Global warming: why you should not worry
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2010
- (Boston Globe) An MIT scientist explains the potential dangers
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHANNEL FOR MORE VIDEOS.
/ @bostonglobe
READ OUR JOURNALISM FROM NEW ENGLAND AND BEYOND.
www.bostonglobe.com/
FOLLOW US ON:
Facebook ► / globe
Twitter ► / bostonglobe
Instagram ► / bostonglobe
TikTok ► / bostonglobe
![🔴 [TRỰC TIẾP] Tứ Xuyên (Trung Quốc) VS BCTT Trường Tươi Bình Phước | Cúp VTV9-Bình Điền | JET STUDIO](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5nF-PCh_Ojw/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] Hell's Kitchen Thailand EP.14 | 12 พ.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MNspIlqlJcc/mqdefault.jpg)
Surprised this hasn't been removed
TH-cam isn't that fascist. Yet.
Its from an MSM outlet that is why
@@conversandoando Yes it is. They must have just missed this one.
@@miked5106 You may have misinterpreted OP's comment.
Lol
“When you hear a scientist saying the science is settled, you know that person has stepped out of the science”
there is such a thing as consensus and we definitely have that with climate change
@@sharehard And that means you don't understand. Scientific consensus means more or less this: "currently, to the best of our current researches, measurements, and so on, that's a X% probability that the things are like this" (to keep it simple, I don't put into the formula politics and economy and lobbying and corporate interests funding certain researches worldwide, because it'd be hard to make a general picture in a comment; anyway, they are there to make the "consensus" very much less certain and granted.) This is light-years far away from saying "the science is settled". If you say this, you are stepping out of the science. And if you don't realize that because "well, but there's a consensus!" is the same to you, then you damage scientific research and advancement, and I suggest you the reading of books on the history of science, scientific errors in modern age, and of course epistemology essays.
@@konverzaktion2393 thanks for your recommendations. I have studied philosophy of science and the history of science. What is understood and where there is no contraversy among experts is that CO2 is causing an increase in global tempurature and the current increase in tempurature is largely anthropogenic. What the future will look like, impacts, how various systems of climate work... all of this is being refined and is full of uncertainty.
@@sharehard Perfect. Then, controversy or not apart, I really don't understand what your point on the citation was. But I suppose it doesn't matter as long as we agree on the key points, right?
@@konverzaktion2393 perhaps I was assuming you were coming from a relativistic or overly skeptical perspective. I hear many people say that nothing is settled in science therefore we don't have to take climate change seriously as an issue.
"everything is fine and OK"
This phrase will not make new headline
He won't make headlines because reality has debunked him.
Bogota is rationing water, Hawaii is in a water crisis, permafrost is melting, Kazakhstan is flooding, the East Coast is being pounded by storm after storm - and the hurricane season is just starting.
Pay attention to the news, not to one scientist who said something you agree with *10 years ago.* When the 99% of climatologists agree in something, that's not called propaganda, but scientific consensus, and you pay attention to it.
Aaron Rodgers: ‘If science can’t be questioned, it’s propaganda’. True that.
Science has determined that the earth is round. Propaganda?
If you question an established science, you should have facts and numbers more solid than your opponents. It's not the case here.
@@munyansebastien7127 Says who? An "expert"?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 What a profound argument. Comparing a round Earth to the religion to control people calle "climate change". Drink some more Koolaid. It's good for you.
gonna bring this one up next time anyone tells me to stop telling chldren that theres never any risks from jumping off cliffs and its actually extremely safe a nd fun, the water will protect them no matter how shallow or far down
TH-cam will probably deem this video “Hate Speech”.
No. Just lies You obviously aren't aware that MIT has told him he is wrong.
@@boffeycn when and where please?
@@thewhisper417 Why is it that dejiers of the reality of AGW & ACC seem incapable of doing things for themselves and just unquestioningly follow the denier dogma?
If so they've certainly taken their sweet time getting rid of a 9 year old video.
Obama just spent $15 million for a beach house.
I very much appreciate Richard Lizden's straightforward honesty. Especially when he said, "All of us scientists are government employees. even if we are working for private universities".
and mention of his funds from Peabody Energy was probably included in this interview but edited out
@The Wandering M you’re invalidating their entire professional existence and more strikingly their very integrity as human beings. And rightly so...
@The Wandering M Same. The wife of a friend of mine is a Professor in Climate Politics. Getting paid very handsomely, far better than any other academics at the same University. I would like to know where the money is ultimately coming from.
@The Wandering M People get upset when you catch them in a lie
@@Viator19 China and Russia are two primary sources of climate malarky; it serves to offset the US's great advantage in energy resources/production.
I wonder if this man has held his ground over the past 12 years.
Yes he has
Why wouldn't he?
When a scientist "holds his ground" he is not a scientist. His arguments have been proven to be wrong, climate change is real and human made.
@@CodingWithUnity it's 12 years, and as you know, the last 2 counted as 10, so it is actually 22.
These days, he wouldn't get 15 seconds into his talk without some purple-haired fruitcake having a meltdown.
'I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.' Richard Feynman
And then there’s “gravity”
"I'd rather my words were not taken out of context by some rando in the future." - Every Famous Guy Ever
@@richsackett3423 Ahh, so you disagree.
No dissent. No questions. No peer reviews.
Just shut the front door and take your medicine right?
Well, Feynman knew WTF he was talking about, unlike the climate change denier dummies.
@@mikeFolco
Feynman was humble enough to understand that neither he nor we have all the answers and never will.
It shows he also understood the big danger lies in not being able to question what are claimed to be absolute unassailable truths.
Not least because of the motivations that may lie behind them....
I was hired by the University of Maine, while a student, to test New England lakes for acidity levels. When I read the study I saw how they skewed the test to obtain the results that could only say acid rain in a problem. I challenged the presiding professor. Sure enough He admitted that they needed to prove that acid rain is problematic only because they were up for a ten million dollar grant. They confirmed, based upon my sample collections, they were going to submit fraudulent test results to the EPA purely to gain funding. When I refused to sign off on their skewered test results, I was promptly fired. How many other false narratives have Universities created solely to pocket from the government?
this should be made into a documentary or least broadcast on the news... even better, go talk to Rogan for 3 hours.
Yeah but...trust the science right?
How many? More than likely every university multiple times since the beginning of time. 👌👌👌🤟
That's fucked, wow...
Well, you need to make that public, otherwise they will keep on doing what they're doing unchallenged.
When I was a teenager (in the early 70's) everyone was convinced there was going to be another ice age.
Totally wrong. Head up butt.
Good point. We are actually headed back into an Ice Age. the last one covered New York in 2 MILES THICK ICE. Should be here in the next 1000 years or so. How will we adapt to that?
@@MichaelFurniss Are you saying the projections, in the 1970s, were wrong?
The late 1970s had those headlines.
Who had their head up a butt Michael Furniss?
Leonard Nimoy said it, so why hasn't come true?
Dave Turner: In the early seventies, cars still had carburetors and came with 8-track tape players. Research has moved on.
12 years later.... still here.
No matter what happens, drama queens will make sure it gets even worse.
My wife and I can't decide on the optimal temp on our home thermostat. I don't hold much hope for the whole of humanity being in agreement.
The battles that causes in our household 🙄
Told my wife, you can answer the door in a sweater or I can answer it in my boxers. 😂
@@ricksmith1673 just a joke mate.
When the American bread basket migrates north to Canada, coastal towns are flooding, and we're dealing with mass climate migration... Maybe you and your wife will have figured it out
@@Thaco69 we'll have a billion years to sort it out then. I'm from Scotland by the way. I welcome climate change.
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned." - Richard Feynman.
