youtube is polite enough to drop a context bar and cite the ever so reputable source Wikipedia. edit: for clarification purposes I wouldn't cite praguru either but both often cite other sources that can be drawn upon. By my standard they are roughly equal
The way I reckon, sea levels have risen 400ft from the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. There have been multiple ice ages and warming periods in the 300,000 years of human existence. The climate is always changing. Anyone who believes they can separate natural climate change from man-made climate change from politics is incredibly arrogant. We’re humans. We adapt. There are much greater dangers to humanity than climate change, like the rise of totalitarian movements destroying western civilization IN THE NAME OF GOOD!!!
Yes, we’ll adapt. We’ll survive. But can we keep the same quality of life we’ve had for the last couple of decades? Plants aren’t too keen on weather extremes, nor are they too keen on sudden shifts in climate. We need plants to have food.
@@josephhoward4697 Thank you. These people don't get it. Climate Change is getting worse and even natural disasters are becoming more common. They're gonna realize the shit they're saying is completely wrong.
@@MUZUKUN-YT did you not see? it is NOT getting worse!! it is about the same! but go ahead with your ideas! we cannot change it no matter what we do!! takes 1000's of years!! all for alt energy and a cleaner world, but as I always say, IT IS NOT THE U.S. DOING IT!!!! we have cleaned up all pollution across the board by 70% since the 70's! so why are we always the ones you blame?
@@stevendoty9408 yes it’s getting worse, climates becomes more and more unpredictable. But please, continue to listen to “scientists” sponsored by fracking and oil billionaires instead of actual evidence supported and approved by the vast majority of REAL scientists.
As Michael Crichton wrote in his, “State of Fear “, the people have to be kept in a S of F, to remain dependent on the government-ergo- climate change.
Thats nice but climate-change is objectively proven, objectively a humanity-wide crisis and prageru is objectively known to lie, misrepresent and be the 'enemy of all science'.
@@Proemed44G How much is CO2 is produced by the oceans, and how much of that is figured into the estimates. Answer? Part one is unknown, and part two is zero.
@@jimskarw25 LOL, what the hell ? The oceans are a carbon sinks... That means that Ocean capture CO2 until it becomes too much and the oceans become acidic...
@@Proemed44G There is approximately 70% of the planets flora beneath the waves. There are somewhere between 4-5,000 active volcanoes on the ocean floor. Pretty sure that man’s contribution is less than minimal.
Blaming the weather on other people's "immoral" behavior is one of the oldest scams in the book. In ancient times they claimed it was caused by upsetting whatever gods people worshiped. The solution was always to submit to the rule of someone else and give up your wealth. Today, the names have changed but the game and it's goals are exactly the same.
I remember being a child in the 70's and the media informed us that scientists have found Africanized bee's that are more lethal than native bee's were migrating and could kill untold amount of people Then in the 80's I remember the media telling me that scientists have said acid rain is going to destroy crops and we were going to starve Then I remember in the 90's the media informed us that because computer's wouldn't know how to accept the year 2000 the Y2K bug was going to destroy the world Then I remember in the 2000's the hole in the ozone layer was going to act like a big magnifying glass and burn us all alive But NOW I'm supposed to believe the very same people about climate change? Sorry but you've cried wolf too many times for me🖕
Funny how private corporations including the media suppressed all this stuff about climate change, including its lefty activists because of obvious reasons (i.e. environmentally friendly policies cut into profits) yet now they're lying. You tell me why they suppressed all these supposedly unearthed "lies" in the 60s and 70s? Did they do it so they could save these lies and use for a rainy day in the 21st century? Or maybe they suppressed all that stuff to keep themselves busy? Or as PragueU seeks to imply, "To sell more papers"🤡 Gosh I wonder why, maybe you, a man of experience I presume seeing as you were supposedly alive in the 70s to "remember" can enlighten us young chaps on the answer?
To be fair, the ozone hole was fixed by a huge effort to phase out damaging particles from industrial goods. It kind of supports the Climate panic more than it goes against it.
@@GeneralG1810 exactly, politicians can only get the citizenry to agree to more taxes if they can scare the crap out them and then promise to fix it for them. it's sales 101, create the problem in their mind then sell them the solution.
I remember back in the 1970's, the climate scientists were warning us about a coming "Ice Age". They were claiming by the year 2000, average summer temperatures would get no higher than the mid to high 40's. Winter would average between -10° to -20°, with possible extremes to -60°. You see how that worked out.
Scientist gave us many warnings, We will have over population, the earth is heading to an ice age, the Ozone will be Depleted, , acid rain, food shortages, oil depletion, metal reserves gone all by 2000, snow will be a rare sight, polar 2007 -caps will be gone soon.
I remember that tripe also. When that idea was being pushed, I was an adolescent and it scared the crap out of me. I believed it and the scary magazine covers depicting NYC encased a glacier. Since then, I could name at least a dozen other end of the world "crises" that didn't come true.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I remember this clearly! Even the TIME magazine feature that had people scared to death! We've allowed to much BS over the last 4 decades, this is why the democrats(party of contradiction) are in control. Even parents don't seem to have a say about their kids once popped out of mama's womb!
Yeah there no fire in California and Austrilia. Yeah the Colorado river is not drying up. Yeah Salt Lake is not drying up. Yeah we are going on five years with only hand few days of snow in the north east. All right, they are happening. Closing your eyes don't make you invisible or things go away.
1300 years ago grapes were successfully grown in England’s midlands, 200 years ago there was ice skating on the Thames. Yes weather goes in waves, like the ocean, there are many sources of waves. The Russian climate model was most accurate of the thirty plus and it was only 100% off. It reminds one of the saying, “Garbage in, garbage out”, doesn’t it?
Yes, your being controlled by this very fact being used as an excuse. Thats nice but climate-change is objectively proven, objectively a humanity-wide crisis and prageru is objectively known to lie, misrepresent and be the 'enemy of all science'.
As someone who does scientific computer simulations for a living, an honest scientist will tell you that modeling climate is very hard. I model simpler systems with less variables and even those can exhibit very complex behavior. I can fully appreciate how hard it is to even approximate coupled nonlinear equations across multiple scales. It is amazing we can predict the weather with any kind of certainty out to 1-7 days.
It's also amazing how often those 7 day predictions are wrong and yet people still buy into there being accurte century level predicitons and how all of human civilization will develop over that century in order to assign total blame of what is claimed to be bad for people globabal average temps that increse by an ammount that you couldn't percieve and probably have a wider range in variability of in the room your currently in.
Inaccuracy compound over time... But same here I'm honestly amazed how we can predict something so complex with such high probability and for that long!!! I understand the science behind it but still looks like magic. And just to think with our computational power growing every day, our ability to track and feed info to it and improvement made to the models makes me wonder if we are approaching type 1 civ
@@miglespt9750 that is true but the chaotic behavior at small scales does not translate at predictable linear behavior at long scales. That is not how chaotic systems work.
6pm tomorrow will be rain between 2pm-4pm, rest of day dry 11pm tomorrow will be rain 10am-2pm, 2-4pm no rain, 4pm-9pm rain this is the actual weather report from 2 weeks ago when i needed to know about the next day.
@@amazingbollweevil most every video is created and delivered by a credible scientist, researcher, professor, and otherwise expert. Wikipedia articles are written and edited by laymen.
Most people will accept massive volcanoes erupting. But humans pumping out a volume of gas in a few days vs a year of volcanic emissions is too far a stretch?
@@Infestedparrot Volcanic eruptions cause global cooling. The fact that temperatures are rising shows that volcanic eruptions are both rare and massively outweighed by climate change.
When I was a kid it was Global Cooling that was the scary monster. The glaciers were supposed to be back and over running Canada by the year 2000. Just look how well that turned out. The current fad is the same.
They didn't kill you because people specifically took behaviors to stop them... the ozone hole would have ruined us by now if there hadn't been massive effort to get rid of CFCs in the 90s.
LOL, ya, and the impending rapture, and 1950's nuclear annihilation, and the 1970's energy crisis, and the 1970's impending ice age, and the impending 1980's starvation due to over population, and the $140 oil crisis 12 years ago. Yawn. The infallible science Gods are speaking again, listen up sheep.
I really wish I could find that news clip where they interviewed that former CEO who sold off his company to buy supplies and raise livestock in a cave in the mountains because of Y2K or was it the 2012 BS. I really want to know how he is doing now
Climate is always changing and a lot of it is cyclical. Just watch the past high temperatures when you are watching the weather and you will see that many record high temperatures were in the early 1900's, the dust bowl years of the 1930's, mid 1950's pop up a lot and then a decade ago in 2012 was a hot year!
Yes absolutely. When they say highest X or lowest Y for 70 years. Means X was higher or Y lower than now 70 years ago. Even highest X on record typically means highest for 100-200 years at most. The choice of benchmark mean or max or whatever is interesting because the selected date range probably emphasizes the metric.
A guy at work recently told me "last year was the warmest year on record in 45 years". I immediately thought, "So 46 years ago it was as warm or warmer". This thought never occurred to him, apparently.
I wouldn't just blame models. Back when this was a hobby of mine (7-8 years ago) nearly every "paper" that was peer reviewed that supported catastrophic conclusions had *massive* assumptions throughout. Peer review is non-sense especially if they just accept the assumptions being made. It doesn't matter how good your process or data is, if you are making bad assumptions your conclusion is crap. Climate Change has been happening throughout history. Green house gases being introduced by humans are providing a minor forcing on the global temperature. Massive pavement cities are likely not helping either. Here are some facts: 1.) According to scientists who study glaciation, we are *currently* in an Ice Age. This is called an interglaciation period. Yes this "unprecedented warming", yet we are still in an Ice Age. 2.) 99.999% of Earth's history had higher CO2 levels than present. 3.) The Earth for its first billion years of existence had an atmosphere mostly composed of CO2 (dominant gas). 4.) Earth had the most life and most biodiversity when our CO2 concentration was around 2,000-3,000 ppm. We are currently a little above 400 ppm. 5.) Most plants grow better in higher CO2 concentrations. Green House's pump in CO2 to achieved 500-600 ppm to help them grow faster. 6.) The current science from even alarmist organizations like the IPCC state that the "human signal" on warming via CO2 cannot be observed until the middle of the 20th century. As in we are pumping out so much CO2 that you can actually see warming from it didn't start until then. Yet the current warming trend *started* at the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 18th century and has **not accelerated**. As in the rate of warming we are seeing, the rate of glaciation retreat, all of it start 170 years before the human signal could even be theoretically detected and decades before even the first industrialization had occurred. 7.) The Roman warming period and Medieval Warming period are both arguably warmer periods than our current global temperatures. The Medieval Warming period saw the colonization of Greenland by the vikings, that later died off and was abandoned during the Little Ice Age. It also saw vineyards being grown in the British Isles that still don't see vineyards in modern times. Only shitty political activist paleoclimate reconstructions show today as warmer than those relatively recently periods in the Earth's history. I also note the most important fact: Green House Gas Theory **does not** support catastrophic outcomes. When people scream "It's the science!", inform them that GHG theory actually doesn't indicate anything more than mild warming from the introduction of CO2. Roughly .7 to 1 degree Celsius per *doubling* of the CO2 concentration. Catastrophic outcomes rely upon a position that has zero science actually supporting it that states that Positive Feedbacks greatly exceed Negative Feedbacks. This video covers this loosely when he refers to cloud cover. There is no evidence to support this position, but all climate models utilize it. Which is why .7 to 1 degree becomes 3, 6, and used to include 10 degrees Celsius forcings of CO2 by "trusted" IPCC models. To put simply when a little warmth is added to our biosphere, positive feedbacks will result in additional warming. A negative feedback will result in little cooling. In a stable system negative feedbacks are more common. They would like you to believe the opposite is true. So if our biosphere is a stable system you may actually see *less* warming from CO2 than .7 to 1.
Pretty well-reasoned argument, but there’s a couple of things you missed: 1: The billion or so years where CO2 was the dominant gas is completely unimportant to our future. I’m not even sure why you wrote it down. 2: It doesn’t matter if more CO2 is better for plants if there’s not enough water to feed them, and/or if the climate and/or weather is too unstable to allow their continued survival. If crops can’t make it to harvest season, we have less food. That’s all that matters to us. 3: The stuff about the warming periods worked out well for the upper latitudes. What about the lower latitudes? Unless things also improve down there, we might have a refugee crisis on our hands so big that it makes the current illegal immigration crisis look like a small visit from your friends across the street. 4: Putting CO2 aside, we still pollute our air. While it’s obviously not terribly overbearing, something doesn’t seem right about it. 5: While we are entering an ice age, ice ages take thousands of years to develop. The warming has only been happening for a few centuries, and it’s clear that the warming is outpacing the cooling, which is why we’re talking about the issues of warming instead of the issues of cooling To sum up, your argument leaves out the fact that most of human civilization took place before the Industrial Revolution, and that the two warming periods you mentioned make up a very small fraction of Pre-Industrial Civilization’s timeline. Humanity’s success was largely built on a stable climate, the Pre-Industrial Climate. Once we industrialized, our population took off, we got rid of the burdens of most forms of disease, we replaced meaningful lifestyles with high-stress, fast-paced, meaningless dopamine highs and empty consumption, and we finally slayed democracy. That last part is what actually worries me the most. Democracies, republics, and other forms of decentralized power generally thrive in times of stability. Power tends to centralize in times of volatility, such as all of the time that has passed since we industrialized. I’m not saying we should go back to Pre-Industrial Civilization. But it’s not like this issue is unimportant simply because the climate was worse at times when we didn’t even exist.
@@josephhoward4697 your rebuttal is flawed for several reasons. On your 1st point, the intent of showing CO² has been more abundant int the atmosphere is that it is not a new phenomenon nor is it some foreign pollutant as is often implied. Point 2: it absolutely matters that CO² is good for plants in higher concentrate than currently seen in our atmosphere. Plants not provide food and shelter for incredible biodiversity, but also provide atmospheric purification and solar mitigation. Not only that, but plants are 90%+ carbon. Any speculation on your part about climate/weather instability is an irrelevant diversion Point 3: pure and utter speculation not supported by any historical record. Point 4: irrelevant strawman Point 5: we are not entering an Ice Age, we are exiting one and we still have not recovered to the temperature point we were at before the Younger Dryas event. That event also disproves your point of time frames for onset of Ice Ages as that event saw the world plunged back into an ice age in only one generation. There is further evidence that we exited as quickly approx 1300 years later. As I mentioned earlier, we still have not recovered to a temperature level as high as core samples show from approx 12,500 years ago. This is vitally important as it skewers the narrative of industrialization human caused warming.
@@wstavis3135 Okay. Your response to #1 isn’t helpful, because we’re talking about Industrialized and Post-Industrialized Civilization. We all know that CO2 has been around. I don’t know who you think is trying to pass it off as a foreign thing, because it’s not the media or any actual scientist. Nobody is acting like this is new. The debate is over whether we’re screwing up our climate. As for #2, this isn’t speculation. Extreme weather events do happen. An unstable and warmer climate will make extreme weather events and climatic shifts more extreme. It’s pretty simple atmospheric physics. The jet stream is a standing wave. Add extra energy (heat energy), and a standing wave takes on different characteristics, such as increasingly chaotic and unpredictable amplitudes and frequencies. As for #3, this isn’t speculation. I don’t know why you even brought this one up. The middle latitudes tend to be warmer and more humid. When heat goes up, people start feeling unhealthy. People who feel unhealthy seek a way to feel healthy. They go north and south away from the tropics to beat the heat. This isn’t speculation anymore than the math done by Thomas Andrews’ to prove to Captain Smith that the Titanic wasn’t going to stay afloat. What I’m telling you is a certainty. Nothing more, nothing less. #4 is a red herring, not a strawman. I apologize for my fallacy, but please get it right before you call it out. We don’t both have to look like fools. But I would like to point out that what I said is still true, but I can agree that it’s a separate topic for another time. As for #5, the OP said we’re entering an Ice Age. Go have this talk with him, not with me.
