@@VirtueMastery And that means you don't understand. Scientific consensus means more or less this: "currently, to the best of our current researches, measurements, and so on, that's a X% probability that the things are like this" (to keep it simple, I don't put into the formula politics and economy and lobbying and corporate interests funding certain researches worldwide, because it'd be hard to make a general picture in a comment; anyway, they are there to make the "consensus" very much less certain and granted.) This is light-years far away from saying "the science is settled". If you say this, you are stepping out of the science. And if you don't realize that because "well, but there's a consensus!" is the same to you, then you damage scientific research and advancement, and I suggest you the reading of books on the history of science, scientific errors in modern age, and of course epistemology essays.
@@konverzaktion2393 thanks for your recommendations. I have studied philosophy of science and the history of science. What is understood and where there is no contraversy among experts is that CO2 is causing an increase in global tempurature and the current increase in tempurature is largely anthropogenic. What the future will look like, impacts, how various systems of climate work... all of this is being refined and is full of uncertainty.
@@VirtueMastery Perfect. Then, controversy or not apart, I really don't understand what your point on the citation was. But I suppose it doesn't matter as long as we agree on the key points, right?
@@konverzaktion2393 perhaps I was assuming you were coming from a relativistic or overly skeptical perspective. I hear many people say that nothing is settled in science therefore we don't have to take climate change seriously as an issue.
I was hired by the University of Maine, while a student, to test New England lakes for acidity levels. When I read the study I saw how they skewed the test to obtain the results that could only say acid rain in a problem. I challenged the presiding professor. Sure enough He admitted that they needed to prove that acid rain is problematic only because they were up for a ten million dollar grant. They confirmed, based upon my sample collections, they were going to submit fraudulent test results to the EPA purely to gain funding. When I refused to sign off on their skewered test results, I was promptly fired. How many other false narratives have Universities created solely to pocket from the government?
@@thewhisper417 Why is it that dejiers of the reality of AGW & ACC seem incapable of doing things for themselves and just unquestioningly follow the denier dogma?
Here are the Takeaways: 1. "The temperature of the earth is always changing. It's always going up or down." Which is why they had to change the Boogeyman from "The Coming Ice Age!" and "Global Warming!" to "Climate Change!" And yes, the exclamation points are part of the logos. 2. "By asking people to worry about whether it's going up or down you are immediately establishing dishonesty." 3. "The climate is always changing. It's nothing you have to prove. It always is happening. It's always has happened." Climate change is nothing new or unique or even alarming. 4. "So to make that [climate change] into something alarming seems a little bit weird." 5. "The trouble is, all of us scientists are government employees. Even if we're working for private universities. All research is supported by the government. As such, we are very sensitive to what politicians say and believe." 6. "You know when you hear a scientist say, "The science is settled," you know that person has stepped out of the science." 7. "How could do many people agree if it wasn't true," I think should be a red flag." 8. When it's conflated, "Temperature is changing. Climate is changing. Man played some role... With predictions of disaster that are clearly not connected to warming activities or anything else, leaving people with the thought that off the first part is true the second part must be true, is certainly not the case." 9. "Then to add insult to injury, to propose policies that would have nothing to do with any of it, but involve trillions of dollars in harm to many people, I think, is crossing over the line."
To say "the temperature of the earth is always changing" says nothing about the certain reality of rapid global warming and is nothing more than an obtuse dodge.
@@michaelmckinney7240 Wrong. Global temperatures were dropping in the 60s and 70s (An Ice Age is Coming! We're all going to die! I actually LEARNED THIS lie in 6th grade science!). Then there was slight increase for a few years (The Planet is Overheating! We're all going to die!). Then there was a long pause of about 20 years (well passed the 2006. The DEADline Al Gore have for when the planet would be irretrievably in its death spiral). Now they've settled on telling us that the climate changing AT ALL its going to kill us all! Ten years later, the National Review wrote an article celebrating our survival! www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again/ Here it is, sixteen years after our prophesied demise and YOU'RE STILL HERE! That's the only song enviromaniacs know how to play. Everything is about to end all life on this planet. SOON! Forty-two times in the past 60 years, environmentalists have predicted world-decimating disasters and NONE OF THEM have come to pass! Not ONE had happened. You all are 0-42! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. But no way are you going to lie to me 42 times and get away with it.
I very much appreciate Richard Lizden's straightforward honesty. Especially when he said, "All of us scientists are government employees. even if we are working for private universities".
@The Wandering M Same. The wife of a friend of mine is a Professor in Climate Politics. Getting paid very handsomely, far better than any other academics at the same University. I would like to know where the money is ultimately coming from.
Good point. We are actually headed back into an Ice Age. the last one covered New York in 2 MILES THICK ICE. Should be here in the next 1000 years or so. How will we adapt to that?
@@MichaelFurniss Are you saying the projections, in the 1970s, were wrong? The late 1970s had those headlines. Who had their head up a butt Michael Furniss?
Here's a neat little factoid. Vikings settled in North America (Nova Scotia) during the Medieval Warming Period roughly 950-1260; about 500 years before Columbus "discovered" the New World. It was during this period of "global warming" that the northern oceans became ice free for the first time in centuries. This period of "warming" allowed the Vikings to colonize and grow crops in previously frozen areas of Greenland and Nova Scotia. During that period, the North West Passage, the northern most route to the Pacific, was also ice free; and it is believed by many historians and researchers that the Vikings actually passed from the Atlantic to the Pacific in their "Long Ships" and explored the West Coast as far south as California. Ah...those were the days when men were men! After the passing of about 360 years, the cold temps, ice and snow returned and the tough Norsemen were forced to abandon their colonies as crops could no longer be grown or cattle grazed. You know, it's all about the "Big Picture" - not about dissecting some micro-spec on a timeline miles long. This is about the Green-Progressives moving to control every aspect of our lives ,and society, by weaponizing the Warmest meme.
Cant agree with you about "many" historians. DEFINITELY agree with you about a time in history when it wasnt against the "law" to be masculine. The language of your posts last sentence was BRILLIANT.
It isn't "Green Progressives" doing what you say. Rather, thousands of reputable scientists have been studying this for a long time, and their collective assessment is that man-made climate change is real. Your comment about Green-Progressives moving to control every aspect of our lives makes me think you are into conspiracy theories.
andyiswonderful PS Many, many real scientists, whi aren't govt funded to produce the 'right' results for them, would disagree that any global weather change is man made!!!!
He won't make headlines because reality has debunked him. Bogota is rationing water, Hawaii is in a water crisis, permafrost is melting, Kazakhstan is flooding, the East Coast is being pounded by storm after storm - and the hurricane season is just starting. Pay attention to the news, not to one scientist who said something you agree with *10 years ago.* When the 99% of climatologists agree in something, that's not called propaganda, but scientific consensus, and you pay attention to it.
do you deny climate change? i can promise you that climate change already has devastating consequences all over the world...hughe wildfires in south america and canada, floods in central europe, drough in south europe and asia, increasing hurricanes in countries near the ocean, famine in african states, etc
"It's a bad idea to have anything that can't be challenged." Beautifully said, sir. This is my whole problem with the anthropogenic climate change people. Environmental Authoritarianism is every bit as evil as its political cousin!
@@grahamyates2490 Being an "Oblate spheroid," Earth is anything but flat. Unfortunately, the "science" backing up climate change is almost non-existent! It's mostly computer projection modeling. There's certainly not nearly enough "real science" to predict ANY outcome, since we've only been keeping climate records for around 150 years---a mere blip in geological time. So, please save the whining and crying about how it's "Settled Science!"
When the American bread basket migrates north to Canada, coastal towns are flooding, and we're dealing with mass climate migration... Maybe you and your wife will have figured it out
Well, here is an answer that cannot be questioned… the whole climate scam is a lie.. pollution in the air actually helps to make it rain.. that’s why Europe and US are now suffering from droughts… The only time it rains in these countries is when the atmosphere is filled with volcanic ash or sand particles from the Sahara… other wise the air is too clean for moisture to form into raindrops..😏
@@Kgio-2112 Are you saying we shouldn't fail when it comes to the CO2/plant food scare? The CO2/plant food scare is about income redistribution/socialism, nothing more. Former IPCC chair Ottmar Edenhofer said as much.
@@mikeFolco Feynman was humble enough to understand that neither he nor we have all the answers and never will. It shows he also understood the big danger lies in not being able to question what are claimed to be absolute unassailable truths. Not least because of the motivations that may lie behind them....
And I can't believe how you not think critically about what you hear ... like at all. Because what this man says has been discussed so often. This is not a proof for anything except for how ignorant people search for videos which confirms their ignorant position (confirmation bias). This is a bubble of ignorance here which any neutral person can see within a second
@@Climatetruth no. There is a big difference between searching for a certain outcome and searching for any outcome, with a neutral position. I'm doing the latter. But I'd love to hear your explanation on how that's not the case
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 What a profound argument. Comparing a round Earth to the religion to control people calle "climate change". Drink some more Koolaid. It's good for you.
gonna bring this one up next time anyone tells me to stop telling chldren that theres never any risks from jumping off cliffs and its actually extremely safe a nd fun, the water will protect them no matter how shallow or far down
@John Everlast I'm happy that many of them stay where they are rather than moving to sane states. But unfortunately, many of your ilk do move and they bring their communist ideology with them. Leftists like you are a blight on humanity.
Thats lunacy and comes from somebody who very clearly is spending far more time hanging around politicians than scientists. Thats so crazy its amazing he said it. Politicians come and go all the time. If you are talkiing about FUNDING thats something different,but elected politicians are almost never on funding boards.
Jack Gray I was first told about climate change by one of my primary school teachers in the 60’s, he MUST have been a part of the early Ecology Movement to be that aware back then. He said scientists didn’t know if the pollution would trap the heat and cause a greenhouse effect, or the opposite and stop the Suns heat from passing into our atmosphere, thereby causing an Ice Age instead. Back then in the 60’s it wasn’t obvious which way it would go, as we was still getting regular heavy Snowfalls in winter in London. But since the 80’s it has become obvious that CO2 and other ghg gasses are trapping the heat and have caused a warming effect.
So yeah, let's find out if the world burns by letting the world burn. So the few remaining survivors can stand over the ashes and say "ha, the burning Earthers were right!". Why the terrible fear of doing something? We have to change eventually since fossil fuels are a finite resource. The reason is just different. Instead of waiting until the last coal is dug out and the last drop of petroleum is sucked out we'll change because of the risk of climate change.
Lenard Segnitz Actually I don’t think they will run out of Oil before the whole earth is polluted, as more Oil is being found all the time, the idea that we have to change before it runs out is ludicrous. We are already on a mass extinction path and they still have decades of known Oil ‘reserves’.
Just one example---The GREAT Climate Guru, Al Gore, claimed in 2008, that the Ice cap of the North Pole, would have entirely melted by 2013. The was no noticeable change at all by that date, the opposite in fact. But AL made millions from his Book sales, and won prizes too.
They have not even come close to what they say that will happen in 10 years, even 20 years. That’s what happens when you are selective in what facts you choose and then add your own opinion as fact.
And here in Australia we have Tim Flannery who said that rainfall would be so little that the capital cities would run out of water. See how that worked out. But he still has his faithful followers.
I'm pretty sure some Democrats were saying roughly around the 2016 election that we had 7 years left. So, get your affairs in order, we have one more year.
@@rixpix2957 “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources. If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.” thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html
@@Nhoj737 While I appreciate all of that info, I would never make such a comment without having researched the very sources you've indicated here. I will gladly checkout the link you kindly left in your comment and let you know what I think of you'd like. However, I'll just make this one point before doing so: Each organization you listed here from top to bottom are all funded, staffed and are obliged to file results, which fit particular narratives(political and otherwise) of the financiers that sponsor them. That goes for government agencies as well.
@John Franklin Gore made million$ selling his phony carbon offsets, many of those payments made to his own companiies. He flew his nearly-empty private jet to a climate conference in Switzerland! He should be in prision for theft and fraud.
So New York was not underwater by now-Houston was. Hey genius, why are these Gulf storms getting more numerous and stronger every year? Can't be that the oceans are getting warmer and holding more energy-hell no.
p mor, Many (60+) years ago my grandmother taught me a very wise lesson. She said that "Worry is Interest on a Loan that you don't Owe" and I have lived that axiom since. Stress Kills, Worry Creates Stress, simple.
Not a single contrarian climate scientist has ever been censored, cancelled or fired. If you think they have, cite them by name. This is all poppycock manufactured by the fossil fuel industry's marketing department.
@@muskmadness1 Climate change is not just a new term for the weather. The fact that where I am, yesterday was cloudy and windy and today is sunny and much less windy is weather. The fact that the summers of 2018, 2019, 2020 and especially 2022 and 2023 (that's 5 summers out of the last 6) have been abnormally dry in most of Europe is a sign of climate change.
@@karenaubert8852 No, it didn't temporarily change back. As I'm sure you know, weather conditions have always varied from year to year, generally within a certain range, and with some exceptional years, like summer 1976 was abnormally hot and dry, and one year, I think 1973, London had snow in June. But when what used to be exceptional becomes the new normal, then surely we can agree that the climate is changing.
@@ausbare140 just remember tackling the problem incorrectly leads to unintended consequences infrastructure before ideological platitudes or you only increase poverty and take science and problem solving back generations
In the Bible's Old Testament the prophet Jeremiah told the King that his alliance with Egypt against Babylon was the wrong move. All the other religious people and advisors agreed with the king and they had Jeremiah imprisoned in an old well shaft. The result: Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and killed all the king's sons in front of him and then burned his eyes out and took him to Babylon in chains. So, all you sycophantic scientists just keep on agreeing with the politicians. What could possibly go wrong? 😊😅😂😢
when you get to a certain depth , the water temp. has not changed in thousands of years. water raises with many things like he says...including expansion of heating the top layer , goes up and down with time....global change is normal...
