Oklahoma State University: Does climate science require rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ย. 2022
- A debate at Oklahoma State University featuring: Steven Koonin, Ph.D, author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, Andrew Dessler, Ph.D, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Texas A&M University; Director, Texas Center for Climate Studies and moderator Philip Wegmann, White House Reporter for Real Clear Politics and Tony Blankley Senior Fellow with Steamboat Institute
Debating the resolution:
“Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”
Subscribe to the Newsletter: www.steamboatinstitute.org/up...
============================
Visit The Steamboat Institute: www.steamboatinstitute.org/
Campus Liberty Tour: www.steamboatinstitute.org/th...
Liberty Chats Podcast: www.steamboatinstitute.org/li...
============================
Follow The Steamboat Institute:
TH-cam: / steamboatinstitute
Facebook: / steamboatinstitute
Twitter: / steamboat_inst
Instagram: / thesteamboatinstitute
LinkedIn: / the-steamboat-institute
============================
Our Mission:
The Steamboat Institute promotes America's first principles and inspires active involvement in the defense of liberty. We stand for the following five founding principles:
1) Limited government
2) Limited taxes and fiscal responsibility
3) Free market capitalism
4) Strong national defense
5) Individual rights and responsibilities
The Steamboat Institute is an educational organization recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code-and we are here to educate. We are here to help provide tools, information, and inspiration to those who hold the Founding Principles of the nation dear.
Most of Europe and all of the UK is literally floating on a sea of various fossil fuel types, the sole reason that they're no longer energy independent is political and that political decision was based on 'climate science' which now allows Europe to cry about lack of energy independence and to demand renewables as an alternative.
They have the means to be energy independent but they actively choose not to be.
This is why energy costs have gone through the roof and none of it is accidental, it's all been orchestrated as a means to convince Europeans that fossil fuels are too expensive and renewables are the way ahead, again the villains at the heart of this are the climate change lobby and their willingness to destroy everything that has proven good and very beneficial in order to replace it with their terrible ideology which offers nothing better than a bleak future to our children in which they scurry about their business with one eye on the sky as if it might fall in at any moment.
If we're going to need fossil/nuclear fuel back up then why not simply increase that alone and do away with renewables altogether?
Why go to the enormous expense and trouble to blight our natural landscape with horribly inefficient bird and insect mincing wind turbines and godawful solar farms to the point that a huge swathe of it is given over to them when we ALREADY KNOW that they're so inefficient that they need back up?
It just doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever!
China is burning dirty coal in un-scrubbed power plants to make the wind turbines and the solar panels that enable the US and Europe to gloat about how green they are while the Chinese laugh openly in their faces, do either of them realise how foolish they look on the world stage?
Of course, manufacturing such items demands vast amounts of energy and the only way to provide that energy is via fossil or nuke power which rules out these things being made in Europe or the US.
It's farcical.
My solution and the one I believe future (more rational) governments are going to have to come to adopt is a huge increase in nuclear powered stations, this is THE ONLY WAY we are going to be able to keep up with spiraling energy demands.
Oh and by the way, I don't believe there is a climate crisis, I do believe it would be nice to be able to produce ample energy without combustion but I also believe it would be nice if bacon grew on trees.
In other words I'm a pragmatic realist.
So you believe in very costly centralized nuclear power, but are against spread out, solar and wind solutions that are cheaper?
BTW, I am not against nuclear. I am just curious about your position.
In terms of solar and wind. South Australia with big battery storage facilities can show us that wind and solar can be stable and reliable energy source. They have bigger initial cost, but in a few years it will be paying for itself. Its maybe similar to nuclear power in a sense. I am not sure about the exact numbers.
If you care about birds:
Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological Conservation. There are ways of marking blades that birds tent to then see and avoid.
Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.
Coal: Roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change.
Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s calculations.
Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission lines, according to a study published July 3 in the journal PLOS ONE.
Cats. All told, felines kill 1.4 to 3.7 BILLION birds a year.
www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds
Nuclear require much less resources and land, but provides much more power that is very reliable for a base load for the grid. After construction, operating cost is very low/ KW. Also Nuke out-lives solar/ wind by multiple times, 3 or 4 maybe 5 times the life cycle.
@@NWLibertarian Esier said tha done. Look at delays, cost increases on these projects.
I agree, this is a henny penny thing. When they go at things like this they don’t think thing’s through and crap stuff up more than it was in the first place. What about what Steven F. Hayward said.
@@michasosnowski5918 Do you know how they get built, wind and solar? All the materials that go in the production of solar panels and wind turbines are mined from the earth. Hence, they cannot be renewable in the first place. Do you want what happens to solar panels and wind turbine wastes after its life cycle? They are buried creating more environmental damage. Instead of just parroting the IPCC agenda do some research. Why don't you watch a documentary from a leftist filmmaker Michael Moore called 'The planet of the humans'.
Video starts at 17:10
Put Dr Judith Curry on the podium next time please.
I love Dr. Curry but Koon’s climate contribution is in what the literature says and what the reporting(action) calls for. He has a command of the facts(lack of) that most do not. Has anyone actually read let alone studied the various IPCC reports (ARx) or just relied on the summaries that are notorious misrepresentations of the Group’s work?
I agree that Dr. Curry is outstanding and together with Dr. Koonin could do a strong panel to refute the climate change craze.
Rare to see this kind of debate. Thank you.
Bad example by Dr. Dressler: COVID restrictions imposed by governments had negligible benefits but did horrendous collateral damage.
Based on what body of evidence? How did you model the counterfactual?
exaggeration. It did some good and wasnt horrendous damage
@@rustyosgood5667 The US alone spent 5 trillion dollars in TWO year on the pandemic. What could 5 trillion do for your climate change?