@@wstavis3135 Also, it’s pretty much settled that the Younger Dryas Event was initiated by comet striking the island of Greenland, so it makes sense that the cooling would happen so quickly.
Answer to the title is “NO”. Anyone remember that project VERITAS video from like 3 or so months ago the guy on a date I think his name was Chester said they were about to start pushes climate change?
@@michaelrogers3857 Gladly Using edited footage, they made it seem like they walked into ACORN offices dressed like a stereotypical pimp and were given instructions on how to open a brothel. Not only was this not the case when unedited footage was exchanged for the veritas asshats not be prosecuted for any crimes (such as, I don't know, prostitution and human trafficking), but the San Diego police department was literally called on the person pretending to be a pimp and human smuggler. This led the ACORN employee to successfully sue. Using edited footage, they attempted to present the narrative that public radio would not require any public funding, purposefully excluding any footage that would suggest that loss of funds would hurt smaller stations. They also manipulated footage to suggest that NPR would willingly accept donations from a Muslim fundamentalist organization. They attempted to prove that it was simple to commit voter fraud by using the names of people recently found on the local obituary. They did not include the fact that the police were called on one of their employees attempting this stunt. They attempted to claim that people accusing Roy Moore of sexual misconduct were lying and the media was supporting them. To do this, they sent a plant in to claim that she was impregnated by Roy Moore in an attempt to get her on air with a false story. Using 5 minutes of basic investigative research, the plant was found to be a right-wing activist and was pretty hilariously called out. You want more?
People expressing fear for themselves and others is the most hilarious thing I have ever experienced. It truly makes life worth living, every single time I see someone get scared of something like nuclear power, I laugh inside. It provides an entire lifetime of unending comedy.
I think it’s all comes down to societal power . So wind farms and solid farms could probably be a utility where as a nuclear power will always be privately own . But yeah let’s do something about global warming anything . Let’s just thank prauger U for convincing us that global warming is real and a threat to the future generations. God bless America
Well its clear that the wealthiest countries should start investing in nuclear energy asap. The poor countries dont really have the luxury of doing that just yet. Its really hard to say if things are worse or not because of climate changes because we always had natural disasters.
We do not need to make ANY radical changes in our lifestyles as our climate/environment/atmosphere acts like a self adjusting hydraulic servo unit. In other words if one factor changes other factors change to bring it back into equalibrium. It is truly a scam what the left is selling.
Not hard to say, at all. All data shows, 1) Less frequent and less severe weather events, as of late, and 2) A huge decrease in the loss of life as a result of such events.
@Sour ._. Drop the earth's temperature a degree, and the tropics won't get much colder; the Arctic will get much colder to compensate. Canada doesn't want any part of that!
The so-called "human factor" is nearly always the fatal flaw in most "science". As Mr. Koonin mentioned, hard data and observation is often directly affected by the assumptions made by the researcher. And, as far as what I can tell from climate science, most of the researchers in that field already have a mindset that a) man-made global warming is real and b) the primary cause of man-made global warming comes from the use of fossil fuels. So when these researchers create their computer models, they are going to consciously or subconsciously adjust the model to reflect what they already believe.
Almost every researcher agrees climate change are caused by human actions. Do you really think you are so smart by saying it’s biased by the researchers? No you aren’t, scientists have also thought what you just said and still came to the conclusion that climate change are man made. We released in 200 year the equivalent of a million year natural climate change. Only fracking billionaires support skeptics “scientists” like the ones on PragerU. You conservatives are so incompetent and believes only what they want to hear instead of real supported evidence agreed and proved by the vast majority.
@@rusuyuzusushi5781 unfortunately your doing the same. Isn’t the truth somewhere in the middle? Not all scientists agree with you, the main problem with the liberal perspective is that you guys tend to overblow the affects of co2 on the environment. The same scientist you often cite also say that this warming is not catastrophic and actually is better for us than the opposite which would be an ice age. Plant life is growing more rapidly than ever since plants need co2 to live. You guys also seemingly ignore the fact that the temperature was already rising rapidly before humans began using fossil fuels. So even if we never did use fossil fuels the temperature would still be going up.
@@pablobear4241 I don’t need to read it I wrote it. Nothing I wrote is contradictory I’m simply pointing out flaws in your logic and pointing out things liberals often ignore. And seeing you don’t have a response other than to insult me tells me your ignorant on the topic.
I have been in the indoor climate business, HVAC, for over 20 years. It is nearly impossible to precisely measure and balance air temperatures within an insulated and vapor sealed structure like a home or business. According to most mechanical codes, the acceptable temperature differential between rooms within a climate controlled structure is 2 to 6 degrees. And this requires detailed measuring with sophisticated thermometers and often zoning dampers. I cannot even begin to fathom the likelihood of accurately measuring the accumulative temperatures of the entire earth within a single degree of heat. Especially considering comparison of measurements from decades ago and placement of less sophisticated thermometers are influenced by their proximity to small heat-radiating subjects, such as rooftop condensing units or lighting. But yeah, we are certain the earth has been warming by 2 to 6 degrees over the past 20 years and we’re all going to die if we don’t have a government takeover of the energy sector and eliminate flight travel for everyone not in government.
Have you heard of satellites? They're rather good at that sort of mass surveillance. I would bet they have wide angle infrared satellites by the dozen to map the earths temperatures, seeing as how there have been tens of billions spent on monitoring the earths temperatures. And we know what happens when CO2 is dumped into the air at these rates, it's happened before and it was worse than what killed the dinosaurs. The worse mass extinction ever was caused by CO2. Unless you have found fossil beds that are a quarter of a billion years old, excavated, cleaned, documented thousands of fossils, then synthesized a theory with your new findings, and been peer reviewed. A process that would take at least a decade, and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Or your full of feces and arguing from ignorance.
I remember that. As a child it terrified me and I was depressed for years thinking me and my whole family were gonna freeze or starve to death. That’s why I made sure my own kids knew that all this gullible warming mess was a bunch of bunk and they have nothing to fear. I feel so sorry for all these brainwashed kids who are terrified of co2 !
That’s why the term “global warming” was quit being used….and they switched to “Ozone depletion” followed by “Climate Crisis”. Someone always benefits from their political agendas. Like this vax mandate…all the biotech companies have profited immensely. Wow, who would of thought?
@@yingnyang2889 Ozone depletion and Climate change are different things though. The former refers to the damage of the ozone layer due and cfc's, whereas climate change refers to the increase of concentration of green house gases in our atmosphere.
Dude is dropping some hard facts here. I liked what he had to say. The alarmism being perpetrated globally is astounding, predictable, and politically motivated - the involvement in anything by politician immediately makes be question it.
Of course you liked what he had to say. He basically said there was no problem, you're not doing anything wrong, and you can keep doing whatever you like. Something about sweet lies and bitter truths.
And you like to listen to what the media says because it fits what you believe, go watch the climate marathon recently uploaded on prager U. I make it a goal to watch CNN for at least 5 hours a week. Out of the times I see climate mentioned virtually 0 times a hard statistic was brought up unless it was counting an amount of times that an event happened.
@@AB-zc5ff That's great that you make it a goal to watch CNN 5 hours a week, but that's irrelevant to this video. Is the video wrong? I spent a lot of time watching both sides of the spectrum specifically on this topic and the only ones who are not only making this a big deal (as they have done for over half a century) are the democrats. Further more, most people on the left believe that some how, more governmental policies are going to solve the 'problem'. If property owners really believed the climate change narrative, people from all over the coasts would have moved further inland decades ago, but the exact opposite is happening. Citizens are relocating anywhere on the coast where the economy is doing well. Turns out, majority of people actually like...surprise surprise...capitalism.
Certainly, rational thought is available to us. Good, solid information can be found. The problem is the large percentage of people that are immune to facts.
In Australia, the highest temperatures were recorded not in 21st century, but in 1878 and 1906. In 1878, 124 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in Victoria. It was so hot that people died. But nowadays nobody died of heat.
@Slayer Developer What he's saying is that if the Sea Levels are going to rise [8/10/12/15] feet (or more) in the next [12/20/25/30] years (depending on who's saying it) why do "enlightened"and "responsible" people such as Obama have oceanfront property? Why did Zuckerberg just build Facebook's (sorry- META's) headquarters on the edge of San Francisco Bay?
@Slayer Developer They can fly Commercial- like the rest of us Plebs... The current "Climate Czar" literally came out and said the rules don't apply to him (and I'm paraphrasing here) _"... because my work is too important."_
I guess we can't tell what cells look like because we can't perfectly resolve them at the sub atomic level. Scale matters. You don't just take day to day forecasting and then add up the measurements until it goes out 100 years. It is a completely different scale with completely different methodologies.
Weather forecast is completely different to global warming if one has to explain this your education was piss poor or religion was thrown in your young mind and brainwashed you.
We observe cells. They’re observable, and we’ve succeeded. Weather or climate in the future is merely projection. And we’ve failed at the base level of projecting weather 2 days from now. It’s hubris to think we know the climate 20 years from now.
1:11 I literally just wrote a seminar paper based on this. The hurricanes gain on strength and move further to the poles because of warmer water. The hurricane activity IS different than it was a century ago.
...and who was it that taught it? A left wing professor backed up by another left wing professor backed up by another left wing professor perhaps? They could be correct I suppose or it could be a thing called circular validation.
@@Whytepathe Yeah, no. Our geography teacher is what I can only describe as a man of science. For every single lesson we have a homework to find as many news about geography as possible, so he and us don't end up on the wrong side of science. Maybe people over at PragerU could try that too...
@@Whytepathe scientists stand for science not for politics. If you wanna argue that science is leftist propaganda or some shit i dont even wanna go there
"Hubris" is the operative term here. Humanity has become so technically advanced that we believe we know or are capable of understanding everything. And now that false belief has become the basis for political power.
@@juniorleslie4804 and you think you know. No political power is based on falsehood. Handing a thief a knife doesn't make the knife false. One can cheat to pass exams but it doesn't make the exam false. Political power has its purpose. You concern rather is to understand that purpose and the boundaries of it. It's not the government's right nor power, for instance, to stall the rights of parents to raise their own children. That's a boundary you are all willing to surrender to the government . You've given them an inch of your ground. Why won't they want all the ground?
@@bishopakpan2284 All political power is based on falsehoods. That is, they promised things that they themselves are unable to deliver and tell lies and promote propaganda to support it. The public has to suspend belief in order to believe that politicians are infallible and are their saviours.
I read an interesting fact the other day. The temperatures in the mid west from 1933 to 1939 regularly reached over 120 degree, during the dust bowl. Followed farm land was cited as a factor. I don't think there were too many cars on the road then. Strange this fact is not often cited. I think now of the fallowed farm land in the great Central valley in. California and what might be in store for the inhabitants there.
That's right. It's not controversial to anyone who has looked into the history of the US with regard to weather/climate: the 1930s and 40s were the hottest years since we began taking careful measurements. This is very inconvenient for the CO2 hypothesis, so the media just doesn't call attention to it.
The government funds scientist so long as the scientist identify the problem they want and identifies the government as the solution. It's like the tobacco funded studies on cigarettes back in the 60s only at a much larger and more dangerous scale.
The fossil fuel industry funds the campaigns of the members of congress and senate. So long as the money flows in, the government will continue to shuffle its feet about what we're doing to our environment.
@HunterBidensCrackPipe Lots? Surely you mean some. Every new initiative proposed by concerned organizations and politicians have been vehemently opposed by fossil fuel money. The US had electric cars in the 90's! Guess who squashed that? Go on, take a guess.
@HunterBidensCrackPipe Yes, thanks to a good conservative Republican party creating environmental protection (mostly sulfur and lead reduction) we reduced a good bit of pollution, but not CO2 emissions. Speaking of gloom and doom, that is the Fox entertainment business model: scare the people into voting against their own interests. Auto emissions, by the way, is a drop in the bucket. The US is only 14% of global emissions and you want to celebrate THAT? It has less than 5% of the world population, man! As for the environmental costs of creating electric vehicles, you've just swallowed the fossil fuel industry's talking points. Way to go! They just love useful idiots.
Exactly. They are using climate change as an excuse for a globalist power grab because after all it affects the entire planet not just individual countries.
Anybody remember back in the early 60’s when the cover of Time magazine predicted, based on science, the Earth was heading into another Ice Age? Yeah, wonder how that played out.
I find it astounding how many people have forgotten about that...or the fact that many of the same "scientists" who predicted the coming ice-age quietly switched their stories to the global warming crises...just about the time they started being paid to do research on global warming. Coincidence? Yeah....right!
Well we should be heading to an ice age over the next few thousand years naturally; unfortunately human intervention is now pushing us in to a warmer stage, so warm in fact that it's destabilizing the ecosystems, hence our mass levels of "natural" destruction.
They were wrong 50 years ago and they are wrong today. And in 50 years from today we will have 100 years of Hysteria to point back at: "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." - - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970 "Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world." - - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970 "In a decade, America's mighty rivers will have reached the boiling point." - - Edwin Newman, Earth Day 1970 "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." - -Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970. "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy." - - Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado) "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." John Davis, editor of Earth First Journal "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." - - H. L. Mencken "'Protecting the Environment' is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of preserving nature." - - J. H. Robbins
I’ve always hated the argument from deniers “the climate has changed before.” Climate activists know that and don’t deny it. Just because the climate has changed before does not refute anthropogenic climate change. Just because it changed naturally before does not mean it is changing for the same reasons now. Almost every denier uses this point, and it’s the worst argument. I’m the end, I don’t think we’re in a climate emergency. We’re not gonna die tomorrow. But the human race is gradually changing the climate and it will become an inconvenience in the future. I agree with conservatives that it’s not doom and gloom, but I wish more of them would do research and acknowledge that humans do play a role.
@@vgames89 ….and I wish more people would keep reading about climate history. The word ‘unprecedented’ keeps being bandied about, yet if you look back in history there is very little unprecedented about it. But you have to make sure what you are reading about that history is not the media’s take on it because they have an agenda. For example I was told just recently that the 1939 Black Friday bushfires in Australia were nowhere near as severe as the recent 2019/2020 fire season, quoting that burn acreage for 2019/20 was 10 million acres and for the 1939 fires was only 2 million acres! I was suspicious of this claim and found that the 2 million acres that was claimed only related to the tiny state of Victoria and that in fact when burn maps of the 1939 fires was superimposed over the more recent satellite photos of the 2019/20 fires the recent burn areas were eclipsed!!!
@@jimivey6462 There are more facts and the LEFT hates FACTS (Known as critical thinking) The left "FEELS" since "FEELING" can fool people into paying yet higher taxes. FACT: Ocean levels have risen over 210 feet Globally in just the last 1900 years. WHY? It's called 'THE END OF THE ICE-AGE'! and we will spend another 1500 years warming up even more. The 210 foot rise in Sea levels is from glacier melt. Yup, global warming is REAL and IT'S NOT any human's FAULT! I can't wait to grow coconuts and pineapple in Canada again like it did 120,000 years ago at the peak of the TROPICAL AGE! We have the FOSSIL RECORD! (Facts must really suck for the Lefts tax collection schemes😂)
I love when prageru brings in a speaker such as this, someone who actually had notable work in the field at question, FOR DEMOCRATS, and yet still is willing to cover this dissenting viewpoint from the other side, because he believes the science supports it.
Koonin was not involved in any work regarding climate change, during his period as undersecretary in the Obama administration. All he has done in this field, is publishing a book some months ago. The book is full of inaccuracies and lies, something that has been pointed out numerous times. Instead of Koonin refuting his critics, he just keeps promoting his book to the gullible and ignorant. It is sad that people fall for it.
