Ben Shapiro Vs Climate Change | UBC Talk
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- The UBC Free Speech Club is honoured to host Ben Shapiro on Halloween night!
In this clip, Ben shares his take on Climate Change
The UBC Free Speech Club is nonpartisan and committed to cultivating an open dialogue on campus, where arguments are made with wit and reason rather than rhetoric and personal attack. We cherish a diversity of opinions and seek to promote an open debate stage, where political correctness no longer holds sway.
SUPPORT THE FSC:
WEBSITE: www.freespeechclub.com
PAYPAL: bit.ly/3aVK621
FACEBOOK: bit.ly/3dfS3k6
TWITTER: bit.ly/2SyuqeL
INSTAGRAM: bit.ly/3c1fQ7p
We have a number of new events coming up with these amazing speakers. Please subscribe to our channel and hit the bell button to stay up to date!
Looking forward to that! But really I subbed cause of your name.
Any chance you could have people on that know what they are talking about rather than Fossil Fuel ie Koch employees like Ben? But maybe free speech and truth aren't your thing.
James Pyke 😂🤪😢
@@dll7658 You know it's bad when you have to have a club just for free speech. But these college marxists want to pretend like everyone else is the Nazi.
@@KandiKlover or it doesn't do free speech but their speech but pretends it does. Like having someone funded by the FF industry lying about AGW for example.
unlike many of these videos it actually showed a reasonable person asking a reasonable question and a reasonable person providing a reasonable response. This is what intellectual discourse should be.
Dustin Hecker I agree. The guy who asked the question was a total gentlemen and seemed to sincerely want to hear Ben’s answer. It’s hard to tell if he agrees or disagrees with Ben. Either way he was thankful and super respectful to Ben for answering his question.
But he is wrong implying climate change will only cause "water levels to increase a rather predictable number of inches". Nobody is saying the day after tomorrow is going to happen, but is certainly more complex than water levels rising a few inches.
@@CM-ky5go He didn't say humans are only 50% responsible for GHG emissions.
@@raul-cayo Based on your knowledge what would be your best estimate as to what other effects it will have and when?
@@CM-ky5go so nature doesn't affect climate change at all? Thats what you're saying? So volcanos, changes on the earth's orbit or the orientation axis of rotation, tectonic plates, the Sun, the CO2 content in the oceans, the current on the oceans, meteorite impacts, etc... none of those affect the climate change? And climate only has changed dramatically with man kind? Or you only read the Bs for dummies they what you to read?
The dude who asked the question said "thank you" at the end. That guy isn't a liberal.
Gopal Krishna yep, a liberal would of said “ hey c0cksuckr! “
@@jukebox1138 He would've said "But...But
Moron
I say thank you and I'm a liberal......
@@maybethisismarq than you are en error in the conservativ Matrix ;)
Climate change himself shows up to debate Ben Shapiro
The Dinkster This is such a dumb comment, I love it!
Did you just assume the gender of climate change?!
Mark's P.H he assumed the Color of climate change.
Pinkaugust naw that’s just what the thumbnail looks like
what?
I'd like to see Ben Shapiro debate an actual climatologist.
@rebecca stefan Ben S. I am sure would destroy almost any climatologist with respect to any topic except possibly climatology. Ben SHAPIRO is not a one trick pony where he gets to just focus on one topic day in and day out.
Bens a very smart man don’t get me wrong but there’s a difference in excelling and being efficient in many different topics as opposed to going against a climatologist who’s whole life’s work is focused on climate change Ben would get destroyed
@@randyokungu1222 Bens argument seems that although he believes in climate change and recognizes the globe is warming up, what is there for us to do in this situation? That little girl(i forget her name) who said we basically need to shut down all transportation just to get emissions down is the equivalent of dropping a massive ice cube into the ocean. Climate change is an extremely complex topic that affects the entire world and there hasnt been a single time in the history of humans where we collectively came together as a race to change 1 thing. What makes you think we'll do it for climate change?
In a perfect world we wouldnt have this issue, or many other issues, but thats not the case. Ben Shapiros argument is always reasonable and he uses statistics from actualy professionals to look at not just 1 issue, but the issues that can arise from fixing 1 issue and if its worth it.
@@erickim1739 yeah it’s pretty unrealistic to have all humans come together to try and slow down climate change its inevitable none the less hopefully we can come up with alternate things that we do which contribute to climate change so we can at least slow it down one day
Read Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. He cuts through all of the alarmist bs and lays out a realistic plan to deal with this overly emotional topic. It does require an open mind. Fair warning.
This dude talks so fast it's like Eminem went to harvard and is rapping common sense into people
🤣🤣🤣🤣
😅😅
replace "common sense" with lies ignorance and BS and you'd be right.
@@jamespyke6764 you mean facts lmao
@@codylovell2344 You mean alternativefacts or lies. His very first point, his very first lie. Modelling has been pretty spot on and actual temp falls in the middle of model runs and way way more accurate than denier altscientists.
th-cam.com/video/tPSIvu0gQ90/w-d-xo.html
So after decades of denying warming and "accidentally" putting -ves in their code to "find" cooling at least now they admit they were wrong. BUT some even still deny warming so 2 points, 2 lies. Then he asks a "serious" question, so "serious" he never looks for answers.
th-cam.com/video/VNgqv4yVyDw/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/17aE91SBMoY/w-d-xo.html
But he says it's simple case of packing your bags and moving... and ignores the costs.And of flood mitigation because the $trillions in real estate will not just be abandoned. Perhaps Aquaman can by those houses.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm
Loses to GDP have also been estimated at $30 trillion+. And the stats don't back up FF employees feelings about the stats. And no "intensity" does not mean "building more stuff" it means intensity.
www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/extreme-heat-and-heat-waves
www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse
Then he again feels addressing AGW means cutting back the economy when the opposite is the case ie doing nothing will decrease GDP.
www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-change-could-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/
web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php
As for Lomborg's error ridden BS piece, he also forgets to include the costs of causing AGW. The costs of intervening we already pay. We currently pay the FF industry $5.3 trillion a year in taxpayer funded billionaire welfare "subsidies" to cause AGW. The cost of addressing AGW according to Bloomberg would require a $12.1 trillion INVESTMENT not handouts, over 25 years. Or 10% of the FF subsidies. The current price of intervention we pay. Poor countries have far less emissions per person thus much less scope to cut emissions and are also the most effected by AGW. Also are reducing emissions as only 2 countries didn't sign up to Paris, one at war the other the US. So the Us pulled out of a meaningless agreement which deniers demand the US pull out of!!! LOL. So how is paying less for cheaper cleaner RE, no more wars for oil, cleaner air and water, creating jobs and lower taxes "killing capitalism"? Oh forgot, he gets paid by the Kochs to lie and say that.
www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg
www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#3735872b2800
How is subsidizing the FF industry 10X more each year than the RE net worth a free market capitalist system? Oh Ben's feelings don't care about facts when he get's paid for his feelings.
