The Host gives more time to Mombiot and does not interrupt. But he always cuts short Dr Ian Plimer's answer. It is two against one. All mumbio does is personal attacks and interruptions. Frauds !
@@georgereed2947 Now watch again and see how not subtly at all Plimer the coal mining CEO lies his ass off. For example let's look at the email hoax from the FF industry. At the time the details weren't fully know. ua-cam.com/video/7nnVQ2fROOg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/uXesBhYwdRo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/4OB2prBtVFo/v-deo.html Then Monbiot goes on to show Plimer's fraud time after time. And all he can do is lie (such as claiming to be his field ie on volcanology which it is not, he is a mining geologist) and claiming Monbiot isn't qualified when Monbiot is quoting those that ARE QUALIFIED and Plimer himself isn't qualified. And avoids science time and time again with more lies and but but but you haven't read MY book, which was quoted from. Then gets caught in another lie about not counting under sea volcanoes. Then simply repeats those lies. Then lies about the Roman warm period, lies that it has cooled this century, then lies about there being periods in the last 4500 years that were "warmer" than know. Here up to 1990 without the last 30 odd years of warming. Then claims he can find references in 10 seconds but fails to in over 1,400 seconds. www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png Then lies and claims satellites show no warming. Then says at Mildura.... and makes up more BS and sooks about manners because no one dare challenge his lies. The entire interview he lied, cried and avoided because HE is paid to lie and smear real scientists.
That’s because he is an ABC sponsored journalist . Full of bias as usual.?Nit picking at its finest! Obviously doesn’t understand that trends in temps etc. need thousands of years of evidence to before trends can be established !! That is why evidence from the past ie geology is so important and enlightening! Give me Prof Plimer’s science any day rather then today’s discourteous journalists! I am a retired geography teacher and I too say Global warming is a Hoax and lowering CO2 will not change Climate one iota because mere man cannot change Climate. So Mr Mombiot go and read a good Basic book of Basic Principles of Geography!!
"Hear the Word of The Lord, for thus says The Lord: The pride of man is grievous, and the heart of man grows increasingly wicked; his eyes are darkened, his mind filled with deceits. Behold, the whole earth is corrupt and filled with violence! Lo, even My own people fight against Me! Indeed, all flesh have corrupted their way before Me[1]... Therefore I shall bring calamity in waves, great destruction upon this generation of evil men, evil men who are set under the authority of evil men, hidden evil in high places! For I am come to stir up the multitudes, and to shake the nations mightily! Behold, I shall grab hold of the Pacific plate, and twist! I shall press down hard, and it shall tip, it shall crack, it shall surely buckle! In that day, the waters shall flow backward! No more shall I cause the ocean to know its place! No more shall I say to the waters, “You shall proceed no further!” For I shall strike the northernmost parts, until they are no more! I shall reach down to the south, into the great treasuries of ice and snow, and push them into the sea in one day! And the seas shall increase by measure before the eyes of all these multitudes, before the eyes of all those who dwell near the coastline, and before the paled faces of the wealthy, who by greed and evil gain have constructed tall towers and built extravagant houses upon the shore! Therefore, watch! Be awestruck in astonishment, O foolish people who build on the sand![2] Watch how swiftly calamity overtakes you, how the waters inundate and swallow up the shores, how the land shrinks back at the power of the sea! Says The Lord. Behold, I will show wonders in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, blood and fire and pillars of smoke! The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, as it is written![3] Satan’s strongholds shall be swallowed up, and all these vines of wickedness shall be uprooted and cast into the depths of the sea! City by city shall be oppressed and broken down, when I call nature to rise up and fight against you! Then you will know, I AM THE LORD! For the word of the wisest among you shall fail, and the knowledge of the most learned shall be accounted as dung, when calamity upon calamity breaks out in every corner! Says The Lord. Behold, My every burning tear, which you have caused, shall rain down in torrents of flooding rain, with a great multitude of hail mixed with fire and blood![4] It shall inundate the cities and towns, while still other places shall be left utterly desolate! Behold, the dry and cracked ground shall speak in the hollows of the waste places as a testament against you, O most wicked generation! For My anger is kindled, the heat of My fury has come up into My face, and shall scorch the earth in the day I repay you for all your wickedness![5] Says The Lord. Therefore hear My words, And heed the sound of this Trumpet! For I am God alone; there is none besides Me![6]... YAHUWAH, He who causes to be!... YAHUSHUA, He by whom all things consist![7]... Yes, He who is and was and is to come, The Almighty![8]" ~ "And yet the people say, “Where has all this darkness come from, and for what cause has all this violence come upon us? For what reason is all this devastation come upon us?!” Is this not the Day which was spoken of? Says The Lord. Is this not the Day prophesied throughout the generations, even from the beginning, that it should come? Is this not the Day of Clouds and Thick Darkness?! For I tell you the truth, it has come, all have entered in! Behold, the outcry of the prophets has Come forth, the Word of The Lord is here!... It comes to pass before your eyes, It increases and fills the earth!... Therefore, hear the Word of The Lord and give heed! Hear the Word of The Lord from aforetime, and of this day! Hear the Call and the Testimony, and tremble In fear at the Proclamation of The Lord!... For the decree is sent down; Judgment is set and ready to be poured out! Lo, calamity has broken forth already, announcing the coming of The Holy One. His messengers prepare His way before Him, the earth trembles at His nearness. Lo, His hands gather His flock together, and His soft voice calls to His lambs... Behold, the house is broken into, yet who is aware of it? Behold, the bundles are tied and set in their places, and still the people mock! And those called Christian say, “Are we not the chosen? Yes, we are the elect of God”... Woe, I say to you! Woe to you and all your arrogant houses; you have surely deceived yourselves! Bow down therefore and humble yourselves, Heed the call and depart from Your filthy houses, and repent!..." ~ "The heart of The Lord your God is very heavy. The heart of The Lord is enraged, and is very heavy. The sorrow of The Lord is deep and infinite. My people, let it be known to you, I take no pleasure at all in what I must do, in what must be done - NO PLEASURE AT ALL! Says The Lord. As My hand draws back, blood pours down! As I strike the earth in My anger, My tears run down! As famine spreads forth across the land, My heart is rent inside Me over the hardness of men’s hearts! As My face fills with the heat of My fury, My eyes are set ablaze with fire over that which I see! My tears run down, My blood pours down. As My own servants turn from Me and run, as My own beloved, whom I have called sons and daughters, turn and fight against Me, as My own body betrays Me, My blood pours down, My tears run down. As the nations come together and bind My hands and My feet, My tears run down... As they bruise Me and spit in My eyes, While mocking Me, My tears run down... As they pierce My side, My blood and Tears run down together!... As My own people drive in the nails still, I am risen up from My place with My arms Spread apart, waiting to receive them! My blood runs down, the tears run down... OH MY PEOPLE, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?!"
@jhaduvala for a sart we are using 1850 as a starting point and it was the coldest point in the last 13,000 years. We are now use very inaccurate digital thermometers. And since the late 80s we have gotten rid of all of the Stevenson Shelters and have moved all of the weather station. Now they have all been placed near heat sources or surrounded by pace ment instead of being surrounded by 100 yards of grass. We have no idea at all what the temperature has been doing!
Co2 = 0.04% in 73 years we haven’t doubled co2. It was 0.03%. At 0.02, plants start dieing!! If we doubled co2 (in 100 years it would take), the earth would warm by 1 degree. Yields of All types of foods would grow by over 60%! In that time immagine the advances in nuclear and other tech that would mitigate climate warming but how catastrophic it could be to have global cooling ? Bear in mind the real cause of climate destruction is human plagues overpopulating the earth ! Also, when these frauds measure co2, the margin of error is so great that they are corrupting the data with a much more powerful climate warming compound than co2….water Vapor !!!
Very good point. Also, according to Tony Heller, if our atmosphere was 800 ppm. CO2, it wouldn't be harmful to humans or animals. Also the recent higher ppm has been greening parts of the planet that was previously arid.
@@alanbstard4 If you call the coal mining engineer lying Plimer and Monbiot pointing that out loosing, well good for you. Gotta love your denier upside down world. Such as the tax lie. The FF industry that employs him sucks $5.3 trillion from taxpayers in billionaire welfare "subsidies" each year. Investing 10% of those handouts addresses AGW and allows the removal of this tax. No need to tax anyone, just remove HIS handouts. So it is about money, HIM putting his hand in our pockets.
@@coopercruse5867 Sorry but facts don't care about your precious snowflake feelings, no matter how little your feelings care about facts YOU IDIOT. woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2000/plot/best/from:2000/trend
absolutely..the host rebuffs and asks Plimer a counter question ..Not a very fair interview ..Monbiot straight in with the Ad hominem attacks ..in my experience always the tactic when your losing the argument ..I would much prefer both sides having equal say he was almost bullied
Monbiot is a liar. He says on one hand, 'listen to the science', but when asked direct questions about the science says, 'I'm a journalist it's not for me to answer'. You either understand the science, and should be prepared to engage on it, or you don't understand the science and shouldn't say anything at all.
@@georgereed2947 It's so easy for Monbiot to sit there and criticise this guys book because it is full of lies. As a Fossil Fuel employee this coal mining CEO can lie has ass of and his cult will never be sceptical and never fact check. You and this coal mining CEO are not very clever, dangerous men. skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ian_Plimer.htm skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer
@@georgereed2947 Here are just some of this coal mining CEO's lies: For example let's look at the email hoax from the FF industry. At the time the details weren't fully know. ua-cam.com/video/7nnVQ2fROOg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/uXesBhYwdRo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/4OB2prBtVFo/v-deo.html Then Monbiot goes on to show Plimer's fraud time after time. And all he can do is lie (such as claiming to be his field ie on volcanology which it is not, he is a mining geologist) and claiming Monbiot when Monbiot is quoting those that ARE QUALIFIED isn't qualified. And avoids science time and time again with more lies and but but you haven't read MY book. Then gets caught in another lie about not counting under sea volcanoes. Then simply repeats those lies. Then lies about the Roman warm period, lies that it has cooled this century, then lies about there being periods in the last 4500 years that were "warmer" than know. Here up to 1990 without the last 30 odd years of warming. Then claims he can find references in 10 seconds but fails to in over 1,400 seconds. www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png Then lies and claims satellites show no warming. Then says at Mildura.... and makes up more BS and sooks about manners because no one dare challenge his lies. The entire interview he lied, cried and avoided because HE is paid to lie and smear real scientists.
