Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a 'Liberal Hoax'
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ม.ค. 2011
- In this sixth video in the series "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate" from The Nation and On The Earth Productions, linguist, philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky talks about the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and other business lobbies enthusiastically carrying out campaigns "to try and convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax." According to Chomsky, this massive public relations campaign has succeeded in leading a good portion of the population into doubting the human causes of global warming.
Known for his criticism of the media, Chomsky doesn't hold back in this clip, laying blame on mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, which will run frontpage articles on what meteorologists think about global warming. "Meteorologists are pretty faces reading scripts telling you whether it's going to rain tomorrow," Chomsky says. "What do they have to say any more than your barber?" All this is part of the media's pursuit of "fabled objectivity."
Of particular concern for Chomsky is the atmosphere of anger, fear and hostility that currently reigns in America. The public's hatred of Democrats, Republicans, big business and banks and the public's distrust of scientists all lead to general disregard for the findings of "pointy-headed elitists." The 2010 elections could be interpreted as a "death knell for the species" because most of the new Republicans in Congress are global warming deniers. "If this was happening in some small country," Chomsky concludes, "it wouldn't matter much. But when it's happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world, it's a danger to the survival of the species."
Visit www.TheNation.com to learn more about "Peak Oil and a Changing Climate," and to see the other videos in the series.
When you're struggling to pay bills, it's almost impossible to think about anything else outside keeping a roof over your head and feeding your family...and the rich know that.
@Starwars Fan360
Paying taxes doesn't mean that you struggle to make ends meat, though.
@Ford Fanatic
I haven't said that the amount you pay as taxes doesn't matter but that taxes don't bring you into financial peril.
You, for instance, still have about 117,000 left.
@Ford Fanatic
I really don't but where do you live that 9000 a month don't suffice to live well?
Japan? Is the unit Yen?
Sure, you could pay them to your employees but would you?
Consider that the reason for such taxation and spending thereof to exist in the first place is that employers overall don't (or haven't).
And what would be the point of distributing these 50,000 among your employees, if they now don't have health care and have to pay for it out of their own pocket?
Aside from private insurance being more expensive than public, this is a pointless effort.
And 30% does not constitute "taxing the hell out of every one".
Even if you don't have progressive taxation, 70% is still the lion share.
That is the situation we have and that's exactly what the devil wants
That‘s why you get no social security in the u.s.
Twelve years later and Australia just went through a historically cold month of May.
Whilst the hottest 5 years have happened in last 10 and right now the oceans are breaking heat records but as long as one country has been cold then it doesn't matter about rest
@@jonathonsmith6831 Interesting. So you determine what’s worth reporting? I don’t think that’s how science is supposed to work.
Oh no, whatever will Australia be ok!?!? 😂😂
@@Derkiesmefpipe Sure it will. Just like the rest of the planet.
God, I wish I could take a glimpse into 2050 to see what kind of excuses the left will come up with why the world isn't underwater. It's remarkable how well they've been able to market this whole scam. People REALLY are totally just scared little children, waiting for daddy government to tell them what to do, how to think, and how much $$$ to pay.
Just turned off the TV ,on the BBC a 6 year old environmentalist telling us what we need to do
Brainwashing the younger generations because they know older generations can see through their bullsh1t, in a couple of generations they’ll have a population of compliant fools that will dance to their every whim.
Commies come in all ages, shapes and sizes.
For the children, that gets the woman gaslighted.
She's not giving her opinion she's repeating what scientists have been saying for a long time now but many people can't seem to understand that and decide to get angry at a little girl instead.
This human desire to die rich never dies.
it should tho.... fuck money
I have had a few millions & it did not make me happy. Just feel sorry for those who are fatally addicted to holding wealth. Giving it to charity will make them better people - without doubt. Then their friends will be genuine ones.
@@Xenibalt ‘’fuck money’’ , then stop worrying about the rich.
@@Bebopin-69 lol shhhh....
I have no interest in becoming rich. I'd rather live an honest life and do honest work.
Climate Change deniers:
Securing that Darwin Award for us all.
And how do you know catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is happening? Dollars to donuts, you are blindly believing what you are being told without any individual analysis, and acting intellectually superior for being a malleable follower.
Crazy how we’ve accepted stagnant wages for higher prices on the essentials and assets for 43 years now.
Just because our amenities and gizmos are cheap. We’re hoodwinked by Netflix and IPads and don’t see our living standards dropping in real time.
You can't keep getting richer on a finite planet
It's not that "we've accepted it," it's more that we know the cops will shoot us in the face with rubber coated bullets if we get uppity about it.
It has always been about violence.
@@jonathonsmith6831 We're getting poorer. The planet was rich with natural wealth before we started fucking it up. If I could trade walking to work to get back coral reefs, I would.
@@aluisious we never had it as good as we've had it past 50 years. It's alot better than my grandma's time. People don't realise how good they have it. We live like kings
Actually, things were better when I was growing up, in the 1960s and 70s.
The edge of the table at the bottom of the screen made me feel like his hands were coming out of the screen for a second.
Looool
Who cares ?
That's not what the video is about, smart ass...
Haha same here!!
Zygmunt Banaszak Cheer up Mr. Negative!
Out of the frying pan aye
His book manufacturing consent changed my life. I basically had to unlearn everything I'd learned up until that point in my existence. It's helped open my eyes to reality. Unfortunately, reality is fucking depressing.
So you are depressed. I don't think you are supposed to be. He did that to you? Never read a thing by him, and I am not depressed.
@@ragnaarminnesota6703 because your ignorant, ignorance is bliss
@@ragnaarminnesota6703 they were just exaggareting you idiot. They did not say straight up they are depressed cause if something is depressing, doesnt mean it makes other depressing lmao.
“Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.”― Ernest Hemingway
You're reading the wrong books.
It's not only a hoax it's a money and power grab.
See Rosa Koire : Behind the Green Mask.
GOOD TRUTH
Bastard ecologists will be planting trees, recycling waste and reducing pollution next, take them to court it's a disgraceful project. PUT SOLAR PANELS ON YOUR ROOF! :) like that you can take the power to yourself and save S...Tloads of oil and electric bills? You are a hoax if you say you don't understand chemistry to such a deep level that you think it's an illuminati cult of anti oil power redistribution, poor oil companies...
Yes, and now even a moron can see it's also a huge wealth redistribution scam, agreeing to pay other countries for the "damage" we did by putting out share of 2.75 % of atm. CO2 into the air.
its not a hoax
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge
to rule it."
H L Mencken
th-cam.com/play/PL-fZHN5imids889-f2SgovdG_WHABhItJ.html
I love Chomsky, but I think he's got it wrong here. Runaway global warming doesn't seem to be actually happening.
MrR. Taxation dear boy. Taxation. It appears in various forms.
@D. E. Chomsky is wrong about 9-11, that's true. I wonder if he is choosing his battles, like, being strategic. That's a guess. Still, he's a towering figure, imho.
@D. E. can you point me to a lie?
"Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." --Patrick Henry
0:35
When was the last time you actually saw a NYT article that dared to try and go against the grain of the AGW claim?
When's the last time you saw an article that exemplified the seriousness of the situation. It should be featured every fucking week. He's right. It's minimized. But don't get it twisted, I'm kinda excited for thunderdome 2050. We're a virus, so I say bring it. But I'm not blind to what we're doing...
