I can't believe I am seeing this video six years after it was uploaded. I blame it on TH-cam algorithm against pushing honest information that doesn't support leftist ideology.
A lot has changed in that time. Renewably sources energy is becoming more abundant and cheaper with every passing year. Also we have just had record global average daily temperatures, the highest since records began.
@@supercal333you seem to have missed his points regarding data. Cherry picked data to demonstrate a trend: hottest on record. If all data are included, we are not in the hottest ever. We are actually in a cool period. Please try to talk yourself out of your first choice. Ask yourself, what if my sources are corrupt? You may find that consensus is not science.
It’s not bullshit, but it fails to consider the implications of doing nothing forever because the math doesn’t identify an immediate high return. I guess humans can’t be satisfied with small improvement
Because we are tired of the constant lies and deception, not to mention the vast hypocrisy of those pontificating over us. The time for PCness has ended, it's time to call out the liars publicly and tell the truth.
@@jaredpayot5280negligible change, even if you can possibly identify it as improvement. We're talking about reverting to the stone age for all the billions of people on the planet to get less change in forecasts than the forecasts have statistical variability. Even IF the forecasts were right, which they're not. And regarding actual improvements, we've BEEN improving. There's less emissions and better mileage NOW compared to when the automobile was first invented. Same with all CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use. Only place we haven't improved on CO2 emissions is by decreasing animal respiration, but environmentalists tend to frown on mass slaughter of animals, so...
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/19/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems That links should be compulsory. Also, Christy's mea culpas about the several math issues with his satellite data should be examples on why you should not puff out your chest when you think adding and subtracting are the same thing.
Already in 1966 the coal industry realised that it was causing global warming. But that was not a good truth so people in the indudtry has tried to hide it since and we are now at the point that the industry will pay anybody to stand up and not tell the truth. The situation is like when the tobacko industry claimed smoking is healthy.
Of course it doesn't. It's goes against the popular narrative, spread by media that is in all likelihood on the take from climate crisis pushing agencies. Let's not forget the brainwashed majority out there drinking these lies up!
Maybe the lack of views is because Americans know it's a scam, they know it's about shutting down the US economy and taking America of the most powerful nation list, they see that the Chinese and India aren't going to act till way in the future, yet by the both countries emissions will double by then.....
And more, how FEW in audience did the homework necessary to ask the truly challenging questions of this self-described biased scientist hailing from overheated/exploited/toxic/obese Alabama .
Sorry but its dated BADLY. I have looked at Professor Christy's Wikipedia page and read some of his more notable comments. There are some things I'd agree with and others I'd strongly disagree with. I agree that some of the panic clowns have done more harm than good but people like professor Christy are also doing harm as well. I am an aerospace engineer and am trained in complex system analysis. I strongly dislike scientists and engineers who put statements on slides that are misleading. I especially hate things that take a science or engineering degree to understand why what's said is WRONG. At 6:23 in this talk he has a slide up for seasonal weather in America and to the left is the statement: _"In science, a fundamental principle is that when you understand a system, you can predict its behavior."_ That's an incredibly MISLEADING statement because it can be both TRUE and FALSE depending on the system. In complex systems you can't predict what all the inputs are. Its like the game plans for sport. Once the game starts things become less predictable because you can't predict what the other side will do. You can guess their likely behavior and what that might do. With complex systems you can ESTIMATE BEHAVIOR but you cannot PREDICT and certainly not predict the details with 100% certainty. That slide is horribly misleading.
... oh so so terrifyingly HORRIBLE! My how you do fly of into outer space with your hyperbole! You turn a minor point into a nightmare! That's what really nuts people do. For the most part his statement on prediction of systems IS TRUE orher than your NIT PICKING special case of "really complex" systems, (which climate is). HE IS SAYING NO ONE CAN PREDICT CLIMATE, AT LEAST NOT TOTALLY ACCURATELY. That alone nullifies your entire pseudo scientific rant.
Dr. Christy is one of the very best climate experts on the planet. He's honest and a true scientist - which appears to be an endangered species these days.
@@scottekoontz Ohh really? Have you seen the latest 7 year data set from NOAA, it's a cooling trend of -0.10C per decade. BTW, skeptics don't make predictions, only alarmists do.
Climate is this man's job. His evidence is available for review and discussion. His testimony FITS the data. It is not about making a compelling argument, it is about science.
& the MOST IMPORTANT NUMBER….the amount of MONEY$ the climate change ‘professionals’ receive for being climate change alarmists. THESE SCIENTISTS ONLY GET THEIR GRANT RENEWED IF THEY KEEP THE CLIMATE CHANGE NARRATIVE GOING!🤑
@@aztekenen1 Many things are possible, but that does not make them logical, reasonable or right. Each claim of fact needs to be taken on its own merits. Generalities such as yours are hard to discuss because they offer no specifics with which to gauge them. The basis of progress is one of logic and reason. Can some people fake it? Sure, but if you know logical fallacies, it's easier to see through the hype.
in what regards is it correct? Coal went from 255 TWh in 2013 down to 110 TWh in 2023, by 2030 there will be probably only a miniscule amount left as a reserve...
Hence we conclude things like: "All computers will fail in the year 2000." "Life assembled itself from primordial soup." "Fossils are made over millions of years." "Covid-19 will kill 2 million people in the first wave." "Biden, most popular president in history." "Dinosaur bones are millions of years old." "Carbon dioxide is a pollutant that will end the world." "Oil spills and consumer plastic will end all ocean life."
Yes! A model is nothing more than another format to present a theory, or a prediction to a theory. Sadly, they are misused and presented as crystal balls...and people therefore see them as such. People are weird
Imo depends on how you define "data". If you put numbers into a random algorithm, you get numbers out, and those numbers definitely constitute "data", even if it's completely useless and doesn't predict anything. If you only narrowly define data as "useful data that correctly predicts reality", then of course models don't produce data.
@@michaelsorensen7567 GIG O the algorithms within a model are based onthe assumptions of the people who coded the model. One might call the output "data" but those data are the conclusion of running the model. Useless data that don't reflect data are of course, by definition, useless.
I stumbled on this video in Oct 2021. It is interesting that currently many countries have found that wind and solar are not cutting in right now. The UK, Germany and Australia are in the news all the time talking about it. I believe all three of those countries are now adding back more coal and natural gas electrical generation into their systems in order to balance base and peak load demands. California has recently approved 5 new natgas cogen facilities to be installed for the same reason. And then there is China and the huge number of coal generation being built there and that they are not going to COP26. The problem isn’t moving to a higher percentage of renewables in the world’s energy mix, it is the speed that Governments forced the change. I do think that the early adopters rushed into wind, solar and to a much smaller amount biomass for political virtue signalling reasons, not using a well thought out and achievable timeline to form their policies.
Here it is a year later, November 2022. Europe is in deep energy trouble after going so far to renewables and in Germany, relying on Putin and Russian gas is backfiring. Things are so bad Germany is currently removing windmills as they need to expand a coal mining operation! People went crazy this past summer when London had anomalous high temperatures for a few days, screaming climate change when it was nothing more than weather, at least at this point in time. COP 26 resulted in more infighting than inter-governmental agreement and right now COP 27 is underway with another echo chamber gab fest complete with the ubiquitous private jets littering the nearest airport. (Just like Davos). I was hoping that we would start to see a reasonable approach to a climate sustainable future but that’s not happening as alarmist arm waving is still the order of the day.
@@catocall7323 Absolutely. Huge investments have been made in the green gold, and now they demand to see their returns. They are sending activists around in the streets to warn governments. After creating fake money with their financial tools, now they want us, normal citizens, to pay the bill. The inflation burst we had in the last year is another sign. They demand to monetize with our wealth: money deposits, houses, whatever we have. They are asking governments to impose taxes to fund the "green transition", which means: we want your citizen's wealth.
@@catocall7323 Yes! You phrase it perfectly. Thanks for that. 🙂 It's basically what every seller does. Such a shame they (the govmnts) are selling us this amount of costly, inadequate and in the end highly polluting crap. But it will fill their pockets greatly... 😕
I'm just a little younger than you. Where I live snow would be a foot deep by mid September and last until mid April. That was the sixties. Winter is getting shorter. Green Christmases are normal now. Snow gone by mid-march. I sold my snowmobile over a decade ago. The gradual reduction in snow got to the point that there wasn't enough snow to use it more than a few weeks. The climate has been warming gradually for at least 6 decades of my life.
@Joe-nz5ql Well that's just oostrich thinking. Humans have managed to burn , and therefore release, millions of years of accumulated carbon in just one century. At this point only a complete bithering, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing troglodyte would claim this is a natural thing
John Christy deals with reality. He uses graphs and numbers to support his points...What can we take away from this lecture to think about tomorrow? The most important thing is that the governments of countries that have huge numbers of poverty stricken people will do what they have to do to help their people. They want access to continuous, economical and reliable energy and wind mills and solar panels do not meet that definition. As Christy says, economical energy saves lives. Wasting huge money on wind and solar energy will ultimately cost lives.
@@drkstrongWith the huge amount of them needed, and the reticulation costs, together with intermittency and low energy density, you just can't be serious.
@@geoffreyparker926 With the huge amount of coal needed to be mined, transported, processed, burned and the ashes disposed of, you cant be serious. Check the figures, they are readily available,
@@drkstrong It's cheap, and they are all failing in Wind and Solar, a fools quest when you need reliable base load power for a civilisation. Check it out. My brother worked for Deutsche Aerospace back in 1993, and the engineers there with him pronounced Wind and Solar a failure in Germany right back then. You are forgetting the huge government subsidies for W & S, and the huge penalties for Coal and Gas, and that is what makes them look cost effective. The infrastructure is huge, copper wire costs a fortune, and the maintenance costs are huge, when compared with a coal fired power station, which will last for fifty years, with a much simplified grid for load balancing. I respectfully disagree. There are good reasons why wind power was abandoned for ships, and solar power has never been a serious option. The energy density of both is far too low, and a limiting factor on both. And battery technology for 100% wind and solar is a pipe dream: you'll never power a big city on that as backup. How come no country has found they can't provide cheap electricity using coal, as it's been done for 100 years with electricity costing 8c per kilowatt hour in Australia back when I was a kid, and cleaning up ash and mining coal was never an issue to push up those costs back in the 1950s and 1960s. Germans are now unable to afford their electricity, and people in Europe are cutting up trees and buying coal to heat their homes. Check out the situation there. AGW Climate Change is the biggest politically motivated fraud ever played out on the Human Race in our increasingly dysfunctional Western World. There will be a reckoning for Science in allowing this fiasco to occur, without scientists calling it out for the nonsense it is. Trillions have been wasted on a Quixotic, muddle-headed quest against a mistaken danger. I took a bet against two of my scientist friends that they were wrong in telling me back on January 12 2015, that all life on Earth would be extinguished by 2025. I thought they were joking, but they were serious! They will be sharing the cost of a five course meal for me at the restaurant of my choice on 12 January 2025, getting closer by the day. I have not noticed any discernible change in the climate over these past years, and I plan to order a very expensive meal to teach them a lesson!
Canada is one such country that is finding out how extraordinarily expensive climate policy is. The cost of living is going through the roof and for what benefit?
@@mrunning10carbon tax.. is partly to blame. The rest is due to inflation from doubling the national debt and the libtards unrestrained immigration policy causing huge supply/demand issues in the economy.
Fascinating presentation. I am in the field of science and believe science is 100% data and analyzing them in true unbiased way is the only truth seeking.