The amount of respect the kid showed inasking Ben that question ....frankly was beautiful. He never put a word in Ben's mouth. He wanted to let him speak for himself.
I like that he doesn't simply dismiss scientific evidence as some other unfortunately would.
Nevertheless, he used false information at least three times. 1) Hurricanes are becoming more intense due to climate change, not just more destructive. The science is very clear on that. Just look at the source from NASA below. Plus, the probability is high that the intensification of hurricanes has already been happening over the years. 2) William Nordhaus, the economist who won the Nobel price for his work on climate change, argues that it would be cheaper to mitigate emissions in the future, but this does not mean that - as Shapiro said - "intervention would be counterproductive." Rather, Nordhaus' paper suggests to pursue economic efficiency with the timing of your mitigation options. 3) Shapiro said "The Paris Accords were completely useless" in 3:10. Well, it is only one agreement, not several accords. But no, thats not the false information of course, as I agree it could be mispronunciation. However, he uses polarizing and politicizing language. I could now list numerous IR scholars, economist and political scientists who would argue the contrary. However, I will not engage with Shapiro's overly bold and simplistic statement.
So, overall, it unfortunately seems to me that Shapiro is similar to most other deniers, with the slight difference that he dismisses evidence in a more sophisticated way. In any case, I believe his contribution to an intellectual debate is very limited.
Sources:
1) earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/ClimateStorms/page2.php
2) web.archive.org/web/20150917214704/www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/web%20rice%20summary%20102599.htm
3) In case you were wondering about one of the arguments how the Paris Agreement has achieved something: Liliana B. Andonova, Thomas N. Hale, Charles B. Rogeror (2018) found how the Paris Agreement has contributed positively to Global Climate Governance processes by creating a hybrid architecture through Transnational Climate Governance. Here is their book: www.routledge.com/The-Comparative-Politics-of-Transnational-Climate-Governance-1st-Edition/Andonova-Hale-Roger/p/book/9780815353782
@BullseyeBullsclaw like what?
Thanks for writing this! I generally find myself agreeing with Ben Shapiro when watching him but I've found he does tend to misuse or distort evidence to suit his positions. Tbh things like this might be harmful to our future and the future of our children. As we've hopefully seen with coronavirus, for large scale events like climate change or pandemics we should all stand back and trust the scientists. I hope for the sake of humanity in 100 years we can look back and say "we overreacted" on climate change because if we did, it means we acted correctly.
@BullseyeBullsclaw The way we currently treat god's creation is one of exploitation that brings death and demise not only to us human beings, but also to "every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth."
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" Genesis 1:28
If you look into theological text (for example Laodato si'), you will come to realize that dominion clearly means stewardship, not exploitation and destruction.
@BullseyeBullsclaw I know you havent said that, and I apologize if it irritated you. The reason why I wrote it is because I believe that if one exploits and destroys knowingly, it could be argued that he or she wilfully causes death.
BullseyeBullsclaw we shouldnt allow both to happen. The environment is important to protect as well as murder. Whether or not we should prioritize one over the other is not so wise to do. We don’t prioritize whether or not we deal with either murder or robbery. We just deal with both problems. We shouldn’t prioritize problems over another
I just wanna say :- How dare you😂
You beat me to it!!
How DARE you*
LMFAO
"DoN't MoCk A cHiLd YoU mOnStEr!"
@@izdatbOi she's 16 yrs old and brainwashed to believe the end of the world is coming
Finally a level headed person asking the question is provided a level headed response to that question.
I'm not a fan of Shapiro but I loved the fact that the first words out of his mouth while answering the guy's question about climate was :
First of all I'm not a climatologist. That's something that very few people say when talking adamantly about this subject.
I respect that a lot.
That isn’t a smart thing to say, rather it is a strategic choice. Ben says this to shield himself from genuine criticism. He peddles these completely unfounded ideas that aren’t supported by the majority of scientists. Ben is funded by rich people, and is a rich person himself, so he has a vested interest in denying climate change because he knows where the money to calm climate change will come from. The rich.
Ironically it’s the white guy whose forefathers have the highest contribution towards climate change who is denying it. There is nothing ironic about that actually. It’s makes sense. First plunder the whole world of its culture and resources through colonialism and then export the I’ll effect of capitalism to global south. Just look at per capita consumption numbers and you will see it for yourself. Yes America won’t get effected much - they will probably have to deal with more bites from flies. But the other world with a per capita consumption of way less will get ruined in the process. Don’t be animals - atleast acknowledge what you have done. First steps towards fixing it.
What I'd like to hear in climate change debates is "I'm a bought and paid for climatologist " I'm answering your questions as directed by my owners.
2:04
@@arpanprashanth9193That’s not true at all.
Curious how he responds to ecological concerns - in isolation, humans can bear the increase in temperature, but many other plants and animals can’t, and that may have quite an effect on humans
Yeah he totally forgot that
What increase in temperature?
@@oatnoid climate change. Sea temprature rise and land
@@zorkija4376 Where? Got any proof?
@@oatnoid google "global average temperature graph" it really isnt that hard
Saw Ben and climate change had to watch lol
Me too.
I smell peanuts.
Popcorn and m&m and a large soda
How someone could be so wrong is funny to watch and at the same time sad.
@@jamespyke6764 He's so off on his numbers it's not even funny. Especially saying humans only account for 50 percent of climate change.
The idea that we are building more things in the path of hurricanes is very true. I graduated from a Florida high school. When I started High school no one was building anything on the Gulf side of the beach only the bay side. It is now many years since High school and you can not walk on the beach because people that built on the beach think their property line goes from the back of their house out into the water. Rich folks.