@@havenmist2216 I agree and the total number is like $14T...however, does this mean we just ignore the next pandemic? As for climate change, the only thing that can save us is nuclear power and I don't see that happening on the appropriate scales in anyplace other than China. Make sure your grandchildren can speak Chinese....
@@rustyosgood5667 Everything is trade offs ... cost / benefit. You can spend 14 trillion on pandemics for 70 to 80 year olds ... but you sure as hell have less productive capacity to build windmills.
Thank you from the UK to the Steamboat Institute for this excellent debate. I only wish that the mainstream media would afford the same balanced debate instead of the indoctrination based on fear portrayed by the extreme side of the argument. I wish scientist with contrary opinions to the consensus were given more air time and not cancelled.
Ok, Mr. Fear Monger, please explain the Keeling Curve.
Is this sarcasm? The Keeling curve is only CO2 from Mauna Loa observatory in the tropics and doesn't represent the total atmosphere's concentration. Even at 400 ppm, the concentration is very low and was at only 180 (not in Hawaii) only 18,000 years ago and plants stop growing at 150. It would be better for CO2 to be about 1,000 ppm for increased plant growth.
As a climate change alarmist, I agree. There should be more debates and the mainstream media has zero credibility.
@@NWLibertarian "Even at 400 ppm, the concentration is very low" Actually, this is the highest CO2 levels have been in over 800,000 years, and it doesn't matter what happened long long ago--we're not dinosaurs and all species and ecosystems NOW on the planet are well adapted to cooler temps and lower CO2 levels. Earth was a lush paradise, possibly the most biodiverse it had ever been, with CO2 levels in the high 200s.
"plants stop growing at 150." There's no reason to say that or worry about it because CO2 levels can never get that low. If it starts getting close, some plants die and release CO2, then boosting plant growth again.
"It would be better for CO2 to be about 1,000 ppm for increased plant growth." Again, all species and ecosystems NOW on Earth are well adapted to cooler temps and lower CO2 levels--and we have built our entire civilization around those cooler temps and lower CO2 levels, including the location of major agricultural areas and the location of coastal cities and ports. Just the amount of CO2 we added to the atmosphere--raising CO2 levels from 279 ppm in 1776 to 421 ppm has us on track for ~10 feet of eventual sea level rise. That may take 150 years, but just think of the expensive and tragic destruction we have thus unleashed on ourselves. Furthermore, you can't just focus on one beneficial effect of more CO2 (plant fertilization), it's critical to consider the hundreds of ripple effects more CO2 causes for people and the planet (most of which are harmful or destructive).
So yeah, plants like CO2 if you can maintain their other needs (like in a controlled greenhouse), but more CO2 GLOBALLY is making many areas hotter and drier, disrupting the jetstream and changing precipitation pattersm globally from what farmers had relied on. So globally, after a little global greening in the first couple of decades, more CO2 has now pushed us into a global browning trend due to the hotter conditions more CO2 has caused everywhere and the drier conditions it has caused in many places. More broadly, rapidly increasing global CO2 levels has half the species on Earth moving towards the poles, so you've got disrupted ecosystems, invasive species, more species pushed towards extinction, the great forests of the world are drying out, dying and burning faster than before, man-made global warming will expand the range of lots of deadly diseases, lots of the fat middle of the Earth will become desertified and uninhabitable, we're getting more frequent and extreme heat waves and droughts (including marine heat waves that have killed billions of marine animals), the excess CO2 made the oceans 30% more acidic and the warming it caused lowered the oxygen levels of the oceans and slowed their currents, the fishing industry has been disrupted due to fish moving (then there's the deaths of billions of snow crabs due to warming), ski season is shrinking so industry is struggling, rapidly melting glaciers are causing deadly floods and destroyed dams on the one had and threatening to leave 2 billion people without the water they need for drinking and agriculture, etc. etc.
You gotta look at the big picture, and globally, rapidly raising CO2 levels is how you make the web of life break down, and if kept up long enough, mass extinctions of life. There's no point in having a debate when the people in the debate don't understand which dominoes knock down which other dominoes.
Take care.
@@karlwheatley1244 Then prove that CO2 is leading the temperature rise. We had a huge post war industrial boom after WW2 and yet from 1940 to 1976 there was temperature drop and then from 1999 to 2014 the temps were largely flat. And yet CO2 was increasing, so show me the link as this breaks the link and must ask the question as to what is actually causing this heating. Bear in mind the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods all happened and were warmer than the modern warm period and was without industrialisation.
Go Steven Koonin!
India, Brazil, China and many other countries (using mainly coal) will not follow our move to renewables (at 1:04, the debater on the left side admitted as much). Air pollution does not stop at these countries border. Too much pollution is produced by the life cycle of batteries. Nuclear is the solution, but was not spoken about enough. New nuclear designs are dedigned to last ~3 times, or more than existing ones. The price differences between nuclear and renewable can be reduced dramatically... what's not mentioned is the need for so much more electrical lines and infrastructure with renewables because the energy produced is so low as compared to nuclear. Great debate and kudos to the man on the left not to be afraid to discuss this topic like so many others on the left that are not interested in debate only attaching themselves to the government and making as much money as possible!
"Problems are always easier to solve than you think." Wow. This guy clearly was never outside of his ivory tower.
We have had solutions now for over 55 years. Do you truly believe that ANY one or ANY industry supporter of fossil fuels ( = money income revenues profits) is going to say so?
@@mrunning10 That's utter nonsense and why do you truly believe ANY industry supporter of green energy (= money income revenues profits x 10 )?