@@mr.lucasifer Dumb Ass
@@libertyordeath8351 Guns, God, and Government brother. Pledge thee allegiance. Hell yeah. Fuck these commies! They ain't taking my diesel truck. CO2 is good for plants. Plants love CO2. The more the better. It's so obvious. The New World Order wants to push their agenda on us using the United Nations, but I'm no dummy! Fuck them. Am I right. What about Grand Solar Minimum or Milankovich Cycles. We know what's up. Plants love co2. Planet's never been better, am I right brother?! It's all a conspiracy, but I can see through that. NASA sells lies ya know. We gotta band together. They'll try to take our Freedom! Outta my cold dead hands...
@@mr.lucasifer why don't you look into the subject? It falls apart with the leas bit of scrutiny.
@@American-Dragon I see you have a young human in your life. I guess he'll find out more than anyone how well chemistry, biology, and thermodynamics stand up against conspiracy theories. I've looked into the subject exhaustively on both sides. Climate scientists, not alarmists or environmentalists, scientists who've been studying this stuff for 10 and 20 years, are literally afraid to have children. I hope I'm wrong, I hope they're wrong, I hope you're all correct about this I really do. Maybe the planet will be able to handle the speed of our destruction and adapt quickly. But historically, no matter what your argument, it's never happened like this. We've never been here before, remember? We've never burned carbon products before in e Earth's history, remember?
As for me, my amateur assessment- it's so much worse than they're reporting and predicting and modeling. Things are going to spiral out of control beyond anyone's predictions, and it's now an unstoppable force. It's too late.
If I were you, I'd teach that kid to toughen up. Teach him survival. Teach him the worst of human nature. Teach him he might need to be hard as nails.
Because it's coming.
I mean, most of the world's scientists could be wrong, but would if they're not. Ever consider the consequence if your wrong?
Meteorologists know as much as your barber, I love this guy.
What evidence do you have? I ask this because you seem to have , either a physical or mental lust for this man which could be clouding your POV. If NC said you - Janes Berkowitz - were a pedophile would you agree with him?
@Stanley Goddard them people seem to think theres a love in when someone like NC threatens their ideologies. It was 98 Fahrenheit in Siberia yesterday above the arctic circle. Their defence "the earth has aaaaalways had periods of heating n cooling"...We know this ! The ice caps permanently migrate and retreat, but this is excelled by mans stupidity and the rate of this change is unprecedented. At the current rate London will be submerged in a couple of hundred years. The truth is.....they dont give a fuck !!!
@@blustamove These discussions boil down to whether you trust nasa or the met office etc or not. Nasa: climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Met Office: www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/effects-of-climate-change - Fighting the power is an oxymoron as that requires power.
Chomsky is a linguist. What, _exactly_ , lends his words ANY authority when speaking about the _complexity_ of climate change? As I understand it, even _measuring_ the global temperature is *non-trivial* .
@@hiltonjacobs8910 dude he just references the SUPERMAJORITY of available evidence. If your house was on fire, and a neighbor said “hey, you should leave!” Would you seriously say to them “well you’re not a fireman, so I guess I’ll just wait and see”
I always thought Americans needed to buy insurance because your government didn't spend a penny on it. Well that is clearly not the case...
The US spend approx. $8500 per capita on healthcare. That constitutes almost 18% of GDP, more than any other other country in the world. Then to top of that off you personally have to buy (for who knows how much) insurance, or receive Medicaid if you're eligible?! Why? How can it spend that much money, your money, on a system that isn't even universal? It's ridiculous. The second biggest spender (my country) spend $5600 per capita (which is less than 10% of GDP), and that's it. Simple really. I'm happy to pay my taxes for it.
@Scooters Videos yes, what about them? Are they even relevant for this discussion?
These are relevant though, you are welcome to watch one of them.
th-cam.com/video/MvqY2NcBWI8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/w-IHJbzRVVU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/mmlHbt5jja4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Yze1YAz_LYM/w-d-xo.html
Good - you pay for the fraud - I choose to bow out !
@@dianekeil2967 which fraud are you talking about? Who are you talking too?
Are you talking about yearly US government spending on health care? $8500 per capita of 333,000,000,000? That alone would be 70% of the annual budget. You are greatly exaggerating.
For most people, you don't get any part of a governmental health insurance. They are to well payed to medicaid and such programs. You or the company that hires you pay for an health insurance.
That is why some people with medical issues are bound to not get married or a job, because then they could not afford the health care costs, and health care insurance companies refuses to insure them, as they are already sick.
So yes, the cost for a person in USA are higher for health care then the rest of the world with universal health care in some form.
Yes, they also have private doctors. Yes, they can also add another insurance for health care of things not treated by the universal health care.
So yes, universal health care systems could and should made suitable for USA, but you should also look at others for inspiration.
6:25 super-important point about unions and healthcare: in Canada, unions fought for healthcare for all, (:-) while in America, unions fought only for members' healthcare coverage (:-(
Unions are bleeding the Canadian Healthcare system dry...and have been for decades. What a gig when your union can get you a job to clean the cafeteria for $35.00/hr when anywhere else it would be $18.00...
@@zeroceiling Dude the solution isn't to decrease their salaries so it costs less, but to tax rich people and bring back unions in every industry so the average person has it better. The workers are the ones doing the work and the ones who deserve the fruit of their own labour, not the super rich property owners. Companies are private dictatorship, nothing more.
@@paifu. Company owners are the ones who risk their investments to create a business and have to set up all the systems which make a business, a business. They bear the cost and risk of investment, so they bear the rewards. Why should those who are simply labour workers be entitled to the same compensation when they incur none of the risks?
@@paifu. and to add onto Riley’s response, taxing the rich more doesn’t work. If another nation will take less of my taxes, I’ll just move my business there. And all the jobs I’ve created will go along with me.
@@paifu. bull crap if rich people don’t have money to create jobs who will Government? 😂
Maximize short-term profits or your're out. Exactly, Noam.
Is there a subject Chomsky isn't an expert on?
True god
Wicked angel satan and devil who earned those titles as apposed first born who said i love my father because i know who he is his ways
I don’t think that was a compliment Evan!! Chomsky is just a know it all...just ask him!!
One instance about polpot got my attention was what a certain one quoted of deads
One who actually
Acclaimed throughout western media
I’ve never really listened to Noam, however I got the measure of him in the first 1 min of this video. Thanks
Well thank you, Mr Einstein!
@@robertdavidson8028 🧠
So you know not to listen anymore . Full of rubbish these days
Gotta love that the first answer is 10 minutes long! I thought he was giving a talk, then 10 mins in up pops the interviewer with question 2!
Wow, lots of people in the comments here know more about the climate than the majority of climate scientists.
Perhaps? 🤔
The majority of climate scientists eh? Maybe you should tell the majority of climate scientists that they are supposed to all be in agreement that global warming is a thing. The majority of climate scientists actually disagree with that premise.
@@birgittabirgersdatter8082 the petition you're referring to did not vet the qualifications of any of its signatories. Closer examination shows that a lot are not climate scientists. Many aren't even scientists. Some entries are obviously fake, including Geri Halliwell and Perry Mason.
Natesh Mayuranathan, we need Perry Mason!!! I remember Geri Haliwell.
Natesh Mayuranathan not talking about a petition, twat. I'm talking about real scientists, archaeologists, meteorologists, geologists, physicists etc.
"Create" a common enemy, that way the powerful are able to shape the dialogue.
While Chomsky is a well-respected intellectual and dissident, there have been other respectable people who have given some pretty good argumentation against global warming. We aren't where Gore said we would be by now. The pro-warming people have totally ignored some things like explaning the roles of Malankovich cycles and solar variations as well as having blatantly lied. I don't hear any good counter-evidence from Chomsky so far. Just more doom and gloom.