@@drkstrong yes, you should start with Algore, the idiot. Who Photoshop the satellite picture of earth from NASA and have no clue which direction Hurricane rotates. Christy's data is used by NASA and all over the world. And you could analyze IPCC data correctly and you will get the opposite results of the so-called politically compromised scientists. In fact Christy's data is much better since it collects Balloons from the troposphere and satellite data. That is much more accurate than the surface thermometer data with tremendous bias from surface structures around.
The most disheartening thing from this presentation is the abundance of brainwashed kids in the audience. They are really ignorant yet convinced they know what's going on on a scientific matter that is perhaps the most complex we have in our hands. I even noticed some of them leaving the Q&A right after they expressed their disbelief towards Dr. Christy (ok, perhaps they had other reasons to leave but still, makes me wonder if they had any).
I noticed the same things. They are so emotionally brain washed that despite their obvious intellect, they struggle to accept the facts presented. One even called it “the problem we have caused” after he just showed statistically no real increase in rate of change commensurate with increase in CO2 production.
Those words don't buy votes however. You need fear and panic to bring people in to blindly vote for economic policies that create a new generation of peasents.
Yes agree, common-sense should prevail. Climate change reminds of ants. One ant will for no reason commence on a circular path laying down pheromones as proceeds endlessly around. Other ants join in and before you know there is whole colony of going round and round till they all die. This is because an ant has no vision just the scent trail laid down by a colleague. Well with climate change it is exactly the same. Every scientist is too shit scared to challenge the narrative. They may not get funding, get published or colleagues deride them. Dr John is correct go by the observations and if the predictions are different from the observation then Houston we have a problem.
Wow, this has got to be a record for logical fallacies per minute. Yes, make this compulsory viewing material in a critical thinking class so students can learn to spot logical fallacies, rhetorical tricks, and disinformation carefully designed to convince people that something they desperately want to believe is valid. So many learning opportunities to unpack here, I lost count 2 minutes in.
Believe nothing he says, he believes God gave Man the Oil so it's OK to use it and nothing bad can happen. That's it. In the meantime Congress and "institutes" (paid for by fossil fuel funding or indirect PACs) pay for him to give these HORSESHIT talks to convince the public to continue to VOTE for politicians that keep their insane TRILLIONS in revenues flowing into their bank accounts All clear?? Dr. John Christy = HORSESHIT @@daveisbrill
OOh charts! I like charts! I especially like Al Gore's hockey stick. It makes it all so official. "What science is' is not a murky issue. People like Al Gore make it murky. right off the bat. It's a search for verifiable facts. Theories supported by provable facts and repeatable experiments. Not murky at all.
@@mrunning10 No, I'm saying I haven't seen any. Because you know, (I think you know) the scientific method requires it. Otherwise you just have data and a consensus of opinions. And if its consensus it isn't science yet. Please, point to some. I've been looking for decades.
COULD BE THE BEST LECTURE I HAVE HEARD ON THE NET!! THANKS FOR CARING ABOUT THE TRUTH, PEOPLE, AND REAL SCIENCE!! I WILL PASS THIS VID ON TO MY FRIENDS....BUT THE ENLIGHTENED LIBS WILL NOT WATCH IT ANYWAY.....YOU ARE THE MAN!! FANTASTIC...
BRIAN ROGERS ALL CAPS EH? Brainwashed all caps typing imbecile can't see a lying shill when it's right in front of you. It's not hard to do your own research into the ACTUAL facts and see that this is all lies. It's sad that idiots like this guy are muddying the data and making it more difficult for our species to take the necessary precautions to avoid a climate disaster. Instead of saying " I told you so" I will say "fuck you traitor to humanity!"
A SELF-INFLICTED WOUND ON THE UNITED STATES I am referring to the actions we are taking relating to Global Warming. Before we get to talking about those actions, let's start with some common sense. First ….. What we are doing can not work. Global Warming is a global issue and most of the world isn’t doing anything significant about Global Warming. Any actions taken by only the US will not be effective. Second ….. What the US is currently doing is trying to limit the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere. But, we already know by common sense that this can not work. Additionally, we are not doing things that could have a positive effect on Global Warming. We are not reducing the use and growth of areas that could go underwater. We are not changing the types of food or where it is grown. We are not incentivizing the movement of the population to areas that will not submerge. We are not alerting our infracture to deal with Global Warming. Third ….. We are not dealing with facts. We ignore that we are dealing with mathematical models that few of us can understand, which have timespans of hundreds if not thousands of years. SO, COMMON SENSE TELLS US WE ARE DOING THINGS THAT CANNOT WORK. AND, WE ARE NOT DOING THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY WORK. We are dealing with emotions and feelings ….. not science. Have you noticed we get almost all our information from politicians, students, children, and media talking heads? Where are the scientists? Most scientists are silent. They are fearful that the government will take away their money and jobs if they wander away from the official and approved version of Global Warming. And, to make matters worse, those scientists that are willing to talk about different versions of Global Warming are not welcomed into the conversations. They are effectively silenced. The powers that be, have excluded the peer review process on this important issue. So, what is the US doing about Global Warming? ….. We gave away our energy independence making us dependent on other nations. ….. We are killing our oil, gas, and coal industries. This is also killing jobs, and the industries that service those industries. …..We caused inflation in our attempts to fight Global Warming. Everything now costs the American people more. ….. We have hurt the industries that use petroleum to create other products. ….. We are taking steps to convert to solar and wind for electricity. But, this will not work. It is simply not feasible on the scale that is necessary. ….. We weakened our military by depleting our oil reserves in an effort to reduce anger at the democrat actions that raised gas prices. ….. We have put the US dollar in jeopardy around the world. ….. We have placed our auto industry in jeopardy. Electric vehicles are expensive. They require materials only available in other countries. They have a range of only 300 miles (you can’t get from Washington DC to New York City) There is no infrastructure to charge cars. And, trucks, airplanes, and ships will always need gas. REMEMBER ….. COMMON SENSE TELLS US WHAT WE ARE DOING WILL NOT WORK ! AND, WE ARE NOT DOING WHAT MIGHT WORK.
Our models are far from perfect because climate and weather are chaotic systems. What we can predict is the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and the relentless increase in global temperatures. The better our understanding, the more effective our planning can be, and the more measures we can put in place to prevent or delay catastrophe. The more people listen to nonsense like this, the harder politically this endeavour becomes.
@@timothyrussell4445 there have been fewer extreme weather events than early 20th century not more. I understand that weather modeling is difficult, inaccurate and chaotic which is my point. Until they are accurate, we should not put much weight into them, nor be dishing out massive amounts of money for inaccurate predictions.
This guy's whole point is if all of your experiments and models don't line up with clear observable data, your experiments and models are either lacking data or are populated with erroneous data. What should drive this point home for people is something he pointed out. All of the predictions are higher than the observable data. None are lower. This indicates either there are unseen forces keeping the temps down or the effects of some variable are exaggerated. Either way, no conclusions are possible, other than, they got it wrong.
If the models can't predict the outcome then they are no good! The scaremongering scientists should learn more before they put any faith in these models (which give no value to water vapor - the biggest greenhouse gas of them all and a huge factor in determining the albedo of the atmosphere). But, of course, these "hockey stick" believers really aren't interested in the truth. They have an ugly political agenda to drive forward and, unfortunately, they have won that battle to date. As a freedom-loving taxpayer I seeth with anger when I think about the thievery of "carbon" taxes we have to now pay. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a pollutant and is completely necessary for all plant life (including plankton in the ocean) to survive on our planet. Shame all you alarmist bastards!
Christy is carefully choosing the data to compare the models to, namely upper atmosphere and satellite data, not on-the ground temperatures. If you consider the latter, then your will find that the climate models do a reasonable job of prediction. Whether you believe climate models or not, the observed trends are undeniable: global average land temperatures are increasing; ocean temperature is increasing. glaciers are collapsing; ice sheets are metling--e.g. Greenland is losing hundreds of gigatons of ice every year; the thickness of the polar ice cap has declined 40%; permafrost is melting; heat waves are more common; extreme cold is less common; the list goes on and on. The linkage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature was not well-understood 20 years ago. It is now. Carbon dioxide has exerted a powerful influence on climate in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Christy is right to point out that the burning of fossil fuels has led to the improvement of our standard of living in the West, and is doing so now in India and China and elsewhere. No one disputes that. This country was built on the backs of coal miners. But the unfortunate side-effect is that burning fossil fuels releases CO2, which is wreaking havoc with the Earth's energy balance. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels also causes a host of respiratory illnesses, occupational deaths (think coal mining accidents, for example), environmental disasters (e.g. oil spills, strip mining, etc.) and cancer deaths. These are facts that Christy ignores. Solar and wind and other renewable energy sources offer a way out of this mess. Why does he dismiss them? Contrary to his claims, Germany and other EU countries (Denmark, the U.K, Netherlands) have embraced renewable energy and are doing very nicely.
Total garbage. The climate is not sensitive enough to Co2 to explain atmospheric changes. If it was there would have been impossibly high (for life) average temps and runaway climate get change. The fact is you’re arguing that 0.018% extra Co2 is changing the climate. It’s preposterous.
@@mustbtroubleHis rebuttals to climate alarmists are on target. Alarmists show one graph, which would be the computer model, which is completely wrong. Little known fact is that CO2 doesn't have a proportional increasing effect as a greenhouse gas. It's just about maxed out. That is stunning info I just found out.
@@mustbtrouble Okay I looked it up. There doesn't appear to be any association/funding with Exxon or koch. Show your proof. Better yet tell us what you can refute in the lecture above instead of casting bs ad hominess dispersion's.
There is no climate emergency. CO2 is not a polluant. Reducing carbon is unnecessary as well as impossible. CO2 is a vital component of life. Economy basically is the backbone of society. Let me put it in my words, sharing 30 years of observation in the real world and dedication to common sense: TIME and PROPORTIONS are the two key factors, which seem deliberately marked out, this time and in any kind of organised fanatical belief, aka agenda. In general, same as in real life, there is no urgency and it's ok as it is. There are two major aspects of existence, which we absolutely need to consider simultaneously. Big mistake, if we don't. 1. Nature (and its climate) is simple. 2. Trying to understand Nature ( its climate and weather) is phenomenonly complex, climate is following a chaotic, non-linear pattern. Reliable predictions are impossible. My conclusion: Science is wrong by taking things apart, instead of looking at Nature in the long run and as a whole. Nature is in a constant state of change with the aim to keep the system balanced. It's capacity to "do" that is unlimited. Time doesn't matter. It's been doing it for billions of years. Eternally. Humanity and science are wrong in thinking, that we could "do it" , god or bad. Our influence on this system is ZERO, NADA, NIENTE. Not now, not as a consequence for the future. Having said that, doesn't mean we shouldn't care about nature and the environment. Of course we have to, but first understand basics, then respect time and proportions. There is no causality, CO2 does not have the alledged effect, it's the other way round. In a natural cycle, it's warmer and therefore we measure higher CO2 ppm counts in the atmosphere. Inevitably, a cooler period will follow, consequently CO2 ppm counts will go lower. Then maybe science would rightly conclude: CO2 is a tracer, not a polluant. Temperatures vary slightly, so is CO2 ... this is a correlation, scientifically mistaken as causality. Get back to work.
It only confirms how corrupt governments are just what my gut was telling me,when I doubt trust your gut,covid,climate change,transgender,wars etc.&more, there will be more crap you can count on it.
whenever you have the issue of people repeating things that they hear without doing thier own research to verify those claims--which is what happens in politics--youre going to have people putting thier own bs spin on things they think they have the gist; when in reality, they have no clue about whats going on. Politicians and politics are a problem in a great many things. Why would this be any different?