@@georgereed2947 That's hilarious big oil pays far far far more. But lying comes natural to your cult and is far more profitable. $5.3 trillion a year in taxpayer funded FF billionaire welfare "subsidy" handouts. 10x more each year in FF billionaire HANDOUTS to cause AGW than the INVESTMENT required to tackle the problem. 10x more in your masters' handouts each year than the ENTIRE RE sector's net worth. 11,900% return on your masters' bribes to congress. Are you after some of those trickle down Bigger Oil bribes?? I don't get paid by "big green" but YOUR Big Oil funded ignorance sure costs. ua-cam.com/video/VNgqv4yVyDw/v-deo.html www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/
@@georgereed2947 STILL lying for your cult, I'm not a journalist. You seem to be still projecting, waiting for some of those trickle down bribes to congress?? priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/ Still want some of those $5.3 trillion a year FF billionaire handouts??? 10x more in billionaire welfare to cause AGW than the entire RE sectors net worth. Instead of worrying about "useless" windmills, look into useful turbines which are producing cheaper, cleaner energy or cheaper cleaner solar energy. Solar that consumers can put on their roofs and produce cheaper cleaner energy rather than handing out a fortune to your FF masters. www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg Your cult hero, coal CEO Plimer is still a liar. STILL facts don't care about your precious snowflake group think feelings no matter how little your cult cares about facts.
The 1930s was by far the hottest decade since industrialisation. But you wouldn't know that because noaa and nasa have adjusted the historical record and new temps are homogenised and smoothed to account for UHI. This was a really stupid thing to do because anyone can find the original temperatures and blow massive holes in your dodgy science: Enter Tony Heller.
George, In respect of AGW, the scientific method accepted by all qualified scientists has never been past step 1, the hypothesis. There is no scientific proof of AGW.
Monbiot constantly interrrupts, and then refuses to answer difficult questions, such as, 'if we were growing wheat and barley in Greenland in the past, how could it have not been warmer?'
Oh the projection, Plimer is a coal mining geologist out to protect his fortune and make some quick money from gullible fools like you. ua-cam.com/video/yLYqzIhhT6o/v-deo.html www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
@@jamespyke6764 That's ironic You're projecting the fact that you're projecting under someone else While attacking the man instead of the argument. keep going if you manage to project the fact that you're someone else's projecting about how you're projecting or some such you'll reach like inception levels of religiosity
@@ericterry4335 That's ironic that YOU are the one projecting. That you attack me with false claims that I never attacked his argument when I linked an clip specifically outlining some of the science behind AGW. Here's another one for you to ignore, his lie about volcanoes. Any more of his BS you would like me to debunk so you can pretend it doesn't exist as well??? So yeah, keep projecting. www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Yepn those AGW denier alarmist cucking for their FF masters and ignoring science and reality. But even their FF masters laugh at how easily cucked they were. www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Monbiot took a pea shooter to a gunfight, Plimer turned up with a bazooka! I’m sure Tony Jones wasn’t happy adjudicating that one! Truth ALWAYS prevails!
I follow the climate debate very closely. I also delve into the science to the extent my education at an earth science undergrad level permits. My first point is neutral - ask yourself this - why is there so much heated debate over what should be an unemotional and purely scientific subject? The fact that there such heated debate should lead everyone to question the premise (but that is not allowed). Secondly, there has certainly been much data manipulation. That led to the climategate emails and the "hide the decline" "nature trick". What Professor Plimer tried to say about grape growing in the north of England and wheat production in Greenland shoots holes in the manipulated data. I would add the fact that in northern Quebec there are remnants of forests which once grew there on what is now barren, frozen tundra. Throw out the manipulated numbers for a moment. The remnant trees in northern Quebec are proof of warmer times in the past. I could go on with other scientific facts here but YT comments are not supposed to be lengthy scientific papers.
Right, I've read between 3% and 20% of the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic and its saturated ie done pretty much all it can to warm things. Diminishing returns from here on. Like you say, "Nothing to see here, move along".@@tgwcl6194
Excellent. Monbiot dismisses the importance of data manipulation, suggesting that it is of no consequence. This is sickeningly wrong as for any truth to emerge about anything all the data must be present and analysed otherwise it is just enabling the creating of narratives for ones own ends. Even placing"Yes" in a sentence instead of "No" can transform the meaning of the entire topic. How can any so called intelligent person be so obtuse? I despise the man now. He once hijacked Dr David Bellamy and tried to make him look stupid on UK TV because Bellamy (previously a popular TV scientist) dared to question the so called science on AGW. Bellamy was shunned after his declarations. Sadly Dr Bellamy is now deceased.
I wasn't going to comment before as I was so disgusted by the behaviour of the supposedly professional journalists that I would have just written expletives. All Monbiot proved was that he should be kept away from the public and find a job that suits his politics. The Governments of any country will do stupid thing in the name of ideology and chase any tax regime no matter how damaging to the economy it may be. The politicians who try to think they run most countries are like toddlers being sat in the captain's chair of a super tanker, providing they don't do something immensely stupid very little happens to alter the course , But occasionally they do do something immensely stupid and listening to climate alarm and acting on the bad advice given by alarmists is one of the stupidest things possible.
That sums up the mining geologist Plimer to a T. He lied the entire time. ua-cam.com/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/7nnVQ2fROOg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/uXesBhYwdRo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/4OB2prBtVFo/v-deo.html Then Monbiot goes on to show Plimer's fraud time after time. And all he can do is lie (such as claiming to be his field ie on volcanology which it is not, he is a mining geologist) and claiming Monbiot when Monbiot is quoting those that ARE QUALIFIED. And avoids science time and time again with more lies and but but you haven't read MY book. Then gets caught in another lie about not counting under sea volcanoes. Then simply repeats those lies. Then lies about the Roman warm period, lies that it has cooled this century, then lies about there being periods in the last 4500 years that were "warmer" than know. Here up to 1990 without the last 30 odd years of warming. Then claims he can find references in 10 seconds but fails to in over 1,400 seconds. www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png Then lies and claims satellites show no warming. Then to "prove" global cooling says at Mildura.... and makes up more BS and sooks about manners because no one dare challenge his lies. The entire interview he lied, cried and avoided because HE is paid to lie and smear real scientists.
Everyone has a right to their opinion. I am not altogether sure what a zoologist knows about the intricacies of climate change. Probably as much as any other citizen. yet to stand up as an outspoken advocate of climate change because you work for a Left wing rag like the Guardian is in someways perverse. Concerns over pollution, which can indeed be man made, are quite valid but to tie this into climate change is quite wrong. One has to fully understand the factors which cause climate change and I have to tell you they are not man made and governments cannot fix them. Governments can not alter the Earth spinning on its axis; they cannot alter the magnetism around the Earth; and they cannot control what it is the Sun is doing at any particular point in time. I really do not think there is much they can do to stop a large meteor hitting the Earth like the one which occurred off the Yucatan Peninsular. Mankind has come, or people kind if you are VS Justin, and man kind will go as have other species over billions of years. The gentle person below says we have had five Ice ages. We are currently still in the Quaternary Ice Age which has been going on for 2.6 million years. This Ice Age has been riddled with glacials and interglacials which go for something like 10,000 years to a 100,000 years. Do you honestly think governments can change that? I do not think so.
Plimer, who I used to admire is a piece of work. He is a geologist and an "expert" so he is right and no journalist, interviewer or other person is entitled to a valid opinion. His opponent shows ill breeding and is impolite. Apparently neither the interviewer or his opponent has read his book. Personal smears is the strategy of a polemicist without evidence.
If I had a choice I'd choose Plimer's informed opinions on geology and science. As for Tony Jones and Mr Monbiot who are commentating on technical scientific disciplines they know nothing about I'd be fairly cautious. In fact if the journalist didn't push hard on their employers behalf their employer's political storyline and try to discredit and smear Plimer they would certainly be summarily sacked in an honest and ethical news organisation.
well you're a fool because this mining geologist lied his ass of on HIS employers behalf their employer's political storyline. ua-cam.com/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/7nnVQ2fROOg/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/uXesBhYwdRo/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/4OB2prBtVFo/v-deo.html Then Monbiot goes on to show Plimer's fraud time after time. And all he can do is lie (such as claiming to be his field ie on volcanology which it is not, he is a mining geologist) and claiming Monbiot when Monbiot is quoting those that ARE QUALIFIED. And avoids science time and time again with more lies and but but you haven't read MY book. Then gets caught in another lie about not counting under sea volcanoes. Then simply repeats those lies. Then lies about the Roman warm period, lies that it has cooled this century, then lies about there being periods in the last 4500 years that were "warmer" than know. Here up to 1990 without the last 30 odd years of warming. Then claims he can find references in 10 seconds but fails to in over 1,400 seconds. www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png Then lies and claims satellites show no warming. Then to "prove" global cooling says at Mildura.... and makes up more BS and sooks about manners because no one dare challenge his lies. The entire interview he lied, cried and avoided because HE is paid to lie and smear real scientists.
Professor Plimer worries about the world his grand children will have to live in. He is concerned they will have a much lower standard of living than we enjoy today. Green alternatives to conventional energy are very expensive environmentally, inefficient, unreliable and short term. Present solar and wind generation technology is inadequate replacement for fossil and nuclear fuel energy sources. If we abolish conventional energy, poverty will ensue. We are at a critical point in replacing coal which has drawn hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, without finding a viable alternative. We must be careful not to too hastily abandon conventional energy in our zeal to save the environment. I take my cue from Prof. Bjorn Lomberg who recommends along these lines: We have limited resources. We can not solve all problems on the planet. Lets direct our limited resources to alleviating our most important problems . What are those problems? Climate change is at the bottom of the list.
Ninety seven percent of greenhouse gases are natural. Apparently us humans put just three percent in. It’s not going to change a thing if we all go carbon neutral, in fact, I reckon that we would all die without fossil fuels. 👍👍.
