aggressive and biased.
He said at the onset, his roll was to challenge the Climate Change denier.
@xenon127 I agree, but that did not happen as Linzen was cut short at times when points mattered.
xenon127 devil s advocate is a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments. Stupid xenon127
Amazing! When he introduced a member of the audience who sided with the scientist he cut him off quickly and never went back to him again!
This was a very good debate on this important issue! The facilitator did a good job challenging on issues and allowing debate! So important to be open on this issue!
The interviewer is totally bombastic. I found myself repeatedly saying "For goodness sake shut up!"
That's just his interviewing style, that's what the program is supposed to do. He is supposed to press his guests.
I think everybody is getting a chance to speak.
This classic symphony wants to be like Epstein. The cream of western world who blames others for other problems lol
@@rafay8516 its not an Interview.
They are debating.
And how islamic?
@TheClassicalSymphony Why do u have to bring religion into this? stop generalizing
What a shocking interviewer. He continually interrupted and would not listen to anyone.
Yes I agree
I can't stand people like that.
That is how you bully the agenda and the audience.
The interviewer should bo\e fired.
@@DeliciousDeBlair exactly
The UN is a political organ, and so is the IPCC
Trump is beyond political he is a denier and permanently on campaign mode for his ego, and his comments are so unscientific with headless comments via tweets. Anything that crazy brain comes up must be pathetically ludicrous
I liked the interview, having 3-4 other people involved seated on the first bench. Thank you for this one.
This was more an ambush than a discussion. I would've loved to heard more from the professor - I can get the bickering and opinions on TV.
rhbruning - Agree!
@@OMGAnotherday The discussion was viewed as a challenge and the guy (prof) isn't smart enough to be able to argue intelligently because the facts are not on his side.
Jerry Lynch - Jerry, I’m afraid that it is very disappointing when people like you dismiss a discussion, the subject is not a closed shop, the subject belongs to everyone on the planet, so all points are valid.
Professor made some very interesting points and one of them was, what steps are we taking, (as he said himself) regardless of whether he is right or wrong, and I personally would have liked to have heard more from the professor!
@@OMGAnotherday All points backed up by evidence and reviewed by the rigors of science are valid. Some qualifications needed.
The science is very simple, even Lindzen agrees the fundamentals aren't contested. AGW *is* real, everyone in this forum agreed with that. He's here arguing about the sensitivity and potential impact.
Cani Terrae - Yes I know, that’s why I wanted to be able to hear more from him!
And by the way, the science is not “very simple,” it’s one of the most complex scientific problems the human race has faced. So dismissing a learned professor, no matter what you might think about what he is saying is just stupidity.
Interviewers should *never* interrupt much, but especially not just when the guest is making his points! So I left...
Kevin Skipper No, I have no need listening to egos quarrel to delude themselves they're right - with a heavily biased arbitration - especially since the debate/quarrel is entirely moot.
Only symbolic gestures will be made until the alleged problem perhaps becomes undeniable. That is just how politics works. I have my own evaluation and it's probably right as usual, but that doesn't matter either - not beyond a small group of friends and relatives who value my take on things.
I'm want to being right so early on about a whole slew of developments, I gradually lost the will to try to convince others and restricted myself to formulate a comprehensible outline in order to initiate awareness with those, who were ready and motivated for battle.
I also don't consider the sport of making predictions much more than adult infantilism - when it comes to public debates and politics. In real science, predicting can act as a test of validity of theory, of course, but in real life entirely different forces and conditions are at play.
One important dynamic often ignored is the feedback mechanism between the motive for - and the effect of - any prediction, which nevertheless quite often leads to the paradox of the best predictions nullifying themselves, leading to the possible later interpretation, that "we thought the problem serious, but our concern turned out to be exaggerated" ;)
How do we even know afterwards if some apparently sufficient measures were really necessary?
Scenarios we couldn't imagine might have played out (leading to conditions half would deem better, the other half worse) had we acted differently, but might in any case already have changed the future in ways nobody could foresee - even to such a degree as to change the number of available options later on.
And again people differ: Some prefer less options and a paved road - others are forever off-roaders looking for untried solutions...