The "notable work" you speak of is working for an oil company. That profits from selling fossil fuels. The fact that he worked for democrats means nothing, because lobbies and bribes are a thing. He also uses a strawman argument that paints his opponents (scienitists, "the media", and government) into a bad light, and uses that bad reputation to discredit their findings, instead of discrediting through proper scientific references. I've clicked through to their sources list. He cites 9 sources, 4 of which are a link to his own book on Amazon, which is a "trust me bro" statement. What would've worked instead was referencing actual scientific articles, written by current experts in the field. That would be proper research. Maybe even find some meta-analysis that combines previous research into an overarching statement. But no. He focuses on a pro-fossil fuel statement (if we'd properly fund fusion research we wouldn't need fossil fuel in about 40 years anymore) and uses too little references to actual scientific articles to lend his arguments power. I'm always amazed that people don't trust the scientific community, but instead get their "unbiased" information from people funded by Big Oil.
No one ever brings up the inconvenient truth that cheap energy is the reason food prices remain affordable for the poorest people in the world. Cheap fertilizer, cheap transportation, and cheap refrigeration are the reason 8 billion people can afford to eat every day. Removing fossil fuels overnight would lead to the largest mass starvation in history killing off the poorest and most vulnerable first.
You’ve really got to appreciate TH-cam putting these labels on anything they find offensive regarding climate change. They’re just like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, a certificate of authenticity attesting to the truthfulness of the video they’re attaching them to for me. Even though I’m sure no one reads my feedback to TH-cam about this it surely feels good letting them know how I’m using their warning labels.
The Rand Corp. did a study decades ago about what would unite people other than war. They believed a climate disaster. We have had ecological politics ever since. I am an engineer. Interpreting data correctly is as important as accurately collecting data. We are far from some of the extremes in climate that the earth experienced in the past. Climate rhetoric is about politics. They are trying to get rid of small farmers in the Netherlands, Canada, and Ireland over bogus environmental concerns as I write this. Sri Lanka's president and prime minister just fled the country because of the food shortages their ecological policies caused. Years ago, authorities banned the refrigerant Freon. They claimed it was destroying the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Freon is 4.3 times heavier than air. When released, it sinks to the ground. So how can it destroy the ozone 30,000 plus thousand feet in the upper atmosphere? Dupont's patent on Freon was running out during this time. Guess who got the patent on on the new replacement refrigerant? Do you know how ozone is created and what it is? All you need to create it is oxygen (O2) and an ultraviolet light (as from the sun). The O2 breaks apart when a ray of ultraviolet light strikes it and forms O3, ozone. A ray of ultraviolet light hits O3 and breaks it apart. It is a continual process that happens at every level in our atmosphere. Don't believe everything they tell you.
@@michaelfraser4396, the leftists in government have turned many “scientists” into whores for grants and recognition. They prostitute their “science” to make it fit the politicians desired outcomes and predictions of gloom and doom in order to herd the constituents into doing what they want through fear. NASA and NOAA have been corrupting historical climate data in order to make it fit their climate model’s predictions. Anyone that corrupts data to make it fit their theory is no scientist, they’re a grant whore. The whole AGW scam is based on flawed science as temperature increase leads CO2 increase not visa versa. The oceans are the largest CO2 trap in our environment and when they warm they can’t hold as much CO2 in suspension so it’s released raising its (minimal) concentration in the atmosphere. It seems that the global elites don’t like our world’s population increase and the increase in CO2 (plant food) has increased yield and the ability to feed more people. These are the arrogant bastards that believe the world population should only be 1/2 billion rather than the current nearly 8 billion. Solution? Reduce farm output and starve them out, but of course the ultra wealthy elite will always have the food, fuel, land, and whatever else their heartless soul desires.
No need. Plants are already doing well with the current level of Co2 and they are practically suffocating. Raised levels will help them thrive even better, like a self balancing equation.
@@horizonkage That's not what the literature says. Some plants do better with elevated CO2, while others do not. Even if all terrestrial plants grew faster with elevated CO2, what about our oceans? Increased carbon means more acidic oceans, which alters entire ecosystems.
Definitely a good cause that both parties can get behind. We need more trees to offset more carbon that humans release, and it starts on our properties! Plant a (native) tree!
We were supposed to run out of 80% of the world's oxygen by 2000 if destruction of the Brazilian Rainforest didn't stop, according to my chemistry teacher in 1988. She didn't just mention it in relation to something else. We had a whole lesson on it. It was a few years after global cooling went out of fashion.
Plants put in CO2 chambers grow exponentially faster and yield much greater harvests, if CO2 is so bad for the environment why don't we give more to the plants
I don't know if those plants could live well on Planet Mars since that planet's atmosphere have 95% of CO2 but the weather there is too darn cold to live for living creatures. Someone should get a "climate change data" for Mars.
excellent. now, we need 10,000 more of these videos and some (as yet undiscovered) way to get climate alarmists to actually listen and think for themselves.
They never will. It's a religion and they're indoctrinated to the hilt. They have invested so much of themselves into this climate thing that they cannot believe anything else, even if facts proving the opposite would stare them in the face.
@Ggyhhggtyyy According to "climate scientists " we've been heading towards this so-called ice age for the last 50 years. Any chance that these scientists can actually tell us exactly when this catastrophic event will actually arrive so as I can spend all my savings??
I'm thinking about the prehistoric critter called the Trilobite, they were around for hundreds of millions of years making them one of the most successful lifeforms on the planet, but they died out due to changes in the climate. Strange they didn't have oil companies to blame for their demise.
May I suggest instead of "climate change" start looking at local "environment change" we change our environment when we pour concrete, when we put up a large building. These things effect our environment temperature etc.
Plant more trees. Regulate irrigation to prevent erosion, have people choose to eat more veggies, reverse osmosis saltwater for drinking water or irrigation use.
@@brittanyhayes1043 One problem with those things is that, for some reason, the entire world want America to fix everything for them. Another is that those will be government contracts which have a nasty habit of cost overruns and embezzlement, if they're completed at all.
Yes, buildings can have an urban heat island effect, but how does that actually change climate in your estimation? And what would be your solution? NOT building any?
@@brittanyhayes1043, have people “choose” to eat more veggies? And how would you do that? Veggie mandates? We already have more trees on this planet than known stars in the universe. The problem isn’t trees. It’s a lack of knowledge of the geologic history of the planet by common people and the left’s desire to use that ignorance to institute socialism.
@@hugehappygrin I know that why I made the comment. It's not going to be possible. I was listing the stuff that they will end up forcing EVERYONE to do.
The scientific community is full of powerful axioms...assumptions that become so powerful that nobody dares challenge them. It does not make one a "science denier" to question the validity of many of these computer models. The assumptions and beliefs of the researchers are very much baked into the conclusions that they are feeding us on this topic. I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't called climate change, but "global warming". Since that time, science has revealed that perhaps the planet has had many periods that are warmer and colder over the geological timescale. So now it's just called "climate change"...because even less specific, and more ambiguous semantics gives more liberty to just keep changing the narrative to shape politics. Remember these Democrat talking points..."We just want to keep people safe" and "We follow the science". When you ponder the vast importance that energy has on every aspect of modern life, is it any wonder why a scary story like climate change is a perfect way to wield political power in this time?
You're on point sir. This whole talk-a-lot a about climate change is a distraction. They are playing the same tape over again. Why? It works. Fear works. People think they can always be rational. Try mixing rational with fear and see where it leads. People think they know. They don't realize how fear deepens their bias and blocks any solid attempt on their part to know the truth. And why will they care? It's easier to let others do the thinking for them than think for themselves. Climate change is America's least problem. In my country, climate change isn't a thing. I don't remember our being hassled by trying to fix the climate when we have day-to-day actual problems to address.
@Fart They should do one on the overblown 70's doomsday scenarios like "The Population Bomb", how deeply the ideas influenced society, media and invasive govt policy, and how wrong it was. Not that there's any analogy today, what with world becoming uninhabitable Real Soon Now for real this time.
That would make an interesting video. When I was in school in 60s and 70s, we were taught, “The earth is cooling and we’re heading into another ice age” as a doomsday theory. Well that and the Soviets are going to nuke us. It sad that so many people believe politicians care about our well being and the media is honest. They both are liars and greedy thieves.
Let's face the facts, Earth's climates are subject to an unknown number of contributing factors that are always changing.What most people fail to acknowledge is the fact that constant fluctuations caused by hemisphere (North/South) are never the same. What you experience this year will not be repeated next year.
This is also part of their plan, take education and history out of the equation so you have no point of reference. I could go on but people are addicted to bad news, adrenaline and just do not have fulfilling enough lives without the junk.
What you fail to see are the actual effects of climate change and are listening to the 0.1% scientists that say it’s not real, most likely because they’re funded by billion dollar non-renewable resource companies. Stop living in a fantasy world. You tell the majority of people to wake up when really you’re the one to have your head up your ass.
It's also subject to one well known contributing factor: burning fossil fuels. That fast spike in CO2 is causing the temperature to rise faster than ever before. Weep for your grandchildren who will reap the bitter harvest you've sown.
The actual fact is the climate change scam is just a way of taking your freedom and your God given rights away from you. Period, end of story. To think that the people who can't balance a budget can change the climate, is pure stupidity.
@@SamieMac1 You missed the whole point, climate change is used as a cheap political trick by politicians that do shit that has next to no impact on the climate while pretending they are saving the planet. People that say how much they care while flying in private jets. That's the problem.
In my very old/early mainframe COBOL, card deck, computer days, we used to say --> "Garbage in, garbage out". Programs and data are only as good as those who write them and those who input them. How are we to prove the programs and data are actual when the disagreements vary so much between those who input the data and those who write the code?
As someone who leans conservative, I believe our problem transcends politics and it would be naive to think that we have evolved as a human species where we have become good stewards of our planet. There are many stresses to the planet such as population increases, depletion of natural resources, dumping garbage and nuclear material in the oceans, deforestation, and over-farming of arable land. Here in the SouthWest US, we have a water problem, yet we continue developing as if nothing is happening. At this point, there are just too many world conflicts, too much greed, and too much division for us to come together as a species. Hopefully, we can pull it together before the next mass extinction!!
Well we have to ask ourselves "what does saving the planet look like?” Do we know that question? Do we understand the sacrifices we have to make to save the world? I feel before we start forcing people to live a certain way we have to make logical decisions before drastic ones.
@@jerrettbarkley456 u " resist " in NOTHING.... Nature doesnt ask 4 your permission it works by its own LAWS of nature... Just because U dont accept its law just mean more suffering for all just because U refuse to have COMMON SENSE.. U probably dont know who Thomas Paine was yet he wrote about common sense that gave birth to America... maybe U should look at it....
Also PragerU is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry... I'm not saying don't listen to people like him, but when you do just keep that in mind...
There's more scientists that say there ISN'T a "climate emergency" than those that say that there IS, but the ones that say there ISN'T, are being SILENCED
I agree. I’ve read dozens of books covering both those promoting that ‘the science’ says we’re in serious trouble and books like Steve Koonin’s “Unsettled” taking the muted position. I like Bjorn Lomborg’s economic approach that basically says it is better policy to spend wisely on adaptation than somewhat foolishly on attempts at total mitigation.
If you have any intellectual honesty, then you should also read the publications that expose the inaccuracies and lies in his book. I suspect that you will not, as the book says what you want to hear, so the observable and testable reality plays a secondary role. The good thing for Koonin, is that he can make money of the gullible.
@@Frups12345678 If you were trying to be informative you would have cited more sources rather than resort to ad hominem. I'd actually appreciate if you cited them, I'll read them. Nothing to be afraid of. I'm assuming you've read the book cover to cover?
@@lukehanson_ PragerU don't allow you to post any links in the comment section, as they are evidently scared that their propaganda is exposed. The exposing of the book can easily be found with one Google search, so nothing stands in your way.
Ok so what you’re saying is we shouldn’t get off of fossil fuels because it will only slow the planet warming? And instead just keep going and warm the planet more? I’m so confused.
He was essentially saying we should make more informed decisions in affecting our global energy output in any drastic way to counter a problem when effects on the climate are based on faulty and biased modeling. And I agree with him - we need to understand that we if do not have a clear way of dealing with this problem without destroying developing nations’ economies or destroying our own developed economies, we will leave sensationalism and ideology at the door and figure out real solutions. What we have right now is a money grab by politicians, corporations, and government bureaucracies that promise to “solve” the problem if you simply just pay a little bit more. Should sound pretty familiar if you look at history.
@@BabyBugBug it’s just gonna harm Them regardless. The sacrifice of saving the planet which in of itself is less expensive than dealing with it later, crops start failing due to warming weather and droughts, rivers starting to dry up, which feeds dams that produce the electricity that people need, rising seas and more hurricanes that’ll flood cities, kill people, destroy houses, not to mention how fossil fuels makes the surrounding air toxic. Overall the pros outweigh the cons. Corporations know this, the electricity producers know this, but they’re the same people that had been lying about the climate Crisis, saying it’s not real or it “not their fault” for decades. We know what the right path is, we just don’t want to speed up in turning towards it.
@@jamesmylife6578 I am not sure I agree. The catastrophism you mention is not something we have seen and, frankly, I believe you are falling into the exact trap that was mentioned in this video. I do agree with you that working to lower emissions for the health of our people is a good idea. Government control, surveillance, massive taxes on hardworking people? It is awfully privileged to suggest that people essentially deal with the fallout from this to avoid a future we are not certain will happen. Meanwhile, we have people to feed and provide jobs. Would it not be selfish of Westerners to ask these people around the world to suck it up and deal with what we want to do? That sounds pretty imperialistic, which, given our history, is business as usual due to our self-assumed moral high ground.
@@BabyBugBug We’re already seeing this. The river shortage like in the Rockies that feed the Colorado river, the one that feeds the Hoover dam?!? That has been drying up for ages. Florida has been getting more and more hurricanes. Island nations are sinking into the ocean as we speak. Alfalfa planting had been stopped because of how much water it takes up, where it’s being planted in the middle of the deserts. And this is in developed nations where the government can provide relief. What about the poor nations that haven’t caused the situation (or has done little) that can’t provide relief for its citizens. That’s inhumane
Do we even know if high CO2 is a bad thing? Plants love CO2. We are obsessed with just charting the last 100 or so years, but CO2 has been much higher in past epochs, when there was more abundant life. For all we know, lowering CO2 will cause more extinctions.
"The complete elimination of all fossil fuels in the US immediately would only restrict any increase in world temperature by less than one-tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050, and less than one-fifth of one degree Celsius by 2100." - Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change, US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
You know. Even if human influence in climate change wasn't a thing, wouldn't it be nice to not rely on dead dino juice that creates air pollution which causes disease, literal IQ decreases, and mental health issues? Why not fund proper research into nuclear fusion (not fission, so no Chernobyl) and be completely fossil-fuel free in 50 years? We could have an abundance of clean electric energy by literally harnassing the power of a small sun in a reactor. No more smog, no more exacarbated lung problems, no more increase in lung cancer and decrease IQs for people living near arterial roads and airports.
Yeah, people often attributing "more money lost during disaster" with "the disaster getting worse" eventhough it's their own fault (and they knew it) for putting flimsy expensive things in the way of disaster.
In recent years many scientists suddenly are mentioning of cooling period we're heading into. A global cooling period is imminent according to some scientists.
Plus, Dr. Patrick Moore has done some videos stating the possibility that we don't have enough CO2 in the atmosphere to sustain a more abundant amount of vegetation as the world population increases.