They're pressing this author on an irrelevant issue of whether it was cooler the last 10 years, instead of focusing on the issue of carbon dioxide having to do anything with it. The answer to this question is: nothing. Please watch this great documentary: ua-cam.com/video/pIRICfZOvpY/v-deo.html
Who has the burden of proof here? Someone who claims man is a major contributor to climate change. So then dear climate alarmist please explain 1) what is the level of man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 2) assuming u know CO2 is the foundation of all carbon based lifeforms, what is the minimum concentration to sustain life? 3) so what then is an ideal level for all life, particularly plant life to flourish? 4) have you any real scientific data (not a contrived virtual computer model) that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is not just a Correlation but a causation linking the two? 5) do think man's role in reducing our worldwide rainforests from 14% to 6% might have a more devestating effect on unusual climate change?
Why do you ask such childish questions??? But Ok 1) All the increase in CO2 is due to Man. ua-cam.com/video/CcmCBetoR18/v-deo.html 2)And it has no relevance as life was sustained at much lower levels and we are increasing [CO2] 3)Again meaningless. What is important to us is it's effect on us. Currently the levels of CO2 are higher than Man has ever experienced. We evolved and build most of our real estate and infrastructure near the coast or other water bodies and thus the costs to not address AGW far out way addressing it. ua-cam.com/video/VNgqv4yVyDw/v-deo.html sealevelrise.org/states/florida/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgOzdBRDlARIsAJ6_HNllCKi2Ia9A-m3W7kJ47Gt6Du-zLMP4DPqkfJHu0WgEjO5e3o9VPWgaAtcUEALw_wcB www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm 4)Yes, the measurable GHG properties of CO2, the planet's history and many other. ua-cam.com/video/yLYqzIhhT6o/v-deo.html 5)again irrelevant, but no, not a more devastating effect. This of course is a problem that should be addressed, but not what you asked.
On one side we have a journalist and on the other a professor of geology/director of 3 mining companies. This is a hot topic and a very entertaining interview indeed! 😂
Ian was in the hornets nest there with monbiot and especially tony jones from the ABC taking sides as per usual, but you won Ian and I totally believe you on everything.
There is nothing clear about whether the alleged increase in global temperatures is directly caused by carbon emmissions, even at a logical and reasoned level too many assumptions are made about the role of CO2 and 'greenhouse' gasses etc. in 'temperatures' during the current inter-glacial period. The tiny percentage of CO2 levels are supposed to rise and its meant to gert warmer before the next peak of CO2 limits when the next ice age comes and CO2 levels drop again as major glaciations take over.
conveniently there are enough people who doesn't belive in climate change so the oil companies are still making a lot of money they can use to by politicans so they will not raise the carbon tax.
LMAO...what I ALWAYS find interesting is that nobody on the AGW side never answers the question about what the ULTIMATE problem with CO2ncreasing...WHY? Because the answer is Sea Levels will rise...that's it...Higher Sea levels...is that crappy for humans whom live in the affected areas...YUP...sorry, but that's not a catastrophe, for if it is, flooding happens MULTIPLE times per year in MULTIPLE places...it's called NATURE...for those who want to claim ' …but it's getting worse...' I say, so what, that's called the natural cycle of life...in fact, if the Earth did have polar ice caps COMPLETELY melt, it would open 1000s of square miles of ARABLE land to humans...to act as if somehow we will wake up one day and somehow humans would die from CO2 toxicity is just silly...3rd grade physical science taught us that: "The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather." The current level of CO2(circa 2018) is at 443ppm...that's .0443%...to suggest that this number somehow signals a 'catastrophic event in process' is equally silly as plants will DIE off at 150ppm(referencing the pre-industrial 200ppm from alarmists) and humans would feel the effects of CO2 toxicity at 5000ppm(that's 5% concentration, that's 8.86x the current levels and is not naturally occurring outside of volcanic exposure and confined spaces where no gaseous exchange occurs, only human/animal respiration)...in my estimation, too many scientists have succumbed to celebrity desires to be the next Newton, Einstein or Hawking- for a Jeopardy contestant to mention in a quiz show. Nary a one alarmist has ever answered what the problem would be with 1000 ppm, except to say: But, the polar ice caps could melt, and water, everywhere...maybe even enough clean stuff to help the billions whom lack access. Ya think? maybe? Additionally, I never cease to be amazed at how many typical folks whom engage in theis debate can't answer some basic question about these affects. So please, can some alarmist step up and tell me why we are waving a shiny bauble of alarmism to mostly subject-matter-ignorant folks who want to do right by humanity, but instead err on the side of agendized/poplar opinion science du jour. Can ANY so-called AGW proponent tell me what their biggest FEAR is...is it that we won't have ice sheets 4 miles thick? Polr bears won't have enough hunting territory? Well, I'm from Florida, so been living that reality for a while, though I'd love to see the poles sometime in my life as I'm a huge Earnest Shackleton admirer(look it up)...then again, I'd love to see a fucking T. Rex, too...but, if candy and nuts...blah blah blah...so I pose the question: What do increasing CO2 levels mean to you and what EXACTLY do you think will be the effects outside of already-occurring extinctions and/or climate cycles? And skip the conceptual BS, I want DETAILS!I certainly am not in the mindset of being cavalier, I'm a conservationist, so I'm more than willing to hear you out, consider the evidence/data, check for myself and draw my own conclusions, which may or may not change. Frankly, I'm amused at the amateurish(to be kind) attitudes of the modern internet warrior, yet when confronted with having to debate or support their conclusions/opinions I see nothing but regurgitation of shiny bauble science sans data or evidence. So let me have some REAL stuff.
Have you ever tried to debate a Christian? Look I empathize really I do. I have tried to debate Christians. But you're making the fundamental mistake of treating this as science open for debate. The fundamental structure of a religion is that you claim human caused apocalypse due to some sin of the species you claim that is the person predicting it only you can prevent it. Then you start collecting donations and requiring people to do rituals to absolve themselves of their sin. You form this religion on the basis of something that cannot be seen so that is difficult for the average person to prove or disprove your theory. You also base it on some problem which can actually never be solved usually because it doesn't exist if the problem could be solved and you're out of a religion and a job and if it was possible to solve it then you'd probably actually have to spend the money on solving the problem do a lot of hard work and take risks also not great. At least not great compared to shaming people and then collecting their money along with your feeling of moral superiority. I'm too lazy to do a comparison but surely you see the point people don't claim that this is a religion for no reason It truly is a religion and you cannot debate a religion You have to crush it or let it die off in its own time which often takes hundreds of years. There is no incentive for them to debate They grow upset with you if you ruin their construct They prefer things the way they believe them to be. The very reason why they became religious in the first place is because they don't place significant weight on facts or think rationally. The reason I say all this and the reason why it's important is because they have decided that humans are the enemies of the earth and they are that saviors in order to be it saviors they have turned against the everyone who is not on their side They are essentially a new form of Islam. Treating them as merely people with differing opinions is what is allowed to spread of their religion and you cannot underestimate how costly that has been. an economist would say we must judge this in terms of alternatives I would say that one of the alternatives to the trillions we have spent on their religion is to have instead spent that money building coal-powered plants and basic road and train systems in the third world If we done that I believe we could have lifted around 2 billion people out of poverty who would then contribute to the well-being of the species as a whole in addition to saving tens of millions of lives. perhaps I'm underestimating the cost of such an ambitious project but I doubt it and it is an interesting thought isn't it indulging these people has come at the potential cost of saving tens of millions of lives and bettering the quality of hundreds of millions more. People say that religion is harmless but they do not consider past its direct harms and instead what's lost by wasting our efforts upon it. What we could have done.
Also you're just allowing them to reverse the scientific method and manipulate you. It is not up to you ignore me nor anyone else to disprove a ridiculous and innane theory like human caused apocalyptic climate change ironically and ridiculously caused by one of the most positive trace elements on the planet. That would be their job and it's past time we stop doing it for them
CO2 atmospheric concentration increases by about 10-15 PPM during the winter in the northern hemisphere. Interesting how the temps always drop with higher CO2 levela during the winter. The reason is CO2 absorbs at 15 microns +/-1 micron. Whereas the Earth radiates at 10 microns + 2 or +3 microns. This means that CO2 absorbs virtually nothing coming from the surface of the Earth. Water vapor and clouds do absorb Earth radiant energy.
It almost gets boring. You always know exactly what people like this journalist are doing and what they're in a flaws are they're biase and various crimes. Because they will always tell you so. It's exactly what they accuse you of! I mean this really is to the point where there's no question it's a psychological disorder. 1) claims that he's avoiding the facts when he's avoiding the facts 2) claims that he has a financial interest when he works for the guardian which takes money from climate apocalypse theorists 3) claims that he lacks scientific evidence when he not only lacks scientific evidence he uses his lack of scientific evidence as a defense to not have to provide scientific evidence because he's "a journalist"
each time earth had a warm period culture goes up, co2 came at 1950 to a low, near to catastrophe of life become to a halt; with the invention of the combustion engine we, men brought the planet back to life
Eric Terry you are really into NWO, because we can not have a perfect temp. Nature is change. And the NWO is not political but corporate, and the moment they have what they want, then you gonna end against a wall. Change your view, see what is going on, see how they are betraying us.
@James Pyke - Why have a job or buy a house when the world is going to end. All your Marxist leaders should be selling up because we only have 10 years left.
@@imluvinyourmum More fake news you should apply for a job there too. Or is that where you "work"? But come on explain how clean air and water, no more wars for oil, cheaper electricity and lower taxes are "Marxist"?
@James Pyke - So you wanted dirty air and water before u heard about the latest climate doomsday? The government just wants to tax ‘carbon use’ and the billionaires want to monopolise the free market. You are deluded if you think they love and care for you like a little puppy.
