@@JM-ws6k It really bothers me when people make those statements because it ignores the fact that science is all theoretical. There is no such thing as “settled science” and it’s completely contradictory. It’s an oxymoron.
Great, great show Bob and Jeff! There is no better cause to which anyone with donatable assets could contribute than the Mises Institute. The work you all are doing is incredibly important.
This is one of the best podcasts so far. I really enjoy having a deep expert on to talk about current issues from an economic perspective! Please keep this up.
Subsidizing energy is bad for those of us who want electric cars and alternative power sources too. I want a gas engine truck and an EV in the future for their respective use cases, as well as continuing support for both of those technologies. It’s less about trying to be greener and more about our ROI in the energy economy. Like any economy, the freer the market the freer the people!
That's the big question indeed:how do these ideas get so influential? And it does not matter how often they fail either. Socialism. If they sound morally good, it doesn't matter how often they fail.
For all of human history only kings could live like kings, which at the bottom could be measured in their access to energy. All of a sudden in the last 50 years, every peasant suddenly gained access to energy kings of old could never have dreamed of. Factor in the new kings inflationary pyramid scheme collapsing, what’s happening now makes total sense. Power and control. It’s all it’s ever been about.
Interesting that I can’t clip this recording and share it…… there’s also a massive warning saying something about the UN. Thanks UA-cam! For keeping us on the straight and narrow…
One easy way to get people to consume less if that's what they really want is to stop socialized garbage pickup. I throw out one bag a week, my neighbor throws out five. Why are we paying the same?
They want less, but less of what? What are the consequences of THEIR actions? It's death! I'll infer their desires based on the consequences of their actions.
@@dennytuma the only reason we're getting the same service is because we are forced to have the same service. I can't opt out of it, nor can I get a break for using less of it. Therefore, I'm incentivized to use and waste as much as I please without being directly affected by it. It's a tragedy of the common situation. And it's no surprise we create more garbage than most other places being that it's subsidized.
@@zg-it i'm not disagreeing with you as far as forced payment. i guess my point is some people no matter what are going to be wasteful. i fill one garbage sack a month my neighbor fills a 3x4x4 dumpster a week.
Interesting talk. Some commentaries: 1. If the CO2 causes greenhouse effect, of course the incremet of CO2 particles have some adverse effects on the earth, maybe not directly on the temperature level but indirectly. Or there is a nature mecanism that no matter how much CO2 is in the air, it use it for something avoiding its negative effects? 2.It should'nt be a theme of demonizing hydrocarbons but i found totally valid alternative energy sources for specific cases, no matter if it comes from and angels wind or a human poo. I think all radicalism idea one second away from failing. 3. Nothing works without cooperation and without a whole understanding of the escosystems, and when i say ecosystems i mean everything tbat comprises human life and its enviroment. 4. There is a lot of ignorance on tbe subject, maybe scientist do know. On the other hand there are some ambiciosos gruops of people. 5. Having several options we could choose what suits as best. 6. Im so happy to be colombian and to learn from many people. Thank you Saifedean Ammous and Bob Murphy for debunk misconceptions.
Also, if innovation of the free market masks the consequences of their crazy plans, say someone comes up with cold fusion, this will only result in the next round of ideas being even crazier.
France has a fusion reactor in the testing phase this is particularly worrying, as France with its centuries long centralized structure is a prime source of political insanity
@@AnarchistMetalhead no short supply of insanity in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA, rest of western Europe either. The fusion reactor in France is a statist project, will probably never come to a good end. They keep promising and ask for more funding.
Please look up Thorium Molten Salt Reactors: A thousand years of energy, inherently safe and only 500 years of nuc waste (and can recycle/burn out old nuc plant waste of 10,000 years of radioactive waste to same 500 years).
Some of the evidence I have seen suggests that we have past global peak oil sometime around 2012 or 2013. Which means the per unit cost of energy is rising, in terms of energy-invested vs energy-returned. So that might actually be influencing inflation as well as the irresponsible manipulation of the money supply via debt. Kind of a chicken-and-egg situation.
Is Saifedean seriously dismissing physics and chemistry, suggesting greenhouse gasses aren't causing global climate change? I've been agreeing with him up until this point around 1:00:00. We know the specific kind of Carbon isotope that comes from fossil fuels being burned. We see an exact correlation between the average global climate temperature increase and the massive increase in these specific carbon isotopes. Alternatively, the volcanic carbon isotopes have not risen to any statistically measurable effect, and that reflects our hypothesis all the same. The loose atomic bounds of these greenhouse gasses specifically absorb IR spectrum EM and reflect some back down to the Earth. It stands to simple reason that the more greenhouse gasses we have in the atmosphere, the more of this "reflective" property we will see. We will see an average global climate temperature increase thusly - and that's exactly what we see. Yeah, I agree that climate alarmism is a problem, but to think that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions is pretty scientifically-illiterate.