@@HaroldBrice The point is simple. Once a subject becomes the focus of politics, bad information is guaranteed to be provided. It is the nature of politics to use lies to create a desire in the citizens to 'fix the issue' (trying to create a need for a given politician to be re-elected to help 'fix the issue'), even if from an expert's point of view there is no known solution.
People leading media massively lack the minimum capabilities to understand the simplest of the graphs. No hope for them to realize how deep and simple are professor John Christy explanations. I have a sad feeling on that.
"Simple" is correct. Or more like "simpleton." He speaks science and math HORSESHIT continuously. "global temperatures change more than that day by day" THAT is called "weather" Dr. Christy, that is HORSESHIT "science" Weather is not CLIMATE you lying moron. You CAN detect and "attribute" 3 / 100s change over "100 years" it is called the fucking SCIENCE of the MATH of fucking AVERAGING you lying moron. This is the global AVERAGE temperature CHANGING over long time scale you LIAR. ANYONE who listens and takes Dr. Christy seriously is an ignorant human being barely able to know where to take a dump in the proper place. Dr. John Christy is a HORSESHIT LIAR.
The ladies first question was related to Climate before Satelite Measurements first went online in 1976. But during that time, (early 60s at least to the Mid 1970s), the Earth's Climate was cooling. And the so-called Climate Scientists were fear mongering us about Global Cooling, -the coming Ice Age. And the fear that all of our crops would freeze (food insecurity was a major issue).
We all died in the year 2000, didn't we? which in the 1970s was the time at which the "the science is settled" experts were telling us we would all be frozen to death unless we paid higher taxes.
@@Qkano - We all died in the year 2000 literally and figuratively and people simply don't know it or understand why that's true. That was the year the Globalist Usury International Central Bankers initiated World War III on humanity in most countries (Western Nations) without a shot being fired. Many things were done in 2000 (and the late 1990s) which were hugely detrimental to mankind (not going to elucidate all of them). Then they literally executed 9/11 and the wars in the Middle East. When Bill Clinton left Office (due to Reagan and not because Clinton was a "good" President) we had a National Surplus. After these Wars were over and also due to their Engineered Great Recessions and Plandemics, merely 20 years later, our National Debt was $30+ Trillion (and total debt and unfunded liabilities somewhere closer to $140+ Trillion with every household responsible for close to $1,000,000 of it). ' So it could definitely and reasonably be argued that the main reason for 9/11 and the wars was to indebt our nation and citizens to the Zionist International Central Bankers, and to Destroy the Middle Class, Working Class, and poor, cause the death of around 12 Million people in total in their Eugenicist ways, and usher in a system (almost exclusively under authoritarian Democrat/ Leftist/ Liberal rule) presumably justified by the completely unscientific farce of AGW, Climate Change, and the therefore presumably necessitated "U.N. Agenda 21/ 2030 and so-called un "Sustainable Development" in order to Create Artificial Scarcity, Under the Guise of Environmental Necessity. This war and attack on humanity has only ramped up exponentially during this time, and especially in the last 2 to 5 years. We are being attacked from a 1000 different angles/ ways and the vast majority of people don't even know it -- and believe it's just "market forces" of a supposedly failed system of Free Enterprise called "Capitalism". Nothing could be further from the truth though and they are brainwashed into believing this propaganda, because we haven't had anything remotely near Free Market Capitalism for several generations.
@@leelarue1354 According to the offical Democratic party policy, we will all be dead in under 6 years from n ow. The "Green New Deal" they affirmed 100% was for 12 years time "unless we stopped using fossil fuels now" and in fact work fossil fuel usage has continued to rise. So I'm guessing everything will stay the same till the day before then the world will be engulfed in a ball of flame. Either that or they were lying bullcrappers.
I have done much work in Kenya, developing groundwater resources for villages in the Rift Valley and other areas well outside of the major cities of Nairobi, Mombasa, and Eldoret. I realized very quickly during my first long-term period of work in the Rift Valley that the lack of access to energy resources we take for granted in the West is THE major factor that affects the quality of life for a most Kenyans. The average Kenyan would love nothing more than to have half the energy-driven conveniences that we enjoy. Life in the Kenyan bush is harsh. Kenyans who live there would laugh in the face of any westerner who preaches the Green New Deal gospel peddled by clueless American environmentalists and politicians.
@@michaelsorensen7567 Even that is not true, after a certain point increasing CO2 makes no difference. Also over time plants adapt and take in less CO2 so they return to their original size because that's what Nature designed them to be so they can support their own weight against winds and heavy rain. See th-cam.com/video/Ve-lDmw9V4g/w-d-xo.html - lots of myths busted there.
@@drkstrong The earth has added 15 - 20% more green and crop yields (food) are increasing thanks to CO2 emissions. This has held ambient CO2 at 420 ppm for the last 15 years.
Oh I like this man already Numbers are beautiful. We can depend on numbers. A calculation is the same 2000 years ago, and will be the same in 2000 years time. Numbers negate the reasoning of opinion, other than considered opinion gathered from experimentation.
This guy has his critics so don't just jump in thinking he is spouting "truth". Although Christy’s data have been corrected repeatedly and his conclusions contradicted time and again by other climate scientists, the administration (Trump's) has given him new clout. Atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth, a former teacher of Christy’s, came to part ways with him over his science and views. “He believes that any increase in the price of fossil fuels will hurt the ability of poor Africans to develop,” Trenberth said in an email. “What he has totally failed to include or comprehend is that climate change hurts Africa as much or more than any other region (perhaps except Australia) because of drought and floods. “Certainly his heart is in the right place, with great empathy for the Africans he was with,” Trenberth said, “but his brain is not.” Research him before thinking he knows it all which he doesn't.
@ctxz9580 "Seems like" doesn't mean a thing if his arguments have no proof behind them. Trump chose him because he wanted someone to help turn back EPA standards to benefit his cronies in the oil and coal industry. Like I said, research his name and see how many different scientists consider him to be a stooge of politics. It's sad but politics does reach into all our lives in one form or the other.
NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN The data has been wrong. Reported on many credible sources including NYT, BBC. wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/claim-data-does-not-prove-that-climate-models-are-wrong/
I know scientists who works at Australia's CSIRO - they know that this ACGW is an utter hoax - but they can't say anything because they will lose their position and/or lose their government funding. Sad. It's actually getting cooler.
Susan Webster. It is far more likely you are a liar than it is "actually getting cooler". The arctic ice anomaly this winter has ominous signs of extinction for humans n 9 years, but we don't care about that. What we want is civilization we have known for a couple hundred years. You are more likely a person who can't handle the situation & will deny it as if your life depended on it.
No such thing as "renewable, clean, green" energy. If you know anything about how things are manufactured, maintained, and disposed of, you would understand why none of these so called alternatives to "fossil fuels" are NOT "renewable, clean, or green".
If green house gases raise temperature then the dinosaurs must have really liked the heat. The CO2 levals were 10 times higher back then. Also I would guess that humans fart more methane than cows.
It was hotter then and our society could not have existed as we now know it. And factually humans do not fart more methane than cows. Get a refund on your education.
@@Moleena 1. How would I know what? That our society would be ruined by every coastal area being inundated and the desertification of inland areas? We’d be limited to a small coastal range which would be grossly inadequate for the food needs. We know this because this was how the world was at the time mentioned. 2. Why on earth do you think I want humanity extinct? What a bizarre claim.
@@drkstrongno lol. Estimates are that co2 levels during the dinosaur age were actually around 20 times higher than today. That’s why plant life was ginormous during that age.
This is 2024 and right he is. I live South Australia and we have largest renewables in the world, but guess what, we pay the highest $ /kW. I pay at peak 50c /kW. It is taking lots of all land and infrastructure is being at big cost to us the tax payer. I suggest the girl that said we have caused a problem for future generations. Give up you phone, your TV, your ipad, your computer, your car, your home, jet travel.
Life survived all throughout the climate history of this earth, this is true. Modern human civilization will not survive the chaos of the climate we are creating, this is also true.
Quick question, as the Earth warms as we are coming out of an ice age which ended around 1880, what’s the “normal” rate of change of warning as we come out of an ice age?…
All we can do is compare to the previous 5 interglacial periods of the past 500k yeats. So far, temperatures are still lower than previous...so natural warming seems possible and tirally normal.
Um, your question makes no sense. The last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago. On your second question.. we don't have enough specific data to know 'normal' warming rates. That requires detailed and widespread collection of temperature data.. and we just don't have that prior to about 200 years ago. So the answer to that question is impossible to determine and will be for all time (unless someone invents time travel).
@rbarnes4076 we are in an inter-glacial. Still polar ice pack. Even so, climate has been warmer and colder (than it is now) over the past 12,000 years.
Conceptually you could argue that increasing CO2 means you'll trap more of the heat in the planet, but I have a counter to that. If you increase CO2 then you also increase plants capacity to grow and put off more O2. The ozone is made out of O2 and this blocks a number of the rays from the sun. If you increase the capacity to trap heat on the planet with CO2, you end up also increasing the capacity to repel incoming heat from the sun by having a higher concentration of O2 from the plants being improved. In other words, the temperature will not change in a manner not conducive with life.
This guy seems to make sense, a lot of the scientific models were off. The scientific models were off because the scientist thought the heat and CO2 (the byproducts of carbon combustion) would stay in the atmosphere…obviously it didn’t. So where did the heat and CO2 go? Scientist think that some of the heat and CO2 were absorbed by the ocean, some of the heat might have radiated into space, and some of the CO2 might have been absorbed by plant life (but with deforestation the amount absorbed by plant life might be minimal). Therefore, whatever our new model will be it must account for the byproducts and where they go in the environment. I’m also curious and skeptical of how he got to the 0.03°C. There have been many experiments on the greenhouse gas effect using tons of different types of gasses…what is the experiment/math he is using to get such a different answer from everyone else?
now lets just assume he is correct for a little bit.... if it's true that we can burn the fossil fuels with little or no impact on the environment...we should switch away from fossil fuels anyways since they are a limited resource and when they run out we'll have tons of power plants and cars that are basically unusable.
This nonsense is astonishing! Imagine comparing upper troposphere temps with projected land temps. Why not throw in an extra line which is recorded land temps? (I think we all know why) There is just so much obfuscation I dont know where to begin. Only in America would this god botherer be taken seriously.
John Batson: Non-Linear? Are you kidding? The rock you are living under must have smashed your head. The climate record is very predictable, in large terms. Only small timing factors remain unclear until they happen.
You are confusing weather and Climate! As the professor did claiming the temperature changes more in one day! You are right, it is very difficult predicting day to day weather. The climate models don't do this or claim to do this - they model seasonal changes - we can model very well that summer is warmer than winter for example. The main short term drivers are CO2 and solar irradiance, and solar irradiance has been low for decades.
The correct term is 'chaotic'. Quantum probability can be used to make accurate general predictions such as global temperature increases, flooding and wildfire levels in the future
The cult of climate change is another religion, except its a more acute form of the mental illness religion requires...which is *_faith._* The challenge is to prove it as such, and dutifully apply the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." This amendment may need to be clarified and expanded to include ideologies that require force to satisfy. Socialism would be included in this, too...being a secular faith. The hysterical Environmentalists can say anything they want, and practice whatever rituals they believe will ward off "the coming global catastrophe," but no laws violating the freedoms we enjoy should be enacted because of their mental illness.
The two teachers I have spoken to about AGW, both said they judge their students based on their faith in AGW. I know, only a sample of two, but I think it is common to be a liberal first and teacher second.