We have an environmental emergency with far too much garbage and water pollution. Soil erosion is out of control and urban sprawl plowing up many thousands of acres of habitat making those areas heat sinks absorbing the suns ray's making for what seems to be a warming planet. Bare farm fields without vegetation or residue are typically 40-50 degrees warmer in direct sunlight than soil with cover. I'm a retired environmental specialist.
People keep thinking we'll engineer our way out of this when in reality we just need to plant trees and trust in the process. We do need engineering to get green energy, but a lot of the gains we have to make are in repairing the carbon cycle, not in attempting to replace it.
I BELIEVE this man. Hubris is often a dangerous spell under which to fall, and under which one most certainly will fall. I check myself every so often to ensure I'm no going too far IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
You believe the man who is not keeping an open mind to the possibilities, good or bad. The man who claims hubris but then in the next minute demonstrates it by not considering the research completed by thousands of people who have dedicated their life to this issue. THAT IS HUBRIS. Pride and arrogance go hand in hand. To say you have all the answers and then to not back it up with demonstrable fact is both pride and arrogance. To publish it under the guise of higher learning is teetering on evil. Certainly dishonest. An informative video would make these claims and then show the experiments and research that led to them. A man makes claims that feel better than "we have a crisis on our hands" and people listen. It's depressingly predictable
@@mobiletaskforceunitepsilon3733 I was making a joke, cause climate change denialists always claim the government funding is corrupting the research, and this institute is 100% a fossil carbon puppet.
The best way to get perspective is to ask: How many days out can meteorologists predict the weather with a 90% success rate. It's about 4 days. So why would anyone think that it can be accurately predicted 50 years out?
@@LaceyJuk You wouldn't believe anyone with a degree in meteorology when he/she came up with the wrong conclusions, that is how tunnel visioned indoctrinated you are.
Why does he need to show a degree? Are you gatekeeping the weather now? Weather is “short term atmospheric changes” while climate is “average atmospheric conditions over time”. Why the hell would you need a degree to make sense of that?
I've noticed from 1995 up until now, winters are getting shorter and more frigid, but also, the summers are getting longer and more hot. Furthermore, I remember when the seasons lined up with calendar. For the past several years, the seasons have arrived noticeably late. The aforementioned makes me think that we are passed due for some calendar manipulation. It was a practice to remove or add days to some years in order to coordinate with astrology.
I live outside Chicago and I remember Halloweens with snow on the ground and snow in April. The weather has always had and always will have extremes. No human assistance necessary.
I was thinking more along the line of engineering certain plants to absorb CO2 at super high levels and then killing us all after CO2 levels drop below detrimental levels, but we are unable to kill the plants since they spread across the globe too fast. CO2 is a life giving substance required for us to survive.
150 years of data is probably an optimistic view of how much real data we actually have. Did we really have good GLOBAL temperature and ice coverage data before satellites? Which would have been more like 50 years ago at best.
@@hueowen2786 the Grand Solar Minimum is real. But that is the limit on my agreement. That is an act of nature and no amount of human intervention will help. Thus,no legit "emergency".
Well the sea level is rising for sure but that its probably something natural, it's being like this for centuries in my city, even before steam engines (this is not sarcasms).
"HEAT" is what happens when coming out of an ICE-AGE. Guess what? We are still coming out of the last great ICE-AGE! Sea levels have risen 210 feet in the last 2043 years. THAT's Global warming NOT caused by people! 'HOW DARE YOU' blame PEOPLE for this natural heating cycle of the earth!!!!
97% of earth's water is in the oceans, 2% is trapped in ice sheets/glaciers around the world, 1% fresh water lakes and rivers... So even if ALL the ice on earth melted, the oceans volume would only go up 2%, hardly catastrophic
All my life they pushed hole in the ozone for 25 years and now they dont talk about it anymore. Guess it went away on it's own or they were lying the whole time.
Actually, I chalk that one up to a win. We got rid of a bunch of chemicals that were apparently wearing that away and the Earth rebuilt it. That's the kicker: when something is an actual problem, humanity tends to solve it. If we aren't busy solving climate change, it's probably because it isn't a problem.
@@frozenkilt this is how the free market works. If climate change was hurting the world like they say then businesses would be making less money so they would figure out ways to make more money (fix the climate). Like for instance electric cars. If electric cars were cheaper to make and more efficient than gas cars then companies would already be making them because they would make more profit. They arent, so companies dont make them unless they are subsidized by the government which makes them cheaper and more efficient to make. The free market fixes all these problems but communists dont like free markets.
Mostly I can agree with your thesis. A study of the temperature data collected in the US over that last 130 years or so suggests that the warmest period of the 20 century occurred before the 1930's. Indeed we may be in a period of gradual cooling, Greenland is presently accumulating ice. It is also interesting that nobody has or can define what an ideal global climate might be like. Indeed such a climate might well be warmer than it is today. One cannot have success without defining what success looks like.
That is all untrue, the 1930s bit is probably only in relation to the "dust bowl" incident but apart from that temperatures have been rising and Greenland has been having a net loss of ice because shock, surprise. Glaciers melt in the summer and gain mass in the winter.
I noticed several years back that climate change and the wrath’s coming in revelations are one and the same. Could it be that Satan is trying to build an excuse in advance so people won’t turn to God when this happens because they will believe it’s just global warming? Is global warming part of the beast system and the FALSE prophet?
@@sweettoko995 famines, earthquakes, other natural disasters. Basically the world being torn apart so climate change comes along predicting all of the same things so later when Christians say “turn to God we told you this was coming” the devils climate prophets will say “ it’s just global warming, we told you it was coming”
Even if there isn't, we should not continue to pollute like we do. We need clean air, earth, water, and food to live a healthy life. That still needs addressing and fixed.
We came from an Ice Age. Whether we attribute it to luck or destiny, the world changed. Does Mother-earth hate change? And here we are, policy after policy, burning money and still burning earth's resources while at it, pretending we can stop change.
THANK YOU!! I've been saying same thing for 20 years but I'm a nobody without a plateform to be able to get the truth out.. like them saying polar caps are melting.. average temp is -40 degrees.. even if temp rose 15 degrees they will not melt at -25 degrees... that is still 57degrees below freezing
Let me tell you a story about when the earth warmed by an average of 15 degrees Celsius: In the permian extinction tropical ocean temperatures reached around 40 degrees celsius and over 90% of all animal species went extinct. The global average temperature is around 14 degrees celsius, doubling it would be cataclysmic.
Whatever happened to that “hole in the ozone layer”? Was it resolved due to government regulation of CFC’s or did data show no correlation or effect? Seems like it was all over the news for a brief period and now little is heard on the subject. If it was a success, I would think government would promote it more as an example to further their cause with other climate initiatives. In the mean time, air conditioning is not as cold as it used to be remembering the days of ice cold air from CFC-R12 Freon 🥶. My understanding is that the next generation of refrigerant HFO-1234yf will be even less effective at cooling versus HCFC-134a that is currently in use today but will have even less ozone depleting impact.
Well yeah, the Kyoto Accord on which it was agreed the need to eliminate the CFCs, was a success and, thanks to the elimination of said compounds, the Ozone layer is recovering.
The Ozone Layer scam was done to protect DuPont's profits. Freon is the perfect refrigerant, but it was coming off patent & the price would plummet. So politicians simply outlawed freon (after making up the hole in the Ozone Layer), and Dupont replaced freon with ANOTHER patented refrigerant (which leaked out of your car AC every 5 months & cost $1,000 to fill up again).
Computer models give the results that their creators want or they can be modified until they do. Slightly more than half the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere each year by natural processes.
@@laurarichardson7187 Because anti climate change sentiments are supported by, surprise surprise, oil and gas companies as well as conservative politicians bought out by those companies. 15 seconds of googling proves that hurricane rates as well as other natural disasters have risen dramatically in the last few decades, and every shred of science we have on the matter points to climate change as the culprit. Follow the money and see where it goes.
@@lilchickienuggie8711 idk my searching did not find such clear cut info about disasters being more frequent due to climate change. Also I would not say this video is anti climate change cause it at least admits climate change is influenced by human carbon emissions, I would rather say this video is being a anti climate alarmist.
@@laurarichardson7187 Climate change is an emergency though. There have been a number of estimates to the point of no return and while some are optimistic and some are pessimistic all of them don't give us much time. Stuff wasn't alarmist 50 years ago because it wasn't a threat 50 years ago.
youtube is polite enough to drop a context bar and cite the ever so reputable source Wikipedia.
edit: for clarification purposes I wouldn't cite praguru either but both often cite other sources that can be drawn upon. By my standard they are roughly equal
You mean the one where anybody can change. 🤣
I don't have this while using a VPN out of the EU. Very interesting.... 🤔🤔🤔
@@benjones8977 the one and only
👀 When compared to the Harris/Brandon administration, Wikipedia might be considered reputable-ish🙄😐
Such a trusted source of information (sarcasm) 🤣
The way I reckon, sea levels have risen 400ft from the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. There have been multiple ice ages and warming periods in the 300,000 years of human existence. The climate is always changing. Anyone who believes they can separate natural climate change from man-made climate change from politics is incredibly arrogant. We’re humans. We adapt. There are much greater dangers to humanity than climate change, like the rise of totalitarian movements destroying western civilization IN THE NAME OF GOOD!!!
Yes, we’ll adapt. We’ll survive. But can we keep the same quality of life we’ve had for the last couple of decades? Plants aren’t too keen on weather extremes, nor are they too keen on sudden shifts in climate. We need plants to have food.
@@josephhoward4697 Thank you. These people don't get it. Climate Change is getting worse and even natural disasters are becoming more common. They're gonna realize the shit they're saying is completely wrong.
@@MUZUKUN-YT did you not see? it is NOT getting worse!! it is about the same! but go ahead with your ideas! we cannot change it no matter what we do!! takes 1000's of years!! all for alt energy and a cleaner world, but as I always say, IT IS NOT THE U.S. DOING IT!!!! we have cleaned up all pollution across the board by 70% since the 70's! so why are we always the ones you blame?
@@stevendoty9408 yes it’s getting worse, climates becomes more and more unpredictable. But please, continue to listen to “scientists” sponsored by fracking and oil billionaires instead of actual evidence supported and approved by the vast majority of REAL scientists.
If you think people are gonna believe the average person over an actual researcher, sorry mate, but you’ve lost the plot.
As Michael Crichton wrote in his, “State of Fear “, the people have to be kept in a S of F, to remain dependent on the government-ergo- climate change.
Thats nice but climate-change is objectively proven,
objectively a humanity-wide crisis and prageru is objectively
known to lie, misrepresent and be the 'enemy of all science'.
Here is an Ergo for ya... look up Arrhenius LAW... That already proves CO2 heats air up... So much for your science by conspiracy claims
@@Proemed44G
How much is CO2 is produced by the oceans, and how much of that is figured into the estimates.
Answer? Part one is unknown, and part two is zero.
@@jimskarw25 LOL, what the hell ? The oceans are a carbon sinks... That means that Ocean capture CO2 until it becomes too much and the oceans become acidic...
@@Proemed44G
There is approximately 70% of the planets flora beneath the waves. There are somewhere between 4-5,000 active volcanoes on the ocean floor. Pretty sure that man’s contribution is less than minimal.
Blaming the weather on other people's "immoral" behavior is one of the oldest scams in the book. In ancient times they claimed it was caused by upsetting whatever gods people worshiped. The solution was always to submit to the rule of someone else and give up your wealth. Today, the names have changed but the game and it's goals are exactly the same.
pretty much
Well said.
Bingo
astute observation. Never thought of it that way till you mentioned it. Even though i do have a tendency to reference historical records.
Wow! Brilliant and succinct analogy. I may have to steal that when explaining my position to others. Hope you don't mind.
I remember being a child in the 70's and the media informed us that scientists have found Africanized bee's that are more lethal than native bee's were migrating and could kill untold amount of people
Then in the 80's I remember the media telling me that scientists have said acid rain is going to destroy crops and we were going to starve
Then I remember in the 90's the media informed us that because computer's wouldn't know how to accept the year 2000 the Y2K bug was going to destroy the world
Then I remember in the 2000's the hole in the ozone layer was going to act like a big magnifying glass and burn us all alive
But NOW I'm supposed to believe the very same people about climate change?
Sorry but you've cried wolf too many times for me🖕
Funny how private corporations including the media suppressed all this stuff about climate change, including its lefty activists because of obvious reasons (i.e. environmentally friendly policies cut into profits) yet now they're lying. You tell me why they suppressed all these supposedly unearthed "lies" in the 60s and 70s? Did they do it so they could save these lies and use for a rainy day in the 21st century? Or maybe they suppressed all that stuff to keep themselves busy? Or as PragueU seeks to imply, "To sell more papers"🤡 Gosh I wonder why, maybe you, a man of experience I presume seeing as you were supposedly alive in the 70s to "remember" can enlighten us young chaps on the answer?
To be fair, the ozone hole was fixed by a huge effort to phase out damaging particles from industrial goods. It kind of supports the Climate panic more than it goes against it.
@@hanspeterqwe6620 According to who, the politicians? Because they said it happened I'm just supposed to believe them am I?
@@hanspeterqwe6620 😜
@@GeneralG1810 exactly, politicians can only get the citizenry to agree to more taxes if they can scare the crap out them and then promise to fix it for them. it's sales 101, create the problem in their mind then sell them the solution.
I remember back in the 1970's, the climate scientists were warning us about a coming "Ice Age". They were claiming by the year 2000, average summer temperatures would get no higher than the mid to high 40's. Winter would average between -10° to -20°, with possible extremes to -60°. You see how that worked out.
Scientist gave us many warnings, We will have over population, the earth is heading to an ice age, the Ozone will be Depleted, , acid rain, food shortages, oil depletion, metal reserves gone all by 2000, snow will be a rare sight, polar 2007 -caps will be gone soon.
I remember that tripe also. When that idea was being pushed, I was an adolescent and it scared the crap out of me. I believed it and the scary magazine covers depicting NYC encased a glacier. Since then, I could name at least a dozen other end of the world "crises" that didn't come true.
@@alvincash3230 But many here ream me out saying this is serious
Yeah, "scientists."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I remember this clearly! Even the TIME magazine feature that had people scared to death! We've allowed to much BS over the last 4 decades, this is why the democrats(party of contradiction) are in control. Even parents don't seem to have a say about their kids once popped out of mama's womb!
You can never let a good crisis go to waste
Even when it's a made up crisis.
Klaus Schwab
Even if you don't have one and have to make it up.
@@clairewhite5789 god he is so great 😀
Yeah there no fire in California and Austrilia. Yeah the Colorado river is not drying up. Yeah Salt Lake is not drying up. Yeah we are going on five years with only hand few days of snow in the north east. All right, they are happening. Closing your eyes don't make you invisible or things go away.
1300 years ago grapes were successfully grown in England’s midlands, 200 years ago there was ice skating on the Thames. Yes weather goes in waves, like the ocean, there are many sources of waves. The Russian climate model was most accurate of the thirty plus and it was only 100% off. It reminds one of the saying, “Garbage in, garbage out”, doesn’t it?
The Russian modem set the climate sensitivity to carbon to zero.
And soon, Bangladesh will be too hot to live in and all of those refugees will be everyone’s problem.
Fear and intimidation are useful tools to control people.
Yes, your being controlled by this very fact being
used as an excuse.
Thats nice but climate-change is objectively proven,
objectively a humanity-wide crisis and prageru is objectively
known to lie, misrepresent and be the 'enemy of all science'.
The Covid Industrial Complex used fear and intimidation to make profit and control. So I agree
That's all the left does. I don't believe a word they say
in the U.S. , thosecombine to make a cornerstone of the DEMOCRAT KKK CRT anti-American throng
That's why Trump threatens his jurors.