@@imluvinyourmum If you are trying to be dumb, congrats. But nice way to avoid answering the question. Again how are clean air and water etc "Marxist:. Sorry but you deniers are the ones advocating for dirty air and water with your doomsday cult that thinks clean air and water and cheaper electricity means doom. Hate to break it o you but you already pay a carbon tax it's just called something else. You pay a $5.3 trillion a year FF billionaire big government FF welfare tax already so your FF masters can keep their monopoly on energy and you pay higher electricity prices. That's 10X the cost of the INVESTMENT required in RE to tackle AGW. That's 10X the net worth of the entire RE sector in billionaire welfare to cause AGW than the INVESTMENT to address it. So yes your FF masters and their bought and paid for politicians want to KEEP that carbon tax and KEEP that monopoly you fight for so they can KEEP their 11,900% return on bribes to congress. priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/ You are deluded if you think they love and care for you like a little puppy. But you are their lap dog. www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ slate.com/technology/2015/12/exxonmobil-koch-family-have-powered-climate-change-denial-for-decades.html
Prediction on climate change is very difficult to establish, scientific evidence depends on how far back in history you go and scientists today are not absolutely convinced of some of the hysterical behaviours of some of the promoters of global warming are incorrect in some of their assumptions.
When I first discovered Monbiot around 2005 I was impressed, but that didn't last very long. His moralizing, breathless tone was so off-putting that I quickly wrote him off as unreadable, without bothering to check whether I agreed with what he wrote.
@@denisdaly1708 The general agreement is that the world is currently warming up, but that it has nothing to do with human activity, due to the fact that humans cause 3% of global CO2 emissions while nature provides 97%. That's Plimer's argument, and I agree with it. Nowadays I lump Monbiot in with people like Owen Jones and other far-left Guardian writers.
All one needs to know is that there is no evidence that CO2 drives temperature. Sadly IP got defensive and didn't come across well, especially given he knew what was going to be asked. GM is an obnoxious character but he asked IP to provide his reference for one claim which SP didn't/ wouldn't so sadly GM won this debate.
No he didn't. You've got a real backwards here like everybody else. The normal state of the planet is not human-caused imminent apocalyptic climate change. That makes the theory human cause imminent apocalyptic climate change. Well it would be nice if Pilmer could perfectly disprove every aspect of it and have every source at the ready he could sit there reciting Winnie the Pooh and still win the debate because that buffoon didn't provide one single piece of compelling evidence that the status quo is not the truth. It's these assholes job to prove that we are facing an apocalypse. They failed to do that at every turn. As they failed to answer every single one of pilmer's questions. You don't win just because your opponent is unable to provide one source when you yourself have been unable to not only make your own case but to contest any of the points made against it how biased can you be? You're just assuming and automatic state of victory for that propaganda agent masquerading as a journalist
@@ericterry4335 I agree with IP re climate change and respect and admire his efforts in this regard sincerely but he got tripped up when GM threw the conspiracy theorist label at him when he should have known it was coming and had a response ready, eg, yes it is a conspiracy of rich powerful people getting richer and more powerful, similar to those conspiracies that GM's books exposed (despite actually working for them at the same time.). No matter t'is done, just hope he's better prepared for the next time.
@@sarkyization I suggest rereading my comment you completely missed the point. You feeding into this false question and narrative and then the resulting debate and argument. Actually being proud to do so, only makes you a useful pawn of the people with this agenda.
@@ericterry4335 I suggest you read my comment because i did no such thing. :D Lifes too short and i have better things to do than take part in this kind of exchange. I stand by my comment fully. Monbiot is a grubby little shill and I'm sure IP himself thinks he could have done this better, end of. Tarrah!
@@sarkyization You stand by your reply that commenting on something you didn't even read or at least you sure as hell didn't understand. You're right though Life is too short to bother having this exchange with you oh also veganism is ridiculous
It's more than incendiary It's manipulating the truth. The very terms climate change. Global warming. They all have implicit meanings that make not agreeing with them inherently wrong. Anyone who disagrees with them is automatically the equivalent of a flat earther denying the obvious. However they've twisted the language and the original meanings of the word. I quite like giving a literal definition to their belief system And the truth it is a belief system not a scientific theory Human cost eminent climate apocalypse theory I've never had anyone dispute it despite the fact that it's very offensive. Because it's also simply technically true. And would we really be seriously talking about this issue if they called it what it is? Human caused apocalyptic imminent climate doom. No matter how you say it it's utterly ridiculous. I just thought it was worth reinforcing pointing out that the manipulation of the language is a manipulation of the truth and in fact the manipulation of the way people think. The facts to disprove their mad theory are in honesty not necessary as they've never proven It in the first place and so there is nothing to disprove. It's a distraction. The real issue is how to deal with their mad cult?
Plimer lies when he talks about medieval warming. Some parts did warm, but overall, earth has not varied more tgan 0.5C in the last 8000 years (Rockstrom, 2023).
journalists do not interrupt but maybe your pay relai on this interruptions are rude i had to replay again and again to get the words right because the subtitle also fares grat job to disregards science
Sverre Mortveit yes of course there are seasonal variations That is why we measure what is called minimum ice extent in the arctic This used to occur around sept 7-10 however it has been occurring later The minimum average ice extent has been decreasing each year since we have had accurate sat data This year's minimum of arctic sea ice looks to have just occurred although not an all time record that was 2012 it was massively below the average
Sverre Mortveit of course in winter the ice goes grow back But This is thin one year iceThe thicker multi year ice has also been decreasing each year on average
(Opinion) 😔☝️ *with climate change or not... humanity seems not using natural resources on sustainable way...* *...things/actions may have consequences...*
There all the same Mombiot interruptions name calling when there’s conflict of interests. Plimers right over the target and the establishment narrative foot soldiers are not impressed. Body language Mr Mom and speaker says to me somethings not right. A worthy read I’ll take up Mr Plimmer.
The Host gives more time to Mombiot and does not interrupt. But he always cuts short Dr Ian Plimer's answer. It is two against one. All mumbio does is personal attacks and interruptions. Frauds !
Simple answer: The host is Tony Jones from the ABC (Australian). Frauds ? Yes, of cause.
Doesn't Tony Jones always cut off the speaker and change the subject if he doesnt like what he is hearing or if its not what he believes?
Tony Jones = Jim Acosta
ABC = CNN
@@georgereed2947 Now watch again and see how not subtly at all Plimer the coal mining CEO lies his ass off. For example let's look at the email hoax from the FF industry. At the time the details weren't fully know.
ua-cam.com/video/7nnVQ2fROOg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/uXesBhYwdRo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/4OB2prBtVFo/v-deo.html
Then Monbiot goes on to show Plimer's fraud time after time. And all he can do is lie (such as claiming to be his field ie on volcanology which it is not, he is a mining geologist) and claiming Monbiot isn't qualified when Monbiot is quoting those that ARE QUALIFIED and Plimer himself isn't qualified. And avoids science time and time again with more lies and but but but you haven't read MY book, which was quoted from.
Then gets caught in another lie about not counting under sea volcanoes. Then simply repeats those lies.
Then lies about the Roman warm period, lies that it has cooled this century, then lies about there being periods in the last 4500 years that were "warmer" than know. Here up to 1990 without the last 30 odd years of warming. Then claims he can find references in 10 seconds but fails to in over 1,400 seconds.
www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Then lies and claims satellites show no warming. Then says at Mildura.... and makes up more BS and sooks about manners because no one dare challenge his lies.
The entire interview he lied, cried and avoided because HE is paid to lie and smear real scientists.
That’s because he is an ABC sponsored journalist . Full of bias as usual.?Nit picking at its finest! Obviously doesn’t understand that trends in temps etc. need thousands of years of evidence to before trends can be established !! That is why evidence from the past ie geology is so important and enlightening! Give me Prof Plimer’s science any day rather then today’s discourteous journalists! I am a retired geography teacher and I too say Global warming is a Hoax and lowering CO2 will not change Climate one iota because mere man cannot change Climate. So Mr Mombiot go and read a good Basic book of Basic Principles of Geography!!
Mombiot lying again. 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century.
leslie saunders LoL, the earth revolves around the US...
Incorrect:
ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/1934-is-the-hottest-year-on-record
"Hear the Word of The Lord, for thus says The Lord: The pride of man is grievous, and the heart of man grows increasingly wicked; his eyes are darkened, his mind filled with deceits. Behold, the whole earth is corrupt and filled with violence! Lo, even My own people fight against Me! Indeed, all flesh have corrupted their way before Me[1]...
Therefore I shall bring calamity in waves, great destruction upon this generation of evil men, evil men who are set under the authority of evil men, hidden evil in high places! For I am come to stir up the multitudes, and to shake the nations mightily! Behold, I shall grab hold of the Pacific plate, and twist! I shall press down hard, and it shall tip, it shall crack, it shall surely buckle!
In that day, the waters shall flow backward! No more shall I cause the ocean to know its place! No more shall I say to the waters, “You shall proceed no further!” For I shall strike the northernmost parts, until they are no more! I shall reach down to the south, into the great treasuries of ice and snow, and push them into the sea in one day! And the seas shall increase by measure before the eyes of all these multitudes, before the eyes of all those who dwell near the coastline, and before the paled faces of the wealthy, who by greed and evil gain have constructed tall towers and built extravagant houses upon the shore!
Therefore, watch! Be awestruck in astonishment, O foolish people who build on the sand![2] Watch how swiftly calamity overtakes you, how the waters inundate and swallow up the shores, how the land shrinks back at the power of the sea! Says The Lord.
Behold, I will show wonders in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, blood and fire and pillars of smoke! The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, as it is written![3] Satan’s strongholds shall be swallowed up, and all these vines of wickedness shall be uprooted and cast into the depths of the sea! City by city shall be oppressed and broken down, when I call nature to rise up and fight against you!
Then you will know, I AM THE LORD! For the word of the wisest among you shall fail, and the knowledge of the most learned shall be accounted as dung, when calamity upon calamity breaks out in every corner! Says The Lord.
Behold, My every burning tear, which you have caused, shall rain down in torrents of flooding rain, with a great multitude of hail mixed with fire and blood![4] It shall inundate the cities and towns, while still other places shall be left utterly desolate!
Behold, the dry and cracked ground shall speak in the hollows of the waste places as a testament against you, O most wicked generation! For My anger is kindled, the heat of My fury has come up into My face, and shall scorch the earth in the day I repay you for all your wickedness![5] Says The Lord.
Therefore hear My words,
And heed the sound of this Trumpet!