I'm not sure what you mean by correlation, but there is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. This was first established 150 years ago@@tnekkc
,, TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message... REPENT NOW !! TRUST that God raised Him from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !!
If renewables are progressively becoming cheaper, why cant poor countries’ governments use renewables instead of fossil fuels sold by price gouging oil plutocrats?
Oil is NOT cheap for poor countries, that is why they burn wood. Is the world supposed to wait until fossil fuels are even more scarce and expensive to start developing renewable alternatives?
I am an Engineer who has lived and worked in most of the places Prof. Christy speaks about. He is Impeccable in his evaluations. He obviously paid attention to his experience.
Anyone ever think of asking these climate alarmists 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 CO2 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.
270 ppm has been the standard for the last 10,000 years through to 1900. Let's go with that, Plant life does not die below 150 ppm - C3 plant function down to 60 ppm and C4s down to 30 ppm.
@@jamemswright3044 they are because they're raising prices. Shifting away from that established energy Market would mean massive investments in new technologies and buying up the current smaller companies which make up green energy producers. Oil companies have already sort of started to do this but as long as there is no cap on carbon emissions or attempt to regulate oil consumption they will milk fossil fuel for every last dime until it's gone from the Earth. The informed public would be the greatest enemies because that would generate concern and action to address climate change now ,rather than the do nothing approach in the face of skepticism from so many people
His brilliant. Science is organized knowledge, wisdom organize life. Mr Christy has it all,I would certainly like to forward him the article on climatic changes written in the early 80's,certain he would be able to analyze.
HORSESHIT. Christy was told by God to present these LIES. HORSESHIT science, HORSESHIT graphs comparing apples and oranges and knowing people never look at the sources and never question him A LIAR.
The "History Lesson 1988" chart is a LIE. YOU LIE Dr. Christy. You're taking the UPPER error bounds of the predictions, averaging them, and then drawing a curve and calling it "the predictions" A fucking LIE. Look in the MIRROR. Stop LYING. Of COURSE it will show a big gap, duh, fool the ignorant out there I guess?? His own DATA shows WARMING. Did you even LOOK at the fucking chart???
@@scottekoontz Oops! You are making a claim based on lies. Dr. Christy never claimed Earth wasn't warming. And if you had actually watched the video, you would know this; his data shows a very slight degree of warming. His data with Dr. Roy Spencer (on Spencer's website) shows a warming trend continuing right through to today. Backtrack? You are the one who needs to backtrack!
A great book to read by an honest gentleman trying to understand the climate narrative as presented today is Alan Longhurst's book, "Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science." Alan is an author of over 80 papers and an Oceanographer. He is the former head of the Bedford Institute on Oceanography. He wrote the book 10 years ago with an update in 2023. Remarkably, Alan is 98 years old in 2023. The title of his book comes from a book written in 1953 with almost the same name. Alan added the word "Climate" in his title. He points out many aspects of using consensus science to establish a fortress of opinion. He resents the lack of natural skeptical science needed to create a debate worthy of Science itself. Furthermore, Alan also expresses real doubt about peer-reviewed papers. This book is a must-read for those who have an interest in science and how it should be carried out. A somewhat difficult read but can be managed by someone with little knowledge. Longhurst presents his opinions based on years of knowledge.
If you don't get papers peer-reviewed, they don't have any validity. The whole point of peer-reviewing is to assess validity - it's the whole basis of modern science. He probably resents peer review because his own papers were ripped apart academically.
MAGA-ON Dude! Dr. John Christy is a PAID liar for the fossil fuel industry, just keep those revenues pumping into our back accounts Boys! (with the help of the US Congress)
he should do his data sets for mid Europe, as the world warms there,s cold spots forming one is central atlantic another is central eastern usa, th-cam.com/video/TkRdM8db_qY/w-d-xo.html and here,s one country that is warming unlike most parts of usa ,,, Greenland
27:35 highly interesting (and sobering) part about how the *judges* just follow the "pop culture" about climate, and *give governments the right to force upon us us their senseless and crippling "climate laws":* "The judge in Vermont (Sept 2007) ruled in favor of the States, they said this law is okay, but he had to include in his decision the following: "Plaintiffs expert dr. Christie estimated the implementing the regulations across the entire United States would reduce global temperature by about a hundredth of a degree". Hansen (who is the same Jim Hansen from 1988) testified on behalf of the other side, the environmentalists of the States, and he could not contradict my testimony -- numbers were there, they were bulletproof. And yet the judge is essentially saying "you have the right as a State to establish this law -- oh by the way it won't have any effect on climate". 😕
Some of the data here needs updating in 2024. The data for the slide at 9:38. After the satellite data ends in 2015, there is a substantial increase in temperature with the el nino peak of 2016 which reaches 1.1 C with the temperature in 2020 at 1 C. Also, Hansen was using a figure of 4 C for temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration (equilibrium climate sensitivity or ECS), whereas the first IPCC report prepared in 1990 gave a figure of 3 C based on a survey of all the literature. Data has shown that figure to be correct. The "pause" in temperature rise from the early 2000s to 2015 is now understood to be the temporary result of a regularly recurring change in ocean circulation. So the models for global temperature have been verified, not falsified. Also, the 'missing hot spot' (13:24) has been found using radiosonde data and newer satellite data not subject to orbital decay. Polar sea ice and land based ice caps are reducing.
@@tofo2 No single year indicate4s what is happening. That is the "noise" not the signal. The ECS of 3 C is obtained from satellite temperature data and Mauna Loa CO2 data going back to 1979.
I can't believe I am seeing this video six years after it was uploaded. I blame it on TH-cam algorithm against pushing honest information that doesn't support leftist ideology.
Yes it pretends to be factual
A lot has changed in that time. Renewably sources energy is becoming more abundant and cheaper with every passing year.
Also we have just had record global average daily temperatures, the highest since records began.
Great point
@@supercal333you seem to have missed his points regarding data. Cherry picked data to demonstrate a trend: hottest on record. If all data are included, we are not in the hottest ever. We are actually in a cool period. Please try to talk yourself out of your first choice. Ask yourself, what if my sources are corrupt? You may find that consensus is not science.
People with green hairs and nose rings decide what will we watch. That is not normal.
Watching this in 2023 it's astonishing how civil the discourse is. This would never happen now.
Because it's total BS then and now.
It’s not bullshit, but it fails to consider the implications of doing nothing forever because the math doesn’t identify an immediate high return. I guess humans can’t be satisfied with small improvement
the irony of your comment amuses me 😊
Because we are tired of the constant lies and deception, not to mention the vast hypocrisy of those pontificating over us. The time for PCness has ended, it's time to call out the liars publicly and tell the truth.
@@jaredpayot5280negligible change, even if you can possibly identify it as improvement.
We're talking about reverting to the stone age for all the billions of people on the planet to get less change in forecasts than the forecasts have statistical variability. Even IF the forecasts were right, which they're not.
And regarding actual improvements, we've BEEN improving. There's less emissions and better mileage NOW compared to when the automobile was first invented. Same with all CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use. Only place we haven't improved on CO2 emissions is by decreasing animal respiration, but environmentalists tend to frown on mass slaughter of animals, so...
Four years on and this truly honest man is even more right . This lecture should be compulsory in all schools and colleges.
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/19/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems
That links should be compulsory. Also, Christy's mea culpas about the several math issues with his satellite data should be examples on why you should not puff out your chest when you think adding and subtracting are the same thing.
Truely honest? Wheredo you get that from? He is a criminal.
He is honest and good.
Already in 1966 the coal industry realised that it was causing global warming. But that was not a good truth so people in the indudtry has tried to hide it since and we are now at the point that the industry will pay anybody to stand up and not tell the truth. The situation is like when the tobacko industry claimed smoking is healthy.
@@scottekoontz Thank you for referencing an ultra-left wing rag with pathological levels of bias.
This does not have enough views. It is a well crafted and factual presentation, and should be spread to all.
Of course it doesn't. It's goes against the popular narrative, spread by media that is in all likelihood on the take from climate crisis pushing agencies. Let's not forget the brainwashed majority out there drinking these lies up!
Maybe the lack of views is because Americans know it's a scam, they know it's about shutting down the US economy and taking America of the most powerful nation list, they see that the Chinese and India aren't going to act till way in the future, yet by the both countries emissions will double by then.....
which is why they will make sure nobody ever sees it except for a small niche of us
Notice TH-cam has to have their little blurb -I’m amazed this clip got through with their politically slanted anti-real science algorithm
Oh, there's an awful lot of this BS on TH-cam, but thankfully most people are in the know so it's marginal
What’s scary is how few people are there for this key lecture.
And more, how FEW in audience did the homework necessary to ask the truly challenging questions of this self-described biased scientist hailing from overheated/exploited/toxic/obese Alabama .
Probably because they've got better things to do, like go to the bathroom
That's what I noticed. I was a bit shocked. Maybe 30 people in there.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Hey Google! Take your "context" and do something positive with it for a change. Throw it in the trash...
Prof. Christy your work will not be in vain. Your honesty and ethics will never be forgotten.
AOC forgot it already
@@csabo1725 Therefore she requires reminder
Sorry but its dated BADLY.
I have looked at Professor Christy's Wikipedia page and read some of his more notable comments. There are some things I'd agree with and others I'd strongly disagree with. I agree that some of the panic clowns have done more harm than good but people like professor Christy are also doing harm as well.
I am an aerospace engineer and am trained in complex system analysis. I strongly dislike scientists and engineers who put statements on slides that are misleading. I especially hate things that take a science or engineering degree to understand why what's said is WRONG.
At 6:23 in this talk he has a slide up for seasonal weather in America and to the left is the statement: _"In science, a fundamental principle is that when you understand a system, you can predict its behavior."_ That's an incredibly MISLEADING statement because it can be both TRUE and FALSE depending on the system. In complex systems you can't predict what all the inputs are.
Its like the game plans for sport. Once the game starts things become less predictable because you can't predict what the other side will do. You can guess their likely behavior and what that might do.
With complex systems you can ESTIMATE BEHAVIOR but you cannot PREDICT and certainly not predict the details with 100% certainty. That slide is horribly misleading.
... oh so so terrifyingly HORRIBLE! My how you do fly of into outer space with your hyperbole! You turn a minor point into a nightmare! That's what really nuts people do. For the most part his statement on prediction of systems IS TRUE orher than your NIT PICKING special case of "really complex" systems, (which climate is). HE IS SAYING NO ONE CAN PREDICT CLIMATE, AT LEAST NOT TOTALLY ACCURATELY. That alone nullifies your entire pseudo scientific rant.
@@tonywilson4713 it's clear that you don't understand what understand means.
Dr. Christy is one of the very best climate experts on the planet. He's honest and a true scientist - which appears to be an endangered species these days.
And he was wrong about the planet cooling. It was warming.
@@scottekoontz Ohh really? Have you seen the latest 7 year data set from NOAA, it's a cooling trend of -0.10C per decade. BTW, skeptics don't make predictions, only alarmists do.
@@scottekoontz Where is you4 proof he has the data not you
@@georgedavidson1221 That troll named Scott Koontz can be ignored.
Carbon Footprint’ Was Coined by Big Oil to Blame You for Climate Change
Search it out
John says it ALL! …….and back in 2016 too. He’s a great teacher; clear, calm and logical. Love it 😊
I hope you're air conditioner is working this summer.
Yes, El Nino is very intense.@@supercal333
@@supercal333 ... it's been so cool in the summers lately here in PA. that all I ever use is a fan.
@@supercal333 Why? Those cause global warming. Stop causing the death of billions of people by turning on your AC.