It is wise to ask what model of ethical , economic, ecological and emotional intelligence you are using in response to the U.S. gov 13 agency warning. Can you tell me what school you went to . You should warn others they did not properly educate you in critical thinking. Then again that is the way gov control their population by not educating them. Adding giga tonnes of CO2 is not normal Didn't any one tell you that
SORRY TO USE TRUTH ..lol PS...i live by the sea..has not risen in 70 years that i have been here..dumb ass....hahaha www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html
@@Gordonz1 1. CO2 is plant food. 2. CO2 does not cause the world to magically heat up. In fact it does the exact opposite. 3. The world has actually been gradually cooling down, we are on the cusp of another Ice Age.
Alternatively, the experts who are in agreement that it IS real have a good reason to say so. We don't assume they're wrong just because we wish it were the case, we follow evidence and draw observations from that evidence. If we operated under your method humanity would still assume that miasmas caused disease and illness. ua-cam.com/video/paf2pJtaXYE/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/c1dnlHPzhQA/v-deo.html
@@92belisarius Thank you for the question mark at least. No, of course not. The specific, incredibly complex science in question is CLIMATE science. That's what he's referring to with "THE science". We know a lot, but not near everything. Tens of thousands of variables, many of which we don't perfectly understand, many of which we can't possibly predict (such as solar activity), and a countless number of which are unknown ("countless" by definition). If your disingenuous question is the best response you've got, well, I don't know what to tell you. You obviously have no sense of the complexity and chaos of reality. "We know A, therefore B, therefore C"... and all the way through to Z. That's what you guys do, with no intuitive sense of how much complexity and unpredictability is added with each "therefore". Absolutely no sense of how totally in over your heads you are at C, let alone Z... It's ridiculous. But I'm a realist, and I know this won't get through to you. I know the only thing that will convince you people of the folly of your doomsday alarmism is time. So I'm willing to wait. That's all I can do. Sit back and wait, while rolling my eyes. (But please, don't let me poop your panic party. Proceed...)
@@laseronion The people you are responding arent worth what you wrote. They are imbeciles and can not step out of the box to view different variables that disprove or meet half way with global warming.
@@DonkeyLipsDA3rd I assume they're pretty young, and that their over-simple way of viewing reality is something they have a good chance of growing out of. I remember buying into the scientifically "guaranteed" doomsday predictions of my youth. Time taught me, time will teach them (unless they get into careers that benefit from pushing the scariest narrative, i.e. politics, media, academia, etc; when money is at stake, it's tough to be objective).
Temperature has risen in these 10 years but 10 years is tiny. If our activity causes most manmal life on the planet to end in 1500 years, then it still warrants action.
@@ContactBaroqueHall If my mother had testikels I wouldn't have been born. If doesn't count. I'm not willing to give up my freedom for someone else their IF.
@@keerpuntbelgiekapitalisto5014 I understand you and have the same viewpoint as I’m also indoctrinated with our western values. But I’m trying to learn from other cultures anthropologically and finding this extreme freedom approach may reach limits, as it assumes an open system rather than closed or limited resource system. In any case I have been been raised as everyone man out for himself, compete and take the maximum we can from everyone and from anywhere that the law csn permit. If things go really really badly 500 years away - then at least I’ll not be here, so we should take the maximum we can whilst we can get away with it I say.
@user-km3hv8qo9p I don't think we have the same viewpoints. As a consultant I traveled the world, worked 2 years in Turkey, Malta, Poland and in my 50 years on this planet I only see that things better. The more people the better the technology, we less and less poverty and more and more prosperity. We cultivate more food per M2 as technology proceeds. What a do sometimes encounter is people that think there is a limit and I always wonder if people think this way what are they willing to give up themselves. Unfortunately most of these kind of people don't want to give up anything yet expect others to drive less cars, eat less meat or travel less. In 500 years if we proceed to grow we will have people living on the moon, maybe even Mars, robots will be harvesting the asteroid belt for other resources and maybe we will discover other things in the universe that will progress humanity. I don't live for myself, I live for the people I work with and hope they become also prosperous and have a good life. I don't deny that we have challenges in front of us. Bud this climate communists mentality has to go. So, I don't think we are on the same level.
@@keerpuntbelgiekapitalisto5014 Thank you for your insightful answer. Our work experiences might also overlap a little as I work as an international consultant; originally based on Australia but in Monaco the last 8 years and frequently doing business in Warsaw also. I also don’t want to given up anything and change how I pollute the planet, and I never asked anyone else to change. In this sense I’m consistent and in some sense innocent, as you are. Yet the systemic effect of everyone living this way is aparantly going to cause a mass extinction. Life is getting better - I agree emphatically. When I wrote taking without constraint, I meant this not in a greedy sense but just as a matter of fact - living without limits and doing what makes us feel good - including of course our relations. But I meant we should live without restriction on our freedom so even if that destroys the planet (which seems likely) we shouldn’t put attention on that, as there is a chance things will be okay, and we should enjoy life whilst the environment is stable for the next couple of generations. The generations after that - I think it is their job to do deal with catastrophe, and if they need limits on freedom that is their problem - but until we see it happening, we should go on living without restraint. That is calitalism and freedom as I’m taught. As for living on the moon, it will need to be space stations as we can adjust the gravity to suit us. We would just become inpossibly ill on the moon or on Mars, but creating comfortable space stations is possible and long term even necessary.
Whenever i hear a politician talking about global warming, the first question that comes to mind is, what is the temperature of the earth supposed to be? Like this guy pointed out, the planet’s temperature has changed over its existence. Which temperature is ‘right’?
Right temperature for who? Humans? Penguins? Trout? Inuit? Alligators? There is no one-size fits all temperature. The right one for humans would be one that didn't melt icecaps, raise sea levels, intensify hurricanes and increase drought, extreme precipitation events and wildfires.
The "right" temperature is one where life can continue unimpeded. The rate of change of the temperature is the problem due to humans burning fossil fuels, because life can't adapt quickly enough, and many things die out/degrade/etc.
Before the age of industry and in it's beginning years we were in the Little Ice Age . 13th century until the mid 19th century. We are only recovering back to the average temperatures befor that well known, but ignored event.@@anmold5676
I watched this video because I try to avoid confirmation bias. He said the earth is always changing, can't argue with that. You still need to take those changes into account.. If you own a home in the desert and your well goes dry it does not matter if the cause is natural, man made or little green men came down from Mars and took your water in the middle of the night your well is still dry.
The problem is that politicians take, "was probably", turn it into dogma for their militant base and sycophantic media, and pass laws that give gov goons the legal authority to assault peaceable ppl.
But you can be reasonably sure, which you have to be to do anything (why do you eat, if you don't know for sure you're going to starve?)... Also, if the stakes are really high you should calculate more on safety's side... Kinda like pascal's wager, but real
@@TheHorsebox2 the company we know for sure to have paid him is a coal company, peabody energy. but that might be the tip of the iceberg. we only know that peabody paid him because peabody filed for bankruptcy protection and had to show how it was using its funds. normally these companies are able to fund people like lindzen secretly.
Not an an equivalent rate when you take global industrialization into effect. Yes it changes and goes up and down over thousands of years, but the variables have change dramatically since the creation of our new societies. We don't have enough information to say that it's natural. Humans tend to take action only after shit has hit the fan rather than preventing it in the first place.
I know that him saying this reassures you, but he's wrong. His statements are very reductionist and don't even scratch the surface of the real scientific conclusions that are being made about climatology. See for yourself: ua-cam.com/video/paf2pJtaXYE/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/c1dnlHPzhQA/v-deo.html And here are rebuttals to this scientist's statements: skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
@@WyattCayer If you don't have enough information to say that it's natural, you therefore do not have enough information to say that it's man made. Basic logic. The climate is probably one of the most complex problems in science. No one really knows how it works exactly. As such, some scientists lazily just plug in CO2 to explain that which we don't fully understand. Primitive men used this same technique throughout history, except they used to gods to explain stuff that they didn't understand.
@@HiDeguild And here is Richard Feynman's rebuttal to the pseudo-scientific claims made by the AGW hypothesis community. ua-cam.com/video/tWr39Q9vBgo/v-deo.html
My mom told me as a young person, “Don’t simply take the word of your teachers, be inquisitive do your own research, examen the facts if they seem overstated”. Well mom that’s exactly what I did, geological history tells the story truthfully, not overstated as it now is . Simply another political fear tactic.
ALL governments employ fear in order to control their populations in one form or another. Both mother and grandmother were teachers, mother retired in 1956 when teachers taught. They did not practice indoctrination. “If your in doubt research it yourself, that’s why we have libraries”.
Exactly! I have found many lies we were taught in school. The theory of evolution is impossible and global warming is not to be feared. Read Genesis 8:22 if you are worried about global warming.
He casts doubt on everything, impugns motives, and closes with policy changes will hurt people. The status quo would be a solution to data that shows status quo. It doesn't.
yes, the bankers and kin always working to get more money. they are now going to become fools.. too many are waking up to their lameness. may they all drown.
@Dander Spat "a non existent problem"? What do you make of the fact that Greenland is now loosing 250 gigatonnes of ice per year, that the disappearance of Arctic glaciers impacts 1.5 billion people who depend on them? That coral bleeching has already destroyed more than half of the Great Barrier Reef? That wildfires in the Arctic have reached apocalyptic dimensions? That Arctic sea ice is down to a fraction of what it used to be some decades ago etc. These are not forecast or predictions. These things are happening right now. And this is just the beginning.
_"All of us scientists are Government employees, even if we do research at universities"._ Yes, and that is the root cause of much of the bad science we see today, across the board, not just regarding climate issues.
@@sonifer7692 Thank you for your post, Sonifer. In my view, the purpose of government is to transfer wealth and power from the many to the few. Governments are everywhere the most powerful special interest group in any given geographical area. That being the case, any science funded by the state will inevitably advance that agenda. The track record of modern “science” has amply confirmed that view. Thus, my choice for science funding is laissez faire capitalism.* _*Laissez-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic interventionism deriving from special interest groups._
Eisenhower warned us of this in his speech before he left the Presidency. Sadly, many of the predictions in that speech have come to pass. Two of the most important, from my perspective, have been the rise of the military industrial complex and the transformation of science into a religion.
I’ve come to realize at this point in my life that if the media, politicians, and celebrities are supporting/promoting something, that usually means you should probably go the support the other direction. The world is not what it seems. Question everything!
Peolple aren’t talking about what happened in the last thousand years as you’ve stated !!!! They’re concerned about what has and is happening since the industrial revolution !!!
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 understood yes of course but it's at the rate at which the levels are rising, specifically CO2. This we can see clearly (from core samples) that has everyone concerned...well at least most of the scientific community anyway or enough people that we can try and make a difference even if it is at the huge / expense / economic cost but I'd rather take that approach than sitting back and two generations from now (or less) tell us what a bunch of lame brains we were from this time period our generation (well some of us) for sitting back and saying "there's no need to fear"..... i think we can all agree mankind has had a huge effect on on the environment, its a debate as to how much it has an effect on the planet, and to what level or you willing to go to economically to cause the least amount of harmful effect, I do not want to leave a planet that's all used up, this is all we have, to big a risk to take.....respectfully
@@hemihead68When CO2 levels reach that of the dinosaur age ( many times higher than today's), then I'll worry. We are, in fact, in a CO2 "drought" compared with past times. The slight increase of the last 3 centuries is letting vegetation recover. The desert areas are greening up again.
@@johnchandler1687 wrong!! last year global temp was off the chart. For the first time in recorded history, the global Biophere Collapsed meaning, that Earth was emitting or preventing the absorption of co2 then absorbing it. Plants cant Respirate when they over heat the Stomata close when the plants get hot.
@@hemihead68 WE must decide what is your concern CO2. or running out of what? CO2 is incapable of causing any climate crisis. Running out of CO2 is more likely and a real problem.
@@DANCEGARAGEPUNK Sea level hasn't changed in 50 years. It's in the same spot it was when I was young. I see no difference in the climate since I was a kid in the 60's. We had freak storms back then too. The galveston hurricane of 1900 was the worst storm to hit the United States. The hurricane of 1780 was the worst atlantic hurricane ever killing 20,000. Have a good day.
@@arnoldfrackenmeyer8157 @arnoldfrackenmeyer8157 There is no climate change if you refuse to believe your own eyes & get your Corporate Funded Misinformation from fox, sky australia, Lindzen, & ` Big Corporate ` cronies Musk, Peterson etc. According to NASA sea levels have risen more than 10cm since 1992 & sea level rise is accelerating !
Same here lmao find it really interesting that now this is resurfacing. Almost like someone's trying to calm us down even though all the evidence is pointing that alarmism is something that's warranted
The guy is working for Chevron. The huxter says that the government drives the science while getting a payoff from The Koch Foundation.@@rileyboyer3582
Oh it definitely is a major concern! But Co2 is not a pollutant! But the manufacture and disposal of wind turbine,Solar panels and EVs is the most polluting they that has ever been on earth?
@@terenceiutzi4003 also the earth is much more greener now as a result of more Co2 , more vegetation , better crops , according to Professor Freeman Dyson
Who is this? Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he would remain until his retirement in 2013. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism".
As a Massachusetts native, Please don’t list his “credentials” as something noteworthy, that doesn’t always assure that individual isn’t tied to a climate denial network. Cough cough Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) was also discovered to be paid off by Peabody Coal Energy. (At the time it was the largest private sector coal company in the world) The recipients of funding were only made public because of Peabodys file for bankruptcy protection in April, 2016. It’s very obvious Lindzen was was a contrarian scientist for Peabody, who abused his own public trust and credibility to deceive individuals on climate change.
1987 they started saying in 8 yrs the wold will be flooder...in 90s they sauid same ...in 2000's and the 20 teens and the 29s now...its been over 40 yrs ...go to the coast ...the properties haven't lost a inch
Don't forget, this is a ten years old video, and meanwhile, measurements have show that Lindzen was wrong. He famously predicted that cloud cover would counteract global warming, but this has been disproven by the meansurements. We are currently in the hottest month ever recorded, the predicted warming impacts are occurring in real time all around us. And yet this is just the beginning.
