"Code Red for humanity", "Climate Crisis", "Boiling Oceans" - how is that different from crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre when the only smoke is the smoke being blown up our backsides?
Political and social predictions are easier: If we waste money trying to address climate change and we let people continue to suffer energy deficits then we know the world will be a worse place. We see nearly no negative trends from higher CO2 levels. If some begin, there is no reason to believe we can't address them. As an engineer, when positive trends exist and continue, and negatives remain only theoretical, I say we are wasting the opportunity to improve lives.
He says that emissions/GDP continues to decline, but if this goes to even 50% yet globally energy per capita increases by a facto of 5 (which needs to happen for the entire world to be prosperous as we are) emissions will go way up.
CO2 shouldn't go down. Our plant life needs this and the more we cover the farmable land with this solar epidemic that in no way can help reach net zero. It'll only be net zero of human life. This false narrative was perpetrated with that ridiculous hockey stick with it's manipulated data. If you do a lil research you'll reach the same opinion.
Roger is one of the most knowledgeable climate scientists there, but he looks like uneducated teenager when confronted with someone who has a relatively good knowledge of climate, energy systems, and economics. Kudos to Stephen Koonen for his persistence in promoting true science and common sense
Roger's argument appears to be we should all go outside and get naked, "we'll" come up with a wonderful new set of emperor's clothes. I'm not sure what is meant by "we". All of us, friends, family, everybody deciding the future by every purchasing decision we make, or Klaus Schwab? People causing a climate crisis equivalent to children playing with matches in the basement? That assumes the truth of what is being debated here.
We don’t have a net zero issue to address we have a looming energy crisis that is front and center and while we will have fossil fuels for the next 50 years , nuclear energy is the only source that can be scaled to our present and future energy demands
First, great discussion by 2 really first class experts. If I were voting "who won?" I were certainly vote for Koonin. From my career in science project management, I recall the oft-used principle "Hope is not a strategy". (thanks Jim) So while I "hope" that future technologies will come into play, it seems clear that, in the meantime, nuclear must play a strong role and that spending billions subsidizing solar, wind and EV is a waste of resources that should be better put to developing clean energy technologies (as Roger would want) and other humanitarian needs of the planet (see Bjorn Lomborg).
We need and should hope for more CO2 which now stands at 420 ppm ( 0.042%). If we were to double the level to 800 ppm the effect on climate would be negligible but it would give us far more plant growth as CO2 is essential for all plant and by extension all human and animal life on earth. The sky is not falling and the boy who cried wolf died long ago.
I don’t think that Roger really believes in his fantasy but has to spew this nonsense because he teaches at the University of Colorado and they are sooo woke
A bit more co2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial for the planet' a few years time people will be laughing at these childish predictions that co2 is bad for the planet' talk about dumbing down today's so called scientists are a joke 😂😂😂😂😂
I find this debate almost quaint, given the complete lack of discussion on the climate feedback loops until the very end question. Permafrost outgassing, a slowing AMOC, loss of Polar Ice, ocean warming, Jet Stream instability is now past the predictive phase and has moved fully into the witnessing phase. These are actually happening folks. Most importantly, the fact that correction or reversal of any one of them once they tip can be measured in thousands of years, not decades, where the human life cycle sits. Regardless of who won the debate, the fact it took place displays a mind blowing complacency. The conjunctive around any such debate must move from ‘can’ or ‘should’ we decarbonise to ‘we must decarbonise to survive and we must do it quickly’. The Lemmings were much less intelligent than us so they at least had an excuse.
"Code Red for humanity", "Climate Crisis", "Boiling Oceans" - how is that different from crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre when the only smoke is the smoke being blown up our backsides?
Political and social predictions are easier:
If we waste money trying to address climate change and we let people continue to suffer energy deficits then we know the world will be a worse place.
We see nearly no negative trends from higher CO2 levels. If some begin, there is no reason to believe we can't address them.
As an engineer, when positive trends exist and continue, and negatives remain only theoretical, I say we are wasting the opportunity to improve lives.
