I've already begun to increase my co2 emissions where possible and as much as possible to compensate for the catastrophic co2 reductions imposed by the governments. I propose we all start doing so.
Hello Wong, it's more the other way around, too less co2 actually is bad, life flourishes between 5000 and 200 ppm, we're at 400 right now , I like to see us move up more to the safety of the middle....... wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/
The hand that rocks the cradle. Our babysitters have their own agenda. Public school is a propaganda machine and universities are no better. We are taught what to think, but not how to think. "Give me a baby, and I can make any kind of man" - John D Watson
@@boffeycn wong! America is the first world country and the education system is working exactly as it was designed to. Based on the Compulsory schools in Prussia set up by Martin Luther after the Protestant reformation. They are indoctrination camps to control the population they have nothing to do with education. This also goes for every public school regardless of the country.
I'd be curious to know what he thinks about nuclear power. New reactor designs are much safer than the old ones (Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc.) and despite not being feasible in areas far from running water, could help cut down on both fossil fuel emissions and biofuel/wind/solar nonsense.
Yes and yes, Nuclear is the way of the future. Thorium Light Water Reactor is the not so new way to produce energy, it was invented in the early 60s and was shot down by Nixon for not being able to produce Plutonium for the cold war machine. Btw, Thorium is all over this planet and not one country have the monopoly.
@@louisbarbisan8471 The 1960's Thorium Reactor was not a "Light Water" type, it was canceled because of "Light Water"/Fast breeder. It was a Molten Salt Reactor. The rest of your comment is very correct. My new Home state of Missouri could supply almost all the Thorium the US needs just from our Rare Earth mines' waste, which keeps most of those mines closed because its radioactive(Thorium) .
Part of the CO2 rise is from CO2 emissions...and up to half is from warming oceans that outgasses CO2 as temperatures rise. Most or all the temperature rise is from natural variation. We are still coming out of The Little Ice Age. This is the best, mildest climate in history right now. The number of days above 100 degrees each year has been declining for 70 years....same for 90's and 80's. It's only getting warmer at night on the Arctic...when it's still too cool to accelerate ice losses.
@@CheburashkaGenovna except for the fact that they are less frequent and less damaging than in the past 2019, 10 million acres burned and 1935, 50 million acres burned in the domestic US
"and up to half is from warming oceans that outgasses CO2 as temperatures rise" What the fuck does this mean? It's no suprise to me that a climate denier can't even string a coherent fucking sentence together lmfao. Warming oceans is a direct result of climate change, which is a DIRECT result of human CO2 emissions. "Most or all the temperature rise is from natural variation" Like what? Natural variation is exactly what climate scentists filter out when studying climate change. It's so funny how you think this is some obscured truth when questions like these is what climate scientists do for a living, you know, the ones who all agree that man caused climate change is real and a big problem? How the fuck did that drivel get 10 likes.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +31
Apart from if you live under the rule of the EU where you see your living standards dropping year after year energy prices Rising just discrimination against those people who live in the country in favour of the policy of mass migration corporate companies getting richer all the time politicians paying their self Monopoly money why the Working Man gets poorer yes the great vision of the EU
@@darrenbellenger1 My comment "Try punctuation", though brief was a serious suggestion, not a "comeback". Punctuation is what makes a post readable. I think everyone must be familiar with the following example that can mean the exact opposite depending on how its punctuated. How would *_you_* debate this one: _Dear John I want a man who knows what love is all about you are generous kind thoughtful people who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior you have ruined me for other men I yearn for you I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart I can be forever happy will you let me be yours Jane_
@@darrenbellenger1 I don't tend to debate on issues unless I disagree and have both strong opinions and a ready supply of facts to back them up. Some issues, such as Derek's total disregard of punctuation or other blatant misuse of language (unless its a person's 2nd language) show disrespect for the reader and niggle me sufficiently to trigger brief comment. Frankly, I don't think his comment attracts serious debate because its too general. It appears to miss the motivations that drive the changes we are going through. I think he also shows a narrow understanding of what the trend has been globally. I've never lived in Europe and so haven't personal knowledge to debate from. I do know that Europe's economic fortunes have fluctuated over the last century from the general cry, "Take me to America" to "Take me to Europe" and perhaps back again. His comments on discrimination and the greed of the corporate and political sectors can be affirmed - I have no doubt - in every nation of the world. In short, Derek has flung handful of mud that has indirectly touched so many issues that even if I was inclined to debate, I wouldn't know where to start!
Enjoyed that but I think about the subject in a simpler but larger manner. Planet Earth has been a self regulating entity for billions of years, yet some people have the conceit to think we can "Save it. It will be an absolutely beautiful planet with or without us on it. Thunbergs are Go......for now!
How dare you? How dare you have an opposing opinion, is that what you mean? We must discuss, we must examine, we must explain. Science is never settled, notice accepted scientific notions are referred to the theory of..... that is because we might get new information that disproves the theory. This is the fundamental basis of science.
Why isnt this broadcast widely? We are hammed by depressing news, by doom and gloom stories daily, and I am sick of it. The fact is we are doing a good job, much better than we did, we really have made so much progress since the 50s. We should be proud of ourselves.
I am not worried about running out of fossil fuels, we have at least 200yrs supply in Canada, we will never get to the Jetsons by having us go back to the Flintstones! And renewables are not self sufficient. I ask anyone to name us one modern day used thing made of renewable materials and using no fossil fuels in it's existence. I also rationalize that Green Energy requires rare earth minerals... RARE means hard to find, expensive and limited! We need ALL forms of energy, simply use the best one to suit the given need. I have a far greater fear of my life without fossil fuel assistance, than I will ever fear life WITH fossil fuels to assist us!
Absolutely, but the usual arguments are that we should abandon fossil fuel use for generating POWER. It's obvious we need it for other things like production of electronics etc...
@@Fuar11 Wong! They want to tax your breathing. Burning coal is a good thing. Unless we want to go to nuclear power which yes please! The rish can't stand that every day people live as good as we do. How dear the peasants have food, cars, and HVAC !
picking your own "facts" to fit a narrative of "everything is fine...keep going to the mall" only gets you so far...luckily the mass death tends to hit some deniers a bit hard.....
@@wpac9237 WHAT mass deaths? World food production at a record. Plants growing 50+% faster than in 1950. Deaths from catastrophes down from 500k in 1900, to 7K today. You are a cheeky boy. Discuss facts/issues not editorialise. You are an idiot.
All this wasted talk about "emissions" and "Carbon footprints"! Where does Matt get the idiotic notion that CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with the weather?
@@Eric-ye5yz Wrong answer! .. just as I expected - even school kids know this if they do science at school and anyone can look it up. You're typically ignorant because you choose to be.
I keep asking the question is CO2 stops the heat of the earth getting out, greenhouse effect, why does it not stop the heat coming into the earth from the SUN?
Is that because he's saying what you want to hear? Nothing he is saying is backed by fact. Please try to remember he is a journalist, not a scientist....of course that likely doesn't matter to you since you're more interested in having someone pander to your agenda.
One example from one article in his blog: "marine geologist, James Kennett of the University of California, Santa Barbara, said he had found evidence of the impact of a large object from space 12,900 years ago, in the form of carbon spherules in silt." Random blog article, his books are chock full of references to peer-reviewed studies etc.
@@boffeycn he's says that if you feed a plant it grows! God do I really have to selling everything out for you? Don't you ever get tired of being wong all the time
Solar is a good supplementary choice. If you have a blackout in your neighborhood you can keep your lights on. Not intended as a primary supply. But nice for a backup
irtaza Azam, and your point is? I've lived on an island and in a developing city. What kind of effects are you talking about? Do you know what CO2 is? Did you know that you have 40,000 ppm of CO2 coming out of your face every few seconds, all day long, every day of the year and every year?
@@RodMartinJr yes. Living more than 15 years in a major city affected by high CO2 emissions does affect it. I can clearly remember when having a smog warning in the city wasn't a thing. Droughts in my country were a lot less common. I understand what CO2 is and of course it's not some evil gas that kills everything it touches. It's a large percent of the air we breathe no matter where we are. In the video he mentions that it's 9 species within a hundered years. While that's not crazy numbers considering the rate, it definitely is. And that's not even counting subspecies of different animals. Or insects for that matter. Anyway, my point is, there was a point I could look up and actually see a blue sky in my city. Nowadays there's always a grey haze over the city since more and more people have gotten access to vehicles.
@@RodMartinJr my point was that countries like the Maldives, or cities like Venice are sinking at a much faster rate within the past 100 years alone. The damage caused by the shift in climate does affect the world quite a bit.
Kind of enlightening to listen to someone who just states things as they are. Not the alarmism that has engulfed us. What's up with the Wikipedia citation on many of these climate change videos. Gee do you think there might be some bias there? Me too.
Bleh There is no such a "climate change", climate zones remains unchanged :\ tropics can't be desert and vive versa. Earth temperature overall depend on the solar activity, cosmic rays and albedo :\ No others...like change in CO2 or similar stuff...
@@mac2105 Bleh idiot...read this and shut up! I cracked, that pesky theory: *Wien displacement law* (that is where the T^4 relation with insolation comes from). Measured temperature in the Venus atmosphere from VERA-2 and VEGA landers. At 49km, (1bar) they show a temperature of 339Kelvin - which is easily calculated from Earth by; Tv=∜1.91 x Te 339=1.1756 x 288 This is final proof that there is no Greenhouse effect on Venus or on Earth. This formula collapses the 'Greenhouse effect' and proves it does not exist; Te = ∜0.523 x Tv Te = 0.85 x 339 Te = 288.15 Kelvin The surface temperature on Earth is easily calculated - from Venus. The fourth-root of the TSI difference times the temperature in the Venus atmosphere at 1atm = Earth's temperature! The equation formula works on the Titan as well: Titan Tt =∜0.01089 x Te Tt = 0.323 x 288 Tt = 93 Kelvin This gives the calculated temperature on Titan at 1 bar as 93 Kelvin. Measurements by the lander Huygens in it's descent trough the Titan atmosphere, show that the temperature at 1 bar is around 90 Kelvin. Let's use Ideal Gas Law : PV =nRT T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.225/28.97) = 288.14 K ~15°C Earth black body temperature is -18.8 °C degree or 254.3 K All of that 33 degree rise without greenhouse gas effect. Venus: T=9200/8.314 x 65/43.35 = 737.99 K or ~464°C Titan: T=146.7/8.314 x 5.25/28 = 94.1K or -179°C Saturn: 101.3/8.314x0.19/2.07 = 132.8 K or -140.35°C (why Saturn with no GHG is warmer than Titan? Answer: No GHG effect!) An experiment: www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm now *MODTRAN* US Air Force system: joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/ nov79.com/gbwm/satn.html **KO**
@@WadcaWymiaru Sure, all those scientists could be fundamentally wrong. I'll let the Nobel committee know while you get this peer reviewed, ok? OR you simply don't like that your lifestyle needs to change. Seems more likely to me.
@@mac2105 1. So scientists BEFORE them like *Émile Clapeyron* are wrong? or 12 other great scientists? Oh stop wanking...this is NOT first time in history that majority was WRONG!!! See the Greek guy that was talking about "atoms" or another that thought that the Sun is in the center! *Leucippus* 5th cent. BCE, *Democritus* 460 - 370 BC (atom theory) *Aristarchus of Samos* 310 - 230 BC, *Seleucus of Seleucia* 190 - 150 BC (helliocentric theory) Majority thought they are wrong, the were NOT! Include popular *guy* Aristotle! 2. If changing my life style to energy poverty and high bills...i will say NO! I do not wish to pay high taxes for someone illusion! Especially when proven *AWFULLY WRONG!* Think by using BRAIN not TV... 3. An experiment that PROVE that "lion share" of the energy is transported through convection, not radiation: th-cam.com/video/ZOM8Kkm62jM/w-d-xo.html while *NASA* claims this: nov79.com/gbwm/rad.html a SINGLE experiment BREAKS the backs of **GHG Theory!!!** It's result IS repeatable! *KO*
@@WadcaWymiaru dude, you sound crazy and you're insulting, that's not how you convince people, which is what you need to do if you want political change.
This guy is basically cherry-picking some good news and not telling folks Unfortunately, while more CO2 will give us some more greening in parts of the world, it is also driving ecosystems towards collapse. Due to the excess heat and CO2 we have added to the atmosphere--90+% of which has been absorbed by the oceans--the oceans are becoming warmer and 30% more acidic, and ecosystems are starting to break down. For example, we have had massive die-offs of coral reefs in major bleaching events. Warmer temps have tipped the gender of some sea turtle species to mostly female. Etc. The last time CO2 levels were this high, sea levels wound up being 60 feet higher than they are now. The last time the Earth warmed this rapidly, over 90% of life in the oceans and over 70% of life on land went extinct, including everything over 90 pounds. But this time, it’s US who has caused the rapid warming, so it’s our responsibility to take action to cool Earth back down. Take care.
@@HealingLifeKwikly ….. I agree, these people learn something i.e. that plants like CO2, then pretend unlimited CO2 is good for plants. That is said out of a desire to sound like they know what they are talking about, or they really are stupid.
@@HealingLifeKwikly .. Yes, he is doing a bit of cherry picking .... But, while coral reefs die ... they also re-colonize ....PARTS .. of the ocean are warming ... where the water bottlenecks.. but they are cooling globally, as is the ground, in Northern latitudes .. the CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, it was a damp, and hot place ... very humid and green!! .. It was teaming with life! ... To reduce the CO2 like they want will create a dry dead world .... All the spraying they're doing in the sky to cool the planet will work! When combined with the volcanic ash already up there, and increasing daily their chem-trails will turn this little blue world into a snowball....
@@kathywinkler9802 Thanks for your reply. 1) "But, while coral reefs die ... they also re-colonize" True, but like a boxer who gets knocked down gets up, gets hit and knocked down again, over and over, we are damaging them faster than they can recover. The reefs we have took thousands of years to grow to this size and we can knock them out for good with a few bad bleaching events. The scientists who ARE actually experts in coral reefs predict 90-100% of coral reefs to be gone by 2100. 2) "PARTS .. of the ocean are warming ... where the water bottlenecks.. but they are cooling globally" ON AVERAGE, the oceans are getting warmer, and it has nothing to do with "bottlenecks." By burning fossil fuels (which both creates heat AND puts more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere) we are adding to the Earth's system the equivalent of four Hiroshima atomic bomb's worth of extra heat every second. Over 90% of that has been absorbed by the oceans. skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans-intermediate.htm And the oceans are not just warming, their warming is accelerating: www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change.html 3) "the CO2 levels have been much higher in the past" True, but human civilization wasn't around then, and the last time CO2 levels were this high, the sea levels wound up being 60 feet higher than they are now. That would devastate human civilization, drowning a staggering number of the world's major cities--and that's the trajectory we are on--due to humans raising the CO2 levels higher than they had been in 800,000 years: climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/ 4) "To reduce the CO2 like they want will create a dry dead world" No, that's simply not true, and whatever source you got that information from is very untrustworthy. CO2 levels hadn't been above 300 parts per million for 800,000 YEARS!!!! until our burning fossil fuels pushed them above 300 right around when the Titanic sank. We would just be restoring the world to the healthier natural balance that existed when the Declaration of Independence was signed. WE have pushed CO2 levels to 407 ppm, 45% higher than when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and our ancestors described a world absolutely teeming with life. 5) First, there is no evidence they are doing that on any serious scale. Tracks in the sky are a natural by-product of flying airplanes. Second there is no proof we can cool the Earth enough using that methods, especially if we keep promoting warming with our other practices. Third, doing that is pollution, and we even if we cool the planet back down, we will collapse the Earth's ecosystems if we don't REDUCE the amount of pollution and plastics that are in the world. Take care.
As humans we'll always see the negative first. It takes contemplation to figure a way out and see the good. Choose life over death, bring the light (however you get there) into your soul and produce value for your fellow man. Up and onward!
I think it is important to accurately state the facts of climatology. Today facts are given to us by IPCC which is shown to be politically biased towards a doomsday scenario that is unlikely. I am glad that real scientists can come forward an analyze the real data and make factual statements not predictions based on manipulated data.
Actually, the IPCC is giving us accurate facts but sugar-coating things a bit, since some of the feedback loops are worse than they let onto. If we stay with industrialized capitalism and burning fossil fuels in vast quantities, it is clear we will collapse the ecosystems our own lives depend upon. Life can adapt to very slow change, but we are warming the planet 10 times faster than when coming out of an ice age, plus blanketing the Earth with our toxic chemical and microplastics.
@@HealingLifeKwikly Not according to the charts stated in the video. We are not warming 10x faster than normal with CO2. I agree we need to greatly limit chemical and plastic pollution. Ut would be beneficial to our environment with population growth in our future to limit the emissions of fossil fuel to prevent smog and other actual clean air issues. This can be done be with more and more cars having higher fuel efficiency, more affordable electric cars, and make big polluters like China and India aware that they are polluting the air much more than the rest of the world while showing how America is already cutting back on pollution and can still do better. I don't believe the doomsday nonsense the Left is promoting.
@@HealingLifeKwikly the feedback loops are a joke you cannot justify the 300% adjustment to global warming that the IPCC is calling for from the increased CO2 what a joke from a corrupt organization
@@johnbatson8779 Thanks for your reply. However, I don't understand your comment. What did you mean to say when you said "you cannot justify the 300% adjustment to global warming that the IPCC is calling for from the increased CO2" or "the feedback loops are a joke."