In climatology, destruction of property is not the measure of intensity and frequency of hurricanes. It seems logical that a rich guy, likely with a beach house, would look at the world like this, but scientists don’t.
To say that climatologists are being misled by such a simple data point like ‘more buildings on the beach’, is laughable and totally dishonest.
@@markoshun No but the climate alarmism that is gripping the world is because the alarmists point to the increasing destructive effect of climate catastrophes as 'evidence' that we are in a crisis, whereas in fact it's just that the property destruction is more visible, as there's more property affected.
@@sajjie8121 If by alarmists you mean non scientist celebrities who use irrelevant but related inflammatory talking points to make emotional arguments, then Shapiro is an alarmist. We need to look at the actual data and make rational decisions rather than spread misinformation to ‘win’ an argument.
More buildings in the path of hurricanes is irrelevant to the question of storm intensity. Shapiro knows this but uses it anyway because people will think, ‘yes, that’s true’, and assume scientists are making the same mistake.
*Sea levels rising*
Ben Shapiro: Just sell your house and move
Edit: Maybe you could sell it to Aquaman
Non sensical , utter bullshit . He also made claims that hurricanes are the same ..we are just building more pricey things in the path of that .. that means humans should not live by coasts . Second, number of hurricanes in 2017-18 were 50-60 . Whilst in 18-19 it has increased to 72 . With more no of cat 5 hurricanes forming .. someone tell this "right " assholes how climate works . Just because speaking fast and mentioning some shallow facts doesn't make you right .
@@windsurfer3314 did someone upset you?
@@Lazydaisy646 yes ..this asshole and his lame logic ..the way he is casually making jokes about hurricanes and people dying and thousands of houses being destroyed . And saying the things about global warming that , what will happen ? Only sea level will rise in next 100 years by inches .are u kidding me ? He doesn't even have a clue about it .and yet speaking like a meteorologist .in USA , he got famous for explaining a commen sense about gender equality . But hes iq is so apperent to talk about scientific things . So he should keep his mouth shut
Ben is right though, Climate change cannot be stopped no matter what we do.
@@windsurfer3314 , you are using emotions over logic
"Its fine, people will migrate because of climate change, we have done this since forever!"
* African and middleeastern people migrating because of climate change
"no, not like that!"
Most Middle Eastern and African migrants migrate because of shit governance in their home countries, rather than climate change.
@@24killsequalMOAB like how US war killed 500 thousand citizens, or how the overthrew the Iranian government?
yeah migrate in land to escape rising ocean levels, not to another continent
@@kodaminclyde327 if the only concern of these immigrants was to escape rising sea levels (which I'm saying it is not) then there would be no need to move to Europe, simply further inland wherever you are, unless of course the entire continent of Africa was sinking. Ok but I understand now that rising ocean levels is not the only consequence of climate change driving people to leave, there is also changing weather patterns which cause drought, and under this circumstance it makes more sense.
@@JorgenJorgensenSonofJorgen You are intentionally missing the point, its not only about sea levels. We will also see significant increases in extreme weather temperatures, specifically in Africa we will se draughts, crop death, storms, sand blazes etc.
Lots of fun and very interesting listening to someone who can express themselves so well.
The Climate never stopped changing
yep...been warming for 700 years. the sun, water vapor will happen.
The free speech club ? What a joke. They filter out the comments that don't go along with their narrative. Warm water is a recipe for hurricanes. The warmer the water, the more likelihood of a hurricane . Inacurrate predictions aren't what matters. 140 years of data matter. It isn't just a couple inches of water. It's more hurricanes, more flooding , more droughts, melting glaciers and less drinking water, etc. Ben brings nothing to the table here.
Thats not true the earth has been relatively stable for the las 9,000 years maintaining average temperatures and climate conditions for the most part withing 1 degree celsius. Prior to climate change
@@seth8647 the best way to sum it up for the naysayers is this. Sure the climate is forever changing and we can't control that but, the change should be so gradual that we shouldn't be seeing changes in one lifetime but we are.
@@johngawrylash7732 biggest hurricane to hit the US North East Coast was about 60 years ago, most all the temp highs happened from 50 to 150 years ago. 2019 not one hurricane hit the US coast. if we've been stable for 700 or 9000 years , what's is the problem, other than wanting to seem dramatic, make something from NOTHING. It takes longer for Kids to grow up, than for temperatures to change, waiting.
We cleaned the Hudson River along with all the other rivers over 30 years ago. Las Vegas goes from 200,000 people to over 2,000,000 in 20 years, air condition alone should account for temp increase, so shut down all movie theaters, hotels , hospitals, housing and cars. do not close your churches, we need them to pray for you.
Smart intelligent answer. Shame our politicians can't think at the same level.
Wearing a poppy, honouring all the soldiers lost. Fair play Ben.
I love freedom of speech because then I can call this shit out.
I love how Ben Shapiro claims that "conservativitism" is about "personal responsibility", yet when it comes to climate change "it's not economically feasible until it hits 3.5 degrees", like that's the only reason for stopping climate change. If you were about personal responsibillity, you would be about making the personally responsible decision for your future self, your children and others. His version of libertarianism and neo-classical economics is about "lets get wealthy cos it's fun, and maybe we'll use put the toys towards something useful in the future, but only when it's absolutely necessary".
He refuses to move past neoclassical economics, which has been debunked relentlessly due to it's assumptions that a) people are rational beings and will spend money in our own best interests and b) that we will be able to "wealth" our way out of every problem. People are not rational human beings. We smoke, drink, fuck our neighbours wives. And why? Because we are selfish and it feels good, not because we know that smoking will cause us lung cancer in the next 30 years.
If we go by the mentality of "oh, we'll build our way out of it" and "it's not economically feasible now" we are essentially no better than a 13 year old boy procrastinating doing his maths homework. Sure it would be a better investment in the future to do his homework now, but right now, it's a better investment to go and make friends because his priorities are on being cool. Similarly, the carbon emitting companys' priority is on money and power, and all the joys of life that come from that.
Why should we give a fuck about climate change? Well because of food. Agricultural yields are incredibly temperature sensitive. If we want to make sure the price of food stays down, we need to reduce our emissions. If you don't want to be paying an extra $2 dollars for every loaf of bread you buy, then you need to start investing in energy that comes from renewable farms. The more demand for that goes up, the more supply will and it will drive the price down.