For I am God alone; there is none besides Me![6]...
YAHUWAH, He who causes to be!...
YAHUSHUA, He by whom all things consist![7]...
Yes, He who is and was and is to come, The Almighty![8]"
~
"And yet the people say, “Where has all this darkness come from, and for what cause has all this violence come upon us? For what reason is all this devastation come upon us?!” Is this not the Day which was spoken of? Says The Lord. Is this not the Day prophesied throughout the generations, even from the beginning, that it should come? Is this not the Day of Clouds and Thick Darkness?! For I tell you the truth, it has come, all have entered in!
Behold, the outcry of the prophets has
Come forth, the Word of The Lord is here!...
It comes to pass before your eyes,
It increases and fills the earth!...
Therefore, hear the Word of The Lord and give heed!
Hear the Word of The Lord from aforetime, and of this day!
Hear the Call and the Testimony, and tremble
In fear at the Proclamation of The Lord!...
For the decree is sent down;
Judgment is set and ready to be poured out!
Lo, calamity has broken forth already, announcing the coming of The Holy One. His messengers prepare His way before Him, the earth trembles at His nearness. Lo, His hands gather His flock together, and His soft voice calls to His lambs... Behold, the house is broken into, yet who is aware of it?
Behold, the bundles are tied and set in their places, and still the people mock! And those called Christian say, “Are we not the chosen? Yes, we are the elect of God”... Woe, I say to you! Woe to you and all your arrogant houses; you have surely deceived yourselves!
Bow down therefore and humble yourselves,
Heed the call and depart from
Your filthy houses, and repent!..."
~
"The heart of The Lord your God is very heavy. The heart of The Lord is enraged, and is very heavy. The sorrow of The Lord is deep and infinite.
My people, let it be known to you, I take no pleasure at all in what I must do, in what must be done - NO PLEASURE AT ALL! Says The Lord. As My hand draws back, blood pours down! As I strike the earth in My anger, My tears run down! As famine spreads forth across the land, My heart is rent inside Me over the hardness of men’s hearts! As My face fills with the heat of My fury, My eyes are set ablaze with fire over that which I see! My tears run down, My blood pours down. As My own servants turn from Me and run, as My own beloved, whom I have called sons and daughters, turn and fight against Me, as My own body betrays Me, My blood pours down, My tears run down.
As the nations come together and bind
My hands and My feet, My tears run down...
As they bruise Me and spit in My eyes,
While mocking Me, My tears run down...
As they pierce My side, My blood and
Tears run down together!...
As My own people drive in the nails still,
I am risen up from My place with My arms
Spread apart, waiting to receive them!
My blood runs down, the tears run down...
OH MY PEOPLE, WHY HAVE
YOU FORSAKEN ME?!"
Nope, and not by a long shot
Any sane person has always known it was myth
The temperature is rising continuously. If your car's engine did that you might understand what's happening.
@jhaduvala for a sart we are using 1850 as a starting point and it was the coldest point in the last 13,000 years. We are now use very inaccurate digital thermometers. And since the late 80s we have gotten rid of all of the Stevenson Shelters and have moved all of the weather station. Now they have all been placed near heat sources or surrounded by pace ment instead of being surrounded by 100 yards of grass. We have no idea at all what the temperature has been doing!
@@terenceiutzi4003 Man you are literally talking out your arse.
Only 0,001% of the air is man-made CO2. Totally negligible. Next problem.
Co2 = 0.04% in 73 years we haven’t doubled co2. It was 0.03%. At 0.02, plants start dieing!! If we doubled co2 (in 100 years it would take), the earth would warm by 1 degree. Yields of All types of foods would grow by over 60%! In that time immagine the advances in nuclear and other tech that would mitigate climate warming but how catastrophic it could be to have global cooling ? Bear in mind the real cause of climate destruction is human plagues overpopulating the earth ! Also, when these frauds measure co2, the margin of error is so great that they are corrupting the data with a much more powerful climate warming compound than co2….water Vapor !!!
Very good point. Also, according to Tony Heller, if our atmosphere was 800 ppm. CO2, it wouldn't be harmful to humans or animals. Also the recent higher ppm has been greening parts of the planet that was previously arid.
Earth calling Mombiot - it HAS cooled this century. There's been no warmong for almost 20 years now. Muppet.
No muppet you are simply regurgitating your Fossil Fuel master's lies.
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/wti/trend
@@jamespyke6764 Monbiot is getting beaten here. He is uncomfortable
@@alanbstard4 If you call the coal mining engineer lying Plimer and Monbiot pointing that out loosing, well good for you. Gotta love your denier upside down world. Such as the tax lie. The FF industry that employs him sucks $5.3 trillion from taxpayers in billionaire welfare "subsidies" each year. Investing 10% of those handouts addresses AGW and allows the removal of this tax. No need to tax anyone, just remove HIS handouts.
So it is about money, HIM putting his hand in our pockets.
@@jamespyke6764 YOU IDIOT.
@@coopercruse5867 Sorry but facts don't care about your precious snowflake feelings, no matter how little your feelings care about facts YOU IDIOT.
woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2000/plot/best/from:2000/trend
At 15.00 he asks a simple question that destroys the whole hoax but gets cut off.
absolutely..the host rebuffs and asks Plimer a counter question ..Not a very fair interview ..Monbiot straight in with the Ad hominem attacks ..in my experience always the tactic when your losing the argument ..I would much prefer both sides having equal say he was almost bullied
Monbiot is a liar. He says on one hand, 'listen to the science', but when asked direct questions about the science says, 'I'm a journalist it's not for me to answer'.
You either understand the science, and should be prepared to engage on it, or you don't understand the science and shouldn't say anything at all.
Because it's for science to answer you liar. So as you don't understand the science YOU should say nothing.
@@georgereed2947 It's so easy for Monbiot to sit there and criticise this guys book because it is full of lies. As a Fossil Fuel employee this coal mining CEO can lie has ass of and his cult will never be sceptical and never fact check. You and this coal mining CEO are not very clever, dangerous men.
skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Ian_Plimer.htm
skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer
@@georgereed2947 Here are just some of this coal mining CEO's lies: For example let's look at the email hoax from the FF industry. At the time the details weren't fully know.
ua-cam.com/video/7nnVQ2fROOg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/uXesBhYwdRo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/4OB2prBtVFo/v-deo.html
Then Monbiot goes on to show Plimer's fraud time after time. And all he can do is lie (such as claiming to be his field ie on volcanology which it is not, he is a mining geologist) and claiming Monbiot when Monbiot is quoting those that ARE QUALIFIED isn't qualified. And avoids science time and time again with more lies and but but you haven't read MY book.
Then gets caught in another lie about not counting under sea volcanoes. Then simply repeats those lies.
Then lies about the Roman warm period, lies that it has cooled this century, then lies about there being periods in the last 4500 years that were "warmer" than know. Here up to 1990 without the last 30 odd years of warming. Then claims he can find references in 10 seconds but fails to in over 1,400 seconds.
www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Then lies and claims satellites show no warming. Then says at Mildura.... and makes up more BS and sooks about manners because no one dare challenge his lies.
The entire interview he lied, cried and avoided because HE is paid to lie and smear real scientists.
@@georgereed2947 That's hilarious big oil pays far far far more. But lying comes natural to your cult and is far more profitable. $5.3 trillion a year in taxpayer funded FF billionaire welfare "subsidy" handouts. 10x more each year in FF billionaire HANDOUTS to cause AGW than the INVESTMENT required to tackle the problem. 10x more in your masters' handouts each year than the ENTIRE RE sector's net worth.
11,900% return on your masters' bribes to congress. Are you after some of those trickle down Bigger Oil bribes??
I don't get paid by "big green" but YOUR Big Oil funded ignorance sure costs.
ua-cam.com/video/VNgqv4yVyDw/v-deo.html
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm
www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals
priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/
@@georgereed2947 STILL lying for your cult, I'm not a journalist. You seem to be still projecting, waiting for some of those trickle down bribes to congress??
priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/
Still want some of those $5.3 trillion a year FF billionaire handouts??? 10x more in billionaire welfare to cause AGW than the entire RE sectors net worth.
Instead of worrying about "useless" windmills, look into useful turbines which are producing cheaper, cleaner energy or cheaper cleaner solar energy. Solar that consumers can put on their roofs and produce cheaper cleaner energy rather than handing out a fortune to your FF masters.
www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg
Your cult hero, coal CEO Plimer is still a liar. STILL facts don't care about your precious snowflake group think feelings no matter how little your cult cares about facts.
The 1930s was by far the hottest decade since industrialisation. But you wouldn't know that because noaa and nasa have adjusted the historical record and new temps are homogenised and smoothed to account for UHI. This was a really stupid thing to do because anyone can find the original temperatures and blow massive holes in your dodgy science: Enter Tony Heller.
Tony is a top guy👍
Thank you. This data is available on Tony's site?
George, In respect of AGW, the scientific method accepted by all qualified scientists has never been past step 1, the hypothesis. There is no scientific proof of AGW.
Tony Jones please stop interrupting the guests. George Mombiot works for the Guardian. Say no more.
Monbiot constantly interrrupts, and then refuses to answer difficult questions, such as, 'if we were growing wheat and barley in Greenland in the past, how could it have not been warmer?'
the 1930's were the hottest time of this century, Mombiot is wrong
The top ten hottest years in record were all in the 21at century
The 1930s aren't in this century.
@@MrFrogNo3 This shows the truth. 1930s were in fact the hottest!
ua-cam.com/video/SSg3h_eIvBw/v-deo.html
Clearly George Monbiot and Tony Jones ganging up on Prof Plimer; it's symptomatic of the poor quality of journalism at the Australian ABC.
Ye typical of ABC ..everyday ..every single day the will bring the topic up one way or another..
The Colleges Are Teach’n Propaganda
Monbiot fully agrees with those who are paying him.
Speak to Dr John Christy (Climatologist) who creates the Climate Models and would also back up everything that Ian Plimer had to say.
No he wouldn't. Even his data now shows strong warming.
how many times can you rudely interrupt!!!