@@mrunning10 who innovated, conceptualized and created these huge solutions? Governments are certainly at the bottom of that list.
L agree , many fimsey cheap statements ,made with little thought .Tipical among alarmist .Like he was winging it .
@@codyfezatte5130 What HORSESHIT.
was this video shadow banned? I only found it because of Jordan Peterson's video with Dr Koonin
Doubt so, this showed up on my recommendations
To my knowledge, everywhere in the world that wind and solar have been implemented has resulted in skyrocketing power prices and increased unreliability. If anyone knows of a place that this has not occurred, I would like to know where.
Yes I know of place it's my house when the power goes out because of hurricanes or any other reason I have solar panels and batteries etc. It has been a great hobby for me building my setup but I don't recommend it for anybody that doesn't like to tinker with things learn new things and yes it will be expensive. It's a lot like having a garden yeah the food is fresh Yes you know where it came from what went into it but it is more work .
@@steveclunn8165 That's different, he was asking about mass scale implementation. Grid solutions. Not personal ones.
Yes. We need c02 for things like plants and all vegetation. Our c02 levels were at around 180 PPM after the little ice age ended in the mid 18th century. The increased world greening is one positive result of our current c02 levels at around 440 Ppm.
This whole discussion should be built on the incorrect assumption that carbon dioxide is a world threat.
Yeah, wind power will Always be based upon bigger-is -better. The current east coast wind tubine project will include 98 400 foot high turbines each blade 80 yards in length. All into he ocean floor. In salt water. What old possibly go wrong? Add to that the supply chain sourced out of China.
@@C_R_O_M________ what is happening is the price of a home power generation system has come down so much that the payback time is encouraging more and more people to do this. What appears to be happening is every time the number of solar panels doubles the price comes down 20%. So as we transition away from coal the price of electricity is going up and if we go with nuclear it's going to go up more. Has this happens more and more people will be making their own power which in return will also make the equipment cheaper. So there'll be two things going on they'll be nuclear power for the rich and solar for the poor. Which is the opposite of what we had in the past we're only the rich could afford low luxury. Just like electric cars the money you save by not buying gas and the new price of a inexpensive electric car is not going to help sell gas cars no matter what they're got mileage becomes.
@@walternapolitan6194 it is an interesting experiment that we're carrying out. I think what concerns most people is not the number but how fast we are changing things. The Earth seems to have a system that regulates itself pretty well. We're getting a lot more rain which means a lot more green but things have to have time to adapt. Do you believe we'd be better off with more oxygen in the atmosphere? A lot of people think yes we breathe oxygen more oxygen would be better , using doubling the amount of oxygen in the air would be a good thing?
Shanghai recently had it's hottest temperature on record. What do you think may have caused it? Anyone who's been to Shanghai in the last two or 3 decades will have seen an astounding change in the skyline. In that time millions of tons of heat absorbing concrete and steel reaching far into the night sky dissipating heat for hours. In any case how could any of the weather stations there be accurate much like studies done in the US where over 90% are deemed non compliant. There are some 32 parameters that affect daily temperature. Cloud cover and humidity a far or effective than CO2 but hey, let's mock, tax, and demonise the primary source of all lifeforms because we can?
I agree. Global warming is based on the increase of the average global temperature when compared to the mean surface temperature between 1951 and 1980. How the data is collected is flawed. This negates the entire issue.
There are 32 contiunally changing parameters that affect temperature in a given time (each second) and place. That's crazy
I have to say, neither one of these Docs changed my opinion at all. For Dr. Dressler he started out with fear tactics and tried to get you hooked via emotion which screams to me your science is bad. Dr. Koonin didn't really touch on the data at all and instead just attacked Dressler's beliefs. Personally, both of these men need to get their heads out of their models and take a look at what has happened and what is happening and not do a model till they understand the past.
Dr. Dressler mentioned how cheap wind and solar energy is but failed to mention the grid stability and what it takes to keep it stable. Neither of these men understand civil or energy engineering and are trying to discuss the economy problems related to the engineering and factoring in the variable of climate and possible changes.
Data is needed and you need to always show the data. I've seen so many graphs from 1950-2020 with the climate alarmists only to see the so called 'deniers' going back to as far back as 1880 and that shows a much more rapid changes of global temperatures.
Happy to see more debate but I need more data where they link the sources and explain how they carried out the study.
OoooooKaaaaay, what is "your opinion?" Manmade climate change? Real or a "hoax?" What? say your say, Because all you did was criticize the presenters, not discussing the fucking DATA, just like a denier.
Read the unsettled book. It's evidence based
If you're going underwater move, If it's too hot move, If it's too cold move. As it warms up, there'll be plenty of more land to acquire.
Sorry about Juarez's problems with the heat in Phoenix. When I was in Kuwait the temp went over 52C for weeks at a time. In that heat and humidity I was interested to observe what would happen when a pair of doves decided to build a nest on my windowsill. Surprising they raised 2 chicks successfully which fattened up and flew away. So based on that example, London and Paris 40C summer maximums can go another 10-12C degrees above that and life can still go on. Talk of a looming +2C climate catastrophe is nonsense.
You are of course right. Life adapts. Moreover, causation was never proven.
On the side, there's a book called "A century of London's weather" in which you'll find that London have had multiple 38C days for the period of 1850 to 1950 which debunks certain "unprecedented temperature" claims.
@@C_R_O_M________ The only thing unprecedented is the use of that word. I give you The Prince's Bride, Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
All of Andrew Dessler's newspaper examples were either fully government controlled or verifiably wrong. He starts out his talk all wrong too by immediately going into vagueries and conjecture. I'd say the idea of a solid debate is to give people the data and then bring understanding to it with logic.