Clear, calm, logical and lying...
Climate is this man's job. His evidence is available for review and discussion. His testimony FITS the data. It is not about making a compelling argument, it is about science.
A compelling argument *_IS_* science, and good science is based on facts and conclusions which can be tested.
& the MOST IMPORTANT NUMBER….the amount of MONEY$ the climate change ‘professionals’ receive for being climate change alarmists. THESE SCIENTISTS ONLY GET THEIR GRANT RENEWED IF THEY KEEP THE CLIMATE CHANGE NARRATIVE GOING!🤑
He knows it's a global scam but he can't say that because they will call him a conspiracy theorist. They tried to murder him a few years later at UAH.
@@RodMartinJrdebatable. people can also talk convincingly and come across as more knowledgeable than they really are. therefore also, 'compelling'.
@@aztekenen1 Many things are possible, but that does not make them logical, reasonable or right. Each claim of fact needs to be taken on its own merits. Generalities such as yours are hard to discuss because they offer no specifics with which to gauge them.
The basis of progress is one of logic and reason. Can some people fake it? Sure, but if you know logical fallacies, it's easier to see through the hype.
Christy is a data-driven, climate scientist. Too bad there are so few of them
And now the whole world is listening to a 17 year old kid who flunks school.
Grumbling Greta, the expert on climate change. LOL@@lewisner
@leelarue1354 I had a reply on a 9/11 video from someone using her name. Seemed as dumb as the real Greta.
@@lewisner If you are talking about Greta - she passed her exams with highest grades and speaks 5 languages fluently. How do you compare?
@@drkstronglol she passed some school tests that's great.
I can't believe this video is from 7 years ago, yet so right about 2022-2023 Germany.
So did he predict the sweeping away of Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler?
in what regards is it correct? Coal went from 255 TWh in 2013 down to 110 TWh in 2023, by 2030 there will be probably only a miniscule amount left as a reserve...
Models do NOT produce "data". They produce conclusions. IF the model is designed to support a particular conclusion.....you get it
Hence we conclude things like:
"All computers will fail in the year 2000."
"Life assembled itself from primordial soup."
"Fossils are made over millions of years."
"Covid-19 will kill 2 million people in the first wave."
"Biden, most popular president in history."
"Dinosaur bones are millions of years old."
"Carbon dioxide is a pollutant that will end the world."
"Oil spills and consumer plastic will end all ocean life."
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU FROM FRANCE
Yes! A model is nothing more than another format to present a theory, or a prediction to a theory. Sadly, they are misused and presented as crystal balls...and people therefore see them as such. People are weird
Imo depends on how you define "data". If you put numbers into a random algorithm, you get numbers out, and those numbers definitely constitute "data", even if it's completely useless and doesn't predict anything.
If you only narrowly define data as "useful data that correctly predicts reality", then of course models don't produce data.
@@michaelsorensen7567 GIG O the algorithms within a model are based onthe assumptions of the people who coded the model. One might call the output "data" but those data are the conclusion of running the model. Useless data that don't reflect data are of course, by definition, useless.
It is about money and political control..
🎯👈
This guy gets funded by Exxon
Proof?
@@mustbtrouble
I stumbled on this video in Oct 2021. It is interesting that currently many countries have found that wind and solar are not cutting in right now. The UK, Germany and Australia are in the news all the time talking about it. I believe all three of those countries are now adding back more coal and natural gas electrical generation into their systems in order to balance base and peak load demands. California has recently approved 5 new natgas cogen facilities to be installed for the same reason. And then there is China and the huge number of coal generation being built there and that they are not going to COP26. The problem isn’t moving to a higher percentage of renewables in the world’s energy mix, it is the speed that Governments forced the change. I do think that the early adopters rushed into wind, solar and to a much smaller amount biomass for political virtue signalling reasons, not using a well thought out and achievable timeline to form their policies.
Here it is a year later, November 2022. Europe is in deep energy trouble after going so far to renewables and in Germany, relying on Putin and Russian gas is backfiring. Things are so bad Germany is currently removing windmills as they need to expand a coal mining operation! People went crazy this past summer when London had anomalous high temperatures for a few days, screaming climate change when it was nothing more than weather, at least at this point in time. COP 26 resulted in more infighting than inter-governmental agreement and right now COP 27 is underway with another echo chamber gab fest complete with the ubiquitous private jets littering the nearest airport. (Just like Davos). I was hoping that we would start to see a reasonable approach to a climate sustainable future but that’s not happening as alarmist arm waving is still the order of the day.
Wind and/or solar. Inadequate, ugly. Go nuclear except for my 55 Chevy.
They sold it with virtue signaling, but in essence it's just another gold rush. There's lots of government cheese in this.
@@catocall7323 Absolutely. Huge investments have been made in the green gold, and now they demand to see their returns. They are sending activists around in the streets to warn governments. After creating fake money with their financial tools, now they want us, normal citizens, to pay the bill. The inflation burst we had in the last year is another sign. They demand to monetize with our wealth: money deposits, houses, whatever we have.
They are asking governments to impose taxes to fund the "green transition", which means: we want your citizen's wealth.
@@catocall7323 Yes! You phrase it perfectly. Thanks for that. 🙂
It's basically what every seller does. Such a shame they (the govmnts) are selling us this amount of costly, inadequate and in the end highly polluting crap. But it will fill their pockets greatly... 😕
I agree with everything you said. I'm 74 yrs old so I've been around a while and what I've seen is it's not getting hotter than it was back in 1950s
I'm just a little younger than you. Where I live snow would be a foot deep by mid September and last until mid April. That was the sixties.
Winter is getting shorter. Green Christmases are normal now. Snow gone by mid-march.
I sold my snowmobile over a decade ago. The gradual reduction in snow got to the point that there wasn't enough snow to use it more than a few weeks.
The climate has been warming gradually for at least 6 decades of my life.
@Joe-nz5ql Well that's just oostrich thinking. Humans have managed to burn , and therefore release, millions of years of accumulated carbon in just one century.
At this point only a complete bithering, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing troglodyte would claim this is a natural thing
John Christy deals with reality. He uses graphs and numbers to support his points...What can we take away from this lecture to think about tomorrow? The most important thing is that the governments of countries that have huge numbers of poverty stricken people will do what they have to do to help their people. They want access to continuous, economical and reliable energy and wind mills and solar panels do not meet that definition. As Christy says, economical energy saves lives. Wasting huge money on wind and solar energy will ultimately cost lives.
They Kill
If you want cheap energy - note that wind and solar are now the cheapest energy sources.
@@drkstrongWith the huge amount of them needed, and the reticulation costs, together with intermittency and low energy density, you just can't be serious.
@@geoffreyparker926 With the huge amount of coal needed to be mined, transported, processed, burned and the ashes disposed of, you cant be serious.
Check the figures, they are readily available,
@@drkstrong It's cheap, and they are all failing in Wind and Solar, a fools quest when you need reliable base load power for a civilisation. Check it out.
My brother worked for Deutsche Aerospace back in 1993, and the engineers there with him pronounced Wind and Solar a failure in Germany right back then. You are forgetting the huge government subsidies for W & S, and the huge penalties for Coal and Gas, and that is what makes them look cost effective. The infrastructure is huge, copper wire costs a fortune, and the maintenance costs are huge, when compared with a coal fired power station, which will last for fifty years, with a much simplified grid for load balancing. I respectfully disagree. There are good reasons why wind power was abandoned for ships, and solar power has never been a serious option. The energy density of both is far too low, and a limiting factor on both. And battery technology for 100% wind and solar is a pipe dream: you'll never power a big city on that as backup. How come no country has found they can't provide cheap electricity using coal, as it's been done for 100 years with electricity costing 8c per kilowatt hour in Australia back when I was a kid, and cleaning up ash and mining coal was never an issue to push up those costs back in the 1950s and 1960s. Germans are now unable to afford their electricity, and people in Europe are cutting up trees and buying coal to heat their homes. Check out the situation there. AGW Climate Change is the biggest politically motivated fraud ever played out on the Human Race in our increasingly dysfunctional Western World. There will be a reckoning for Science in allowing this fiasco to occur, without scientists calling it out for the nonsense it is. Trillions have been wasted on a Quixotic, muddle-headed quest against a mistaken danger. I took a bet against two of my scientist friends that they were wrong in telling me back on January 12 2015, that all life on Earth would be extinguished by 2025. I thought they were joking, but they were serious! They will be sharing the cost of a five course meal for me at the restaurant of my choice on 12 January 2025, getting closer by the day. I have not noticed any discernible change in the climate over these past years, and I plan to order a very expensive meal to teach them a lesson!
Nicely presented and well said. Thank you Prof. Christy.
Canada is one such country that is finding out how extraordinarily expensive climate policy is. The cost of living is going through the roof and for what benefit?
And you're blaming "the cost of living" on those de-carbonizing Canadian Policies? Really? Please fucking EXPLAIN that logic.
@@mrunning10carbon tax.. is partly to blame. The rest is due to inflation from doubling the national debt and the libtards unrestrained immigration policy causing huge supply/demand issues in the economy.
Fascinating presentation. I am in the field of science and believe science is 100% data and analyzing them in true unbiased way is the only truth seeking.
Then Christy is not the place to start.
@@drkstrong yes, you should start with Algore, the idiot. Who Photoshop the satellite picture of earth from NASA and have no clue which direction Hurricane rotates. Christy's data is used by NASA and all over the world. And you could analyze IPCC data correctly and you will get the opposite results of the so-called politically compromised scientists. In fact Christy's data is much better since it collects Balloons from the troposphere and satellite data. That is much more accurate than the surface thermometer data with tremendous bias from surface structures around.
You're not a scientist. Why you lying?
The most disheartening thing from this presentation is the abundance of brainwashed kids in the audience. They are really ignorant yet convinced they know what's going on on a scientific matter that is perhaps the most complex we have in our hands. I even noticed some of them leaving the Q&A right after they expressed their disbelief towards Dr. Christy (ok, perhaps they had other reasons to leave but still, makes me wonder if they had any).
C_R_O_M: Ah, yes. Youth is wasted on the young. Better they experience this presentation than not.
I noticed the same things. They are so emotionally brain washed that despite their obvious intellect, they struggle to accept the facts presented. One even called it “the problem we have caused” after he just showed statistically no real increase in rate of change commensurate with increase in CO2 production.
👏 sharing this AGAIN with the crazy, global warming alarmist friends of mine!
Isn't it amazing how a little observation and common sense can bring real understanding to a situation
Those words don't buy votes however. You need fear and panic to bring people in to blindly vote for economic policies that create a new generation of peasents.
Yes agree, common-sense should prevail. Climate change reminds of ants. One ant will for no reason commence on a circular path laying down pheromones as proceeds endlessly around. Other ants join in and before you know there is whole colony of going round and round till they all die. This is because an ant has no vision just the scent trail laid down by a colleague. Well with climate change it is exactly the same. Every scientist is too shit scared to challenge the narrative. They may not get funding, get published or colleagues deride them. Dr John is correct go by the observations and if the predictions are different from the observation then Houston we have a problem.
Wow, this has got to be a record for logical fallacies per minute.
Yes, make this compulsory viewing material in a critical thinking class so students can learn to spot logical fallacies, rhetorical tricks, and disinformation carefully designed to convince people that something they desperately want to believe is valid. So many learning opportunities to unpack here, I lost count 2 minutes in.
Thanks for providing so many specific examples to back up your claims.