He pointed out that the climate models have no predictive value, therefore they are useless as a guide to policy. We can stipulate that oceans will rise, but then the only reasonable response is more fossil fuel use to protect populations, not less. Alternatively, the death cult could simply prescribe the pre-emptive culling of several billion people, in order to prevent suffering, which seems like the direction they are trending towards.
Let's skip nuclear fusion and go straight to building a Dyson sphere. Agree with Saifedeen on many things, but love to see some evidence that current scientific methods/research regarding man made climate change is wrong or flawed, I'm truly curious to know.
The case against electric vehicles is, mainly, a case against the government. But I see it pretty flawed (the one against the EV, not against the government). The case against EV is pretty agreeable if you don't account for AI driving the car/truck as well (or better) than humans at a way cheaper cost. If you do, a lot of infrastructure problems will go away, or become easy to solve with free markets. If self-driving, the car can just go recharging 3 miles away. It is not the cost of energy increasing after the 70. It is the costs imposed by the governments that make energy more costly. Take away every irrational regulation against nuclear power and electric power goes down like a rock. You could think about subscription-based power services where you pick your top power and pay a fixed amount every month.
Saif contradicted himself. He said energy was abundant, everywhere and not scarce (and power is the real scarce good) then when discussing blackouts said energy is needed for everything
C'mon, he was clearly making a distinction between the fuel scarcity and the power generation scarcity in the beginning, but casually using the word "energy" to mean the combination later on just like we all do
A lot of perspectives to like but he gets into areas that shows his ignorance like climate change. There are trade offs but to dismiss climate change due to human intervention is stupid. He is correct about biodiesel but is extreme on other aspects.
What about jet trails increasing that are causing hazy days instead of sunshine? 58:38? A huge increase here in NM, USA The entire sky is covered with a thin layer of haze, over an area with a preponderance of the population over the age of 55, an age where bone density and health matter? Why jet trails over densely populated zones, when there are miles 100's of miles of undeveloped desert, This is a natural sunny state, no longer true!
Would love it to get up to 1200 ppm minimum so we get more yield from crops with way less water usage to nurture them. We're already seeing a greening around the globe due to +- 488 ppm CO2 levels at the moment, i really don't know why people overreact calamitously about CO2 and methane levels so much. I'd rather go all in against heavy metal spillage on streams, plastic waste left everywhere (including those plastic aggregate islands concatenated by ocean currents), non-treated sewage contamination of water supply/ aquifers than elemental carbon burned into the atmosphere, methane or other stupid shit that get so overblown people in general think it's a real issue. PS: For those who think i'm spilling bs, go after the IPCC report or other government agency studies and search for Solar irradiance/ forcing, Cloud cover effects on climate, Ocean currents, El Niño, La Niña and their relative effects (both are quite irregular events), Temperature/CO2 correlation charts dated from at least the Younger Dryas period and how it ended the last glacial maximum with a rapid warming ( without CO2 rising levels) of which made possible to live in the northern hemisphere for good from about 10,000 years and so on. I saw someone commenting about bringing in Tony Heller for his very well done models and journalistic news of past but i'd love to see John Robson from Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN youtube channel) here as well if possible. This guy is way more level headed than Tony and engage in a polite discussion of how dissonant the said so "settled science" or "97% scientist consensus" folk get dismantled when affronted with due scrutiny.
@@NoFrameHell I've not done much research into the effects of atmo carbon (I'm also not really worried about it), but why would high CO2 ppm mean less moister is needed for plat growth? I'm open to the idea that it could cause greening since plant growth is more or less able to "eat" most of the CO2 in the atmo but I don't really see why that would make a difference in the amount of moister needed for growth. 100% agree that chemical/metal pollution is the real climate issue btw.