@@dasGagaTier maybe you are in warmest month but we aren't. Mildest summer and coldest winter here in 40 years. You are conflating "weather" and "climate". You are excited to say Lindzen is wrong (I have not yet verified) but u forgot to mention every single one of the 118 alarmist climate models have failed. All of your scientists are not only wrong but as wrong as u can be!
@@jeffwestbrooke279 This is not about local weather but about the global average. Globally it was the hottest month ever since records began. That doesn't mean that there weren't places with snow and ice. Which "118 climate alarmist climate models" are you referring to? Actually climate science has a stunningly good track record. Take for instance Hansen's 1989 temperature forecast for a scenario with linear C02 growth. That's the scenario that became reality. And the increase in temperature he predicted for today three decades ago is pretty much exactly what we see. If you have examples of failed predictions, bring them on.
I recall when it first began in the late 1960's. Reports of "The whole of the East Coast of Britain will be under 20 feet of water by 1980 due to the Hot House Effect." Obviously no such event took place, the sea hasn't even risen 2mm... and why just the "East Coast"? During the 1970's there was the balancing act "We're headed for a mini Ice Age". Total nonsense. I go with the real science, that recorded by nature itself over thousands of years in sediment, in rock, in etc.
@@kpewliu4348 so this guy is lying, right? When I said the climate is pretty much the same, I can back it up with some evidence. I have lived in my house that I've owned since 1984, the thermostat is set at 68 degrees year round. I can tell you within a few days when the heat will stop kicking on at night, it will be the third week of May. I lve in Michigan and it has been accurate for nearly 40 years. Yes temperatures fluctuate that's natural but remember panic creates control and i believe there's a political motivate behind this.
@@naturalobserver1322 Its called global warming, not warming around your house. For example, this graph shows the warming for the country I live in, since they started proper measurements: www.helmholtz-klima.de/sites/default/files/styles/overlay/public/medien/bilder/13_Bereits%201%2C6%20Grad%20Erw%C3%A4rmung%20%E2%80%93%20deutlich%20mehr%20als%20der%20weltweite%20Durchschnitt_neu_V2.PNG.jpg?itok=ZML-Hg7k Even more interestingly, this graph shows the change for the US: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_United_States#/media/File:1900-_Temperature_change_in_the_United_States_(color-coded_map).png Some regions even got cooler, and this is to no surprise of the climate scientists. But the country as a whole, warmed up a lot, as for example stronger hurricanes and forrest fires showed. "i believe there's a political motivate behind this." I know this one is hard to swallow for some Americans, but there are indeed many other countries on this planet, and despite their varying political systems and agendas, their scientists all come to very similar results.
ummm.....yeah. We're all dying...man....head for the hills...man. Oh and sell me your house, which is likely near the coast, for 50% of its value....yeah, thought not.
The earth has has 7 ice ages. The last one ended 12,000 years ago. We have increased in temperature ever since then. We seem to have a problem of correlation is not causation. Just because the temperature has rised at the same time as industrialization has happened. There’s absolutely no explanation on why it was warmer during the Roman period. England had vineyards just 2,000 years ago yet now doesn’t have the climate to make that possible. Showing a clear change in the temperature that has nothing to do with oil. The reality to me seems that taxing people for global warming and forcing them to completely change the power grid and their gas vehicles for electric vehicles that are 3x as expensive with battery’s that only last 5 years. It’s so obviously a way for them to make absurd amounts of money. The military and corporations are responsible for 90% of emissions in the last 100 years. Yet they’re going to tax normal families. That alone is all you need to know on how much of a scam this is.
@@RE4L72 Thats fine if we are ready to move the population from areas that become to wet or too dry but most people dont want mass migration. 350ppm might be a better fit for what we want but we are already at 423ppm now.
I doubt we will ever actually decrease CO2 & more likely to increase it with the many forms of CO2 creating machines we have, this is not a bad thing and we will probably only ever create enough excess CO2 to be mostly beneficial to life in general, we can tolerate &/or adapt up to 10 x the current CO2 levels & plants would love it. Climate change agenda is BS.
Watching this video 14 years after, and not a word this man said has turned out to be false. Unlike the many climate predictions I come across, which always turn out to be false......
There's really no such thing as a *"climate denier",* nor I would suggest a *"climate expert."* Climates are always changing randomly, daily, yearly,and historically. There are far too many highly complex disciplines and unpredictable parameters that effect climate, to be an expert or predict future levels, (as all the dubious computer models have failed to do). As a scientist myself (organic chemistry and biochemistry), *I deal in empirical data.* As such, I 'd say I'm not an expert but a *climate "realist".* I'm not chasing NGO, NASA, or institutional funding to pursue such career, so I dont create a problem, fudge data or propose a solution. To expect "global average" temperature to *NOT* rise or fall by 1 degree or sea levels by one cm or two over 100years is farcical!! That's assuming we can even measure such parameters accurately or meaningfully. Tide gauges for example, are subject to gravity and land movement etc. Earth's temperature varies between ~ -50C and +60C depending on *season, altitude, longitude, sunspot activity, atmospheric moisture, ocean dipole, undersea volcanoes, ocean dipole, tectonic plate movement, deforestation, urban island effects etc etc.* Moreover, the "average" temperature makes little attempt to consider data error or confidence limits, irregular placement of thermometers and accuracy of past empirical data. What really annoys me is when I see a graph with the Y axis showing a range of 1 to 2 degrees. Any small variation will appear to the novice, as an alarming vertical rise when it would be a virtual straight line if the full range of temperatures being measured are expressed.
You don't know what you're talking about but decided to write three paragraphs about your lack of knowledge. You claim to be a scientist (BS, MS, PhD) but give no indication of your credentials beyond that statement. Even if you have a PhD in both organic chemistry and biochemistry (doubtful), you have zero credentials with respect to climate science, just as Lizden has none. You are simply parroting climate change denial rhetoric, as he is, and credential mongering.
I wouldn't ask a climate scientist to fly a plane, I wouldn't ask a pilot to cook drugs, and I wouldn't ask a chemist to model the climate. And if I ask a hundred chemists how to make LSD and 99 of them agree on a recipe while 1 tells me that you can find naturally occurring LSD in lead ore, which you should put on your tongue to trip balls, I'm going with the 99 scientists.
@@AshikurRahmanRifat more people living in flood and hurricane zones precipitates the media reporting it despite the dramatic decrease in deaths from disasters due to housing codes. I’ve watched media blame forest fires on global warming countless times when it was later found out to be arson or arguably progressive forestry policies
The NASA historical climate graph based upon archeological evidence over the past 5 million years shows radical oscillations in Earth's temperature. He's one of the few scientists who dare to question the doctrines like Galileo questioned the Church. Notice he's not denying global warming. He's merely asking scientifically valid questions.
Yet unlike Galileo, he has been proven wrong. His prediction was that increased cloud cover would have a cooling effect, yet since the video was published, almost a decade ago, his prediction has been falsified. The temperature curve he predicted was way lower than what we actually see. Because water vapour is also a potent greenhouse gas.
@@dasGagaTier So what if water vapor is a fuckn made up bullshit green house gas the es rths vlimate is changeing all the time natually theres ancient citys down in the bottom of the ocean it used to be dry land once apon a time and ancent like creatures fossile bones found in deserts
dad, clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is a gas. Clouds are not gas. Things that are not gas are not greenhouse gas. Predicting cloud cover is not a well developed science. Neither is predicting climate change. That's kind of the point...
Gy Bx even though he is not alt right saying climate change is fake he is denying the 99.9% of peer reviewed articles that say climate change is real and man made so he is still denying climate change, but in denial of denying climate change
@Adam Defibaugh I know that that i worked in irrigation farming for 56 years im now retired its just all the bulldhit these other idiots are going on with about human caused climate change if you said to them its white thed say its black the dum cunts it was hotter and more carbon in the atmosphere back in 1931 on wards to 1960 than there is now and tge earth has cooled
@@unitgamex2972 hm? How can we not control anthropogenic climate change? You can reference the ice age all you want.but do you not realize the global average temperature is changing faster than it ever has in all of earth's history? It's not all about just hot or cold, it's about wind patterns, plate tectonics. Temperature does play a huge part but ignoring the insane amount of CO2 emissions is ignorant. Also citing the little amount of CO2 in our atmosphere also doesn't work. Because even though it is less than 1% of our atmosphere, it should be 100 times less than it is now. We absolutely have the power to control the climate. We are going into the 6th mass extinction and you people are the reason no one will do anything about it. I'm starting to rethink if freedom of speech was a good idea
In my opinion, the Earth is self correcting. If the carbon increases in the atmosphere, then more trees will sprout around the globe to absorb it. The trees give off oxygen that we need to breath. The ground and oceans also assist in sequestering the CO2. Nature takes care of itself here on Earth. It was planned that way.
@@redgrengrumbholdt2671 what I have witnessed in my days on this earth is the forests have gotten thicker, healthier, taller. These healthier forests have propagated other sprigs by pollennation which in turn forms " dust clouds " of tree pollen. There are more trees in my part of the US than I've ever seen before. I figure this is from the increase in CO2 and increased rain we enjoy.
@@redgrengrumbholdt2671 it's almost as if trees had a way of planting their own seeds hundreds of millions of years before the appearance of mankind....
@@redgrengrumbholdt2671 You see when mommy and daddy love each other very much... My friend trees are living organisms, they reproduce sexually, when there's more food they breed and survive more effectively. When there's more plant life there's more food for herbivorous predators when there's more herbivorous predators there's more food for carnivorous predators which in turn produce more food for plants as well as prevent over predation from the herbivores. Life begets life and death as it's fruit. "We're cutting more trees then new ones are planted" That's one of these lovely statistics that can be true and mean nothing at all, given that the primary means of tree growth is organic and not via plantation and cutting down trees creates prime habitat for more trees. On top of the fact that if I have 3 tree plantations I cycle between for industrial/economic purposes, the trees I plant are not really 'new ones' statistically but replacements for my own culling and while that math is perfectly balanced the very fact that I'm harvesting the plantation means that more trees are being cut down than 'new ones' being planted. Not to mention anyone with forested acreage has that property select cut every few decades, giving the tree population time to mature itself between cuts and a portion of mature trees are left uncut just in case there's a fire and the young trees don't make it. But these new trees aren't planted, they're left to grow organically.
He ignores the facts. We had about 2 billion people in the world in 1920. We now have almost 8 billion. How many cars were on the roads in 1920 versus today? You Tube is great for music but other sources need to be questioned. Throw in the fact that this video is from 2011 and it is way outdated.
@@northernlight4614 yeah, you’re right. I still can’t believe Manhattan is completely underwater. All those glaciers are just gone. Antarctica is now a desert. It’s been crazy. I’ve already died from the mini ice age in the 70s. I died again from the acid rain of the 80s. Then I died again from the hole in the ozone layer in the 90s. I died yet again from global warming of the 2000s. I’m going to continue to die from “climate change” because the climate will always change. When will these scientists tell me I can live? The answer is never. Why would they? It’s a trillion dollar industry. Imagine what would happen if they said “we’re gonna be fine”? No one would pay them. As long as they keep scaring us into thinking we’re all doomed they will keep getting paid big money. Fear sells. Fear also gets us to turn on one another. Like everyone who believes global warming is going to kill us all and we only have 12 years left...those people would do anything to feel like they’re saving the planet for future generations. Even kill off half the world’s population. But go on...turn on your fellow man simply because you believe some BS that is making a lot of people very rich. Sounds like a good idea.
@@northernlight4614 its not outdated everything he’s saying still stands today. Solutions involving trillions of dollars will be proposed and the money will go to the politicians...
My personal opinion TR is the science left when men no longer agreed the formula for the acceleration rate of gravity was thirty two feet per second squared. Ten seconds is still ten seconds on planet earth and National Geographic was correct in saying both towers fell in 10 seconds. It just seems no one cares to hear it, or what it implies. Fear is a powerful tool.
@@jacksgirl23 Lindzen is a paid consultant of the CATO institute which was started by the Koch brothers.... Im all about real science. To pretend that the CATO institute is an unbiased source is laughable... The Koch brothers have made billions in the oil industry
The UA-cam algorithm doesn't give a fig about the science one way or another. It's tuned to keep people clicking on videos. It turns out that generating outrage is the best way keep people interested.
This was 11 years ago. How he feels _now_ is what matters. Since 2011, when this interview was done, almost everything the environmentalists warned about has happened. Let's see an update.
Nothing has changed. They keep moving the goal posts to fit their conclusions. Antithesis of true science. All true scientists should be trying to prove climate change is false, if they can’t than it could be a story. Working to prove something is true is not how science was practiced for many many years.
What we’re talking about is warming, which is in fact happening, and it leads to higher record temperatures almost every year in hot parts of the world.
Yeah, they are all employees. So what? So accepting money for work renders everything anyone says suspect? Is it remotely possible that scientists are going to where the evidence leads?... like all proper science is done.
@THE BassBus, Except, Richard Lindzen has been thoroughly rebuked by his MIT Colleagues, pointing out his contrarian views do not represent MIT nor his own department. Somewhat ironically from the Real Boston Globe! www3.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/08/mit-professors-denounce-their-colleague-letter-trump-for-denying-evidence-climate-change/86K8ur31YIUbMO4SAI7U2N/story.html?arc404=true
totally agree with this guy ..10000 years ago where I live was under an ice sheet hundreds of mts thick....2000 years ago it was warm and an major agrarian culture, had a minor ice age 1600s ..now with the advent of global warming its sub zero at night in May, coldest may bank holiday on record, its called weather deal with it.. Our ancestors managed it.. now to the problem/issue.. we are a fixed in 1 place now...I don't want my house under 10 mts sea water or under an ice sheet, it will happen, what will happen.. As some body said stop using plastic pick it up if you can .. comment if you can guess where I live ..
Just about to write england then I saw you'd spoiled the game two years ago. I live in paignton and if the sea level rises we're all buying wellies cos we're clever.