I reject Rogers proposition is the false equivalency of carbon emissions reduction equals human flourishing.
He says that emissions/GDP continues to decline, but if this goes to even 50% yet globally energy per capita increases by a facto of 5 (which needs to happen for the entire world to be prosperous as we are) emissions will go way up.
CO2 shouldn't go down. Our plant life needs this and the more we cover the farmable land with this solar epidemic that in no way can help reach net zero. It'll only be net zero of human life. This false narrative was perpetrated with that ridiculous hockey stick with it's manipulated data. If you do a lil research you'll reach the same opinion.
Roger is one of the most knowledgeable climate scientists there, but he looks like uneducated teenager when confronted with someone who has a relatively good knowledge of climate, energy systems, and economics. Kudos to Stephen Koonen for his persistence in promoting true science and common sense
Roger's argument appears to be we should all go outside and get naked, "we'll" come up with a wonderful new set of emperor's clothes.
I'm not sure what is meant by "we". All of us, friends, family, everybody deciding the future by every purchasing decision we make, or Klaus Schwab?
People causing a climate crisis equivalent to children playing with matches in the basement? That assumes the truth of what is being debated here.
We don’t have a net zero issue to address we have a looming energy crisis that is front and center and while we will have fossil fuels for the next 50 years , nuclear energy is the only source that can be scaled to our present and future energy demands
Given the current regulatory climate in the USA, that will probably not happen....
Roger Pielke uses policy as magic. Policy can and will fix anything. We don't know how it will, (no measurables), it just will.
I love how every picture dealing with climate shows evaporation towers and claims “LOOK CO2!”
Water vapor is bigger climate issue 🤷♂️
Banning private jets 🛩️ would be a great start but that’s not achievable because Claus Schwab’s got to fly his jet ✈️ plane 😂 cause he’s a big shot!
So does Bill Gates.... And whoever took over the Lolita Express.....
This debate can not be found with a search on UA-cam. Shameful.
The actual debate begins at 17:00
First, great discussion by 2 really first class experts. If I were voting "who won?" I were certainly vote for Koonin. From my career in science project management, I recall the oft-used principle "Hope is not a strategy". (thanks Jim) So while I "hope" that future technologies will come into play, it seems clear that, in the meantime, nuclear must play a strong role and that spending billions subsidizing solar, wind and EV is a waste of resources that should be better put to developing clean energy technologies (as Roger would want) and other humanitarian needs of the planet (see Bjorn Lomborg).
We need and should hope for more CO2 which now stands at 420 ppm ( 0.042%). If we were to double the level to 800 ppm the effect on climate would be negligible but it would give us far more plant growth as CO2 is essential for all plant and by extension all human and animal life on earth. The sky is not falling and the boy who cried wolf died long ago.
I don’t think that Roger really believes in his fantasy but has to spew this nonsense because he teaches at the University of Colorado and they are sooo woke
Co2 actually does more good than harm.
Bingo!!
Awesome and informative. Thanks!
Great debate. Thanks to you both. Very educational
Great debate. Both of them brillant. Thank you.
A bit more co2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial for the planet' a few years time people will be laughing at these childish predictions that co2 is bad for the planet' talk about dumbing down today's so called scientists are a joke 😂😂😂😂😂
Thank you
I find this debate almost quaint, given the complete lack of discussion on the climate feedback loops until the very end question. Permafrost outgassing, a slowing AMOC, loss of Polar Ice, ocean warming, Jet Stream instability is now past the predictive phase and has moved fully into the witnessing phase. These are actually happening folks. Most importantly, the fact that correction or reversal of any one of them once they tip can be measured in thousands of years, not decades, where the human life cycle sits. Regardless of who won the debate, the fact it took place displays a mind blowing complacency. The conjunctive around any such debate must move from ‘can’ or ‘should’ we decarbonise to ‘we must decarbonise to survive and we must do it quickly’. The Lemmings were much less intelligent than us so they at least had an excuse.
LOL
Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. Where's yours?
"...a big part of that is not digging big holes in the ground and producing coal ash..." Coal pot? Electrification kettle on line two.