Eric...You're right about that. Chomsky, being the world's foremost authority on everything has such a busy schedule being interviewed by people that think he's an intellectual. He probably hasn't had the time to really check into the AGW controversy. I do know that he's smarter than Al Gore but then again everyone is smarter than Al Gore.
Do you think climatologists haven't thought about that? Instead of assuming they didn't, why don't you actually do some research to see that milankovitch cycles, and solar variations don't correlate with the warming we are experiencing? I'd recommend you watch "Potholer54" he delves deep into the details of climate science.
Why are you comparing reality to something that Al Gore said? Al Gore has no relevant scientific expertise and has not published anything climate related. Listen to the published science, free for everyone to read.
We should be monitoring"weather manufacturing" as well to accurately weigh the influences
YES
A ton of y'all literally didn't watch the video and only read the title AND IT SHOWS
You have never read a book and it shows.
@@roostercogburn1943 Read far more than you, chucklefuck. Nice ad hominem though.
@@KravenTheHaunter You must be a Noamie. ...
@@roostercogburn1943 He's pretty good, but I don't do cult worship. Shame I can't say the same about you.
What Noam Chomski tells also goes for The Netherlands 1 on 1 .
Thanks for posting this video .
wat bedoel der precies?
????
He's pushing a global scam.
It's kind of sad that he cited the 98% thing as "guys who know anything." Hopefully he didn't know how shady that survey was before spouting off some of this stuff.
I wonder how some of these people will answer if the people who say the sun and cloud cover are the most important factors, and that carbon in the atmosphere is just a lagging factor; considering their concern for carbon is killing millions of poor people across the world.
+Bruce Keller Yes thats right Bruce. Nature is singling out poor people to kill. , but hey maybe its Gods fault. You just have to do something about this Bruce
+Bruce Keller The survey was peer-reviewed and corroborated by other studies. Nothing shady about it, apart from the attempts to discredit the relevant research--none of which are peer-reviewed and none of which pass basic scrutiny.
+Kropotkin2000 If you asked a bunch of priests whether or not they supported the public policy of their employer, the figure you get is pretty much unanimous - and of zero value despite all the peer review. Science which purports to tell the future is something like that - nonsense from start to finish. No confirmation is possible as no data has been generated.
th-cam.com/video/zQ3PzYU1N7A/w-d-xo.html
I have a lot of respect for this guy. Even though I don't agree with him on most issues, at least he challenges my beliefs in a rational way.
"If you find yourself among the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
---- Mark Twain
He makes me think.
I have a lot of respect for your comment, even though I agree with him on most issues. I would love to get to know your perspective on things.
@@marcelnehrig145 i respect both of you because you just care to know the truth.
Hell yeah man that’s how everyone should be. Question everything. Hold people accountable if wrong and just learn for your own good. Keeping an open mind is rare and if you are willing to listen as much as you talk you may see some of your own thoughts change on things. How we move ahead with our species. Seems some people in power don’t want that though unfortunately.
I also respect all your comments and I agree with Noam on most things. I've corresponded with him several times and I spent a couple years reading his books. I actually am not that interested in hearing more of what you all think as most people don't commit the necessary time to really study Noam's work. thanks
He will kill you to remove C02.
If only those books behind Noam could speak, Noam would be run out of town on a rail.
I hear this argument all the time and its just crazy. The population ends up paying for everything. We pay for corporate profits, and their taxes (as both are included in the price of the item/service), we pay for the government and its spending, we pay for our own living and taxes, we pay for economic development. There is no wealth until something has been made, sold and bought, and the working class is behind all that activity. The only way around it is to have workers in another country pay.
Your original statement was that every year was warmer than every other year from 1980-2000. Not the best way to put it.
You are right that we cannot look at the short term trend. 30 year minimums are required. And, the past 30 years has shown a dramatic deceleration of warming while models predicted an acceleration via feedbacks. Overestimating feedbacks is the huge problem of anyone saying we are going to have large temperature changes in the next century, and the overestimation is shown
10 years later and things only keep getting worse...........
How so? Crisis is being manufactured at this point.
@@thejarjosh Hehe. Stop your social media account my friend, see the world, outside.
Yeah, it keeps getting worser. He's friends with Epstein. How much worser can it get?! 😵💫
@@cypress13372023 hottest year on record and 2024 above that so far.
This man is a paradox ..
The saddest part of the whole thing is that the _public debate_ is even relevant!
*****
It's not just politics. We The People don't want to believe in climate change, because in our rational, non-denialistic (is that a word?) minds we know that _any effective action_ we might take to address climate change would, _at the very least_, involve _giving up our toys!_ So, naturally, anyone not wanting to abandon their SUV-Goes-To-Walmart lifestyle and go back to foraging for nuts and berries (as if that's even an option for the human race at this point) is either going to join in the chorus of nay-sayers, or do everything in their power to avoid the issue altogether.
***** So we should wait for the rich to give up their life of luxury and go broke or atleast come down to our level? That wont happen... well not soon anyway... And till then we should do nothing and see more of our states facing drought many years in a row. So what should we actually do about it? For example: Why dont we actually start by reducing the frequent use of our car. Use public transport. That will reduce our carbon footprint. I am a out of state student right now so i use my bike or use a bus to travel. These things seem trivial, but just think if every one does this... the overall use of oil/gas will naturally reduce. Which is a good thing is it not?
LightningAlchemist7
Unfortunately, your proposition is incompatible with existing infrastructure.
This problem has been in the making for centuries. It is the end result of our relentless pursuit of Economic Progress. The planet probably wouldn't care if ten, or even a few hundred thousand people drove around all day in gas guzzling SUVs, eating corn fed beef, and letting their waste products runoff into the oceans.. It DOES CARE that Seven going on Twenty Billion are doing it! And NO ONE, regardless of their social or political status, even wants to ACKNOWLEDGE this issue, because morality demands we do nothing to address the underlying cause. So, we try to guilt each other into buying more energy efficient light bulbs, and hope that the problem will just _work itself out_.
***** Yes you are correct. Population control is in a way the best "worst" solution to this mess.
LightningAlchemist7
Oh, I don't know that population control is necessarily a "best-worst" solution. If nothing else, think of what you could have if there weren't so many "others" to contend with. Maybe you could go to a beach again without having to pay admission; or not have to spend all day in an airplane terminal being scanned for explosive devices; or be able to drink out of a river without being poisoned. If you ask me, we're stupid for NOT doing it!
So, what do you say... Auto-sterilizers at the entrance to every Walmart? Who's with me?
Re: ideas that are created here in the U.S.A. are manufactured elsewhere. That's because business owners are taught in MBA school that they should enrich themselves at the expense of their workers. They think they "deserve" a salary that is a hundred or a thousand times that of their workers. Your life is Time. Your Time is the same in value as every else's. Your life is the same in value as everyone else's. The last thirty years should be known as the Era of Unfettered Greed.
I don't know why this guy is held in such high esteem. He is so off-base on so many topics that it disqualifies him as an authority. What is he,- a linguist? He rarely studies any of the topics he speaks on in any depth.
that's factually false, actually.
Exactly
Igaluit he got a degree in linguistics in the 60's or whenever. What relevance does that have? Why does that mean he couldn't have dedicated the other 50-odd years of his life to politics? He's the 3rd most cited author ever, his views are clearly held in high regard.