This is not an interview but debate!
@@Hallands.
Seems you already had a preconceived idea of who is correct in this argument.
Your bias wasn't affirmed so you shut it off?
Decimus Rex Seems you didn't read or understand my explanation. You can go back an read it above and find that your question has been answered already...
Hallands Menved it's his show, and he is the host he can do what he likes. Mehdi mostly interrupts when the person says something wrong, or if he has something to say about what the person said.
*If hassan let people talk, I would have learned MORE from this discussion.*
*LISTEN* as much as you’re talking.... please.
Amen, I could hardly make it through because of this.
The interviewer needs to shut up. He destroyed his own interview by endless interrupttions
What are you talking about. He is debating him. Not interviewing him
The interviewer is dreadful. OMG. SO argumentative. He showed up with an agenda rather than have a discussion.
Thinking the main problem no one is talking about is geoengineering. The interviewer is awful and so is ipcc. All elitist controlled.
Of course. His name is Mehdi Hassan. A known Islamist. Destroyed on BBC by Hitchens and Murray. Well known scumbag, also hates Jews.
@@micklee5280 i suggest laying off conspiracies for a while
Watch the condescending interviewer at about 15:00 when he talks about the supposed 97% polled scientists who agree on man made climate change...and the Professor asked him where were they polled . Medhi immediately fired back throwing the question back at the Professor asking him ,where they polled in a torture chamber?.... you tell me where they were polled? at Guantanamo bay? ....
With all due respect there’s no legitimate discussion to have. Isn’t it exactly how the climate change die hard fans act? They will automatically label kill anyone that don’t hop on their bus.
The agenda began and then took off with Al Gore aprox. 30 years ago . I watched his documentaries where he stated that Florida would be under water by now. I’m a Floridian. It’s fear mongering at its best.
If Climate change was true, the banks would not be lending billions to South Beach Developers. If there’s someone with all the facts is not the Pope, Politicians or so called scientists.
The real scientists that disagree with Global Warming (by the way -the majority are atheists) 31000 of them- don’t get their side of the story on the greatest mass manipulation device. TV- why? I agree with you - we should have a 2 sided exposure/ which actually don’t happen or will ever happen.
31000 Scientists declared to be a con / a hoax/ a lie. Yet gullible “highly educated people” fall for it.
Unfortunately most don’t want to have a conversation to arrive at truth, but to win.
What the U.N. stands for? Globalism, control. By the way- they will win- for 2 reasons a) The educational system has been sequestered by socialist, globalization. Ask AOC. Who says the world will end in 12 years. B)is foretold in the Bible by God and He has not been proven wrong yet. Not by Atheists, not by the haters of Israel and Christianity. Debates? a million.
Prove - 0. Sorry if I sound mean or harsh in any way. I’m just not a politically correct spokesperson. Neither do I intend to cave into a subservient mind. I will serve my fellowmen freely.
If u look closer, u can see how Al Jazeera cut some of the prof. Lindzen answers out. Especially when he was about to address some critical issues ...
Sure did. If they did actually let him finish he would have mopped the floor with these clowns.
How come Chemtrails are banned in two US states?
I would love to know what the professor had to say but every time he explained something he was cut off and argued at by the interviewer who entirely missed or dismissed the point.
Right. He didnt really want to hear the answer after asking the question
I'm not sure we watched the same video. He did have a chance to answer it, it is ONLY when he DIGRESSED that he was kept on track. This is how a host should act. Furthermore, they have only alotted a total of 60 minutes for every episode and with a 10 minute break it comes down to about 50 minutes. With such a slow talker like this professor, the host is FORCED to cut him off for going on long rants. With such little time and so much to go through, as a host of a debate, you have to move on. Jheez go watch netflix, this is not a kid show.
Unfortunately, Richard Lindzen is a professional climate scientist and not a "celebrity"
therefore his presentation skills are not great. The interviewer really treated him badly though.
Yeah he's a horrible debater.
He's not a climate scientist, he is a geologist although he still is a scientist
The interviewer is a loud bully on the surface, but really just a puppet told what to do by the organ grinder.
The fact that he is a scientist makes his ignorance even more egregious.