@@johnbatson8779 It sounds like perhaps you don't understand how global warming works. It involves continuous feedback loops involving CO2, warming, evaporation, more water vapor, more warming, more CO2 and methane, more warming, more evaporation, and so on--there's no escaping that dynamic. Most of the direct warming comes from water vapor, but without the CO2--a non-condensing gas that stays up there for a century or more, the water vapor would just condense out of the atmosphere. That makes CO2 the main atmospheric control knob. And there is zero evidence the IPCC is corrupt and zero evidence any of the data has been fudged or anything like that. Take care.
No, it's going to keep getting warmer. The CO2 we have already released guarantees that and we don't look like we are going to stop releasing CO2 anytime soon. A grand solar minimum only knocks .1-.3 degrees off all the warming we have already created and are creating, and that effect is just temporary. skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html Meanwhile, the climate scientists' predictions of warming have been quite accurate, so we have good reason to believe their predictions of further warming will also be accurate. For example, In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming skepticalscience.com/1982-exxon-accurate-prediction.html The predictions from climate scientists from the 1980s and even 1970s and ones from the IPCC have quite accurate, while the predictions of climate deniers like Lindzen were way off the mark. And various climate models have been quite accurate, especially when you factor in that they couldn't have predicted the 2008 global recession that slowed the world's economy and caused a dip in CO2 emissions. www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150 Here's prominent global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen getting global warming wrong multiple times skepticalscience.com/lindzens-clouded-vision-part1.html skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm Climate scientist James Hansen's predictions have been quite accurate while climate denier Lindzen's predictions have been wildly off the mark. skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17 And here are multiple forms of evidence on the 97% consensus on man-made global warming skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm Take care.
@@HealingLifeKwikly All you have are videos from one website. Yet you refuse to research Heller's videos. This means you are engaging in something other than science. Either watch all of Heller's videos so you can have all of the information or stop pretending to be informed. Thanks for continuing the joke of 97% even after I posted links to sites where that was refuted and explained with excerpts from climate scientists that were on the list and in reality have extensively refuted it. ROFLMAO@u
@@johncash4671 Thanks for your reply. "All you have are videos from one website. Yet you refuse to research Heller's videos. This means you are engaging in something other than science." That's a very weak argument: A) Over time, I've posted to you lots of sources other than Skeptical Science, but it is one of the best concise and clear "aggregator" sites regarding climate science, and the CONTENT and STUDIES and DATA that site refers and links to come from all over, so you can't pretend it's just "one site" saying those things. B) I've demonstrated that Heller is publishing propaganda, seemingly intentional propaganda. And I provided supporting data and arguments. He appears to have hundreds of videos so saying I'm not doing science if I don't watch all the videos on a site of someone who appears to be getting paid to produce climate propaganda doesn't make much sense. But you did pique my curiosity, so I clicked on two more of his videos, and immediately caught him cherry-picking data in a way that seems intended to mislead people. In one, he was absurdly cherry-picking May 10, showing the number of days where lots of weather stations reported temperatures above 90 degrees had bigger spikes in a few years earlier in the century--but then he didn't have the last 12 years of data (even though it was a recent video). So he is cherrypicking ONE DAY! for which his "it was warmer in the past" lie can be made to look plausible, but then still cherry-picks the length of the data set. He's a piece of work. "Thanks for continuing the joke of 97% even after I posted links to sites where that was refuted and explained with excerpts from climate scientists" We've gone back and forth a lot, but I don't remember that. What was the link? Were they actually people doing actual research on global warming, or were they meteorologists or folks otherwise not really in the thick of global warming research? Because multiple published research studies affirm an above 90% consensus on man-made global warming, with higher percentages for people actually engaged in research on the topic. skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm Take care.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
Wouldn’t the gas companies want climate activists to be in power. All they do is raise the prices of fuel thinking people will use less. I’m impressed with this level of marketing.
5:42 "Fewer extra people every year" Nice spin on the fact there are an extra new 150 persons on earth every minute (2019 UN population projection for 2050), each one a new consumer, big business. All we have to do is move them from countries where they are breeding fast to developed countries and call them "climate refugees".
@@tonywooten596 Geday Tony, could you give me an example? what type of fertilizer ?maybe, a company name? or where a petroleum based fertilizer would be used? As a former dairy farmer, beef grower and wheat cocky I can honestly say that I've never heard of a synthetic or petroleum based fertilizer. Some petroleum based products are great for killing weeds, destichem and various other forms of plant life but NEVER have I heard of it promoting plant life. I've been off the property for twenty years now so I could be right out of touch. If ya don't ask ya wont find out. Thanks for your time.
I think the way to get rid of the fossile fuels is renewable energy. Its enough there to take care of everybody. So the fuels (fossile and renewable) are used for making medicine and stuff like plastic etc. But this all depends of developing technology. go in solar and wind for energy, use fossiles for chemistry, and plants for food.
Wind energy eventually pays back more energy than the equipment cost in its production the equipment tends to be retired obsolete prior to that payback.
if you covered the surface of the earth with solar panels you would get 9% of current energy production. Fossil fuels are 200 times denser in energy. You want the earth covered in panels? There's not going to be space for agriculture or even living.
the energy 'embodied' ie taken to make a windmill - is recovered ie produced by the wind mill in less than 2 years. Solar thermal for domestic houses recovered in 18 months
@@WadcaWymiaru Still here in Finland in 2019 October. People are hysteric because of Greta Thurnberg. Socialists are proving that socialism is the answer to save the earth and the poor. LOL. The key solution is right in this god damn video. We're having solutions for example by using nuclear waste to heat our houses (check out Hitachi's PRISM technology) and CO2 emissions from the pipes of our factories to create synthetic fuels . No sosialism was needed to that and no socialism is needed ever. Green people's mission seems to be to kill the poor people while they are sitting at the meetings of their small central goverment making decisions to rule the world. How someone can support that kind of fascism!?
Scots dog - plenty have gives deadlines & all have been proved wrong. 1967 "famine is inevitable by 1975" 1970 "there'll be mass-extinction of animals in 25 years" 1980 "minerals(lead, zinc.... will be completely depleted before 1990" 1989 "massive warming by year 2000" 2006 "humanity has 10 more years before the point of no return"
A few commenters below are solving the problem using long life Toyota’s. One said he had a Toyota Tacoma that one over 400,000 miles and another said they had a Prius that ran close to that. I still own both a Tacoma and a Camry hybrid and the Camry hybrid is over 247,000 miles and the Tacoma is probably about 210,000 miles and both are still running! Takes a lot of energy to produce new vehicles; it doesn’t take much to pay for the repairs and the upkeep on older ones as long as they were extremely well built in the first place and don’t rust out. Toyota put a new frame in my Tacoma about 10 years ago at no replacement cost to me because the frame was rusting out. I already had about 90,000 miles on it at the time and it was out of any warranty that they might’ve originally had except for trying to keep the reputation and brand image completely intact. That’s not to say I didn’t spend money when the cab and back bed we’re up off the frame. I took that as an opportunity to do routine maintenance and replacement on everything that was exposed that needed replacement then or soon. I may have spent about $7000 to do it, but the bank was willing to lend me “about 15,000 of it” because value of the vehicle as a used Tacoma was already high enough or still high enough to justify such a loan. Naturally of course I just borrowed what I needed and paid it off and I’m sure I could still sell that Tacoma if I wanted to for a lot more than what most people are going to have to pay for a different brand comparable pick up truck with similar or even much less mileage. People with a Prius, Tacoma or Camry hybrid‘s have broken the code and figured out that this is a very good long-term transportation investment. This is slightly off the direct video’s topic but does show how innovation and optimization might work to solve climate change drivers through increased efficiency.
Racist man, Mr Ridley. Always interferences other countries' businesses. It couldn't see him make much contributions to the UK, but lots of empty talks. Wastingg his title.
More CO2 is needed to reach the UN's millennium goal of reducing thirst -someone does not have a very good memory. (multiple someones: Pachauri, Gore et al) And kidly do not speak of "WE are turning food crops to fuel." Because that would imply democracy. (In fact I'm all about democracy: no more warfare/terrorism/less poverty & hunger)
Very hard to perceive world population, from a graph that only shows the rate of growth. A population could double, but still have a smaller growth rate than before.
@@boffeycn If a growth rate is 0.2 per decade, a 100% increase is only 0.4 per decade nothing, but toting a big percentage increase sound like a drama.
@@plinkbottle Trey posting something that actually means something, OK? The fossil fuel indistry pays Ridley to do its bidding The rate of population growth is decreasing as more countries improve the education of females and as general standards of education and living increase. This means that most countries have problems with an ageing population. There was a massive increase as a consequence of better nutrition (the Green Revolution) and improved health care worldwide, but that increase is long over and we are now living with it's death throes. Yes, the population will continue to increase, but very slightly and is expected to peak very, very shortly. "9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100"., but if the developed world did more to improve education etc, in other countries things would be even better. But the usual loony conspiracy theorists throw hissy fits about a NWO, commie UN and so on if such a sensible thing is suggested. i.e. the religiously indoctrinated idiots in the USA.
Re: Ice Ages modulated by ice-sheet albedo, not CO2 I have determined that CO2 is not the primary feedback for ice ages - as explained in my peer-review paper. In reality, the feedback agent is most probably ice-sheet dust-albedo. Free download of peer-review paper available: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo. The first problem with ice ages is: When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent. The second problem with ice ages is: Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2. The third problem with ice ages is: During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response. Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper - the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming. The fourth problem with ice ages is: The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly. Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years. All of the above points strongly suggest that ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2. Increased dust is caused by low CO2 concentrations, because CO2 is plant-food, and the most essential gas in the atmosphere. Thus low CO2 concentrations cause the death of all C3 vegetation at high altitude, causing CO2 deserts to form across the Gobi plateau. Dust from these CO2 deserts formed the huge dust deposits of the Loess Plateau, and also covered the northern ice sheets in dust - which lowered the albedo of the ice sheets and precipitated melting. See peer-review paper: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo. Ralph Ellis This is the ‘money-graph’ for ice ages. CO2 is directly proportional to inv-log dust. The inference being, that CO2 concentrations control dust, …by modulating higher altitude vegetation. image0.jpeg image0.jpeg Sent from my iPad
From Ridley's Wikipedia entry "Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period Northern Rock experienced the first run on a British bank in 150 years. Ridley resigned and the bank was bailed out by the UK government leading to the nationalisation of Northern Rock." If he is successful with this project there is no power on earth that can bail him out. Dont forget first "run on a British bank in 150 years."
I'm DEEPLY offended by this video! I'll need to retreat to my safe place!! Well, I WOULD be deeply offended if I were a global warming acolyte. This is a TOXIC video. Be careful who you share it with. For true GW believers, watching this presentation could produce an apoplectic reaction -- sometimes resulting in death or disfigurement.
Ridley is right about some things (like wind power's futility) but he's also in the camp that claims overpopulation is a "former" problem by dwelling on narrow parameters like human hunger, which has only been mitigated to some degree with fossil fuel agriculture. Most overpopulation-skeptics ignore the plight of other species as people destroy their habitat.
As the sea level rises we can desalinate the water and pump it inland for irrigation of crops , plus if we dam every river and let no water go to the sea but use it for irrigation that will stop some sea level rise.. this way we can Green the deserts sequester mountains of carbon and save the planet.. phew!!!
Well, thanks in part to politically driven climate change legislation, cost of living has rocketed and along with the effects of Chinese flu and the war in ukraine it’s plunged us into a deep recession with lower living standards. Just when we needed cheap fuel it’s rocketed in price. It means heating our homes has tripled in price, increasing illness as people, especially the elderly, turn down or off the heating. Food has rocketed in price, interest rates have steeply risen and inflation is rampant at 11%. This is partly due ti climate alarmist, population control pro activists. The net carbon zero policies are illogical and pointless and damaging.
There are a lot of reafforestation projects and regenerative agriculture are increasing the amount of greenery neither use petrochemical fertilizer because in the first instance because it is expensive and in the second it is destructive of biodiversity in the soil biome
Download and install Adblocker, or similar, as I and many others do. There are no adverts on here now, for me, and the Adblocker is showing that it's currently preventing 526 ads, after spending less than half an hour with this site.
Try downloading and installing 'Adblocker'. Works very well. Advert-free; and at the moment indicating that it's preventing 541 ads - after half an hour of being on this site.
Rob Wilde k, everyone installs adblocker and all the content creators stop making money so they stop posting videos and TH-cam goes bankrupt and congratulations, you just killed the site. Also, advertisers pay predetermined amounts to run x amount of ads, everyone who Adblocks makes everyone else watch more ads, so congrats on that one too! Use your Adblock all you want, I don’t care but don’t post about it to everyone like it’s a great solution or you’ll ruin the website for everyone
This guy sounds amazingly confident and certain. Just like the old white-haired Scotsman in Jurassic Park. 'Oh yes, it's quite ingenious really. You'll see. We've thought of everything.' (I don't think so.)
If the world gets greener with more c02, are the plants refusing to absorb c02 then or could it be so that more plants more carbon dioxide will be absorbed? Where is the threshold? ;)
@@johncash4671 Germany currently in recession, demonstrations in France for a year now over rising cost of living, Italy's banks about to fail, Greece burdened with debt, very low growth overall, rising energy prices due to unrealistic, EU co2 reduction targets, high levels of immigration keeping wages low. Southern EU countries in euro-zone doing worst.
@@johncash4671 sorry - replied to wrong question! On chemicals in pesticides, or combinations of chemicals, it's hard to prove conclusively but I have no doubt many are extremely harmful. Unfortunately we can't survive without them, but more research needed.
@@johncash4671 On EU monetary/immigration/energy policy, yes absolutely. On pesticides/pollution gov'ts/internat. orgs need to do much more rather than wasting resources on "AGW".
I'm on board with most of this since I think global warming is just a tax on being alive, but talking about using 5% of crops on biofuels and leaving out the part where most crops and land are used to feed and grow animals to be slaughtered and eaten. A plant based diet is by far the most impactful thing for the environment and the political climate fear just ignores it. War is a racket, climate change is a racket, they divide and conquer all day because it works. Love is the answer, we don't need to eat meat, heart disease is the #1 killer, we eat animals that eat plants, cut out the middle man and you will be much healthier. "As long as there are slaughter houses, there will be battlefields." Leo Tolstoy
Sadly, and speaking as a researcher working on a book that is partly about this, man-made global warming and climate disruption is real and is a threat to the future of humanity and planetary life. If we stay on our current trajectory, that takes us towards profound collapse of ecosystems and mass extinctions. First, the problem under discussion isn’t generic “climate change,” it is man-made global warming and climate disruption. And speaking as a researcher studying this issue, the research is overwhelmingly clear that yes, humans burning fossil fuels is what caused the recent changes in the Earth's CO2 levels and temperatures--changes that go far outside the up-down-up-down-up-down natural variation that had been going on for 800,000 years. The last time the Earth warmed this rapidly, over 90% of life in the oceans and over 70% of life on land went extinct, including everything over 90 pounds. But this time, it’s US who has caused the rapid warming, so it’s our responsibility to take action to cool Earth back down. Overall, if you look across all the sciences and all the systems of the Earth, human activity is steadily destroying the Earth’s ability to support life, including human life. But I’ll leave out the toxic chemicals and micro-plastics in our beer, drinking water, food, bodies, and rainfall, and just focus on man-made global warming and climate disruption. Global CO2 levels hadn’t been above 300 ppm for 800,000 years until humans started burning fossil fuels, and as a result, global mean temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter. Globally, EIGHT of the warmest ten years since we began keeping records happening in the last ten years! www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record July 2019 was the warmest month since they have been keeping records. Here are two illustrations of how global temps have been getting warmer: giphy.com/gifs/global-warming-i3pSgAHSiUqhq www.nasa.gov/press-release/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa/ GLOBALLY, the 40s WERE warmer than the 1970s or other earlier decades, but since then, all hell started breaking loose, with the 80s being much warmer than any previous decade, the 90s being dramatically warmer than the 80s, the 2000s being warmer than any previous decade, and the 2010s so far beating all previous decades by a wide margin for warmest ever: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record Here's how we know that burning fossil fuels and thus adding CO2 (and methane) to the atmosphere causes global warming and climate disruption. In 1827 Jean Baptiste Fourier first recognized the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In 1859, John Tyndall did the original research on the physical properties of CO2. In 1896, the first quantitative estimate of the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 on the mean surface temperature of the Earth was made by Svante Arrhenius. In May, 1967, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Manabe and Wetherald were the first to include all the main physical processes relevant to the problem, using a model that was no more complicated than necessary to achieve this. This led to much more realistic simulations and enabled the results to be explained in terms of processes which could be observed in the real world. Manabe and Wetherald made a number of other discoveries. First, the temperature of the stratosphere cooled markedly when carbon dioxide was doubled. This is the characteristic “fingerprint” of man-made global warming by burning fossil fuels: the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools, with more thermal radiation at the wavelengths of CO2 and methane being kept in the lower atmosphere and less escaping into the stratosphere. So, let's look at the actual science on that. Try all three levels: skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/ www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html CO2 is TIGHTLY correlated with global temps and lots of research shows adding CO2 leads to temp rise. www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/04/study-rising-co2-global-warming Of course, the effect goes the other way too, as the Earth warms, the permafrost melts, more methane is released, that warms the Earth even more, so even more CO2 and methane are released (It’s a feedback loop, but this time around, we got the destructive ball rolling by burning fossil fuels). In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming skepticalscience.com/1982-exxon-accurate-prediction.html The predictions from climate scientists from the 1980s and even 1970s and ones from the IPCC have quite accurate, while the predictions of climate deniers like Lindzen were way off the mark. And various climate models have been quite accurate, especially when you factor in that they couldn't have predicted the 2008 global recession that slowed the world's economy and caused a dip in CO2 emissions. www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150 Here's prominent global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen getting global warming wrong multiple times skepticalscience.com/lindzens-clouded-vision-part1.html skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm Climate scientist James Hansen's predictions have been quite accurate while climate denier Lindzen's predictions have been wildly off the mark. skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17 And here are multiple forms of evidence on the 97% consensus on man-made global warming skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm On a more basic level, when scientists have labeled a class of substances as "greenhouse" gases because they help hold heat from the sun in the atmosphere (Earth would be 59 degrees F cooler if now for those gases), isn't it pretty obvious that when humans start adding more of those gases to the atmosphere, things will get warmer? In physics, actions have consequences. At the moment, human-caused global warming and climate disruption (aided by chemical and plastic pollution and deforestation) are steadily pushing the point where ecosystems will collapse and human civilization and the human population will collapse with them. I wish it weren't true, but it is. However, there are hundreds of solutions for healing the ecosystems and cooling the planet back to a healthier temperature, but we need to be willing to take action. Take care.