You can question climate change if you provide sound arguments.
@@AdrienBurg
CO2/plant food is only a problem in corrupt, fraudulent computer models.
Well, here is an answer that cannot be questioned… the whole climate scam is a lie.. pollution in the air actually helps to make it rain.. that’s why Europe and US are now suffering from droughts…
The only time it rains in these countries is when the atmosphere is filled with volcanic ash or sand particles from the Sahara… other wise the air is too clean for moisture to form into raindrops..😏
" There are plenty of reasons for failure, but no excuses" R E Leahey. Circa 1979
@@Kgio-2112
Are you saying we shouldn't fail when it comes to the CO2/plant food scare?
The CO2/plant food scare is about income redistribution/socialism, nothing more. Former IPCC chair Ottmar Edenhofer said as much.
We are not worried we are worried that they want co.2 decreased from 0.04 percent to the point where plants fail to thrive which is .02 percent
Yeh co2 is actually pretty low right now, 400ppm isn’t much
We actually need to double that. And reduce methane. @@RE4L72
@@RE4L72 Thats fine if we are ready to move the population from areas that become to wet or too dry but most people dont want mass migration. 350ppm might be a better fit for what we want but we are already at 423ppm now.
"Dishonesty"- this MIT professor said it
Government money is the main driver of rising hysteria over a crisis that will amount to nothing. Climate trends up and down, doomsday is not defined by eithier of them.
This feels like a breath of sanity. I have had serious doubts about the agenda behind global warming/climate change dogma since it first appeared, and I consider myself an environmentalist.. clearly there is a concerted effort to have us terrified for reasons unknown. Anyone have any ideas?
guessing.. now you know; Devos club, fascist, global control
Reason #1, Money plain and clear. By terrorizing the public with predictions of global warming and sea levels rising,,,,,,,, it gives our and other governments a reason to tax people. Carbon tax etc. It's all about a so called good reason to tax the general people. But,,,,,, where does the money go?????? Certainly not to any avenue for climate change.
All university science research prof are scared to speak out because of possibly being unemployed for life. In my college years we were writing papers on the upcoming ice age of 2030. Early 1970's. In mine I talked about the 40 to 50 year cycle of temperature change warmer or colder
When a volcano like Mt Helen in Washington is erupting during its peak 5 hours it emits massive amounts of carbon. During the week it was starting it emits carbon. But lets take 30 minutes of the peak. If every car in the US including all 35 of Jay Leno's garage,every old lady who rarely drives, etc were to drive 50000 mikes that year they would have emitted roughly 95 % as much carbon as that 30 minutes. It erupted 5 hours. The volcano in Hawaii erupt almost daily for 10 minutes. So yes we are a factor but by far no where near what nature provides.
@@dalehalbert5816 Glad to hear some truth.
“We’re very sensitive to what politicians SAY & BELIEVE “, that’s a “shortcoming”……UNDERSTATEMENT
People live and die by the lies of absolute fools looking for money and power which is why they are politicians. They don’t care about us
Thats lunacy and comes from somebody who very clearly is spending far more time hanging around politicians than scientists. Thats so crazy its amazing he said it. Politicians come and go all the time. If you are talkiing about FUNDING thats something different,but elected politicians are almost never on funding boards.
True that!
Yeah. So 1700 Scientists around the globe say otherwise? This is just one opinion. Glad you found one you agree with.
Here is an update of what the science has actually said. th-cam.com/video/52KLGqDSAjo/w-d-xo.html
Richard Lindzen worked for the Cato Institute and made a lot of money off the Koch family since 1991!
Therefore wrong? Specious conclusion.
That explains everything. Hope the payoff was high for betraying humanity.
It would be nice to have open discussions about this subject. It's a sensitive subject which shouldn't be politicized imo
It’s being used to manipulate you versus me, of course it will be politicized. Your point of you versus mine, who is right? who cares?
Write Al Gore and ask him if he will have an open discussion or a debate with a person who opposes his view on Climate Change.
@@dangremillion
When Al Gore was born there were about 5,000 polar bears, today only 25,000 remain.
@@ThekiBoran I heard he dated a few in Nashville.
@@ThekiBoran Yes the population is thriving so there going to be all right.
Here's a neat little factoid. Vikings settled in North America (Nova Scotia) during the Medieval Warming Period roughly 950-1260; about 500 years before Columbus "discovered" the New World. It was during this period of "global warming" that the northern oceans became ice free for the first time in centuries. This period of "warming" allowed the Vikings to colonize and grow crops in previously frozen areas of Greenland and Nova Scotia. During that period, the North West Passage, the northern most route to the Pacific, was also ice free; and it is believed by many historians and researchers that the Vikings actually passed from the Atlantic to the Pacific in their "Long Ships" and explored the West Coast as far south as California. Ah...those were the days when men were men!
After the passing of about 360 years, the cold temps, ice and snow returned and the tough Norsemen were forced to abandon their colonies as crops could no longer be grown or cattle grazed.
You know, it's all about the "Big Picture" - not about dissecting some micro-spec on a timeline miles long. This is about the Green-Progressives moving to control every aspect of our lives ,and society, by weaponizing the Warmest meme.
Cant agree with you about "many" historians. DEFINITELY agree with you about a time in history when it wasnt against the "law" to be masculine. The language of your posts last sentence was BRILLIANT.
It isn't "Green Progressives" doing what you say. Rather, thousands of reputable scientists have been studying this for a long time, and their collective assessment is that man-made climate change is real.
Your comment about Green-Progressives moving to control every aspect of our lives makes me think you are into conspiracy theories.
andyiswonderful Ok then,...so the government isn't messing with the weather patterns?...ever ? Whew!😰...that's totally some good news!
andyiswonderful he's not the only one, go back through history, scare mongering by govts has been around for sooo long!!
andyiswonderful PS Many, many real scientists, whi aren't govt funded to produce the 'right' results for them, would disagree that any global weather change is man made!!!!
Can't believe that the Boston Globe actually aired this. Not everyone has been bought out.
Mad respect to Boston Globe
Me too!
I watched this video because I try to avoid confirmation bias. He said the earth is always changing, can't argue with that. You still need to take those changes into account.. If you own a home in the desert and your well goes dry it does not matter if the cause is natural, man made or little green men came down from Mars and took your water in the middle of the night your well is still dry.
The aquifer your well draws from was probably sucked dry by a Las Vegas desert golf course. What could be "more natural"?
The problem is that politicians take, "was probably", turn it into dogma for their militant base and sycophantic media, and pass laws that give gov goons the legal authority to assault peaceable ppl.
He denies the changes are more rapid than we have ever experienced
@@libearl828 that doesn’t mean they were manmade.
@@goldwingdwarrior No, and nor does it mean they aren't manmade.
He casts doubt on everything, impugns motives, and closes with policy changes will hurt people.
The status quo would be a solution to data that shows status quo. It doesn't.
"how dare you" ... Gretta voice
😆😆😆
Lolololol😂
In 2018 she said we have 5 years left. She had to take down post this year
"It's a bad idea to have anything that can't be challenged." Beautifully said, sir.
This is my whole problem with the anthropogenic climate change people. Environmental Authoritarianism is every bit as evil as its political cousin!
Perfectly said. tyvm
This is the very essence of the climate change religion. You must believe! Yet how many ex politicians have huge houses right on the ocean?
@@search4truth104 Truth!
Spoken like a true flat-Earther.
@@grahamyates2490 Being an "Oblate spheroid," Earth is anything but flat.
Unfortunately, the "science" backing up climate change is almost non-existent! It's mostly computer projection modeling. There's certainly not nearly enough "real science" to predict ANY outcome, since we've only been keeping climate records for around 150 years---a mere blip in geological time.