@@TheGreatSkull123 Yeah Axial Procession is another typical blame avoidance tactic. It's NOT scientifically wrong, but the implication there is "oh well, it's natural, we can't change it so we moses well just keep doing what we're doing", which is once agian, the opposite of what conservativism espouses. It actually makes me ashamed to be a conservative when I see our people use it in such a way. It happens, BUT we are helping it do it's job, way earlier than it is supposed to and therefore engineering a future planet that will be way less inhabitable than it is now. Imagine everyone having to sit inside and crank their aircon all day every day because it's uninhabitably hot outside.
Nah bud, I'm afraid you're wrong on that one. Covid-19 is terrifying. Government's are justified in fear mongering on that one haha. As someone who lives in an acommodation that's taken up largely by medicine students, from their research it is dangerous. It spreads much faster than the flu (and I believe the cold?) and has the ability to mutate way easier than most other diseases. On top of that, the severe symptoms are scary as fuck: not being able to breathe properly, not being able to think properly etc. If you speak to anyone that has actually had the disease in it's full force, they will tell you it's basically like the worst flu you've ever had.
Bro nobody reading all that bullshit
Here they only talked about climate change whereas the bigger issue right now is the rapidly decreasing supply of non renewable resources... id be interested to know what ben thinks about that as that seems to me like less of a debate and more of just a fact
Give credit to the man who asked the question; always give respect to someone who may respectfully disagree, and kindly ask for their answer. GGs all around
I agree but when did he say that he disagreed with Ben?
Thats because he is a Sikh. A hindu(indian) not some western SJW
This us what a proper 👌debate and or discussion should be. About time we had this. We need more of this.
Ironically it’s the white guy whose forefathers have the highest contribution towards climate change who is denying it. There is nothing ironic about that actually. It’s makes sense. First plunder the whole world of its culture and resources through colonialism and then export the I’ll effect of capitalism to global south. Just look at per capita consumption numbers and you will see it for yourself. Yes America won’t get effected much - they will probably have to deal with more bites from flies. But the other world with a per capita consumption of way less will get ruined in the process. Don’t be animals - atleast acknowledge what you have done. First steps towards fixing it.
The captions are no match for Ben
... and the ability to accurately measure the strength of storms has increased!!
Economics is the least of our concerns when it comes to climate change, ecology is the biggest issue that is suffering a lot more damage the the economy.
Lycan Steel Society is built around the economy
Jonathan Vickers This is exactly the problem. You talk about doing it but nobody I know who says “oh the world is dying we must all make green choices and contribute to the future” doesn’t actually do anything about it. And if we’re talking about creating new technology and distributing it, it becomes part of the economy.
No climate change will wreck economies across the world. Mass migration never seen before
Unrelated to the topic but i ABSOLUTELY love the asker's voice. Its so soothing and kind, i like it!!
Over 50% of warming is due to human activity? where is your data? I have one sentence that destroys that claim: the warming starts long before industrial revolution, and the warming doesn't increased after industrial revolution. We are at the end of a ice age, the temperature can only go up. CO2 is trace gas, there is no evidence that CO2 plays a role in global temperature in the past hundreds of million years of earth history.
@@seanleith5312 tf you talkin abt i just said i liked the asker's voice 😭 dude are u ok
I agree. But part of the reason may also be because Ben's voice is so irritating.
@@seanleith5312 I don't know from where you popped up, but you need to do some more research. Then you can see that the temperature of earth has increased by 1°C in last 60 years. This is when industries grew and humans started seeking for comfort and privilege. Before that, the temperature had been increasing by 1°C every 900 years.
th-cam.com/video/R7FAAfK78_M/w-d-xo.html
Give some time to watch this.
@@manikmaharjan9258 Where did you get this garbage?
There’s a difference btw the damage oceans can inflict in certain environments from rising a few inches compared to a few ft. That difference of height can be devastating to some. This future problem can be avoidable or fixed if we start working now. As for hurricanes being more or less destructive due to climate change he’s probably right. But honestly hurricanes or storms are not a major concern when we talk about the consequences of accelerated climate change. “what level of climate change requires what level of cut backs to the global economy” if we remain to burn carbon, than the numbers Ben pulls up are probably true and it would be better for the economy if we just made minimal cut backs and just cope with the rest. However, the cost could be None if the world Switched over to solar energy. Easier said than done but it’s possible. It will actually create more jobs in the long run. Everything else Ben says starting from 2:52 to the end of the video is spot on.
Switch to nuclear power. Use the pebble bed reactor: its design makes it the safest.
Solar?! Do you realize the amount of mining and materials required in making solar panels. And this is predominantly being made in China where the environmental degradation is extreme. Nuclear is the answer.
solar panels are made of sand so no problem there ,they take them to the wharf on a rickshaw no problem there , they transport them all around the world on sailing ships no problem there , they take them to the distributer on a horse and cart no problem there , the salesman rides a bicycle when he comes to your house to measure up , you don't understand anything
Almost 2% of the people that watched this video, has liked the content... Only 0.09% disliked it. Considering that even once all the people that would want to disagree or "cancel" this man has tried and then could only drum up 0.09% of dislikes, i for one would say that the proof is in sticking to rational facts over emotional driven "personal truths".
"So if I remember correctly, you said..."-Every question asker about to get shut down by Ben Shapiro.
I was asked what caused warming before the industrial revolution,the answer is,of course the same as now,the Sun but the quantity of concrete doesn’t help and neither does having nearly all weather stations in the Northern Hemisphere and close to cities which are natural heat sinks.
Lol, I accidentally turned CC on and it took up the whole screen. Love ya Ben!
Even if you don't believe in man made global warming, pollution is still bad. We breath it in in the form of fumes, drink it in our water etc. Any way to lessen pollution of any kind has to be a good thing.
"Catastrophists....." Appropriate term.
Hypocritical term ... conservatives typically are catastrophists in regards to most things (literally are fear mongering in their politics afraid of something as simple as change). But when it comes to money and change their love for money and keeping systems the same rules over obvious needs to take action.