Climate Remediation There is a lot of discussion about Global Warming, whether it really exists, how serious a threat and the role of Carbon Dioxide. However, the following is generally agreed. Namely that a lot of CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution and most of it has ended up in solution in sea waters. There is at least 150 times as much CO2 in a cubic meter of sea water as there is in a cubic meter of atmosphere at NTP. This is acidifying the sea waters and harming Coral Reefs. There has also been some agreement that the Temperature of the Earth has warmed somewhat. The Earth's rotation and the Coriolis Effect has formed a number of Tropical/Semi-Tropical Oceanic Gyres, within which the mass of sea water is rotating, clock wise in the Northern Hemisphere and counter clock wise in the Southern Hemisphere. Anything floating, i.e., less dense than sea water tends to float towards the center of the Gyre. There are five main Gyres which are the North Pacific, South Pacific, Indian, North Atlantic, and South Atlantic Oceans. Together they form a very large proportion of the 70% of the Earth's surface which is covered by water. The North Pacific has a lot of floating debris, "the Great Pacific Garbage Patch", some of it being debris washed off Japan by tsunamis following the recent Fukishima Earth Quake. The Southern Hemisphere Gyres do not appear to contain much floating debris. The North Atlantic Gyre is unique. It contains the Sargasso Sea which is characterized by the presence of two species of Sargassum which float by virtue of oxygen-filled follicles. It was discovered (first documented) by Columbus from his voyage in 1492. There is a Sargasso Sea Commission, with an Office in Washington DC, which is charged with protecting the Sargasso Sea from pollution etc. There is a website that basically describes all of the positive ecological values of the Sea. Since 2011 the Sargassum appears to be overflowing from the Sargasso Sea and moving via the west bound currents across the north coast of South America into the Caribbean and sometimes into the Gulf of Mexico. This has been attributed to agricultural run off from the USA or Brazil but might be due to the increased levels of CO2 in solution. It has been washing up on beaches through out this region, as one might expect to happen. When it dies and rots it emits H2S. Since a lot of these beaches have tourism as their main industry, the weed has to be removed manually which has given Sargassum a bad name. There are several Facebook entities that keep track of Sargassum landings and there are frequent postings enquiring about Sargassum occurrence on specific tourist areas. The occurrence of Sargassum in the Caribbean would, however, make it very easy to put live Sargassum into the Pacific off the west coast of Mexico. From there the currents would carry it all the way across the Pacific, photosynthesizing and growing all the way absorbing a lot of CO2 and heat energy, photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction. Absorbing CO2 from the Ocean would allow CO2 from the Atmosphere to dissolve in the sea. The Sargassum would probably stay in the North Pacific Gyre but some might drift into the South Pacific. One might balk at the idea of covering a lot of the Oceans with Sargassum but it does have uses. It can be used to make ethanol, paper or cardboard. Some one in the Caribbean is making construction bricks from it and others are feeding it to goats.. If there appears to be some benefit from Pacific Sargassum we could easily add Sargassum to the other Gyres using ships that are transiting the Panama Canal. It seems likely that some Sargassum will eventually get into the South Atlantic Gyre, but that may take a while.
Climate change is a problem, but we will likely solve it with a couple of different technologies: Clean thorium nuclear energy, Geo-engineering, De-salination, And of course Solar and Wind power (which are becoming cheaper by the day)
Thorium basically is the only answer. I can't understand WHY USA, China, India, Russia and UE do not research in this technology but they WASTE moneys for fighting "global warming"...
Not the best use of land though is it, What are their effects on the natural world? Wildlife?. It blows me away that people assume that "green technologies are completely benign. How much ecological damage is there from strip mining the earth for the metals that go into batteries for example. What is the environmental cost of replacing the hundreds of millions of vehicles that support the global supply chain and get us to work everyday?
Solar & wind are unreliable (need baseload), expensive (despite being propped up by government subsidies) & "won't be a substitute for ff within the next 25 years" Byorn Lomborg. Don't believe the 'CO2 is bad' fairytale
Matt Ridley has coal mining interests. He is a zoologist, not a climatologist. Was chairman of Northern Rock which UK government had to bail out because of it's reckless business strategy.
Hee hee. You blindly believe Al Gore who has made $200 million off his global warming preaching, yet question the veracity of someone who invests in the fossil fuels that they find superior to renewables. Thanks for playing.
Certainly what he says is true that chemical fertilizers have allowed us to increase yields. It is also true that natural Fossil fuels are a limited resource and will not exist forever into the future. At current levels of consumption estimates place it around the middle of this century when we will run out of fossil fuels. Meaning we won't be able to find cheap oils anymore. The cost of making chemical fertilizers at this point, about 35 years away from the time of this message, will become economically more expensive and will start to need more land for the same production level of the food that we are eating at the time. A doubling of land needed for food and/or mass starvations at that short time period will cause global strife.
Yes, technology would have advanced. Also, considering the fact that our fossil fuel usage will get smarter, we will have hundreds of years of fossil fuel usage.
Under clear skies with little wind, the sun went down and I noticed the temperature dropped by several degrees(probably 2-3 degrees within 30-40 minutes following sunset). About an hour later with no wind, high level clouds formed overhead. Not long after, I noticed the temperature rise by several degrees, perhaps about 2 degrees. My point is that CO2 did not trap enough heat radiated from the Earth to overcome radiational cooling once the sun went down under clear skies, which caused the temperature to drop. However, the formation of high level clouds significantly overwhelmed radiational cooling by trapping noticeable heat from the Earth resulting in a rise in temperature. It is reasonable to believe from this test that CO2 is not even close to being a strong greenhouse gas that can trap heat to affect our weather............it provided no noticeable warming and allowed cooling to predominate in the absence of clouds All temperatures were read off of my car's outside thermometer with the car parked at the same location for about 1 and 1/2 hours.
"It is reasonable to believe from this test that CO2 is not even close to being a strong greenhouse gas that can trap heat to affect our weather." That "test" shows no such thing. OF COURSE it cools off when the sun isn't shining, and even with a layer of greenhouse gases, it cools off at night. However, if there were no greenhouse gases, the Earth would be ~59 degrees cooler than it is. So now let's do a thought experiments. Imagine you were sitting in the same place doing the same thing after sunset, and God spoke to you and said, "Now I am going to turn down the temperature of the Earth 59 degrees F, to show you how much heat those greenhouse gases hold in." Suddenly, it drops 59 degrees F in one second. NOW do you see how big a difference that layer of greenhouse gases makes? ****Now let's look at some of the science regarding CO2: Here's how we know that burning fossil fuels and thus adding CO2 (and methane) to the atmosphere causes global warming and climate disruption. In 1827 Jean Baptiste Fourier first recognized the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In 1859, John Tyndall did the original research on the physical properties of CO2. In 1896, the first quantitative estimate of the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 on the mean surface temperature of the Earth was made by Svante Arrhenius. In May, 1967, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Manabe and Wetherald were the first to include all the main physical processes relevant to the problem, using a model that was no more complicated than necessary to achieve this. This led to much more realistic simulations and enabled the results to be explained in terms of processes which could be observed in the real world. Manabe and Wetherald made a number of other discoveries. First, the temperature of the stratosphere cooled markedly when carbon dioxide was doubled. This is the characteristic “fingerprint” of man-made global warming by burning fossil fuels: the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools, with more thermal radiation at the wavelengths of CO2 and methane being kept in the lower atmosphere and less escaping into the stratosphere. So, let's look at the actual science on that. Try all three levels: skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/ www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html CO2 is TIGHTLY correlated with global temps and lots of research shows adding CO2 leads to temp rise. www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/04/study-rising-co2-global-warming Of course, the effect goes the other way too, as the Earth warms, the permafrost melts, more methane is released, that warms the Earth even more, so even more CO2 and methane are released (It’s a feedback loop, but this time around, we got the destructive ball rolling by burning fossil fuels). In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming skepticalscience.com/1982-exxon-accurate-prediction.html The predictions from climate scientists from the 1980s and even 1970s and ones from the IPCC have quite accurate, while the predictions of climate deniers like Lindzen were way off the mark. And various climate models have been quite accurate, especially when you factor in that they couldn't have predicted the 2008 global recession that slowed the world's economy and caused a dip in CO2 emissions. www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150 Here's prominent global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen getting global warming wrong multiple times skepticalscience.com/lindzens-clouded-vision-part1.html skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm Climate scientist James Hansen's predictions have been quite accurate while climate denier Lindzen's predictions have been wildly off the mark. skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17 And here are multiple forms of evidence on the 97% consensus on man-made global warming skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm On a more basic level, when scientists have labeled a class of substances as "greenhouse" gases because they help hold heat from the sun in the atmosphere (Earth would be 59 degrees F cooler if now for those gases), isn't it pretty obvious that when humans start adding more of those gases to the atmosphere, things will get warmer? In physics, actions have consequences. At the moment, human-caused global warming and climate disruption (aided by chemical and plastic pollution and deforestation) are steadily pushing the point where ecosystems will collapse and human civilization and the human population will collapse with them. I wish it weren't true, but it is. However, there are hundreds of solutions for healing the ecosystems and cooling the planet back to a healthier temperature, but we need to be willing to take action. Take care.
@@HealingLifeKwikly thanks for all that propaganda. However, I've seen it all before. None of it is convincing and most it is incorrect. It's all about pushing a political agenda. In fact, many politicians even admit it. My test clearly describes a temperature drop without the sun or clouds. CO2 did not trap enough heat to raise the temperature, it allow the Earth's heat to escape into space dropping the temperature. Add clouds or water vapor without the sun and the temperature increased noticeably. This is pretty telling and no amount of liberal propaganda will change the fact that CO2 is irrelevant or at best extremely negligible with respect to Earth's weather. BTW, it's always been weather and seasonal change.......climate change are terrorist code words for propaganda purposes.
@@europaeuropa3673 Thanks for the reply. "My test clearly describes a temperature drop without the sun or clouds. CO2 did not trap enough heat to raise the temperature, it allow the Earth's heat to escape into space dropping the temperature." With all due respect, that's NOT how heat trapping gases work. They are not an oven--they do not turn up the temperature BY THEMSELVES like turning on the furnace or oven does. So they will not raise the temperature compared to where it was five minutes ago, especially when the sun has gone down. But they DO make it warmer THAN IT WOULD OTHERWISE BE WITHOUT THOSE HEAT-TRAPPING GASES. The SUN provides the heat at first, plus a little heat from us burning fossil fuels, and the heat-trapping gases slow down it's escape into space. That heat is ALWAYS escaping into space, but by adding more heat trapping gases, it's like we have a little thicker blanket on the bed and more of the heat that would have escaped into space before the Industrial Revolution is now being reflected back into the lower atmosphere. And the wavelengths of the energy that is being kept in the lower atmosphere to a greater degree than before we started burning so much coal and oil that thermal energy line up with those of CO2 and methane. There's a clear spike in the graphs at those wavelengths, which you would know if you really looked at all the links I sent. In physics, actions have consequences, and you can't keep burning 650 million years of the sun's stored energy, adding over 1300 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the system, and not expect to cause changes in the system. Expecting no consequences for our actions is how teenagers think. We have been calling them greenhouse gases for a very long time BECAUSE they hold more heat in than would be there otherwise. And speaking of your experiment, nights are warming faster than days are, so it's NOT cooling off as much when the sun goes down as it used to--precisely because of the CO2 we have added. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/11/climate/summer-nights-warming-faster-than-days-dangerous.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=77E065C3657FD651E82B5594FC64A1B6&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL Take care.
@@HealingLifeKwikly again, stop cutting and pasting propaganda. It really shows you do not THINK. You are an indoctrinated robot repeating the brainwashing you've been given. Do you know that CO2 levels were 10 times higher back in the preCambrian era well before humans (like millions of year before) than they are today. Do you know that CO2 levels in a submarine are 2000 - 6000 PPM and up to 10,000PPM? Compare that to 400 PPM in the atmosphere. Do you know that CO2 levels are above 1000 PPM in an indoor auditorium filled with people watching a sports event? Do you know that CO2 is plant food and allows us to feed more people? DO you know that you and I wouldn't be here if it were not for CO2? Finally, do you know that the atmosphere is saturated with CO2 even at 400 PPM. That means it cannot trap any more heat than it has been doing since before humans existed. The Earth's atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium..........otherwise humans would never have appeared on Earth , especially when CO2 levels were 10 times higher before the appearance of humans.
@@europaeuropa3673 Thanks for the reply. "again, stop cutting and pasting propaganda. It really shows you do not THINK." With all due respect, I could say the same about your reply--ALL those points are talking points spread by denier organizations funded by fossil fuel companies. The submarine point is especially irrelevant to our situation. "You are an indoctrinated robot repeating the brainwashing you've been given." No, I'm really not. I'm a 59-year-old Ph.D. university researcher who has published research, supervised research, and has spent much of his career swimming against the tide and toppling various sacred cows. I have now spent more than a decade studying why the health of society and the Earth are unraveling, and how we can heal them. I've spent maybe 20,000 hours working on the book I'm writing, reading thousands of sources, discussing the issues with thousands of people, etc. So let's take a look at your points and see what they mean and don't mean in terms of the science and the future of human and planetary life. 1) "DO you know that you and I wouldn't be here if it were not for CO2?" Yes, of course I do, but all living things and ecosystems have tolerable ranges for all sorts of things, and changing CO2 levels substantially and in a hurry sends shock waves through ecosystems. If you change them over millions of years, no problem, but we are, for example, warming the earth 10 times faster than when coming out of an ice age, and there are limits to how quickly life can adapt to change. 2) Higher CO2 levels in submarines and auditoriums. I mean no offense, but who cares? That's totally irrelevant for the discussion of the effects of man-made global warming. Does the submarine or auditorium create the food you eat or the air your breathe? Is either one an ecosystem that can sustain human life indefinitely? NO, they are just artificial bubbles that exist WITHIN the life-sustaining ecosystem, and which people just occupy for short periods of time. OF COURSE we can breathe air with 700 or more ppm of CO2, the key question is what happens when you RAPIDLY increase the CO2 levels and temps in a global ecosystem that hasn't been above 300 ppm of CO2 for 800,000 years. 3) "Do you know that CO2 is plant food and allows us to feed more people?" If you pump more CO2 into a greenhouse, plants grow more. And at first, if you pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, we see more greening. But that's not the whole story, and people who are showing videos saying "CO2 is Plant Food--let's have more of it!" either don't understand the big picture or they are paid propagandists (Tony Heller, Willie Soon, Cato Institute, etc.) But complex systems like the Earth are, well, complex, and in complex systems, short-term gains are OFTEN washed out by negative ripple effects that are caused by the very same thing that are also caused the short term gain. But what are those other ripple effects that producing more CO2 causes? A) It warms the planet, which in turn melts lots of the world's ice, and BOTH the warmer temps and the meltwater raise sea levels. The last time CO2 levels were this high, the seas wound up being about 60 feet higher. Now, we're VERY early in the game for sea level rise, with the feedback loops just getting rolling, but we are already seeing record melting and we can expect 2-7 feet sea level rise this century (mostly depending on how we behave). Then we can expect 5-10 times that much next century (this is non-linear change--the rate of ice melt is accelerating). Unlike your submarine or auditorium example, what IS meaningful about the real world is that we have built massive cities with billions of people in them, living below the sea levels that we are heading towards. The human suffering, financial costs, political turmoil that we are now experiencing and will continue to experience from climate disruption and ecosystem damage will just grow and grow until they take up more and more of family and national budgets. We are already seeing refugees partly due t climate disruption and will continue to see more. This is a slow-motion emergency, so New York City won't be underwater next year and the Earth won't suddenly end in 2030 if we don't cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by then. However, if we don't rapidly tip the balance towards healing and restoration, we ARE steadily and profoundly setting in motion chain reactions that unfold over decades and centuries. If we go too far and do too much more damage to the web of life and stability of ecosystems, we will be powerless to stop the chain reactions we have set in motion. B) Most of the excess heat and CO2 we have produced are being absorbed by the oceans, make the oceans warmer and 30% more acidic, killing species and and disrupting the normal functioning of the ecosystem. For example: "Huge percentages of sea turtles being born female due to global warming www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/01/australia-green-sea-turtles-turning-female-climate-change-raine-island-sex-temperature/ www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article231522408.html and "Rising sea temperatures killed 34% of Guam's coral reefs between 2013 and 2017, University of Guam researchers said Monday. About 60% of the reefs along Guam's eastern coast are gone. ... "It's what we're pumping into the atmosphere that is creating warmer temperatures," she said. www.guampdn.com/story/news/local/2019/07/29/rising-temperatures-killed-third-guams-coral-reefs/1850765001/ Since coral reefs are the rainforests of the oceans, this is a big deal, and experts in coral reefs expect man-made global warming and ocean acidification from excess CO2 to kill 90-100% of coral reefs by the end of the century. If the coral reefs go extinct, so do most or all species that depend on them. C) At just 1 degree C of warming, the atmosphere can hold about 7% more water, but that leads to more intense droughts in some areas at some times, and also wildfires, but more intense flooding in others. This is why we are having more Cat 5 hurricanes than in the past and more intense flooding after them (Texas, South Carolina). In some places, warming and drought will make formerly lush farmland unable to grow much--regardless of the amount of CO2. In the US, man-made global warming and climate disruption has already moved the corn belt over 100 miles north and moved the boundary between the hot-dry West and the cool-moist East 140 miles further to the East. Glib "CO2 is Plant Food" comments or not, this screws up farming, and many farmers in the Midwest couldn't get their crops in this year due to the epic flooding. So despite greening in some places, we are starting to see the negative ripple effects swamping them out. theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897 D) Along with that, global warming is making our food less nutritious--reducing the levels of some key nutrients in staple crops: www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/07/climate-change-food-crops-nutrition E) While the trees may like the added CO2 by itself, that is only one small piece of the ripple effects caused by added CO2. More CO2 has meant warmer temps and droughts in the Rockies, and while the droughts caused by this stressed and weakened trees, the warming allowed for massive beetle infestations in places like Colorado, California, Alaska. In Colorado, that has left them with over 800 million "standing dead" trees. www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/more-than-800-million-dead-trees-dot-colorado-landscape And guess what happens when wildfires start in places where warming-caused/intensifed drought has dried things up and killed lots of the trees? You get more and worse wildfires than you would otherwise. Happily, firefighting has advanced over the decades, but we are just going to be spending more and more of our money cleaning up messes we crated. All right, that's just the tip of the iceberg, but that's what I could muster off the top of my head during the first half of the game. But it's halftime now, and I should probably get back to grading papers or answering emails. P.S. I have two kids and I WISH it weren't real, I wish the deniers actually had scientifically-valid points to make and I wish this was just a bad dream or hoax. But I've studied it for years, it's true, we caused it, it threatens to set mass extinctions in motion--the last time the Earth warmed this rapidly, over 90% of life in the oceans and over 70% of life on land--including everything big--went extinct. But compared to a lion coming at you, it seems to happen in slow motion, so it's easy for people to pretend there isn't a real emergency. Happily, there are hundreds of powerful strategies for promoting healing, but the alcoholic has to admit they have a problem before they can fix that problem. Take care.
wong ...who knows?...perhaps not!....in 15..maybe 20 years we may be using nanotechnology to eradicate insects...as we are starting to do with some forms of plastics in our oceans today...