So, please save the whining and crying about how it's "Settled Science!"
How come we can’t see the likes??? I find this very interesting and I like to be knowledgeable in this topic 👍👍
I can't even give a like , what's going on ?
That's how commies CONTROL you.
12 years later and this is randomly recommended to me.
Same here lmao find it really interesting that now this is resurfacing. Almost like someone's trying to calm us down even though all the evidence is pointing that alarmism is something that's warranted
The guy is working for Chevron. The huxter says that the government drives the science while getting a payoff from The Koch Foundation.@@rileyboyer3582
The USA, was covered in a glacial sheet of ice across our Northern borders 10,000 years ago. The ice for some reason melted and receded to the north. Those glaciers carved out our Great lakes and their melting filled them with trillions of gallons of fresh water. So the real conundrum is, what made them melt? Who was burning all the fossil fuels that heated up the planet? Or, can we assume these events are cyclical?
Skip Rocker Exactly right!!!
Just the thought of burning fossil fuels scared the ice into melting.
Buffalo farts....
Skodaman2 Funny!!
I'll bet it was the Russians. Or perhaps White Privilege.
I'm going to be very upset if at least 20% of the USA isn't underwater in 12 years. Especially San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland.
Miami will be first. Boston next. Louisiana is already pretty fkd.
Don't forget New York and California I'd love to see those fukers underwater
Communism is worlds apart from democratic socialism, dickhead.
@@biggav7434 No it isn't fuckstick. You are all a bunch of thieves that think it's OK to steal from your fellow citizens to get your "free stuff."
@John Everlast I'm happy that many of them stay where they are rather than moving to sane states. But unfortunately, many of your ilk do move and they bring their communist ideology with them. Leftists like you are a blight on humanity.
Talk to airline captains that have been flying over northern latitudes for the past 30 years. "Nothing has changed"
Whenever i hear a politician talking about global warming, the first question that comes to mind is, what is the temperature of the earth supposed to be? Like this guy pointed out, the planet’s temperature has changed over its existence. Which temperature is ‘right’?
Right temperature for who? Humans? Penguins? Trout? Inuit? Alligators? There is no one-size fits all temperature. The right one for humans would be one that didn't melt icecaps, raise sea levels, intensify hurricanes and increase drought, extreme precipitation events and wildfires.
you grouped Inuit with trout and alligators. @@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
The one we had before industrialization please.
The "right" temperature is one where life can continue unimpeded. The rate of change of the temperature is the problem due to humans burning fossil fuels, because life can't adapt quickly enough, and many things die out/degrade/etc.
Consensus does not always equate to truth.
A good example of faulty consensus---Billions of people believe that God created the Universe in seven days. I rest my case!
That's about the most sensible 5 minutes of video I've ever seen. Thank you!
@Zarion 11 You know you have been lied to. Yes, even about what is sane and rational, and what is insane and irrational.
Ignorance is bliss?
@@Nhoj737 You tell me...
@@rixpix2957 “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.
If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition.
So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html
@@Nhoj737 While I appreciate all of that info, I would never make such a comment without having researched the very sources you've indicated here.
I will gladly checkout the link you kindly left in your comment and let you know what I think of you'd like.
However, I'll just make this one point before doing so:
Each organization you listed here from top to bottom are all funded, staffed and are obliged to file results, which fit particular narratives(political and otherwise) of the financiers that sponsor them. That goes for government agencies as well.
it always has happened but currently we are expediting it and worrying does not do any good but IT IS time to not listen to someone telling you not to
To say that the climate is always changing and so there is no problem is incomplete thinking! The question is whether humans are affecting the natural processes that would normally occur. In particular, are we causing the climate to change faster than it would otherwise? If humans cause the climate to change in 100 years as much as it would normally change in 50,000 years (or more!) -- might not that be a problem? It's true that humans are adaptable, and life in general is adaptive --- but if the change is too fast, plants and animals cannot adapt quickly enough, they go extinct.
Time has a way of letting truth become more obvious.
Love that people with almost any opinion can agree with this one 😁
www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU
Jack Gray I was first told about climate change by one of my primary school teachers in the 60’s, he MUST have been a part of the early Ecology Movement to be that aware back then. He said scientists didn’t know if the pollution would trap the heat and cause a greenhouse effect, or the opposite and stop the Suns heat from passing into our atmosphere, thereby causing an Ice Age instead. Back then in the 60’s it wasn’t obvious which way it would go, as we was still getting regular heavy Snowfalls in winter in London. But since the 80’s it has become obvious that CO2 and other ghg gasses are trapping the heat and have caused a warming effect.
So yeah, let's find out if the world burns by letting the world burn. So the few remaining survivors can stand over the ashes and say "ha, the burning Earthers were right!".
Why the terrible fear of doing something? We have to change eventually since fossil fuels are a finite resource. The reason is just different. Instead of waiting until the last coal is dug out and the last drop of petroleum is sucked out we'll change because of the risk of climate change.
Lenard Segnitz Actually I don’t think they will run out of Oil before the whole earth is polluted, as more Oil is being found all the time, the idea that we have to change before it runs out is ludicrous. We are already on a mass extinction path and they still have decades of known Oil ‘reserves’.
"When you hear a scientist saying 'the science is settled', you know that person has stepped out of the science."
Alternatively, the experts who are in agreement that it IS real have a good reason to say so. We don't assume they're wrong just because we wish it were the case, we follow evidence and draw observations from that evidence. If we operated under your method humanity would still assume that miasmas caused disease and illness.
th-cam.com/video/paf2pJtaXYE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/c1dnlHPzhQA/w-d-xo.html
You'd apply this to the Law of Gravity?
@@92belisarius Thank you for the question mark at least. No, of course not. The specific, incredibly complex science in question is CLIMATE science. That's what he's referring to with "THE science". We know a lot, but not near everything. Tens of thousands of variables, many of which we don't perfectly understand, many of which we can't possibly predict (such as solar activity), and a countless number of which are unknown ("countless" by definition).
If your disingenuous question is the best response you've got, well, I don't know what to tell you. You obviously have no sense of the complexity and chaos of reality. "We know A, therefore B, therefore C"... and all the way through to Z. That's what you guys do, with no intuitive sense of how much complexity and unpredictability is added with each "therefore". Absolutely no sense of how totally in over your heads you are at C, let alone Z... It's ridiculous. But I'm a realist, and I know this won't get through to you. I know the only thing that will convince you people of the folly of your doomsday alarmism is time. So I'm willing to wait. That's all I can do. Sit back and wait, while rolling my eyes. (But please, don't let me poop your panic party. Proceed...)
@@laseronion The people you are responding arent worth what you wrote. They are imbeciles and can not step out of the box to view different variables that disprove or meet half way with global warming.
@@DonkeyLipsDA3rd I assume they're pretty young, and that their over-simple way of viewing reality is something they have a good chance of growing out of. I remember buying into the scientifically "guaranteed" doomsday predictions of my youth. Time taught me, time will teach them (unless they get into careers that benefit from pushing the scariest narrative, i.e. politics, media, academia, etc; when money is at stake, it's tough to be objective).
The only thing we know for sure, is that we don't know anything for sure.
And that the IPCC knows even less ... th-cam.com/video/uU6apI31BMo/w-d-xo.html
But you can be reasonably sure, which you have to be to do anything (why do you eat, if you don't know for sure you're going to starve?)... Also, if the stakes are really high you should calculate more on safety's side... Kinda like pascal's wager, but real
Al Gore lives in a Ocean side Mansion, he is not a true believer........Let us Pray!
Gore's wife got the beachfront property after she caught him cheating on her and divorced him. Gore is such a drut and full of horse manure.