@@phillipbridge5009 From the other side he's tired of science denialists trying to steal the debate. Especially one's paid by big oil...
Anywho, just thought I'd share the majority of the world's view here. You lot have fun with whatever this is you're doing here. Have a great day!
one of the worst interview I have ever seen, intsead of letting the professor to present his reseach and if necessary challenge his arguments ,this guy didn't let him speak and killed all the conversation with useless statistal remarks
Joy Bakhshi it's not an interview it's a forum .all the experts jump in
get out troll
The biggest misunderstanding about this topic in Oceans rising - they did not rise anymore that just erosion from the land if that is even a problem. Plants need CO2 to grow - any extra gas would help make more O2? If the planet doubled CO2 - it would still be 1% of the biggest global warming gas: Water vapor. If you want to stop global warming: We need to stop water from getting into the environment.
why are his arguments cut?? where is the full interveiw?!
The interviewer or moderator is unintelligent the way he pause the prof. Prof has a very strong argument and instead of the moderator to let him expatiate on issues because he doesn't understand would rather pause the prof.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this interviewer the same one that told dawkins that he believes that Mohommed went to heaven on a winged horse? WTF?
Yes, Medhi Hasan, it's the same man. The story as I remember it was that Muhammad ascended to the moon on a flying horse and then split the moon in 2 with his sword. Which seems entirely plausible. Hasan couldn't understand Dawkins' reaction of incredulity after he'd said it. I watched that vid you're referring to and it caused me to spit beer onto my keyboard when he came out with that it was so funny.
James Kidd we don't disgard Newtonian gravity because he also believed in god we go with the facts
+Wolato That's not the story, next time check your facts in order to be taken more seriously.
And the argument presented here is ad hominem; it doesn't matter what the interviewer believes or what his religious beliefs are. He's presenting valid arguments about climate change and that's what you should be concerned about, not what he believes about something complete irrelevant.
He was saying this guy believes in silly things. This could be one of those silly things too.
BlackDeath So what is the story ?
I found this interview debate alarming! I came here thinking that after months of research into who has said what and possibly why...I'd witness a 'denier' evading questions and spouting twaddle. Instead, a remarkably authentic academic calmly presenting his view, that he can't say for certain either way. And why. And evasion and contrived polyspeak twaddle from his supposed 'in the concensus majority' adversaries. I want to know if the president of the Maldives asked his 'consultant' exactly how many of his citizens would be losing their livelihoods or their lives as a result of his 1 ton of CO2 emissions. If the consultant believes AGW is true?.
"To fly all that way just to tell me? No email address then? If the garage mechanic drives up to my house, in my car, and quotes some alarmist figure to get it going again, I would suspect something is up. The Information Superhighway/Facebook/Cloud servers use as much energy now, as the whole planet did in 1973. Then you shall be given a small boat and a copy of 'Mutiny on the Bounty'."...
...."Sorry, I need the compass, check for magnetic anomalies."
Very disappointed, I was about to join the Extinction Rebellion.
So glad you didn't join them!
I would love to hear more from the professor and none from the host...
Increased CO2 gave us mega fauna who ate mega plants Good thing
Weather and weather modification is not climate.
What a terrible interviewer. Only wants to hear the sound of his own voice.
@William Kiene silly whitey
His questions were a highlight for me. The professor seemed ambivalent most of the time.
The interviewer was really bad at his job. How the scientist put up with him i have no idea
The interwier is tlme conscious because of time frame he result to time saving device.
I wish Mendi would shut up for a minute and let the experts answer the question he asked. His question would take 2 minutes to ask, then he would interrupt the person answering. In every head to head it's the same.
Lol are you serious? Of course you pick up such a detail thing that mostly seems to made up in your head. Mehdi basically without exception didn't interfere anything Professor Lindzen said. If you disagree please tell me the exact time in the clip. I understand you try grap onto anything in the video to distract focus from the fact even "the best" climate denier can't put up anything credible. If I were you I would for example start whining how Prof Lindzen was laughing at times to Mehdi's questions while Mehdi stayed perfectly calm. But then again, I'm not like you.
I think you need to watch the video again.