@@Muataran @Brandon M Because of how photosynthesis works basically. A plant absorb water from the ground combine with atmosphere carbon dioxide are converted in photosynthetic cells containing chlorophyll into Oxygen and carbohydrates which are expelled back to the atmosphere and used as a fuel source for further growth and energy storage to the plant, respectively. By that knowledge of how photosynthesis work alone you can infer more CO2 necessarily leads to more carbohydrate production but then you would ask me : "what about water? Isn't it vital to complete the process?" There's the catch, with very low CO2 levels as we have had, plants had to adapt themselves to develop more pores located in the epidermis of leaves and stems called stomata. Plants don't really like absorbing oxygen during the day because by doing it so the ATP production becomes incomplete (similarly when a car runs rich causing incomplete combustion), so those aforementioned stomata are more needed in numbers due to low CO2 levels ( +- 480 ppm at the moment, was the lowest at +- 170 ppm ) which hindered growth and led to more water consumption to balance the process. For further information of lower CO2 levels affecting plants search for 'Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past' by Laci M. Gerhart, Joy K. Ward. For higher CO2 levels benefits, search for ' Earth's Rising Atmospheric Co2 Concentration: Impacts on the Biosphere' by Craig D. Idso (it's on paywall but you can circumvent it by using sci-hub) or his recent blog post named 'Increased Plant Productivity: The First Key Benefit of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment'. For further reading, i highly recommend co2science(dot)org and climatediscussionnexus(dot)com / CDN (Climate Discussion Nexus) youtube channel. Hope you have a nice day and good read!
@@NoFrameHellI've seen info saying that methane lasts about six months in the atmosphere. Now that I understand the co2-o2 cycle of photosynthesis the more I worry about a lack of co2 in the atmosphere... Plant death happens at 150 ppm....
Most of what he said was very intelligent and well put, but a pretty substantial minority of what he said was simply untrue. This is why I think that a high calibre debate is far more informative than this sort of format where everyone is basically on the same page.
The more evidence there is of human made global warming the more this guy refers to those that carefully proved that relationship as bogus with a smirk, insults and a laugh. I don’t think this guy is as persuasive as he thinks he is.
Yeah, the climate experts never thought about clouds. Please share your model that shows how increasing CO2 and methane doesn't warm. Did you also reject the ozone layer issues with CFCs?
Windmills reached parity with natural gas in 2010. Solar panels reached parity with natural gas in 2015. Both are now 30% cheaper than natural gas which has been putting coal out of business. Sidium-ion batteries are half the cost of lithium-ion batteries per kWh that were competing directly against peaker plants. The numbers tell the future no matter what this man says.
Whenever I hear someone say, "The current climate crisis" I roll my eyes. Crazier than what people were saying in March 2020.
"The science is settled."
"The science has changed."
Good lord. Take an environmental science course or something before you let media heads dictate your view of complex phenomena.
@@JM-ws6k It really bothers me when people make those statements because it ignores the fact that science is all theoretical. There is no such thing as “settled science” and it’s completely contradictory. It’s an oxymoron.
The millennial bug...
You can watch people attempt to live without the benefits of fossil fuels. It's a show called "Naked and Afraid".
Ammous is a genius. I could listen to this all day
Great, great show Bob and Jeff! There is no better cause to which anyone with donatable assets could contribute than the Mises Institute. The work you all are doing is incredibly important.
I think this is an extremely important video. Everyone needs to watch it.
Gotta get this guy on more often. Really brilliant!
Get Saifedean back on the podcast ASAP. He’s an international treasure!
This is one of the best podcasts so far. I really enjoy having a deep expert on to talk about current issues from an economic perspective! Please keep this up.
Great guest, guys. Saif is brilliant and logical, unlike the green energy "academics" who live in a dream world.
"There is no cost to being wrong. There is only a cost to not getting published"
Ding Ding Ding.
This was an interesting conversation. Very informative
Bitcoin Standard was a great book. I very much enjoyed it.
This guy is great. Doesn't mince words at all. Sadly there was no Wikipedia banner to protect me from this dangerous information
Dang! I was really hoping you guys would have Saif join you for a conversation! Three of the best.
Subsidizing energy is bad for those of us who want electric cars and alternative power sources too. I want a gas engine truck and an EV in the future for their respective use cases, as well as continuing support for both of those technologies. It’s less about trying to be greener and more about our ROI in the energy economy. Like any economy, the freer the market the freer the people!
How dare you
@@richarddixon6352😂
I fully support the entire Davos/WEF/WHO/IMF groups of people removing themselves from the equation as it were.
💯
🙏❣️✌️Thank You Very Much ✌️❣️🙏
This was the equivalent of the fire bombing of dresden, but with truth bombs!