You can't blame Gore, if he lived inland, too many neighbors would complain about the sulfur stench!
@John Franklin Gore made million$ selling his phony carbon offsets, many of those payments made to his own companiies. He flew his nearly-empty private jet to a climate conference in Switzerland! He should be in prision for theft and fraud.
@John Franklin Exactly right!!
His property is 150 feet above sea level.
probably one of the best videos on TH-cam, and only 400,000 views in 12 years. please share this. youtube obviously doesn't like truth.
Some people make comments posing the terms "global warming" and "climate change" as if they were somewhat conflicting, a result of scientists having to tweak the terminology in order to adjust it to facts that don't fit. But "warming" is a mechanism/phenomenon, itself a climatic change, and it does not cause only warming evenly spread through the globe, but other forms of climatic changes (like weather patterns and even more localized cold weather, such as with weakened, fragmented polar vortexes). For those who think "climate change" was adopted trying to "fix things" that didn't fit warming, I suggest searching for what IPCC means and when it was coined. Regarding "cooling," although many blogs highlight some headlines on the popular press about it, it was a relatively minor scientific debate, and not exactly disputing the mainstream, only suggesting that particulate pollution presented the risk of not only attenuating the warming from added greenhouse gases, but even cooling. It was ultimately empirically proven to be false, and likely even highly disputed at the merely theoretical level, although the mechanism itself is also real and in fact modulates the planet's temperature.
Actually, Global Warming is the rise in global average temperature, while climate change refers to the ecological and hydrological disruptions. Both terms are still in use and refer to the effect of CO2, it's just that climate change encompasses significantly more of the issue than global warming.
@@Pistolita221 one would imagine that these days some of those old, tirelessly beaten arguments, would have been gone. Apparently even some big influential contrarians' media companies are now like, "my bad, AGW is actually real, and bad," with whatever minor or big "but" that there may be after that. But I fool myself. With apparently a recent rise in people doubting the planet is round, one would even expect CC-related stuff going backwards even more. After all, one could even be saying that the "global" in "global warming" is even a foundational problem as "there's no globe."
This man just wants to make a point and takes everything it can to proof its point.
And he can, of course, becouse everything has a good, a bad side And The Golden Middle way of Balance.
Here are the Takeaways:
1. "The temperature of the earth is always changing. It's always going up or down." Which is why they had to change the Boogeyman from "The Coming Ice Age!" and "Global Warming!" to "Climate Change!" And yes, the exclamation points are part of the logos.
2. "By asking people to worry about whether it's going up or down you are immediately establishing dishonesty."
3. "The climate is always changing. It's nothing you have to prove. It always is happening. It's always has happened." Climate change is nothing new or unique or even alarming.
4. "So to make that [climate change] into something alarming seems a little bit weird."
5. "The trouble is, all of us scientists are government employees. Even if we're working for private universities. All research is supported by the government. As such, we are very sensitive to what politicians say and believe."
6. "You know when you hear a scientist say, "The science is settled," you know that person has stepped out of the science."
7. "How could do many people agree if it wasn't true," I think should be a red flag."
8. When it's conflated, "Temperature is changing. Climate is changing. Man played some role... With predictions of disaster that are clearly not connected to warming activities or anything else, leaving people with the thought that off the first part is true the second part must be true, is certainly not the case."
9. "Then to add insult to injury, to propose policies that would have nothing to do with any of it, but involve trillions of dollars in harm to many people, I think, is crossing over the line."
Thank you for this.
And all in the name of profit.
To say "the temperature of the earth is always changing" says nothing about the certain reality of rapid global warming and is nothing more than an obtuse dodge.
#6
@@michaelmckinney7240
Wrong. Global temperatures were dropping in the 60s and 70s (An Ice Age is Coming! We're all going to die! I actually LEARNED THIS lie in 6th grade science!). Then there was slight increase for a few years (The Planet is Overheating! We're all going to die!). Then there was a long pause of about 20 years (well passed the 2006. The DEADline Al Gore have for when the planet would be irretrievably in its death spiral). Now they've settled on telling us that the climate changing AT ALL its going to kill us all!
Ten years later, the National Review wrote an article celebrating our survival!
www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again/
Here it is, sixteen years after our prophesied demise and YOU'RE STILL HERE!
That's the only song enviromaniacs know how to play. Everything is about to end all life on this planet. SOON!
Forty-two times in the past 60 years, environmentalists have predicted world-decimating disasters and NONE OF THEM have come to pass! Not ONE had happened. You all are 0-42!
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. But no way are you going to lie to me 42 times and get away with it.
A fantastic 5 minute talk. I wish more people would have his calm, scientific attitude. And his comments about how all research is funded by the government should start a very interesting conversation about how we can try to decouple politics from science.
This a "DON'T LOOK UP" moment.
@@morenofranco9235 this is an idiot
@@morenofranco9235 THEY make movies and shows like that to mock us
and here we are. Warmest June ever
@@matthiasg4843 the point he is making is that the man made contributions are minor. the earth has been a great deal warmer before
"All Models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Box.
Well, I've been thinking about this for a while, would you think about "Global warming" if there was no newspapers, tv, radio, or social media. Probably not, it's just weather and it changes and so do global climates, well before humans evolved. Great video. 👍
Well, you could wait until sea level rise inundates your city or town and learn the news that way. Or wait for an epic downpour that floods half of your state and causes $67 billion in damage like Hurricane Harvey did over Texas. You could wait for a wildfire to burn down your house or you could grouse about high food prices when expanding droughts destroy agriculture. According to the UN, major environmental disasters nearly doubled over the last 20 years. Should they double again before we start paying heed?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Weather and climate are constantly changing, we could stop building near the coast for starters.
@@WildlifeUKNatureByGlenO The Milankovitch Cycles responsible for global warming in earth's past are not in play today. Neither is the sun, as its output has actually weakened slightly over the past 40 years, according to NASA.
C02 raises global temperature. We know that with 100% certainty. We also know that the excess C02 now in the atmosphere, which started accumulating from the time of the Industrial Revolution, has come directly from the burning of fossil fuels, not nature. Isotopic analysis of the molecules themselves distinguish between the two sources.
Stopping building near the coast is indeed an intelligent idea, and in fact FEMA has redrawn and expanded flood zones throughout the country, which leads to building restrictions. Flood insurance has also skyrocketed in cost over the past five years, scaring some away from waterfront property entirely. The wealthy are hardly deterred, however, as millionaires can easily afford flood insurance and even to build protective seawalls.
The question is, how do we protect the trillions of dollars of real estate already in the path of sea level rise? And who is going to end up paying when the insurance industry defaults on their obligations in the face of catastrophe? Even before Hurricane Ian, Florida homeowners were paying an average of $4000 per year to provide insurance coverage, and that doesn't even include flood insurance.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Well the hottest temoerature ever recorded on this planetvsince official records began was in 1913, it's all over-hyped in my opinion.
@@WildlifeUKNatureByGlenO We don't measure climate change by a single record in a single location. We measure for worldwide trends, taking the entire globe's average over the course of a year, ten years, 20 years and more.
When we do that we find that 19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record while record hot temperatures have been outpacing record cold ones by a two to one margin.
Northern latitudes have warmed the fastest, with the average winter temperature in Alaska rising by 7 degrees over the last 50 years. (Melting ice increases solar insolation by reducing how much sunlight is reflected back to space, which is why the poles heat up faster than lower latitudes.)
This is all important to know, and we wouldn't know it without taking the entire world's temperature over long time spans. All that melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica has to go somewhere, and we need to prepare for that well ahead of time.