"Oh boy, one person out of the hundreds od thoysands in applicable fields agrees with what I want to believe. That proves I'm right!" Your opinion has nothing to do with reason. You aren't fooling anybody.
@@Xavier_Coogat_the_Mambo_King I´ll give you reason. For billions of years the planet has been exposed to solar flares, radioactive and ionized radiation, meteor showers, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, ice ages and even polar upheavals. Guess what: Earth has survived it all. The assumption that Planet Earth has a climate crisis or that the planet would even give a damn about you as a person or the human species as a whole is both ridiculous and hilarious at the same time. You and your species may suffer from an exaggerated, narcissist sense of self-importance but I can assure you: You are totally insignificant.
There's also the question of volcanoes and their effect on climate. The Krakatoa eruption in 1883 was said to have had a cooling effect that lasted nearly a hundred years, and as recent as 1991 the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines has been said to have negated all the efforts of man in trying to reduce emissions.
There is little question of volcanoes and their effect on climate. It's been measured. We've measured the gases in the lava streaming from volcanoes. We've measured the gases in the atmosphere above and around active volcanoes. We know how much and what kind of gases come from volcanoes. If volcanoes were the cause of our global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels going from 300ppm in 1911 to 350ppm in 1988 to 400ppm in 2015 we would know it. Instead, we know it is not the reason. We know it is us. Humans mining billions of tons of carbon based fossil fuel and burning it every year. The cooling effect of Krakatoa was, as you stated, temporary. The warming effect of burning fossil fuels, as we have been (and deforestation), will make drastic changes over decades with lasting effects for many thousands of years. Taking billions of tons of a carbon out of the long term underground (millions of years) storage and putting it in our atmosphere and oceans where it will take millions of years to naturally return to below ground long term storage has consequences. You can see this in increasing glacial melt, drought, flooding and forest die off data every year. Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines did not negated all the efforts of man in trying to reduce emissions (carbon dioxide). If you look at the measured levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere 1991 is just one step in the ladder. Below is 20 years of data from the Mauna Loa Observatory with 1991 roughly in the center, 1981 340.12 0.12 1982 341.48 0.12 1983 343.15 0.12 1984 344.85 0.12 1985 346.35 0.12 1986 347.61 0.12 1987 349.31 0.12 1988 351.69 0.12 1989 353.20 0.12 1990 354.45 0.12 1991 355.70 0.12 1992 356.54 0.12 1993 357.21 0.12 1994 358.96 0.12 1995 360.97 0.12 1996 362.74 0.12 1997 363.88 0.12 1998 366.84 0.12 1999 368.54 0.12 2000 369.71 0.12 2001 371.32 0.12 No big jump on or shortly after 1991. Instead there is a steady increase that closely follows our increasing use of fossil fuels. Learn the facts. gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/data.html Believe what the man in the video says at your own peril. Since the invention of human agriculture, for all of human written history, since before any known structure built by humans the average global carbon dioxide levels have been between 180ppm and 280ppm. Are you, your children and all life on Earth ready for what 450ppm (and beyond) carbon dioxide will bring?
Info on Mt. Pinutubo from: Ian Rutherford Plimer, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.
130 scientific papers published, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Sounds pretty learned/credible, don't you think? These are his extensive credentials: Born: 12 Feb. 1946 Fields: Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering Institutions: University of New England University of Newcastle University of Melbourne University of Adelaide Notable Awards: Eureka Prize 1995, 2002 Centenary Medal 2003 Clarke Medal 2004
Ian Rutherford Plimer? He may be learned but he is not credible. At least not when it comes to climate change and burning fossil fuels. From what I can tell Ian Rutherford Plimer is in the same camp as the guy in the video. That people listen to them and believe them is scary. They are both wrong. Show me the numbers please. How many tons of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere by the 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption?Provide a link to your source(s). And while you're at it think about it... just a little. If one volcanic eruption puts that much carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere how did the global atmospheric average not go over 280ppm for the last 2 million of years during which time many many volcanoes erupted? It's us spiking the carbon dioxide levels in this planet's atmosphere, not the volcanoes. Certainly not over the last 150 years. It's us. If you're looking for better information call the science department of three or more universities near you. Ask them if burning fossil fuels is the biggest reason for carbon dioxide levels rising in our atmosphere. Ask them if it's causing climate change. Ask them if it will make the world more difficult to live in. Ask them. It's very unlikely you'll talk to someone like Ian. He's an idiot on climate change and there aren't very many idiots like him around. Here's a website that has good information with links to credible research. They even point out Ian is pushing lies about climate change. skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50 good luck. your children are depending on you being smarter.
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he would remain until his retirement in 2013. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism".
People like this are responsible for 40yrs of inaction. If you calculate the deaths from heat, starvation and war. What would be an appropriate punishment for him? The gallows? Seems to light? Perhaps breaking on the wheel? That still wouldn't equal the suffering cause by this guy and his kind for delaying action.
It's getting harder for clowns like Lindzen to deny it, just yesterday in Spain they are getting temperatures 15 degrees Celsius warmer than what they usually get. Still no doubt the oil companies are still paying him, like they used to be, scientists for hire.
Surprised this hasn't been removed
UA-cam isn't that fascist. Yet.
Its from an MSM outlet that is why
@@conversandoando Yes it is. They must have just missed this one.
@@miked5106 You may have misinterpreted OP's comment.
Lol
Absolutely on point. It’s called weather
“When you hear a scientist saying the science is settled, you know that person has stepped out of the science”
there is such a thing as consensus and we definitely have that with climate change
@@VirtueMastery And that means you don't understand. Scientific consensus means more or less this: "currently, to the best of our current researches, measurements, and so on, that's a X% probability that the things are like this" (to keep it simple, I don't put into the formula politics and economy and lobbying and corporate interests funding certain researches worldwide, because it'd be hard to make a general picture in a comment; anyway, they are there to make the "consensus" very much less certain and granted.) This is light-years far away from saying "the science is settled". If you say this, you are stepping out of the science. And if you don't realize that because "well, but there's a consensus!" is the same to you, then you damage scientific research and advancement, and I suggest you the reading of books on the history of science, scientific errors in modern age, and of course epistemology essays.
@@konverzaktion2393 thanks for your recommendations. I have studied philosophy of science and the history of science. What is understood and where there is no contraversy among experts is that CO2 is causing an increase in global tempurature and the current increase in tempurature is largely anthropogenic. What the future will look like, impacts, how various systems of climate work... all of this is being refined and is full of uncertainty.
@@VirtueMastery Perfect. Then, controversy or not apart, I really don't understand what your point on the citation was. But I suppose it doesn't matter as long as we agree on the key points, right?
@@konverzaktion2393 perhaps I was assuming you were coming from a relativistic or overly skeptical perspective. I hear many people say that nothing is settled in science therefore we don't have to take climate change seriously as an issue.
We only live between ice Ages!
I was hired by the University of Maine, while a student, to test New England lakes for acidity levels. When I read the study I saw how they skewed the test to obtain the results that could only say acid rain in a problem. I challenged the presiding professor. Sure enough He admitted that they needed to prove that acid rain is problematic only because they were up for a ten million dollar grant. They confirmed, based upon my sample collections, they were going to submit fraudulent test results to the EPA purely to gain funding. When I refused to sign off on their skewered test results, I was promptly fired. How many other false narratives have Universities created solely to pocket from the government?
this should be made into a documentary or least broadcast on the news... even better, go talk to Rogan for 3 hours.
Yeah but...trust the science right?
How many? More than likely every university multiple times since the beginning of time. 👌👌👌🤟
That's fucked, wow...
Well, you need to make that public, otherwise they will keep on doing what they're doing unchallenged.
I wonder if this man has held his ground over the past 12 years.
Yes he has
Why wouldn't he?
When a scientist "holds his ground" he is not a scientist. His arguments have been proven to be wrong, climate change is real and human made.
@@CodingWithUnity it's 12 years, and as you know, the last 2 counted as 10, so it is actually 22.
These days, he wouldn't get 15 seconds into his talk without some purple-haired fruitcake having a meltdown.
UA-cam will probably deem this video “Hate Speech”.
No. Just lies You obviously aren't aware that MIT has told him he is wrong.
@@boffeycn when and where please?
@@thewhisper417 Why is it that dejiers of the reality of AGW & ACC seem incapable of doing things for themselves and just unquestioningly follow the denier dogma?
If so they've certainly taken their sweet time getting rid of a 9 year old video.
Obama just spent $15 million for a beach house.
Dogma Science totally ignores geology, earth history, and longterm meteorologic FACTS!!!😢
Here are the Takeaways:
1. "The temperature of the earth is always changing. It's always going up or down." Which is why they had to change the Boogeyman from "The Coming Ice Age!" and "Global Warming!" to "Climate Change!" And yes, the exclamation points are part of the logos.
2. "By asking people to worry about whether it's going up or down you are immediately establishing dishonesty."
3. "The climate is always changing. It's nothing you have to prove. It always is happening. It's always has happened." Climate change is nothing new or unique or even alarming.
4. "So to make that [climate change] into something alarming seems a little bit weird."
5. "The trouble is, all of us scientists are government employees. Even if we're working for private universities. All research is supported by the government. As such, we are very sensitive to what politicians say and believe."
6. "You know when you hear a scientist say, "The science is settled," you know that person has stepped out of the science."
7. "How could do many people agree if it wasn't true," I think should be a red flag."
8. When it's conflated, "Temperature is changing. Climate is changing. Man played some role... With predictions of disaster that are clearly not connected to warming activities or anything else, leaving people with the thought that off the first part is true the second part must be true, is certainly not the case."
9. "Then to add insult to injury, to propose policies that would have nothing to do with any of it, but involve trillions of dollars in harm to many people, I think, is crossing over the line."
Thank you for this.
And all in the name of profit.
To say "the temperature of the earth is always changing" says nothing about the certain reality of rapid global warming and is nothing more than an obtuse dodge.
#6
@@michaelmckinney7240
Wrong. Global temperatures were dropping in the 60s and 70s (An Ice Age is Coming! We're all going to die! I actually LEARNED THIS lie in 6th grade science!). Then there was slight increase for a few years (The Planet is Overheating! We're all going to die!). Then there was a long pause of about 20 years (well passed the 2006. The DEADline Al Gore have for when the planet would be irretrievably in its death spiral). Now they've settled on telling us that the climate changing AT ALL its going to kill us all!
Ten years later, the National Review wrote an article celebrating our survival!
www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again/
Here it is, sixteen years after our prophesied demise and YOU'RE STILL HERE!
That's the only song enviromaniacs know how to play. Everything is about to end all life on this planet. SOON!
Forty-two times in the past 60 years, environmentalists have predicted world-decimating disasters and NONE OF THEM have come to pass! Not ONE had happened. You all are 0-42!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. But no way are you going to lie to me 42 times and get away with it.
I very much appreciate Richard Lizden's straightforward honesty. Especially when he said, "All of us scientists are government employees. even if we are working for private universities".
and mention of his funds from Peabody Energy was probably included in this interview but edited out
@The Wandering M you’re invalidating their entire professional existence and more strikingly their very integrity as human beings. And rightly so...
@The Wandering M Same. The wife of a friend of mine is a Professor in Climate Politics. Getting paid very handsomely, far better than any other academics at the same University. I would like to know where the money is ultimately coming from.
@The Wandering M People get upset when you catch them in a lie
@@Viator19 China and Russia are two primary sources of climate malarky; it serves to offset the US's great advantage in energy resources/production.
When I was a teenager (in the early 70's) everyone was convinced there was going to be another ice age.
Totally wrong. Head up butt.
Good point. We are actually headed back into an Ice Age. the last one covered New York in 2 MILES THICK ICE. Should be here in the next 1000 years or so. How will we adapt to that?
@@MichaelFurniss Are you saying the projections, in the 1970s, were wrong?
The late 1970s had those headlines.
Who had their head up a butt Michael Furniss?
Leonard Nimoy said it, so why hasn't come true?
Dave Turner: In the early seventies, cars still had carburetors and came with 8-track tape players. Research has moved on.
When I was a kid, climate change was called summer autumn winter and spring.
And you are no longer a kid, and weather pattern is not climate
Here's a neat little factoid. Vikings settled in North America (Nova Scotia) during the Medieval Warming Period roughly 950-1260; about 500 years before Columbus "discovered" the New World. It was during this period of "global warming" that the northern oceans became ice free for the first time in centuries. This period of "warming" allowed the Vikings to colonize and grow crops in previously frozen areas of Greenland and Nova Scotia. During that period, the North West Passage, the northern most route to the Pacific, was also ice free; and it is believed by many historians and researchers that the Vikings actually passed from the Atlantic to the Pacific in their "Long Ships" and explored the West Coast as far south as California. Ah...those were the days when men were men!
After the passing of about 360 years, the cold temps, ice and snow returned and the tough Norsemen were forced to abandon their colonies as crops could no longer be grown or cattle grazed.
You know, it's all about the "Big Picture" - not about dissecting some micro-spec on a timeline miles long. This is about the Green-Progressives moving to control every aspect of our lives ,and society, by weaponizing the Warmest meme.
Cant agree with you about "many" historians. DEFINITELY agree with you about a time in history when it wasnt against the "law" to be masculine. The language of your posts last sentence was BRILLIANT.
It isn't "Green Progressives" doing what you say. Rather, thousands of reputable scientists have been studying this for a long time, and their collective assessment is that man-made climate change is real.
Your comment about Green-Progressives moving to control every aspect of our lives makes me think you are into conspiracy theories.
andyiswonderful Ok then,...so the government isn't messing with the weather patterns?...ever ? Whew!😰...that's totally some good news!
andyiswonderful he's not the only one, go back through history, scare mongering by govts has been around for sooo long!!
andyiswonderful PS Many, many real scientists, whi aren't govt funded to produce the 'right' results for them, would disagree that any global weather change is man made!!!!
A media outlet allowing for the revelation of truths. How novel .
"how dare you" ... Gretta voice
😆😆😆
Lolololol😂
In 2018 she said we have 5 years left. She had to take down post this year
Forget her. She found a boyfriend.