That's the big question indeed:how do these ideas get so influential? And it does not matter how often they fail either. Socialism. If they sound morally good, it doesn't matter how often they fail.
You guys need better marketing.
Definitely true.
Politicians saying this and not engineers, best statement in this, so true.
EU also was going to be the most dynamic economy in the world in 2020. Indeed the goal is to keep subsidies flowing not to reach the stated goal
Amazing episode. Love Saifedean.
Thanks for this.
Great show, informative.
For all of human history only kings could live like kings, which at the bottom could be measured in their access to energy. All of a sudden in the last 50 years, every peasant suddenly gained access to energy kings of old could never have dreamed of. Factor in the new kings inflationary pyramid scheme collapsing, what’s happening now makes total sense. Power and control. It’s all it’s ever been about.
Great show!
Government funding determines what passes for science. Elegantly put.
IT S ALL ABOUT - CONTROL.
Minute 30: When inflation and energy prices increase, it reminds me of Chuck Schumer saying that to reduce inflation, the state has to raise taxes.
I love these three men so much!
Good conversation. Nothing new from Dr. Ammous but refreshing to listen none the less.
Superb interview!
If you want to talk climate, get Tony Heller on.
Damn I did not expect to hear Megadeth as the intro!
Brilliant!
"It's a trivial problem" is something often said by people who have a very limited understanding of a subject matter.
He brings up how many babies dies without fossil fuels. To the climate alarmists, that’s a feature, not a bug.
Telsa is a vaporware company? Haven't you driven a Tesla? Or at least just seen one drive by? Looked pretty real to me.
Interesting that I can’t clip this recording and share it…… there’s also a massive warning saying something about the UN. Thanks UA-cam! For keeping us on the straight and narrow…
One easy way to get people to consume less if that's what they really want is to stop socialized garbage pickup. I throw out one bag a week, my neighbor throws out five. Why are we paying the same?
your both getting the same service so you pay the same. your neighbor would just take his trash and throw it in the ditch somewhere
They want less, but less of what?
What are the consequences of THEIR actions? It's death!
I'll infer their desires based on the consequences of their actions.
@@dennytuma the only reason we're getting the same service is because we are forced to have the same service. I can't opt out of it, nor can I get a break for using less of it. Therefore, I'm incentivized to use and waste as much as I please without being directly affected by it. It's a tragedy of the common situation. And it's no surprise we create more garbage than most other places being that it's subsidized.
It's easier to steal your money with higher taxes and fees that you cannot refuse. Then they spend it and you consume less yourself.
@@zg-it i'm not disagreeing with you as far as forced payment. i guess my point is some people no matter what are going to be wasteful. i fill one garbage sack a month my neighbor fills a 3x4x4 dumpster a week.
Interesting talk. Some commentaries:
1. If the CO2 causes greenhouse effect, of course the incremet of CO2 particles have some adverse effects on the earth, maybe not directly on the temperature level but indirectly. Or there is a nature mecanism that no matter how much CO2 is in the air, it use it for something avoiding its negative effects?
2.It should'nt be a theme of demonizing hydrocarbons but i found totally valid alternative energy sources for specific cases, no matter if it comes from and angels wind or a human poo. I think all radicalism idea one second away from failing.
3. Nothing works without cooperation and without a whole understanding of the escosystems, and when i say ecosystems i mean everything tbat comprises human life and its enviroment.
4. There is a lot of ignorance on tbe subject, maybe scientist do know. On the other hand there are some ambiciosos gruops of people.
5. Having several options we could choose what suits as best.
6. Im so happy to be colombian and to learn from many people.
Thank you Saifedean Ammous and Bob Murphy for debunk misconceptions.
Also, if innovation of the free market masks the consequences of their crazy plans, say someone comes up with cold fusion, this will only result in the next round of ideas being even crazier.
France has a fusion reactor in the testing phase
this is particularly worrying, as France with its centuries long centralized structure is a prime source of political insanity
@@AnarchistMetalhead no short supply of insanity in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA, rest of western Europe either. The fusion reactor in France is a statist project, will probably never come to a good end. They keep promising and ask for more funding.
Please look up Thorium Molten Salt Reactors: A thousand years of
energy, inherently safe and only 500 years of nuc waste (and can recycle/burn out old nuc plant waste of 10,000 years of radioactive waste to same 500 years).
👍👍 Just so.
Some of the evidence I have seen suggests that we have past global peak oil sometime around 2012 or 2013. Which means the per unit cost of energy is rising, in terms of energy-invested vs energy-returned. So that might actually be influencing inflation as well as the irresponsible manipulation of the money supply via debt. Kind of a chicken-and-egg situation.