@@zeroceiling I've got a breeding pair of rainbow farting unicorns for you. "eradicate insects"? Really? Do you know how many insects there are? I have always been a great fan of science fiction and a fan of reality. You seem to be missing the point. All the "solutions" proposed by deniers and their apologists rely in some way on increased use of fossil fuels. What will the situation be in ".in 15..maybe 20 years", when plant nutrition is already falling due to too much CO2?
six years later the american west is in a great drought and wildfires have devastated huge areas and the dead zone in the gulf of mexico due to pesticide and fertilizer runoff continues to grow so his points are being refuted by events ...
I (used to) like this man a lot - and there seems to be a lot in what he says BUT when he seemed to lump all 'renewable energy' as if that meant nothing other than wood/charcoal when he mentioned deforestation - and that Dom Republic had more forest because they imported fossil fuels - i had to question the man. 1/ Solar and Biogas are renewables that can provide water heating/ cooking/ electric 2/ He chose to completely ignore the HUGE political economic factors between the two countries and american favoritism to DR only - not to mention the earthquake. So whilst i buy the very interesting angle about greening because of Co2 1/ This (if true) is a welcome but unintended consequence of development - and not by design or intent 2/ Is no argument against renewables - fossils are not sustainable 3/ Use of nitrates/ fertilisers DO deplete the soil and do nothing to add humus. Short term gains and productivity is improved sure (measured in decades) - just like yours would be if you took some cocaine (measured in hours) - but that doesnt make it a wise thing to do long term, neither are 'sustainable' So from what angle is this guy really coming from? Current GDP is not earnt wealth - Not if it is equal to the debt and quantity of paper money printed. If your next door neighbor lived i lifestyle consuming 100,000 a year - maybe you think he is doing really well. But when you find out his bank loan increases by the same every year - then who is the fool Economics used to mean eco-nomics, ie management of resources Money used to be real - gold/ silver Measuring things like the eco- economy in virtual currency units printed on paper by the trillions - creates a fantasy illusion that only the educated idiot would think was a true reflection of reality Just because a central banker prints or inflates the quanity of currency units, doesnt mean there are more trees or fish in the sea. A 2 bed house doesnt become 4 bed if it doubles in 'value' - sorry price The price doubles because the quantity of paper currency units double - against the quantity of goods including 2 bed houses Rational reasoning requires that your units of measure be consistant - a kilo is a kilo. Find a way to measure wealth - paper money is not accurate/ not good enough If you could find the quantity of paper money units printed/ population over time - then maybe you would have an interesting fiqure. Ohh - post 2008 and the fed decided to stop making M1 fiqures available Hmmm
1) sometimes the sun don't shine and the production of solar panels is very harmful to the environment. 2) plants use CO2 to build themselves so if you didn't know more CO2 meant more plants. Then you should go back to 1st grade. 3) wind has killed thousands of birds many of them rare and endangered. Solar uses dangerous chemicals in their production and have a relatively small life span. And geothermal is the same as liquid salt generators (look it up) and produces more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant. 4) coal is not sustainable? 🤣😂🤣😂 do you have any idea of how much coal there is? Or how about the fact we can pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and make it into a burnable brick? Yes fossils are susceptible! Lastly I completely agree that we should be put on the silver standards in the United states, the federal reserve burned to the ground, and politicians should be tried and hanged for treason. (One of 2 ways in the constitution to be tried for treason is f**king with weights and measures) however as CO2 rises so does the diversity of life on this planet backed by the fossil record.
@ 12:30 CO2 makes plants grow faster... Ppl in a greenhouse know this... We dont live in a greenhouse Matt we live in a biosphere !!! Big difference, if U actually LEARNED real science U would know that...
I AM CARBON , FEED ME , YOU ARE CARBON ,WE EAT CARBON , OUR ECOSYSTEM ,ALL LIFE IS CARBON BASED ,450parts per million in the atmosphere is something that we should worry about ? This bubble that surrounds terra firm-a ,covered in carbon based life has to fear from so little amount of carbon dioxide ratios in our atmosphere ,yet the scientists can offer no accounting for the affect of water vapor in our atmosphere by far the greatest greenhouse gas.
All of the scenario analysis of GDP growth correlated with temperature was a bunch of junk speculation. But certainly appreciate the effort to present the positive aspects of CO2 on a planet where all life is carbon based.
Jim R what does life being carbon based have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere??? Life on earth was in balance with the natural CO2 levels, adding more hurts life. That’s like saying humans are 70% water, floods and tsunamis are a good thing, just no!
Global living standards in developing countries where most of world's population lives are improving it seems while in developed counties they are definitely deteriorating especially among middle class. This is what Ridley would call "leveling the playing field". Of course none of this would affect people like him I imagine.
@@johncash4671 "Wages are increasing unemployment is decreasing"….. Till the next crash when the 90% loose so much and have to start again. The Fed has printed a lot of extra money over the past few years, those 'increasing wages' are not increasing. The American worker has lost a lot of ground since the 1960's.
Isn't synthetic fertilizer made of (finite) phosphate?When that runs out, people will have to raze the rain-forest to find enough fertile land to feed the opulation
We are not adding "extra" CO2 but replenishing depleted CO2. He doesn't seem to know we are in a CO2 crash. He also thinks warming is bad, which is absurd.
I wonder how you would address the issue as to when the world runs out of fossil fuel, since there is only a finite supply of it, and once that's gone you're going to need to find another source of fuel for everything, and most of the machines and various other things are dependent on it. For there are other renewable sources of energy that could be utilized that doesn't produce carbon dioxide, and with further research and development in the technology, which can become equally if not more efficient in production and a source energy as fossil fuel. Also it would be interesting to look further into ways to foresting the deserts. When you think about it, there is so much land in places like the Sahara desert that could be re-purposed into farmlands and forest, in which there is a project that is attempting this. If the desert can be re-purposed into forests, it would possible increase the production of produce and livestock to allow other countries to more self-sufficient. And to look for ways to help certain cities that are heavy deep in CO2 pollution like in China, where it is so heavy that it's impossible to both breath and see. If CO2 can indeed make plants grow faster, then what about the idea of installing greenhouses throughout the cities, small or large depending on which present the best results how fast CO2 can be absorbed and recycled to show any impacting changes of the air pollution within the city
+thebluedragon07 the processes the produced fossil fuels have not stopped. There are fossil fuels in the process of being made in the ground. Humans were not involved in these processes they are natural. CO2 is not a pollutant and represents only 4 % of Greenhouse gases . Water Vapour H2O is about 85% . The Fraudulent IPCC scientists know this and they exaggerate the effect of CO2 like an ant controlling an elephant. CO2 is a tiny element in the cosmic processes but they can tax it , that is why they chose to focus on CO2.
+wedzistar1 the processes that produced fossil fuels comes from from compression of dead plant "fossils" it takes a long time for it to happen within the earths crusts. We are extracting it much more quickly than it is produced naturally. Hence it is a limited natural resource.
+thebluedragon07 Fossil fuels were not a resource until humans made it so. Before the technology was discovered to turn it into energy it was a nuisance; a useless, black goop. We will continue to create new resources but it must be done in a responsible way. Meaning, humans must be able to use the cheapest, most effective forms of energy until viable alternatives are discovered, not forced to switch.
CO2 is not a pollutant. In a demonstration I inhaled 100% CO2 and then drank water that contained the limit of CO2 than water will take.That was sparkling water.Hundreds of millions of litres of water-based drinks that are crammed full of CO2 gas are drunk every day all over the world with no bad effects (that is unless they contain sugar). We have 4% CO2 in our lungs before the breathe out - that is 1000 times the current level in the atmosphere.
(up front, none of this is meant to be snarky) but between newly found oil/gas deposits and new technology, many now believe we have enough fossil fuels to last well into the foreseeable future. as for modifying desert land, some believe that even the dry, arid deserts serve some needed function for the planet; and since mankind can't be blamed for the deserts themselves, to drastically change them would be to work _against_ nature. however, i personally believe the earth has its own immune system of sorts (for lack of a better term) that allows it to repair itself when needed-including if or when CO2 becomes a problem-so i think turning currently inhospitable land into usable land is a great idea.
I know Matt Ridley is a polymath and I enjoy his writing immensely. but I am sorely disappointed with what he said here. Believe it or not, the earth is not a place just for the human animals. And wealth and well-being cannot be measured just in terms of (money) income, especially income per capital. In this talk, the banker in him gets the upperhand I guess.
+Thu Nghiem *Sheesh* There's always one person that doesn't get the overwhelming point of the whole thing... You're right, the earth isn't just inhabited by humans. And the more fossil fuels we use, the less we cut down trees for energy, or take up ever greater amounts of land for corn oil use, thereby destroying the natural habitats of countless species. And the richer a country is, the more fossil fuels it can afford to buy as opposed to using cheaper natural resources (such as wood for charcoal, the example given in Haiti).
+lapamful i think i understand his argument. i just want to point out more explicitly that that argument never takes audit of the whole cost. if you think of the cost to find, extract, refine and transport that fossil fuel to the place it appears to contribute to the greening, you might think twice. if you think of the cost in broader terms, ecological, cultural, climatic... and factor in future cost it might even be absurd. just some examples come readily to my mind because of where i am living, by no means the most important ones, think of offshore drilling in biologically sensitive areas, seismic survey in the Arctic, tar sand in Canada. can we justify greening our habitable corners by destroying other habitats? not to mention the wealth amassed by fossil fuel is not necessarily used wisely, and can come back to do more damages through the system. look at American oil politic and military actions, or what the Saudi Arabian do with their money. I don't think clever people miss the points. They just take the liberty to present arguments to the mass from a certain sets of facts while ignoring the others.
The physics of CO2 won't permit CO2 to add any significant measurable warming if it's atmospheric levels were doubled as CO2 has passed it's levels to harvest anymore solar radiation.
I gotta say, it does put s smile on my face to see these types of lectures.
Yes because it’s a self-serving fantasy.
Greenland was green with vineyards and forests. Britain had many more vineyards all over. We need more CO2.
And?
I've already begun to increase my co2 emissions where possible and as much as possible to compensate for the catastrophic co2 reductions imposed by the governments.
I propose we all start doing so.
@@KD-cg9iq So you fell for the scam that more CO2 is good. I bet you believe Will Happer and Goddard/Heller as well.
Hello Wong, it's more the other way around, too less co2 actually is bad, life flourishes between 5000 and 200 ppm, we're at 400 right now , I like to see us move up more to the safety of the middle.......
wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/life-on-earth-was-nearly-doomed-by-too-little-co2/
Hate to point out the obvious: But that is why it is called Greenland.
This is what our kids should be taught in school
The hand that rocks the cradle. Our babysitters have their own agenda. Public school is a propaganda machine and universities are no better. We are taught what to think, but not how to think.
"Give me a baby, and I can make any kind of man" - John D Watson
@@darmok-hm6jx You must live in a serious shithole of a country with an education system controlled by idiots.
Agreed Susan
@@megmartel6005 well you do have a habit of believing and agreeing to lies and bs, don't you.
@@boffeycn wong! America is the first world country and the education system is working exactly as it was designed to. Based on the Compulsory schools in Prussia set up by Martin Luther after the Protestant reformation. They are indoctrination camps to control the population they have nothing to do with education. This also goes for every public school regardless of the country.
I'd be curious to know what he thinks about nuclear power. New reactor designs are much safer than the old ones (Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc.) and despite not being feasible in areas far from running water, could help cut down on both fossil fuel emissions and biofuel/wind/solar nonsense.
He's pro I believe.
Google Gates on nuclear reactors....I think Generation 4. He is spending a lot of money helping develop that.
Yes and yes, Nuclear is the way of the future.
Thorium Light Water Reactor is the not so new way to produce energy, it was invented in the early 60s and was shot down by Nixon for not being able to produce Plutonium for the cold war machine.
Btw, Thorium is all over this planet and not one country have the monopoly.
Liquid salt generators are not pressurized and do not use water! Good as gold in my book
@@louisbarbisan8471 The 1960's Thorium Reactor was not a "Light Water" type, it was canceled because of "Light Water"/Fast breeder. It was a Molten Salt Reactor. The rest of your comment is very correct. My new Home state of Missouri could supply almost all the Thorium the US needs just from our Rare Earth mines' waste, which keeps most of those mines closed because its radioactive(Thorium) .
I’m doing my part to green the planet, 1st Toyota Tacoma, 406,000 miles. 2nd Toyota, 422,000 miles, still in service. My current Toyota, 227,239!
Damn. I don't even own a Toyota
Those older Tacomas and 4runners are invincible if you take care of them. My dad's old 2001 4runner just rolled over 250k
1st Tacoma. 1500kms and counting.
@Jeremy Kirkpatrick Time to stop polluting the comments section with your pompus commentary.
Wow. That's the most I've done in Kms!
Part of the CO2 rise is from CO2 emissions...and up to half is from warming oceans that outgasses CO2 as temperatures rise. Most or all the temperature rise is from natural variation. We are still coming out of The Little Ice Age.
This is the best, mildest climate in history right now. The number of days above 100 degrees each year has been declining for 70 years....same for 90's and 80's. It's only getting warmer at night on the Arctic...when it's still too cool to accelerate ice losses.
Please don't confuse people with reality when the climate change hoax is working out so well!!
LMAO
@@johncash4671
Good luck with wildfires and tornados over there!
LMAO !! XD
@@CheburashkaGenovna except for the fact that they are less frequent and less damaging than in the past 2019, 10 million acres burned and 1935, 50 million acres burned in the domestic US
"and up to half is from warming oceans that outgasses CO2 as temperatures rise" What the fuck does this mean? It's no suprise to me that a climate denier can't even string a coherent fucking sentence together lmfao. Warming oceans is a direct result of climate change, which is a DIRECT result of human CO2 emissions.
"Most or all the temperature rise is from natural variation" Like what? Natural variation is exactly what climate scentists filter out when studying climate change. It's so funny how you think this is some obscured truth when questions like these is what climate scientists do for a living, you know, the ones who all agree that man caused climate change is real and a big problem?
How the fuck did that drivel get 10 likes.
Apart from if you live under the rule of the EU where you see your living standards dropping year after year energy prices Rising just discrimination against those people who live in the country in favour of the policy of mass migration corporate companies getting richer all the time politicians paying their self Monopoly money why the Working Man gets poorer yes the great vision of the EU
Try punctuation.
@@OneJohnFiveTwelve Or debating
@@darrenbellenger1 My comment "Try punctuation", though brief was a serious suggestion, not a "comeback". Punctuation is what makes a post readable. I think everyone must be familiar with the following example that can mean the exact opposite depending on how its punctuated. How would *_you_* debate this one:
_Dear John I want a man who knows what love is all about you are generous kind thoughtful people who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior you have ruined me for other men I yearn for you I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart I can be forever happy will you let me be yours Jane_
@@OneJohnFiveTwelve Interesting that even now you still didn't debate Derek.