"Is the temperature increasing or decreasing.... it's always doing one or the other"...... EXACTLY!!!
Not an an equivalent rate when you take global industrialization into effect. Yes it changes and goes up and down over thousands of years, but the variables have change dramatically since the creation of our new societies. We don't have enough information to say that it's natural. Humans tend to take action only after shit has hit the fan rather than preventing it in the first place.
I know that him saying this reassures you, but he's wrong. His statements are very reductionist and don't even scratch the surface of the real scientific conclusions that are being made about climatology.
See for yourself:
th-cam.com/video/paf2pJtaXYE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/c1dnlHPzhQA/w-d-xo.html
And here are rebuttals to this scientist's statements: skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
onetwothree57 fucking freezing down here on the river Mersey
@@WyattCayer If you don't have enough information to say that it's natural, you therefore do not have enough information to say that it's man made. Basic logic. The climate is probably one of the most complex problems in science. No one really knows how it works exactly. As such, some scientists lazily just plug in CO2 to explain that which we don't fully understand. Primitive men used this same technique throughout history, except they used to gods to explain stuff that they didn't understand.
@@HiDeguild And here is Richard Feynman's rebuttal to the pseudo-scientific claims made by the AGW hypothesis community. th-cam.com/video/tWr39Q9vBgo/w-d-xo.html
Thank you I needed to hear that I hear the sky is falling so many times a day it's crazy.
@Zarion 11 Bullshit
Don't forget, this is a ten years old video, and meanwhile, measurements have show that Lindzen was wrong. He famously predicted that cloud cover would counteract global warming, but this has been disproven by the meansurements. We are currently in the hottest month ever recorded, the predicted warming impacts are occurring in real time all around us. And yet this is just the beginning.
@@dasGagaTier maybe you are in warmest month but we aren't. Mildest summer and coldest winter here in 40 years. You are conflating "weather" and "climate". You are excited to say Lindzen is wrong (I have not yet verified) but u forgot to mention every single one of the 118 alarmist climate models have failed. All of your scientists are not only wrong but as wrong as u can be!
@@jeffwestbrooke279 This is not about local weather but about the global average. Globally it was the hottest month ever since records began. That doesn't mean that there weren't places with snow and ice.
Which "118 climate alarmist climate models" are you referring to? Actually climate science has a stunningly good track record. Take for instance Hansen's 1989 temperature forecast for a scenario with linear C02 growth. That's the scenario that became reality. And the increase in temperature he predicted for today three decades ago is pretty much exactly what we see. If you have examples of failed predictions, bring them on.
@@dasGagaTier
th-cam.com/video/AFPRMV2p5cY/w-d-xo.html
There are 3 main factors to consider...
1. Milankovich cycles.
2. Solar activity...
3. The Atlantic Meridianal Overturning Circulation.
These three things combine to create global climate effects.
Also, in all likelihood, cosmic background fluctuations as well, as presented in astrophysicist Nigel Calder’s book “The Chilling Stars”.
Also carbon emissions from fossil fuel use @@michaelschramm1064
Believe it or not, we measure these things 🤯🤯. They cannot account for the kinds of temperatures that we are seeing. The only way to get models to be precise is to incorporate CO₂ emissions.
I honestly don’t worry because of falling birth rates in developed countries. Like who are we to tell developing countries what to do?
when you get to a certain depth , the water temp. has not changed in thousands of years.
water raises with many things like he says...including expansion of heating the top layer , goes up and down with time....global change is normal...
It is wise to ask what model of ethical , economic, ecological and emotional intelligence you are using in response to the U.S. gov 13 agency warning. Can you tell me what school you went to . You should warn others they did not properly educate you in critical thinking. Then again that is the way gov control their population by not educating them. Adding giga tonnes of CO2 is not normal Didn't any one tell you that
SORRY TO USE TRUTH ..lol
PS...i live by the sea..has not risen in 70 years that i have been here..dumb ass....hahaha www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html
thanks for the thumbs up
@@Gordonz1 1. CO2 is plant food. 2. CO2 does not cause the world to magically heat up. In fact it does the exact opposite. 3. The world has actually been gradually cooling down, we are on the cusp of another Ice Age.
Is that why the Corral Reefs are dying and there is no more salmon runs in the north pacific. Dont believe me. Ask people who go up there to fish.
worry is interest paid on trouble that has not occurred ;-)
Right, and you pay it with loss of energy.
on a debt you may not owe ;)
@@jacksnyder5526 you are absolutely right.
p mor, Many (60+) years ago my grandmother taught me a very wise lesson. She said that "Worry is Interest on a Loan that you don't Owe" and I have lived that axiom since. Stress Kills, Worry Creates Stress, simple.
Paying interest on borrowed trouble.
This aged well, right?
This should be showed everywhere as its still relevant now as these psychopaths are terrorising years young
To give you an idea of how insane some of these people are, back in 2008 they predicted NYC would be underwater by 2015
Back in the 80's they said the Westside highway would be underwater by 2008. I guess that makes my car a submarine.
And Fiji would not exist. It must have been a ghost country we visited last summer
Link?
@@jordanwolff5243 Here you go...
www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june
So New York was not underwater by now-Houston was. Hey genius, why are these Gulf storms getting more numerous and stronger every year? Can't be that the oceans are getting warmer and holding more energy-hell no.
It’s great to hear some calm common sense for a change.
Lindzen has been debunked by 22 of his fellow MIT professsors and the entire 99.9% consensus of the world's climate scientists.
„It’s not dangerous to drink 5 liters of vodka in a sitting, people have always drank alcohol and we are still alive“
A lot of people commenting here would be really mad if they weren't too dumb to understand this comment
Before anyone criticizes him, let them become MIT professor emeritus in meteorology and Harvard professor like he his. Then you can talk...
No, it's good enough to point at qualified people, like the IPCC or NASA or ministries of ecology all around the world
A truther. You can tell. He's speaks in calm, measured tones. On it goes...the Awakening.
This guy is paid by oil companies
@@chrisashe9277 really?
@@TheHorsebox2 the company we know for sure to have paid him is a coal company, peabody energy. but that might be the tip of the iceberg. we only know that peabody paid him because peabody filed for bankruptcy protection and had to show how it was using its funds. normally these companies are able to fund people like lindzen secretly.
Very wise thoughts that will no doubt be ignored by mainstream media.
Safe to say since this was from 12 years agon...
Richard S Lindzen is one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists alive and has made important contributions to dynamic meteorology. Back in the 1970s his papers were required reading during my PhD studies. I'm not surprised about his views on climate change; he has never held back in speaking out about theories he disagrees with. Climate change is a complex subject and one needs to keep up with new developments but despite no longer working professionally in atmospheric physics I feel that, knowing his arguments against in far more detail than presented here, I am still definitely not a denier of the facts.
"Richard S Lindzen is one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists alive...." Uh, actually, no one cites Lindzen as an expert in any science field.
With respect, you need to do some research on Linden's career because i think you would find that he is one of the most quoted atmospheric physicists, especially when he was working out the theory of atmospheric tides back in the 1960s, but he has made important contributions since then and has been an adviser to several high level politicians.@@Desertphile
So what would his response be to the concern about the build-up CO2 emissions in the atmosphere and what I come with it?
Plant trees!
Milder temperatures and more clouds. More rain! More plant food! Plants were on a path to extinction before the industrial revolution.
It's hard to tell what's true in this situation, but we can't forget about pollution. Pollution is also an important issue!
Watch "Climate Changers" by Cilmateviewers
Oh it definitely is a major concern! But Co2 is not a pollutant! But the manufacture and disposal of wind turbine,Solar panels and EVs is the most polluting they that has ever been on earth?