Joe's correct. He asks a question, the person starts answering, and he interrupts them. It's highly annoying.
@@ArnoldSig So you are a Believer. Anyone whom starts to study Anthropogenic warming with an unbiased opinion mostly will know that truly the theory has failed.
If I invited you to my house to hear what you had to say, but then cut you off every time you began speaking (time and time again) so that you couldn't get a word in edge ways, you would pribably assume one of three things: Either
1 I already HAD my agenda and only wanted to use your presence as a springboard,
2 I didn't care AT ALL about your opinion (even though you are a published and acclaimed scientist from a reputable institution, or
3 I was simply a RUDE, fast-talking TV personality, with no manners. (And then there's also, of course,
4 I was so AFRAID of people hearing the truth in what you had to say that I felt called upon to drown you out by talking louder, faster and constantly changing the subject.
Welcome to journalism 101!
Point five. Or all of the above.
@@sherraleewoods3668
Yeah, Sherralee woods; I had forgotten how easy multiple choice IS!
And now its 2019 and the summerboats cant go around Svalbard becouse of ice
and that proves what ??? its cold ???
@JensJugs OK BOOMER
The government of Qatar, who owns Al Jazeera, is one of the largest producers of oil and natural gas in the world.
For humans to believe we can 'save the planet' is very egotistical. The planet is fine. If we cause it too much distress it will flick us off its back - it will live on for a couple of hundred more billion years. What us humans need to do, is save ourselves... We can't even be nice to each other - and we want to save the planet???? yeh, right... (an idea that I adopted from the late and very great George Carlin)
What do you expect when you have a system of economics that teaches and rewards cut-throat competition on all of us? No wonder why we cant be nice to each other when its every man for himself.
+Carlos Spicyweiner true but while i hate capitalism it isn't the problem.
How can say "true" and "capitalism is not the problem" in the same sentence, if you agree that it rewards cut-throat competition, while creating an "every man for himself" mentality?
+Carlos Spicyweiner i agree with the sentiment but it is selfishness and the human way of not trying to fix a problem until its on our front doorstep that is the problem, such traits transcend ideology, they are human nature, now we just have to get rid of the myth that you cant fight human nature, but yes capitalism needs to end asap
Sujith VN A good perspective. I agree.
One of the main drivers of climate is the sun and it’s is variable , I didn’t hear this discussed.
yes + also the rapidly changing earths magnetic field !!!
the problem with that is that you can't tax a natural event but you can tax carbon !
karel degreef send all tax bills to the sun!
@@lightdark00 not a good idee => the sun will get depressed and we will enter a new ice age ;-)
karel degreef liberals will tax the sun for that global cooling too😆
Always nice to hear from the skeptics, however what I surmise is we all agree on the fact that the house is on fire and we're sitting around arguing about whether it was due to lightning hitting the roof or uncle Harry falling asleep with a cigarette in his hand. It seems to me we should do whatever we can to put the fire out before the house burns to the ground.
Can assure you it’s not on fire, it’s baltic here
Very true, because that time we do put into discussing what has caused the fire, is the one has to be applied in solving the problems around us.
No there no fire it's all in your head Can l suggest you study the past and you will see ice age then you see warm times Now tell me why did this happens your only answer is thats nature NO human caused this So if it's happening now thats nature Simple really DON'T be scared of fossel fuel yer what does 97%off scientist beleive climate change mean What has that got to do with science l would rather see scientist questioning climate change not all agreeing on it you are not zombie all you have to do is THINK
The host of this debate should never ever be allowed to host again. Not only was he obnoxious, interruptive & argumentative to a fault but he was clearly biased toward the "global warming" rhetoric & paradigm that supposedly nearly all scientists agree on (who are members or contributors to the UN created IPCC). The IPCC member scientist in this debate said something (ironically) that made pure sense. "We can all agre the current policies on this are futile" admitting that their political agendas & forced strategies will never work as they stand & therefore they are completely & utterly inept. Otherwise a decent debate all be it a heavily leaning toward the propaganda "global warming" is going to destroy the earth & sink our coastal cities. In 30 years time we will all see the rubbish that was fear mongered apon us and wonder why we got something so wrong again! Wake up and realize that just because the UN, governments with clear agendas & sonsored scientists with vested interests claim something... it does NOT in anyway make it a forgone conclusion.