@@darrenbellenger1 I don't tend to debate on issues unless I disagree and have both strong opinions and a ready supply of facts to back them up. Some issues, such as Derek's total disregard of punctuation or other blatant misuse of language (unless its a person's 2nd language) show disrespect for the reader and niggle me sufficiently to trigger brief comment. Frankly, I don't think his comment attracts serious debate because its too general. It appears to miss the motivations that drive the changes we are going through. I think he also shows a narrow understanding of what the trend has been globally. I've never lived in Europe and so haven't personal knowledge to debate from. I do know that Europe's economic fortunes have fluctuated over the last century from the general cry, "Take me to America" to "Take me to Europe" and perhaps back again. His comments on discrimination and the greed of the corporate and political sectors can be affirmed - I have no doubt - in every nation of the world. In short, Derek has flung handful of mud that has indirectly touched so many issues that even if I was inclined to debate, I wouldn't know where to start!
Why did you put 6 ads into an 18 minute video?
Enjoyed that but I think about the subject in a simpler but larger manner.
Planet Earth has been a self regulating entity for billions of years, yet some people have the conceit to think we can "Save it. It will be an absolutely beautiful planet with or without us on it.
Thunbergs are Go......for now!
From Gretta: How dare you!
Greta's grand father: Here, pull my finger.
Greta: How dare you pass a global warming gas.
How dare you? How dare you have an opposing opinion, is that what you mean? We must discuss, we must examine, we must explain. Science is never settled, notice accepted scientific notions are referred to the theory of..... that is because we might get new information that disproves the theory. This is the fundamental basis of science.
@@edwatson1991 hansel and gretta?
hansel and gretta?
@@nicholasgeorgiades6779 Seems like you are trying to imply something, why don't you just come out and say whatever it is that you mean.
Why isnt this broadcast widely? We are hammed by depressing news, by doom and gloom stories daily, and I am sick of it. The fact is we are doing a good job, much better than we did, we really have made so much progress since the 50s. We should be proud of ourselves.
No, this guy just uses data convenient to his arguments.
By lacking detail. The devils in the details.
I am not worried about running out of fossil fuels, we have at least 200yrs supply in Canada, we will never get to the Jetsons by having us go back to the Flintstones!
And renewables are not self sufficient. I ask anyone to name us one modern day used thing made of renewable materials and using no fossil fuels in it's existence.
I also rationalize that Green Energy requires rare earth minerals... RARE means hard to find, expensive and limited!
We need ALL forms of energy, simply use the best one to suit the given need.
I have a far greater fear of my life without fossil fuel assistance, than I will ever fear life WITH fossil fuels to assist us!
Absolutely, but the usual arguments are that we should abandon fossil fuel use for generating POWER. It's obvious we need it for other things like production of electronics etc...
You could always take the nuclear option
Rare aren't that rare. Brains are rare in NRC:
th-cam.com/video/lxwF93wnRQo/w-d-xo.html
@@Fuar11 Wong! They want to tax your breathing. Burning coal is a good thing. Unless we want to go to nuclear power which yes please! The rish can't stand that every day people live as good as we do. How dear the peasants have food, cars, and HVAC !
Excellent! So nice to hear truth and not b/s. Many thanks!
picking your own "facts" to fit a narrative of "everything is fine...keep going to the mall" only gets you so far...luckily the mass death tends to hit some deniers a bit hard.....
@@wpac9237 WHAT mass deaths? World food production at a record. Plants growing 50+% faster than in 1950.
Deaths from catastrophes down from 500k in 1900, to 7K today.
You are a cheeky boy. Discuss facts/issues not editorialise. You are an idiot.
@@wpac9237Doh ? Mass deaths ?
This was a good, rational video!
This is great , rational optimism !
That book is idiocy. Probably an intj, classic shallow Te thinking.
Please publish the ACTUAL date of the event...
...but Al said the debate is over. I guess he lied again. Gore makes Madoff look like a saint.
Always assume whatever Al Gore says is a lie...until proven otherwise.
So far he's batting 1.000 on lying statistics.
I agree manbearpig believes fiction and fact are the same thing.
It is over other than the bleating fossil fuel and mining patsies.
@@DocSiders Who told you that? Jordan Peterson, Goddard/Heller and Willie "the Liar" Soon?
NASA proved the AGW claim wrong,wong.
All this wasted talk about "emissions" and "Carbon footprints"!
Where does Matt get the idiotic notion that CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with the weather?
He sure didn't get that idea from the evidence
Rod, you ask the question but do you want to know the answer ?
@@Eric-ye5yz Hey, tell me .. what % of the atmosphere is CO2?
@@Tony07UK ….. Why ?
@@Eric-ye5yz Wrong answer!
.. just as I expected - even school kids know this if they do science at school and anyone can look it up. You're typically ignorant because you choose to be.
Thanks for this video, but the commercials are highly disruptive. May I suggest banner ads?
I keep asking the question is CO2 stops the heat of the earth getting out, greenhouse effect, why does it not stop the heat coming into the earth from the SUN?
Answer: it does! Greenhouse gasses work to both heat AND cool.
Matt Ridley is my Hero!
Is that because he's saying what you want to hear? Nothing he is saying is backed by fact. Please try to remember he is a journalist, not a scientist....of course that likely doesn't matter to you since you're more interested in having someone pander to your agenda.
One example from one article in his blog: "marine geologist, James Kennett of the University of California, Santa Barbara, said he had found evidence of the impact of a large object from space 12,900 years ago, in the form of carbon spherules in silt." Random blog article, his books are chock full of references to peer-reviewed studies etc.
Seems the fossil fuel indistry is still paying Ridley to do its bidding.
@Radio Ray Correct, my pseudonym on YT is wong. You really are very, very observant.
@@boffeycn Wong!
yes we not only can leave environmental improvements, we are doing so. Don't Panic !
What?
@@boffeycn he's says that if you feed a plant it grows! God do I really have to selling everything out for you? Don't you ever get tired of being wong all the time
That went right over your head didn't It?LOL
Poor Eric,can't handle it when proof he's wrong is offered. He's actually being intentionally ignorant.
Lol, I got an ad from an energy company about making smart choices when buying solar panels :)
Wouter Nederstigt On this video or what?
Solar is a good supplementary choice. If you have a blackout in your neighborhood you can keep your lights on. Not intended as a primary supply. But nice for a backup
OK, then this issue came:
th-cam.com/video/qcm1gmPL50s/w-d-xo.html
@higehuwchan I heard solar panels last around 30 years, so indeed smart move! Not sure about the inverters and stuff, but nonetheless a good choice!
Where is the Catastrophe? Matt is right... there is no catastrophe!
Exactly, but he still seems stuck in the lie that GW and CO2 are bad; they aren't.
Live on an island nation or an actual developing city. See how much CO2 from vehicles affects cities and rivers.
irtaza Azam, and your point is? I've lived on an island and in a developing city. What kind of effects are you talking about? Do you know what CO2 is? Did you know that you have 40,000 ppm of CO2 coming out of your face every few seconds, all day long, every day of the year and every year?
@@RodMartinJr yes. Living more than 15 years in a major city affected by high CO2 emissions does affect it. I can clearly remember when having a smog warning in the city wasn't a thing. Droughts in my country were a lot less common. I understand what CO2 is and of course it's not some evil gas that kills everything it touches. It's a large percent of the air we breathe no matter where we are. In the video he mentions that it's 9 species within a hundered years. While that's not crazy numbers considering the rate, it definitely is. And that's not even counting subspecies of different animals. Or insects for that matter. Anyway, my point is, there was a point I could look up and actually see a blue sky in my city. Nowadays there's always a grey haze over the city since more and more people have gotten access to vehicles.
@@RodMartinJr my point was that countries like the Maldives, or cities like Venice are sinking at a much faster rate within the past 100 years alone. The damage caused by the shift in climate does affect the world quite a bit.
2:15 Damn. What happened in the 1920s?
Nothing I think. Just not a lot of people thinking about counting the deaths from bad weather before.
WW1 properly also had some weird say
Plants are 90-95% water - so more plants means more water held in this form... on land - rather than rising water levels...
Thiswould have been a good lecture if not for the insertion of an advertisement every 90 seconds. Have never seen so many ads for such a short clip.
Kind of enlightening to listen to someone who just states things as they are. Not the alarmism that has engulfed us. What's up with the Wikipedia citation on many of these climate change videos. Gee do you think there might be some bias there? Me too.
Bleh
There is no such a "climate change", climate zones remains unchanged :\
tropics can't be desert and vive versa.
Earth temperature overall depend on the solar activity, cosmic rays and albedo :\
No others...like change in CO2 or similar stuff...
Bullshit
@@mac2105
Bleh idiot...read this and shut up!
I cracked, that pesky theory:
*Wien displacement law* (that is where the T^4 relation with insolation comes from).
Measured temperature in the Venus atmosphere from VERA-2 and VEGA landers.
At 49km, (1bar) they show a temperature of 339Kelvin - which is easily calculated from Earth by;
Tv=∜1.91 x Te
339=1.1756 x 288
This is final proof that there is no Greenhouse effect on Venus or on Earth.
This formula collapses the 'Greenhouse effect' and proves it does not exist;
Te = ∜0.523 x Tv
Te = 0.85 x 339
Te = 288.15 Kelvin
The surface temperature on Earth is easily calculated - from Venus. The fourth-root of the TSI difference times the temperature in the Venus atmosphere at 1atm = Earth's temperature!
The equation formula works on the Titan as well:
Titan Tt =∜0.01089 x Te
Tt = 0.323 x 288
Tt = 93 Kelvin
This gives the calculated temperature on Titan at 1 bar as 93 Kelvin.
Measurements by the lander Huygens in it's descent trough the Titan atmosphere, show that the temperature at 1 bar is around 90 Kelvin.
Let's use Ideal Gas Law :
PV =nRT
T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.225/28.97) = 288.14 K ~15°C
Earth black body temperature is -18.8 °C degree or 254.3 K
All of that 33 degree rise without greenhouse gas effect.
Venus:
T=9200/8.314 x 65/43.35 = 737.99 K or ~464°C
Titan:
T=146.7/8.314 x 5.25/28 = 94.1K or -179°C
Saturn:
101.3/8.314x0.19/2.07 = 132.8 K or -140.35°C
(why Saturn with no GHG is warmer than Titan? Answer: No GHG effect!)
An experiment:
www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
now *MODTRAN* US Air Force system:
joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/
nov79.com/gbwm/satn.html
**KO**
@@WadcaWymiaru Sure, all those scientists could be fundamentally wrong. I'll let the Nobel committee know while you get this peer reviewed, ok?
OR you simply don't like that your lifestyle needs to change. Seems more likely to me.
@@mac2105
1. So scientists BEFORE them like *Émile Clapeyron* are wrong? or 12 other great scientists? Oh stop wanking...this is NOT first time in history that majority was WRONG!!!
See the Greek guy that was talking about "atoms" or another that thought that the Sun is in the center! *Leucippus* 5th cent. BCE, *Democritus* 460 - 370 BC (atom theory)
*Aristarchus of Samos* 310 - 230 BC, *Seleucus of Seleucia* 190 - 150 BC (helliocentric theory) Majority thought they are wrong, the were NOT! Include popular *guy* Aristotle!
2. If changing my life style to energy poverty and high bills...i will say NO!
I do not wish to pay high taxes for someone illusion! Especially when proven *AWFULLY WRONG!* Think by using BRAIN not TV...
3. An experiment that PROVE that "lion share" of the energy is transported through convection, not radiation:
th-cam.com/video/ZOM8Kkm62jM/w-d-xo.html
while *NASA* claims this:
nov79.com/gbwm/rad.html
a SINGLE experiment BREAKS the backs of **GHG Theory!!!**
It's result IS repeatable!
*KO*
@@WadcaWymiaru dude, you sound crazy and you're insulting, that's not how you convince people, which is what you need to do if you want political change.
brilliant!! ..... excellent points, and pointing out obvious truths that we all forgot after 4th grade!! . CO2 is plant food!!
Kathy, then I suggest you put dry ice in the ground around your plants.
This guy is basically cherry-picking some good news and not telling folks
Unfortunately, while more CO2 will give us some more greening in parts of the world, it is also driving ecosystems towards collapse. Due to the excess heat and CO2 we have added to the atmosphere--90+% of which has been absorbed by the oceans--the oceans are becoming warmer and 30% more acidic, and ecosystems are starting to break down. For example, we have had massive die-offs of coral reefs in major bleaching events. Warmer temps have tipped the gender of some sea turtle species to mostly female. Etc. The last time CO2 levels were this high, sea levels wound up being 60 feet higher than they are now. The last time the Earth warmed this rapidly, over 90% of life in the oceans and over 70% of life on land went extinct, including everything over 90 pounds. But this time, it’s US who has caused the rapid warming, so it’s our responsibility to take action to cool Earth back down.
Take care.
@@HealingLifeKwikly ….. I agree, these people learn something i.e. that plants like CO2, then pretend unlimited CO2 is good for plants.
That is said out of a desire to sound like they know what they are talking about, or they really are stupid.
@@HealingLifeKwikly .. Yes, he is doing a bit of cherry picking .... But, while coral reefs die ... they also re-colonize ....PARTS .. of the ocean are warming ... where the water bottlenecks.. but they are cooling globally, as is the ground, in Northern latitudes .. the CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, it was a damp, and hot place ... very humid and green!! .. It was teaming with life! ... To reduce the CO2 like they want will create a dry dead world .... All the spraying they're doing in the sky to cool the planet will work! When combined with the volcanic ash already up there, and increasing daily their chem-trails will turn this little blue world into a snowball....
@@kathywinkler9802 Thanks for your reply.
1) "But, while coral reefs die ... they also re-colonize"
True, but like a boxer who gets knocked down gets up, gets hit and knocked down again, over and over, we are damaging them faster than they can recover. The reefs we have took thousands of years to grow to this size and we can knock them out for good with a few bad bleaching events. The scientists who ARE actually experts in coral reefs predict 90-100% of coral reefs to be gone by 2100.
2) "PARTS .. of the ocean are warming ... where the water bottlenecks.. but they are cooling globally" ON AVERAGE, the oceans are getting warmer, and it has nothing to do with "bottlenecks." By burning fossil fuels (which both creates heat AND puts more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere) we are adding to the Earth's system the equivalent of four Hiroshima atomic bomb's worth of extra heat every second. Over 90% of that has been absorbed by the oceans.
skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans-intermediate.htm
And the oceans are not just warming, their warming is accelerating:
www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change.html
3) "the CO2 levels have been much higher in the past" True, but human civilization wasn't around then, and the last time CO2 levels were this high, the sea levels wound up being 60 feet higher than they are now. That would devastate human civilization, drowning a staggering number of the world's major cities--and that's the trajectory we are on--due to humans raising the CO2 levels higher than they had been in 800,000 years:
climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
4) "To reduce the CO2 like they want will create a dry dead world" No, that's simply not true, and whatever source you got that information from is very untrustworthy. CO2 levels hadn't been above 300 parts per million for 800,000 YEARS!!!! until our burning fossil fuels pushed them above 300 right around when the Titanic sank. We would just be restoring the world to the healthier natural balance that existed when the Declaration of Independence was signed. WE have pushed CO2 levels to 407 ppm, 45% higher than when the Declaration of Independence was signed, and our ancestors described a world absolutely teeming with life.
5) First, there is no evidence they are doing that on any serious scale. Tracks in the sky are a natural by-product of flying airplanes. Second there is no proof we can cool the Earth enough using that methods, especially if we keep promoting warming with our other practices. Third, doing that is pollution, and we even if we cool the planet back down, we will collapse the Earth's ecosystems if we don't REDUCE the amount of pollution and plastics that are in the world.
Take care.
Everything is awesome!
Everything is cool, when you're part of a team!
As humans we'll always see the negative first. It takes contemplation to figure a way out and see the good. Choose life over death, bring the light (however you get there) into your soul and produce value for your fellow man. Up and onward!
Or believe what sounds good to you and ignore the rest lol. 6 years on and things are getting worse.
Very interesting presentation. Dislike for the commercial interruptions every 5 seconds.
I think it is important to accurately state the facts of climatology. Today facts are given to us by IPCC which is shown to be politically biased towards a doomsday scenario that is unlikely. I am glad that real scientists can come forward an analyze the real data and make factual statements not predictions based on manipulated data.
Actually, the IPCC is giving us accurate facts but sugar-coating things a bit, since some of the feedback loops are worse than they let onto. If we stay with industrialized capitalism and burning fossil fuels in vast quantities, it is clear we will collapse the ecosystems our own lives depend upon. Life can adapt to very slow change, but we are warming the planet 10 times faster than when coming out of an ice age, plus blanketing the Earth with our toxic chemical and microplastics.
@@HealingLifeKwikly Not according to the charts stated in the video. We are not warming 10x faster than normal with CO2. I agree we need to greatly limit chemical and plastic pollution. Ut would be beneficial to our environment with population growth in our future to limit the emissions of fossil fuel to prevent smog and other actual clean air issues. This can be done be with more and more cars having higher fuel efficiency, more affordable electric cars, and make big polluters like China and India aware that they are polluting the air much more than the rest of the world while showing how America is already cutting back on pollution and can still do better. I don't believe the doomsday nonsense the Left is promoting.
@@HealingLifeKwikly the feedback loops are a joke you cannot justify the 300% adjustment to global warming that the IPCC is calling for from the increased CO2 what a joke from a corrupt organization
@@johnbatson8779 Thanks for your reply. However, I don't understand your comment.
What did you mean to say when you said "you cannot justify the 300% adjustment to global warming that the IPCC is calling for from the increased CO2" or "the feedback loops are a joke."
@@johnbatson8779 It sounds like perhaps you don't understand how global warming works. It involves continuous feedback loops involving CO2, warming, evaporation, more water vapor, more warming, more CO2 and methane, more warming, more evaporation, and so on--there's no escaping that dynamic. Most of the direct warming comes from water vapor, but without the CO2--a non-condensing gas that stays up there for a century or more, the water vapor would just condense out of the atmosphere. That makes CO2 the main atmospheric control knob.