Believe nothing he says, he believes God gave Man the Oil so it's OK to use it and nothing bad can happen. That's it. In the meantime Congress and "institutes" (paid for by fossil fuel funding or indirect PACs) pay for him to give these HORSESHIT talks to convince the public to continue to VOTE for politicians that keep their insane TRILLIONS in revenues flowing into their bank accounts
All clear??
Dr. John Christy = HORSESHIT
@@daveisbrill
Well said! At last some sanity in the comments section!
OOh charts! I like charts! I especially like Al Gore's hockey stick. It makes it all so official. "What science is' is not a murky issue. People like Al Gore make it murky. right off the bat. It's a search for verifiable facts. Theories supported by provable facts and repeatable experiments. Not murky at all.
So you're saying there are NO "provable facts and repeatable experiments?" None??
@@mrunning10 No, I'm saying I haven't seen any. Because you know, (I think you know) the scientific method requires it. Otherwise you just have data and a consensus of opinions. And if its consensus it isn't science yet. Please, point to some. I've been looking for decades.
COULD BE THE BEST LECTURE I HAVE HEARD ON THE NET!! THANKS FOR CARING ABOUT THE TRUTH, PEOPLE, AND REAL SCIENCE!! I WILL PASS THIS VID ON TO MY FRIENDS....BUT THE ENLIGHTENED LIBS WILL NOT WATCH IT ANYWAY.....YOU ARE THE MAN!! FANTASTIC...
BRIAN ROGERS ALL CAPS EH? Brainwashed all caps typing imbecile can't see a lying shill when it's right in front of you. It's not hard to do your own research into the ACTUAL facts and see that this is all lies. It's sad that idiots like this guy are muddying the data and making it more difficult for our species to take the necessary precautions to avoid a climate disaster. Instead of saying " I told you so" I will say "fuck you traitor to humanity!"
@@blackestjake look in a mirror
Michael Pryor: Yes, very correct and super easy to follow. Only the mentally deranged would argue.
I don't think your friends will care much about your scientific opinions when you can't figure how to use the caps lock.
A SELF-INFLICTED WOUND ON THE UNITED STATES
I am referring to the actions we are taking relating to Global Warming.
Before we get to talking about those actions, let's start with some common sense.
First ….. What we are doing can not work. Global Warming is a global issue and most of the world isn’t doing anything significant about Global Warming. Any actions taken by only the US will not be effective.
Second ….. What the US is currently doing is trying to limit the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere. But, we already know by common sense that this can not work.
Additionally, we are not doing things that could have a positive effect on Global Warming. We are not reducing the use and growth of areas that could go underwater. We are not changing the types of food or where it is grown. We are not incentivizing the movement of the population to areas that will not submerge. We are not alerting our infracture to deal with Global Warming.
Third ….. We are not dealing with facts. We ignore that we are dealing with mathematical models that few of us can understand, which have timespans of hundreds if not thousands of years.
SO, COMMON SENSE TELLS US WE ARE DOING THINGS THAT CANNOT WORK. AND, WE ARE NOT DOING THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY WORK.
We are dealing with emotions and feelings ….. not science.
Have you noticed we get almost all our information from politicians, students, children, and media talking heads?
Where are the scientists?
Most scientists are silent. They are fearful that the government will take away their money and jobs if they wander away from the official and approved version of Global Warming.
And, to make matters worse, those scientists that are willing to talk about different versions of Global Warming are not welcomed into the conversations. They are effectively silenced.
The powers that be, have excluded the peer review process on this important issue.
So, what is the US doing about Global Warming?
….. We gave away our energy independence making us dependent on other nations.
….. We are killing our oil, gas, and coal industries. This is also killing jobs, and the industries that service those industries.
…..We caused inflation in our attempts to fight Global Warming. Everything now costs the American people more.
….. We have hurt the industries that use petroleum to create other products.
….. We are taking steps to convert to solar and wind for electricity. But, this will not work. It is simply not feasible on the scale that is necessary.
….. We weakened our military by depleting our oil reserves in an effort to reduce anger at the democrat actions that raised gas prices.
….. We have put the US dollar in jeopardy around the world.
….. We have placed our auto industry in jeopardy. Electric vehicles are expensive. They require materials only available in other countries. They have a range of only 300 miles (you can’t get from Washington DC to New York City) There is no infrastructure to charge cars. And, trucks, airplanes, and ships will always need gas.
REMEMBER ….. COMMON SENSE TELLS US WHAT WE ARE DOING WILL NOT WORK ! AND, WE ARE NOT DOING WHAT MIGHT WORK.
Wow, a Manifesto! A Conspiracy Manifesto! You work for the Koch Brothers perhaps? MAGA-On Dude!
Great post, Thomas Kollins.
It is refreshing to see the predominantly respectful tone of the questions.
But the “science is settled”, but keep giving us more research money to study what we already know for sure.
Good point!
Our models are far from perfect because climate and weather are chaotic systems. What we can predict is the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and the relentless increase in global temperatures. The better our understanding, the more effective our planning can be, and the more measures we can put in place to prevent or delay catastrophe. The more people listen to nonsense like this, the harder politically this endeavour becomes.
@@timothyrussell4445 there have been fewer extreme weather events than early 20th century not more. I understand that weather modeling is difficult, inaccurate and chaotic which is my point. Until they are accurate, we should not put much weight into them, nor be dishing out massive amounts of money for inaccurate predictions.
This guy's whole point is if all of your experiments and models don't line up with clear observable data, your experiments and models are either lacking data or are populated with erroneous data. What should drive this point home for people is something he pointed out. All of the predictions are higher than the observable data. None are lower. This indicates either there are unseen forces keeping the temps down or the effects of some variable are exaggerated. Either way, no conclusions are possible, other than, they got it wrong.
If the models can't predict the outcome then they are no good! The scaremongering scientists should learn more before they put any faith in these models (which give no value to water vapor - the biggest greenhouse gas of them all and a huge factor in determining the albedo of the atmosphere). But, of course, these "hockey stick" believers really aren't interested in the truth. They have an ugly political agenda to drive forward and, unfortunately, they have won that battle to date. As a freedom-loving taxpayer I seeth with anger when I think about the thievery of "carbon" taxes we have to now pay. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a pollutant and is completely necessary for all plant life (including plankton in the ocean) to survive on our planet. Shame all you alarmist bastards!
Christy is carefully choosing the data to compare the models to, namely upper atmosphere and satellite data, not on-the ground temperatures. If you consider the latter, then your will find that the climate models do a reasonable job of prediction. Whether you believe climate models or not, the observed trends are undeniable: global average land temperatures are increasing; ocean temperature is increasing. glaciers are collapsing; ice sheets are metling--e.g. Greenland is losing hundreds of gigatons of ice every year; the thickness of the polar ice cap has declined 40%; permafrost is melting; heat waves are more common; extreme cold is less common; the list goes on and on.
The linkage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature was not well-understood 20 years ago. It is now. Carbon dioxide has exerted a powerful influence on climate in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
Christy is right to point out that the burning of fossil fuels has led to the improvement of our standard of living in the West, and is doing so now in India and China and elsewhere. No one disputes that. This country was built on the backs of coal miners. But the unfortunate side-effect is that burning fossil fuels releases CO2, which is wreaking havoc with the Earth's energy balance. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels also causes a host of respiratory illnesses, occupational deaths (think coal mining accidents, for example), environmental disasters (e.g. oil spills, strip mining, etc.) and cancer deaths. These are facts that Christy ignores. Solar and wind and other renewable energy sources offer a way out of this mess. Why does he dismiss them? Contrary to his claims, Germany and other EU countries (Denmark, the U.K, Netherlands) have embraced renewable energy and are doing very nicely.
@@donaldhughes6310, bullshit!
Total garbage. The climate is not sensitive enough to Co2 to explain atmospheric changes. If it was there would have been impossibly high (for life) average temps and runaway climate get change. The fact is you’re arguing that 0.018% extra Co2 is changing the climate. It’s preposterous.
er so: The obvious factor in the modeling over predicting is the human. It is not just the Ouiji factor, it is undisciplined bias.
John Christy is a gem. Wonderful educator + ethical, delightful man.
Hes funded in part by Exxon Mobil American fuel and petrochemical manufacturers koch Industries.... What about that is ethical.
@@mustbtrouble You are making assumptions that are not true.
@@HaroldBrice there's no assumptions you can look this stuff up
@@mustbtroubleHis rebuttals to climate alarmists are on target. Alarmists show one graph, which would be the computer model, which is completely wrong.
Little known fact is that CO2 doesn't have a proportional increasing effect as a greenhouse gas. It's just about maxed out. That is stunning info I just found out.
@@mustbtrouble Okay I looked it up. There doesn't appear to be any association/funding with Exxon or koch. Show your proof. Better yet tell us what you can refute in the lecture above instead of casting bs ad hominess dispersion's.
There is no climate emergency. CO2 is not a polluant. Reducing carbon is unnecessary as well as impossible. CO2 is a vital component of life. Economy basically is the backbone of society. Let me put it in my words, sharing 30 years of observation in the real world and dedication to common sense:
TIME and PROPORTIONS are the two key factors, which seem deliberately marked out, this time and in any kind of organised fanatical belief, aka agenda.
In general, same as in real life, there is no urgency and it's ok as it is. There are two major aspects of existence, which we absolutely need to consider simultaneously. Big mistake, if we don't.
1. Nature (and its climate) is simple.
2. Trying to understand Nature ( its climate and weather) is phenomenonly complex, climate is following a chaotic, non-linear pattern. Reliable predictions are impossible.
My conclusion: Science is wrong by taking things apart, instead of looking at Nature in the long run and as a whole. Nature is in a constant state of change with the aim to keep the system balanced. It's capacity to "do" that is unlimited. Time doesn't matter. It's been doing it for billions of years. Eternally. Humanity and science are wrong in thinking, that we could "do it" , god or bad. Our influence on this system is ZERO, NADA, NIENTE. Not now, not as a consequence for the future. Having said that, doesn't mean we shouldn't care about nature and the environment. Of course we have to, but first understand basics, then respect time and proportions. There is no causality, CO2 does not have the alledged effect, it's the other way round. In a natural cycle, it's warmer and therefore we measure higher CO2 ppm counts in the atmosphere. Inevitably, a cooler period will follow, consequently CO2 ppm counts will go lower. Then maybe science would rightly conclude: CO2 is a tracer, not a polluant. Temperatures vary slightly, so is CO2 ... this is a correlation, scientifically mistaken as causality. Get back to work.
Absolutely amazing and eye-opening! Thank you so much
It only confirms how corrupt governments are just what my gut was telling me,when I doubt trust your gut,covid,climate change,transgender,wars etc.&more, there will be more crap you can count on it.
whenever you have the issue of people repeating things that they hear without doing thier own research to verify those claims--which is what happens in politics--youre going to have people putting thier own bs spin on things they think they have the gist; when in reality, they have no clue about whats going on. Politicians and politics are a problem in a great many things. Why would this be any different?
Jbs1983: Not sure what you are saying................................................................................................................
@@HaroldBrice
The point is simple. Once a subject becomes the focus of politics, bad information is guaranteed to be provided. It is the nature of politics to use lies to create a desire in the citizens to 'fix the issue' (trying to create a need for a given politician to be re-elected to help 'fix the issue'), even if from an expert's point of view there is no known solution.
People leading media massively lack the minimum capabilities to understand the simplest of the graphs. No hope for them to realize how deep and simple are professor John Christy explanations. I have a sad feeling on that.
"Simple" is correct. Or more like "simpleton." He speaks science and math HORSESHIT continuously.
"global temperatures change more than that day by day" THAT is called "weather" Dr. Christy, that is HORSESHIT "science" Weather is not CLIMATE you lying moron.