Shapiros reason for not wanting to commit to influencing climate change being oh its not that bad so lets do nothing because if we do something poor capitalism and capitalist incentives will take a negative hit ... is almost synonymous to lets say since the dawn of time humans were born with a deficiency that screwed their oxygen levels (hypothetically) to where now they cant live past the age of 25 due to low oxygen levels and the bodies natural incapability to harnest oxygen ... even if this is fiscally damning or is capable of disrupting certain systems in place why would we not take action in finding a solution beyond possible expense to follow through and increase longevity in life expectancy beyond what has always existed in human biology with regard to theoretically accepting that an oxygen deficiency has always been a part of our biology ... imagine you only had 25 years to live or if you were born into an era where you will be dead due to a mass extinction event. Whats crazy is my theoretical statement has no easily definitive way we can control and mitigate the affects to my awareness ... but with climate change there are a lot of KNOWN affects we can have in mitigating global warming its fact.
The idea is that to call one group catastrophist based off one thing doesnt make sense because there will be issues where someone who is advocating we do something for climate change might not feel like its the end of the world for example an abortion is not the end of the world for some where some other abortion "catastrophist" take abortion to the extreme. It all depends on the issue and you are partially right to make that claim. But not entirely.
Everyone in their own right is a catastrophist depending on the issue which i believe to be hilarious. But with that said i felt there was a lot of hypocrisy in that statement just wanted to clarify. Especially coming from a person of a party that breeds people to fear everything and anything that constitutes change ... which is literally all the elements that constitute living. Everything has a rate of change not a single part of life is stagnant to our current knowledge. Although you never know there might be the one thing that we discover in the future but who knows.
@@matthewcuriel991 There are catastrophists in every political group, sure. But that whataboutism doesn't rebut the fact that many prominent forecasts from climate change activists and scientists have been wrong, so it's reasonable to be skeptical, especially because predicting the future with models is also not as straightforward as testing chemicals in a lab, for example.
@@matthewcuriel991 You're sharing your ignorance everywhere. It's great 😂
@@izdatbOi let me know precisely what im ignoring id like to know ... ignorance implies im ignoring something so feel free to let me know. I personally make strides to ensure the things i say are fully considerate so give me feed back thats why i put things out there to build perspective.
Please and thanks
@@thinkngskeptic i even mentioned understanding the case where climate change projections may be over-projections of what may happen in my last comment though.
Where the affects may not be as drastic. But i make my point to say that isnt good reasoning to do nothing and continue things as usual because you dont know for a 100 percent FACT that a projection of an event *that hasnt happened yet* is false as you say till we go however many years to the day things are projected to happen and yes it might not be 100 percent but anything over 50 percent accuracy is fucked and vonsidering how i know these things are conducted i trust above 50 percent is possible and probable... til the event happens you wont know whether the projections arent right or were not close to right so your skepticism is pointless. The closest we will ever be to knowing what MAY happen is through these projections that you dont want to be right because it will alledgedly .... dundundun DESTROY CAPITALISM. Like who gives a fuck i assume no one would let that just happen anyway because its quite evident capitalism is . part of the deeply rooted fabric of US institutions and conservatives wouldnt allow that to easily happen anyway ... amd you act like every liberal person doesnt support capitalism or doesnt see its benefits enough to know the importance of not just destroying the system there are some who think socialism is better but its not a majority thats why a lot of democratic socialist proposals arent complete reenvisionments of failed socialist systems. The same way we will work to mitigate climate change we can work to maintain our capitalism if thats the issue.
Most these projections come from modeling differential equations where they take different factors to what contributes to global warming as possible to get a clearer and more concise picture of what the rate of change in the climate will be. So you are right considering things naturally change and more factors can come out the blue or some factors conducted can have mitigated impact on the outlook .... its not easy to be 100 percent right about these types of projections because different factors may introduce themselves to change the projections over the years... this is a similar concept to weather mapping or hurricane tracking. There have been many instances where these things arent 100 percent but most times they fit the general cycle because these maps are well conducted and considerate of as many factors as possible for more precision. But what since hurricane maps are not 100 percent correct does that mean you are not going to put up hurricane shutters. If so have fou when the shit hits. And if it doesnt you got lucky.
Its easy to be skeptical and because things arent 100 percent evident you rather neglect it completely. But it shouldnt take for the event to happen for you to be right or wrong for the good old "i told you so" syndrome to kick in while we all die of mass extinction lol. I dont get why people do that to begin with but in general i dont see why corporate greed and capitalist incentives get in the way of us putting in an ACTUAL effort to control and maintain the environment for our future as a whole. No matter how bad the affects are or will be why not try.
Thats where my problem will always be is people choose to not try because of this irrational fear they will waste time or capitalism will die or whatever the fear is. Let your fears drive you to want to fix the problems instead of hold you in place and dwell on worst case scenario because to me thats all it seems like people with your mindset do. And to be honest in some regard i need to take my own advice because with some things in my life i let fear keep me in place but its for more things that can be super life altering that i have no game plan for to tackle not because im not willing to try things i just dont know what im going to try and im not willing to risk doing stupid shit that will have negative impact.
So you are right it isnt as straight forward as testing chemicals in a lab because at least in a lab all yout variables are there in front of you while predicting furgre events not everything is in front of you to know precisesly, but that doesnt mean we dont try, thats the issue ... because trust me no body wants to waste their time conducting even remotely false projections (no body wants to know the possible fate of the world hurdling towards a mass extinction) or go around fear mongering with projections just to do it and to manipulate a mass amount of people with misinformation and propoganda which to me is a conservative tactic that ive witnessed whether it be democrat or republican ... people get told simplified semi truths or outright lies and because it comes from their news source thats all they care to listen to but hey you might see the same thing in the opposite direction and i cant say other wise because thats your perspective. But some people genuinely want whats best for the over all out look of society. Not just gimmicks to how to mainttain things and hold survival incentives for personal gain which is basically what conservatives do. Their agenda involves exploiting keeping things the same fear monger propogating and repeating. I say conservatives because this happems with both democrats and republicans that have conservative incentives.
Sometimes just allowing people who are willing to put the effort in and give a damn is way better than shutting them down and taking their credibility away. Imagine when you were being raised by your parents you felt like what they were saying was stupid and you tried to force them to do nothing because you thought they were stupid and not because they actually were but because they ciuldnt ensure what they were doing would 100 percent be good for you. But in reality the thing they were doing or proposing for you was in your best interest beyond your understanding to accept and with good intentions to your overall outlook. But because you dont want to believe what they are saying is even remotely possible due to a self proclaimed lack of evidence that what was being said definitely ensured a better future, because of your complex you miss out on something you could have benefitted from and maintained a healthy relationship with your parents. Instead you have opted toxicity and complacency. Thats how I see it.