Well, he works for the "Guardian" !
ian plimer is 100% right he went to a proper school george and tony are brainwashed
Oh the projection, Plimer is a coal mining geologist out to protect his fortune and make some quick money from gullible fools like you.
ua-cam.com/video/yLYqzIhhT6o/v-deo.html
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
@@jamespyke6764 That's ironic You're projecting the fact that you're projecting under someone else While attacking the man instead of the argument.
keep going if you manage to project the fact that you're someone else's projecting about how you're projecting or some such you'll reach like inception levels of religiosity
@@ericterry4335 That's ironic that YOU are the one projecting. That you attack me with false claims that I never attacked his argument when I linked an clip specifically outlining some of the science behind AGW. Here's another one for you to ignore, his lie about volcanoes. Any more of his BS you would like me to debunk so you can pretend it doesn't exist as well???
So yeah, keep projecting.
www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
2 against one. Hardly a proper debate
If Plimer answered a few questions the moderator would not need to interupt
Plimer was off his meds.
2 unqualified clowns vs a doctor of science. They can get hysterical but they can’t get factual !
2 unqualified clowns vs a doctor of science. They can get hysterical but they can’t get factual !
When, and it will comes forward that it is a hokes, the fewer then ever will believe in science. That's a shame but this alarmist are the reason
Yepn those AGW denier alarmist cucking for their FF masters and ignoring science and reality. But even their FF masters laugh at how easily cucked they were.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
He answered the questions. Ian is right there is more to it like the adjusted way they now measure temperature. Mmgw, It is a big fraud.
Monbiot took a pea shooter to a gunfight, Plimer turned up with a bazooka! I’m sure Tony Jones wasn’t happy adjudicating that one!
Truth ALWAYS prevails!
So denier code for lies is bazooka! Got it.
😂Bollocks
It’s a cult
A Journalist arguing with a proffessor in geology?? Hahaha how comical !!
Tell me plz what is mother nature and that thing that shines in the Sky's how far away is it 2 miles ?
I follow the climate debate very closely. I also delve into the science to the extent my education at an earth science undergrad level permits. My first point is neutral - ask yourself this - why is there so much heated debate over what should be an unemotional and purely scientific subject? The fact that there such heated debate should lead everyone to question the premise (but that is not allowed). Secondly, there has certainly been much data manipulation. That led to the climategate emails and the "hide the decline" "nature trick". What Professor Plimer tried to say about grape growing in the north of England and wheat production in Greenland shoots holes in the manipulated data. I would add the fact that in northern Quebec there are remnants of forests which once grew there on what is now barren, frozen tundra. Throw out the manipulated numbers for a moment. The remnant trees in northern Quebec are proof of warmer times in the past. I could go on with other scientific facts here but YT comments are not supposed to be lengthy scientific papers.
Only 0,001% of the air is man-made CO2. Totally negligible. Next problem.
Right, I've read between 3% and 20% of the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic and its saturated ie done pretty much all it can to warm things. Diminishing returns from here on. Like you say, "Nothing to see here, move along".@@tgwcl6194
Well done you. Sounds like you can think critically. Unlike the majority of people.
Excellent. Monbiot dismisses the importance of data manipulation, suggesting that it is of no consequence. This is sickeningly wrong as for any truth to emerge about anything all the data must be present and analysed otherwise it is just enabling the creating of narratives for ones own ends. Even placing"Yes" in a sentence instead of "No" can transform the meaning of the entire topic. How can any so called intelligent person be so obtuse? I despise the man now. He once hijacked Dr David Bellamy and tried to make him look stupid on UK TV because Bellamy (previously a popular TV scientist) dared to question the so called science on AGW. Bellamy was shunned after his declarations. Sadly Dr Bellamy is now deceased.
Two against one in this debate; the host and Monbiot take turns interrupting Plimer.
Only one was making claims, yet couldn't back them up
I wasn't going to comment before as I was so disgusted by the behaviour of the supposedly professional journalists that I would have just written expletives. All Monbiot proved was that he should be kept away from the public and find a job that suits his politics.
The Governments of any country will do stupid thing in the name of ideology and chase any tax regime no matter how damaging to the economy it may be. The politicians who try to think they run most countries are like toddlers being sat in the captain's chair of a super tanker, providing they don't do something immensely stupid very little happens to alter the course ,
But occasionally they do do something immensely stupid and listening to climate alarm and acting on the bad advice given by alarmists is one of the stupidest things possible.
I call it man made global BS.
That sums up the mining geologist Plimer to a T. He lied the entire time.
ua-cam.com/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7nnVQ2fROOg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/uXesBhYwdRo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/4OB2prBtVFo/v-deo.html
Then Monbiot goes on to show Plimer's fraud time after time. And all he can do is lie (such as claiming to be his field ie on volcanology which it is not, he is a mining geologist) and claiming Monbiot when Monbiot is quoting those that ARE QUALIFIED. And avoids science time and time again with more lies and but but you haven't read MY book.
Then gets caught in another lie about not counting under sea volcanoes. Then simply repeats those lies.
Then lies about the Roman warm period, lies that it has cooled this century, then lies about there being periods in the last 4500 years that were "warmer" than know. Here up to 1990 without the last 30 odd years of warming. Then claims he can find references in 10 seconds but fails to in over 1,400 seconds.
www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Then lies and claims satellites show no warming. Then to "prove" global cooling says at Mildura.... and makes up more BS and sooks about manners because no one dare challenge his lies.
The entire interview he lied, cried and avoided because HE is paid to lie and smear real scientists.
Everyone has a right to their opinion. I am not altogether sure what a zoologist knows about the intricacies of climate change. Probably as much as any other citizen. yet to stand up as an outspoken advocate of climate change because you work for a Left wing rag like the Guardian is in someways perverse. Concerns over pollution, which can indeed be man made, are quite valid but to tie this into climate change is quite wrong. One has to fully understand the factors which cause climate change and I have to tell you they are not man made and governments cannot fix them. Governments can not alter the Earth spinning on its axis; they cannot alter the magnetism around the Earth; and they cannot control what it is the Sun is doing at any particular point in time. I really do not think there is much they can do to stop a large meteor hitting the Earth like the one which occurred off the Yucatan Peninsular. Mankind has come, or people kind if you are VS Justin, and man kind will go as have other species over billions of years. The gentle person below says we have had five Ice ages. We are currently still in the Quaternary Ice Age which has been going on for 2.6 million years. This Ice Age has been riddled with glacials and interglacials which go for something like 10,000 years to a 100,000 years. Do you honestly think governments can change that? I do not think so.
Plimer has such patience
Well,well,well...look at the fcking world now on fire.
Plimer was terrible, he couldn’t even answer simple questions posed
Plimer, who I used to admire is a piece of work. He is a geologist and an "expert" so he is right and no journalist, interviewer or other person is entitled to a valid opinion. His opponent shows ill breeding and is impolite. Apparently neither the interviewer or his opponent has read his book. Personal smears is the strategy of a polemicist without evidence.
Take a look at the Oppenheimer ranch channel. You will get real climate science there from a paleo-climatologist/geologist.
Plimer is a laughing stock. Children are more informed than he is.
Disappointing that this discussion did not include more than one scientist. Will you do another with two scientists with opposing views please?
You’re right. Because ABC refuse to acknowledge that sceptical climate scientists exist when in fact there are thousands of them.
Hmm who shall I believe, the scientist or the journalist?
He's not a climate scientist.
If I had a choice I'd choose Plimer's informed opinions on geology and science.
As for Tony Jones and Mr Monbiot who are commentating on technical scientific disciplines they know nothing about I'd be fairly cautious.
In fact if the journalist didn't push hard on their employers behalf their employer's political storyline and try to discredit and smear Plimer they would certainly be summarily sacked in an honest and ethical news organisation.
well you're a fool because this mining geologist lied his ass of on HIS employers behalf their employer's political storyline.
ua-cam.com/video/FBF6F4Bi6Sg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7nnVQ2fROOg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/uXesBhYwdRo/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/4OB2prBtVFo/v-deo.html
Then Monbiot goes on to show Plimer's fraud time after time. And all he can do is lie (such as claiming to be his field ie on volcanology which it is not, he is a mining geologist) and claiming Monbiot when Monbiot is quoting those that ARE QUALIFIED. And avoids science time and time again with more lies and but but you haven't read MY book.
Then gets caught in another lie about not counting under sea volcanoes. Then simply repeats those lies.
Then lies about the Roman warm period, lies that it has cooled this century, then lies about there being periods in the last 4500 years that were "warmer" than know. Here up to 1990 without the last 30 odd years of warming. Then claims he can find references in 10 seconds but fails to in over 1,400 seconds.
www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Then lies and claims satellites show no warming. Then to "prove" global cooling says at Mildura.... and makes up more BS and sooks about manners because no one dare challenge his lies.
The entire interview he lied, cried and avoided because HE is paid to lie and smear real scientists.
There is no science here.
The author and Guardian columnist is wrong... (he's the first guy who spoke, the one with dark hair, George Mombiot).
Nope another fossil fuel employee, Plimer, lied and got caught out.
I doubt it. He seems honest to me. @jamespyke6764
Professor Plimer worries about the world his grand children will have to live in. He is concerned they will have a much lower standard of living than we enjoy today. Green alternatives to conventional energy are very expensive environmentally, inefficient, unreliable and short term. Present solar and wind generation technology is inadequate replacement for fossil and nuclear fuel energy sources. If we abolish conventional energy, poverty will ensue.
We are at a critical point in replacing coal which has drawn hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, without finding a viable alternative. We must be careful not to too hastily abandon conventional energy in our zeal to save the environment. I take my cue from Prof. Bjorn Lomberg who recommends along these lines: We have limited resources. We can not solve all problems on the planet. Lets direct our limited resources to alleviating our most important problems . What are those problems? Climate change is at the bottom of the list.
BS do your homework.
I'm interested to know more about the emissions from the volcanoes. And what the truth is there, but ultimately I fall on the side of the skeptic.
Ninety seven percent of greenhouse gases are natural. Apparently us humans put just three percent in. It’s not going to change a thing if we all go carbon neutral, in fact, I reckon that we would all die without fossil fuels. 👍👍.