"everything is fine and OK"
This phrase will not make new headline
He won't make headlines because reality has debunked him.
Bogota is rationing water, Hawaii is in a water crisis, permafrost is melting, Kazakhstan is flooding, the East Coast is being pounded by storm after storm - and the hurricane season is just starting.
Pay attention to the news, not to one scientist who said something you agree with *10 years ago.* When the 99% of climatologists agree in something, that's not called propaganda, but scientific consensus, and you pay attention to it.
This line is bullshit.
do you deny climate change? i can promise you that climate change already has devastating consequences all over the world...hughe wildfires in south america and canada, floods in central europe, drough in south europe and asia, increasing hurricanes in countries near the ocean, famine in african states, etc
@@davidkleinhans6714 i dont accept your empty promise.
climate always change, but not from human
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Do you deny basic physics?
"It's a bad idea to have anything that can't be challenged." Beautifully said, sir.
This is my whole problem with the anthropogenic climate change people. Environmental Authoritarianism is every bit as evil as its political cousin!
Perfectly said. tyvm
This is the very essence of the climate change religion. You must believe! Yet how many ex politicians have huge houses right on the ocean?
@@search4truth104 Truth!
Spoken like a true flat-Earther.
@@grahamyates2490 Being an "Oblate spheroid," Earth is anything but flat.
Unfortunately, the "science" backing up climate change is almost non-existent! It's mostly computer projection modeling. There's certainly not nearly enough "real science" to predict ANY outcome, since we've only been keeping climate records for around 150 years---a mere blip in geological time.
So, please save the whining and crying about how it's "Settled Science!"
My wife and I can't decide on the optimal temp on our home thermostat. I don't hold much hope for the whole of humanity being in agreement.
The battles that causes in our household 🙄
Told my wife, you can answer the door in a sweater or I can answer it in my boxers. 😂
@@ricksmith1673 just a joke mate.
When the American bread basket migrates north to Canada, coastal towns are flooding, and we're dealing with mass climate migration... Maybe you and your wife will have figured it out
@@Thaco69 we'll have a billion years to sort it out then. I'm from Scotland by the way. I welcome climate change.
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned." - Richard Feynman.
You can question climate change if you provide sound arguments.
@@AdrienBurg
CO2/plant food is only a problem in corrupt, fraudulent computer models.
Well, here is an answer that cannot be questioned… the whole climate scam is a lie.. pollution in the air actually helps to make it rain.. that’s why Europe and US are now suffering from droughts…
The only time it rains in these countries is when the atmosphere is filled with volcanic ash or sand particles from the Sahara… other wise the air is too clean for moisture to form into raindrops..😏
" There are plenty of reasons for failure, but no excuses" R E Leahey. Circa 1979
@@Kgio-2112
Are you saying we shouldn't fail when it comes to the CO2/plant food scare?
The CO2/plant food scare is about income redistribution/socialism, nothing more. Former IPCC chair Ottmar Edenhofer said as much.
'I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.' Richard Feynman
And then there’s “gravity”
"I'd rather my words were not taken out of context by some rando in the future." - Every Famous Guy Ever
@@richsackett3423 Ahh, so you disagree.
No dissent. No questions. No peer reviews.
Just shut the front door and take your medicine right?
Well, Feynman knew WTF he was talking about, unlike the climate change denier dummies.
@@mikeFolco
Feynman was humble enough to understand that neither he nor we have all the answers and never will.
It shows he also understood the big danger lies in not being able to question what are claimed to be absolute unassailable truths.
Not least because of the motivations that may lie behind them....
Can't believe that the Boston Globe actually aired this. Not everyone has been bought out.
Mad respect to Boston Globe
Me too!
And I can't believe how you not think critically about what you hear ... like at all. Because what this man says has been discussed so often. This is not a proof for anything except for how ignorant people search for videos which confirms their ignorant position (confirmation bias). This is a bubble of ignorance here which any neutral person can see within a second
@@bigbaldin But you are doing the exact same thing but from the other side… hypocrisy at its best! 😂
@@Climatetruth no. There is a big difference between searching for a certain outcome and searching for any outcome, with a neutral position. I'm doing the latter. But I'd love to hear your explanation on how that's not the case
Aaron Rodgers: ‘If science can’t be questioned, it’s propaganda’. True that.
Science has determined that the earth is round. Propaganda?
If you question an established science, you should have facts and numbers more solid than your opponents. It's not the case here.
@@munyansebastien7127 Says who? An "expert"?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 What a profound argument. Comparing a round Earth to the religion to control people calle "climate change". Drink some more Koolaid. It's good for you.
gonna bring this one up next time anyone tells me to stop telling chldren that theres never any risks from jumping off cliffs and its actually extremely safe a nd fun, the water will protect them no matter how shallow or far down
I'm going to be very upset if at least 20% of the USA isn't underwater in 12 years. Especially San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland.
Miami will be first. Boston next. Louisiana is already pretty fkd.
Don't forget New York and California I'd love to see those fukers underwater
Communism is worlds apart from democratic socialism, dickhead.
@@biggav7434 No it isn't fuckstick. You are all a bunch of thieves that think it's OK to steal from your fellow citizens to get your "free stuff."
@John Everlast I'm happy that many of them stay where they are rather than moving to sane states. But unfortunately, many of your ilk do move and they bring their communist ideology with them. Leftists like you are a blight on humanity.
I'm concerned about global cooling
“We’re very sensitive to what politicians SAY & BELIEVE “, that’s a “shortcoming”……UNDERSTATEMENT
People live and die by the lies of absolute fools looking for money and power which is why they are politicians. They don’t care about us
Thats lunacy and comes from somebody who very clearly is spending far more time hanging around politicians than scientists. Thats so crazy its amazing he said it. Politicians come and go all the time. If you are talkiing about FUNDING thats something different,but elected politicians are almost never on funding boards.
True that!
Yeah. So 1700 Scientists around the globe say otherwise? This is just one opinion. Glad you found one you agree with.
Here is an update of what the science has actually said. ua-cam.com/video/52KLGqDSAjo/v-deo.html
Time has a way of letting truth become more obvious.
Love that people with almost any opinion can agree with this one 😁
www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU
Jack Gray I was first told about climate change by one of my primary school teachers in the 60’s, he MUST have been a part of the early Ecology Movement to be that aware back then. He said scientists didn’t know if the pollution would trap the heat and cause a greenhouse effect, or the opposite and stop the Suns heat from passing into our atmosphere, thereby causing an Ice Age instead. Back then in the 60’s it wasn’t obvious which way it would go, as we was still getting regular heavy Snowfalls in winter in London. But since the 80’s it has become obvious that CO2 and other ghg gasses are trapping the heat and have caused a warming effect.
So yeah, let's find out if the world burns by letting the world burn. So the few remaining survivors can stand over the ashes and say "ha, the burning Earthers were right!".
Why the terrible fear of doing something? We have to change eventually since fossil fuels are a finite resource. The reason is just different. Instead of waiting until the last coal is dug out and the last drop of petroleum is sucked out we'll change because of the risk of climate change.
Lenard Segnitz Actually I don’t think they will run out of Oil before the whole earth is polluted, as more Oil is being found all the time, the idea that we have to change before it runs out is ludicrous. We are already on a mass extinction path and they still have decades of known Oil ‘reserves’.
Just one example---The GREAT Climate Guru, Al Gore, claimed in 2008, that the Ice cap of the North Pole, would have entirely melted by 2013.
The was no noticeable change at all by that date, the opposite in fact. But AL made millions from his Book sales, and won prizes too.
They have not even come close to what they say that will happen in 10 years, even 20 years. That’s what happens when you are selective in what facts you choose and then add your own opinion as fact.
That's what I was trying to remember...
And here in Australia we have Tim Flannery who said that rainfall would be so little that the capital cities would run out of water.
See how that worked out.
But he still has his faithful followers.
I'm pretty sure some Democrats were saying roughly around the 2016 election that we had 7 years left. So, get your affairs in order, we have one more year.
@@DavianSinner oh noes! lmao
I'd be worried if there was not continuous variation.
That's about the most sensible 5 minutes of video I've ever seen. Thank you!
@Zarion 11 You know you have been lied to. Yes, even about what is sane and rational, and what is insane and irrational.
Ignorance is bliss?
@@Nhoj737 You tell me...
@@rixpix2957 “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.
If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition.
So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html
@@Nhoj737 While I appreciate all of that info, I would never make such a comment without having researched the very sources you've indicated here.
I will gladly checkout the link you kindly left in your comment and let you know what I think of you'd like.
However, I'll just make this one point before doing so:
Each organization you listed here from top to bottom are all funded, staffed and are obliged to file results, which fit particular narratives(political and otherwise) of the financiers that sponsor them. That goes for government agencies as well.
Al Gore lives in a Ocean side Mansion, he is not a true believer........Let us Pray!
Gore's wife got the beachfront property after she caught him cheating on her and divorced him. Gore is such a drut and full of horse manure.
You can't blame Gore, if he lived inland, too many neighbors would complain about the sulfur stench!
@John Franklin Gore made million$ selling his phony carbon offsets, many of those payments made to his own companiies. He flew his nearly-empty private jet to a climate conference in Switzerland! He should be in prision for theft and fraud.
@John Franklin Exactly right!!
His property is 150 feet above sea level.
To give you an idea of how insane some of these people are, back in 2008 they predicted NYC would be underwater by 2015
Back in the 80's they said the Westside highway would be underwater by 2008. I guess that makes my car a submarine.
And Fiji would not exist. It must have been a ghost country we visited last summer
Link?
@@jordanwolff5243 Here you go...
www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june
So New York was not underwater by now-Houston was. Hey genius, why are these Gulf storms getting more numerous and stronger every year? Can't be that the oceans are getting warmer and holding more energy-hell no.
this is how you do it. a lot of people go back 30-40 years, but this man goes back to ice-ages
Yes, let's blindly trust what the person sponsored by oil companies is telling us about climate change. Big thumbs up for being unbiased and all.
worry is interest paid on trouble that has not occurred ;-)
Right, and you pay it with loss of energy.
on a debt you may not owe ;)
@@jacksnyder5526 you are absolutely right.
p mor, Many (60+) years ago my grandmother taught me a very wise lesson. She said that "Worry is Interest on a Loan that you don't Owe" and I have lived that axiom since. Stress Kills, Worry Creates Stress, simple.
Paying interest on borrowed trouble.
It’s shocking that this video has been allowed to be on the internet for 11 years, and hasn’t been censored by the left.
Not a single contrarian climate scientist has ever been censored, cancelled or fired. If you think they have, cite them by name. This is all poppycock manufactured by the fossil fuel industry's marketing department.
Lol exactly! Miss the time when climate change was called 'weather' for God's sake
@@muskmadness1 Climate change is not just a new term for the weather.
The fact that where I am, yesterday was cloudy and windy and today is sunny and much less windy is weather.
The fact that the summers of 2018, 2019, 2020 and especially 2022 and 2023 (that's 5 summers out of the last 6) have been abnormally dry in most of Europe is a sign of climate change.
What happened in 2021? Did it temporarily change back.?
@@karenaubert8852 No, it didn't temporarily change back.
As I'm sure you know, weather conditions have always varied from year to year, generally within a certain range, and with some exceptional years, like summer 1976 was abnormally hot and dry, and one year, I think 1973, London had snow in June. But when what used to be exceptional becomes the new normal, then surely we can agree that the climate is changing.
Who cares if it is true or false let's clean up the planet.
Ikr. By the time all the ice melts, we will be living on other planets
Who cares? We should without truth its all false nothing matters but the truth. Nu think is silly.
@@ausbare140 just remember tackling the problem incorrectly leads to unintended consequences infrastructure before ideological platitudes or you only increase poverty and take science and problem solving back generations
Views of this video have gone way up in the last 6 months or so. Good to see..!!
People are finally waking up to the fact that the government has been lying about all of these things. Nice to see it's spreading.
Consensus does not always equate to truth.
A good example of faulty consensus---Billions of people believe that God created the Universe in seven days. I rest my case!
In the Bible's Old Testament the prophet Jeremiah told the King that his alliance with Egypt against Babylon was the wrong move. All the other religious people and advisors agreed with the king and they had Jeremiah imprisoned in an old well shaft. The result: Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and killed all the king's sons in front of him and then burned his eyes out and took him to Babylon in chains. So, all you sycophantic scientists just keep on agreeing with the politicians. What could possibly go wrong? 😊😅😂😢
Often it does tho, also.
The truth is dead🥲
It rarely does...at least in the modern era.
when you get to a certain depth , the water temp. has not changed in thousands of years.
water raises with many things like he says...including expansion of heating the top layer , goes up and down with time....global change is normal...
It is wise to ask what model of ethical , economic, ecological and emotional intelligence you are using in response to the U.S. gov 13 agency warning. Can you tell me what school you went to . You should warn others they did not properly educate you in critical thinking. Then again that is the way gov control their population by not educating them. Adding giga tonnes of CO2 is not normal Didn't any one tell you that
SORRY TO USE TRUTH ..lol
PS...i live by the sea..has not risen in 70 years that i have been here..dumb ass....hahaha www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html
thanks for the thumbs up
@@Gordonz1 1. CO2 is plant food. 2. CO2 does not cause the world to magically heat up. In fact it does the exact opposite. 3. The world has actually been gradually cooling down, we are on the cusp of another Ice Age.
Is that why the Corral Reefs are dying and there is no more salmon runs in the north pacific. Dont believe me. Ask people who go up there to fish.
"When you hear a scientist saying 'the science is settled', you know that person has stepped out of the science."
Alternatively, the experts who are in agreement that it IS real have a good reason to say so. We don't assume they're wrong just because we wish it were the case, we follow evidence and draw observations from that evidence. If we operated under your method humanity would still assume that miasmas caused disease and illness.
ua-cam.com/video/paf2pJtaXYE/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/c1dnlHPzhQA/v-deo.html
You'd apply this to the Law of Gravity?