One thing to know in the absence of knowledge/information that opens a gateway of possibility ... endless possibility. Logic backs what im saying. So for example if someone says they dont have evidence but the sun might explode on this day just due to self conducted projection... lack of evidence doesnt just imply the sun will never explode and that thats the only possible outcome.
Its equally possible that the sun can explode or it wont explode or some other outcome ... thats the logical way to look at it and at that point when you weigh the possibilities you can say which is more probable due to subjective belief and or factors that may logically shift probability one way but until the event happens you dont know only one to be true as people like to make things seem.
But people live in delusion and think they are fortune tellers i swear. And this is not a party specific notion i notice this in a vast majority of people and its dumb.
If the main question of why not even try gets answered ill have more to consider but until then i hold my case
I love Ben but I would also love waking up overnight to 10 feet of water covering all of Cali 😆
There are 2 key points that Are really At the heart of this debate: 1. There can be no denying That human activity Is having some effect on the climate. It only stands to reason That with more human activity there is going to be greater output. 2. The elephant in the room Is the growing global population. With more people there is going to be greater output And increasing diminishing global resources
>>. There can be no denying That human activity Is having some effect on the climate
A very concise and logical understanding of Climate Change,
Sweet Lord the captions cover the whole screen.
I remember watching Neil deGrasse Tyson teaching a science course on the slowing spin of the earth over time. Turns out that as the earth slows the earth will heat up and is the biggest cause of climate change. Is there anything we can do to speed the earth back up?
th-cam.com/video/Jm_YoL9ykC4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=sUAURbviTfJWtfVo
No
If you look at the ancient ice records you will see we have a rise and fall of temperatures every 15,000 years or so with no input from man’s emissions into the atmosphere. No one talks about this.
It's how faster the rise has been in the last 100 years 🤦🏽♂️
Yes they do but if you listen to this clown you will never know as he does not believe in man made climate change. The ice records don't predict what we have done to the climate
I love how Ben says people will just migrate and sell their property. Sell to who? Whole Micronesian countries will inevitably be no longer. Yes we should not be alarmists, there has been too much overestimation. The science is clear though, and we should also not be naive.
He said people will migrate like they've done in the past. He did not say that people would sell their homes. I had to rewind the video to make sure what he said.
@@Bman-1970 im sure there's a better solution than to just run away from our problems, though.
@@sun-ny it worked so far lol
@@hush7359 not really
@@Bman-1970 exactly what he said 👍
Climates will always change. So maybe buying a coastal property, although beautiful, might not be the best idea.
Hey..he reminds me of Sheldon Cooper.
BEN you are amazing dealing with these people daily 🥺🥺🥺 you are a saint
Salute to you, Free Speech Club! Thank you very much for what you do.
The fact that he is able to articulate his thoughts so well and the fact that he is speaking fast among other communication skills he has is what really wins him the argument or debate. I would bet that no matter which side or an argument he sided with, he would still be able to give a comprehensive debate and possibly win. This just shows that the facts and figures really don't matter as much in a debate as many would think and what is more important is to be able to put ideas into words so that others can see your opinion from your point of view more easily. No one is stupid or dumb or wrong for having any one opinion because if articulated correctly, any opinion would become as justified as any other.
born rich white
@@Pyasa.shaitan I don't know what Shapiro's net worth is but he's Hebrew - which means that his ancestors were from the Middle East, not northern Europe.
I wish we would talk about pollution instead of Carbon emissions
A man of reason
"Humans will migrate."
Just one problem, Ben. We call that population displacement
Check out Tony Heller. The entire climate change hypothesis is wrong. CO2 is not a driving force of climate, and rising CO2 levels are actually benefiting crop yields and greening arid areas like has not been seen in human history.
C02 comprises .004% of the atmosphere..... any idiot that believes an element of 4 one hundredth of 1% can have an effect on this Giant Earth.... needs to be institutionalized.
@@canconservative8976 this logic isn't really fair or straight, seeing some poison or toxins like cyanide or chlorine gas can kill even with far less fraction than co2 to kill one and many. And tgeir rise by even one per million, is never desirable.
Yes, Co2 may not culprit alone but methane is huge bad guy on climate in conjunction with co2, methane increase is almost 100% due to human activity,. secondly remember butterfly effect is a fairly recent theory explaining how very small changes in a system can have huge consequences .
Pollution is bad for the ocean, lakes, and the land though and it effects food webs that we depend on.
@@andsoon..9190 ...confirmation bias... you ignore so many other factors that are magnitudes higher in ability to modify the climate....all in the name of blaming Humans so they can be TAXED. The Oceans being the largest multiplier in this whole climate equation, along with the Sun, then the Earths Orbit, the Earths Core.. THEN MAYBE MAN WITH HIS MICROSCOPIC OUTPUT...
This isn't rocket science, use some common sense.
Wouldn't it be funny seeing him say this in front of a climatologist.
I’m actually surprised Ben believes in AGW. He basically just said that he accepts an argument based on authority
Not really. He's accepting arguments based on credible expertise. An expert in a specific field is not necessarily authoritative
Svenny It’s the same thing
@@timmcgrath3995 If you lack expertise in any field of science or engineering, you are incapable of drawing conclusions regarding most complex topics in that field. Thinking that you know better than the experts is a recipe for disaster.
obtsfan ...that’s not a statement that Ben has a record of agreeing with. That’s my point.
Tim McGrath gotcha
"...sell the houses to who Ben? Fucking Aquaman?!" -Hbomberguy
The thumbnail makes it seem like the guy on the right is climate change xD;
So he talks about the social threat of climate change but, how about ecological?
Jacob Laurain funny how that’s the biggest concern of climate change but he never mentions it at all. I agree with Ben on a lot but this is some of the issues I completely disagree with
Lycan Steel Most politicians unfortunately don’t mention it. This is why we need some people in office who aren’t arrogant to conservation, resource management, etc.
Ignorant *
@@jacoblaurain8911 The notion that infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet should be self-evident, yet we just don't get it.