Have YOU ever in your life actually LOOKED at the fucking DATA???
This kind of debate should have happened with C19. Could have saved many lives and injuries from the experimental bioweapon injections.
haha,vaccine saved a ton of lives.
@@dft1 do your research. It is still being proven to be killing and injuring many. Turn off your tv and get some truth source information.
@@dft1not even close
@@dft1 Winter is coming, get your shot. 👌
These so called lithium mines are a nightmare. Way worse than a oil sands s mine site.
Thanks Steve
Thank you for a great debate and speaking openly needed to be heard these times. Thank you from Sweden.
So the choice is jump quickly into something very expensive that may cause more damage than good, or taking a slower well thought out plan that is realistic
Why be realistic when the future of humanity is threatened by the continued use of hydrocarbons...
Oops! I seem to be channeling one of the marxian high priests.
WHAT damage? Remember of all of the obscene profits and revenues in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry, why the fuck are YOU protecting THAT?
At the least Dessler could stop pushing government control and intervention in given solutions. The government has always been the worst option to fix major problems especially concerning things that affect the economy on such a mass scale.
👍Dr. Koonin
You should have named the scientists who not only refused to debate, butshowed their contempt for other views. We will only have freedom of speech when its enemies are exposed.
You are CRAZY.
00:17:00 the debate finally begins...
Renewables are only cheaper at the souce, in isoaltion. Delivered with required up time, its much, much more expensive.
The Oil Will End numbnuts.
Regardless of which side you are on, this was a really good debate - bravo !!!
I guess we solved the ozone problem just like we solved the impending ice age back in the 1970's😂
WE did solve the Ozone Problem and the fucking impending ice age was a SINGLE article in Newsweek that was later retracted, but you climate change deniers keep mentioning it. Put something else in your holster dude, because this LIE is becoming very boring.
Science was 6:1 warming:cooling in the 1970's. The MSM got it really wrong.
There was no impending Ice Age back in the1970s.
@mickeyotoole9780 and there is no existential climate crisis now.
@@richardsullivan2218 global temperature has only risen by a little over 1C so far,
but it continues to increase by c. 0.15C per decade.
We're only at the initial stages of the catastrophe,
unless we make radical changes.
Pessimist vs optimist
Someone should talk about solar heat islands. Solar panels are as bad, or worse than asphalt at absorbing infrared.
Nope, because it is not a contributor of any significance. All that matter to warming the earth is what is RE-RADIATED back to space. The rest, most, is "captured" and STAYS. The solar panel or rock or dirt or plants or asphalt do not change how much energy is RE-RADIATED back to space, nor do solar panel change the spectrum of the infrared that strikes the panel into any other frequency that could RE-RADIATE back to space.
You work for the Cock Brothers? They like asking shit questions like that. Meaningless muddy-the-water crap questions.
And the location of thermometers are 99% placed in and around urban areas. Huge warming bias so they can use skewed data to ring BS alarm bells.
Not to mention that the solar panels become junk and debris beyond any other rubbish. How about the lithium batteries for disposal.
@@angelagonimavalero7700 the agenda is to destroy the USD Petrodollar. Replace the global economic system with green energy. Those that control energy control the world. OPEC dies and leftists take over.
I vote for the Dr for fossil fuels. The other guy is off base and compares it to C19? WTH.
Dessler back for a 2nd butt kicking.
😂 …and Dessler said he enjoyed this sort of event!😊
If solar and wind lowers energy cost, how come states like California which has an anti-petroleum priority has by far the highest energy cost. US average 14 kWh, some states 11 kWh, California 31 kWh, which puts electrical energy two to three times higher than those states not pushing this nonsense.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO SCIENTIST IS JUST HOW RAPID THE TRANSITION TO RENEWABLES SHOULD BE. CANT TELL WHO IS CLOSER TO THE MARK.
the dead or dying in several centuries will KNOW.
Anyone who thinks a gas with one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms can alter something so complex as earth's climate has no business making any kind of policies especially those concerning the climate.
most plastics are produced as a by-product of petroleum manufacture. why they're so cheap atm.
Electrify everything? And it will cost just a little more? I dont know on which planet he lives! But im sure he can point to a 'report' that says so. These reports are written with a foregone conclusion..
This was not a debate. These two are hairs apart. There is definitely a stifling of the conversation and it is largely because of politicians and media. These two groups have hyped these issues beyond hysteria for some susceptible people. Invariably the poorest everywhere will bear the brunt of all the costs of whatever is done. That is going on now, and will continue to go on. One of the economic problems that causes this is the disparity in wages, and certainly politicians should be getting less than they are and they should receive a cut in hard times for no other reason than to share the pain that is always inflicted on the poor. Hogwash! Sure it is unacceptable to deprive the poor of energy, talk is cheap, show me a plan you have a plan for everything else. All that talk always goes out the window when the wealthy are inconvenienced.
Maybe you will actually listen to this video one day. If you do you will see that Koonin actually does debate the resolution.
@@terryharris3393 Obviously we don't see things the same way.
Excellent point of view, agree 💯. Dr. Koonin cares about humanity and he is right about the poor paying the price.
Lots of questions not asked yet. First of ,I agree we need to continue to make our living environment better. With that said, this is the number one question - is there enough minerals on earth to make all the electric vehicles - show evidences and actual earth minerals detection data and that these minerals are there, if we don't know the answer, we might be surprise when we find out 15 years later that we could be n shortage of minerals. Number two question, in 2035 what is the percentage of minerals supply in the world that will be produced to provide for EVs and then by 2050 what will be the percent of minerals production to provide for the entire world not just US for EVs. Finally when will these minerals possibly depleted. Well, car is not he only item that need to energize by electricity, there are trains, there are airplanes, there are boats and ships when will these vehicles turn electric, etc. On the other side of the energy story - or question, which two giant countries that did not attend the Paris climate summit and why they don't. curious to know. thanks for listening and sharing.