Yes, of course. But you'll notice in his speech, that he uses deconstructionist theory, where he'll correct words other people use and it betrays the ideology that if you change language, you will change society - which is a lot of hokum.
Igaluit, I think you should consult a hearing specialist. Chomsky often cites quotes and gives sources when he does. You should watch his speeches again. While it's common for folks in the scientific community, it is rarely the case when it comes to politics. I sometimes verify his sources and haven't found a mistake yet.
Chomsky showed his idiocy during the pandemic. I'll never forget how wrong he was on that issue. Why should I believe he's right on anything?
Because he is not a scientist. Those people can talk a lot because they are narcistc
Because it's a pretty small percentage of everything else he's done in his life?
@@vladimirolujic6637 lol op is clearly a righty.
Fact is, Chomsky is right on 50-95% of topics cause he’s a genius and has so much free time to think about things.
This is more or less true for most intellectuals which is why chimsky put out his “responsibility for intellectuals” 😅😅😅😅
It's pretty illogical to discard every opinion someone shares because of other views they might hold that you dislike
What exactly did he say during the pandemic that was wrong?
I don't know where you're getting your data, but I'm looking at the HADCRUT 4.2.0.0 from the Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets and you're incorrect. Depending on the years you analyze, conservative estimates for this type of data are around +0.11C/dec although you can cherry pick much greater trends from other years, which is what alarmist ecology groups have done in the past... You're in good company.
Nathan Rowe Dude, do you have any fucking idea how MUCH 0.11/dec is? What are you planning for, the habitability of earth for another 200 years? But oh yeah, you got Chomsky so hard, man! He‘s obliterated! Fucking moron.
& Jab got the Jab hahahahahahah
I hope people will realize that this guy has been a professor at MIT for 50 years and is regarded as one of the most honest and important intellectuals of this generation. I hope people will at least looks at some of the things he has said in the past to see what character he has. Then maybe you can have an open mind on what he has to say.
I'm an MIT professor and a highly regarded intellectual. I know it all, blah blah blah.
All the Wooley Mammoth farts melted all the glaciers during the last ice age.
Yeah so he's a deeply embedded member of a corrupt system run by Billionaires ...and this impresses you? Well that makes you a member of the Happy Lemming Useful Idiots Society- HLUIS Congrats moron!
Guys i am not trying to put you guys down i am just saying i have spent some time listening to a lot of what this guy says on many topics and have read a a few books by him. And for myself i cannot speak for others, he seems to tell the truth or what he believes to be the truth a large amount of time. Now you can argue if you agree with his points on certain subjects, but listen to a few things by him (even on unrelated topics, like on the mass media) and come up with your own opinion. Like if this is your first time hearing from him you might think he is a certain way when you might have painted him in an unfair manner to his true character. Again i am not trying to sound morally superior, just give the guy a fair shot.
And a man who doesnt know that meteorology is a science with relation to global temperatures.
I used to listen to him and agreed with alot he said. I gave him a fair shot until I became wiser and realized that he's pushing a communist agenda. He might mean well and truly believe he's doing good, but he's just another overly intelectualized tool.
Noam Chomsky got it wrong on vaccines and got it wrong on climate change. He must have got something right and I'm anxious to learn what and perhaps have some respect for his opinion on something.
He did some good work on linguistics. That’s about it.
Chomsky is "on the money" on some issues--such as American imperialism--but NOT on this problematic AGW scenario (about which they did some "fancy footwork" and now call "Global Climate Change").
Bill Benton Study from both sides of the question of GWarming suggests your are right, on ‘this problematic AGW scenario”.
• Too many good scientists are questioning this concern. Politics of agreement on this topic certainly is a curious part of the AGW question, especially as it disdains discussion that questions it presumption.
• Current global warming on all planets certainly demands an inquiry into what is going on, how the sun influences all planet environments, and most disconcertedly, investigation into the honesty, rights and freedoms of discussion within the science community.
• But many, Bill, refuse to let the facts get in the way of a good story supported by commercial media- Corporate Interests and Powers and Governments.
• I am most surprised in Noam’s take on this issue of compliance without question. But maybe this is a trail he must avoid for it only distracts from his main cause.
Namaste and care,
mhikl
***** I appeciate the courteous reply. MANY on these pages are full of acrimony and a resolute refusal to examine the facts. Also a considerable amount of rudeness...even to the point of the use of profanity and character assassination.
***** Please consider (objectively):
1. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
2. The primary "greenhouse gas" is water vapor.
3. The models used by proponents of this hypothesis have flaws.
4. The predictions..e.g,, of ocean rising.. have not panned out.
5. Recent temp. rises have been very modest..on the order of a half degree,
and this trend ended around 1998.
6. The issue has become much more a matter of politics--and dogma--than
science...with a huge amount of name-calling...and a refusal of honest
debate.
7. The actual pattern in the history of the planet has been that temperature elevation occurs, then is followed--generally much later--by a rise of
CO2.
Bill Benton I have found all of which you make point.
• From my studies the issue of man’s influence on his immediate environment (lands and water) he greatly can influence. On our communal air, not so much. It needs no ticket to move as it desires, and no mountain holds it back. :-)
• Have you studied The Electric Universe, “The Thunderbolts Project”? It takes to task common science. A new science, a better world is near. Very near.
• I like to study all sides of a question. Little, other than a good meal, gives me more pleasure than coming to toss a long held belief. Yet every belief I hold is tethered, ever so loosely, as willingly I am, to toss a burdensome possession on the dust heap.
• Kim Greenhouse, at Rainmaking Time is where I first had my old presumptions on the topic of weather, challenged. She is not a box sitter, once herself accepting the common direction of the idea. Her topics are eclectic. She does not agree with all presenters, but she is respectful, and allows discussion to take place.
itsrainmakingtime.com/robert-felix-joe-daleo-dr-tim-ball-true-inquiry-climate-and-weather/
• regarding curtesy, Bill, it is our nature, and by good fortune of family and friends, my history. Anger and disrespect deplete spirit. We need all the spirit we can gather, for true joy comes from connecting with caring engagement; even with those who usually engage from anger and resentment.
Namaste and care,
mhikl
Bill Benton ***** I have a PhD in Chemistry and have never come across any other topic where reluctance to take scientific -facts- opinions at face value was vilified. Even some decent people I personally know have this tendency of wanting to assassinate my character among my circles just because I've been a skeptic.
Even if Climate Science is not my field, the data sets are quite easy to comprehend and so are most of the publications. As of now there has never been any hard evidence to support AGW. At best there has been computed generated predictions that have overly exaggerated feedback from other GHGs like Vapor.
Also any scientist that has published journals knows quite well that these studies that recorded a consensus among scientists on AGW does not mean anything. It is a consensus in scientific opinion and that too is questionable. If I requested for grant money by writing a proposal that wanted to observe new species of pests as a result of AGW, I would quite easily get the funding. Because I would become part of the consensus that thinks AGW is real. Does not matter if I am only an entomologist that is PRESUMING AGW is real.
Hey chill triggered dudes. He is doing fairly good job in explaining how you got brain washed.
Lmaoooo
I think people get fed bad info and dont want to accept the truth they rather stick to their guns until the evidence is so overwhelming that their is no disputing without looking crazy or just being a complete idiot
-- Damn son, if you are really that triggered, they must have done a good job with you.
--
Is that what triggers you? Wages of a professor that doesnt buy into your bull shit?