As someone who does scientific computer simulations for a living, an honest scientist will tell you that modeling climate is very hard. I model simpler systems with less variables and even those can exhibit very complex behavior. I can fully appreciate how hard it is to even approximate coupled nonlinear equations across multiple scales. It is amazing we can predict the weather with any kind of certainty out to 1-7 days.
It's also amazing how often those 7 day predictions are wrong and yet people still buy into there being accurte century level predicitons and how all of human civilization will develop over that century in order to assign total blame of what is claimed to be bad for people globabal average temps that increse by an ammount that you couldn't percieve and probably have a wider range in variability of in the room your currently in.
They are not predicting the weather. They are predicting the change in climate
Inaccuracy compound over time... But same here I'm honestly amazed how we can predict something so complex with such high probability and for that long!!! I understand the science behind it but still looks like magic. And just to think with our computational power growing every day, our ability to track and feed info to it and improvement made to the models makes me wonder if we are approaching type 1 civ
@@miglespt9750 that is true but the chaotic behavior at small scales does not translate at predictable linear behavior at long scales. That is not how chaotic systems work.
the Russians use a different approach, their model varies all the time
Wikipedia’s credibility has been disputed by one of its original founders, Larry Sanger.
Let’s go Brandon 🇺🇸
And Prager's credibility?
@@amazingbollweevil Way better than Wikipedia's.
6pm tomorrow will be rain between 2pm-4pm, rest of day dry
11pm tomorrow will be rain 10am-2pm, 2-4pm no rain, 4pm-9pm rain
this is the actual weather report from 2 weeks ago when i needed to know about the next day.
Let's go Brandon!
@@amazingbollweevil most every video is created and delivered by a credible scientist, researcher, professor, and otherwise expert. Wikipedia articles are written and edited by laymen.
The Earth is doing what it has done for millions of years, there is nothing we can do, thank you for the Truth PragerU
Most people will accept massive volcanoes erupting. But humans pumping out a volume of gas in a few days vs a year of volcanic emissions is too far a stretch?
@@Infestedparrot Volcanic eruptions cause global cooling. The fact that temperatures are rising shows that volcanic eruptions are both rare and massively outweighed by climate change.
It is not. The global cycle of warming and cooling is not synced with the current spike in temperatures.
I'm old enough to remember when they called it Global Warming. The Ozone Layer Hole, Killer African Bees, Acid Rain. They all killed me.
When I was a kid it was Global Cooling that was the scary monster. The glaciers were supposed to be back and over running Canada by the year 2000. Just look how well that turned out. The current fad is the same.
Why do you think they don't use the term ' global warming' anymore? Because the world is cooling.
They didn't kill you because people specifically took behaviors to stop them... the ozone hole would have ruined us by now if there hadn't been massive effort to get rid of CFCs in the 90s.
I'm old enough to remember when they called it Global Cooling. Back in the 1980's, they said we were in danger of triggering another Ice Age!
@@Blaze6108 what a load of crap. Watch this video again and try to let the message sink in.
I'm still hiding in my garage with a *camping stove* and a *handgun* awaiting the *Y2K disaster.*
LOL, ya, and the impending rapture, and 1950's nuclear annihilation, and the 1970's energy crisis, and the 1970's impending ice age, and the impending 1980's starvation due to over population, and the $140 oil crisis 12 years ago. Yawn. The infallible science Gods are speaking again, listen up sheep.
That just such an awesome comment. Well crafted, sir.
I really wish I could find that news clip where they interviewed that former CEO who sold off his company to buy supplies and raise livestock in a cave in the mountains because of Y2K or was it the 2012 BS. I really want to know how he is doing now
I bought the Y2K survival handbook....I'm still laughing!
I still have all those barrels of dehydrated water I bought for y2k.
Climate is always changing and a lot of it is cyclical. Just watch the past high temperatures when you are watching the weather and you will see that many record high temperatures were in the early 1900's, the dust bowl years of the 1930's, mid 1950's pop up a lot and then a decade ago in 2012 was a hot year!
Yes absolutely. When they say highest X or lowest Y for 70 years. Means X was higher or Y lower than now 70 years ago. Even highest X on record typically means highest for 100-200 years at most. The choice of benchmark mean or max or whatever is interesting because the selected date range probably emphasizes the metric.
Yea I remember working in that heat on a drilling rig in west Texas, everything was burned that year . Beautiful the next spring tho .
A guy at work recently told me "last year was the warmest year on record in 45 years". I immediately thought, "So 46 years ago it was as warm or warmer". This thought never occurred to him, apparently.
Exactly!!!!!
uhh climate change is real thp
I wouldn't just blame models. Back when this was a hobby of mine (7-8 years ago) nearly every "paper" that was peer reviewed that supported catastrophic conclusions had *massive* assumptions throughout. Peer review is non-sense especially if they just accept the assumptions being made. It doesn't matter how good your process or data is, if you are making bad assumptions your conclusion is crap.
Climate Change has been happening throughout history. Green house gases being introduced by humans are providing a minor forcing on the global temperature. Massive pavement cities are likely not helping either.
Here are some facts:
1.) According to scientists who study glaciation, we are *currently* in an Ice Age. This is called an interglaciation period. Yes this "unprecedented warming", yet we are still in an Ice Age.
2.) 99.999% of Earth's history had higher CO2 levels than present.
3.) The Earth for its first billion years of existence had an atmosphere mostly composed of CO2 (dominant gas).
4.) Earth had the most life and most biodiversity when our CO2 concentration was around 2,000-3,000 ppm. We are currently a little above 400 ppm.
5.) Most plants grow better in higher CO2 concentrations. Green House's pump in CO2 to achieved 500-600 ppm to help them grow faster.
6.) The current science from even alarmist organizations like the IPCC state that the "human signal" on warming via CO2 cannot be observed until the middle of the 20th century. As in we are pumping out so much CO2 that you can actually see warming from it didn't start until then. Yet the current warming trend *started* at the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 18th century and has **not accelerated**. As in the rate of warming we are seeing, the rate of glaciation retreat, all of it start 170 years before the human signal could even be theoretically detected and decades before even the first industrialization had occurred.
7.) The Roman warming period and Medieval Warming period are both arguably warmer periods than our current global temperatures. The Medieval Warming period saw the colonization of Greenland by the vikings, that later died off and was abandoned during the Little Ice Age. It also saw vineyards being grown in the British Isles that still don't see vineyards in modern times. Only shitty political activist paleoclimate reconstructions show today as warmer than those relatively recently periods in the Earth's history.
I also note the most important fact: Green House Gas Theory **does not** support catastrophic outcomes. When people scream "It's the science!", inform them that GHG theory actually doesn't indicate anything more than mild warming from the introduction of CO2. Roughly .7 to 1 degree Celsius per *doubling* of the CO2 concentration.
Catastrophic outcomes rely upon a position that has zero science actually supporting it that states that Positive Feedbacks greatly exceed Negative Feedbacks. This video covers this loosely when he refers to cloud cover. There is no evidence to support this position, but all climate models utilize it. Which is why .7 to 1 degree becomes 3, 6, and used to include 10 degrees Celsius forcings of CO2 by "trusted" IPCC models. To put simply when a little warmth is added to our biosphere, positive feedbacks will result in additional warming. A negative feedback will result in little cooling. In a stable system negative feedbacks are more common. They would like you to believe the opposite is true. So if our biosphere is a stable system you may actually see *less* warming from CO2 than .7 to 1.
Pretty well-reasoned argument, but there’s a couple of things you missed:
1: The billion or so years where CO2 was the dominant gas is completely unimportant to our future. I’m not even sure why you wrote it down.
2: It doesn’t matter if more CO2 is better for plants if there’s not enough water to feed them, and/or if the climate and/or weather is too unstable to allow their continued survival. If crops can’t make it to harvest season, we have less food. That’s all that matters to us.
3: The stuff about the warming periods worked out well for the upper latitudes. What about the lower latitudes? Unless things also improve down there, we might have a refugee crisis on our hands so big that it makes the current illegal immigration crisis look like a small visit from your friends across the street.
4: Putting CO2 aside, we still pollute our air. While it’s obviously not terribly overbearing, something doesn’t seem right about it.
5: While we are entering an ice age, ice ages take thousands of years to develop. The warming has only been happening for a few centuries, and it’s clear that the warming is outpacing the cooling, which is why we’re talking about the issues of warming instead of the issues of cooling
To sum up, your argument leaves out the fact that most of human civilization took place before the Industrial Revolution, and that the two warming periods you mentioned make up a very small fraction of Pre-Industrial Civilization’s timeline. Humanity’s success was largely built on a stable climate, the Pre-Industrial Climate. Once we industrialized, our population took off, we got rid of the burdens of most forms of disease, we replaced meaningful lifestyles with high-stress, fast-paced, meaningless dopamine highs and empty consumption, and we finally slayed democracy. That last part is what actually worries me the most. Democracies, republics, and other forms of decentralized power generally thrive in times of stability. Power tends to centralize in times of volatility, such as all of the time that has passed since we industrialized.
I’m not saying we should go back to Pre-Industrial Civilization. But it’s not like this issue is unimportant simply because the climate was worse at times when we didn’t even exist.
You misspelled pal reviewed papers.
@@josephhoward4697 your rebuttal is flawed for several reasons. On your 1st point, the intent of showing CO² has been more abundant int the atmosphere is that it is not a new phenomenon nor is it some foreign pollutant as is often implied.
Point 2: it absolutely matters that CO² is good for plants in higher concentrate than currently seen in our atmosphere. Plants not provide food and shelter for incredible biodiversity, but also provide atmospheric purification and solar mitigation. Not only that, but plants are 90%+ carbon. Any speculation on your part about climate/weather instability is an irrelevant diversion
Point 3: pure and utter speculation not supported by any historical record.
Point 4: irrelevant strawman
Point 5: we are not entering an Ice Age, we are exiting one and we still have not recovered to the temperature point we were at before the Younger Dryas event. That event also disproves your point of time frames for onset of Ice Ages as that event saw the world plunged back into an ice age in only one generation. There is further evidence that we exited as quickly approx 1300 years later. As I mentioned earlier, we still have not recovered to a temperature level as high as core samples show from approx 12,500 years ago. This is vitally important as it skewers the narrative of industrialization human caused warming.
@@wstavis3135 Okay.
Your response to #1 isn’t helpful, because we’re talking about Industrialized and Post-Industrialized Civilization. We all know that CO2 has been around. I don’t know who you think is trying to pass it off as a foreign thing, because it’s not the media or any actual scientist. Nobody is acting like this is new. The debate is over whether we’re screwing up our climate.
As for #2, this isn’t speculation. Extreme weather events do happen. An unstable and warmer climate will make extreme weather events and climatic shifts more extreme. It’s pretty simple atmospheric physics. The jet stream is a standing wave. Add extra energy (heat energy), and a standing wave takes on different characteristics, such as increasingly chaotic and unpredictable amplitudes and frequencies.
As for #3, this isn’t speculation. I don’t know why you even brought this one up. The middle latitudes tend to be warmer and more humid. When heat goes up, people start feeling unhealthy. People who feel unhealthy seek a way to feel healthy. They go north and south away from the tropics to beat the heat. This isn’t speculation anymore than the math done by Thomas Andrews’ to prove to Captain Smith that the Titanic wasn’t going to stay afloat. What I’m telling you is a certainty. Nothing more, nothing less.
#4 is a red herring, not a strawman. I apologize for my fallacy, but please get it right before you call it out. We don’t both have to look like fools. But I would like to point out that what I said is still true, but I can agree that it’s a separate topic for another time.
As for #5, the OP said we’re entering an Ice Age. Go have this talk with him, not with me.
@@wstavis3135 Also, it’s pretty much settled that the Younger Dryas Event was initiated by comet striking the island of Greenland, so it makes sense that the cooling would happen so quickly.
Answer to the title is “NO”.
Anyone remember that project VERITAS video from like 3 or so months ago the guy on a date I think his name was Chester said they were about to start pushes climate change?
Yupp ive been telling everyone to watch and wait
CNN started their climate-change propaganda machine shortly after that.
Those asshats at veritas lie so much that I could literally beat one of them to death and still wouldn't believe them if they said I did it.
@@Meirstein wana name a few examples?
@@michaelrogers3857
Gladly
Using edited footage, they made it seem like they walked into ACORN offices dressed like a stereotypical pimp and were given instructions on how to open a brothel. Not only was this not the case when unedited footage was exchanged for the veritas asshats not be prosecuted for any crimes (such as, I don't know, prostitution and human trafficking), but the San Diego police department was literally called on the person pretending to be a pimp and human smuggler. This led the ACORN employee to successfully sue.
Using edited footage, they attempted to present the narrative that public radio would not require any public funding, purposefully excluding any footage that would suggest that loss of funds would hurt smaller stations. They also manipulated footage to suggest that NPR would willingly accept donations from a Muslim fundamentalist organization.
They attempted to prove that it was simple to commit voter fraud by using the names of people recently found on the local obituary. They did not include the fact that the police were called on one of their employees attempting this stunt.
They attempted to claim that people accusing Roy Moore of sexual misconduct were lying and the media was supporting them. To do this, they sent a plant in to claim that she was impregnated by Roy Moore in an attempt to get her on air with a false story. Using 5 minutes of basic investigative research, the plant was found to be a right-wing activist and was pretty hilariously called out.
You want more?
"We need to reduce our carbon emission to prevent climate change!"
"We have a solution. Use nuclear power."
"NOOOOOOOO!!"
Basically the last 80 years
safest form of energy today.
People expressing fear for themselves and others is the most hilarious thing I have ever experienced. It truly makes life worth living, every single time I see someone get scared of something like nuclear power, I laugh inside. It provides an entire lifetime of unending comedy.
Yes, use nuclear power, at the very least we need to freaking do something for this mess we made.
I think it’s all comes down to societal power . So wind farms and solid farms could probably be a utility where as a nuclear power will always be privately own . But yeah let’s do something about global warming anything . Let’s just thank prauger U for convincing us that global warming is real and a threat to the future generations. God bless America
Well its clear that the wealthiest countries should start investing in nuclear energy asap. The poor countries dont really have the luxury of doing that just yet. Its really hard to say if things are worse or not because of climate changes because we always had natural disasters.
We do not need to make ANY radical changes in our lifestyles as our climate/environment/atmosphere acts like a self adjusting hydraulic servo unit. In other words if one factor changes other factors change to bring it back into equalibrium. It is truly a scam what the left is selling.
Not hard to say, at all. All data shows, 1) Less frequent and less severe weather events, as of late, and 2) A huge decrease in the loss of life as a result of such events.
@ub2bn And more food. CO2 is Plant Food.
Canada should be rooting FOR global warming!
@@geraldfrost4710 why
@Sour ._. Drop the earth's temperature a degree, and the tropics won't get much colder; the Arctic will get much colder to compensate. Canada doesn't want any part of that!
The so-called "human factor" is nearly always the fatal flaw in most "science". As Mr. Koonin mentioned, hard data and observation is often directly affected by the assumptions made by the researcher. And, as far as what I can tell from climate science, most of the researchers in that field already have a mindset that a) man-made global warming is real and b) the primary cause of man-made global warming comes from the use of fossil fuels. So when these researchers create their computer models, they are going to consciously or subconsciously adjust the model to reflect what they already believe.
As the saying goes,"garbage info going in, garbage info coming out."
Almost every researcher agrees climate change are caused by human actions. Do you really think you are so smart by saying it’s biased by the researchers? No you aren’t, scientists have also thought what you just said and still came to the conclusion that climate change are man made. We released in 200 year the equivalent of a million year natural climate change. Only fracking billionaires support skeptics “scientists” like the ones on PragerU. You conservatives are so incompetent and believes only what they want to hear instead of real supported evidence agreed and proved by the vast majority.