And there is zero evidence the IPCC is corrupt and zero evidence any of the data has been fudged or anything like that.
Take care.
I wonder if anyone pointed out to him that it is bound to be a damned site colder before the end of the century.
sight
Wow, look back at the predictions 100 years ago and see how well they turned out. Pardon me if I laugh.
ROFLMAO!
No, it's going to keep getting warmer. The CO2 we have already released guarantees that and we don't look like we are going to stop releasing CO2 anytime soon. A grand solar minimum only knocks .1-.3 degrees off all the warming we have already created and are creating, and that effect is just temporary.
skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html
Meanwhile, the climate scientists' predictions of warming have been quite accurate, so we have good reason to believe their predictions of further warming will also be accurate. For example,
In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
skepticalscience.com/1982-exxon-accurate-prediction.html
The predictions from climate scientists from the 1980s and even 1970s and ones from the IPCC have quite accurate, while the predictions of climate deniers like Lindzen were way off the mark.
And various climate models have been quite accurate, especially when you factor in that they couldn't have predicted the 2008 global recession that slowed the world's economy and caused a dip in CO2 emissions.
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150
Here's prominent global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen getting global warming wrong multiple times
skepticalscience.com/lindzens-clouded-vision-part1.html
skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
Climate scientist James Hansen's predictions have been quite accurate while climate denier Lindzen's predictions have been wildly off the mark.
skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17
And here are multiple forms of evidence on the 97% consensus on man-made global warming
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Take care.
@@HealingLifeKwikly All you have are videos from one website. Yet you refuse to research Heller's videos.
This means you are engaging in something other than science.
Either watch all of Heller's videos so you can have all of the information or stop pretending to be informed.
Thanks for continuing the joke of 97% even after I posted links to sites where that was refuted and explained with excerpts from climate scientists that were on the list and in reality have extensively refuted it.
ROFLMAO@u
@@johncash4671 Thanks for your reply.
"All you have are videos from one website. Yet you refuse to research Heller's videos.
This means you are engaging in something other than science."
That's a very weak argument:
A) Over time, I've posted to you lots of sources other than Skeptical Science, but it is one of the best concise and clear "aggregator" sites regarding climate science, and the CONTENT and STUDIES and DATA that site refers and links to come from all over, so you can't pretend it's just "one site" saying those things.
B) I've demonstrated that Heller is publishing propaganda, seemingly intentional propaganda. And I provided supporting data and arguments. He appears to have hundreds of videos so saying I'm not doing science if I don't watch all the videos on a site of someone who appears to be getting paid to produce climate propaganda doesn't make much sense. But you did pique my curiosity, so I clicked on two more of his videos, and immediately caught him cherry-picking data in a way that seems intended to mislead people. In one, he was absurdly cherry-picking May 10, showing the number of days where lots of weather stations reported temperatures above 90 degrees had bigger spikes in a few years earlier in the century--but then he didn't have the last 12 years of data (even though it was a recent video). So he is cherrypicking ONE DAY! for which his "it was warmer in the past" lie can be made to look plausible, but then still cherry-picks the length of the data set. He's a piece of work.
"Thanks for continuing the joke of 97% even after I posted links to sites where that was refuted and explained with excerpts from climate scientists"
We've gone back and forth a lot, but I don't remember that. What was the link? Were they actually people doing actual research on global warming, or were they meteorologists or folks otherwise not really in the thick of global warming research? Because multiple published research studies affirm an above 90% consensus on man-made global warming, with higher percentages for people actually engaged in research on the topic.
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
Take care.
Wouldn’t the gas companies want climate activists to be in power. All they do is raise the prices of fuel thinking people will use less. I’m impressed with this level of marketing.
5:42 "Fewer extra people every year"
Nice spin on the fact there are an extra new 150 persons on earth every minute (2019 UN population projection for 2050), each one a new consumer, big business. All we have to do is move them from countries where they are breeding fast to developed countries and call them "climate refugees".
Very informative
Taking chemotherapy for a cold. Right on.
It's kinda refreshing to hear some optimism for a change.
It’s a fantasy.
6:10 Please define synthetic fertiliser
made from petroleum
@@tonywooten596 Geday Tony, could you give me an example? what type of fertilizer ?maybe, a company name? or where a petroleum based fertilizer would be used?
As a former dairy farmer, beef grower and wheat cocky I can honestly say that I've never heard of a synthetic or petroleum based fertilizer.
Some petroleum based products are great for killing weeds, destichem and various other forms of plant life but NEVER have I heard of it promoting plant life. I've been off the property for twenty years now so I could be right out of touch.
If ya don't ask ya wont find out. Thanks for your time.
There's nothing sensational in this. How could a politician possibly get a sound bite out of it?
Seems the fossil fuel indistry is still paying Ridley to do its bidding.
But greta said people are dying!
Greta is wrong
@Radio Ray it's just plain Wong! 🤣😂🤣🤪
So well researched and informed. Thank you.
Wow U really R clueless... Have U heard of this thing called science?
I think the way to get rid of the fossile fuels is renewable energy. Its enough there to take care of everybody. So the fuels (fossile and renewable) are used for making medicine and stuff like plastic etc. But this all depends of developing technology. go in solar and wind for energy, use fossiles for chemistry, and plants for food.
The way to get rid of fossil fuels is to burn them.
Solar panels use more fossil fuel energy in their production prior to their use than they can produce in thirty years of use.
Wind energy eventually pays back more energy than the equipment cost in its production the equipment tends to be retired obsolete prior to that payback.
if you covered the surface of the earth with solar panels you would get 9% of current energy production. Fossil fuels are 200 times denser in energy. You want the earth covered in panels? There's not going to be space for agriculture or even living.
the energy 'embodied' ie taken to make a windmill - is recovered ie produced by the wind mill in less than 2 years. Solar thermal for domestic houses recovered in 18 months
2018, We are still here surviving.
2019 still going strong
2019 June
Nothing big happen. (except record colds and floods everywhere)
@@WadcaWymiaru Still here in Finland in 2019 October. People are hysteric because of Greta Thurnberg. Socialists are proving that socialism is the answer to save the earth and the poor. LOL. The key solution is right in this god damn video. We're having solutions for example by using nuclear waste to heat our houses (check out Hitachi's PRISM technology) and CO2 emissions from the pipes of our factories to create synthetic fuels . No sosialism was needed to that and no socialism is needed ever. Green people's mission seems to be to kill the poor people while they are sitting at the meetings of their small central goverment making decisions to rule the world. How someone can support that kind of fascism!?
Whoever said we wouldn't be? No climate scientist I ever heard said that. Straw man argument if ever I saw one.
Scots dog - plenty have gives deadlines & all have been proved wrong.
1967 "famine is inevitable by 1975"
1970 "there'll be mass-extinction of animals in 25 years"
1980 "minerals(lead, zinc.... will be completely depleted before 1990"
1989 "massive warming by year 2000"
2006 "humanity has 10 more years before the point of no return"
Thanks for the link to "Global Warming" TH-cam, but I know how to find Wikipedia.
You're also not factoring in the issue of Permafrost: we are melting permafrost very quickly which could become a big problem REALLY QUICKLY...
Yeah more green arable land, a greener planet less ice and a reduced need to burn fuel to stay alive. Shockingly bad..
Buy a V8 car I have two C02 toGreen the planet He is a brilliant speaker
A few commenters below are solving the problem using long life Toyota’s.
One said he had a Toyota Tacoma that one over 400,000 miles and another said they had a Prius that ran close to that.
I still own both a Tacoma and a Camry hybrid and the Camry hybrid is over 247,000 miles and the Tacoma is probably about 210,000 miles and both are still running!
Takes a lot of energy to produce new vehicles; it doesn’t take much to pay for the repairs and the upkeep on older ones as long as they were extremely well built in the first place and don’t rust out.
Toyota put a new frame in my Tacoma about 10 years ago at no replacement cost to me because the frame was rusting out.
I already had about 90,000 miles on it at the time and it was out of any warranty that they might’ve originally had except for trying to keep the reputation and brand image completely intact.
That’s not to say I didn’t spend money when the cab and back bed we’re up off the frame.
I took that as an opportunity to do routine maintenance and replacement on everything that was exposed that needed replacement then or soon.
I may have spent about $7000 to do it, but the bank was willing to lend me “about 15,000 of it” because value of the vehicle as a used Tacoma was already high enough or still high enough to justify such a loan.
Naturally of course I just borrowed what I needed and paid it off and I’m sure I could still sell that Tacoma if I wanted to for a lot more than what most people are going to have to pay for a different brand comparable pick up truck with similar or even much less mileage.
People with a Prius, Tacoma or Camry hybrid‘s have broken the code and figured out that this is a very good long-term transportation investment.
This is slightly off the direct video’s topic but does show how innovation and optimization might work to solve climate change drivers through increased efficiency.
Racist man, Mr Ridley. Always interferences other countries' businesses. It couldn't see him make much contributions to the UK, but lots of empty talks. Wastingg his title.
More CO2 is needed to reach the UN's millennium goal of reducing thirst -someone does not have a very good memory. (multiple someones: Pachauri, Gore et al)
And kidly do not speak of "WE are turning food crops to fuel." Because that would imply democracy.
(In fact I'm all about democracy: no more warfare/terrorism/less poverty & hunger)
Re desertification see 👉 Allan Savory - Holistic Management, and regenerative farming. found on TH-cam and TedTalk.
Very hard to perceive world population, from a graph that only shows the rate of growth. A population could double, but still have a smaller growth rate than before.
What?
@@boffeycn If a growth rate is 0.2 per decade, a 100% increase is only 0.4 per decade nothing, but toting a big percentage increase sound like a drama.
@@plinkbottle What?
@@boffeycn Der
@@plinkbottle Trey posting something that actually means something, OK?
The fossil fuel indistry pays Ridley to do its bidding
The rate of population growth is decreasing as more countries improve the education of females and as general standards of education and living increase. This means that most countries have problems with an ageing population.
There was a massive increase as a consequence of better nutrition (the Green Revolution) and improved health care worldwide, but that increase is long over and we are now living with it's death throes.
Yes, the population will continue to increase, but very slightly and is expected to peak very, very shortly.
"9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100"., but if the developed world did more to improve education etc, in other countries things would be even better.
But the usual loony conspiracy theorists throw hissy fits about a NWO, commie UN and so on if such a sensible thing is suggested. i.e. the religiously indoctrinated idiots in the USA.
Re: Ice Ages modulated by ice-sheet albedo, not CO2
I have determined that CO2 is not the primary feedback for ice ages - as explained in my peer-review paper. In reality, the feedback agent is most probably ice-sheet dust-albedo.
Free download of peer-review paper available:
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
The first problem with ice ages is:
When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent.
The second problem with ice ages is:
Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2.
The third problem with ice ages is:
During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response.
Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper - the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming.
The fourth problem with ice ages is:
The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly.
Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years.
All of the above points strongly suggest that ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2.
Increased dust is caused by low CO2 concentrations, because CO2 is plant-food, and the most essential gas in the atmosphere. Thus low CO2 concentrations cause the death of all C3 vegetation at high altitude, causing CO2 deserts to form across the Gobi plateau. Dust from these CO2 deserts formed the huge dust deposits of the Loess Plateau, and also covered the northern ice sheets in dust - which lowered the albedo of the ice sheets and precipitated melting.
See peer-review paper:
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
Ralph Ellis
This is the ‘money-graph’ for ice ages.
CO2 is directly proportional to inv-log dust.
The inference being, that CO2 concentrations control dust,
…by modulating higher altitude vegetation.
image0.jpeg
image0.jpeg
Sent from my iPad
From Ridley's Wikipedia entry "Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period Northern Rock experienced the first run on a British bank in 150 years. Ridley resigned and the bank was bailed out by the UK government leading to the nationalisation of Northern Rock."
If he is successful with this project there is no power on earth that can bail him out. Dont forget first "run on a British bank in 150 years."
The good Viscount is also owner of open cast coal mines in north-east England which have recently been refused permission to expand. Poor thing.
Excellent talk. There is always two sides to any story. Every one needs to be open to listen to both of them.
No little one there is but just ONE set of FACTS and all your imagination cant change that...
For those interested, here is the first part of the speech by Lord Christopher Monckton
th-cam.com/video/UGqcweY1a3I/w-d-xo.html
I'm DEEPLY offended by this video! I'll need to retreat to my safe place!!
Well, I WOULD be deeply offended if I were a global warming acolyte. This is a TOXIC video. Be careful who you share it with. For true GW believers, watching this presentation could produce an apoplectic reaction -- sometimes resulting in death or disfigurement.
Richard Rider LOL WHAT?
Offended by FACTS?
Only sometimes? Never mind.
Sometimes even my allies cannot recognize (what I assumed was) the obvious sarcasm in my comment. Ah well.
Ridley is right about some things (like wind power's futility) but he's also in the camp that claims overpopulation is a "former" problem by dwelling on narrow parameters like human hunger, which has only been mitigated to some degree with fossil fuel agriculture. Most overpopulation-skeptics ignore the plight of other species as people destroy their habitat.
10 or 11 billion people its gonna stay at
overpopulation? the overpopulation going on is in certain places NOT of the industrialized western hemisphere,thus not
in nations we hold sway with
The climate never stops changing,
Rain is wet.
Stop with the 3rd grader retorts.... Everyone, but U knows, massive climate change in DECADES is NOT natural...
Adverts? Why? No no no.
Great talk .. we can fix sea level rise by desalinated water used to irrigate
What?
As the sea level rises we can desalinate the water and pump it inland for irrigation of crops , plus if we dam every river and let no water go to the sea but use it for irrigation that will stop some sea level rise.. this way we can Green the deserts sequester mountains of carbon and save the planet.. phew!!!
@@thatday5070 I've got a pair of breeding unicorns that fart rainbows I've been saving just for you.
wong thank you! they can feed on all the green growth ,,,
@@thatday5070 other than the fact sea levels are not going to rise yes you are correct.
Chemo for a cold. 👍
Even more relevant and true now.
Well, thanks in part to politically driven climate change legislation, cost of living has rocketed and along with the effects of Chinese flu and the war in ukraine it’s plunged us into a deep recession with lower living standards. Just when we needed cheap fuel it’s rocketed in price. It means heating our homes has tripled in price, increasing illness as people, especially the elderly, turn down or off the heating. Food has rocketed in price, interest rates have steeply risen and inflation is rampant at 11%. This is partly due ti climate alarmist, population control pro activists. The net carbon zero policies are illogical and pointless and damaging.
Still relevant in 2022.
I think that renewable are the long term solution, solar, wind and batteries. Biofuel are a bad joke.
There are a lot of reafforestation projects and regenerative agriculture are increasing the amount of greenery neither use petrochemical fertilizer because in the first instance because it is expensive and in the second it is destructive of biodiversity in the soil biome
I just can't watch this. Ads every two minutes, ridiculous!
Download and install Adblocker, or similar, as I and many others do. There are no adverts on here now, for me, and the Adblocker is showing that it's currently preventing 526 ads, after spending less than half an hour with this site.
Try downloading and installing 'Adblocker'. Works very well. Advert-free; and at the moment indicating that it's preventing 541 ads - after half an hour of being on this site.
Try downloading and installing
bnm
Rob Wilde k, everyone installs adblocker and all the content creators stop making money so they stop posting videos and TH-cam goes bankrupt and congratulations, you just killed the site. Also, advertisers pay predetermined amounts to run x amount of ads, everyone who Adblocks makes everyone else watch more ads, so congrats on that one too! Use your Adblock all you want, I don’t care but don’t post about it to everyone like it’s a great solution or you’ll ruin the website for everyone
Muddle through works well enough.
This guy sounds amazingly confident and certain. Just like the old white-haired Scotsman in Jurassic Park. 'Oh yes, it's quite ingenious really. You'll see. We've thought of everything.' (I don't think so.)
If the world gets greener with more c02, are the plants refusing to absorb c02 then or could it be so that more plants more carbon dioxide will be absorbed? Where is the threshold? ;)
Yes we can now produce much more with much less. But some pesticides are doing irreparable damage to our soils, our food and our health.
Got proof?
@@johncash4671 Germany currently in recession, demonstrations in France for a year now over rising cost of living, Italy's banks about to fail, Greece burdened with debt, very low growth overall, rising energy prices due to unrealistic, EU co2 reduction targets, high levels of immigration keeping wages low. Southern EU countries in euro-zone doing worst.
@@johncash4671 sorry - replied to wrong question! On chemicals in pesticides, or combinations of chemicals, it's hard to prove conclusively but I have no doubt many are extremely harmful. Unfortunately we can't survive without them, but more research needed.
So you agree that it is stupid government policy and not climate change that's causing a problem
@@johncash4671 On EU monetary/immigration/energy policy, yes absolutely. On pesticides/pollution gov'ts/internat. orgs need to do much more rather than wasting resources on "AGW".
I'm on board with most of this since I think global warming is just a tax on being alive, but talking about using 5% of crops on biofuels and leaving out the part where most crops and land are used to feed and grow animals to be slaughtered and eaten. A plant based diet is by far the most impactful thing for the environment and the political climate fear just ignores it. War is a racket, climate change is a racket, they divide and conquer all day because it works. Love is the answer, we don't need to eat meat, heart disease is the #1 killer, we eat animals that eat plants, cut out the middle man and you will be much healthier. "As long as there are slaughter houses, there will be battlefields." Leo Tolstoy
Sadly, and speaking as a researcher working on a book that is partly about this, man-made global warming and climate disruption is real and is a threat to the future of humanity and planetary life. If we stay on our current trajectory, that takes us towards profound collapse of ecosystems and mass extinctions. First, the problem under discussion isn’t generic “climate change,” it is man-made global warming and climate disruption. And speaking as a researcher studying this issue, the research is overwhelmingly clear that yes, humans burning fossil fuels is what caused the recent changes in the Earth's CO2 levels and temperatures--changes that go far outside the up-down-up-down-up-down natural variation that had been going on for 800,000 years.