@@davidfranklin7018 Tragedy of the Commons
Even if you don’t think climate change is an issue, why would you want more pollution!? This requires government intervention on top of technological
Ps. This involves no talk of the effect of this damage to plant and animal life.
Aaaand that's why it's a hoax...cuz peta & the media say nothing about animals or earth itself...
James Pruitt
L O G I C
I dunno I wonder what happens to animal and plant life if where they live is submerged by water?
@@xaviercockerton6989 logic is right! & it's only logical to take a look outside, do a little research & then , my gut feeling is, there is no problem...its man that is extremely arrogant in thinking they can control mother earth... & to ur comment 🤔 gee, I'm not sure either...I mean like, poor fish, they gonna drown!😱
I mean right now as we speak, 25 species will die out & become extinct all on there lonesome...plus if evolution is right (hint....its not) then what's the problem...have we stopped evolving?? if so well I guess every life on land is screwed...lol...& I reckon the animals & plant life that lives submerged under agua will grow legs & arms & develop gills so we can live both on land or under water...🤔 which has always made me wonder, why dont humans have gills as well. Seeing that the earth is 2/3rds agua, one would think that would be total upper advantage so no one would drown & be able to survive the Titanic & all the deaths by drowning...lol, I mean the "nothingness" that "created" or evolved from nothing, yea, that "what" , still a guess or theory...absolute zero evidence, nor witnessed, thru the "billions" of years earth has been "evolving" & 150 yrs of "all the carbon footprint" man is making around the "flat" earth, & the massive scale & sheer size of this blue marble we call home, again, surrounded by 2/3rds water, therefore not much land to live on to produce enough "toxic" vapors to make a hole in the ozone layer, which reminds me of some biblical texts that explain that earth is a big greenhouse & recycles on it's own as God made it to do, not to mention all the volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, wildfires, asteroids, meteors and God knows what else it falls from space, 🤔 oh! & let us not forget cow farts!! there it is, it's the cows fault...which makes it Trumps fault naturally........but yea, man is the problem 🥵🥶🤭🐮💨🤑🤥🙈🙉🙊👣🥀🌎🌋🌀🌪⚡❄☄🔥💧🌊🌡☀️🌬📲💸📈📉🧬🧪🚽🚬⚰🚭🚯🚷📵☣♻️🆘️🆒️🆙️🏴☠️🇺🇸 but hey, logic...
You do know that there are only two natural drivers of the global climate, right?
While I appreciate the reasonable response, there are effects that we can measure that shows the effects of climate change. For example, flooding is increasing in many parts of the world, and some islands can be completely underwater.
Ben's point on humans migrating as they've always done doesn't really apply in this day in age. Sure families can sell their homes and drive across states or even move to different countries, but what about relocating an entire city with an existing infrastructure that took hundreds of years to make? We aren't nomads anymore.
I believe it would be a slow natural trend, it does not happen overnight
An entire city would know decades beforehand and have more than enough time to relocate people and recycle the infrastructure
Yeah, and if a city as large as New Orleans has to relocate that would be a HUGE problem. It's not easy to get millions of people to move and resettle, just look at all the problems we've had with resettling the millions of Syrian Refugees. And if people need to movie because of Climate Change, their numbers would be even greater than war refugees.
How much money would you pay on a house that will be under water? 0 right? So those people have no chances of migrating.
Good point, besides the fact that millions of people who would be affected are *poor* and will face all sorts of serious conflict in trying to move. Borders will be tested and all sorts of political conflicts and quagmires will result.
Smart man. But we've been walking with two legs since we were created. You can't tell an Alberton that the environment is getting warmer the last two years have been the coldest years I can remember.
Amen
Proverbs 1:7 since we evolved* it’s now a scientific fact
@@Mather088 Lol ya ok
That's not how climate works you idiot. You live in a small subset of the world and as much as you would like to believe it represents the Earth as whole, it doesn't. There could be multiple reasons why Alberta is colder than normal, but the Earth is warming as whole
So you take your exact locations temperature over the global average?
"Let's say the Earth is warming, and we're causing it."
Thank you for admitting it!!!👏👏👏
And... your solution...?
That Q was posed as a hypothetical, you numbnut.
Haha they might have Greta but we have Benny
So well articulated.
If all the ice on earth melted, the water level would not change.
Ice displaces it's own weight by volume. Experiment: Take a clear glass and fill it with ice. This over represents the amount of ice on earth compared to the volume of the glass. Fill with water to about 1" below the top. Mark the water level right at the edge with masking tape or similar. Check water level in the morning.
My arguments that Ben rarely knows what he's talking about:
1. Humans will have to migrate like we've always done since we became human. True, and fuck infrastructure i guess as well then? It's probably not important anyway...
2. It would be more cost effective and efficient to brace for climate change. Also true, kinda, I mean we'd lose millions of lives coming from the man who says it's wrong to kill a fetus but sure, except then it will speed up again next time...and again after that...and again after that...ignoring public health issues such as air quality too I presume? Or is it OK to tackle that and not this?
3. Paris accords have actually done quite a lot, in London for example due to the promises made through the paris agreement there has been a steep decrease in carbon emissions and air pollution, as well as a promise of no gas powered cars by 2040. Like he said it's developed countries most, but it's still doing something lol
4. No one has said yay we've solved climate change. Quite the opposite. Literally no one thinks that. This joke was manipulative and pointless and used to win over a crowd.
In short, what's he talking about? I'd wish he'd stop focusing on "winning" individual arguments and focus on what his actual message is, because I've just watched 3 (Against abortion, this one and one with him talking to Jordan Peterson who I actually do respect) and he contradicts himself in almost every one.
Exactly, the man who believes that the life of a foetus has moral value is saying it's ok that millions of people on the coast will die because the economy will recover. It's stupid.
I agree with Ben more that 90% of the time, but I don’t think us building more infrastructures correlates with how strong hurricanes are getting. If anything our buildings are built to be weatherproofed depending on the area I would assume so if hurricane winds can destroy them they’re getting stronger. I’ve lived in north Texas all my life and had never been so close to a tornado in our area in my 25 years.
I started watching this fella, I can't stop now.