@@rusuyuzusushi5781 unfortunately your doing the same. Isn’t the truth somewhere in the middle? Not all scientists agree with you, the main problem with the liberal perspective is that you guys tend to overblow the affects of co2 on the environment. The same scientist you often cite also say that this warming is not catastrophic and actually is better for us than the opposite which would be an ice age. Plant life is growing more rapidly than ever since plants need co2 to live. You guys also seemingly ignore the fact that the temperature was already rising rapidly before humans began using fossil fuels. So even if we never did use fossil fuels the temperature would still be going up.
@@weignerleigner3037 Read your comment over and over until you see the contradiction. Wow... I can't believe you people are real.
@@pablobear4241 I don’t need to read it I wrote it. Nothing I wrote is contradictory I’m simply pointing out flaws in your logic and pointing out things liberals often ignore. And seeing you don’t have a response other than to insult me tells me your ignorant on the topic.
I have been in the indoor climate business, HVAC, for over 20 years. It is nearly impossible to precisely measure and balance air temperatures within an insulated and vapor sealed structure like a home or business. According to most mechanical codes, the acceptable temperature differential between rooms within a climate controlled structure is 2 to 6 degrees. And this requires detailed measuring with sophisticated thermometers and often zoning dampers.
I cannot even begin to fathom the likelihood of accurately measuring the accumulative temperatures of the entire earth within a single degree of heat. Especially considering comparison of measurements from decades ago and placement of less sophisticated thermometers are influenced by their proximity to small heat-radiating subjects, such as rooftop condensing units or lighting.
But yeah, we are certain the earth has been warming by 2 to 6 degrees over the past 20 years and we’re all going to die if we don’t have a government takeover of the energy sector and eliminate flight travel for everyone not in government.
Have you heard of satellites? They're rather good at that sort of mass surveillance. I would bet they have wide angle infrared satellites by the dozen to map the earths temperatures, seeing as how there have been tens of billions spent on monitoring the earths temperatures.
And we know what happens when CO2 is dumped into the air at these rates, it's happened before and it was worse than what killed the dinosaurs. The worse mass extinction ever was caused by CO2. Unless you have found fossil beds that are a quarter of a billion years old, excavated, cleaned, documented thousands of fossils, then synthesized a theory with your new findings, and been peer reviewed. A process that would take at least a decade, and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Or your full of feces and arguing from ignorance.
Remember that time in 1978 that the scientists told us that we needed to prepare for the impending ice age? The was awesome.
I remember that. As a child it terrified me and I was depressed for years thinking me and my whole family were gonna freeze or starve to death. That’s why I made sure my own kids knew that all this gullible warming mess was a bunch of bunk and they have nothing to fear. I feel so sorry for all these brainwashed kids who are terrified of co2 !
I don't remember, im still too young.
40 years young 🤭
That’s why the term “global warming” was quit being used….and they switched to “Ozone depletion” followed by “Climate Crisis”. Someone always benefits from their political agendas. Like this vax mandate…all the biotech companies have profited immensely. Wow, who would of thought?
@@yingnyang2889 Ozone depletion and Climate change are different things though. The former refers to the damage of the ozone layer due and cfc's, whereas climate change refers to the increase of concentration of green house gases in our atmosphere.
@@cathaloregan9317 makes you wonder what effect letting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the high atmosphere caused. Never any mention of that.
Dude is dropping some hard facts here. I liked what he had to say. The alarmism being perpetrated globally is astounding, predictable, and politically motivated - the involvement in anything by politician immediately makes be question it.
Of course you liked what he had to say. He basically said there was no problem, you're not doing anything wrong, and you can keep doing whatever you like. Something about sweet lies and bitter truths.
And you like to listen to what the media says because it fits what you believe, go watch the climate marathon recently uploaded on prager U.
I make it a goal to watch CNN for at least 5 hours a week. Out of the times I see climate mentioned virtually 0 times a hard statistic was brought up unless it was counting an amount of times that an event happened.
@@Meirstein No - he did not say there was no problem. Maybe you need to re-watch it?
@@AB-zc5ff Not sure what you are saying here, either you did not understand what I said, or you are being humorous.
@@AB-zc5ff That's great that you make it a goal to watch CNN 5 hours a week, but that's irrelevant to this video. Is the video wrong? I spent a lot of time watching both sides of the spectrum specifically on this topic and the only ones who are not only making this a big deal (as they have done for over half a century) are the democrats. Further more, most people on the left believe that some how, more governmental policies are going to solve the 'problem'.
If property owners really believed the climate change narrative, people from all over the coasts would have moved further inland decades ago, but the exact opposite is happening. Citizens are relocating anywhere on the coast where the economy is doing well. Turns out, majority of people actually like...surprise surprise...capitalism.
Certainly, rational thought is available to us. Good, solid information can be found. The problem is the large percentage of people that are immune to facts.
In Australia, the highest temperatures were recorded not in 21st century, but in 1878 and 1906.
In 1878, 124 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in Victoria. It was so hot that people died. But nowadays nobody died of heat.
@@ML-rd6ci Ah, yes. The trees just catch fire instead.
@@ML-rd6ci Frequency of abnormally hot days is increasing, however
Climate Change is an existential threat !!!
- Says Barack Obama from either his ocean front estate on Martha's vineyard or his beach house in Hawaii.
Or from inside of his private jet while flying to climate change conferences in ravaged places like San Tropeze, or the carribian isles, or in Fuji!
Doesn’t really matter who’s saying it if it’s true lmao.
@Slayer Developer What he's saying is that if the Sea Levels are going to rise [8/10/12/15] feet (or more) in the next [12/20/25/30] years (depending on who's saying it) why do "enlightened"and "responsible" people such as Obama have oceanfront property?
Why did Zuckerberg just build Facebook's (sorry- META's) headquarters on the edge of San Francisco Bay?
@Slayer Developer They can fly Commercial- like the rest of us Plebs...
The current "Climate Czar" literally came out and said the rules don't apply to him (and I'm paraphrasing here) _"... because my work is too important."_
@@jonasabrams7526 it’s not
Weather people are lucky to get a 4 day forecast correct, but we definitely know what's going on in 100 years.
Heck, they have a hard time predicting same day weather.
I guess we can't tell what cells look like because we can't perfectly resolve them at the sub atomic level. Scale matters. You don't just take day to day forecasting and then add up the measurements until it goes out 100 years. It is a completely different scale with completely different methodologies.
Weather forecast is completely different to global warming if one has to explain this your education was piss poor or religion was thrown in your young mind and brainwashed you.
We observe cells. They’re observable, and we’ve succeeded. Weather or climate in the future is merely projection. And we’ve failed at the base level of projecting weather 2 days from now. It’s hubris to think we know the climate 20 years from now.
@@DontStopJaime you might have had an argument intill you went all butthurt atheist about it.
1:11 I literally just wrote a seminar paper based on this. The hurricanes gain on strength and move further to the poles because of warmer water. The hurricane activity IS different than it was a century ago.
nono this random conservative totally knows better than you, someone educated on the subject
@@viktormehl4311 He's not random and if you watched the vid you'd know that.
...and who was it that taught it? A left wing professor backed up by another left wing professor backed up by another left wing professor perhaps? They could be correct I suppose or it could be a thing called circular validation.
@@Whytepathe Yeah, no. Our geography teacher is what I can only describe as a man of science. For every single lesson we have a homework to find as many news about geography as possible, so he and us don't end up on the wrong side of science. Maybe people over at PragerU could try that too...
@@Whytepathe scientists stand for science not for politics. If you wanna argue that science is leftist propaganda or some shit i dont even wanna go there
"Hubris" is the operative term here. Humanity has become so technically advanced that we believe we know or are capable of understanding everything. And now that false belief has become the basis for political power.
We just have Dunning-Kruger Graphs in office. They think they know things but lack the ability to know they do not.
All political power is based a falsehoods.
@@juniorleslie4804 and you think you know. No political power is based on falsehood. Handing a thief a knife doesn't make the knife false. One can cheat to pass exams but it doesn't make the exam false. Political power has its purpose. You concern rather is to understand that purpose and the boundaries of it. It's not the government's right nor power, for instance, to stall the rights of parents to raise their own children. That's a boundary you are all willing to surrender to the government . You've given them an inch of your ground. Why won't they want all the ground?
@@bishopakpan2284 All political power is based on falsehoods. That is, they promised things that they themselves are unable to deliver and tell lies and promote propaganda to support it.
The public has to suspend belief in order to believe that politicians are infallible and are their saviours.
Yes good reminder that was the key point.
Chelsea Clinton went to a
“Clean Air Symposium”
In a private jet.
Let that sink in.
I read an interesting fact the other day. The temperatures in the mid west from 1933 to 1939 regularly reached over 120 degree, during the dust bowl. Followed farm land was cited as a factor. I don't think there were too many cars on the road then. Strange this fact is not often cited. I think now of the fallowed farm land in the great Central valley in. California and what might be in store for the inhabitants there.
That's right. It's not controversial to anyone who has looked into the history of the US with regard to weather/climate: the 1930s and 40s were the hottest years since we began taking careful measurements. This is very inconvenient for the CO2 hypothesis, so the media just doesn't call attention to it.
"Fallow?"
Tony Heller writes about this every day on the tube.
@@mikenagy938 Thanks for the heads up, Mike. I just subscribed to his site.
Do you mean "fallowed?"
Actually Greenland is gaining ice mass. Denmark does a good job documenting this. Let's go Brandon!
The government funds scientist so long as the scientist identify the problem they want and identifies the government as the solution. It's like the tobacco funded studies on cigarettes back in the 60s only at a much larger and more dangerous scale.
Good point
The fossil fuel industry funds the campaigns of the members of congress and senate. So long as the money flows in, the government will continue to shuffle its feet about what we're doing to our environment.
@HunterBidensCrackPipe Lots? Surely you mean some. Every new initiative proposed by concerned organizations and politicians have been vehemently opposed by fossil fuel money. The US had electric cars in the 90's! Guess who squashed that? Go on, take a guess.
@HunterBidensCrackPipe Yes, thanks to a good conservative Republican party creating environmental protection (mostly sulfur and lead reduction) we reduced a good bit of pollution, but not CO2 emissions. Speaking of gloom and doom, that is the Fox entertainment business model: scare the people into voting against their own interests. Auto emissions, by the way, is a drop in the bucket. The US is only 14% of global emissions and you want to celebrate THAT? It has less than 5% of the world population, man! As for the environmental costs of creating electric vehicles, you've just swallowed the fossil fuel industry's talking points. Way to go! They just love useful idiots.
Exactly. They are using climate change as an excuse for a globalist power grab because after all it affects the entire planet not just individual countries.
Anybody remember back in the early 60’s when the cover of Time magazine predicted, based on science, the Earth was heading into another Ice Age? Yeah, wonder how that played out.
I find it astounding how many people have forgotten about that...or the fact that many of the same "scientists" who predicted the coming ice-age quietly switched their stories to the global warming crises...just about the time they started being paid to do research on global warming. Coincidence? Yeah....right!
I heard NASA stated that the only thing that changes climate was the planet's orbit.
That was the 70's if I remember correctly. You're correct. Time mag had a picture of a penguin on the cover. 🤣
Well we should be heading to an ice age over the next few thousand years naturally; unfortunately human intervention is now pushing us in to a warmer stage, so warm in fact that it's destabilizing the ecosystems, hence our mass levels of "natural" destruction.
We are heading into another iceage. It may take another 10,000 years, but we'll get there.
“I woke up this morning and went outside and THERE WAS WEATHER EVERYWHERE! OMG 😱, what are we going to do!”
- Chicken Little, AKA Henny Penny
They were wrong 50 years ago and they are wrong today. And in 50 years from today we will have 100 years of Hysteria to point back at:
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas
of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
- - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
"Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world."
- - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
"In a decade, America's mighty rivers will have reached the boiling point."
- - Edwin Newman, Earth Day 1970
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global
mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about
twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
- -Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970.
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of
global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of
economic socialism and environmental policy."
- - Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." John Davis,
editor of Earth First Journal
"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."
- - H. L. Mencken
"'Protecting the Environment' is a ruse. The goal is the political and
economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of
preserving nature."
- - J. H. Robbins
I’ve always hated the argument from deniers “the climate has changed before.” Climate activists know that and don’t deny it. Just because the climate has changed before does not refute anthropogenic climate change. Just because it changed naturally before does not mean it is changing for the same reasons now. Almost every denier uses this point, and it’s the worst argument. I’m the end, I don’t think we’re in a climate emergency. We’re not gonna die tomorrow. But the human race is gradually changing the climate and it will become an inconvenience in the future. I agree with conservatives that it’s not doom and gloom, but I wish more of them would do research and acknowledge that humans do play a role.
@@vgames89 ….and I wish more people would keep reading about climate history.
The word ‘unprecedented’ keeps being bandied about, yet if you look back in history there is very little unprecedented about it. But you have to make sure what you are reading about that history is not the media’s take on it because they have an agenda.
For example I was told just recently that the 1939 Black Friday bushfires in Australia were nowhere near as severe as the recent 2019/2020 fire season, quoting that burn acreage for 2019/20 was 10 million acres and for the 1939 fires was only 2 million acres!
I was suspicious of this claim and found that the 2 million acres that was claimed only related to the tiny state of Victoria and that in fact when burn maps of the 1939 fires was superimposed over the more recent satellite photos of the 2019/20 fires the recent burn areas were eclipsed!!!
@@johnslugger Great reply! 🏆 Great research!
@@jimivey6462 There are more facts and the LEFT hates FACTS (Known as critical thinking) The left "FEELS" since "FEELING" can fool people into paying yet higher taxes. FACT: Ocean levels have risen over 210 feet Globally in just the last 1900 years. WHY? It's called 'THE END OF THE ICE-AGE'! and we will spend another 1500 years warming up even more. The 210 foot rise in Sea levels is from glacier melt. Yup, global warming is REAL and IT'S NOT any human's FAULT! I can't wait to grow coconuts and pineapple in Canada again like it did 120,000 years ago at the peak of the TROPICAL AGE! We have the FOSSIL RECORD! (Facts must really suck for the Lefts tax collection schemes😂)
I love when prageru brings in a speaker such as this, someone who actually had notable work in the field at question, FOR DEMOCRATS, and yet still is willing to cover this dissenting viewpoint from the other side, because he believes the science supports it.
Koonin was not involved in any work regarding climate change, during his period as undersecretary in the Obama administration. All he has done in this field, is publishing a book some months ago. The book is full of inaccuracies and lies, something that has been pointed out numerous times. Instead of Koonin refuting his critics, he just keeps promoting his book to the gullible and ignorant. It is sad that people fall for it.
@@Frups12345678 Its a good thing people can do their own research as independent 3rd parties, and form their own opinions then.
@@fjh3501
Googling and reading various articles that just so happen to agree with what you already believe isnt "research".
The "notable work" you speak of is working for an oil company. That profits from selling fossil fuels. The fact that he worked for democrats means nothing, because lobbies and bribes are a thing. He also uses a strawman argument that paints his opponents (scienitists, "the media", and government) into a bad light, and uses that bad reputation to discredit their findings, instead of discrediting through proper scientific references. I've clicked through to their sources list. He cites 9 sources, 4 of which are a link to his own book on Amazon, which is a "trust me bro" statement. What would've worked instead was referencing actual scientific articles, written by current experts in the field. That would be proper research. Maybe even find some meta-analysis that combines previous research into an overarching statement. But no. He focuses on a pro-fossil fuel statement (if we'd properly fund fusion research we wouldn't need fossil fuel in about 40 years anymore) and uses too little references to actual scientific articles to lend his arguments power.