@@Blowmontana707 Even if there was overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic caused global warming, that doesn't mean the mainstream solutions being offered are favorable or that they would even be effective in solving the problem that they claim are solvable. Honestly, it just sounds like a justification for a massive power grab for the global elite. They sell the promise of certain safety in exchange for human liberty, when there is no certainty. The only certainty I can see is a guaranteed tyranny.
Living in the mountains of North Carolina from October to the end of May, we've had to wear our heavier clothes earlier every year and into the first couple of weeks of June. It's not warming up folks, it's staying colder longer in the mountains of North Carolina!
Noam's an expert on everything like hiding in a classroom
Wisdom cannot come from books alone- Horace
@@roostercogburn1943 Chomsky needs to get out into the real world and put his ideas to the test. Karl Marx was another who never actually tested his own beliefs he was just a journalist.
@@Jay9999 Marx left most of his work undone, because it didn't make sense then or now.
Even the language gives it away. You don’t “believe” in science. It is based on fact not feelings. It is also not based on consensus.
I'm not sure I understand....but it seems like what you're proposing is that science (whatever that means) proves to some objective standard that something is true?
@@jordanp8063
It is the most effective methodology we have devised so far to figure out how stuff works. It is not perfect nor does it pretend to be.
th-cam.com/video/0OtFSDKrq88/w-d-xo.html
Wake up smell the roses
He knows what he talking about
If he was shifty
The irony of a linguistics professor criticizing meteorologists for speaking out of their scope regarding climate change.... Noam is a classic talking head.
"Specialization" in doctors, meteorologists et. al. has led to entire communities that know an elephant by its tail.
Would love to know his thoughts now. After covid and Tesla etc
As soon as they land their private jets they can talk to me about not using a drinking straw.
Hmmm, I'm so glad they mentioned "Peak Oil" lol
I see a ton of climatologies expressing their vast knowlage on climate change here lmao
Erick Romero we’re in good hands...😩
Off the North Coast of Siberia, the water is "boiling" with Methane bubbles. This has never been seen before. The level of Methane in the Arctic air has increased by 9 times. The effects of Global Warming are occurring about 70 years earlier than expected.
I used to live in southern Oregon we were in 1998, USDA zone hardiness 7 as of 2015 we are in Ashland and Medford Oregon, USDA zone 9. My husbands family is still in Oregon and I watch it for that reason. In 1999 we moved to Kansas
where my family Lives. We have always been USDA zone 5 since we (father, mother, sister, brother) moved there in 1972. As of 2015 we are now in (2016) changed to zone 6.
There are plants and trees that I could not grow before such as a fig tree, that I can grow now. Our once colder and snowy wet winters have become mild and drier. The insects that fight us for our vegetable crops have increased in numbers so that we are going to need to find better more efficient ways to grow organic without pesticides. We have never seen so many beetles volume and variety decimate our crops because the insect populations are not dying back due to cold frozen 2-3 week periods. So I do not know where you are getting your information from, but our climate has warmed both here in Kansas and in Oregon.
Cool! You are demonstrating that a warming climate is beneficial to life. A cooling climate would be killing off life.
Crowned Glorious...your observations do not prove or even support CO2 as a cause of anything, but I can tell you that in the NE, the last freeze date in May used to be 8 May, my Dad's birthday, and is now listed as 15 May. So my anecdote competes with yours. Then again, more growth due to more CO2 (a true plant food as opposed to a nutrient) may lead to more insects to eat the plant for the same reason that predator/prey levels cycle, and fox births rise as rabbit population increases, then fall when rabbits run into some virus and die off.
Peter Simmons,
How arrogant to assume you are the single "intelligent" voice on this or any thread!
My GPA at University was 3.89 , I made the Deans list on many occasions and phi kappa. Have been invited to join Mensa....etc.
We are all in this together on this small planet earth and we all have an impact on the lives of those around us.
*****
Not wanting to be Taxi Driver, I'll assume you were writing to me, and simply reply that you have your energy absorption facts exactly wrong, so perhaps you want to go back to CHEM 100, Book 1 before you make silly comments like that. The "greenhouse effect" is the absorption of IR energy so that it is retained in the low atmosphere (heat) instead of radiating out to space. The IR energy did not come directly from the Sun, but from ground absorption of much of the spectrum, and return of IR. Most of that IR retention is due to water vapor, not CO2.
People like him are the reason why criminals can pass as politicians.
He was on the money with Manufacturing Consent. He's either forgotten or been paid to forget. Whatever the mainstream are shoving down our throats, it always fits the same pattern: there's always an ostensible reason "for the greater good", while those pushing the narrative can be seen in plain sight (or private plane sight) acting like hypocrites. And, any dissent - what we used to call open scientific debate - is crushed. The cough-cough crisis was *exactly* the same - parties and curry nights for the politicians (UK), while locking the rest of us down.
He is a brilliant psychologist, specializing in language. Not a hard scientist, and very left wing politically. His views are not surprising, but carry no more weight than Al Gore's.
Maybe I misunderstood, but why did he say it wouldn't matter if it was only happening in Monacco? It matters, no matter what. Is it only an issue because it's happening to "one of the richest countries in the world?" Did he simply mean that we have the most influence, or did he truly mean to say that it only matters because the first world is included in the tragedy?
Yes. We're all up to our necks in water here in the rockies.... and it only took 11 years.
SMFH
This reminds me of the “fat is bad and will kill you” LIE.
i want to deep fry things in butter and beef tallow :3
At least there was actual vested interest for the sugar industry to say that, whereas who has a vested interest in cooking up a climate hoax? There are far more, far more rich and powerful people who stand to benefit from denying anthropogenic climate change
Listening to this in 2023, still spot on.
Haha, me too. Hello to the Future humans reading this in 2043
when everything that can disprove your belief is a lie then your belief is a faith
Or the opposition is full of lies
THE NATION has made the stupid mistake of giving this video a totally misleading title! Incredible.
There's really no reason for the lack of general knowledge about current events I see in this comments section since we're on the internet and can look up anything. Greenland never stopped melting this winter. Hundreds of square kilometers of Arctic Ocean are bubbling from methane hydrate melting. Miami is flooding during high tide. We're 80 years ahead of worse case scenarios from just a few years ago. All these things have been reported on multiple times in the last few months alone, just not by Faux News or CNN or the other large, state influenced news networks.
Greenland also was above geothermal activity ( vulcanism ). A little lava melts ice just fine. The methane is scary stuff. It lies all over the place at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico too. Its change of state contributed to failure of blowout mechanisms and was an integral part of the Deepwater Horizon gusher from 6 miles down ( the bottom was 1 mile but the hole another 5 ). Still, if it can build up on the bottom that far south, it may be more stable than we give it credit for.,
John Farnham - the ocean water temperature is 4 degree C everywhere below 1000 m, so being south is not relevant in terms of temperature. It's because water has the highest density at 4 degree C. And yes, methane hydrate is scary.
Please go see Tony Heller's video!
Hoax is not the correct word. BS is the correct word.
It's not BS. However, the liberal solutions are BS.
@@aristocraticrebel It is BS and the climate extremists are pushing the world off a cliff.
Didn’t watch the video, lmao
So weird to be worried about plant food
I have a meteorology degree and we are well educated on climate. What education does Chomsky have on climate?
He's right we shouldn't listen to meteorologists, we should listen to a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. Sometimes described as "the father of modern linguistics"
and that man used to be the advisor of my advisor.. good thing i left the uni
Yeah reject the ENTIRE field climatology, thousands of scientists, and just take the word of this one guy, who knows nothing about climatology.