@@92belisarius Thank you for the question mark at least. No, of course not. The specific, incredibly complex science in question is CLIMATE science. That's what he's referring to with "THE science". We know a lot, but not near everything. Tens of thousands of variables, many of which we don't perfectly understand, many of which we can't possibly predict (such as solar activity), and a countless number of which are unknown ("countless" by definition).
If your disingenuous question is the best response you've got, well, I don't know what to tell you. You obviously have no sense of the complexity and chaos of reality. "We know A, therefore B, therefore C"... and all the way through to Z. That's what you guys do, with no intuitive sense of how much complexity and unpredictability is added with each "therefore". Absolutely no sense of how totally in over your heads you are at C, let alone Z... It's ridiculous. But I'm a realist, and I know this won't get through to you. I know the only thing that will convince you people of the folly of your doomsday alarmism is time. So I'm willing to wait. That's all I can do. Sit back and wait, while rolling my eyes. (But please, don't let me poop your panic party. Proceed...)
@@laseronion The people you are responding arent worth what you wrote. They are imbeciles and can not step out of the box to view different variables that disprove or meet half way with global warming.
@@DonkeyLipsDA3rd I assume they're pretty young, and that their over-simple way of viewing reality is something they have a good chance of growing out of. I remember buying into the scientifically "guaranteed" doomsday predictions of my youth. Time taught me, time will teach them (unless they get into careers that benefit from pushing the scariest narrative, i.e. politics, media, academia, etc; when money is at stake, it's tough to be objective).
This person should be interviewed again and review his statements.
He is actually know to be funded by a group as an adviser
Getting 120 k a year ……… for probably 3 phone calls a year
By what group? Petrolium conglomerates.
@@07Flash11MRC i think this one is the Heartland institute
Who are funded by oil conglomerates currently
@@07Flash11MRCAre you a climate looney?
12 years later.... still here.
Temperature has risen in these 10 years but 10 years is tiny. If our activity causes most manmal life on the planet to end in 1500 years, then it still warrants action.
@@ContactBaroqueHall If my mother had testikels I wouldn't have been born.
If doesn't count.
I'm not willing to give up my freedom for someone else their IF.
@@keerpuntbelgiekapitalisto5014 I understand you and have the same viewpoint as I’m also indoctrinated with our western values. But I’m trying to learn from other cultures anthropologically and finding this extreme freedom approach may reach limits, as it assumes an open system rather than closed or limited resource system. In any case I have been been raised as everyone man out for himself, compete and take the maximum we can from everyone and from anywhere that the law csn permit. If things go really really badly 500 years away - then at least I’ll not be here, so we should take the maximum we can whilst we can get away with it I say.
@user-km3hv8qo9p I don't think we have the same viewpoints.
As a consultant I traveled the world, worked 2 years in Turkey, Malta, Poland and in my 50 years on this planet I only see that things better.
The more people the better the technology, we less and less poverty and more and more prosperity.
We cultivate more food per M2 as technology proceeds.
What a do sometimes encounter is people that think there is a limit and I always wonder if people think this way what are they willing to give up themselves.
Unfortunately most of these kind of people don't want to give up anything yet expect others to drive less cars, eat less meat or travel less.
In 500 years if we proceed to grow we will have people living on the moon, maybe even Mars, robots will be harvesting the asteroid belt for other resources and maybe we will discover other things in the universe that will progress humanity.
I don't live for myself, I live for the people I work with and hope they become also prosperous and have a good life.
I don't deny that we have challenges in front of us.
Bud this climate communists mentality has to go.
So, I don't think we are on the same level.
@@keerpuntbelgiekapitalisto5014 Thank you for your insightful answer. Our work experiences might also overlap a little as I work as an international consultant; originally based on Australia but in Monaco the last 8 years and frequently doing business in Warsaw also. I also don’t want to given up anything and change how I pollute the planet, and I never asked anyone else to change. In this sense I’m consistent and in some sense innocent, as you are. Yet the systemic effect of everyone living this way is aparantly going to cause a mass extinction. Life is getting better - I agree emphatically. When I wrote taking without constraint, I meant this not in a greedy sense but just as a matter of fact - living without limits and doing what makes us feel good - including of course our relations. But I meant we should live without restriction on our freedom so even if that destroys the planet (which seems likely) we shouldn’t put attention on that, as there is a chance things will be okay, and we should enjoy life whilst the environment is stable for the next couple of generations. The generations after that - I think it is their job to do deal with catastrophe, and if they need limits on freedom that is their problem - but until we see it happening, we should go on living without restraint. That is calitalism and freedom as I’m taught. As for living on the moon, it will need to be space stations as we can adjust the gravity to suit us. We would just become inpossibly ill on the moon or on Mars, but creating comfortable space stations is possible and long term even necessary.
Whenever i hear a politician talking about global warming, the first question that comes to mind is, what is the temperature of the earth supposed to be? Like this guy pointed out, the planet’s temperature has changed over its existence. Which temperature is ‘right’?
Right temperature for who? Humans? Penguins? Trout? Inuit? Alligators? There is no one-size fits all temperature. The right one for humans would be one that didn't melt icecaps, raise sea levels, intensify hurricanes and increase drought, extreme precipitation events and wildfires.
you grouped Inuit with trout and alligators. @@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
The one we had before industrialization please.
The "right" temperature is one where life can continue unimpeded. The rate of change of the temperature is the problem due to humans burning fossil fuels, because life can't adapt quickly enough, and many things die out/degrade/etc.
Before the age of industry and in it's beginning years we were in the Little Ice Age . 13th century until the mid 19th century. We are only recovering back to the average temperatures befor that well known, but ignored event.@@anmold5676
I watched this video because I try to avoid confirmation bias. He said the earth is always changing, can't argue with that. You still need to take those changes into account.. If you own a home in the desert and your well goes dry it does not matter if the cause is natural, man made or little green men came down from Mars and took your water in the middle of the night your well is still dry.
The aquifer your well draws from was probably sucked dry by a Las Vegas desert golf course. What could be "more natural"?
The problem is that politicians take, "was probably", turn it into dogma for their militant base and sycophantic media, and pass laws that give gov goons the legal authority to assault peaceable ppl.
He denies the changes are more rapid than we have ever experienced
@@libearl828 that doesn’t mean they were manmade.
@@goldwingdwarrior No, and nor does it mean they aren't manmade.
The only thing we know for sure, is that we don't know anything for sure.
And that the IPCC knows even less ... ua-cam.com/video/uU6apI31BMo/v-deo.html
But you can be reasonably sure, which you have to be to do anything (why do you eat, if you don't know for sure you're going to starve?)... Also, if the stakes are really high you should calculate more on safety's side... Kinda like pascal's wager, but real
A truther. You can tell. He's speaks in calm, measured tones. On it goes...the Awakening.
This guy is paid by oil companies
@@chrisashe9277 really?
@@TheHorsebox2 the company we know for sure to have paid him is a coal company, peabody energy. but that might be the tip of the iceberg. we only know that peabody paid him because peabody filed for bankruptcy protection and had to show how it was using its funds. normally these companies are able to fund people like lindzen secretly.
Who's paying someone is much better evidence than how they speak.
"Is the temperature increasing or decreasing.... it's always doing one or the other"...... EXACTLY!!!
Not an an equivalent rate when you take global industrialization into effect. Yes it changes and goes up and down over thousands of years, but the variables have change dramatically since the creation of our new societies. We don't have enough information to say that it's natural. Humans tend to take action only after shit has hit the fan rather than preventing it in the first place.
I know that him saying this reassures you, but he's wrong. His statements are very reductionist and don't even scratch the surface of the real scientific conclusions that are being made about climatology.
See for yourself:
ua-cam.com/video/paf2pJtaXYE/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/c1dnlHPzhQA/v-deo.html
And here are rebuttals to this scientist's statements: skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
onetwothree57 fucking freezing down here on the river Mersey
@@WyattCayer If you don't have enough information to say that it's natural, you therefore do not have enough information to say that it's man made. Basic logic. The climate is probably one of the most complex problems in science. No one really knows how it works exactly. As such, some scientists lazily just plug in CO2 to explain that which we don't fully understand. Primitive men used this same technique throughout history, except they used to gods to explain stuff that they didn't understand.
@@HiDeguild And here is Richard Feynman's rebuttal to the pseudo-scientific claims made by the AGW hypothesis community. ua-cam.com/video/tWr39Q9vBgo/v-deo.html
My mom told me as a young person, “Don’t simply take the word of your teachers, be inquisitive do your own research, examen the facts if they seem overstated”.
Well mom that’s exactly what I did, geological history tells the story truthfully, not overstated as it now is . Simply another political fear tactic.
Fear is the Canadian's biggest political motivator.
ALL governments employ fear in order to control their populations in one form or another.
Both mother and grandmother were teachers, mother retired in 1956 when teachers taught. They did not practice indoctrination. “If your in doubt research it yourself, that’s why we have libraries”.
Exactly! I have found many lies we were taught in school. The theory of evolution is impossible and global warming is not to be feared. Read Genesis 8:22 if you are worried about global warming.
smart mom!
@@brip557 yup, both mom and grandma were real teachers, both taught nearly 50 years each.
Time has proven Dr. Lindzen to be correct.
Lol you're a lazy troll
@@antilenin And you're someone with zero evidence.
No matter what happens, drama queens will make sure it gets even worse.
He casts doubt on everything, impugns motives, and closes with policy changes will hurt people.
The status quo would be a solution to data that shows status quo. It doesn't.
TAX TO FEED THE CENTRAL BANKERS
Tax on the poor and the stupid!
Pardon me? If we are talking about big money, what we have to talk about are the big fossil fuel companies, who fund climate change denial.
yes, the bankers and kin always working to get more money. they are now going to become fools.. too many are waking up to their lameness. may they all drown.
@@flyingchariot9080 How is any of that related to global warming? NB, the big money is still in fossil fuels
@Dander Spat "a non existent problem"? What do you make of the fact that Greenland is now loosing 250 gigatonnes of ice per year, that the disappearance of Arctic glaciers impacts 1.5 billion people who depend on them? That coral bleeching has already destroyed more than half of the Great Barrier Reef? That wildfires in the Arctic have reached apocalyptic dimensions? That Arctic sea ice is down to a fraction of what it used to be some decades ago etc. These are not forecast or predictions. These things are happening right now. And this is just the beginning.
Pretty sure this doesn't matter after a hurricane wipes your town off the map.
_"All of us scientists are Government employees, even if we do research at universities"._ Yes, and that is the root cause of much of the bad science we see today, across the board, not just regarding climate issues.
how would you prefer that science was funded?
@@sonifer7692 Thank you for your post, Sonifer. In my view, the purpose of government is to transfer wealth and power from the many to the few. Governments are everywhere the most powerful special interest group in any given geographical area.
That being the case, any science funded by the state will inevitably advance that agenda. The track record of modern “science” has amply confirmed that view. Thus, my choice for science funding is laissez faire capitalism.*
_*Laissez-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic interventionism deriving from special interest groups._
Eisenhower warned us of this in his speech before he left the Presidency. Sadly, many of the predictions in that speech have come to pass. Two of the most important, from my perspective, have been the rise of the military industrial complex and the transformation of science into a religion.
@@lobuxracer Well said, lobuxracer. Thank you for doing so.
@@IsaacNussbaum yep.
I’ve come to realize at this point in my life that if the media, politicians, and celebrities are supporting/promoting something, that usually means you should probably go the support the other direction. The world is not what it seems. Question everything!
It’s called critical thinking
People in fear don't think clearly. Peace comes by knowing truth and sharing love through forgiveness.
and Being Humane instead of Personally Identified. (::)
Wrong. He forgot to mention that peer reviewed papers exist 🤦♂️
Peolple aren’t talking about what happened in the last thousand years as you’ve stated !!!! They’re concerned about what has and is happening since the industrial revolution !!!
Which is exactly the same thing that's been happening for the last thousand years.
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 understood yes of course but it's at the rate at which the levels are rising, specifically CO2. This we can see clearly (from core samples) that has everyone concerned...well at least most of the scientific community anyway or enough people that we can try and make a difference even if it is at the huge / expense / economic cost but I'd rather take that approach than sitting back and two generations from now (or less) tell us what a bunch of lame brains we were from this time period our generation (well some of us) for sitting back and saying "there's no need to fear"..... i think we can all agree mankind has had a huge effect on on the environment, its a debate as to how much it has an effect on the planet, and to what level or you willing to go to economically to cause the least amount of harmful effect, I do not want to leave a planet that's all used up, this is all we have, to big a risk to take.....respectfully
@@hemihead68When CO2 levels reach that of the dinosaur age ( many times higher than today's), then I'll worry. We are, in fact, in a CO2 "drought" compared with past times. The slight increase of the last 3 centuries is letting vegetation recover. The desert areas are greening up again.
@@johnchandler1687 wrong!! last year global temp was off the chart. For the first time in recorded history, the global Biophere Collapsed meaning, that Earth was emitting or preventing the absorption of co2 then absorbing it. Plants cant Respirate when they over heat the Stomata close when the plants get hot.
@@hemihead68 WE must decide what is your concern CO2. or running out of what? CO2 is incapable of causing any climate crisis. Running out of CO2 is more likely and a real problem.
Talk to airline captains that have been flying over northern latitudes for the past 30 years. "Nothing has changed"
Bro according to you global warming is not big deal
But in ground level people know actual reality
@@PiyushPant-bq8mv I'm not gullible.
@@arnoldfrackenmeyer8157 Sounds like you are : )
@@DANCEGARAGEPUNK Sea level hasn't changed in 50 years. It's in the same spot it was when I was young. I see no difference in the climate since I was a kid in the 60's. We had freak storms back then too. The galveston hurricane of 1900 was the worst storm to hit the United States. The hurricane of 1780 was the worst atlantic hurricane ever killing 20,000. Have a good day.