We most certainly have not reached peak oil. What has happened is that govt actions have reduced exploration and extraction.
I can't believe you guys think Columbia is worse than LSE...
If the earth is warming up then why does everyone want to move to a warmer climate?
😂🤣
Excellent question 💯
@14:45...This is what you like if you back Bill Gates' eugenics
lol tesla vaporware.. brilliant
Is Saifedean seriously dismissing physics and chemistry, suggesting greenhouse gasses aren't causing global climate change? I've been agreeing with him up until this point around 1:00:00. We know the specific kind of Carbon isotope that comes from fossil fuels being burned. We see an exact correlation between the average global climate temperature increase and the massive increase in these specific carbon isotopes. Alternatively, the volcanic carbon isotopes have not risen to any statistically measurable effect, and that reflects our hypothesis all the same. The loose atomic bounds of these greenhouse gasses specifically absorb IR spectrum EM and reflect some back down to the Earth. It stands to simple reason that the more greenhouse gasses we have in the atmosphere, the more of this "reflective" property we will see. We will see an average global climate temperature increase thusly - and that's exactly what we see.
Yeah, I agree that climate alarmism is a problem, but to think that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions is pretty scientifically-illiterate.
nonsense
@@whousa642 Your mother
SO, you were born in a house of ill repute!
Totally agree 👍
He pointed out that the climate models have no predictive value, therefore they are useless as a guide to policy. We can stipulate that oceans will rise, but then the only reasonable response is more fossil fuel use to protect populations, not less. Alternatively, the death cult could simply prescribe the pre-emptive culling of several billion people, in order to prevent suffering, which seems like the direction they are trending towards.
K I N G
The 'trace gas' argument at 1:00:00 is ridiculous. Do you know what the lethal concentration of cyanide is? About 3mg/L, i.e. ~3 parts per million.
Thanks for the Epstein book referrals. They look really interesting
Green energy with less precious materials ARE more likely.
But the political delusion that is in place is the sole driving force that is removing native inhabitants with them-ish.
Let's skip nuclear fusion and go straight to building a Dyson sphere. Agree with Saifedeen on many things, but love to see some evidence that current scientific methods/research regarding man made climate change is wrong or flawed, I'm truly curious to know.
The case against electric vehicles is, mainly, a case against the government.
But I see it pretty flawed (the one against the EV, not against the government).
The case against EV is pretty agreeable if you don't account for AI driving the car/truck as well (or better) than humans at a way cheaper cost.
If you do, a lot of infrastructure problems will go away, or become easy to solve with free markets.
If self-driving, the car can just go recharging 3 miles away.
It is not the cost of energy increasing after the 70. It is the costs imposed by the governments that make energy more costly.
Take away every irrational regulation against nuclear power and electric power goes down like a rock. You could think about subscription-based power services where you pick your top power and pay a fixed amount every month.
Saif contradicted himself. He said energy was abundant, everywhere and not scarce (and power is the real scarce good) then when discussing blackouts said energy is needed for everything
C'mon, he was clearly making a distinction between the fuel scarcity and the power generation scarcity in the beginning, but casually using the word "energy" to mean the combination later on just like we all do
Energy is indeed abundant, but it is scarce where and when it is required. Power is the means to deliver energy where and when it is required.
Sorry but this is just using 100 words to say 10. Good sentiment spoiled by verbal extravagance.
Privatize the weather
A lot of perspectives to like but he gets into areas that shows his ignorance like climate change. There are trade offs but to dismiss climate change due to human intervention is stupid. He is correct about biodiesel but is extreme on other aspects.
What about jet trails increasing that are causing hazy days instead of sunshine? 58:38? A huge increase here in NM, USA The entire sky is covered with a thin layer of haze, over an area with a preponderance of the population over the age of 55, an age where bone density and health matter? Why jet trails over densely populated zones, when there are miles 100's of miles of undeveloped desert, This is a natural sunny state, no longer true!
420 ppm
B L A Z E I T
Would love it to get up to 1200 ppm minimum so we get more yield from crops with way less water usage to nurture them. We're already seeing a greening around the globe due to +- 488 ppm CO2 levels at the moment, i really don't know why people overreact calamitously about CO2 and methane levels so much. I'd rather go all in against heavy metal spillage on streams, plastic waste left everywhere (including those plastic aggregate islands concatenated by ocean currents), non-treated sewage contamination of water supply/ aquifers than elemental carbon burned into the atmosphere, methane or other stupid shit that get so overblown people in general think it's a real issue.