You CAN detect and "attribute" 3 / 100s change over "100 years" it is called the fucking SCIENCE of the MATH of fucking AVERAGING you lying moron. This is the global AVERAGE temperature CHANGING over long time scale you LIAR.
ANYONE who listens and takes Dr. Christy seriously is an ignorant human being barely able to know where to take a dump in the proper place.
Dr. John Christy is a HORSESHIT LIAR.
The ladies first question was related to Climate before Satelite Measurements first went online in 1976. But during that time, (early 60s at least to the Mid 1970s), the Earth's Climate was cooling. And the so-called Climate Scientists were fear mongering us about Global Cooling, -the coming Ice Age. And the fear that all of our crops would freeze (food insecurity was a major issue).
Ya! I remember when I was a kid. The a new ice age and killer bees were coming. LOL
We all died in the year 2000, didn't we? which in the 1970s was the time at which the "the science is settled" experts were telling us we would all be frozen to death unless we paid higher taxes.
@@Qkano - We all died in the year 2000 literally and figuratively and people simply don't know it or understand why that's true. That was the year the Globalist Usury International Central Bankers initiated World War III on humanity in most countries (Western Nations) without a shot being fired. Many things were done in 2000 (and the late 1990s) which were hugely detrimental to mankind (not going to elucidate all of them).
Then they literally executed 9/11 and the wars in the Middle East. When Bill Clinton left Office (due to Reagan and not because Clinton was a "good" President) we had a National Surplus. After these Wars were over and also due to their Engineered Great Recessions and Plandemics, merely 20 years later, our National Debt was $30+ Trillion (and total debt and unfunded liabilities somewhere closer to $140+ Trillion with every household responsible for close to $1,000,000 of it).
'
So it could definitely and reasonably be argued that the main reason for 9/11 and the wars was to indebt our nation and citizens to the Zionist International Central Bankers, and to Destroy the Middle Class, Working Class, and poor, cause the death of around 12 Million people in total in their Eugenicist ways, and usher in a system (almost exclusively under authoritarian Democrat/ Leftist/ Liberal rule) presumably justified by the completely unscientific farce of AGW, Climate Change, and the therefore presumably necessitated "U.N. Agenda 21/ 2030 and so-called un "Sustainable Development" in order to Create Artificial Scarcity, Under the Guise of Environmental Necessity.
This war and attack on humanity has only ramped up exponentially during this time, and especially in the last 2 to 5 years. We are being attacked from a 1000 different angles/ ways and the vast majority of people don't even know it -- and believe it's just "market forces" of a supposedly failed system of Free Enterprise called "Capitalism". Nothing could be further from the truth though and they are brainwashed into believing this propaganda, because we haven't had anything remotely near Free Market Capitalism for several generations.
yes, Al Gore assured us we were doomed by 2010. It is now 2023 and we are still here.@@Qkano
@@leelarue1354
According to the offical Democratic party policy, we will all be dead in under 6 years from n ow. The "Green New Deal" they affirmed 100% was for 12 years time "unless we stopped using fossil fuels now" and in fact work fossil fuel usage has continued to rise.
So I'm guessing everything will stay the same till the day before then the world will be engulfed in a ball of flame.
Either that or they were lying bullcrappers.
I have done much work in Kenya, developing groundwater resources for villages in the Rift Valley and other areas well outside of the major cities of Nairobi, Mombasa, and Eldoret. I realized very quickly during my first long-term period of work in the Rift Valley that the lack of access to energy resources we take for granted in the West is THE major factor that affects the quality of life for a most Kenyans. The average Kenyan would love nothing more than to have half the energy-driven conveniences that we enjoy. Life in the Kenyan bush is harsh. Kenyans who live there would laugh in the face of any westerner who preaches the Green New Deal gospel peddled by clueless American environmentalists and politicians.
During the question time, it is big of the silly kid at the front to admit the is not as much an expert as the professor.
His parents told him he was super special and super smart...instead of teaching him how to build his own bs meter.
"there is carbon everywhere" All life on Earth is carbon based. Carbon is by no means a bad thing....
Carbon is not CO2
Additional CO2 is pumped into greenhouses op to 3X atmospheric, to increase production.
And cutting atmospheric CO2 in half is bordering on mass plant suffocation
In a greenhouse the farmer controls the CO2 level, the temperature, the light, the soil moisture level .... hat does not happen in th ewild.
@@drkstrong point remains that plants grow better with more co2
@@michaelsorensen7567 Even that is not true, after a certain point increasing CO2 makes no difference. Also over time plants adapt and take in less CO2 so they return to their original size because that's what Nature designed them to be so they can support their own weight against winds and heavy rain.
See th-cam.com/video/Ve-lDmw9V4g/w-d-xo.html - lots of myths busted there.
@@drkstrong The earth has added 15 - 20% more green and crop yields (food) are increasing thanks to CO2 emissions. This has held ambient CO2 at 420 ppm for the last 15 years.
Oh I like this man already Numbers are beautiful. We can depend on numbers. A calculation is the same 2000 years ago, and will be the same in 2000 years time. Numbers negate the reasoning of opinion, other than considered opinion gathered from experimentation.
Statistics are like bikinis: what they show is suggestive, what they hide is vital
Thank you Mr. J. Christy the year now is 2023 June 25
why the fuck do you think then you still are able to watch this crap?
Yes, and the real scientists are predicting this year will be the hottest so far on record. Let's see if they're right, shall we?
This guy has his critics so don't just jump in thinking he is spouting "truth". Although Christy’s data have been corrected repeatedly and his conclusions contradicted time and again by other climate scientists, the administration (Trump's) has given him new clout. Atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth, a former teacher of Christy’s, came to part ways with him over his science and views. “He believes that any increase in the price of fossil fuels will hurt the ability of poor Africans to develop,” Trenberth said in an email. “What he has totally failed to include or comprehend is that climate change hurts Africa as much or more than any other region (perhaps except Australia) because of drought and floods.
“Certainly his heart is in the right place, with great empathy for the Africans he was with,” Trenberth said, “but his brain is not.” Research him before thinking he knows it all which he doesn't.
@ctxz9580 "Seems like" doesn't mean a thing if his arguments have no proof behind them. Trump chose him because he wanted someone to help turn back EPA standards to benefit his cronies in the oil and coal industry. Like I said, research his name and see how many different scientists consider him to be a stooge of politics. It's sad but politics does reach into all our lives in one form or the other.
its a shame this only has 8900 views
NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN what does the data show?
NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN The data has been wrong. Reported on many credible sources including NYT, BBC.
wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/claim-data-does-not-prove-that-climate-models-are-wrong/
I know scientists who works at Australia's CSIRO - they know that this ACGW is an utter hoax - but they can't say anything because they will lose their position and/or lose their government funding. Sad. It's actually getting cooler.
Susan Webster. It is far more likely you are a liar than it is "actually getting cooler". The arctic ice anomaly this winter has ominous signs of extinction for humans n 9 years, but we don't care about that. What we want is civilization we have known for a couple hundred years. You are more likely a person who can't handle the situation & will deny it as if your life depended on it.
Very interesting, the crap he talks....
No such thing as "renewable, clean, green" energy. If you know anything about how things are manufactured, maintained, and disposed of, you would understand why none of these so called alternatives to "fossil fuels" are NOT "renewable, clean, or green".
If green house gases raise temperature then the dinosaurs must have really liked the heat. The CO2 levals were 10 times higher back then. Also I would guess that humans fart more methane than cows.
Depends on the diets of each, I'm sure
It was hotter then and our society could not have existed as we now know it.
And factually humans do not fart more methane than cows.
Get a refund on your education.
@@Moleena 1. How would I know what? That our society would be ruined by every coastal area being inundated and the desertification of inland areas? We’d be limited to a small coastal range which would be grossly inadequate for the food needs. We know this because this was how the world was at the time mentioned.
2. Why on earth do you think I want humanity extinct? What a bizarre claim.
When CO2 was 10 time higher, most life was simple animals that lived at the bottom of the sea well away from the CO2.
@@drkstrongno lol. Estimates are that co2 levels during the dinosaur age were actually around 20 times higher than today. That’s why plant life was ginormous during that age.
Thank heaven for honest people with the courage to speak out.
Some courage when you're on the FF payroll
Perfect presentation. Fantastic
John is such a top quality guy.
HORSESHIT. And a HORSESHIT LIAR. And as well he believes God gave man the oil so it's OK to use it. HORSESHIT = Dr. John Christy.
Share this video with everyone who believes in climate change.
It will make them laugh.
@@drkstrong yeah, they're pretty thick.
@@nedwalport4426 No, well educated.
This is 2024 and right he is. I live South Australia and we have largest renewables in the world, but guess what, we pay the highest $ /kW. I pay at peak 50c /kW. It is taking lots of all land and infrastructure is being at big cost to us the tax payer.
I suggest the girl that said we have caused a problem for future generations. Give up you phone, your TV, your ipad, your computer, your car, your home, jet travel.
Have the data used in this talk been updated for the past 6 years? It would be good to see.
Still no catastrophic rise in temperature. Maybe even a slight decrease as the present solar minimum kicks in.
Have a look at Tony Heller on TH-cam. He has lots of information confirming what is said here.
I'm sure they've been updated, not sure where to find it
Yes, it's been proven completely wrong
@@timothyrussell4445 we have a believer
Life survived all throughout the climate history of this earth, this is true.
Modern human civilization will not survive the chaos of the climate we are creating, this is also true.
Quick question, as the Earth warms as we are coming out of an ice age which ended around 1880, what’s the “normal” rate of change of warning as we come out of an ice age?…
The fucking ice age ended around 1880? You work for an Oil Lobby perhaps???
Just spread the mis-information = denial
All we can do is compare to the previous 5 interglacial periods of the past 500k yeats. So far, temperatures are still lower than previous...so natural warming seems possible and tirally normal.
Um, your question makes no sense.
The last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago.
On your second question.. we don't have enough specific data to know 'normal' warming rates. That requires detailed and widespread collection of temperature data.. and we just don't have that prior to about 200 years ago. So the answer to that question is impossible to determine and will be for all time (unless someone invents time travel).
@@rbarnes4076sooo...as far as we can be certain, what we are experiencing is completely normal warming....
@rbarnes4076 we are in an inter-glacial. Still polar ice pack. Even so, climate has been warmer and colder (than it is now) over the past 12,000 years.
Conceptually you could argue that increasing CO2 means you'll trap more of the heat in the planet, but I have a counter to that. If you increase CO2 then you also increase plants capacity to grow and put off more O2. The ozone is made out of O2 and this blocks a number of the rays from the sun. If you increase the capacity to trap heat on the planet with CO2, you end up also increasing the capacity to repel incoming heat from the sun by having a higher concentration of O2 from the plants being improved. In other words, the temperature will not change in a manner not conducive with life.
This guy seems to make sense, a lot of the scientific models were off. The scientific models were off because the scientist thought the heat and CO2 (the byproducts of carbon combustion) would stay in the atmosphere…obviously it didn’t. So where did the heat and CO2 go? Scientist think that some of the heat and CO2 were absorbed by the ocean, some of the heat might have radiated into space, and some of the CO2 might have been absorbed by plant life (but with deforestation the amount absorbed by plant life might be minimal). Therefore, whatever our new model will be it must account for the byproducts and where they go in the environment.
I’m also curious and skeptical of how he got to the 0.03°C. There have been many experiments on the greenhouse gas effect using tons of different types of gasses…what is the experiment/math he is using to get such a different answer from everyone else?
now lets just assume he is correct for a little bit....
if it's true that we can burn the fossil fuels with little or no impact on the environment...we should switch away from fossil fuels anyways since they are a limited resource and when they run out we'll have tons of power plants and cars that are basically unusable.