Short answer: It is not possible to ramp up mineral mining and processing to meet any de-carbonizing goals in the near future. In fact, there is probably not enough lithium available, period. Second, the environmental impact of this level of mineral extraction would be a catastrophe in itself.
This covers your query:
th-cam.com/video/sgOEGKDVvsg/w-d-xo.html
17:10 skipto
This was good. Probably the most reasonable of the climate “alarmists,” though I think it’s fair to say that’s he’s not really an alarmist. He’s reasonable but disagrees.
Who? Fucking NAME the person please.
I agree, Dr. Dressel is more civil than other fanatic alarmists.
At least Kooning knows what he is talking about
He is a paid-for oil industry lobbyist. Wake UP.
@@mrunning10 What do you mean - A paid for oil industry lobbyist? How much does he get paid by the oil industry?
@@mrunning10if you want an achievable transition from fossil fuel to a renewable source, the only people capable of actually doing this are the energy companies. No one is saying that's not the goal. The key is doing things in a way that can actually be done.
@@Bullittbl Yes, that is the key and you are correct. But you are INCORRECT in assuming that we don't know how. Engineering to be done, yes. But we have had the collective solutions now for over half a century.
...and still we wait....
@@mrunning10Really...show me your evidence?
Haha, Dessler reckons "no central organisation makes a decision" [talking about about censorship]...
Yeah, right. Except for Google, The mainstream media industrial complex, Twitter (thankfully it had been X'ed), Universities, Government funding bodies, "etcetera, etcetera, etcetera" in the words of the King of Siam (Yul Brynner)...
Solved acid rain and ozone? 2 issues that turned out to be much to do about nothing.
Rain has and always be basic, and the holes in the ozone layer at the poles has been unchanged for 14 thousand years because the air is too cold in the winter to contain the water that sunlight turns into ozone! So both are fixed it only takes a little common sense!
Great debate. Keep them coming.
If wind and solar are so cheap then the market will do it on it's own so if true why is Dressler even here?
Andrew Dessler, Ph.D, is full of it. I live in Phoenix and use SRP. This month July 2023 there has been a record of over 30 days over 110 degrees F and I live in a 2400 sq ft home and my SRP bill I was $491. If you have to lie about something as simple as an electricity bill what else are you lying about. Climate change?
The weather over your lifespan is almost fucking MEANINGLESS.
To master climate science, you must first master debate.
What HORSESHIT. My PhD did not include that. To master climate science you must pay off CONGRESS. Wake UP.
Would love to see more! Thanks!
Sorry but the argument of the lady in Phoenix is a very simplistic example, given the fact that these heat waves are not new, and in other parts of the planet people have to live with similar situations.
Heat waves are not new, but raising global temps made more extreme heat waves inevitable and will make some parts of the world unlivable for livestock, crops, and people without AC.
wind n solar are NOT the cheapest source of energy. he just lost all credibility.
The difference in the cost of production vs total cost is the rub. When you include non recurring and decommission costs as well as the replacement/new infrastructure costs renewables can’t compete.
"wind n solar are NOT the cheapest source of energy. he just lost all credibility." In 90% of the world right now, for installing new electricity generation, wind and solar are cheaper than the alternatives. Their prices have dropped dramatically as production scaled up. And they are cheaper than fossil fuels even when counting the backup costs and replacement costs.
Human Co2 production has been decreasing in the US for approximately 20 years
Has the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere gone down. NO NO.
Good to see results reflect people have common sense.
15 minutes in and the debate has not started.
So the FUCK what?
@@mrunning10 Just sayin’…a little less ego bloviating by the organizers and hosts would not have hurt the presentation one little bit.
@@revanwallace Agreed, and it's a shame that no one went down the path of RISK. Not economic, not "social" but what if we don't DO something? How much of a chance is that?
Dr Dessler shows us the "hockey stick" graph and asserts the increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel use over the last 250 years. Is that it ? Is that science ? I don't think so.
"Dr Dessler shows us the "hockey stick" graph and asserts the increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel use over the last 250 years. Is that it ? Is that science ? I don't think so." There's a mountain of scientific evidence proving that our emissions caused virtually all recent global warming. As in thousands of research studies, and every nation on earth has already signed off on the 6th IPCC report agreeing that this is true. Go read the science, or watch some videos explaining how more CO2 makes the planet warmer, then leads to higher levels of methane and water vapor, which make the planet even warmer, which cause more release of CO2, methane, and water vapor, which cause even more warming, and so the cycles goes.
Yea, the bald guy lost all credibility when he said we can't drill more here and failed to mention that not drilling here was a political decision by the people in power. So we know where his loyalties are. Good bye.
The Oil Will End you numbnuts.
lets talk about the earth getting a little closer to the sun every day or the solar cycles or the moon moveing farther away. how about the earth is greening like never in our history. from carbon we need that food. i can go and go on this
Where I live 2023 has been the coldest in generations.. the mountains I look at every day have more snow than I can remember seeing..
YOUR weather is NOT manmade climate change. Snow is a fucking EFFECT, what has been the measured temperatures since 1880? What has been the proxy measured temperatures over the past 100,000 years?
Never even fucking Googled it have you?