The last time the Earth warmed this rapidly, over 90% of life in the oceans and over 70% of life on land went extinct, including everything over 90 pounds. But this time, it’s US who has caused the rapid warming, so it’s our responsibility to take action to cool Earth back down.
Overall, if you look across all the sciences and all the systems of the Earth, human activity is steadily destroying the Earth’s ability to support life, including human life. But I’ll leave out the toxic chemicals and micro-plastics in our beer, drinking water, food, bodies, and rainfall, and just focus on man-made global warming and climate disruption.
Global CO2 levels hadn’t been above 300 ppm for 800,000 years until humans started burning fossil fuels, and as a result, global mean temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter. Globally, EIGHT of the warmest ten years since we began keeping records happening in the last ten years!
www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record
July 2019 was the warmest month since they have been keeping records. Here are two illustrations of how global temps have been getting warmer:
giphy.com/gifs/global-warming-i3pSgAHSiUqhq
www.nasa.gov/press-release/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa/
GLOBALLY, the 40s WERE warmer than the 1970s or other earlier decades, but since then, all hell started breaking loose, with the 80s being much warmer than any previous decade, the 90s being dramatically warmer than the 80s, the 2000s being warmer than any previous decade, and the 2010s so far beating all previous decades by a wide margin for warmest ever:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
Here's how we know that burning fossil fuels and thus adding CO2 (and methane) to the atmosphere causes global warming and climate disruption. In 1827 Jean Baptiste Fourier first recognized the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In 1859, John Tyndall did the original research on the physical properties of CO2. In 1896, the first quantitative estimate of the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 on the mean surface temperature of the Earth was made by Svante Arrhenius. In May, 1967, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Manabe and Wetherald were the first to include all the main physical processes relevant to the problem, using a model that was no more complicated than necessary to achieve this. This led to much more realistic simulations and enabled the results to be explained in terms of processes which could be observed in the real world. Manabe and Wetherald made a number of other discoveries. First, the temperature of the stratosphere cooled markedly when carbon dioxide was doubled. This is the characteristic “fingerprint” of man-made global warming by burning fossil fuels: the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools, with more thermal radiation at the wavelengths of CO2 and methane being kept in the lower atmosphere and less escaping into the stratosphere. So, let's look at the actual science on that.
Try all three levels:
skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm
www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change
skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/
www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
CO2 is TIGHTLY correlated with global temps and lots of research shows adding CO2 leads to temp rise. www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/04/study-rising-co2-global-warming
Of course, the effect goes the other way too, as the Earth warms, the permafrost melts, more methane is released, that warms the Earth even more, so even more CO2 and methane are released (It’s a feedback loop, but this time around, we got the destructive ball rolling by burning fossil fuels).
In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
skepticalscience.com/1982-exxon-accurate-prediction.html
The predictions from climate scientists from the 1980s and even 1970s and ones from the IPCC have quite accurate, while the predictions of climate deniers like Lindzen were way off the mark.
And various climate models have been quite accurate, especially when you factor in that they couldn't have predicted the 2008 global recession that slowed the world's economy and caused a dip in CO2 emissions.
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150
Here's prominent global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen getting global warming wrong multiple times
skepticalscience.com/lindzens-clouded-vision-part1.html
skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
Climate scientist James Hansen's predictions have been quite accurate while climate denier Lindzen's predictions have been wildly off the mark.
skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17
And here are multiple forms of evidence on the 97% consensus on man-made global warming
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
On a more basic level, when scientists have labeled a class of substances as "greenhouse" gases because they help hold heat from the sun in the atmosphere (Earth would be 59 degrees F cooler if now for those gases), isn't it pretty obvious that when humans start adding more of those gases to the atmosphere, things will get warmer? In physics, actions have consequences.
At the moment, human-caused global warming and climate disruption (aided by chemical and plastic pollution and deforestation) are steadily pushing the point where ecosystems will collapse and human civilization and the human population will collapse with them. I wish it weren't true, but it is. However, there are hundreds of solutions for healing the ecosystems and cooling the planet back to a healthier temperature, but we need to be willing to take action.
Take care.
Climate Remediation
There is a lot of discussion about Global Warming, whether it really exists, how serious a threat and the role of Carbon Dioxide. However, the following is generally agreed. Namely that a lot of CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution and most of it has ended up in solution in sea waters. There is at least 150 times as much CO2 in a cubic meter of sea water as there is in a cubic meter of atmosphere at NTP. This is acidifying the sea waters and harming Coral Reefs. There has also been some agreement that the Temperature of the Earth has warmed somewhat.
The Earth's rotation and the Coriolis Effect has formed a number of Tropical/Semi-Tropical Oceanic Gyres, within which the mass of sea water is rotating, clock wise in the Northern Hemisphere and counter clock wise in the Southern Hemisphere. Anything floating, i.e., less dense than sea water tends to float towards the center of the Gyre. There are five main Gyres which are the North Pacific, South Pacific, Indian, North Atlantic, and South Atlantic Oceans. Together they form a very large proportion of the 70% of the Earth's surface which is covered by water.
The North Pacific has a lot of floating debris, "the Great Pacific Garbage Patch", some of it being debris washed off Japan by tsunamis following the recent Fukishima Earth Quake. The Southern Hemisphere Gyres do not appear to contain much floating debris.
The North Atlantic Gyre is unique. It contains the Sargasso Sea which is characterized by the presence of two species of Sargassum which float by virtue of oxygen-filled follicles. It was discovered (first documented) by Columbus from his voyage in 1492. There is a Sargasso Sea Commission, with an Office in Washington DC, which is charged with protecting the Sargasso Sea from pollution etc. There is a website that basically describes all of the positive ecological values of the Sea.
Since 2011 the Sargassum appears to be overflowing from the Sargasso Sea and moving via the west bound currents across the north coast of South America into the Caribbean and sometimes into the Gulf of Mexico. This has been attributed to agricultural run off from the USA or Brazil but might be due to the increased levels of CO2 in solution.
It has been washing up on beaches through out this region, as one might expect to happen. When it dies and rots it emits H2S. Since a lot of these beaches have tourism as their main industry, the weed has to be removed manually which has given Sargassum a bad name. There are several Facebook entities that keep track of Sargassum landings and there are frequent postings enquiring about Sargassum occurrence on specific tourist areas.
The occurrence of Sargassum in the Caribbean would, however, make it very easy to put live Sargassum into the Pacific off the west coast of Mexico. From there the currents would carry it all the way across the Pacific, photosynthesizing and growing all the way absorbing a lot of CO2 and heat energy, photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction. Absorbing CO2 from the Ocean would allow CO2 from the Atmosphere to dissolve in the sea. The Sargassum would probably stay in the North Pacific Gyre but some might drift into the South Pacific.
One might balk at the idea of covering a lot of the Oceans with Sargassum but it does have uses. It can be used to make ethanol, paper or cardboard. Some one in the Caribbean is making construction bricks from it and others are feeding it to goats..
If there appears to be some benefit from Pacific Sargassum we could easily add Sargassum to the other Gyres using ships that are transiting the Panama Canal. It seems likely that some Sargassum will eventually get into the South Atlantic Gyre, but that may take a while.
Climate change is a problem, but we will likely solve it with a couple of different technologies:
Clean thorium nuclear energy,
Geo-engineering,
De-salination,
And of course Solar and Wind power (which are becoming cheaper by the day)
Thorium basically is the only answer.
I can't understand WHY USA, China, India, Russia and UE do not research in this technology but they WASTE moneys for fighting "global warming"...
Not the best use of land though is it, What are their effects on the natural world? Wildlife?. It blows me away that people assume that "green technologies are completely benign. How much ecological damage is there from strip mining the earth for the metals that go into batteries for example. What is the environmental cost of replacing the hundreds of millions of vehicles that support the global supply chain and get us to work everyday?
Solar & wind are unreliable (need baseload), expensive (despite being propped up by government subsidies) & "won't be a substitute for ff within the next 25 years" Byorn Lomborg. Don't believe the 'CO2 is bad' fairytale
tidal energy is good too
The delta Temperature is the killer, not the actual point temperature but its RATE! of change.
Matt Ridley has coal mining interests. He is a zoologist, not a climatologist. Was chairman of Northern Rock which UK government had to bail out because of it's reckless business strategy.
Gary Sarela debate the idea don’t attack the man!
Hee hee. You blindly believe Al Gore who has made $200 million off his global warming preaching, yet question the veracity of someone who invests in the fossil fuels that they find superior to renewables.
Thanks for playing.
& Al Gore & IPCC jointly won Nobel prize in 2007, the year after Al's "inconvenient truth" It should be returned
Looks like wong took down all of his content and ran away. Go to his site, nothing there
You must have hurt his feelings with all that logic. If you weren't such a great country singer, I would insult you and pretend I won the argument.
The great one is buried in Henderson Tennesee. wong's tactics are from the book "Rules For Radicals"
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Nice: tinkering with models.... Where is your data (observations) to support it???
awful film work , moving camera man ! crazy
Certainly what he says is true that chemical fertilizers have allowed us to increase yields. It is also true that natural Fossil fuels are a limited resource and will not exist forever into the future. At current levels of consumption estimates place it around the middle of this century when we will run out of fossil fuels. Meaning we won't be able to find cheap oils anymore. The cost of making chemical fertilizers at this point, about 35 years away from the time of this message, will become economically more expensive and will start to need more land for the same production level of the food that we are eating at the time. A doubling of land needed for food and/or mass starvations at that short time period will cause global strife.
Technology will have advanced so much in 35 years to combat this problem. His argument .
Yes, technology would have advanced. Also, considering the fact that our fossil fuel usage will get smarter, we will have hundreds of years of fossil fuel usage.
The age of fossil fuels will not end because of lack of fossils XD
Under clear skies with little wind, the
sun went down and I noticed the temperature dropped by several
degrees(probably 2-3 degrees within
30-40 minutes following sunset). About an hour later with no wind, high
level clouds formed overhead. Not long after, I noticed the
temperature rise by several degrees, perhaps about 2 degrees.
My point is that CO2 did not trap enough heat radiated from the Earth to
overcome radiational cooling once
the sun went down under clear skies, which caused the temperature to
drop. However, the formation of high level clouds significantly
overwhelmed radiational cooling by trapping noticeable heat from the
Earth resulting in a rise in temperature.
It is reasonable to believe from this test that CO2 is not even close to
being a strong greenhouse gas that can trap heat to affect our
weather............it provided no noticeable warming and allowed cooling
to predominate in the absence of clouds
All temperatures were read off of my car's
outside thermometer with the car parked at the same location for about 1 and 1/2 hours.
"It is reasonable to believe from this test that CO2 is not even close to
being a strong greenhouse gas that can trap heat to affect our
weather." That "test" shows no such thing. OF COURSE it cools off when the sun isn't shining, and even with a layer of greenhouse gases, it cools off at night. However, if there were no greenhouse gases, the Earth would be ~59 degrees cooler than it is. So now let's do a thought experiments. Imagine you were sitting in the same place doing the same thing after sunset, and God spoke to you and said, "Now I am going to turn down the temperature of the Earth 59 degrees F, to show you how much heat those greenhouse gases hold in." Suddenly, it drops 59 degrees F in one second. NOW do you see how big a difference that layer of greenhouse gases makes?
****Now let's look at some of the science regarding CO2:
Here's how we know that burning fossil fuels and thus adding CO2 (and methane) to the atmosphere causes global warming and climate disruption. In 1827 Jean Baptiste Fourier first recognized the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In 1859, John Tyndall did the original research on the physical properties of CO2. In 1896, the first quantitative estimate of the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 on the mean surface temperature of the Earth was made by Svante Arrhenius. In May, 1967, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Manabe and Wetherald were the first to include all the main physical processes relevant to the problem, using a model that was no more complicated than necessary to achieve this. This led to much more realistic simulations and enabled the results to be explained in terms of processes which could be observed in the real world. Manabe and Wetherald made a number of other discoveries. First, the temperature of the stratosphere cooled markedly when carbon dioxide was doubled. This is the characteristic “fingerprint” of man-made global warming by burning fossil fuels: the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools, with more thermal radiation at the wavelengths of CO2 and methane being kept in the lower atmosphere and less escaping into the stratosphere. So, let's look at the actual science on that.
Try all three levels:
skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm
www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change
skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/
www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
CO2 is TIGHTLY correlated with global temps and lots of research shows adding CO2 leads to temp rise. www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/04/study-rising-co2-global-warming
Of course, the effect goes the other way too, as the Earth warms, the permafrost melts, more methane is released, that warms the Earth even more, so even more CO2 and methane are released (It’s a feedback loop, but this time around, we got the destructive ball rolling by burning fossil fuels).
In 1982, Exxon accurately predicted global warming
skepticalscience.com/1982-exxon-accurate-prediction.html
The predictions from climate scientists from the 1980s and even 1970s and ones from the IPCC have quite accurate, while the predictions of climate deniers like Lindzen were way off the mark.
And various climate models have been quite accurate, especially when you factor in that they couldn't have predicted the 2008 global recession that slowed the world's economy and caused a dip in CO2 emissions.
www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150
Here's prominent global warming skeptic Richard Lindzen getting global warming wrong multiple times
skepticalscience.com/lindzens-clouded-vision-part1.html
skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
Climate scientist James Hansen's predictions have been quite accurate while climate denier Lindzen's predictions have been wildly off the mark.
skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17
And here are multiple forms of evidence on the 97% consensus on man-made global warming
skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
On a more basic level, when scientists have labeled a class of substances as "greenhouse" gases because they help hold heat from the sun in the atmosphere (Earth would be 59 degrees F cooler if now for those gases), isn't it pretty obvious that when humans start adding more of those gases to the atmosphere, things will get warmer? In physics, actions have consequences.
At the moment, human-caused global warming and climate disruption (aided by chemical and plastic pollution and deforestation) are steadily pushing the point where ecosystems will collapse and human civilization and the human population will collapse with them. I wish it weren't true, but it is. However, there are hundreds of solutions for healing the ecosystems and cooling the planet back to a healthier temperature, but we need to be willing to take action.
Take care.
@@HealingLifeKwikly thanks for all that propaganda. However, I've seen it all before. None of it is convincing and most it is incorrect. It's all about pushing a political agenda. In fact, many politicians even admit it.
My test clearly describes a temperature drop without the sun or clouds. CO2 did not trap enough heat to raise the temperature, it allow the Earth's heat to escape into space dropping the temperature. Add clouds or water vapor without the sun and the temperature increased noticeably.
This is pretty telling and no amount of liberal propaganda will change the fact that CO2 is irrelevant or at best extremely negligible with respect to Earth's weather.
BTW, it's always been weather and seasonal change.......climate change are terrorist code words for propaganda purposes.
@@europaeuropa3673 Thanks for the reply.
"My test clearly describes a temperature drop without the sun or clouds. CO2 did not trap enough heat to raise the temperature, it allow the Earth's heat to escape into space dropping the temperature."
With all due respect, that's NOT how heat trapping gases work. They are not an oven--they do not turn up the temperature BY THEMSELVES like turning on the furnace or oven does. So they will not raise the temperature compared to where it was five minutes ago, especially when the sun has gone down. But they DO make it warmer THAN IT WOULD OTHERWISE BE WITHOUT THOSE HEAT-TRAPPING GASES. The SUN provides the heat at first, plus a little heat from us burning fossil fuels, and the heat-trapping gases slow down it's escape into space. That heat is ALWAYS escaping into space, but by adding more heat trapping gases, it's like we have a little thicker blanket on the bed and more of the heat that would have escaped into space before the Industrial Revolution is now being reflected back into the lower atmosphere. And the wavelengths of the energy that is being kept in the lower atmosphere to a greater degree than before we started burning so much coal and oil that thermal energy line up with those of CO2 and methane. There's a clear spike in the graphs at those wavelengths, which you would know if you really looked at all the links I sent.
In physics, actions have consequences, and you can't keep burning 650 million years of the sun's stored energy, adding over 1300 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the system, and not expect to cause changes in the system. Expecting no consequences for our actions is how teenagers think. We have been calling them greenhouse gases for a very long time BECAUSE they hold more heat in than would be there otherwise.
And speaking of your experiment, nights are warming faster than days are, so it's NOT cooling off as much when the sun goes down as it used to--precisely because of the CO2 we have added.
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/11/climate/summer-nights-warming-faster-than-days-dangerous.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=77E065C3657FD651E82B5594FC64A1B6&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL
Take care.
@@HealingLifeKwikly again, stop cutting and pasting propaganda. It really shows you do not THINK. You are an indoctrinated robot repeating the brainwashing you've been given. Do you know that CO2 levels were 10 times higher back in the preCambrian era well before humans (like millions of year before) than they are today. Do you know that CO2 levels in a submarine are 2000 - 6000 PPM and up to 10,000PPM? Compare that to 400 PPM in the atmosphere. Do you know that CO2 levels are above 1000 PPM in an indoor auditorium filled with people watching a sports event? Do you know that CO2 is plant food and allows us to feed more people?
DO you know that you and I wouldn't be here if it were not for CO2?
Finally, do you know that the atmosphere is saturated with CO2 even at 400 PPM. That means it cannot trap any more heat than it has been doing since before humans existed. The Earth's atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium..........otherwise humans would never have appeared on Earth , especially when CO2 levels were 10 times higher before the appearance of humans.
@@europaeuropa3673 Thanks for the reply.