They're pressing this author on an irrelevant issue of whether it was cooler the last 10 years, instead of focusing on the issue of carbon dioxide having to do anything with it. The answer to this question is: nothing. Please watch this great documentary:
ua-cam.com/video/pIRICfZOvpY/v-deo.html
Ian Plimers Electricity Bill for one quarter was 3,000 dollars.
South Australia.
That's ridiculous.
Who has the burden of proof here? Someone who claims man is a major contributor to climate change. So then dear climate alarmist please explain
1) what is the level of man's contribution to atmospheric CO2
2) assuming u know CO2 is the foundation of all carbon based lifeforms, what is the minimum concentration to sustain life?
3) so what then is an ideal level for all life, particularly plant life to flourish?
4) have you any real scientific data (not a contrived virtual computer model) that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is not just a Correlation but a causation linking the two?
5) do think man's role in reducing our worldwide rainforests from 14% to 6% might have a more devestating effect on unusual climate change?
These guys in their blind faith of a new religion want to actually get to zero carbon. At that point all of Greta’s fear will really come true.
Why do you ask such childish questions??? But Ok 1) All the increase in CO2 is due to Man.
ua-cam.com/video/CcmCBetoR18/v-deo.html
2)And it has no relevance as life was sustained at much lower levels and we are increasing [CO2]
3)Again meaningless. What is important to us is it's effect on us. Currently the levels of CO2 are higher than Man has ever experienced. We evolved and build most of our real estate and infrastructure near the coast or other water bodies and thus the costs to not address AGW far out way addressing it.
ua-cam.com/video/VNgqv4yVyDw/v-deo.html
sealevelrise.org/states/florida/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgOzdBRDlARIsAJ6_HNllCKi2Ia9A-m3W7kJ47Gt6Du-zLMP4DPqkfJHu0WgEjO5e3o9VPWgaAtcUEALw_wcB
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm
4)Yes, the measurable GHG properties of CO2, the planet's history and many other.
ua-cam.com/video/yLYqzIhhT6o/v-deo.html
5)again irrelevant, but no, not a more devastating effect. This of course is a problem that should be addressed, but not what you asked.
This is the best interview I have seen in ages.
On one side we have a journalist and on the other a professor of geology/director of 3 mining companies. This is a hot topic and a very entertaining interview indeed! 😂
I wish we can get some Global Warming in Scotland its bloody cold here.
Second that. It's hilarious to watch Canada backing this shit when they are the coldest country in the world stupid bastards.
The 1930's was much warmer than today. Why are we pretending to not know this?
Wrong the last year was easily the warmest on record.
thank you so much for posting this!
Ian was in the hornets nest there with monbiot and especially tony jones from the ABC taking sides as per usual, but you won Ian and I totally believe you on everything.
There is nothing clear about whether the alleged increase in global temperatures is directly caused by carbon emmissions, even at a logical and reasoned level too many assumptions are made about the role of CO2 and 'greenhouse' gasses etc. in 'temperatures' during the current inter-glacial period. The tiny percentage of CO2 levels are supposed to rise and its meant to gert warmer before the next peak of CO2 limits when the next ice age comes and CO2 levels drop again as major glaciations take over.
Monbiot is a journalist versing a geologist/scientist. Journalist that works for global technocratic order.
Conveniently, for politicians, 'Serious action' on climate change means raising carbon tax. Of course they'd be behind the idea.
Never met a politician who didn't like a invisible cause that could be taxed but never solved
conveniently there are enough people who doesn't belive in climate change so the oil companies are still making a lot of money they can use to by politicans so they will not raise the carbon tax.
LMAO...what I ALWAYS find interesting is that nobody on the AGW side never answers the question about what the ULTIMATE problem with CO2ncreasing...WHY? Because the answer is Sea Levels will rise...that's it...Higher Sea levels...is that crappy for humans whom live in the affected areas...YUP...sorry, but that's not a catastrophe, for if it is, flooding happens MULTIPLE times per year in MULTIPLE places...it's called NATURE...for those who want to claim ' …but it's getting worse...' I say, so what, that's called the natural cycle of life...in fact, if the Earth did have polar ice caps COMPLETELY melt, it would open 1000s of square miles of ARABLE land to humans...to act as if somehow we will wake up one day and somehow humans would die from CO2 toxicity is just silly...3rd grade physical science taught us that:
"The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather."
The current level of CO2(circa 2018) is at 443ppm...that's .0443%...to suggest that this number somehow signals a 'catastrophic event in process' is equally silly as plants will DIE off at 150ppm(referencing the pre-industrial 200ppm from alarmists) and humans would feel the effects of CO2 toxicity at 5000ppm(that's 5% concentration, that's 8.86x the current levels and is not naturally occurring outside of volcanic exposure and confined spaces where no gaseous exchange occurs, only human/animal respiration)...in my estimation, too many scientists have succumbed to celebrity desires to be the next Newton, Einstein or Hawking- for a Jeopardy contestant to mention in a quiz show. Nary a one alarmist has ever answered what the problem would be with 1000 ppm, except to say: But, the polar ice caps could melt, and water, everywhere...maybe even enough clean stuff to help the billions whom lack access. Ya think? maybe?
Additionally, I never cease to be amazed at how many typical folks whom engage in theis debate can't answer some basic question about these affects. So please, can some alarmist step up and tell me why we are waving a shiny bauble of alarmism to mostly subject-matter-ignorant folks who want to do right by humanity, but instead err on the side of agendized/poplar opinion science du jour. Can ANY so-called AGW proponent tell me what their biggest FEAR is...is it that we won't have ice sheets 4 miles thick? Polr bears won't have enough hunting territory? Well, I'm from Florida, so been living that reality for a while, though I'd love to see the poles sometime in my life as I'm a huge Earnest Shackleton admirer(look it up)...then again, I'd love to see a fucking T. Rex, too...but, if candy and nuts...blah blah blah...so I pose the question:
What do increasing CO2 levels mean to you and what EXACTLY do you think will be the effects outside of already-occurring extinctions and/or climate cycles? And skip the conceptual BS, I want DETAILS!I certainly am not in the mindset of being cavalier, I'm a conservationist, so I'm more than willing to hear you out, consider the evidence/data, check for myself and draw my own conclusions, which may or may not change. Frankly, I'm amused at the amateurish(to be kind) attitudes of the modern internet warrior, yet when confronted with having to debate or support their conclusions/opinions I see nothing but regurgitation of shiny bauble science sans data or evidence. So let me have some REAL stuff.
Have you ever tried to debate a Christian? Look I empathize really I do. I have tried to debate Christians.
But you're making the fundamental mistake of treating this as science open for debate.
The fundamental structure of a religion is that you claim human caused apocalypse due to some sin of the species you claim that is the person predicting it only you can prevent it. Then you start collecting donations and requiring people to do rituals to absolve themselves of their sin.
You form this religion on the basis of something that cannot be seen so that is difficult for the average person to prove or disprove your theory. You also base it on some problem which can actually never be solved usually because it doesn't exist if the problem could be solved and you're out of a religion and a job and if it was possible to solve it then you'd probably actually have to spend the money on solving the problem do a lot of hard work and take risks also not great. At least not great compared to shaming people and then collecting their money along with your feeling of moral superiority.
I'm too lazy to do a comparison but surely you see the point people don't claim that this is a religion for no reason It truly is a religion and you cannot debate a religion You have to crush it or let it die off in its own time which often takes hundreds of years.
There is no incentive for them to debate They grow upset with you if you ruin their construct They prefer things the way they believe them to be. The very reason why they became religious in the first place is because they don't place significant weight on facts or think rationally.
The reason I say all this and the reason why it's important is because they have decided that humans are the enemies of the earth and they are that saviors in order to be it saviors they have turned against the everyone who is not on their side They are essentially a new form of Islam. Treating them as merely people with differing opinions is what is allowed to spread of their religion and you cannot underestimate how costly that has been.
an economist would say we must judge this in terms of alternatives I would say that one of the alternatives to the trillions we have spent on their religion is to have instead spent that money building coal-powered plants and basic road and train systems in the third world If we done that I believe we could have lifted around 2 billion people out of poverty who would then contribute to the well-being of the species as a whole in addition to saving tens of millions of lives. perhaps I'm underestimating the cost of such an ambitious project but I doubt it and it is an interesting thought isn't it indulging these people has come at the potential cost of saving tens of millions of lives and bettering the quality of hundreds of millions more. People say that religion is harmless but they do not consider past its direct harms and instead what's lost by wasting our efforts upon it. What we could have done.
Also you're just allowing them to reverse the scientific method and manipulate you.
It is not up to you ignore me nor anyone else to disprove a ridiculous and innane theory like human caused apocalyptic climate change ironically and ridiculously caused by one of the most positive trace elements on the planet.
That would be their job and it's past time we stop doing it for them
That was magical George. Well done for keeping your calm amongst the bull. Does he have a place in Sunak's government yet?
😂😂😂
Total pillock
Suppress data? Like Google does by way of Wikipedia? Still fighting the same battle 11 years later!
since then also the following "sceptic" books have been published "False Alarm", "Apocalypse Never", "Unsettled"
All ridiculed by actual climate scientists. And contrary to data in every country
When you do not like the message, personally attack the messenger.
CO2 atmospheric concentration increases by about 10-15 PPM during the winter in the northern hemisphere. Interesting how the temps always drop with higher CO2 levela during the winter. The reason is CO2 absorbs at 15 microns +/-1 micron. Whereas the Earth radiates at 10 microns + 2 or +3 microns. This means that CO2 absorbs virtually nothing coming from the surface of the Earth. Water vapor and clouds do absorb Earth radiant energy.
It almost gets boring. You always know exactly what people like this journalist are doing and what they're in a flaws are they're biase and various crimes.
Because they will always tell you so. It's exactly what they accuse you of!
I mean this really is to the point where there's no question it's a psychological disorder.
1) claims that he's avoiding the facts when he's avoiding the facts
2) claims that he has a financial interest when he works for the guardian which takes money from climate apocalypse theorists
3) claims that he lacks scientific evidence when he not only lacks scientific evidence he uses his lack of scientific evidence as a defense to not have to provide scientific evidence because he's "a journalist"
Why do you think there is never a debate with scientists from both side on this ?