The mountains are calling "you are a moron"
There is History we all can see that temperature goes up and down. The history of the Resolute Desk, ( US president desk) proves the temperature cooling. President Washington crossing the Delaware painting. Even how and why Frankenstein's story was made. History also shows when the earth is colder you have plagues. We are know experiencing a growth in world greenery of 15% mostly in Africa. 15% is larger than the United States. Do we sentience Africans to starvation? If you want to clean up carbon dioxide from the air clean the oceans and recycle trees the two biggest carbon dioxide removers the the planet has
Anyone ever think of asking these environmentalists/climatologists exactly what % of CO2 do they want in the atmosphere? They are always saying there is too much CO2 and it must be reduced to stop the world from overheating, but they never say by how much. Do they prefer an ice age? The world has a CO@ level of about 400 ppm today, has been as high as 1700ppm before, and plant life will die if the level goes below 150ppm. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise but there is evidence that high temperatures cause CO2 to rise hundreds to thousands of years after the high temperatures have passed. The burning of fossil fuels may cause rises in CO2 levels but this helps feed plant life and would be good for crops etc. Humans prosper when weather is warmer. The Chinese, Africans and Indians are not going to give up burning fossil fuels such as coal and wood. Western societies once burned those fuels until gas, electricity and nuclear means were invented or discovered. Are we foolish enough to think these other countries are going to give up their chance at being as prosperous and comfortable because we say so? I don't think so.
the ideal is about 320ppm. we are at 420ppm so we need to not only stop increasing CO2 concentrations, we MUST remove 100ppm from the atmosphere.
Submarines regularly have levels as high as 4000 ppm... Just saying.
@@wheel-man5319 NO, they absolutely do NOT, unless the air scrubbers have failed catastrophically, at which point the subs surface IMMEDIATELY
@@karlerikpaulsson88400 ppm is not 4000 ppm.
Furthermore, Most literature seems in agreement that CO2 must be kept below 5000 ro 7000 ppm in submarines.
Anyway, that's much higher than 1000 ppm, let alone 400 ppm.
And no, there is no "best value of 300 ppm". That's not supported by science.
@@mikem.s.1183 you do understand there is a fundamental difference between the standards for breathing conditions in a submarine, and the atmosphere of an entire planet, right?
"Alarmist" rabbits on about Economic Models BUT entirely misses point: there's ZERO proof CO2 is main driver of global temps
Maybe not zero proof, but this is what i saw in the opening statement as well. Almost didn't watch the remainder.
As you say there is zero proof that man-made CO2 is the cause of any change to global temperatures. 99.999% of the atmosphere is not man-made CO2 so I am looking forward to seeing the proof that .001% CO2 is doing anything at all despite talk of isotropic analysis, radiative forcing and multiple feedback loops.
@@marksouthern7542
Some data establish a correlation between CO2 and temperature increase. Problem is, there's no actual proof that CO2 is indeed the main driver.
I find this discussion immoral. They're fabricating conclusions and altering data, and forcing the western world and the developing world into a new economic and social depression.
The earth gets heat from the sun. CO2 helps trap that heat in the atmosphere. Explain to me how CO2 isn't responsible in anyway. Also how 97%(from 88000 since 2012 reports about 3% of those scientists said humans didn't have an impact) of scientists have agreed humans have had an impact through gasses humans are responsible for such as methane from large scale farming and CO2 emissions among other things?
Acid rain and ozone are minor issues largely because they were solved. Problems of climate change are easier to solve than we think largely because the solutions are technically known and how to employ them are also known.. other problems such as curing cancer or may be harder to solve in the near term because we solutions are still being worked out.
Ozone is a seasonal problem. We have the same ozone issue this year we did 40 years ago. And will have it in the future as well.
Climate change is going to happen. With or without us. Natural cycles will continue. Stopping climate change may be more detrimental than allowing it as nature dies in stagnation. Plus, the whole response is the concept that we can control the weather. Climate being nothing more than weather over a longer period. And so far we can do nothing about the sun, orbital influences, volcanic activity, and even unknown oceanic influences.
And as far as CO2, for 500 million years it has been on a declining trend from 5000 ppm to a historic low average of 280 ppm period the last few million years. Is reducing CO2 actually more a danger if we reenter the Ice Age that levels could reduce to such levels as to threaten life as we know it? During the last glacial period, per Holocene, CO2 dropped to 180 ppm. Could current reductions drive it to below 150 ppm in the next cooling period killing off all known life forms. Heat historically has caused abundance in the biosphere. Cold, things die.
@@starleyshelton2245same issue as 40 years ago? You mean about 80 or so years after the industrial revolution when we started burning fossil fuels like crazy? Makes fuckin sense we have the same problem bro😂
You do understand that we only discovered the ozone layer about 40 years ago. (1980) And it has not changed much. Every year it gets bigger and smaller based on seasonal change. For 40 years it gets bigger and smaller regardless of what we do. So to say we caused something that as far as we know has always existed is kind of presumptuous and Narcistic.
@@longjonsilver1307
Public comment...
Can't use modlels,unreliable,models,, Co2 rate of o is a bad idea.
The models are ALL still predicting, within error-bounds, WARMING. (ever in your LIFE hear of fucking "error-bounds" numbnuts??)
We need more of these debates. Clear, grounded and respectful.
What if that $4 trillion was directed towards alternative power technologies? Wind and solar are popular with investors on wall st. But fail on too many levels.
"fail" how exactly?
I sure wish Patrick Moore and Tony Heller could have been a couple more presenters. Those two men have all the information that needs to get out to the masses. And possibly get us off this trillion dollar folly around the world.
"I sure wish Patrick Moore and Tony Heller could have been a couple more presenters." Moore and Heller are well-known and repeatedly debunked spreaders of propaganda. Anyone who knows the science quicklys see through Moore's claims and Heller's videos. But I have to admit, Heller is a very SKILLED propaganda artist, so I can see how people who WANT to believe we aren't causing the destruction we are causing would want to believe him.