PS: For those who think i'm spilling bs, go after the IPCC report or other government agency studies and search for Solar irradiance/ forcing, Cloud cover effects on climate, Ocean currents, El Niño, La Niña and their relative effects (both are quite irregular events), Temperature/CO2 correlation charts dated from at least the Younger Dryas period and how it ended the last glacial maximum with a rapid warming ( without CO2 rising levels) of which made possible to live in the northern hemisphere for good from about 10,000 years and so on.
I saw someone commenting about bringing in Tony Heller for his very well done models and journalistic news of past but i'd love to see John Robson from Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN youtube channel) here as well if possible. This guy is way more level headed than Tony and engage in a polite discussion of how dissonant the said so "settled science" or "97% scientist consensus" folk get dismantled when affronted with due scrutiny.
@@NoFrameHell I've not done much research into the effects of atmo carbon (I'm also not really worried about it), but why would high CO2 ppm mean less moister is needed for plat growth? I'm open to the idea that it could cause greening since plant growth is more or less able to "eat" most of the CO2 in the atmo but I don't really see why that would make a difference in the amount of moister needed for growth. 100% agree that chemical/metal pollution is the real climate issue btw.
@@Muataran @Brandon M Because of how photosynthesis works basically. A plant absorb water from the ground combine with atmosphere carbon dioxide are converted in photosynthetic cells containing chlorophyll into Oxygen and carbohydrates which are expelled back to the atmosphere and used as a fuel source for further growth and energy storage to the plant, respectively.
By that knowledge of how photosynthesis work alone you can infer more CO2 necessarily leads to more carbohydrate production but then you would ask me : "what about water? Isn't it vital to complete the process?"
There's the catch, with very low CO2 levels as we have had, plants had to adapt themselves to develop more pores located in the epidermis of leaves and stems called stomata. Plants don't really like absorbing oxygen during the day because by doing it so the ATP production becomes incomplete (similarly when a car runs rich causing incomplete combustion), so those aforementioned stomata are more needed in numbers due to low CO2 levels ( +- 480 ppm at the moment, was the lowest at +- 170 ppm ) which hindered growth and led to more water consumption to balance the process.
For further information of lower CO2 levels affecting plants search for 'Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past' by Laci M. Gerhart, Joy K. Ward.
For higher CO2 levels benefits, search for '
Earth's Rising Atmospheric Co2 Concentration: Impacts on the Biosphere' by Craig D. Idso (it's on paywall but you can circumvent it by using sci-hub) or his recent blog post named 'Increased Plant Productivity: The First Key Benefit of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment'.
For further reading, i highly recommend co2science(dot)org and climatediscussionnexus(dot)com / CDN (Climate Discussion Nexus) youtube channel.
Hope you have a nice day and good read!
@@NoFrameHellI've seen info saying that methane lasts about six months in the atmosphere.
Now that I understand the co2-o2 cycle of photosynthesis the more I worry about a lack of co2 in the atmosphere... Plant death happens at 150 ppm....
"White guilt" is strong with this bunch. Apart from that, it was a nice conversation.
Saif is Palestinian.
Stick to bitcoin, Tesla semi is on the roads
Most of what he said was very intelligent and well put, but a pretty substantial minority of what he said was simply untrue. This is why I think that a high calibre debate is far more informative than this sort of format where everyone is basically on the same page.
what was untrue?
@@ajfan3892 75 minutes of video vs me with a phone keyboard, really dude?
@@seansingh8862buy a laptop!
The more evidence there is of human made global warming the more this guy refers to those that carefully proved that relationship as bogus with a smirk, insults and a laugh. I don’t think this guy is as persuasive as he thinks he is.
It’s cultist like you that will make me my second million
Yeah, the climate experts never thought about clouds. Please share your model that shows how increasing CO2 and methane doesn't warm. Did you also reject the ozone layer issues with CFCs?
Windmills reached parity with natural gas in 2010. Solar panels reached parity with natural gas in 2015. Both are now 30% cheaper than natural gas which has been putting coal out of business. Sidium-ion batteries are half the cost of lithium-ion batteries per kWh that were competing directly against peaker plants. The numbers tell the future no matter what this man says.
Jesus Christ. I knew this guy didn't know much about environmental science but god damn is he unscientific.
They were saying the same things about ICE vehicles. This guy is anti-technology.