Rarely is science discussed in scientific discussions. The Gas Law says pressure causes temperature. The composition of the gas doesn't matter.
And it isn't in your nonsense post. Reality and actual measurements call BS.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Yes it does. PV=MRT
That Monbiot is a real tool. Ian Plimer is trying to educate the clown but it's not working. Go Professor Plimer.
Plimer 10 Monbiot 0
Plimer 10 for lieing.
Only to crackpot climate science deniers. To actual scientists and science literate people he did not
each time earth had a warm period culture goes up, co2 came at 1950 to a low, near to catastrophe of life become to a halt; with the invention of the combustion engine we, men brought the planet back to life
And we aren't stopping until it's a goddamn jungle again! 😁👍
Eric Terry you are really into NWO, because we can not have a perfect temp. Nature is change. And the NWO is not political but corporate, and the moment they have what they want, then you gonna end against a wall. Change your view, see what is going on, see how they are betraying us.
As a retired teacher of Science with Degrees in Microbiology/Biochemistry and another in Geology, Professor Plimer is correct. View co2coalition/facts
Journalist Vs Scientist. What about Scientist Vs Scientist? Journalist has no idea just posturing.
Shouldn’t The Guardian ‘journalist’ be writing fake news about the gender wage gap? That paper is no better than The Gawker was.
Are there jobs going at Fox and Sky. Oh you said journalist, none there. My bad.
@James Pyke - Why have a job or buy a house when the world is going to end.
All your Marxist leaders should be selling up because we only have 10 years left.
@@imluvinyourmum More fake news you should apply for a job there too. Or is that where you "work"? But come on explain how clean air and water, no more wars for oil, cheaper electricity and lower taxes are "Marxist"?
@James Pyke - So you wanted dirty air and water before u heard about the latest climate doomsday?
The government just wants to tax ‘carbon use’ and the billionaires want to monopolise the free market. You are deluded if you think they love and care for you like a little puppy.
@@imluvinyourmum If you are trying to be dumb, congrats. But nice way to avoid answering the question. Again how are clean air and water etc "Marxist:. Sorry but you deniers are the ones advocating for dirty air and water with your doomsday cult that thinks clean air and water and cheaper electricity means doom. Hate to break it o you but you already pay a carbon tax it's just called something else. You pay a $5.3 trillion a year FF billionaire big government FF welfare tax already so your FF masters can keep their monopoly on energy and you pay higher electricity prices. That's 10X the cost of the INVESTMENT required in RE to tackle AGW. That's 10X the net worth of the entire RE sector in billionaire welfare to cause AGW than the INVESTMENT to address it.
So yes your FF masters and their bought and paid for politicians want to KEEP that carbon tax and KEEP that monopoly you fight for so they can KEEP their 11,900% return on bribes to congress.
priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/
You are deluded if you think they love and care for you like a little puppy.
But you are their lap dog.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
slate.com/technology/2015/12/exxonmobil-koch-family-have-powered-climate-change-denial-for-decades.html
Prediction on climate change is very difficult to establish, scientific evidence depends on how far back in history you go and scientists today are not absolutely convinced of some of the hysterical behaviours of some of the promoters of global warming are incorrect in some of their assumptions.
It is not a myth. It is a LIE!
When I first discovered Monbiot around 2005 I was impressed, but that didn't last very long. His moralizing, breathless tone was so off-putting that I quickly wrote him off as unreadable, without bothering to check whether I agreed with what he wrote.
You are a fool. You wrote this in 2024. The hottest year in the last 120,000 years. 2023 was the hottest on record.
@@denisdaly1708 The general agreement is that the world is currently warming up, but that it has nothing to do with human activity, due to the fact that humans cause 3% of global CO2 emissions while nature provides 97%. That's Plimer's argument, and I agree with it. Nowadays I lump Monbiot in with people like Owen Jones and other far-left Guardian writers.
So, what is actually happening instead?! How do you explain this weather extreme everywhere?
All one needs to know is that there is no evidence that CO2 drives temperature. Sadly IP got defensive and didn't come across well, especially given he knew what was going to be asked. GM is an obnoxious character but he asked IP to provide his reference for one claim which SP didn't/ wouldn't so sadly GM won this debate.
No he didn't.
You've got a real backwards here like everybody else.
The normal state of the planet is not human-caused imminent apocalyptic climate change.
That makes the theory human cause imminent apocalyptic climate change.
Well it would be nice if Pilmer could perfectly disprove every aspect of it and have every source at the ready he could sit there reciting Winnie the Pooh and still win the debate because that buffoon didn't provide one single piece of compelling evidence that the status quo is not the truth.
It's these assholes job to prove that we are facing an apocalypse. They failed to do that at every turn. As they failed to answer every single one of pilmer's questions.
You don't win just because your opponent is unable to provide one source when you yourself have been unable to not only make your own case but to contest any of the points made against it how biased can you be?
You're just assuming and automatic state of victory for that propaganda agent masquerading as a journalist
@@ericterry4335 I agree with IP re climate change and respect and admire his efforts in this regard sincerely but he got tripped up when GM threw the conspiracy theorist label at him when he should have known it was coming and had a response ready, eg, yes it is a conspiracy of rich powerful people getting richer and more powerful, similar to those conspiracies that GM's books exposed (despite actually working for them at the same time.). No matter t'is done, just hope he's better prepared for the next time.
@@sarkyization I suggest rereading my comment you completely missed the point.
You feeding into this false question and narrative and then the resulting debate and argument. Actually being proud to do so, only makes you a useful pawn of the people with this agenda.
@@ericterry4335 I suggest you read my comment because i did no such thing. :D Lifes too short and i have better things to do than take part in this kind of exchange. I stand by my comment fully. Monbiot is a grubby little shill and I'm sure IP himself thinks he could have done this better, end of. Tarrah!
@@sarkyization You stand by your reply that commenting on something you didn't even read or at least you sure as hell didn't understand. You're right though Life is too short to bother having this exchange with you oh also veganism is ridiculous
Boy oh boy this video will not age well for Dateline given the recent cooling periods
What the last couple of years have broken global heat records.
@@beaglechester only if you conveniently stop looking beyond the 1950s
@@moderateadjacent Are you saying it was warmer before the 1950's?
Why is the background fabricated. I live in Copenhagen and even in winter cars do not drive around like that.
Plimer brought up MWP and interviewer got Monbiot of the hook.
Set-up.
Mombiot must be being very very well paid by the Gates foundation/ WEF etc.
I don’t trust Monbio
This is a Rorsach test. One is on the side of truth and the other is on the side of his financial interests.
The FF industry makes $3 billion a day.
He answered the questions but not with the overly simplistic yes or no answers they tried to corner him in to. Wankers!!!
No he didn't he wriggled and lied.
We need to stop them using incendiary language like 'denier'.
It's more than incendiary It's manipulating the truth.
The very terms climate change. Global warming. They all have implicit meanings that make not agreeing with them inherently wrong. Anyone who disagrees with them is automatically the equivalent of a flat earther denying the obvious.
However they've twisted the language and the original meanings of the word.
I quite like giving a literal definition to their belief system And the truth it is a belief system not a scientific theory
Human cost eminent climate apocalypse theory
I've never had anyone dispute it despite the fact that it's very offensive. Because it's also simply technically true. And would we really be seriously talking about this issue if they called it what it is?
Human caused apocalyptic imminent climate doom.
No matter how you say it it's utterly ridiculous. I just thought it was worth reinforcing pointing out that the manipulation of the language is a manipulation of the truth and in fact the manipulation of the way people think. The facts to disprove their mad theory are in honesty not necessary as they've never proven It in the first place and so there is nothing to disprove. It's a distraction.
The real issue is how to deal with their mad cult?
Wow this clown Monbiot at 18min claimed this was the hottest decade in the earths history????? LMAO
Yes, evidence shows that it was, from US and European recording groups. The poorly educated climate science deniers
Silly Pom doesn’t listen
Why do you think he is in Copenhagen?
One could think that he just wants to sell his book.
Scientifically what he says in the interview is all wrong, evidently.
Monbiot is an idiot
That is an easy question. The earth is on its way to another ice age. The earth does that.
Plimer lies when he talks about medieval warming. Some parts did warm, but overall, earth has not varied more tgan 0.5C in the last 8000 years (Rockstrom, 2023).
Then you have prof Guy Mc Pherson professor in Biology, saying we have 3 years left.....
These two a due for another debate "2020" hahaha
journalists do not interrupt but maybe your pay relai on this interruptions are rude i had to replay again and again to get the words right because the subtitle also fares grat job to disregards science
The reality is that the arctic ice cap is decreasing
The total amount of ice on the planet is decreasing
It always does in the summer, come back in December and compare it...
Sverre Mortveit yes of course there are seasonal variations
That is why we measure what is called minimum ice extent in the arctic
This used to occur around sept 7-10 however it has been occurring later
The minimum average ice extent has been decreasing each year since we have had accurate sat data
This year's minimum of arctic sea ice looks to have just occurred although not an all time record that was 2012 it was massively below the average
Sverre Mortveit of course in winter the ice goes grow back
But
This is thin one year iceThe thicker multi year ice has also been decreasing each year on average
Mr Ian Pilmer is correct.
Myth. Count the number of climate grifters. That is the only thing increasing. not carbon, nor temps.
Jones..the deviant
If they can't silence people, they try to shout them down. @ lightweight journos, and does anyone believe they read his book ?
Ian Plimer got wrecked.
Weather is a subset of the climate one must be a palioclimatologist to gain perspective on the cycles of climate.
ALL COMMENTS AGAINST ABC 's CLIMATE BIAS
I consider it a reality
(Opinion) 😔☝️ *with climate change or not... humanity seems not using natural resources on sustainable way...*
*...things/actions may have consequences...*
What an asinine comment. You're putting everywhere
There all the same Mombiot interruptions name calling when there’s conflict of interests. Plimers right over the target and the establishment narrative foot soldiers are not impressed. Body language Mr Mom and speaker says to me somethings not right. A worthy read I’ll take up Mr Plimmer.
it is a con we know its a con Im still waiting for my water front, 50 years of bull shit
Skeptics and realists alike should check out the NASA website on global warming