Then why on earth are we using catalytic converters to change harmless compounds into chain molicuals that the enviroment can not break down?
@@terenceiutzi4003 also the earth is much more greener now as a result of more Co2 , more vegetation , better crops , according to Professor Freeman Dyson
Prof. Lindzen: a lot of mentions of his works in Prof. Holton's "An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology"!
100 degree sea water Today . Fires raging , 107 at my house. UV index @ 10.5 hmm usually 11 .
People in fear don't think clearly. Peace comes by knowing truth and sharing love through forgiveness.
and Being Humane instead of Personally Identified. (::)
This man needs to be interviewd on fox news IMMEDIATLY
You demonstrate profound ignorance here. Was that your intention?
Great, fake news and fake science belong together.
😬
He's been on numerous platforms, but the MSM has bought into the change and science is settled narrative, so they want no dissent
TAX TO FEED THE CENTRAL BANKERS
Tax on the poor and the stupid!
Pardon me? If we are talking about big money, what we have to talk about are the big fossil fuel companies, who fund climate change denial.
yes, the bankers and kin always working to get more money. they are now going to become fools.. too many are waking up to their lameness. may they all drown.
@@flyingchariot9080 How is any of that related to global warming? NB, the big money is still in fossil fuels
@Dander Spat "a non existent problem"? What do you make of the fact that Greenland is now loosing 250 gigatonnes of ice per year, that the disappearance of Arctic glaciers impacts 1.5 billion people who depend on them? That coral bleeching has already destroyed more than half of the Great Barrier Reef? That wildfires in the Arctic have reached apocalyptic dimensions? That Arctic sea ice is down to a fraction of what it used to be some decades ago etc. These are not forecast or predictions. These things are happening right now. And this is just the beginning.
Deeply underwhelming. He doesn't engage with any of the specific evidence from physics, isotopes, glacial melt, sea level rise, satellites, atmospheric circulation, ice cores, or climate modelling. If anyone thinks this interview is some kind of gotcha they need higher standards of evidence. Please watch a video by Simon Clark, Potholer54, or read some science publications.
There are so many young people paranoid the world is ending every time the wind blows they think it has never happened before.
Peolple aren’t talking about what happened in the last thousand years as you’ve stated !!!! They’re concerned about what has and is happening since the industrial revolution !!!
Which is exactly the same thing that's been happening for the last thousand years.
@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 understood yes of course but it's at the rate at which the levels are rising, specifically CO2. This we can see clearly (from core samples) that has everyone concerned...well at least most of the scientific community anyway or enough people that we can try and make a difference even if it is at the huge / expense / economic cost but I'd rather take that approach than sitting back and two generations from now (or less) tell us what a bunch of lame brains we were from this time period our generation (well some of us) for sitting back and saying "there's no need to fear"..... i think we can all agree mankind has had a huge effect on on the environment, its a debate as to how much it has an effect on the planet, and to what level or you willing to go to economically to cause the least amount of harmful effect, I do not want to leave a planet that's all used up, this is all we have, to big a risk to take.....respectfully
If only more people were subjected to this common sense, maybe we could end this global hysteria about global warming.
Who is this guy flappin his lips!?
Intellectual Sasquatch Oi
do you know what the North Atlantic gyre is? does your common sense cover that piece of knowledge?
Last two years. Hello?
This a "DON'T LOOK UP" moment.
common sense that, ironically, none of his colleagues agree with. people suggest that climate scientists are somehow in it for the money, but it's Lindzrn that is collecting $30,000 fees for single speaking engagements and is a part of the cato institute, the people who professionally protect the oil industry by introducing doubt where none truly exists re: our role in climate change vis a vis fossil fuels.
Lindzen doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself
Accidental ASMR video right here.
12 years ago this vid was put on yt, we are still here and it's cold in may.
No climate scientists ever said we'd be dead by now. And a cold May where you live is not a proxy for the entire world's May. They just had a record heatwave in India and Pakistan and record heat just struck the south of the U.S.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 yes we would be boiled now, under water or frozen.
But hey if you believe this shit. Go throw a cat over board.
Briiliance in any endeavor always has 2 characteristics associated with it-- straightforwardness and simplicity. Brilliant people answer questions and explain things very directly, and the explanations often sound very simple because a lot of work went into constructing the details of those explanations.
This man and what he says in this video are brilliant.
This man is plainly full of horseshit, and his publication by the Globe proves it. For every one of this guy I can find you 99 who disagree with him. And we're supposed to believe HIM??
A great impressing and wonderful man! Here in germany the green politic destroys anything. The landscape with this ugly power wind milles. And the people with the shit they are talking!
We never had such unbelievable bad politicians in power in the last seventy years! Idiots at his best!
Well said!
This man will have to eat his words. Soon.
@Hercule Poirot That’s reality you’re sensing in my tone. The Earth has been destroyed.
TH-cam working hard with their little global warming disclaimer up above.
And now we will get lot of other climate denial videos proposed by TH-cam robots
The TH-cam algorithm doesn't give a fig about the science one way or another. It's tuned to keep people clicking on videos. It turns out that generating outrage is the best way keep people interested.
jason winklbauer It shows they are afraid of the truth.
Just like their COVID and Biden disclaimers.
Just ignore it.
Some of the predictions of climate change include: an increase in the incidence of wildfires, glaciers retreating, rising sea levels, an increase in the number and severity of hurricanes, ocean temps increasing..... all have occurred. Lindzen is very accomplished. He has also taken large amounts of money from coal companies and the Cato Institute. He has also pushed back on the connection between smoking and lung cancer
Back in the 90's George H. Bush and the GOP acknowledged that human activity contributed greatly to the change in climate. Exxon also produced an intensive study that also confirmed human activity and climate change. That should make us wonder what changed in the political discourse from the Right. I think that following the donations from oil and coal could give an indication
So basically you would rather believe a politician than a scientist? What if the other party had said those things, would you believe it then? How much money have those made that are promoting climate change? Even Greta Thunberg is now a millionaire (gives it all away but keeps a couple of million back for "expenses" apparently).
There are many things that can be explained there that have nothing to do with global warming. Arson is known to be one of the biggest causes of wildfires, and "accidental" triggers like dropped cigarette ends. But you never hear that when they're reporting them on the news. Glaciers retreating? NASA said that the Antarctica was getting colder because the glaciers were growing. The earth is known to tilt slightly over time, that could be why temperatures change in different areas, why it's now colder in Antarctica and warmer in the North.
Where I live the sea level has never changed, there are water level markers that are the same as they were when I arrived in the area 45 years ago. Maybe the sea level doesn't change where I am, who knows? Storms differ all the time, I remember the worst storm ever in the UK was in the 1950s when over 200 died. That was 70 years ago. I've seen the waves frozen as they came over the rails, that was 50 years ago. What he says makes a hell of a lot of sense, and I'll guarantee that in another 100 years nothing will have changed.
he,s right, dont worry about it, but do get on with adapting and limiting the impact on humans.
WE'RE ARRRRRL DOOOOOMED. As Private Fraser would have exclaimed.
He,s right I used to live in a place which was 150 years ago under the sea.
Possibly holland.
@Smarmy Fellow Bikini Bottom. Where Sponge Bob lives. (i'm being sarcastic)
Its a funny thing how simple this man is. Such a simple truth. I think we all know this. what many people don't know if that much of the earths water is below the surface. I like this guy but it will cause much of the woke community to go nuts.
Lindzen has been roundly debunked by 22 of his fellow MIT professors and the entire 99.9% consensus. See Climate MIsinformation by Source: Richard Lindzen, at the SkepticalScience website. The "informed" community is not the "woke" community, by the way. People who are scientifically literate are well-read and know how to fact-check and vet their sources before they believe them. Did you fact-check Lindzen before you believed him?