The interviewer should be selling tickets on local buses in some crowded Asian city. Out of his league!
silly whitey, its ok, dont let the brown man get your panties in a bunch, i know brown skin is sooo scary!
@@jamalalqassem8747 What are you going on about? My comment was about the interviewer's style in this video only. Who cares what his, mine or your skin color is, not me. Be Happy
We in asia live happier then yr countries and the fact is all this climate change caused by developed countries like yours!! Please plant more trees in yr country so that you will not depend on us to breath.
@@rayridhuan3729 I have lived in Asia from India to Indonesia for the past 30 years after being a wilderness guide in my home country. Always have and continue to plant trees and clear the brush from the trails I use. I was talking about the interviewers style not the person. Take a break and be happy.
Ray Ridhuan first off climate change is all about control and money why do you think they're putting a carbon tax as if that will change anything als they are telling us we should go vegan to make us weaker they tell us to not have kids depopulation do you see how maybe just maybe the elite want to control us (im not a communist) secondly India China and Africa are top poulterers thirdly There's no way third world people are happy and 1s world countrys in Asia are just full of censorship no freedom of speech lack of liberty
Mahdi combative approach is totally wrong for such a subject
The interviewer is a biased and purchased it. It should not be doing job. It does not even really understand topic. Very poor at job because if good at job people would believe it and not notice, but i see that everyone has noticed so no good at job. Waste of pay to it.
The climate has been getting warmer since the ice age! My question is who was responsible for the increase temp in the ice age? I believe our climate will get warmer regardless and no one can stop it. Of course we should care about the quality of the air as we need clean air to breathe!! I completely agree with the Professor, it's a fake story!!!
What you "believe" is immaterial to the truth, which is dictated by scientific results. Show me your evidence for the "fake" story. You are at least correct that our climate will get warmer, and it is probably too late to do very much about it.
the man conducting the interview will not listen, he interrupts all the time, he's very rude.
29:07 absolute gold. A perfect example of how the interviewer relinquishes his objectivity in favor of intensity, and yet the subject of his interview remains calm and collected. This interviewer has an obvious agenda and it’s really annoying.
They both have agendas and so do you..... it's a debate btw 😉
He is there to ask not agree.
He’s not there to be neutral lol. Have you ever watched this program before? He’s always taking an opposing stance… the title is “head to head” lmao! That’s the point
I like how dense the interviewer is. He tried to accuse Richard of not believing the planet is warming just because he's skeptical of the doomsday scenario that this issue is responsible for.
If it pleases you to ignore warnings, where changes in our infrastructure or policies here and abroad, can make an effective improvement, then fine, call it "doomsday " meme. There are ice core samples that verify the industrial age influence in carbon output, in Norway or Sweden. I've witnessed changes in my own hometown. Any farmer would give you examples, and concerns. This smug, deflecting "scientist" loses credibility with me, simply from his dull thinking. The extreme melting if Antarctica shows he is ignorant of the degree of global warming advancement.
@@cambriawellness3102 What you are saying does not make C02 warm the planet uncontrollably. You should view the GISP ice core temp results and then restate your sentiments. The are many or most farmers that have the opposite opinion as C02 is beneficial to them. Lindzen is not an alarmist, is that your problem with him as he is an atmospheric physicist and more qualified than any of the alarmists in the IPCC and there are good climatologists in the IPCC but they don't get to voice the science as they will be agreeing with Lindzen.
Why was there no mention of geoengineering? I mean they tout it as a solution now, but I wonder if it is actually where many of the problems come from
Its not a Talk with Richard Linden, it lets see how many people we can get to talk over Richard Linden
That Mehdi dude is such a jerk! Is that what Oxford Union came to??
Model outputs, like the IPCC mess, have been shown up. Actual measurements yield the non-alarmist position.
The interviewer is interviewing himself. He messed up a potentially informative debate.
Nobody talks about the 2000 nuclear warheads that have been detonated in the last 50 years. Apparently this has nothing to do with climate change or global warming.