@@arnoldfrackenmeyer8157 @arnoldfrackenmeyer8157 There is no climate change if you refuse to believe your own eyes & get your Corporate Funded Misinformation from fox, sky australia, Lindzen, & ` Big Corporate ` cronies Musk, Peterson etc. According to NASA sea levels have risen more than 10cm since 1992 & sea level rise is accelerating !
12 years later and this is randomly recommended to me.
Same here lmao find it really interesting that now this is resurfacing. Almost like someone's trying to calm us down even though all the evidence is pointing that alarmism is something that's warranted
The guy is working for Chevron. The huxter says that the government drives the science while getting a payoff from The Koch Foundation.@@rileyboyer3582
yeah, google has a thing for large companies not pulling their weight and finding excuses.
Thank you! Honestly is such a rare commodity now.
Lol.
It's hard to tell what's true in this situation, but we can't forget about pollution. Pollution is also an important issue!
Watch "Climate Changers" by Cilmateviewers
Oh it definitely is a major concern! But Co2 is not a pollutant! But the manufacture and disposal of wind turbine,Solar panels and EVs is the most polluting they that has ever been on earth?
Then why on earth are we using catalytic converters to change harmless compounds into chain molicuals that the enviroment can not break down?
@@terenceiutzi4003 also the earth is much more greener now as a result of more Co2 , more vegetation , better crops , according to Professor Freeman Dyson
This man needs to be interviewd on fox news IMMEDIATLY
You demonstrate profound ignorance here. Was that your intention?
Great, fake news and fake science belong together.
😬
He's been on numerous platforms, but the MSM has bought into the change and science is settled narrative, so they want no dissent
Who is this? Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he would remain until his retirement in 2013. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism".
As a Massachusetts native, Please don’t list his “credentials” as something noteworthy, that doesn’t always assure that individual isn’t tied to a climate denial network. Cough cough
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) was also discovered to be paid off by Peabody Coal Energy. (At the time it was the largest private sector coal company in the world)
The recipients of funding were only made public because of Peabodys file for bankruptcy protection in April, 2016.
It’s very obvious Lindzen was was a contrarian scientist for Peabody, who abused his own public trust and credibility to deceive individuals on climate change.
@davidcole1928 Disagree with libbies and they smear and insult.
I am from Mass also, but not from the lib concentration areas Boston/Cambridge.
1987 they started saying in 8 yrs the wold will be flooder...in 90s they sauid same ...in 2000's and the 20 teens and the 29s now...its been over 40 yrs ...go to the coast ...the properties haven't lost a inch
He, he, he! Obama bought property in Martha's Vineyard by the sea. More hot air rising than sea levels I think.
Thank you I needed to hear that I hear the sky is falling so many times a day it's crazy.
@Zarion 11 Bullshit
Don't forget, this is a ten years old video, and meanwhile, measurements have show that Lindzen was wrong. He famously predicted that cloud cover would counteract global warming, but this has been disproven by the meansurements. We are currently in the hottest month ever recorded, the predicted warming impacts are occurring in real time all around us. And yet this is just the beginning.
@@dasGagaTier maybe you are in warmest month but we aren't. Mildest summer and coldest winter here in 40 years. You are conflating "weather" and "climate". You are excited to say Lindzen is wrong (I have not yet verified) but u forgot to mention every single one of the 118 alarmist climate models have failed. All of your scientists are not only wrong but as wrong as u can be!
@@jeffwestbrooke279 This is not about local weather but about the global average. Globally it was the hottest month ever since records began. That doesn't mean that there weren't places with snow and ice.
Which "118 climate alarmist climate models" are you referring to? Actually climate science has a stunningly good track record. Take for instance Hansen's 1989 temperature forecast for a scenario with linear C02 growth. That's the scenario that became reality. And the increase in temperature he predicted for today three decades ago is pretty much exactly what we see. If you have examples of failed predictions, bring them on.
@@dasGagaTier
ua-cam.com/video/AFPRMV2p5cY/v-deo.html
This was a bad set of arguments when it was presented in 2010. It's aged even worse.
I recall when it first began in the late 1960's. Reports of "The whole of the East Coast of Britain will be under 20 feet of water by 1980 due to the Hot House Effect." Obviously no such event took place, the sea hasn't even risen 2mm... and why just the "East Coast"? During the 1970's there was the balancing act "We're headed for a mini Ice Age". Total nonsense. I go with the real science, that recorded by nature itself over thousands of years in sediment, in rock, in etc.
People have been made to fear change rather then accepting that everything is constantly changing.
wow, honesty.
Eleven years after this video was made the climate is still pretty much the same.🤷♂️
Unfortunately the (weather) data indicates you are wrong.
@@kpewliu4348 all depends on your source. Chicken Littles will ALWAYS find a way to convince you the sky is falling.
@@naturalobserver1322 The scientific literature today is solid.
@@kpewliu4348 so this guy is lying, right? When I said the climate is pretty much the same, I can back it up with some evidence. I have lived in my house that I've owned since 1984, the thermostat is set at 68 degrees year round. I can tell you within a few days when the heat will stop kicking on at night, it will be the third week of May. I lve in Michigan and it has been accurate for nearly 40 years. Yes temperatures fluctuate that's natural but remember panic creates control and i believe there's a political motivate behind this.
@@naturalobserver1322 Its called global warming, not warming around your house. For example, this graph shows the warming for the country I live in, since they started proper measurements:
www.helmholtz-klima.de/sites/default/files/styles/overlay/public/medien/bilder/13_Bereits%201%2C6%20Grad%20Erw%C3%A4rmung%20%E2%80%93%20deutlich%20mehr%20als%20der%20weltweite%20Durchschnitt_neu_V2.PNG.jpg?itok=ZML-Hg7k
Even more interestingly, this graph shows the change for the US:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_United_States#/media/File:1900-_Temperature_change_in_the_United_States_(color-coded_map).png
Some regions even got cooler, and this is to no surprise of the climate scientists. But the country as a whole, warmed up a lot, as for example stronger hurricanes and forrest fires showed.
"i believe there's a political motivate behind this."
I know this one is hard to swallow for some Americans, but there are indeed many other countries on this planet, and despite their varying political systems and agendas, their scientists all come to very similar results.
This aged well, right?
Well, it's still true, so..
It was wishful thinking 14 years ago... It's not improved any since.
yes, like milk on the window sill.
ummm.....yeah. We're all dying...man....head for the hills...man. Oh and sell me your house, which is likely near the coast, for 50% of its value....yeah, thought not.
@@PaulSmith-qo4iz 50% of the value in dollar terms before my country started experiencing abnormal weather the last decade...
How come we can’t see the likes??? I find this very interesting and I like to be knowledgeable in this topic 👍👍
I can't even give a like , what's going on ?
That's how commies CONTROL you.
Now there's evidence of the Gulf Stream shutting down.
That just shows that means things will get a bit colder.
It would be nice to have open discussions about this subject. It's a sensitive subject which shouldn't be politicized imo
It’s being used to manipulate you versus me, of course it will be politicized. Your point of you versus mine, who is right? who cares?
Write Al Gore and ask him if he will have an open discussion or a debate with a person who opposes his view on Climate Change.
@@dangremillion
When Al Gore was born there were about 5,000 polar bears, today only 25,000 remain.
@@ThekiBoran I heard he dated a few in Nashville.
@@ThekiBoran Yes the population is thriving so there going to be all right.
in the 70's scientists claimed we were heading for another ice age because of global temperatures dropping
That was a fake report.
Not an ice age but a slight decrease in temperatures yes... but because of humans this is not going to happen
@@Pouly__ proof
I was taught it at school. They considered spraying the ice caps with soot to retain more heat. Having 200 foot of ice on your head was a worry
@@rip5905 APPLAUSE! Yeah, us!
I grew up on the seashore. Every time I go back, the ocean is right where I left it.
Reminds me of the piece of common wisdom that the people who keep screaming about rising sea levels all own ocean front properties.
@@redvodka1933 LOL...yup.
3.4mm per year is not exactly a change you can notice with your eyes.
@@anmold5676 but 17cm in my lifetime absolutely is.
The earth has has 7 ice ages. The last one ended 12,000 years ago. We have increased in temperature ever since then. We seem to have a problem of correlation is not causation. Just because the temperature has rised at the same time as industrialization has happened.
There’s absolutely no explanation on why it was warmer during the Roman period. England had vineyards just 2,000 years ago yet now doesn’t have the climate to make that possible. Showing a clear change in the temperature that has nothing to do with oil.
The reality to me seems that taxing people for global warming and forcing them to completely change the power grid and their gas vehicles for electric vehicles that are 3x as expensive with battery’s that only last 5 years. It’s so obviously a way for them to make absurd amounts of money.
The military and corporations are responsible for 90% of emissions in the last 100 years. Yet they’re going to tax normal families. That alone is all you need to know on how much of a scam this is.
We are not worried we are worried that they want co.2 decreased from 0.04 percent to the point where plants fail to thrive which is .02 percent
Yeh co2 is actually pretty low right now, 400ppm isn’t much
We actually need to double that. And reduce methane. @@RE4L72
@@RE4L72 Thats fine if we are ready to move the population from areas that become to wet or too dry but most people dont want mass migration. 350ppm might be a better fit for what we want but we are already at 423ppm now.
I doubt we will ever actually decrease CO2 & more likely to increase it with the many forms of CO2 creating machines we have, this is not a bad thing and we will probably only ever create enough excess CO2 to be mostly beneficial to life in general, we can tolerate &/or adapt up to 10 x the current CO2 levels & plants would love it.
Climate change agenda is BS.
Humans and crops evolved when CO2 levels were lower than 300 ppm. 🙄
Watching this video 14 years after, and not a word this man said has turned out to be false. Unlike the many climate predictions I come across, which always turn out to be false......
Well, sounds like you suck at finding accurate predictions. It took me five minutes. Are you stupid?
There's really no such thing as a *"climate denier",* nor I would suggest a *"climate expert."* Climates are always changing randomly, daily, yearly,and historically. There are far too many highly complex disciplines and unpredictable parameters that effect climate, to be an expert or predict future levels, (as all the dubious computer models have failed to do). As a scientist myself (organic chemistry and biochemistry), *I deal in empirical data.* As such, I 'd say I'm not an expert but a *climate "realist".*
I'm not chasing NGO, NASA, or institutional funding to pursue such career, so I dont create a problem, fudge data or propose a solution. To expect "global average" temperature to *NOT* rise or fall by 1 degree or sea levels by one cm or two over 100years is farcical!! That's assuming we can even measure such parameters accurately or meaningfully. Tide gauges for example, are subject to gravity and land movement etc.
Earth's temperature varies between ~ -50C and +60C depending on *season, altitude, longitude, sunspot activity, atmospheric moisture, ocean dipole, undersea volcanoes, ocean dipole, tectonic plate movement, deforestation, urban island effects etc etc.* Moreover, the "average" temperature makes little attempt to consider data error or confidence limits, irregular placement of thermometers and accuracy of past empirical data. What really annoys me is when I see a graph with the Y axis showing a range of 1 to 2 degrees. Any small variation will appear to the novice, as an alarming vertical rise when it would be a virtual straight line if the full range of temperatures being measured are expressed.
As a Pilot I agree with you. Thanks for being honest.
You don't know what you're talking about but decided to write three paragraphs about your lack of knowledge.
You claim to be a scientist (BS, MS, PhD) but give no indication of your credentials beyond that statement.
Even if you have a PhD in both organic chemistry and biochemistry (doubtful), you have zero credentials with respect to climate science, just as Lizden has none. You are simply parroting climate change denial rhetoric, as he is, and credential mongering.
I wouldn't ask a climate scientist to fly a plane, I wouldn't ask a pilot to cook drugs, and I wouldn't ask a chemist to model the climate. And if I ask a hundred chemists how to make LSD and 99 of them agree on a recipe while 1 tells me that you can find naturally occurring LSD in lead ore, which you should put on your tongue to trip balls, I'm going with the 99 scientists.
how dare you mother earth...your temperature fluctuate 1 degree... ONE FULL DEGREE.... over one hundred years....
Ok, explain the floods across the world and hurricanes and temperature
@@AshikurRahmanRifat more people living in flood and hurricane zones precipitates the media reporting it despite the dramatic decrease in deaths from disasters due to housing codes. I’ve watched media blame forest fires on global warming countless times when it was later found out to be arson or arguably progressive forestry policies
He,s right I used to live in a place which was 150 years ago under the sea.
Possibly holland.
@Smarmy Fellow Bikini Bottom. Where Sponge Bob lives. (i'm being sarcastic)
The NASA historical climate graph based upon archeological evidence over the past 5 million years shows radical oscillations in Earth's temperature. He's one of the few scientists who dare to question the doctrines like Galileo questioned the Church. Notice he's not denying global warming. He's merely asking scientifically valid questions.
Yet unlike Galileo, he has been proven wrong. His prediction was that increased cloud cover would have a cooling effect, yet since the video was published, almost a decade ago, his prediction has been falsified. The temperature curve he predicted was way lower than what we actually see. Because water vapour is also a potent greenhouse gas.
@@dasGagaTier So what if water vapor is a fuckn made up bullshit green house gas the es rths vlimate is changeing all the time natually theres ancient citys down in the bottom of the ocean it used to be dry land once apon a time and ancent like creatures fossile bones found in deserts
dad, clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is a gas. Clouds are not gas. Things that are not gas are not greenhouse gas. Predicting cloud cover is not a well developed science. Neither is predicting climate change. That's kind of the point...
Gy Bx even though he is not alt right saying climate change is fake he is denying the 99.9% of peer reviewed articles that say climate change is real and man made so he is still denying climate change, but in denial of denying climate change
@Adam Defibaugh I know that that i worked in irrigation farming for 56 years im now retired its just all the bulldhit these other idiots are going on with about human caused climate change if you said to them its white thed say its black the dum cunts it was hotter and more carbon in the atmosphere back in 1931 on wards to 1960 than there is now and tge earth has cooled
Smart, logical guy, not the panic our media portrays.