You can't run industry on wind and solar
But you can on wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, helium bed atomic, tidal, microwave satellite. Gee, why don't we have all of these NOW?
YOU just paid for NOT to have it last time YOU pumped that fucking GAS into your fucking GAS tank. Wake UP.
You can try. It took over 100 years to produce and refine the systems and infrastructures we have in today’s energy systems.
Dessler talks a lot of drivel
Climate “Science”, was dropped decades ago for Climate Politics.
blah blah blah, just say your say, manmade climate change, real or hoax??
Exactly 😢
@@mrunning10 hoax. Or at least I've not heard anyone say how much of the warming (which may or may not have gone on hiatus) is caused by human activity.
great debate, i have time for both sides of the arguement, as always. I dont get how one of them was saying the amount of money saved using fossil fuels compared to renewables beacuse of the amount spent on military and other things is relevant though. These things will still always have costs and are ultimatley always passed on to the taxpayer, regardless of the source. If we can do it better then lets definatley do that, and I think we will, we humans suck at some things but are pretty adaptable when we need to be, and the scare tactics from the extremists don't seem to be working anyway, so i think we are all good.
what is the end point of all of this if the conspiracy turns out to be NOT true?
Your "logic" is mental masturbation.
If we collectively FIX this by TRANSITIONING to non-carbon energy then we fucking LIVE. 100% no risk.
ANYTHING else, any other path is a fucking RISK OF DYING out as a civilization.
Don't believe it do you?
Due to the manner in which our power grid supplies energy for consumption (immediate production and usage), wind and solar should not be the main sources of power, but rather should be the supplement to fossil fuels, allowing us to use less fossil fuels.
Running the power grid is an elaborate endeavor where production must be increased or decreased (on a minute to minute basis) depending on current consumption needs. You can’t make the sun shine brighter or make the wind blow harder when you need more power in the moment.
Duh, yes that is what is happening now as we TRANSITION to all non-carbon energy. duh.
solar and wind will only be a part of the solution. duh
what the fuck does that have to do with manmade climate change being real or a "scam?" what/???????
(by the fucking way, Koonin was PAID by BP to write his climate change denial book) (wake the fuck UP)
For a person who wrote Unsettled, Koonin seems pretty settled with his opinion that Climate Change will not be such a big blow to the economy and health of the planet/people/animals. Its my impression that he is taking some single studies and running with it telling everyone that there is no problem. Its like saying that the forest is not burning, becouse this part of it is yet to catch fire.
He is quick to praise fossil fuels and allow for further burning of them. I think he is mostly focused on short therm status quo of these industries and economies. But I think his approach fail to see long term consequences that can be, and would be devastating if we do nothing to change.
The thing is, that many companies and people are working on decarbonizing the industries, so it will happen that or the other way. But the people like profesor Koonin would be the ones who will tell you "See, nothing bad happened", when we finally decarbonize. Like changes we make despite him and people like him are somehow telling us that there was no danger.
It is apparent how little you know about Koonin’s positions. I suggest you spend the money and READ unsettled or at least the introduction. Then you won’t be found so ignorant on his belief/conclusions.
@@terryharris3393 Koonin's book has been throughly debunked. He is neither an expert on climate nor does he understand the hundreds of destructive ripple effects that are set in motion for people and the planet when you rapidly increase global CO2 levels.
Cost estimates are based on old assumptions about ECS, in the 3C+ range, whereas we now know it's more likely well under 2C.
It doesn't fucking MATTER. blah blah blah. The Oil Will End. Transition or we DIE.
Engineers sure are geniuses when paid billions. Heck, they built a sub that imploded.
No relation between the two you conspiracist numbnuts.
Often these educated types are the ones that think they are highly intelligent, not so much based on results if that was the measure they'd the the village idiots.
Dr. Dressler seems to be at least civil with Dr. Koonin, compared with others. Dr. Koonin has the command on this subject, that’s my impression.
Dessler may have a degree in atmospheric science, but he doesn't understand how the earth's climate system works. Koonin gives too much credit to CO2, which has essentially no impact on climate, but at least he has better data. There is no climate emergency. There is no need to decarbonize.
The fluctuation in the price of oil and energy is because of bad policies of the Brandonomics. The current US administration declared a war on oil and it has caused high global inflation. Net-zero is a certain path to doom.
Look at China, they are building massive solar farms but they are not stopping on building coal power plants either. It is not either or. Everyone should be able to use the right power mix they need to develop. You may promote the use of wind and solar but it is immoral to say to people in developing countries that they must stop using fossil fuels or even just make them feel guilty using it.
Dressler is correct. It all depends on the development of cheap reliable viable energy storage.
It's been here for half a century. Wake the fuck up and get a grip as to WHY we're not using it NOW.
Wake UP.
Cheap and reliable are in conflict. Also, anyone that has studied energy conversion will immediately understand that the need to store before delivery is a one step forward two steps back approach to energy delivery.
Your degree is obviously in Hair Styling 101. It will be a multi-path solution. And the BIG one is atomic helium bed piles cracking seawater into hydrogen (there's your fucking energy density and your fucking storage)
Wake the fuck UP and get a fucking CLUE of WHY it isn't here NOW.
@@terryharris3393
@@terryharris3393 "Cheap and reliable are in conflict." Cheap is subjective. Remember that fossil fuels are a type of chemical energy storage. The technology plants use to create food also created fossil fuels.
If we create a technology that can replicate photosynthesis at a higher efficiency and produce gas and oil directly using sunlight, then it would be a renewable tech that could actually be acceptable to both the AGW alarmists and the anti-renewables.