Why do institutes issue judgements like religious precepts?
Easy. There's money.
True, true, true. ... both for companies and for states all over the world to impose new taxes on its people.
I certainly don't agree with climate denialism but the host has to learn how to inhibit his emotions. Allow your guests to finish speaking, you child.
So how do you explain global warming and by now half the coast is supposed to be under water and that was now 20 years ago or is it 40 years now? This science has been politically taken over from real climatologists. I think more money from the left agenda is being given to the climate change lovers.
bring on an expert, ask him a question, then interupt him to tell him what a politicaly driven organisation says - nice interview technique Medhi. And he still made you sound like a fool in a relaxed and calm manor.
If the Seas really are RISING, why is English Bay, in my back yard, unchanged for centuries?
The young men in suits have careers ahead of them, the older men can afford to tell the truth.
NO SCIENTIFIC FACT WAS OFFERED BY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE.
Keeping the next Ice age at bay should be more a bigger focus, we will all be wiped out if we have a mile thick ice on top of us and can't farm.
Can someone send the interviewer a burger application
My favorite part was the spin at question 19:43. Do these outlier skeptics receive any financial backing from big oil like from Koch, ExxonMobil, etc?
"I have no idea... what you are talking about"
Richard Lindzen, distinguished senior fellow at the Cato institute, AKA The Koch Foundation.
Most every "skeptic" is paid either directly or indirectly through oil interests. Many are unabashedly board members of energy companies. Most have ties to Heartland. It's absurd.
0:52 *"A few skeptics, most of them not climate scientists..."*
80% of the membership of the IPCC have had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. It is a *POLITICAL* organization. They have a political agenda. They only accept data that agree with their preconceptions about what will happen in the future. Objective scientists voluntarily disassociate themselves from the organization for the sake of their intellectual integrity.
*"One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." --IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, November 18, 2010*
*"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." --Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment*
*"We have to capture the public's imagination. That entails getting loads of media coverage, so we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." --Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports*
*"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." --Al Gore, Earth in the Balance*
*"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level." --excerpt, UN Agenda 21*
firecloud77 you are awesome, thank you
KC, why not understand the science yourself, so you don't have to rely on appeals to any authority? We live in an Ice Age and the IPCC numbskulls want to cool down the planet. Many scientists who worked for the UN IPCC quit because of the fraud being committed. One had to sue the UN to get his name removed from their fake "consensus." You talk about lobbyists. Yes, they are a despicable lot, but realize this: The "climate change" scam was started by Biggest Oil Rockefellers through their UN front man, the late Maurice Strong (Canadian big oil). Kind of puts a plug in your meme. Warm up the planet. End the damned Ice Age so we don't suffer another 90,000 years without summers. Look up "Holocene" and "interglacial." That's a good place to start your education.
correct!
You are totally wrong.
You still think climate change is a hoax??
15:10 OH! OH! OH! I know this one, the 97% consensus comes from a cartoonist, no joke!
does anybody know where the 97% come from?
@@leprussien1815
Personally, I have never been able to deduce where the 97% originated .
I know only that I’ve been hearing about this 97% for almost 20 years 😂
Not once did he let the professor finish with out cutting him off or changing the subject.
The interviewer is biased as heck. Makes you want to side with the skeptic. Great job. Climate scientists have never made more money than with the man-made climate change model. It creates their livelihood.
bias bias bias and not letting the professor talk. Very unprofessional.
What about the governments using "chem trail" to pollute and poison the atmosphere and people?? no one addresses the issue, and we the people never have a report on what they are sending over there!!! many catastrophes a
Everything else equal I'll find the calm considered voice far more compelling than the hysterical one.
Richard Lindzen is one of the voices of knowledge, experience, reason, and sense. It would have been nice to hear more from him without interruption.
Lindzen and Hansen got into a big argument in the early 1980s. Hansen said we would see significant warming by 2010, Lindzen said we wouldn't. Guess who was right? I can't believe, after 40 years of being wrong, people are still taking Lindzen seriously. What does it take before people finally turn the guy off?
midbrew Yep, Lindzen was right, no significant warming, and most "warming" being via data manipulation. Hansen was right, the alarmism got more and more ridiculous.