This Man is talking as if he has a patent of the truth.... where as scientist have the difficulty of trying to find proof for their theories....
but what they often come up with is a revelation of the true nature of things... but if you want to know everything before taking magers,
is like waiting to act until you opend Pandora's box before taking danger seriously
He is 100% right and after 9yeas more and more think like him
100% wrong**
This video is 11 years old, and time is proving him right on his way of thought.
Greta Dumberg was not even born then.
Truth doesn't change
HOW SO????
Hard to change what is truly unknown 🤷🏻♂️
We know that. Next up, try to get the Liberals on board with this.
This video was difficult to find. It (YT) claimed I was not online, but after watching this serious speaker Professor Lindzen, I will check elsewhere what he says more recently. I do this following the dangerous move by German politicians yesterday putting in place new laws which would make life drastically different, and be a billion euro industry. Money, not science drives the final decision. As a scientist with 40 years experience and an environmentalist for 50 years, I see the greed for money by the elite to be controlling what the headlines are.
2023 03 30 08:50
Thank you TH-cam for providing context 😉
Regardless of what the climate is doing, we can be sure we will respond to it badly. We are much more concerned with money and tribal/political rivalries than we are with actually fixing problems.
I imagine a future in which we force the climate back and forth from one extreme to the other, mismanaging it like we do our economy, because it's profitable and politically-useful to ALWAYS have it too hot, or too cold, or too wet, or too dry...
So you are suggesting we do nothing? the problem is the scale of the system we are working on works on a multi-generational timeframe and it'll be the next generation dealing with what we are doing (or more to the point 'not doing'), rather than the systems that you are talking about... and hey, it planetary stability we are talking about... not just the 'economy'.
Thanks for your ridiculous vision of the future based on fkn nothing but the noises between your ears.
When you have someone who claims not to worry, but doesn't make a single attempt to rebut any of the evidence, that should be a red flag.
When you are trying to convince sheep you dont need logic.
Seems to me he did rebut the evidence for the things he's talking about. What should he rebut in your view? He said temperatures are changing (does not challenge this) but challenges the categorical claims that 'life as we know it will cease to exist' inevitably follow as a result of this temperature change.
@@dalenewton9697 He created strawmen, and easily knocked them down. This wouldn't impress anyone who has actually looked at the evidence.
@@dalenewton9697 FIrst off no one said all life would parish. And are you suggesting climate science has denied global weather changes prior to the industrial revolution? It seems there are lots of people on here that do not understand how to look at research.
@@bathtubgin404 There are plenty of influential people talking about an impending 'existential crisis' from climate change. This involves somewhere between a lot of life perishing and all life perishing, depending on your understanding of 'existential'. I've heard politians talking about life coming to an end as well. I can't find what he says here about Ban-ki Moon but Moon did say "We are the last generation that can fight climate change" which is kind of a dogma as well, as this is not a categorical conclusion that is warranted by the models at all! I take what he says in this video as a critique of that kind of over-simplification of the problem. Politicians and the intelligentsia are all bought off by someone so perhaps he has an agenda or conflict of interest, but I must say I find his views here logical.
We are adaptable ? Do we have the tech to remove cities which are next to the water fast enough ?
There's a relation to solar plasma, but there's also a climatic regulation from the ecosystem depending on the climatic zone. And there's a relation between the earth plasma sphere and solar plasma. There's an electromagnetic relation and subtil levels that most scientists don't care to mesure or study. The fact that they can barely explain neutrinos, black holes and plasma should lead people to question themselves. States of bodies change, water included, few scientists are competent and ethic enough to be able to explain what seems complex but which is most evident. They do exist though, that's why we shouldn't loose hope in science, we have our responsability in it, it's also a personal procedure and a step.
ah, its the old question wether climate problematic is manmade...
may i ask you one question, and there is no need to understand or use science, to answer this:
if the climate is changing and soon will lead into major problems in agriculture or water suply, and there is an (more or less) easy way to counteract this, should we then get up of our butts and take these actions ? or should we just relay on something like god instead ?
@@rudistoph1140 I don't think you fully understand the consequences of doing something about climate change..in the way we're being led...
Look at the orchestrated mess with our energy needs at the moment.
Any time humans try to play god with their environment we cause a disaster.. We jump in without due diligence..
Climate change policy is pushed by the establishment and extremely wealthy for power and influence, not to save the earth or help us in any way...
You have failed the Turing test
Nice to hear an expert have the same sentiments I’ve had for years about this climate change religion. M not worried. Haven’t been since acid rain and holes in the ozone. Haven’t been since I’ve been wise enough to see through the blatant grabs for power, control and money by climate alarmist politicians and scientists. It hasn’t bothered me since I’ve seen that everything those climate clowns do to stem the CO2 tide is largely ineffective while the areas of the greatest possible change go ignored or intentionally unaltered. What does worry me is that most people believe this nonsense because they can’t observe and think for themselves and what the manipulators plan to do with this ruse.
We resolved our acid rain problems by passing legislation that required scrubbers to be placed on industry smokestacks. We resolved our ozone hole problem by banning CFCs. Both environmental issues would continue to be problems if we had done nothing. So go on not worrying, Cory. Someone more responsible and better informed will do the worrying and heavy lifting for you.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 lmao guy, ok. I understand that there have been real solutions to real problems in the past. Catalytic converters on cars, elimination of leaded fuels, closed PCV systems instead of draft tubes are all proven effective solutions as are the scrubbers you mention. The low hanging fruit has been picked though. But beyond what we’ve already done on our shores, until China and India are held to any standard regarding their output then nothing else will change. Until money finally has less pull than pollution regarding trans oceanic shipping I’ll have some concern. Until we quit globalizing everything, shutting down oil production in this country forcing us to ship from around the globe further increasing carbon output into the atmosphere, quit moving manufacturing to China where they don’t give a damn what they put into the air and then also have to ship that junk they produce around the globe to our shores I’ll give a rat’s ass. Instead of going for real solutions they go for feel good/ do nothing solutions. So I’ll let someone else waste their time and emotions in giving a shit. Meanwhile climate alarmists like Barack Obama buy 10 million dollar beachfront mansions in the face of “rising” sea levels and banks finance them and insurance insures them. Because they’re all in the business of losing money? Right. When the actions of alarmists start pointing to real alarm maybe then it’ll be real. Until I see real concern and not just manipulation then I’ll make room for it. Until then they’re all lying, cheating dogs and you’re just part of the pack.
@@coryholbrook4643
1. Barack Obama's house is ten feet up and over 300 feet back from the high tide line. Calculating by current sea level rise, his home won't face flood danger for over 100 years. th-cam.com/video/deVkQB6jb7g/w-d-xo.html
2. Sorry for this harsh reality check, Cory, but Americans continue to spew twice as much CO2 per person as Chinese citizens do. Most Chinese still don't own cars. Most American adults not only own cars but own the biggest cars in the world. (Bestselling car in Europe: Ford Fiesta. Bestselling car in the U.S.: Ford F-150.)
3. The Chinese actually get more of their power from renewable energy than we do, and they have far more solar and wind farms in the works than we do. 1% of American cars are electric. 13% of Chinese cars are.
4. The Chinese have planted over 70 billion trees in the last 40 years.
5. The lion's share of the CO2 now in the atmosphere came from the United States, not China, as we led the world in emissions for well over a hundred years. CO2 molecules can remain aloft for centuries. China only began to modernize a little over 20 years ago and is responsible for a fraction of the total. Who but the lion should clean up the lion's share of the mess?