@@woohooman-fl9vq I'm pretty sure he talked about TV weather forecasters and not about the science behind them.
He is an old red. in the end he talks about unions and national healthcare.
@@woohooman-fl9vq climatology is all a money grab
he must not of done much research into climate change because man's effect is a TINY part of it.
The linguistics professors doubles as a scientist. Inspiring! Making an argument by portending consensus instead of interpreting data. Priceless!
I am a scientist. And, yes, one does not need to be a scientist to listen to other scientists. It is not his "listening to the scientific community" that I question, it is his conclusion, especially on motivation which Socrates recommended not questioning. Also, it's his statement regarding the "98% of scientists who know anything" and, you guessed it, the rest. So, not only does he have an incredibly accurate count of the yeas vs the nays, he is also clairvoyant into each one's scientific acumen.
Portend is the correct word for conveying what I intended.
As far as your point on consensus, science should never be decided on consensus. Otherwise, Galileo would not have been supported and Lister's bacteria would not now be treated efficaciously. Facts are the ultimate determiner.
If you want consensus, though, there is a statement rejecting anthropogenic global warming signed by about 30,000 scientists of which about 9,000 have PhDs.
I love the continuation of personal attacks. I am not a scientist? Undergrad, grad, and doctorate from two of this world's best schools and doing teaching and research on three continents at outstanding institutions. From the rest of your arguments, I can see why you would rather make personal attacks - it's all you have.
I guess those three papers must have queried 1,000,000 scientists to get their 97% "consensus".
The statement "the consensus among climatologists is simply an objective fact" without bringing up any data to support a statement of "fact" shows that you have not listened (Is not that where you started?) to any of the scientific methodology already discussed and, no, I cannot find that very compelling.
Your final (one only hopes) paragraph is replete with ad hominems as the last resort of the desperate argument devoid of factual recourse. Thank you for conceding the point.
The petition I refer to was only started to show that their is no consensus. The progenitors recognize the petition is not science and did it only to refute the claim of consensus.
I had hoped we were going to have a reasonably fruitful discourse. Sadly, this did not happen. As far as me being a p*** poor scientist, I guess I will have my adviser ignore my research which refuted his, discard that chapter I wrote for a course while taking it, retract the paper describing the first ever measurements ever made in one area, and ask those treating a horrible disease with a method I discovered to stop. Oh, and all the articles are in world renowned peer review journals but not the one for which I am a reviewer.
Better go. Lots of people to contact. I know you'll need to be looking up more derogatory and swear words.
Sad. The "papers" you cite state their review of the articles they cite are 97% in favor of their opinion. Bravo. Not science but opinion just like the statements that follow in the other citations. Politics and opinion. The balance of your diatribe is nothing but ad hominem attacks. Can't waste anymore time on you. Good luck getting into a good school or getting that tech job you are looking for.
this is 11 years ago….
Just listen to the co founder of green peace. He’s a scientist and one of the first hard core environmentalist
And he says carbon is plant food and sun cycles play a huge role in temperature change. Like he’s a freaking expert with a different opinion yet the media says all the experts say Carbon is bad and increase the temperature
I would have thought he would be aware of how those institutions he hates profit from alarmism.
You speak of a conspiracy theory. You don't know what you are talking about.
@@patricklincoln5942 Thats a conspiracy theory on your side. ;)
@@gedankenfang3931: My comment on one person's conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory? How so?
@@patricklincoln5942 Because its all theory on the climatechange subject. Its all theses that havent being prooved. So bothsides are conspiricy theorists. :)
@@gedankenfang3931: You mean like how gravity is a theory?
Canada: an older man was charged $100 Carbon Tax...for having his 97 old mother cremated....and I guess this produced $100 of CO2...
ya and you cherrypick that because?
I’d rather pay that than destroy the planet
That Boi ...pay to do what?....that’s the problem. People and governments are great at collecting payments. What to do that is actually effective, in terms of addressing climate change, has so far escaped us. They money we pay as taxpayers always end up in general revenues anyway. Look at British Columbia, where a ton of money was put forward to separate different types of garbage...from cartons, to glass to organic...paper..cardboard...etc. It cost a lot of money. Latest pictures and reports show when reaching the dump....that all of it goes into the same hole anyway. This cost millions to implement...so you think I want to pay for that?...and it will save the planet?.....no thanks...no longer that naive.
BuGGyBoBerl ...I cherry picked that because it was allowed to happen under the present administrative system you muppet.
And Noam's followers think he is an impartial intellectual, one of the philosopher kings they need to interpret the shadows on the walls..
And who do you prefer to listen to? The Koch Brothers?
+Not An Oxymoron How about looking into the facts for yourself and making up your own mind, or is that too much work for you?
Feel free to lock yourself in a Faraday Cage and look for facts completely on your own.
The facts are in. Man made climate change is real. Chomsky or no.
Not An Oxymoron, What are those fact you speak of ? In the 80's they called it "the greenhouse effect" which never happened, then in the 90's they called it "global warming" which never happened and now they call it "climate change" wow how convenient, now the weather can go up in temp and it's "climate change" and the weather temp can go down and it's "climate change" You would have to have taken leave of your senses to believe the hoax of "man made climate change" The Earth's climate has always changed on it's own and always will. Noam says at 10:30 that if the United States collapses then the whole world will collapses. What a self indulgent and pretentious thing to say. I've read a few of Chomsky's books and he is clearly a very bright man and I've agreed in the most part to what he says and has written. Nevertheless, for American's to think they are the be all and end all of the world is so laughable and for Noam to say this, is embarrassing to hear, to say the least. Great empires have come and gone many times throughout history and another empire has always been there to fill the void and that's just a fact. I can't believe in this hoax. No one will ever convince me of it...no one ! It hasn't become hotter and it hasn't become colder. It's just the normal cycles of the Earth. Scientists, say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And we have about150 years of recorded weather at best. And they want us to believe they know what's going on with the earths climate. They don't ! "Scientists" will be the death of us all...not the climate. Respect intended !
Because he's been alive since the last great depression, has written more books than most people have read, has spoken extensively on public policy & political philosophy, and is the most cited intellectual figure alive today.
He's a traitor pushing a global scam.
Not everyone who's smart is right all the time. You shouldn't take his word over the thousands of climatologists whose area of expertise this is. Science isn't political. Don't deny reality to fit your political beliefs. Change your political beliefs to fit reality.
@@woohooman-fl9vq What you just said tells me you don't know basic science. That's an appeal to authority, not science. Science looks like this : average global temperature fell from 1945 to 1979, 1998 to 2015 and 2016 to now, all the while atm. CO2 shot up, therefore CO2 doesn't control the temperature of Earth and the hypothesis is false. Go to NASA for the 1945 to 1979 land surface cooling data and all the satellite feeds show the 1998 to 2015 and 2016 to now cooling.
500 billion tons of carbon dioxide since 2015 (NOAA) and not a fraction of a degree of warming, however, the satellites show a slight cooling, notwithstanding, the medieval and the Roman era’s where on average 2 degrees warmer whilst carbon dioxide levels stood at approximately 280ppm, some 140ppm lower than today.