@@steveselwood1659 , Cities warm faster than undeveloped areas, NYC Central Park is cooler than the rest of the city. Airports place temperature equipment next to the hot asphalt runways so planes can lighten their loads to counter the increased difficulty taking off in hot air. Lots of data at WUWT site. Links to very wide range of sites.
@@midbrew Especially faced with the potential of making a radical change, people need just one preaching beacon of last hope to keep their lives easy in order to turn its words into a gospel. 🤥 Its how religions are proven to work - "get some pressure off my conscience and I'll believe anything exists"
True science is not a consensus, it is definable and measurable, Consensus is a popularity contest
After gathering and studying the evidence most scientist , more than 97% , say climate change is happening . Now seriously in your view who is more likely to be right the 97 % or the 3% ?
Furthermore the 97 % unlike the 3% have to protect no one with special interest.
Plus you can read and study the science and articles yourself and come to conclusion.
But I advise you to listen to the experts more.
Concensus is the final stage in the process of true science. The question of whether global climate change is real or not is a scientific question that has ripened to the point of concensus. It is the stage when after years of collecting data, reducing it, discussing the results and critically checking each other's work, all scientists come to an agreement. In the march of science, this is when scientists accept the fact as something they can rely on for further study. It is there with the fact that the Sun rises and sets because of the Earth's rotation. We don't need to collect and analyze any more data on that. It's established. We move on. Climate change is getting to the point where a lay person with internet access and eyes (or other ways for access) can also see that it's happening.
The climate scientists are no longer asking whether there is climate change or not. They are moving on to more questions, such as "how fast is this happening", "what can we expect over the next 50 years", "what are the implications for the species on Earth", "what can we do at this junction in time to mitigate the damage". They are pairing up with scientists from other fields and with policy makers to come up with practical solutions. And are being largely ignored, because our policy makers are still stuck on the question of whether climate change is happening or not.
From my last interaction with climate scientists, I can tell you that the future is not rosy. We have reached the point where there is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere. That's a measured fact. We now need to not only really get on with cutting down on fossil fuel burning, but in addition, we must pump CO2 out of the atmosphere. There is an inertia there so even if we do these two things, the temperatures will continue to rise for a couple decades. Because we are already quite warm, we should also give very serious thought to short term emergency (but potentially dangerous and also expensive) measures such as putting up particles into the atmosphere to reduce incoming sunlight.
In parallel, there are things we can also do to the surface of the Earth to effect climate change, at the local and global level (things as simple as planting trees).
We are not doing any of that. And that's not just the US, with their heads firmly in the sand. Other nations have recognized for decades that this was happening and have been working on reducing their fossil fuel emissions, but they are not funding any research on pumping CO2 out of the atmosphere and other remediation. That realization has yet have to come. I worry that it will come too late and with large nations not getting on board, their efforts are doomed to failure.
Agnes you are listening to idiots. The CO2 lines have been 100% absorbed all your life. Gore has made close to a billion dollars in carbon credits so motive is understandable and his purchase of a water front mansion tells me he doesn't see the rapid rise in ocean level we hear him blab about. As for consensus you are consummately wrong. It was the consensus the sun revolved around the Earth but Galileo insisted on the facts and now we have a more perfect understanding.
Suel - www.wnd.com/2010/01/121447/
I'm sure you've seen this. www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html I am putting this link here (noting that it comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) just so other people who might read our exchange do not get misled by whatever your second sentence means (it seems to imply that the content of CO2 in the atmosphere has not been growing since we started taking direct measurements in the 1960's - a statement that flies in the face of reality). Ice cores indicate that going further back in history, we surpassed the levels at the time the Earth was a tropical paradise and the dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
Al Gore was not the only one talking about this. Other people since then have been talking about that, around the world. So let's not politicize this, it's a question of facing reality. I am not just listening, I am looking at the evidence with my own eyes and making my own observations. I can't help but worry when I shut off my furnace for a week at a time in February in PA, when my Mom in France tells me of a frost-free winter and invasions of caterpillars come spring, when we have a power outage when I visit due to a heat wave related fire at a transformer installation not built for that, and when bats in India fall out of the sky from heat stroke during catastrophic heat waves. And when climate scientists, who have been studying this for longer than I have and spend more time every day on this than I do talk, I listen to their expert opinion.