"again, stop cutting and pasting propaganda. It really shows you do not THINK." With all due respect, I could say the same about your reply--ALL those points are talking points spread by denier organizations funded by fossil fuel companies. The submarine point is especially irrelevant to our situation.
"You are an indoctrinated robot repeating the brainwashing you've been given."
No, I'm really not. I'm a 59-year-old Ph.D. university researcher who has published research, supervised research, and has spent much of his career swimming against the tide and toppling various sacred cows. I have now spent more than a decade studying why the health of society and the Earth are unraveling, and how we can heal them. I've spent maybe 20,000 hours working on the book I'm writing, reading thousands of sources, discussing the issues with thousands of people, etc.
So let's take a look at your points and see what they mean and don't mean in terms of the science and the future of human and planetary life.
1) "DO you know that you and I wouldn't be here if it were not for CO2?" Yes, of course I do, but all living things and ecosystems have tolerable ranges for all sorts of things, and changing CO2 levels substantially and in a hurry sends shock waves through ecosystems. If you change them over millions of years, no problem, but we are, for example, warming the earth 10 times faster than when coming out of an ice age, and there are limits to how quickly life can adapt to change.
2) Higher CO2 levels in submarines and auditoriums.
I mean no offense, but who cares? That's totally irrelevant for the discussion of the effects of man-made global warming. Does the submarine or auditorium create the food you eat or the air your breathe? Is either one an ecosystem that can sustain human life indefinitely? NO, they are just artificial bubbles that exist WITHIN the life-sustaining ecosystem, and which people just occupy for short periods of time.
OF COURSE we can breathe air with 700 or more ppm of CO2, the key question is what happens when you RAPIDLY increase the CO2 levels and temps in a global ecosystem that hasn't been above 300 ppm of CO2 for 800,000 years.
3) "Do you know that CO2 is plant food and allows us to feed more people?"
If you pump more CO2 into a greenhouse, plants grow more. And at first, if you pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, we see more greening. But that's not the whole story, and people who are showing videos saying "CO2 is Plant Food--let's have more of it!" either don't understand the big picture or they are paid propagandists (Tony Heller, Willie Soon, Cato Institute, etc.)
But complex systems like the Earth are, well, complex, and in complex systems, short-term gains are OFTEN washed out by negative ripple effects that are caused by the very same thing that are also caused the short term gain. But what are those other ripple effects that producing more CO2 causes?
A) It warms the planet, which in turn melts lots of the world's ice, and BOTH the warmer temps and the meltwater raise sea levels. The last time CO2 levels were this high, the seas wound up being about 60 feet higher. Now, we're VERY early in the game for sea level rise, with the feedback loops just getting rolling, but we are already seeing record melting and we can expect 2-7 feet sea level rise this century (mostly depending on how we behave). Then we can expect 5-10 times that much next century (this is non-linear change--the rate of ice melt is accelerating).
Unlike your submarine or auditorium example, what IS meaningful about the real world is that we have built massive cities with billions of people in them, living below the sea levels that we are heading towards.
The human suffering, financial costs, political turmoil that we are now experiencing and will continue to experience from climate disruption and ecosystem damage will just grow and grow until they take up more and more of family and national budgets. We are already seeing refugees partly due t climate disruption and will continue to see more.
This is a slow-motion emergency, so New York City won't be underwater next year and the Earth won't suddenly end in 2030 if we don't cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by then. However, if we don't rapidly tip the balance towards healing and restoration, we ARE steadily and profoundly setting in motion chain reactions that unfold over decades and centuries. If we go too far and do too much more damage to the web of life and stability of ecosystems, we will be powerless to stop the chain reactions we have set in motion.
B) Most of the excess heat and CO2 we have produced are being absorbed by the oceans, make the oceans warmer and 30% more acidic, killing species and and disrupting the normal functioning of the ecosystem. For example:
"Huge percentages of sea turtles being born female due to global warming
www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/01/australia-green-sea-turtles-turning-female-climate-change-raine-island-sex-temperature/
www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article231522408.html
and
"Rising sea temperatures killed 34% of Guam's coral reefs between 2013 and 2017, University of Guam researchers said Monday. About 60% of the reefs along Guam's eastern coast are gone. ... "It's what we're pumping into the atmosphere that is creating warmer temperatures," she said.
www.guampdn.com/story/news/local/2019/07/29/rising-temperatures-killed-third-guams-coral-reefs/1850765001/
Since coral reefs are the rainforests of the oceans, this is a big deal, and experts in coral reefs expect man-made global warming and ocean acidification from excess CO2 to kill 90-100% of coral reefs by the end of the century. If the coral reefs go extinct, so do most or all species that depend on them.
C) At just 1 degree C of warming, the atmosphere can hold about 7% more water, but that leads to more intense droughts in some areas at some times, and also wildfires, but more intense flooding in others. This is why we are having more Cat 5 hurricanes than in the past and more intense flooding after them (Texas, South Carolina). In some places, warming and drought will make formerly lush farmland unable to grow much--regardless of the amount of CO2. In the US, man-made global warming and climate disruption has already moved the corn belt over 100 miles north and moved the boundary between the hot-dry West and the cool-moist East 140 miles further to the East. Glib "CO2 is Plant Food" comments or not, this screws up farming, and many farmers in the Midwest couldn't get their crops in this year due to the epic flooding. So despite greening in some places, we are starting to see the negative ripple effects swamping them out.
theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897
D) Along with that, global warming is making our food less nutritious--reducing the levels of some key nutrients in staple crops:
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/07/climate-change-food-crops-nutrition
E) While the trees may like the added CO2 by itself, that is only one small piece of the ripple effects caused by added CO2. More CO2 has meant warmer temps and droughts in the Rockies, and while the droughts caused by this stressed and weakened trees, the warming allowed for massive beetle infestations in places like Colorado, California, Alaska. In Colorado, that has left them with over 800 million "standing dead" trees.
www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/more-than-800-million-dead-trees-dot-colorado-landscape
And guess what happens when wildfires start in places where warming-caused/intensifed drought has dried things up and killed lots of the trees? You get more and worse wildfires than you would otherwise. Happily, firefighting has advanced over the decades, but we are just going to be spending more and more of our money cleaning up messes we crated.
All right, that's just the tip of the iceberg, but that's what I could muster off the top of my head during the first half of the game.
But it's halftime now, and I should probably get back to grading papers or answering emails.
P.S. I have two kids and I WISH it weren't real, I wish the deniers actually had scientifically-valid points to make and I wish this was just a bad dream or hoax. But I've studied it for years, it's true, we caused it, it threatens to set mass extinctions in motion--the last time the Earth warmed this rapidly, over 90% of life in the oceans and over 70% of life on land--including everything big--went extinct. But compared to a lion coming at you, it seems to happen in slow motion, so it's easy for people to pretend there isn't a real emergency.
Happily, there are hundreds of powerful strategies for promoting healing, but the alcoholic has to admit they have a problem before they can fix that problem.
Take care.
fertilisers and pesticides are destructive in the long term.
Technology growth will allow us to develop better ones!
@@zeroceiling No. Organic is much better. Man does not know enough about nature to interfere with it.
@@zeroceiling By using more petrochemicals? i.e. a vicious cycle.
wong ...who knows?...perhaps not!....in 15..maybe 20 years we may be using nanotechnology to eradicate insects...as we are starting to do with some forms of plastics in our oceans today...
@@zeroceiling I've got a breeding pair of rainbow farting unicorns for you.
"eradicate insects"? Really? Do you know how many insects there are? I have always been a great fan of science fiction and a fan of reality.
You seem to be missing the point. All the "solutions" proposed by deniers and their apologists rely in some way on increased use of fossil fuels.
What will the situation be in ".in 15..maybe 20 years", when plant nutrition is already falling due to too much CO2?
six years later the american west is in a great drought and wildfires have devastated huge areas and the dead zone in the gulf of mexico due to pesticide and fertilizer runoff continues to grow so his points are being refuted by events ...
So, let people become rich?
I (used to) like this man a lot - and there seems to be a lot in what he says BUT when he seemed to lump all 'renewable energy' as if that meant nothing other than wood/charcoal when he mentioned deforestation - and that Dom Republic had more forest because they imported fossil fuels - i had to question the man.
1/ Solar and Biogas are renewables that can provide water heating/ cooking/ electric
2/ He chose to completely ignore the HUGE political economic factors between the two countries and american favoritism to DR only - not to mention the earthquake.
So whilst i buy the very interesting angle about greening because of Co2
1/ This (if true) is a welcome but unintended consequence of development - and not by design or intent
2/ Is no argument against renewables - fossils are not sustainable
3/ Use of nitrates/ fertilisers DO deplete the soil and do nothing to add humus. Short term gains and productivity is improved sure (measured in decades) - just like yours would be if you took some cocaine (measured in hours) - but that doesnt make it a wise thing to do long term, neither are 'sustainable'
So from what angle is this guy really coming from?
Current GDP is not earnt wealth - Not if it is equal to the debt and quantity of paper money printed.
If your next door neighbor lived i lifestyle consuming 100,000 a year - maybe you think he is doing really well.
But when you find out his bank loan increases by the same every year - then who is the fool
Economics used to mean eco-nomics, ie management of resources
Money used to be real - gold/ silver
Measuring things like the eco- economy in virtual currency units printed on paper by the trillions - creates a fantasy illusion that only the educated idiot would think was a true reflection of reality
Just because a central banker prints or inflates the quanity of currency units, doesnt mean there are more trees or fish in the sea.
A 2 bed house doesnt become 4 bed if it doubles in 'value' - sorry price
The price doubles because the quantity of paper currency units double - against the quantity of goods including 2 bed houses
Rational reasoning requires that your units of measure be consistant - a kilo is a kilo.
Find a way to measure wealth - paper money is not accurate/ not good enough
If you could find the quantity of paper money units printed/ population over time - then maybe you would have an interesting fiqure.
Ohh - post 2008 and the fed decided to stop making M1 fiqures available Hmmm
Da Komrad!
1) sometimes the sun don't shine and the production of solar panels is very harmful to the environment.
2) plants use CO2 to build themselves so if you didn't know more CO2 meant more plants. Then you should go back to 1st grade.
3) wind has killed thousands of birds many of them rare and endangered. Solar uses dangerous chemicals in their production and have a relatively small life span. And geothermal is the same as liquid salt generators (look it up) and produces more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant.
4) coal is not sustainable? 🤣😂🤣😂 do you have any idea of how much coal there is? Or how about the fact we can pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and make it into a burnable brick? Yes fossils are susceptible!
Lastly I completely agree that we should be put on the silver standards in the United states, the federal reserve burned to the ground, and politicians should be tried and hanged for treason. (One of 2 ways in the constitution to be tried for treason is f**king with weights and measures) however as CO2 rises so does the diversity of life on this planet backed by the fossil record.
@ 12:30 CO2 makes plants grow faster... Ppl in a greenhouse know this... We dont live in a greenhouse Matt we live in a biosphere !!! Big difference, if U actually LEARNED real science U would know that...
I AM CARBON , FEED ME , YOU ARE CARBON ,WE EAT CARBON , OUR ECOSYSTEM ,ALL LIFE IS CARBON BASED ,450parts per million in the atmosphere is something that we should worry about ? This bubble that surrounds terra firm-a ,covered in carbon based life has to fear from so little amount of carbon dioxide ratios in our atmosphere ,yet the scientists can offer no accounting for the affect of water vapor in our atmosphere by far the greatest greenhouse gas.
This is fantastic. Take that you leftists greenies.
All of the scenario analysis of GDP growth correlated with temperature was a bunch of junk speculation. But certainly appreciate the effort to present the positive aspects of CO2 on a planet where all life is carbon based.
Jim R what does life being carbon based have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere??? Life on earth was in balance with the natural CO2 levels, adding more hurts life. That’s like saying humans are 70% water, floods and tsunamis are a good thing, just no!
Living standards ARE NOT getting better, well they are getting better for the 10% but that is not the world.
Proof?
Global living standards in developing countries where most of world's population lives are improving it seems while in developed counties they are definitely deteriorating especially among middle class. This is what Ridley would call "leveling the playing field". Of course none of this would affect people like him I imagine.
Wages are increasing unemployment is decreasing what more do you want
@@johncash4671 If you're referring to current situation in US, you may be right but not so in Europe, particularly E-U countries.
@@johncash4671 "Wages are increasing unemployment is decreasing"….. Till the next crash when the 90% loose so much and have to start again.
The Fed has printed a lot of extra money over the past few years, those 'increasing wages' are not increasing.
The American worker has lost a lot of ground since the 1960's.
Isn't synthetic fertilizer made of (finite) phosphate?When that runs out, people will have to raze the rain-forest to find enough fertile land to feed the opulation
We are not adding "extra" CO2 but replenishing depleted CO2. He doesn't seem to know we are in a CO2 crash. He also thinks warming is bad, which is absurd.
Whats absurd is U think U know what U R talking about... thats absurd!
I wonder how you would address the issue as to when the world runs out of fossil fuel, since there is only a finite supply of it, and once that's gone you're going to need to find another source of fuel for everything, and most of the machines and various other things are dependent on it. For there are other renewable sources of energy that could be utilized that doesn't produce carbon dioxide, and with further research and development in the technology, which can become equally if not more efficient in production and a source energy as fossil fuel.
Also it would be interesting to look further into ways to foresting the deserts. When you think about it, there is so much land in places like the Sahara desert that could be re-purposed into farmlands and forest, in which there is a project that is attempting this. If the desert can be re-purposed into forests, it would possible increase the production of produce and livestock to allow other countries to more self-sufficient.
And to look for ways to help certain cities that are heavy deep in CO2 pollution like in China, where it is so heavy that it's impossible to both breath and see. If CO2 can indeed make plants grow faster, then what about the idea of installing greenhouses throughout the cities, small or large depending on which present the best results how fast CO2 can be absorbed and recycled to show any impacting changes of the air pollution within the city
+thebluedragon07 the processes the produced fossil fuels have not stopped. There are fossil fuels in the process of being made in the ground. Humans were not involved in these processes they are natural. CO2 is not a pollutant and represents only 4 % of Greenhouse gases . Water Vapour H2O is about 85% . The Fraudulent IPCC scientists know this and they exaggerate the effect of CO2 like an ant controlling an elephant. CO2 is a tiny element in the cosmic processes but they can tax it , that is why they chose to focus on CO2.
+wedzistar1 the processes that produced fossil fuels comes from from compression of dead plant "fossils" it takes a long time for it to happen within the earths crusts. We are extracting it much more quickly than it is produced naturally. Hence it is a limited natural resource.
+thebluedragon07 Fossil fuels were not a resource until humans made it so. Before the technology was discovered to turn it into energy it was a nuisance; a useless, black goop. We will continue to create new resources but it must be done in a responsible way. Meaning, humans must be able to use the cheapest, most effective forms of energy until viable alternatives are discovered, not forced to switch.
CO2 is not a pollutant. In a demonstration I inhaled 100% CO2 and then drank water that contained the limit of CO2 than water will take.That was sparkling water.Hundreds of millions of litres of water-based drinks that are crammed full of CO2 gas are drunk every day all over the world with no bad effects (that is unless they contain sugar). We have 4% CO2 in our lungs before the breathe out - that is 1000 times the current level in the atmosphere.
(up front, none of this is meant to be snarky) but between newly found oil/gas deposits and new technology, many now believe we have enough fossil fuels to last well into the foreseeable future.
as for modifying desert land, some believe that even the dry, arid deserts serve some needed function for the planet; and since mankind can't be blamed for the deserts themselves, to drastically change them would be to work _against_ nature. however, i personally believe the earth has its own immune system of sorts (for lack of a better term) that allows it to repair itself when needed-including if or when CO2 becomes a problem-so i think turning currently inhospitable land into usable land is a great idea.
is this guy an economist or a climatologist??
hes a climatemist
If anything the Earth is getting cooler⛄
I know Matt Ridley is a polymath and I enjoy his writing immensely. but I am sorely disappointed with what he said here. Believe it or not, the earth is not a place just for the human animals. And wealth and well-being cannot be measured just in terms of (money) income, especially income per capital. In this talk, the banker in him gets the upperhand I guess.
+Thu Nghiem
*Sheesh* There's always one person that doesn't get the overwhelming point of the whole thing...
You're right, the earth isn't just inhabited by humans. And the more fossil fuels we use, the less we cut down trees for energy, or take up ever greater amounts of land for corn oil use, thereby destroying the natural habitats of countless species.
And the richer a country is, the more fossil fuels it can afford to buy as opposed to using cheaper natural resources (such as wood for charcoal, the example given in Haiti).
+lapamful
i think i understand his argument. i just want to point out more explicitly that that argument never takes audit of the whole cost. if you think of the cost to find, extract, refine and transport that fossil fuel to the place it appears to contribute to the greening, you might think twice. if you think of the cost in broader terms, ecological, cultural, climatic... and factor in future cost it might even be absurd. just some examples come readily to my mind because of where i am living, by no means the most important ones, think of offshore drilling in biologically sensitive areas, seismic survey in the Arctic, tar sand in Canada. can we justify greening our habitable corners by destroying other habitats? not to mention the wealth amassed by fossil fuel is not necessarily used wisely, and can come back to do more damages through the system. look at American oil politic and military actions, or what the Saudi Arabian do with their money.
I don't think clever people miss the points. They just take the liberty to present arguments to the mass from a certain sets of facts while ignoring the others.
Thu Nghiem again, you miss the entire point of my comment only to repeat what you said first time around.
The physics of CO2 won't permit CO2 to add any significant measurable warming if it's atmospheric levels were doubled as CO2 has passed it's levels to harvest anymore solar radiation.
Wibble.
@ajspades19 I am only speaking about CO2......not your undefined "greenhouse" or "greenhouse gases".