This nonsense is astonishing! Imagine comparing upper troposphere temps with projected land temps. Why not throw in an extra line which is recorded land temps? (I think we all know why) There is just so much obfuscation I dont know where to begin. Only in America would this god botherer be taken seriously.
According to the IPCC in their 2018 report, the climate system is nonlinear and chaotic and cannot be predicted and they were correct
And I would add, nowhere near as sensitive to Co2 as claimed.
John Batson: Non-Linear? Are you kidding? The rock you are living under must have smashed your head. The climate record is very predictable, in large terms. Only small timing factors remain unclear until they happen.
You are confusing weather and Climate! As the professor did claiming the temperature changes more in one day!
You are right, it is very difficult predicting day to day weather. The climate models don't do this or claim to do this - they model seasonal changes - we can model very well that summer is warmer than winter for example.
The main short term drivers are CO2 and solar irradiance, and solar irradiance has been low for decades.
The correct term is 'chaotic'. Quantum probability can be used to make accurate general predictions such as global temperature increases, flooding and wildfire levels in the future
The cult of climate change is another religion, except its a more acute form of the mental illness religion requires...which is *_faith._*
The challenge is to prove it as such, and dutifully apply the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." This amendment may need to be clarified and expanded to include ideologies that require force to satisfy. Socialism would be included in this, too...being a secular faith.
The hysterical Environmentalists can say anything they want, and practice whatever rituals they believe will ward off "the coming global catastrophe," but no laws violating the freedoms we enjoy should be enacted because of their mental illness.
Everyone who cares about the truth about so-called climate change SHOULD WATCH THIS VIDEO!!
And think the exact opposite.
Absolutely!!!
"We're all going to die in 2012 if we don't do something about Climate Change." - AOC
Interesting how the students or younger scientists predominantly try to question his science and how he confidently / calmly answers their questions.
Dr. John Christy believes God gave us the oil so there is no way our use of it can do any harm.
Fundamentalist Nutjob.
]
I've updated the old saying...
Lies
Damm lies
And climate predictions
Nevermind about 2014 having set the all-time record for sea ice coverage. I saw a photo of a polar bear hugging a tiny ice berg. QED. 😂
Now they are trying to attack Antarctica (my hemisphere) as proof of their BS because the North Pole just won't play ball.
Oh yes, and everyone knows that those poor bears can't swim. Heh heh
2014 was about average in sea ice coverage - 19th highest out 35 years.
@drkstrong "Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Levels" if you want to believe this report from NASA, September 2014
@@johndodson8464 A report written in 2014 does not contain information about 2023. Look at the current figures, not ones that are 9 years out of date.
Climatology 101: don’t conflate climate and weather.
And this was the at the time "Alabama state climatologist" ...derp
Climate causes weather
The two teachers I have spoken to about AGW, both said they judge their students based on their faith in AGW.
I know, only a sample of two, but I think it is common to be a liberal first and teacher second.
It's nothing got to do with being 'liberal'. It's about understanding the facts and the science.
@@timothyrussell4445 I cannot prove causation, but the correlation is so strong, I think it has SOMETHING to do with it.
I'm not sure what you mean by correlation, but there is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. This was first established 150 years ago@@tnekkc
@@timothyrussell4445 Up to 25ppm, CO2 is important
Your paid by Heartfelt Institute and George C. Marshall Institute
Dr. John has some good judgement and experience-well worth listening to👍
Not in climate science he doesn't
,, TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message... REPENT NOW !! TRUST that God raised Him from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !!
God is watching YOU destroy His Gift.
If renewables are progressively becoming cheaper, why cant poor countries’ governments use renewables instead of fossil fuels sold by price gouging oil plutocrats?
Oil is NOT cheap for poor countries, that is why they burn wood. Is the world supposed to wait until fossil fuels are even more scarce and expensive to start developing renewable alternatives?
Because they don't have the resources
Dynamical system. This is a fricking joke.
I am an Engineer who has lived and worked in most of the places Prof. Christy speaks about. He is Impeccable in his evaluations. He obviously paid attention to his experience.
Obviously not impeccable going by this
Undisputable data great presentation about time governments took notice.
They might take notice if the data was coming from a reliable source and not some charlatan quack.
Anyone ever think of asking these climate alarmists 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 CO2 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.
270 ppm has been the standard for the last 10,000 years through to 1900. Let's go with that,
Plant life does not die below 150 ppm - C3 plant function down to 60 ppm and C4s down to 30 ppm.
Follow the money…. Climate Change is 90% political, 10% science
The "money" would be on side of denying climate change. not creating a mass movement away from established energy markets and consumer habits.
@@mustbtrouble What is the alternative to the established energy market?. It appears energy corporations are becoming more profitable, not less.
@@jamemswright3044 they are because they're raising prices. Shifting away from that established energy Market would mean massive investments in new technologies and buying up the current smaller companies which make up green energy producers. Oil companies have already sort of started to do this but as long as there is no cap on carbon emissions or attempt to regulate oil consumption they will milk fossil fuel for every last dime until it's gone from the Earth. The informed public would be the greatest enemies because that would generate concern and action to address climate change now ,rather than the do nothing approach in the face of skepticism from so many people
Follow the money to EXON's front door.
His brilliant.
Science is organized knowledge, wisdom organize life.
Mr Christy has it all,I would certainly like to forward him the article on climatic changes written in the early 80's,certain he would be able to analyze.
What paper's that?
How about the SCIENCE of climate change Dr. Christy? Do you still remember how?
Wait, he says USA isnt driving the bus of CO2 emissions. CO2 doesn’t drive any rise in temperature, so the above sentence doesn’t make sense.
ok Mr. Science FROM where does the EARTH receive its' ENERGY and WHAT captures that ENERGY?
Nice and clear presentation Mr Christy
HORSESHIT. Christy was told by God to present these LIES. HORSESHIT science, HORSESHIT graphs comparing apples and oranges and knowing people never look at the sources and never question him
A LIAR.
Pity most of it was untrue (see my earlier comment)
Yes, clearly misleading
This video should becurrentnews.
all in all not a bad lecture at all
Viel Spaß mit den kommenden klimatischen Veränderungen. Ihr habt es euch redlich verdient!
So very well explained Sir. Thank you. Excellent presentation.
Refreshing to see someone who has an original interest in climate.
The "History Lesson 1988" chart is a LIE. YOU LIE Dr. Christy. You're taking the UPPER error bounds of the predictions, averaging them, and then drawing a curve and calling it "the predictions" A fucking LIE. Look in the MIRROR. Stop LYING.
Of COURSE it will show a big gap, duh, fool the ignorant out there I guess??
His own DATA shows WARMING. Did you even LOOK at the fucking chart???
@@mrunning10 do you have an anger management problem?
@@ivandersiley7161 perhaps he's never considered that he should also question what he's been told by his school teachers.
God bless Professor Christy.
Love how he had to backtrack all of his claims on a non-warming earth once he got his math correct.
@@scottekoontz LIAR!
@@scottekoontz Oops! You are making a claim based on lies. Dr. Christy never claimed Earth wasn't warming. And if you had actually watched the video, you would know this; his data shows a very slight degree of warming. His data with Dr. Roy Spencer (on Spencer's website) shows a warming trend continuing right through to today. Backtrack? You are the one who needs to backtrack!
God doesn't exist
A great book to read by an honest gentleman trying to understand the climate narrative as presented today is Alan Longhurst's book, "Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science." Alan is an author of over 80 papers and an Oceanographer. He is the former head of the Bedford Institute on Oceanography. He wrote the book 10 years ago with an update in 2023. Remarkably, Alan is 98 years old in 2023. The title of his book comes from a book written in 1953 with almost the same name. Alan added the word "Climate" in his title. He points out many aspects of using consensus science to establish a fortress of opinion. He resents the lack of natural skeptical science needed to create a debate worthy of Science itself. Furthermore, Alan also expresses real doubt about peer-reviewed papers. This book is a must-read for those who have an interest in science and how it should be carried out. A somewhat difficult read but can be managed by someone with little knowledge. Longhurst presents his opinions based on years of knowledge.
If you don't get papers peer-reviewed, they don't have any validity. The whole point of peer-reviewing is to assess validity - it's the whole basis of modern science. He probably resents peer review because his own papers were ripped apart academically.
First slide, and already he is lying. 😢
Dr. John Christy believe God gave us the oil so there is no way our use of it can do any harm.
Fundamentalist Nutjob.
Excellent video. This should be shared in schools.
Excellent explanations ! thanks
MAGA-ON Dude!
Dr. John Christy is a PAID liar for the fossil fuel industry, just keep those revenues pumping into our back accounts Boys! (with the help of the US Congress)
he should do his data sets for mid Europe, as the world warms there,s cold spots forming one is central atlantic another is central eastern usa, th-cam.com/video/TkRdM8db_qY/w-d-xo.html and here,s one country that is warming unlike most parts of usa ,,, Greenland
phenomenal talk. and some question are a nice display of stereotypes.
He's a stereotypical climate change denier
These videos from years back are not aging well.
So? Why are you still able to view them? To promote "green energy?"
How are they not ageing well? I'm sure when this was presented people said the exact same thing..
I guess you don't pay much attention, what's the point right? Going to die soon anyway. @@tomr6955
The man is brilliant, a true scientist
Who's bankrolling him?
27:35 highly interesting (and sobering) part about how the *judges* just follow the "pop culture" about climate, and *give governments the right to force upon us us their senseless and crippling "climate laws":*
"The judge in Vermont (Sept 2007) ruled in favor of the States, they said this law
is okay, but he had to include in his decision the following: "Plaintiffs expert dr.
Christie estimated the implementing the regulations across the entire United States would reduce global temperature by about a hundredth of a degree". Hansen
(who is the same Jim Hansen from 1988) testified on behalf of the other side, the environmentalists of the States, and he could not contradict my testimony -- numbers were there, they were bulletproof. And yet the judge is essentially saying
"you have the right as a State to establish this law -- oh by the way it
won't have any effect on climate". 😕
UAH is a great school, proud of the client work they have completed.
Yeah, regular Ivy League LMAO
Some of the data here needs updating in 2024.
The data for the slide at 9:38. After the satellite data ends in 2015, there is a substantial increase in temperature with the el nino peak of 2016 which reaches 1.1 C with the temperature in 2020 at 1 C.
Also, Hansen was using a figure of 4 C for temperature rise with doubling of CO2 concentration (equilibrium climate sensitivity or ECS), whereas the first IPCC report prepared in 1990 gave a figure of 3 C based on a survey of all the literature. Data has shown that figure to be correct. The "pause" in temperature rise from the early 2000s to 2015 is now understood to be the temporary result of a regularly recurring change in ocean circulation.
So the models for global temperature have been verified, not falsified.
Also, the 'missing hot spot' (13:24) has been found using radiosonde data and newer satellite data not subject to orbital decay.
Polar sea ice and land based ice caps are reducing.
We have to be patient. The 2024 heat also means more heat radiated to space.
When ocean cools down again we can see where we are at.
@@tofo2 No single year indicate4s what is happening. That is the "noise" not the signal. The ECS of 3 C is obtained from satellite temperature data and Mauna Loa CO2 data going back to 1979.
Hey, John. They really need you, on the global-warming-is-coming team. The money. You earn more money following the science.
Love this video
You work for the Koch Brothers perhaps? You even KNOW who the fuck Dr. John Christy is? Wake the fuck UP.