@@mrunning10 It took the steam engine 1600 years to evolve from a mere curiosity into a working engine. Here you are griping that it has already been half a century already. Science is not magic.
The truth is that these two scientists do agree in some important points, it’s about policies and economics where they differ.
I was hoping Steven Koonin had some decent arguments, along the lines of Robert Lindzen and John Christy, which are not counterfactual and critique on methods and model predictions. But alas, Koonin appears to be one of those "other planet" people with arguments not based on facts or an honest review of the literature. Sad stuff. Also the initial poll with over 60% disagreeing was a bit surprising, but then I realized this Institute is perhaps named "Steamboat" for a reason.
And? So? What is the fucking SUBJECT of this vid?
well informed greta nicely asked you to walk so she can write a book telling you to walk.
big oil propaganda
What about it?
In nature, when a species becomes to populated, the following year there is usually a steep decline in population due to lack of resources. Humans are no different, except that we find ways to cope, and therefore don't die off so steeply. But perhaps we are too numerous if we can no longer produce and uncover enough resources to sustain our current population. But we're not about to "cull" our population intentionally, (although the WEF would love to do this, maybe it's already in their plans and underway...) We are increasingly becoming more and more advanced, new technologies seem to pop up every day, some good, some bad. Hopefully we can balance our technology, population, and resources long enough to figure out how to continue with what we've got. Eventually we will figure out better energy sources and adopt them, either by choice or by necessity, but the point is that nature and the natural evolution of our planet will dictate what will happen, not man. Anyone thinking they can force man to do something to change is dreaming. We'll always do whatever we want. Hopefully people will learn to average their ideals, not be one extremist or the other - being an activist screaming at everyone will not accomplish anything. Neither will being a complete head in the sand denier, we all need to listen to the other side and meet in the middle. I think if we put an effort into trying to reduce, reuse, and recycle, and invest in improving technologies to produce more efficient energy, rather than blindly using or uselessly screaming about the use of energy will be far more productive in the end. We will eventually end the use of fossil fuels, there is afterall a limited supply. Once it's gone, it's gone. If we haven't created a new one before then, we'll be thrust back into the stone age anyway. As for the "climate change" we may or may not be responsible for it, but keep in mind that the sun and our position in the galaxy, possibly within the universe itself, all cause the vast majority of our temperature fluctuations on Earth, as well as the other planets in the solar system. We have records in ice, trees, and the Earth itself of these fluctuations. What would the alarmists be saying if we were in an ice age right now? What if we were at an Earth's high temperature before we entered the technological age? It is coincidence that we were already on the rise out of an ice age when we started burning fossil fuels. The point is, nobody knows because nobody has factored ALL of the contributing factors into global warming to be able to say for sure that man is responsible. I am a believer in nature taking care of itself, our planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, why do we think we are so big an influence that we can change the entire planet? If we had to move the planet due to a slowing orbit, or speed up the rotation, or increase the magnetic field, do you think we could? Not likely. Only a global nuclear war would impact the planet, and even then, a thousand years later it would heal itself and return to normal. We've been gifted with a planet that has everything we need. We should take care of her as best as we can, but also enjoy the fruits she provides us with. This is a great time to be on planet Earth. Hopefully it will be around for millions of years to come.
HORSESHIT. There is only ONE resource sustaining 8+ billion people on this planet.
we cannot prioritize mankinds wealth over the stability of nature- nature rules. if we don't understand that we are doomed for a life of chaos.
blah blah blah, just say your say, manmade climate changed, real or hoax?
Nature has never been stable
@markschuette3770: Mankind hasn’t the power to destabilize nature now nor in the future. We are one cataclysmic natural event from oblivion.
“Russia is using energy as a weapon”. Newsflash bro, the UNITED STATES blew up Nord stream.
We didnt invade 4 fuel, we invaded because they didnt want to trade in the u.s dollar.
I am for global warming. Beats global freezing any day.
Fried your BRAIN that's for sure.
"I am for global warming. Beats global freezing any day." Unfortunately, rapid man-made global warming and climate disruption--and the hundreds of harmful effects it causes--is pushing us toward worsening ecological and societal breakdown.
And WHY will "society" breakdown?
@@karlwheatley1244
The global scam
Uncle fester is not very smart..
And? So?
The first words out of Stephen's mouth was a lie. Fossil fuels are neither cheap, $4 trillion in profits annually, safe, more money is spend on medical bills in the US due to fossil fuel byproducts, than national defense, nor reliable, miss a month fuel bill.
Koonin just badmouthed China for using coal, but China produces more green energy than any other country in the world. China also have 5X the US population.
Your source for the statement, 'more money is spent on medical bills in the US due to fossil fuel byproducts...' ? This is a big statement, and therefore i assume there is a source? Study?
@@marksouthern7542 Google each part separately.
@@marksouthern7542 why the fuck don't YOU find out??
@@CspacecatGoogle, now there is a reliable source of information on climate science.
Dressler, not very impressive for a dr. . To many maybe's .
blah blah blah. The Oil Will End. Transition or we DIE.
The 2022 USGS Mineral Commodities Summary Report indicates that the latest world lithium reserves are 22,000,000 metric tons (usgs.gov)
1000 kg = 1 ton(metric)
68kg of lithium in 1 Tesla
22000000000 / 68 = 323529411.765 tesla cars.
Just for reference, we have 1 billion autos on the roads now. That number will grow as the world develops; and must.
We do not have enough lithium.
We need something else.
As great as LiFePO batteries are they are just a minor step toward energy storage. It will be the next battery generation’s contribution that will move us closer to the goal of cheap storage. Hopefully solid state batteries will have more promise than cold fission.