Ikr. There is no way to control it anyway
@@unitgamex2972 hm? How can we not control anthropogenic climate change? You can reference the ice age all you want.but do you not realize the global average temperature is changing faster than it ever has in all of earth's history? It's not all about just hot or cold, it's about wind patterns, plate tectonics. Temperature does play a huge part but ignoring the insane amount of CO2 emissions is ignorant. Also citing the little amount of CO2 in our atmosphere also doesn't work. Because even though it is less than 1% of our atmosphere, it should be 100 times less than it is now. We absolutely have the power to control the climate. We are going into the 6th mass extinction and you people are the reason no one will do anything about it. I'm starting to rethink if freedom of speech was a good idea
@@rilke1791 I'm not reading all of your bs.
Anyone willing to tell you your delusions are real always appear smart & logical.
A voice of reason. Danke aus München!!!
Lindzen has been debunked by 22 of his fellow MIT professors, not to mention the entire 99.9% consensus. Vet your sources before you believe them.
"Oh boy! I found one person out of the hundreds of thousands in this field who agrees with me! That proves I'm right!"
In my opinion, the Earth is self correcting. If the carbon increases in the atmosphere, then more trees will sprout around the globe to absorb it. The trees give off oxygen that we need to breath. The ground and oceans also assist in sequestering the CO2. Nature takes care of itself here on Earth. It was planned that way.
But how do the trees just magically appear? Also we're cutting trees much faster than new ones are planted
@@redgrengrumbholdt2671 what I have witnessed in my days on this earth is the forests have gotten thicker, healthier, taller. These healthier forests have propagated other sprigs by pollennation which in turn forms " dust clouds " of tree pollen. There are more trees in my part of the US than I've ever seen before. I figure this is from the increase in CO2 and increased rain we enjoy.
@@redgrengrumbholdt2671 it's almost as if trees had a way of planting their own seeds hundreds of millions of years before the appearance of mankind....
@@redgrengrumbholdt2671 You see when mommy and daddy love each other very much...
My friend trees are living organisms, they reproduce sexually, when there's more food they breed and survive more effectively.
When there's more plant life there's more food for herbivorous predators when there's more herbivorous predators there's more food for carnivorous predators which in turn produce more food for plants as well as prevent over predation from the herbivores. Life begets life and death as it's fruit.
"We're cutting more trees then new ones are planted" That's one of these lovely statistics that can be true and mean nothing at all, given that the primary means of tree growth is organic and not via plantation and cutting down trees creates prime habitat for more trees. On top of the fact that if I have 3 tree plantations I cycle between for industrial/economic purposes, the trees I plant are not really 'new ones' statistically but replacements for my own culling and while that math is perfectly balanced the very fact that I'm harvesting the plantation means that more trees are being cut down than 'new ones' being planted.
Not to mention anyone with forested acreage has that property select cut every few decades, giving the tree population time to mature itself between cuts and a portion of mature trees are left uncut just in case there's a fire and the young trees don't make it. But these new trees aren't planted, they're left to grow organically.
Thank you UA-cam for providing context 😉
Thank you for bringing reason and civil discourse to this topic
This a "DON'T LOOK UP" moment.
He ignores the facts.
We had about 2 billion people in the world in 1920. We now have almost 8 billion. How many cars were on the roads in 1920 versus today?
You Tube is great for music but other sources need to be questioned. Throw in the fact that this video is from 2011 and it is way outdated.
@@northernlight4614 yeah, you’re right. I still can’t believe Manhattan is completely underwater. All those glaciers are just gone. Antarctica is now a desert. It’s been crazy. I’ve already died from the mini ice age in the 70s. I died again from the acid rain of the 80s. Then I died again from the hole in the ozone layer in the 90s. I died yet again from global warming of the 2000s. I’m going to continue to die from “climate change” because the climate will always change. When will these scientists tell me I can live?
The answer is never. Why would they? It’s a trillion dollar industry. Imagine what would happen if they said “we’re gonna be fine”? No one would pay them. As long as they keep scaring us into thinking we’re all doomed they will keep getting paid big money. Fear sells. Fear also gets us to turn on one another. Like everyone who believes global warming is going to kill us all and we only have 12 years left...those people would do anything to feel like they’re saving the planet for future generations. Even kill off half the world’s population.
But go on...turn on your fellow man simply because you believe some BS that is making a lot of people very rich. Sounds like a good idea.
@@northernlight4614 its not outdated everything he’s saying still stands today. Solutions involving trillions of dollars will be proposed and the money will go to the politicians...
@@Robyne_u61
The video is from 11 years ago. Things have changed.
We need more logical thinking like this today. Where did the real science go?
My personal opinion TR is the science left when men no longer agreed the formula for the acceleration rate of gravity was thirty two feet per second squared. Ten seconds is still ten seconds on planet earth and National Geographic was correct in saying both towers fell in 10 seconds. It just seems no one cares to hear it, or what it implies. Fear is a powerful tool.
Obviously science went out the window as the co^id scamdemic proved so dramatically.
Except Lindzen is a paid oil consultant... Or do U only care about when its not what U want to hear ?
@@Proemed44G really? Source?
@@jacksgirl23 Lindzen is a paid consultant of the CATO institute which was started by the Koch brothers.... Im all about real science. To pretend that the CATO institute is an unbiased source is laughable... The Koch brothers have made billions in the oil industry
UA-cam working hard with their little global warming disclaimer up above.
And now we will get lot of other climate denial videos proposed by UA-cam robots
The UA-cam algorithm doesn't give a fig about the science one way or another. It's tuned to keep people clicking on videos. It turns out that generating outrage is the best way keep people interested.
jason winklbauer It shows they are afraid of the truth.
Just like their COVID and Biden disclaimers.
Just ignore it.
This was 11 years ago. How he feels _now_ is what matters. Since 2011, when this interview was done, almost everything the environmentalists warned about has happened. Let's see an update.
ua-cam.com/video/RCgEAmr42yI/v-deo.html
Doesnt anyone know about geoengineering of the weather & then they tell you its clomate change , wakeup people.
Bullshit. But be a dupe by all means.
@@MobiusMinded Who are you referring to in that comment, me or Tik Tok dances?
Nothing has changed. They keep moving the goal posts to fit their conclusions. Antithesis of true science. All true scientists should be trying to prove climate change is false, if they can’t than it could be a story. Working to prove something is true is not how science was practiced for many many years.
What we’re talking about is warming, which is in fact happening, and it leads to higher record temperatures almost every year in hot parts of the world.
Prove it.
@@bucky4047 - So you don’t believe the record temperatures are real?
The planet has not increased even 1c in 100 years. GO LOOK IT UP.
the man has a nice way of talking
very mello .... I like mello individuals
It's called calmness. More humans could do with a dose of it.
"All of us scientists are Government employees, even if we work for universities".
Yeah, once you sell your soul to the NSF and mention "Climate Change" in your unrelated research proposal. Yes, you are!
The question is : who is founding your research ?
Yeah, they are all employees. So what? So accepting money for work renders everything anyone says suspect? Is it remotely possible that scientists are going to where the evidence leads?... like all proper science is done.
@THE BassBus, Except, Richard Lindzen has been thoroughly rebuked by his MIT Colleagues, pointing out his contrarian views do not represent MIT nor his own department. Somewhat ironically from the Real Boston Globe! www3.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/08/mit-professors-denounce-their-colleague-letter-trump-for-denying-evidence-climate-change/86K8ur31YIUbMO4SAI7U2N/story.html?arc404=true
And out of these, those who deny climate change also get their paychecks from big oil companies. What a coincidence huh?
totally agree with this guy ..10000 years ago where I live was under an ice sheet hundreds of mts thick....2000 years ago it was warm and an major agrarian culture, had a minor ice age 1600s ..now with the advent of global warming its sub zero at night in May, coldest may bank holiday on record, its called weather deal with it.. Our ancestors managed it.. now to the problem/issue.. we are a fixed in 1 place now...I don't want my house under 10 mts sea water or under an ice sheet, it will happen, what will happen.. As some body said stop using plastic pick it up if you can .. comment if you can guess where I live ..
Ireland
@@marynadononeill. close Northumberland, re Christianised by Irish monks
Just about to write england then I saw you'd spoiled the game two years ago. I live in paignton and if the sea level rises we're all buying wellies cos we're clever.
Finally someone telling the truth. Tired of the scare tactics.
Lindzen has been debunked by 22 of his fellow MIT professors and the entire 99.9% consensus.
"Oh boy, one person out of the hundreds od thoysands in applicable fields agrees with what I want to believe. That proves I'm right!"
Your opinion has nothing to do with reason. You aren't fooling anybody.
@@Xavier_Coogat_the_Mambo_King I´ll give you reason. For billions of years the planet has been exposed to solar flares, radioactive and ionized radiation, meteor showers, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, ice ages and even polar upheavals.
Guess what: Earth has survived it all. The assumption that Planet Earth has a climate crisis or that the planet would even give a damn about you as a person or the human species as a whole is both ridiculous and hilarious at the same time. You and your species may suffer from an exaggerated, narcissist sense of self-importance but I can assure you: You are totally insignificant.
There's also the question of volcanoes and their effect on climate. The Krakatoa eruption in 1883 was said to have had a cooling effect that lasted nearly a hundred years, and as recent as 1991 the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines has been said to have negated all the efforts of man in trying to reduce emissions.
Insightful take, thank you.
There is little question of volcanoes and their effect on climate. It's been measured. We've measured the gases in the lava streaming from volcanoes. We've measured the gases in the atmosphere above and around active volcanoes. We know how much and what kind of gases come from volcanoes. If volcanoes were the cause of our global atmospheric carbon dioxide levels going from 300ppm in 1911 to 350ppm in 1988 to 400ppm in 2015 we would know it. Instead, we know it is not the reason. We know it is us. Humans mining billions of tons of carbon based fossil fuel and burning it every year.
The cooling effect of Krakatoa was, as you stated, temporary. The warming effect of burning fossil fuels, as we have been (and deforestation), will make drastic changes over decades with lasting effects for many thousands of years. Taking billions of tons of a carbon out of the long term underground (millions of years) storage and putting it in our atmosphere and oceans where it will take millions of years to naturally return to below ground long term storage has consequences. You can see this in increasing glacial melt, drought, flooding and forest die off data every year.
Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines did not negated all the efforts of man in trying to reduce emissions (carbon dioxide). If you look at the measured levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere 1991 is just one step in the ladder. Below is 20 years of data from the Mauna Loa Observatory with 1991 roughly in the center,
1981 340.12 0.12
1982 341.48 0.12
1983 343.15 0.12
1984 344.85 0.12
1985 346.35 0.12
1986 347.61 0.12
1987 349.31 0.12
1988 351.69 0.12
1989 353.20 0.12
1990 354.45 0.12
1991 355.70 0.12
1992 356.54 0.12
1993 357.21 0.12
1994 358.96 0.12
1995 360.97 0.12
1996 362.74 0.12
1997 363.88 0.12
1998 366.84 0.12
1999 368.54 0.12
2000 369.71 0.12
2001 371.32 0.12
No big jump on or shortly after 1991. Instead there is a steady increase that closely follows our increasing use of fossil fuels.
Learn the facts.
gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/data.html
Believe what the man in the video says at your own peril.
Since the invention of human agriculture, for all of human written history, since before any known structure built by humans the average global carbon dioxide levels have been between 180ppm and 280ppm. Are you, your children and all life on Earth ready for what 450ppm (and beyond) carbon dioxide will bring?
@@robonearth5533 Why did the earth temperature dip from '42 to '79?
Info on Mt. Pinutubo from:
Ian Rutherford Plimer, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.
130 scientific papers published, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Sounds pretty learned/credible, don't you think?
These are his extensive credentials:
Born: 12 Feb. 1946
Fields: Earth Science, Geology,
Mining Engineering
Institutions:
University of New England
University of Newcastle
University of Melbourne
University of Adelaide
Notable Awards:
Eureka Prize 1995, 2002
Centenary Medal 2003
Clarke Medal 2004
Ian Rutherford Plimer?
He may be learned but he is not credible. At least not when it comes to climate change and burning fossil fuels.
From what I can tell Ian Rutherford Plimer is in the same camp as the guy in the video. That people listen to them and believe them is scary. They are both wrong.
Show me the numbers please. How many tons of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere by the 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption?Provide a link to your source(s). And while you're at it think about it... just a little. If one volcanic eruption puts that much carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere how did the global atmospheric average not go over 280ppm for the last 2 million of years during which time many many volcanoes erupted?
It's us spiking the carbon dioxide levels in this planet's atmosphere, not the volcanoes. Certainly not over the last 150 years. It's us.
If you're looking for better information call the science department of three or more universities near you. Ask them if burning fossil fuels is the biggest reason for carbon dioxide levels rising in our atmosphere. Ask them if it's causing climate change. Ask them if it will make the world more difficult to live in. Ask them. It's very unlikely you'll talk to someone like Ian. He's an idiot on climate change and there aren't very many idiots like him around.
Here's a website that has good information with links to credible research. They even point out Ian is pushing lies about climate change.
skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50
good luck. your children are depending on you being smarter.
Richard Lindzen worked for the Cato Institute and made a lot of money off the Koch family since 1991!
Therefore wrong? Specious conclusion.
That explains everything. Hope the payoff was high for betraying humanity.
Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he would remain until his retirement in 2013. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism".
Denial for hire
That tells you all you need to know in my opinion…a professional contrarian.
People like this are responsible for 40yrs of inaction. If you calculate the deaths from heat, starvation and war. What would be an appropriate punishment for him? The gallows? Seems to light? Perhaps breaking on the wheel? That still wouldn't equal the suffering cause by this guy and his kind for delaying action.
It's getting harder for clowns like Lindzen to deny it, just yesterday in Spain they are getting temperatures 15 degrees Celsius warmer than what they usually get. Still no doubt the oil companies are still paying him, like they used to be, scientists for hire.
Hey, people should not be worried about inflation, money have been losing value with time for hundreds of years!
WE'RE ARRRRRL DOOOOOMED. As Private Fraser would have exclaimed.