To Noam Chompky's defence he has stated on numerous occasions that he is an anarchist rather than a communist and he never stops is to our benefit as he is a leading intellectual in this world who has the courage to not only question those who seek to control but to research on deep levels many of the issues affecting us all. Do I agree with every point of view he has? That for me is impossible as this mans mind is oceanic and I have neither the intellect nor the time in life to seriously question what this person has a grasp upon...if I did stumble upon an inconsistency I hope I would change my world view which I believe is what he Noam Chompsky would expect ...he has helped me to open my eyes to a broader and more compassionate view of this world ...and that is a good thing he has my respect and indeed my love....to finish he speaks loudly for free speech and I am not aware of him being antagonist to science but rather to bring to point what those with power who would make use of that science for their own purposes ...
I'm a lot more concerned about the mortgaging of our grandchildren's future with fiat currency. (like the 18 billion dollar American debt)
So, tell me professor, what happens to the species if we stop using fossil fuel? Can you say, 80% of the population dies? --But hey, there'll still be ice in The Arctic!
+davess357 You're an idiot.
+Xavier Tolland The debt is actually more like 18 trillion me thinks. By the way, you might want to actually say something intelligent rather than just call someone a name. Grow up
+davess357
*Groan* Another nimrod who wants to talk about the evils of the central bank and the coming hyperinflation (which people have been predicting for decades and which never comes). It's funny, it's almost the year 2016 and gas is still under $3 a gallon, and Ron Paulians are still preaching their lunatic economic gospel on the Internet.
+dave parkinson
The United States's debt-to-GDP ratio isn't that high, and many other countries have a ratio much higher than ours. The United States itself had a higher debt-to-GDP ratio after World War II than it has now.
The whole "the national debt is out of control" thing is just a scheme the Republicans use to justify slashing social spending. Notice, however, that's there's always plenty of money available to spend on the morbidly obese U.S. military.
+profd65 There is no such thing as an unlimited amount of money for spending. If you think all is dandy with our economy then good luck is all I can say. Some of us are preparing for the worst while hoping for the best.
Didn't Chomsky write "Manufacturing Consent"? Climate change could be a sequel.
Joe Schmoe Yup, it's a conspiracy to clean up the planet. It's such a relief that Big Oil is looking after us. At least Exxon won't pay people to lie.
@@gilliansernich9267 who you think owns big Climate? It's the same people. They saw opportunity to make more off green energy & jumped on it.
Maybe Noam Chomsky, whom I really adore, should however talk to his MIT colleague, Freeman Dyson, who does not believe in the CO2 theory.
Djuli Murti.
You mean the same Freeman Dyson who said this:
"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that's what upsets me."
Why would Noam Chomsky want to talk to some one who doesn't know much about global warming? It doesn't make sense.
@@danzel1157 Freeman Dyson is a highly reputated Physician and Mathematician - so he is certainly competent. There are far more Climate Experts who do not agree to the CO2 Theory, than mass media wants us to believe and it is not true, that they would all be payed by the oil industry or hate little girls. Searching a bit into the matter, it becomes obvious, that there is some kind of manilupation going on. Highly reputated scientist who were convinced of the CO2 Theory, left the IPCC after they had changed their mind - and they consider the IPCC to be a corrupt institution with a political agenda. The IPCC was founded by politics with a clear command, in order to proove the man made climate change. This itself is a totally unscientific approach.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am absolutley convinced, that we do have to change our way of economics and we have to show far more minduflness regarding the consequences of our actions regarding nature, we should not allow pesticides etc. I love nature and I want us to act carefully regarding our biggest treasure and the variety of species.
The pattern, that I get more and more convinced about is, that necessary protest is in modern times misguided by wrong information, by aims, that we don't know - this is designed by media agencies in order to manipulate public opinion. It has already been detected, that the management has in a hidden sphere, founded a labour union itself, in order to secretley direct the show etc.
CO2 is the gas, that plants a breathing. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. As a matter of fact 280 ppm, as in times before industrialisation, this was the lowest value in the history of the planet. Plants need CO2 and they transform it into sugar. Plant rest over the decades make oil and coal. And there the CO2 is all embedded inside. If the CO2 is down to 150 ppm - all live indeed would be dying. So what we are doing when we push CO2 back into the atmosphere - we are doing recycling. Actually plants are growing better with more CO2. People owning a greenhouse pump CO2 into the house in order to raise the share of CO2 up to 1000 ppm.
More than that, we can be sure, that our planet and nature will be destroyed, trees will die and insecs too, when 5G will be implemented everywhere as it is planned. My concern is, that these protests come at the right time, to make us believe, it would be climate change and not this new sick technology, which will bring a patter of total life time control from the government over each single citizen.
@@djulimurti8238
Mate, you're all over the place with this conspiracy bullshit. I mean, "Management conspiracy spheres?" Jesus, this is David Icke territory.
Anyway, in the real world Freeman Dyson was an impressive physicist in his day, but he is clearly out of his depth on climate change. So are you of course, except that the old guy admits it.
See "Don't Look Up" for kicks.
Grandpa Chomsky, what will we do when you're gone?
Aimhigh
Obviously young and stupid naive
Noam I am a great follower of your work in all ways, and have been over many years . However it seems that the experts are saying the idea re global warming is based on reading and measuring computer models.
Many first class scientists are taking serious measurements and showing no global warming. They even changed the terminology from Global warming to Climate change. What are we to believe? Alistair p s health care like gun control is way too late to alter in the USA the doctors are too used to big wages. and the Gun Crowd are also making too much money from this. I believe that money is always the problem and Love is always the answer. Please don't say I am naïve .We have a great health care here in the UK doctors are well enough paid but not all millionaires. Brotherly love dear friend Alistair excuse typing parkinsons disease.
Sir Earth was once hot ball of fire. It's always changing nothing to weep about.
Yes, Global Warming didn’t work, so they’re trying the unprovable Climate Change. Deception is a feature of the despicable immoral ones.
If the situation really is "worse than expected" why are all the temperature increase predictions proving to be so wrong?
They have actually been rather accurate as far as I can tell:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/04/climate-models-have-accurately-predicted-global-heating-study-finds
Given the impact that America can have on other countries maybe people outside of America should be able to vote in the US elections?
This whole interview just reeks of simple truths, deducted by an average man that reads too much and speaks his mind. No giant complex conspiracy theories... just good old observations strung together with logic and reason. Respect to you Mr. Chomsky, for keeping your head and speaking slowly and clearly.
Heartening to see what an average person can achieve out of simple influences, like curiosity, encouragement, education, and discipline.
LOL, an average man. Hahahaha, best joke ever.
He started the interview with one of the biggest failed "good old observations" I've ever seen. He doesn't even know what meteorology is. LOL
Yes, I do know the historical precedence of such a thing and in fact I have looked at the numbers you suggested a while back ago. The issue is people attribute growth to a presidency who didn't implement a single one of his economic policies and even kept government spending to a minimum while he took credit for the growth of an economy that Alan Greenspan was responsible for. I just have to remind people of this a lot.
You're reminding people of a fantasy.
First of all, Reagan appointed Greenspan, second, Paul Volker was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank from 1979-1987 and it was his efforts combined with Reagan's tax and economic policies that snuffed out the Carter 17% hyperinflation while stimulating unprecedented economic growth which saw GDP snap back from a -1.4 % in 82 to 4.2% in 83.
this is extra depressing
Its designed to whip up the young activist types, not actually solve or change anything.
So funny listening to Noam while Richard Lindzen is the next video over on the right.
THANK YOU NORM, FOR BEING A PROFESSIONAL ABOUT THIS AND, TELLING IT !!!
THIS COUNTRY MUST FIGHT OFF THESE CRIMINALS TRYING TO DESTROY PROGRESS, AND DISTURB THE PEACE #BOYCOTTTHEMAINSTREAMMEDIA; #BOYCOTTKOCH !!!