I'm always amazed that people don't trust the scientific community, but instead get their "unbiased" information from people funded by Big Oil.
No scientist support pragers position.
No one ever brings up the inconvenient truth that cheap energy is the reason food prices remain affordable for the poorest people in the world. Cheap fertilizer, cheap transportation, and cheap refrigeration are the reason 8 billion people can afford to eat every day. Removing fossil fuels overnight would lead to the largest mass starvation in history killing off the poorest and most vulnerable first.
You’ve really got to appreciate TH-cam putting these labels on anything they find offensive regarding climate change. They’re just like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, a certificate of authenticity attesting to the truthfulness of the video they’re attaching them to for me. Even though I’m sure no one reads my feedback to TH-cam about this it surely feels good letting them know how I’m using their warning labels.
That's what you call speech police. it's awful what they're doing. If what they have wrote down was exactly the opposite what would you think.
They have so little credibility, these warnings turn into seals of authenticity.
The Rand Corp. did a study decades ago about what would unite people other than war. They believed a climate disaster. We have had ecological politics ever since. I am an engineer. Interpreting data correctly is as important as accurately collecting data. We are far from some of the extremes in climate that the earth experienced in the past. Climate rhetoric is about politics. They are trying to get rid of small farmers in the Netherlands, Canada, and Ireland over bogus environmental concerns as I write this. Sri Lanka's president and prime minister just fled the country because of the food shortages their ecological policies caused. Years ago, authorities banned the refrigerant Freon. They claimed it was destroying the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Freon is 4.3 times heavier than air. When released, it sinks to the ground. So how can it destroy the ozone 30,000 plus thousand feet in the upper atmosphere? Dupont's patent on Freon was running out during this time. Guess who got the patent on on the new replacement refrigerant? Do you know how ozone is created and what it is? All you need to create it is oxygen (O2) and an ultraviolet light (as from the sun). The O2 breaks apart when a ray of ultraviolet light strikes it and forms O3, ozone. A ray of ultraviolet light hits O3 and breaks it apart. It is a continual process that happens at every level in our atmosphere. Don't believe everything they tell you.
@@michaelfraser4396, the leftists in government have turned many “scientists” into whores for grants and recognition. They prostitute their “science” to make it fit the politicians desired outcomes and predictions of gloom and doom in order to herd the constituents into doing what they want through fear. NASA and NOAA have been corrupting historical climate data in order to make it fit their climate model’s predictions. Anyone that corrupts data to make it fit their theory is no scientist, they’re a grant whore. The whole AGW scam is based on flawed science as temperature increase leads CO2 increase not visa versa. The oceans are the largest CO2 trap in our environment and when they warm they can’t hold as much CO2 in suspension so it’s released raising its (minimal) concentration in the atmosphere. It seems that the global elites don’t like our world’s population increase and the increase in CO2 (plant food) has increased yield and the ability to feed more people. These are the arrogant bastards that believe the world population should only be 1/2 billion rather than the current nearly 8 billion. Solution? Reduce farm output and starve them out, but of course the ultra wealthy elite will always have the food, fuel, land, and whatever else their heartless soul desires.
@@michaelfraser4396 yup funny how complex "science" is invoked to yield the opposite outcome to that which more fundamental science yields.
"Fear sells" 👏👏👏👏well said! 👏👏👏👏
"fear sells" does not equate to "everything frightful on the news is a fabrication"
It’s what the right wing has been using against immigrants. The right wing is nothing but hypocrites
CO2 levels were much higher in the past than now and the earth didn’t burn up, in fact life prospered on earth.
I have lived across the street from the beach for 10 years now and the beach hasn't gotten any closer❗️
Want to fix the co2 problem, plant more trees, plants "breath in" (for lack of a better term) co2 and "breath out" o2 😊
Epic
No need. Plants are already doing well with the current level of Co2 and they are practically suffocating. Raised levels will help them thrive even better, like a self balancing equation.
It's criminal to destroy CO2, all lives depend on it. Without it, we all die.
@@horizonkage That's not what the literature says. Some plants do better with elevated CO2, while others do not. Even if all terrestrial plants grew faster with elevated CO2, what about our oceans? Increased carbon means more acidic oceans, which alters entire ecosystems.
Definitely a good cause that both parties can get behind. We need more trees to offset more carbon that humans release, and it starts on our properties! Plant a (native) tree!
In 1990 some computer models predicted New York City average temperatures would warm 20 degrees by now.
We were supposed to run out of 80% of the world's oxygen by 2000 if destruction of the Brazilian Rainforest didn't stop, according to my chemistry teacher in 1988. She didn't just mention it in relation to something else. We had a whole lesson on it. It was a few years after global cooling went out of fashion.
Finally, Patrick Moore has been saying this for years!
co2 is about 1% of the total atmosphere and it doesn't just hang there. PLANTS take the carbon and release the o2. More co2 equals more plant growth.
Plants put in CO2 chambers grow exponentially faster and yield much greater harvests, if CO2 is so bad for the environment why don't we give more to the plants
Actually, it is only .04% of the total atmosphere but you are right, CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant!!
@@andrewgreeb916 That's the reason why more people are trying to build trees. Lmao
so your answer is: "I learned something in middle school, everybody else just doesnt get is"
Isnt that also some kind of hubris?
I don't know if those plants could live well on Planet Mars since that planet's atmosphere have 95% of CO2 but the weather there is too darn cold to live for living creatures. Someone should get a "climate change data" for Mars.
Amazing how so many of us remember ALL the scare tactics and know a bamboozler when we see and hear one.
Minimization, denial, blame, and distortion: the tools of the con artist. When you see them, discount the rest of the argument.
@@geraldfrost4710 Hubris
excellent. now, we need 10,000 more of these videos and some (as yet undiscovered) way to get climate alarmists to actually listen and think for themselves.
They never will. It's a religion and they're indoctrinated to the hilt. They have invested so much of themselves into this climate thing that they cannot believe anything else, even if facts proving the opposite would stare them in the face.
I remember we were heading to a new ice age about 30 years ago!!
It’s still the scientific consensus that we are heading towards what would normally be an ice age period
@@Ggyhhggtyyy Yes we are heading that way really fast with Nuclear War.
@Ggyhhggtyyy According to "climate scientists " we've been heading towards this so-called ice age for the last 50 years. Any chance that these scientists can actually tell us exactly when this catastrophic event will actually arrive so as I can spend all my savings??
I'm thinking about the prehistoric critter called the Trilobite, they were around for hundreds of millions of years making them one of the most successful lifeforms on the planet, but they died out due to changes in the climate. Strange they didn't have oil companies to blame for their demise.
May I suggest instead of "climate change" start looking at local "environment change" we change our environment when we pour concrete, when we put up a large building. These things effect our environment temperature etc.
Plant more trees. Regulate irrigation to prevent erosion, have people choose to eat more veggies, reverse osmosis saltwater for drinking water or irrigation use.
@@brittanyhayes1043 One problem with those things is that, for some reason, the entire world want America to fix everything for them. Another is that those will be government contracts which have a nasty habit of cost overruns and embezzlement, if they're completed at all.
Yes, buildings can have an urban heat island effect, but how does that actually change climate in your estimation? And what would be your solution? NOT building any?
@@brittanyhayes1043, have people “choose” to eat more veggies? And how would you do that? Veggie mandates?
We already have more trees on this planet than known stars in the universe. The problem isn’t trees. It’s a lack of knowledge of the geologic history of the planet by common people and the left’s desire to use that ignorance to institute socialism.
@@hugehappygrin I know that why I made the comment. It's not going to be possible. I was listing the stuff that they will end up forcing EVERYONE to do.
He certainly is right that fear sells the most. Based alone on being moderate on climate change, I believe him.
No there isnt....there's a dumping and big corporations polluting problem, it has nothing to do with how they present it.
The scientific community is full of powerful axioms...assumptions that become so powerful that nobody dares challenge them. It does not make one a "science denier" to question the validity of many of these computer models. The assumptions and beliefs of the researchers are very much baked into the conclusions that they are feeding us on this topic. I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't called climate change, but "global warming". Since that time, science has revealed that perhaps the planet has had many periods that are warmer and colder over the geological timescale. So now it's just called "climate change"...because even less specific, and more ambiguous semantics gives more liberty to just keep changing the narrative to shape politics. Remember these Democrat talking points..."We just want to keep people safe" and "We follow the science". When you ponder the vast importance that energy has on every aspect of modern life, is it any wonder why a scary story like climate change is a perfect way to wield political power in this time?
You're on point sir. This whole talk-a-lot a about climate change is a distraction. They are playing the same tape over again. Why? It works. Fear works. People think they can always be rational. Try mixing rational with fear and see where it leads. People think they know. They don't realize how fear deepens their bias and blocks any solid attempt on their part to know the truth. And why will they care? It's easier to let others do the thinking for them than think for themselves. Climate change is America's least problem. In my country, climate change isn't a thing. I don't remember our being hassled by trying to fix the climate when we have day-to-day actual problems to address.
The Bank still gives out 30y mortgages for beach properties
Does Prager have a video on every fashionable, incorrect doomsday theory from each generation? Must clock in at about 45 minutes long.
@Fart They should do one on the overblown 70's doomsday scenarios like "The Population Bomb", how deeply the ideas influenced society, media and invasive govt policy, and how wrong it was. Not that there's any analogy today, what with world becoming uninhabitable Real Soon Now for real this time.
That would make an interesting video. When I was in school in 60s and 70s, we were taught, “The earth is cooling and we’re heading into another ice age” as a doomsday theory. Well that and the Soviets are going to nuke us. It sad that so many people believe politicians care about our well being and the media is honest. They both are liars and greedy thieves.
@Fartyour name is appropriate because that's exactly what's coming from that gaping chasm under your nose.
@Fart I love how you don't bring one fact to the table to contradict the video. Only insults, like a complete fool.
@President Joe Biden Welp, Biden just sh*t himself again. Oh no, it's coming out both ends!
Let's face the facts, Earth's climates are subject to an unknown number of contributing factors that are always changing.What most people fail to acknowledge is the fact that constant fluctuations caused by hemisphere (North/South) are never the same. What you experience this year will not be repeated next year.
This is also part of their plan, take education and history out of the equation so you have no point of reference. I could go on but people are addicted to bad news, adrenaline and just do not have fulfilling enough lives without the junk.
What you fail to see are the actual effects of climate change and are listening to the 0.1% scientists that say it’s not real, most likely because they’re funded by billion dollar non-renewable resource companies. Stop living in a fantasy world. You tell the majority of people to wake up when really you’re the one to have your head up your ass.
It's also subject to one well known contributing factor: burning fossil fuels. That fast spike in CO2 is causing the temperature to rise faster than ever before. Weep for your grandchildren who will reap the bitter harvest you've sown.
The actual fact is the climate change scam is just a way of taking your freedom and your God given rights away from you. Period, end of story. To think that the people who can't balance a budget can change the climate, is pure stupidity.
sure there are year to year fluctuations but we can see some pretty clear trends over longer time periods
How many of us are going to be alive in the next 50 to 100 years from now, if we got rid of the media, I bet the climate would change.
The problem is when people act like global warming is the only issue, pollution from garbage is a massive issue as well, but they don't seem to care.
Climate change is a decoy, created by the people who should be addressing real issues... but aren't.
@@SamieMac1 You missed the whole point, climate change is used as a cheap political trick by politicians that do shit that has next to no impact on the climate while pretending they are saving the planet. People that say how much they care while flying in private jets.
That's the problem.
@Fennerex V except that's not the norm, in many places they tackle only 1 part of an environmental problem and act like that's enough.
Thank you for this video. I just ordered your book. Looking forward to reading it
Climate-Change is objectively provven and its Denial is covered by Channels that cover C-Theorys like Bigfoot.
I found it well worth reading.
If CO2 emission is a concern, why not plant more trees so that by photosynthesis, CO2 is consumed? Is that not simple?
In my very old/early mainframe COBOL, card deck, computer days, we used to say --> "Garbage in, garbage out". Programs and data are only as good as those who write them and those who input them. How are we to prove the programs and data are actual when the disagreements vary so much between those who input the data and those who write the code?
I remember those days. One card read wrong and you start over lol.
@@TerryBenner Yep. Then come back to check the queue to see if your job ran yet. :-)
As someone who leans conservative, I believe our problem transcends politics and it would be naive to think that we have evolved as a human species where we have become good stewards of our planet. There are many stresses to the planet such as population increases, depletion of natural resources, dumping garbage and nuclear material in the oceans, deforestation, and over-farming of arable land. Here in the SouthWest US, we have a water problem, yet we continue developing as if nothing is happening. At this point, there are just too many world conflicts, too much greed, and too much division for us to come together as a species. Hopefully, we can pull it together before the next mass extinction!!
Well we have to ask ourselves "what does saving the planet look like?” Do we know that question? Do we understand the sacrifices we have to make to save the world? I feel before we start forcing people to live a certain way we have to make logical decisions before drastic ones.
@@jerrettbarkley456 U have that 100% backwards, time is not on our side regardless of your politics
@@Proemed44G that sounds like "I know what’s best for you” logic. I don’t do that. I’ll resist.
@@jerrettbarkley456 u " resist " in NOTHING.... Nature doesnt ask 4 your permission it works by its own LAWS of nature...
Just because U dont accept its law just mean more suffering for all just because U refuse to have COMMON SENSE..
U probably dont know who Thomas Paine was yet he wrote about common sense that gave birth to America... maybe U should look at it....
Consider Christianity instead of watching the MSM
LOL this guy is so humble he will stare down the entire climate science industry and tell them they're wrong. Now that is what I call humility!
Also PragerU is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry... I'm not saying don't listen to people like him, but when you do just keep that in mind...
There's more scientists that say there ISN'T a "climate emergency" than those that say that there IS, but the ones that say there ISN'T, are being SILENCED
Read his book recently, is a great explanation of the current state of climate science and the way it's been twisted.
I agree. I’ve read dozens of books covering both those promoting that ‘the science’ says we’re in serious trouble and books like Steve Koonin’s “Unsettled” taking the muted position. I like Bjorn Lomborg’s economic approach that basically says it is better policy to spend wisely on adaptation than somewhat foolishly on attempts at total mitigation.
It was probably written by this guy….
If you have any intellectual honesty, then you should also read the publications that expose the inaccuracies and lies in his book. I suspect that you will not, as the book says what you want to hear, so the observable and testable reality plays a secondary role. The good thing for Koonin, is that he can make money of the gullible.
@@Frups12345678 If you were trying to be informative you would have cited more sources rather than resort to ad hominem. I'd actually appreciate if you cited them, I'll read them. Nothing to be afraid of. I'm assuming you've read the book cover to cover?
@@lukehanson_
PragerU don't allow you to post any links in the comment section, as they are evidently scared that their propaganda is exposed. The exposing of the book can easily be found with one Google search, so nothing stands in your way.
Ok so what you’re saying is we shouldn’t get off of fossil fuels because it will only slow the planet warming? And instead just keep going and warm the planet more? I’m so confused.
He was essentially saying we should make more informed decisions in affecting our global energy output in any drastic way to counter a problem when effects on the climate are based on faulty and biased modeling. And I agree with him - we need to understand that we if do not have a clear way of dealing with this problem without destroying developing nations’ economies or destroying our own developed economies, we will leave sensationalism and ideology at the door and figure out real solutions. What we have right now is a money grab by politicians, corporations, and government bureaucracies that promise to “solve” the problem if you simply just pay a little bit more. Should sound pretty familiar if you look at history.