6. Yes, China manufactures everything for us. Whether its Nike's, Levis or Apple phones. They do that because Americans demand cheap products. China manufactures everything far cheaper than we can. Average wages in China: $10,000-$20,000. Average wage in America: $55000.
7. Yes, China needs to stop burning coal and they have commited to doing that. But with four times the population of the U.S., it's a mighty big energy ship to turn around and it doesn't happen overnight.
You’re pointing the blame to China and India asif the US and the rest of the west are innocent parties, asif their position of power wasn’t built upon massive environmental and colonial abuse that had centuries worth of a head start. Obviously what their doing is bad, Coal burning should stop, oil burning should stop, deforestation should stop, but it’s not asif this only happens in India and China. The US and Canada have by far the largest domestic emissions per capita of any country in the world. Huge petrol gussling cars, an entire finance industry built on fossil fuel investments, a country built around constant consumption and production. It’s completely unfair and dangerously ignorant of you to use your privilege to tell someone else to do more without doing anything yourself.
@@olliegilpin it’s because what’s been done here is already vastly more than what’s been done there. How is that unfair? We can’t undo here what they’re (the proper way to spell that word) doing there by doing less ourselves. It’s hilarious to me that you Europeans think that our transportation system and habits could even begin to emulate your own. We have states larger than entire European countries in land mass. Cities with larger populations than entire countries. Our country is damn near as large as your entire continent! Do you grasp that? Of COURSE we’re more energy hungry! We have to be!We couldn’t function as the single greatest country this world has ever known if we weren’t! (I know the truth of that statement will really rile you up!)How do you intend to replace wood as a useful commercial material? With plastic? Oh look, oil. Deforestation has already greatly declined anyways just in the last century alone. Electric cars have their place in cities but they could and should not be expected to replace everything any time soon, impossible at current technology and infrastructure levels. Some of your comments really paint yourself as an anti capitalist. Are you? In that case very little you say will have any weight with me. You’re probably writing out your response on a smart phone as am I. Thank you capitalism. In fact any and all technology advancement is thanks to capitalism. Think Elon Musk has no interest in profit by bringing the first truly viable electric vehicles to market? Did you Europeans come up with anything to rival Tesla’s innovation? Damn that American capitalism! But if you expect civilization to stop, consumption to stop, anti capitalism and depopulation are the definite routes to achieving that expectation. On to your centuries head start comment… since when did the success of a culture depend on fairness?!? What a childish, unrealistic mindset to hold! Have you not realized how unfair life is at all levels of existence?If all was fair across the world stage throughout history we’d all still be troglodytes! Damn it that makes their jobs, those poor coattail riding developing nations, even easier as most of the growing pains of modern technology have ALREADY BEEN OVERCOME BY OUR HEADSTART!!! Seems they have the advantage there, the hard work has already been done. But that’s not the problem. The problem is their governments. They want money. They want to be world conquerors. They don’t care how it’s achieved so long as it is. At least the CCP plays by those rules. Environmental damage doesn’t have a place amongst their concerns because it hurts the bottom dollar and is a roadblock to their true intentions. So yes, expecting them to pick up their slack is fully fair. Lastly, “asif” is not a word and you’re over-using it.
Sea level isn't rising. the globe is leveling off
In über 200 Beiträgen hat sich Prof. Lindzen seit Jahrzehnten mit Witterung und Klima beschäftigt. Er weiß, wovon er redet.
the man has a nice way of talking
very mello .... I like mello individuals
It's called calmness. More humans could do with a dose of it.
Thank you for bringing reason and civil discourse to this topic
This a "DON'T LOOK UP" moment.
He ignores the facts.
We had about 2 billion people in the world in 1920. We now have almost 8 billion. How many cars were on the roads in 1920 versus today?
You Tube is great for music but other sources need to be questioned. Throw in the fact that this video is from 2011 and it is way outdated.
@@northernlight4614 yeah, you’re right. I still can’t believe Manhattan is completely underwater. All those glaciers are just gone. Antarctica is now a desert. It’s been crazy. I’ve already died from the mini ice age in the 70s. I died again from the acid rain of the 80s. Then I died again from the hole in the ozone layer in the 90s. I died yet again from global warming of the 2000s. I’m going to continue to die from “climate change” because the climate will always change. When will these scientists tell me I can live?
The answer is never. Why would they? It’s a trillion dollar industry. Imagine what would happen if they said “we’re gonna be fine”? No one would pay them. As long as they keep scaring us into thinking we’re all doomed they will keep getting paid big money. Fear sells. Fear also gets us to turn on one another. Like everyone who believes global warming is going to kill us all and we only have 12 years left...those people would do anything to feel like they’re saving the planet for future generations. Even kill off half the world’s population.
But go on...turn on your fellow man simply because you believe some BS that is making a lot of people very rich. Sounds like a good idea.
@@northernlight4614 its not outdated everything he’s saying still stands today. Solutions involving trillions of dollars will be proposed and the money will go to the politicians...
@@luisuribe5432
The video is from 11 years ago. Things have changed.
My mom told me as a young person, “Don’t simply take the word of your teachers, be inquisitive do your own research, examen the facts if they seem overstated”.
Well mom that’s exactly what I did, geological history tells the story truthfully, not overstated as it now is . Simply another political fear tactic.
Fear is the Canadian's biggest political motivator.
ALL governments employ fear in order to control their populations in one form or another.
Both mother and grandmother were teachers, mother retired in 1956 when teachers taught. They did not practice indoctrination. “If your in doubt research it yourself, that’s why we have libraries”.
Exactly! I have found many lies we were taught in school. The theory of evolution is impossible and global warming is not to be feared. Read Genesis 8:22 if you are worried about global warming.
smart mom!
@@brip557 yup, both mom and grandma were real teachers, both taught nearly 50 years each.
Amazing the same stuff I've been saying for a long time . The 12,000 year event was 12,800 years ago with a huge asteroid impact that caused a huge kill off of life on earth from climatic changes .
Every elite pushing Global Warming are the same idiots buying homes surrounded by water. Obama, Biden, Gates, Kerry. That’s your first clue
Exactly what extinction event asteroid struck the earth 12,800 yrs ago? If so there would be little life on the planet now. Source please.
Uh, yeah so, dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago... About one hundred thousand years ago apes started looking like people... Not sure where the twelve or thousand fits into that buddy
@@steveburke7675 Gezz , have you ever heard of Google and RESEARCH ? Copy and past this in search , " asteroid struck the earth 12,800 yrs ago" . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis .. and the video , th-cam.com/video/j6-Y_sxAsb8/w-d-xo.html . Enjoy and do lots of research as I do .
"All of us scientists are Government employees, even if we work for universities".
Yeah, once you sell your soul to the NSF and mention "Climate Change" in your unrelated research proposal. Yes, you are!
The question is : who is founding your research ?
Yeah, they are all employees. So what? So accepting money for work renders everything anyone says suspect? Is it remotely possible that scientists are going to where the evidence leads?... like all proper science is done.
@THE BassBus, Except, Richard Lindzen has been thoroughly rebuked by his MIT Colleagues, pointing out his contrarian views do not represent MIT nor his own department. Somewhat ironically from the Real Boston Globe! www3.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/08/mit-professors-denounce-their-colleague-letter-trump-for-denying-evidence-climate-change/86K8ur31YIUbMO4SAI7U2N/story.html?arc404=true
And out of these, those who deny climate change also get their paychecks from big oil companies. What a coincidence huh?
Lindzen also has said that smoking only has a weak link to lung cancer. Way to go, Dick!
maybe smoking reduce your chance of NOT getting lung cancer from 99% to 90% .... seem weak if you look at it this way.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Even if it's 99 to 90% it's an exponential increase in risk.