If only there was some form of government that could gather the resources to institute the necessary changes, but was insulated from the fickle will of the people. Maybe Stalin had some ideas along those lines
Stalin wasn't a communist. He ran a totalitarianian government and a CAPITALIST economy.
Quantumwolf45 the only way for humanity to coexist within communism, is if we are able to outsource every level of production, from the discovery and extraction of resources to the delivery of the finished product, to a self maintaining machine hierarchy. This includes inventive thought, and the extinguishment of free will. This is my opinion, because no matter how good your intentions, you cannot force anyone beyond their own free will without force or coercion.
@@Quantumwolf45 Good point. If Stalin had been a TRUE COMMUNIST, he would have killed a lot more people and been far wealthier.
@@Quantumwolf45 You are an idiot! The state owned everything.
It does mater what people think, it is happening and who are the people going to blame? Themselves? I don't think so.
Comet on Building 7 !!! Coward or Controlled ??
So, according to you, massive CO2 regulation has caused record CO2 emissions?
The fact is, there has been very little CO2 regulation, but the natural gas boom has cut CO2 emissions in the U.S.
Thank you for taking the time to speak accurately and truthfully. My concern is the fact that going to grid green tech. is not going to help in light of the methane release. Are there any off the clock think tanks considering some survival tech stuff to help maintain civility other than instituting marshal law as this future course unfolds? There just simply are not enough squirrels to go around. :)
Edith Has a Risen King Eat lead ,all problems cease to exist.
It's all lies. The climate is fine.
@@ricktd6891 No it's not. Anthropogenic global warming is real. I recommend you watch the channel "Potholer54". He is very thorough.
@@woohooman-fl9vq Ahhhhhhhhhhh ha ha ha haaa!! I'm sorry, that's really funny to me because I know he's a huge propagandist who lies to people and counts on them not checking his facts. Listen to what he says and check the facts. He puts papers on his videos you can pause, read, and see right there he's lying. Now feel free to go to any PH54 video you want and try to find proof CO2 controls the temperature of Earth. Good luck.
@@woohooman-fl9vq There's 2 other things you won't find proof of and he doesn't talk about much or at all, the claims of the alarmists that the Earth is historically hot right now or atm. CO2 is historically high right now. If he even mentions historic CO2 levels he'll say it was at 280 PPM for 800,000 years. So why stop at 800,000 years when we have 600,000,000 years worth of records? What is he hiding? The fact that we had atm. CO2 at 4000 PPM rising to 4300 PPM while we fell deep into an ice age over millions of years, falsifying the hypothesis a million times over? Yup.
So some top scientists think one thing , and other top scientists think not , though it may be wise to cut emissions etc , to be on the safe side .
Modelling says it all
Here in the UK, we hear a lot more from believers in Global Warming than from oil companies wanting to deny it. When I look at the NOAA graphing page, almost everywhere in the USA has seen no warming or a little cooling for the last 15 years or so, compared to a very high rate of warming from 1980 onwards. The same thing is true when we configure it for the Global temperature (unfortunately we cannot see component countries and continents of the Globe). Only the Sea temperature, not the Sea+Land has shown much recent warming. Google around and you will see a lot of papers trying to explain how the sea could be soaking up the warming, and how it will eventually spring back. A popular theory seems to be that the recently very strong El Nino cycle has resulted in strong easterly winds which have transferred water or at least the heat in it, westward, resulting in cooling over the land. And most parts of Antarctica have shown recent cooling, even though the Larsen B shelf is clearly warming. The solution to this anomaly seems to be to concentrate on Larsen B, even though it is a very small proportion of Antarctica, which sticks out into warm Pacific currents.
Despite the recent industrialisation of China and India and far Eastern countries like Korea, the percentage CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise at approximately the same rate as 10 years ago.
All this casts doubt on the current estimates of the warming rate, which were made in the 90's, it appears on statistical grounds only, not on deep models which explain the actual mechanisms.
So, although nobody could deny either the rise in CO2 or the effect of Global Warming, it does appear likely that we have a bit more time to plan than we expected. Timing is important, since the technology continues to improve. I was putting off installing solar panels until the promised new designs with +30% efficiency arrived. But because my government is drastically cutting its subsidy from January, I had them installed last month.
+John Brown "almost everywhere in the USA has seen no warming or a little cooling for the last 15 years or so" The Northeast US just shattered the old record for warmest December - by FIVE DEGREES FARENHEIT.
+jaspernatchez , sure but what matters is the shape of the graph. There have always been spiky periods. Google "NOAA Climate at a Glance". You can graph it for every US state and region, and most of them have been cooling for 15 to 19 years, depending on how you fit the graphs. For example, California has been essentially flat since 1998, with +/-4F excursions up AND down. NOAA produces a report every year where they cherry pick a few worst cases, like the one you refer to, or the retreat of this or that glacier. I think I read that many of the 40 glaciers across Antarctica have grown and not retreated. Of course, this warm end to 2015 could be the start of a new rising curve, like the very steep one between 1980 and 1998. But even if it is, and it lasts for the same time interval, that would reduce the global rate of warming by approaching 50%. It appears not to be as fast as we were promised. Thank goodness.
+John Brown Just listen to yourself. You're talking about rising curves as if you're anything except some stupid loser posting to yt comments, as if you have a milligram of expertise that would entitle you to an opinion on the subject of climate. You, in your amazing presumptuousness, think that the THOUSANDS of climate scientists who are in agreement about climate change haven't thought about your fucking rising curve and glaciers. You talk about cherry picking as if thousands of scientists could be in some massive global conspiracy to hide the truth, a truth that YOU, some moron on yt, will reveal to an ever-thankful world. These comments show me just why the world is in the shape it is - it is filled with incredible morons like you.
+EmptyCountry "He's entitled to his opinion" Why do you say that? How do you know he's entitled? I think it's far more likely that, like me, he's far too ignorant of climate science to have an opinion. The difference between him and me is that I'm smart enough to know that I can't possibly amass enough knowledge to compare with the professional climate scientists, probably all of whom have doctorates and have published papers in peer-reviewed journals, who have agreed about AGW, and he is not. Neither, apparently, are you.
+EmptyCountry "But you need to always vet their work" LOL! I suppose YOU, some nobody without education or intelligence, "think" you have "vetted" thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to trying to save the world as well as overcome morons like you because you've spent a few hours on bogus websites. What could possibly be funnier or more pathetic?
I was looking so forward to this interview. Meteorology is, in fact, the scientific study of the atmosphere including the subdisciplines of climatology, atmospheric physics and atmospheric chemistry. Undergraduate and graduate programs are offered at, I believe, most American Ivy league schools in this academic domain. With all due respect, Mr Chomsky, maligning an entire aspect of atmospheric science seems unsavoury and unintellectual. Just sayin'.
Science provides us with the essential empirical evidence which differentiates it´s existence from belief.
The US can lead the charge on global warming but the globe hasn’t warmed up to fixing it. Let’s hope there’s an ice age soon.
"I'm looking forward to the next strong El Nino, so you people have to start over with "there's been no warming for a year...""
They're already crowing about the big "recovery" in Arctic sea ice over last year's record low.
ge556 It’s a much bigger recovery when you factor into it that we were supposed be ice free already according to predictions of the experts and the super computer models...so what went wrong or right depending on your religious beliefs?
No they're not LMAO
Wtf are you smoking? Do you even live up in the Arctic? I'm guessing not.
@@timbrady6473
Source please?