And to be fair to the skeptic in the video, he is not even questioning that global warming is happening. I don't think anyone honest with themselves does, anymore. What he is disputing is how much we should worry. At his age, probably not too much. At my age, more. For younger people, very concerning. He also doubts that we should bother taking the half-hearted measure we have been taking. I agree that they are not sufficient, but at least it's something. And if we start with something, we can do more. It's easy to throw our hands up and give up, but it is very dangerous to give in to despair, even if it appears to be the most natural course of action. I don't hold any hope about our ability to face this crisis, to be quite frank, but I still speak up whenever I can.
The oil companies are now moving into “Green Energy” and intend to make the same margins on that as on crude oil.
Nothing wrong with this. After all they are into a business and they employ hundreds of thousands. Surely the ones who get into renewables will have a headstart and enjoy the advantages.And they should since they would be transiting from one to another. The problem is not with money making but ONLY AND ONLY ABOUT CARBON EMISSION. SO GET YOUR PRIORITIES RIGHT. Let clean and green MINT HUGE PROFITS. WE ARE ALL FOR CAPITALISM IN ITS GREEN ASPECTS.
@@sumanrao1739 I think the point is that the fossil fuel companies are in on the carbon climate situation. They plan to make a lot of money from it. The fact that people will then accuse scientists of being bias because they recieved money from fossil fuel companies is ridiculous. It's almost as if the media is working with the fossil fuel companies to discredit anyone who disagrees with the IPCC.
@@apex.amatuer Wheels within wheels? Human nature is all twisted and oftentimes almost evil. But all of these twists will come unwound when the remission effects begin to show. Conspiracies and accusations are side shows. Who gets money from whom are irrelevant details. Just hoping that the larger picture shows fast improvement. This is for US AND OUR CHILDREN. Meanwhile various interest groups will engage in cockfights
One thing I can agree for sure with this man is that in the end we are not willing to do the changes we need to do. We need to decrease development not just change the way we do it to make any real change.
97 percent and consensus, yeah sure, whatever.
Prof makes sense !
Alarmist of course talk about otherwise
Think science! For answers.
Journalists just warmed to make alarmist news so they can sell news.
Besides those three man in black suits sitting down there in the front row really couldn't be more obvious that they were paid even for this debate!
Well, it’s going to be interesting to see how this discussion ages over time.
It's aged terribly, I mean heatwaves in England.
The earth has heated and cooled way before man arrived.
Great fun fact.
Here’s another: currently it’s heating because of man.
Where did they get this Bond villian
You invite your guest onto your show but don't let him explain his views.
painful moderator does his best to kill dialogue - makes this a difficult witch
Mail On Sunday / Investigative Journalist ????? Now there is an oxymoron.
Sure, I'll wait for unbiased report after you present to me the conclusion on moment 0.
This was such a biased debate. There is almost no impact of humans on global temperatures as well as on CO2 as well as on sea levels. What we do know is that numbers have been fudged and between 30's-60's we had higher temps than now.
I'm not sure where you are getting those ideas from, but as someone writing a book that is partly about this, no, GLOBAL temps are at their highest levels since our record-keeping began. Burning fossil fuels directly adds greenhouses gasses to the atmosphere (we were at ~280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution really got underway, and are at ~410 parts per million now. Last year, human activity added roughly 37.1 BILLION tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Take care.
@@karlwheatley1244 0.04% isnt meaningful- temps in the 1870s and 193ps were higher than now - both have been removed - look up Tony Heller and youll see for yourself. The people who created this even admit they lied faking the data. Once you check the data youll see. How come antartic is its coldest ever now. How come iceland had its ports locked up with ice in the 70s. Cause it was super cold. This has been removed.
How come Most of USA record temps wete between 1930 and 1960. Cause it was hotter. Now that they tamper with the data you get a straight line.
Cause and effect is way off. Look through history CO2 has no impact
I would like to see the unedited version.