@@BabyBugBug it’s just gonna harm
Them regardless. The sacrifice of saving the planet which in of itself is less expensive than dealing with it later, crops start failing due to warming weather and droughts, rivers starting to dry up, which feeds dams that produce the electricity that people need, rising seas and more hurricanes that’ll flood cities, kill people, destroy houses, not to mention how fossil fuels makes the surrounding air toxic. Overall the pros outweigh the cons. Corporations know this, the electricity producers know this, but they’re the same people that had been lying about the climate Crisis, saying it’s not real or it “not their fault” for decades. We know what the right path is, we just don’t want to speed up in turning towards it.
@@jamesmylife6578 I am not sure I agree. The catastrophism you mention is not something we have seen and, frankly, I believe you are falling into the exact trap that was mentioned in this video. I do agree with you that working to lower emissions for the health of our people is a good idea. Government control, surveillance, massive taxes on hardworking people? It is awfully privileged to suggest that people essentially deal with the fallout from this to avoid a future we are not certain will happen. Meanwhile, we have people to feed and provide jobs. Would it not be selfish of Westerners to ask these people around the world to suck it up and deal with what we want to do? That sounds pretty imperialistic, which, given our history, is business as usual due to our self-assumed moral high ground.
@@BabyBugBug We’re already seeing this. The river shortage like in the Rockies that feed the Colorado river, the one that feeds the Hoover dam?!? That has been drying up for ages. Florida has been getting more and more hurricanes. Island nations are sinking into the ocean as we speak. Alfalfa planting had been stopped because of how much water it takes up, where it’s being planted in the middle of the deserts. And this is in developed nations where the government can provide relief. What about the poor nations that haven’t caused the situation (or has done little) that can’t provide relief for its citizens. That’s inhumane
@@BabyBugBug not to mention that fossil fuel plants tend to break down in extreme conditions like the heatwaves and cold snaps we’re experiencing.
Do we even know if high CO2 is a bad thing? Plants love CO2. We are obsessed with just charting the last 100 or so years, but CO2 has been much higher in past epochs, when there was more abundant life. For all we know, lowering CO2 will cause more extinctions.
"The complete elimination of all fossil fuels in the US immediately would only restrict any increase in world temperature by less than one-tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050, and less than one-fifth of one degree Celsius by 2100."
- Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change, US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
It requires the entire world to participate
You know. Even if human influence in climate change wasn't a thing, wouldn't it be nice to not rely on dead dino juice that creates air pollution which causes disease, literal IQ decreases, and mental health issues? Why not fund proper research into nuclear fusion (not fission, so no Chernobyl) and be completely fossil-fuel free in 50 years? We could have an abundance of clean electric energy by literally harnassing the power of a small sun in a reactor. No more smog, no more exacarbated lung problems, no more increase in lung cancer and decrease IQs for people living near arterial roads and airports.
So its our all job.
@@BlitzsieLDiscoLSnow That's true. The environmental movement has intersectionality with many quality-of-life life improvements and broader justice.
Don't use facts, that's racist
Considering that I checked hurricane levels per state, some of the latest have been less devastating then the one before them
Yeah, people often attributing "more money lost during disaster" with "the disaster getting worse" eventhough it's their own fault (and they knew it) for putting flimsy expensive things in the way of disaster.
In recent years many scientists suddenly are mentioning of cooling period we're heading into. A global cooling period is imminent according to some scientists.
Liars: Climate-Change aint real!
Hbomberguy: Yeaaah, but that... i made a video.
All of this and yet the planet is just one moderate volcanic eruption away from a drastic drop in temperature.
Do you sleep at bodytemperatur in your room, just in case of a sudden blackout?
Someone check on this guy. He might have dislocated something, because that's a reach.
Thank you Sir! You are a voice of reason, logic and common sense!
Ice caps have increased by 21% since 2008.
Not a single citation for these claims made.
Plus, Dr. Patrick Moore has done some videos stating the possibility that we don't have enough CO2 in the atmosphere to sustain a more abundant amount of vegetation as the world population increases.
Moore has been debunked so many times that he's taken to sleeping on the floor.
That's good. The UN and the WEF want to reduce the global population by half anyway.
We have an environmental emergency with far too much garbage and water pollution. Soil erosion is out of control and urban sprawl plowing up many thousands of acres of habitat making those areas heat sinks absorbing the suns ray's making for what seems to be a warming planet. Bare farm fields without vegetation or residue are typically 40-50 degrees warmer in direct sunlight than soil with cover. I'm a retired environmental specialist.
People keep thinking we'll engineer our way out of this when in reality we just need to plant trees and trust in the process. We do need engineering to get green energy, but a lot of the gains we have to make are in repairing the carbon cycle, not in attempting to replace it.
I BELIEVE this man. Hubris is often a dangerous spell under which to fall, and under which one most certainly will fall. I check myself every so often to ensure I'm no going too far IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
You believe the man who is not keeping an open mind to the possibilities, good or bad. The man who claims hubris but then in the next minute demonstrates it by not considering the research completed by thousands of people who have dedicated their life to this issue. THAT IS HUBRIS. Pride and arrogance go hand in hand. To say you have all the answers and then to not back it up with demonstrable fact is both pride and arrogance. To publish it under the guise of higher learning is teetering on evil. Certainly dishonest. An informative video would make these claims and then show the experiments and research that led to them. A man makes claims that feel better than "we have a crisis on our hands" and people listen. It's depressingly predictable
Your two biggest funders are both oil billionaires. Enough said
But universities get government funding! rofl, sorry.
@@jjoohhhnn this is not a University this is a group of propaganda spreaders and luckily they do not get government money.
@@mobiletaskforceunitepsilon3733 I was making a joke, cause climate change denialists always claim the government funding is corrupting the research, and this institute is 100% a fossil carbon puppet.
@@jjoohhhnn PragerU is not even a university, as much as they like to act like they are.
In other words calling it a crisis is about unscientific as you can get.
Brilliant explanation of hubris thinking of the government's today!
Fear sells, people are 🐑
Wish this should be tough in primary schools 🙏👍🏻👏
But if schools are funded by the government then why would they teach people to question it?
@David. I have done the same think in the 80s
Now they trying to shut my son questioning climate change or blm 🤮
The best way to get perspective is to ask: How many days out can meteorologists predict the weather with a 90% success rate. It's about 4 days. So why would anyone think that it can be accurately predicted 50 years out?
Weather is not climate. May I see your degree in meteorology?
@@LaceyJuk You wouldn't believe anyone with a degree in meteorology when he/she came up with the wrong conclusions, that is how tunnel visioned indoctrinated you are.
@@LaceyJuk
The definition of climate is quite literally the weather conditions in an area over a long period of time.
@@levoir228 Yes exactly, it's different than weather.
Why does he need to show a degree? Are you gatekeeping the weather now?
Weather is “short term atmospheric changes” while climate is “average atmospheric conditions over time”.
Why the hell would you need a degree to make sense of that?
I've noticed from 1995 up until now, winters are getting shorter and more frigid, but also, the summers are getting longer and more hot.
Furthermore, I remember when the seasons lined up with calendar. For the past several years, the seasons have arrived noticeably late.
The aforementioned makes me think that we are passed due for some calendar manipulation. It was a practice to remove or add days to some years in order to coordinate with astrology.
I live outside Chicago and I remember Halloweens with snow on the ground and snow in April. The weather has
always had and always will have extremes. No human assistance necessary.
Where is the movie where someone invents a great CO2 filter and ends up overdoing it and causing snowball Earth again.
If you’re referring to science fiction to make a point, you’re an absolute tool.
And remember 1984 is a post-apocalyptic sci-fi novel and movie made by George Orwell.
In Snowpiercer, they tried to use chemicals to reflect the sunlight and that led to a global ice age.
It's called snowpiercer.
I was thinking more along the line of engineering certain plants to absorb CO2 at super high levels and then killing us all after CO2 levels drop below detrimental levels, but we are unable to kill the plants since they spread across the globe too fast. CO2 is a life giving substance required for us to survive.
I don't understand how you can judge and predict the future of a planet that's four billion years old on 150 years of data.
Well, when you are paid to lie...
150 years of data is probably an optimistic view of how much real data we actually have. Did we really have good GLOBAL temperature and ice coverage data before satellites? Which would have been more like 50 years ago at best.
Excellent presentation. A little humility and a lot of truth goes a long way.
There is a climate emergency like there is a Santa Claus.
THE END
Hey, one of those is real.
No because there really was a St Nicholas ❤💚💯
💥🤣💥
@@hueowen2786 the Grand Solar Minimum is real. But that is the limit on my agreement.
That is an act of nature and no amount of human intervention will help.
Thus,no legit "emergency".
@@hadrianwall9157 Dude I meant Santa Clause was real. It was a joke.
"Don't trust the 'media', trust me." - A private media source
That works for BP.
Except that this _"private media source"_ provides you with references and citings on evrything they said.
@@Lone-Lee But all the mountains of peer reviewed science, you need to ignore that because it's totally fake, right?
@@Lone-Lee Except this private media source is funded by oil and fracking billionares. Yup, not biased at all.
The ‘media’ is NOT a single entity, look at the excellent quality of Reuters compared to the utter shit that is CNN and Foxnews.
In the 70’s it was global cooling and the coming ice age . As far as climate models are concerned ......” garbage in , garbage out “ .
Well the sea level is rising for sure but that its probably something natural, it's being like this for centuries in my city, even before steam engines (this is not sarcasms).
"HEAT" is what happens when coming out of an ICE-AGE. Guess what? We are still coming out of the last great ICE-AGE! Sea levels have risen 210 feet in the last 2043 years. THAT's Global warming NOT caused by people! 'HOW DARE YOU' blame PEOPLE for this natural heating cycle of the earth!!!!
We declared the little ice age over in the mid 1800s but mother nature may not have received the memo. Hubris indeed :)
@@johnslugger dude i wasn't being sarcastic.
What city do you live in? I'm on the beach for the last 30 years and it hasn't moved.
97% of earth's water is in the oceans, 2% is trapped in ice sheets/glaciers around the world, 1% fresh water lakes and rivers...
So even if ALL the ice on earth melted, the oceans volume would only go up 2%, hardly catastrophic
All my life they pushed hole in the ozone for 25 years and now they dont talk about it anymore. Guess it went away on it's own or they were lying the whole time.
Hahaha yep....I remember that hole 🕳️
Actually, I chalk that one up to a win. We got rid of a bunch of chemicals that were apparently wearing that away and the Earth rebuilt it. That's the kicker: when something is an actual problem, humanity tends to solve it.
If we aren't busy solving climate change, it's probably because it isn't a problem.
@@frozenkilt this is how the free market works. If climate change was hurting the world like they say then businesses would be making less money so they would figure out ways to make more money (fix the climate). Like for instance electric cars. If electric cars were cheaper to make and more efficient than gas cars then companies would already be making them because they would make more profit. They arent, so companies dont make them unless they are subsidized by the government which makes them cheaper and more efficient to make. The free market fixes all these problems but communists dont like free markets.
@@frozenkilt yes we got rid of the chemicals, but look into it a bit further and see how it really fixes it itself.
The problem was solved long ago.
Been listening to this man for years , it's fantastic the way he uses there data and exposes the real story ,
Mostly I can agree with your thesis. A study of the temperature data collected in the US over that last 130 years or so suggests that the warmest period of the 20 century occurred before the 1930's. Indeed we may be in a period of gradual cooling, Greenland is presently accumulating ice. It is also interesting that nobody has or can define what an ideal global climate might be like. Indeed such a climate might well be warmer than it is today. One cannot have success without defining what success looks like.
That is all untrue, the 1930s bit is probably only in relation to the "dust bowl" incident but apart from that temperatures have been rising and Greenland has been having a net loss of ice because shock, surprise. Glaciers melt in the summer and gain mass in the winter.
I have asked several people here on You Tube at what concentration level is CO2 harmful to humans? I never hear from them again.
fruitful🌱
I noticed several years back that climate change and the wrath’s coming in revelations are one and the same. Could it be that Satan is trying to build an excuse in advance so people won’t turn to God when this happens because they will believe it’s just global warming? Is global warming part of the beast system and the FALSE prophet?
@@shiniquajones2812 💯% 🙏be not deceived: climate counterfeit conceals frequency & severity of 🔚time birthpang prophetic fulfillment; ufoAlien👽 deception replaces 🔜harpaz♡Rap✝️ure🕊 (study📖kh♡use)
@@shiniquajones2812 what is specifically that you noticed?
@@sweettoko995 famines, earthquakes, other natural disasters. Basically the world being torn apart so climate change comes along predicting all of the same things so later when Christians say “turn to God we told you this was coming” the devils climate prophets will say “ it’s just global warming, we told you it was coming”
@@shiniquajones2812 but what happen to the war somewhere in Israel to indicate the first trumpet. Shouldn't that need to happen first.
The earth is way to cool. It needs to be warmer!!!
Even if there isn't, we should not continue to pollute like we do. We need clean air, earth, water, and food to live a healthy life. That still needs addressing and fixed.
Absolutely not.
We came from an Ice Age. Whether we attribute it to luck or destiny, the world changed. Does Mother-earth hate change? And here we are, policy after policy, burning money and still burning earth's resources while at it, pretending we can stop change.
THANK YOU!! I've been saying same thing for 20 years but I'm a nobody without a plateform to be able to get the truth out.. like them saying polar caps are melting.. average temp is -40 degrees.. even if temp rose 15 degrees they will not melt at -25 degrees... that is still 57degrees below freezing
Let me tell you a story about when the earth warmed by an average of 15 degrees Celsius: In the permian extinction tropical ocean temperatures reached around 40 degrees celsius and over 90% of all animal species went extinct. The global average temperature is around 14 degrees celsius, doubling it would be cataclysmic.
Whatever happened to that “hole in the ozone layer”? Was it resolved due to government regulation of CFC’s or did data show no correlation or effect? Seems like it was all over the news for a brief period and now little is heard on the subject. If it was a success, I would think government would promote it more as an example to further their cause with other climate initiatives.
In the mean time, air conditioning is not as cold as it used to be remembering the days of ice cold air from CFC-R12 Freon 🥶. My understanding is that the next generation of refrigerant HFO-1234yf will be even less effective at cooling versus HCFC-134a that is currently in use today but will have even less ozone depleting impact.
Well yeah, the Kyoto Accord on which it was agreed the need to eliminate the CFCs, was a success and, thanks to the elimination of said compounds, the Ozone layer is recovering.
The Ozone Layer scam was done to protect DuPont's profits. Freon is the perfect refrigerant, but it was coming off patent & the price would plummet. So politicians simply outlawed freon (after making up the hole in the Ozone Layer), and Dupont replaced freon with ANOTHER patented refrigerant (which leaked out of your car AC every 5 months & cost $1,000 to fill up again).
@@artphotognh See Michael Fraser's post above. You environmental panic merchants have been duped... again.
I went to share this video on Facebook, and before I could, Facebook informed me this was false information.
I shared it anyway, of course!
Computer models give the results that their creators want or they can be modified until they do. Slightly more than half the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere each year by natural processes.
I'm glad to hear this balanced perspective.
*biased
@@lilchickienuggie8711 how?
@@laurarichardson7187 Because anti climate change sentiments are supported by, surprise surprise, oil and gas companies as well as conservative politicians bought out by those companies. 15 seconds of googling proves that hurricane rates as well as other natural disasters have risen dramatically in the last few decades, and every shred of science we have on the matter points to climate change as the culprit. Follow the money and see where it goes.
@@lilchickienuggie8711 idk my searching did not find such clear cut info about disasters being more frequent due to climate change. Also I would not say this video is anti climate change cause it at least admits climate change is influenced by human carbon emissions, I would rather say this video is being a anti climate alarmist.
@@laurarichardson7187 Climate change is an emergency though. There have been a number of estimates to the point of no return and while some are optimistic and some are pessimistic all of them don't give us much time. Stuff wasn't alarmist 50 years ago because it wasn't a threat 50 years ago.