You should
it's okay to see ben shapiro to see someone being so dumb that you really are good for the soul
The problem is so complex and the solutions they suggest are not achievable. We can't destroy our economy and spend trillions of dollars when there is no way to measure if anything that we do is working because their models and predictions are always wrong. Scaring little children and using hysterical lanquage is sick and wrong. The best we can do is to prepare for the changes and adapt
Do all intelligents talk with that face? He reminds me of my lecturer that I've always looked up to
"if water rises just move" is basically the message I got. As a Californian resident who has been personally affected by wildfires, it is incredibly disheartening to see people not take climate change as seriously as it is. Every year the fires get worse, devastating homes and lives, and the news does a yearly coverage on it and the world moves on. But we don't. It takes years to recover from even one of our fire seasons, and having them occur yearly and getting worse and worse is devastating. I really wish people could start acting as if their homes are on fire too, because ours certainly are, and no one cares and nothing gets done. That being said, at least he doesn't deny climate change (the standard with our political leaders really is that low!)
I laugh at the right wing deniers, as many are war mongers and almost right wingers demand a strong military, and yet by being climate change deniers they ignore the fact that much military infrastructure is at high risk of being flooded by the rising ocean. Some already suffers high tide flooding! It is very possible that by 2045 all coastal military bases in the US may become unusable. Some, much sooner! Consider also, similar will occur in many civilian sea ports, and some major airports.
Perhaps if your governor took the fires more seriously and allowed backfires to remove the flammable material you wouldn’t have that problem! Same goes for the governor of Hawaii!
I think he is mistaken. If he is referig to nordhaus who just won the nobel prize he recommends action now (via carbon tax international agreements etc) for an optimal outcome. He does think these changes should ramp up, but the current price of carbon does not adequately capture the negative xternality created by climate change
OK. How to "capture ALL of the 'negative externality created by climate change?'" HOW?
God will never again flood the Earth. Genesis 9:15
Lol
Just because it's gonna cost us more to actively counter climate change in the short run, we can't sit back and just cope with the ramifications of climate change because it's not dangerous enough as yet and that it's 'cost effective' that way.
Big fan of Ben but I don't agree with his extremely stunted and rudimentary arguments on this issue.
@Crow KillerIf I'm virtue signalling like you claim, I have zero upside because nobody knows me here on TH-cam. I'm as imperfect as most people, I'm not patronising anybody. Just trying to do my bit towards sustainable development.
@Crow Killer Yes it does make me feel better. Everybody walking on this planet is virtue signalling everybody else as per your supreme logic, because we all do or say things that deep down makes us happy.
Pretty asinine logic you came up with, but if that's what makes you happy then go ahead and virtue signal a random person on TH-cam by unsolicitedly replying to a comment on the comments section. But I guess you already did that! My bad.
@Crow Killer You're virtual signalling again as per your own definition of what it means lol.
Btw residential carbon emission footprint is way low compared to the industries. I'm not saying we have to reduce the emissions to zero, but we can do all that is possible to reduce it. So stop with your trolling and move on because I'm not engaging in a conversation with you. I'm out.
I have lived in Florida my whole life you hit the nail on the head, people have destroyed natural barriers against hurricanes and built houses then scream and rant about hurricanes
Haha, what natural barriers? How foolish can you be?
Ben is so smart. He sees things clearly
Just open your eyes no temp increase overall for 30 years, no extra ice melt but the opposite, no sea level rise overall for 100 years.
i would like to see ben destroy greta thunberg Lmao
Oh, I would pay big cash to see that debate.
@@sid6.764 who wouldnt lol
Well wouldn't be that much of an accomplishment. Destroying a now 17year old who doesn't know much about climate change. Don't mistake her for an expert on the field just because she had the courage to stand up for this.
Play it at 0.5 speed to actually be able to fully understand him
HAHAHA
best speed is 0.75 :)
He's good at arguing. Rather than denying climate change he just acknowledged it and downplayed it. Mentioned mass immigration like it's no big deal. Yes Russia and Northern Europe are definitely going to open up their border and lands for everyone close to the equator. Over a billion people losing their homes due to uninhabitable climate is not going to cause any kind of conflict or disaster.
He still has the exact same mentality as a denyer. Let's do nothing to try to reverse this and continue living in an unsustainable way because "only 50%" of climate change has been proved to be caused my humans.
He's a climate change denier who
Is aware enough to realise that flat out denying evidence won't work rather he needs to deflect and dismiss in order to argue towards his agenda.
most western countries reduce they co2 emissions only because they outsource literally every production facility towards china.
That was a very good answer. Thanks Ben.
honestly, if anyone is still here watching this video, feel free to respond; I think Ben kinda swerved the idea of human devastation by discussing the effects climate change has on the global economy. He insists that it will cost less MONEY to allow climate change to rampage the planet's lands but misses the point that climate change will devastate our livelihoods. Also, I would really like to see these predictions for a climate change - inflicted global economy, I think contemporary times might have altered any predicted patterns.
It's not going to "devastate our livelihoods". Quit making shit up.
@@boli4203 live on the eastern seaboard? enjoy eating vegetables at all, especially greens? like hunting? like skiing? like swimming in the lake? enjoy the presence of mosquitos? like having available groundwater for consumption and human use?
The biggest issue is in the ocean not the storms or flooding on the land.
The ocean is heating and filling with carbon dioxide, the heating will change the path of large sea currants that a lot of sea life use to migrate along with those currunts also moving micro nutrients to ocean plants and coral beds.
The carbon dioxide will eventually build to a point where it will start to suffercate the animal and plant life in the ocean by unbalacing the oxygen in the water.
This will cause in a period between the next 20-50 years a major amount of sea life to die; then causing a major amount of land animals that depend on the ocean to die and a chain reaction in the earth's ecosystem of animal and plant life.
This of course will massively effect how much food is available globally and there will be mass hunger for humans.
That's if you only care about the human impact and don't even think about how many amazing animal species will be lost forever never to be able to be viewed in person again.
The argument against climate activists should be; WHY, over 20,000 years we were in the midst of an Ice Age, which lasted for 10,000 years. What human activity caused the Ice Age? THEN global warming began, no industrial capitalism, i.e. no cars, no airplanes, no cows farting, no fossil fuel emissions, etc. What human activity caused this global warming?
When these "climate activists" can answer and explain this Ice Age and global warming phenomenon, ONlY THEN will I listen to them. Do they not realize that the Northern half of the U.S. cities and farm land would not even exist if it was not for Global Warming?
The climate can obviously change naturally, nobody is denying that, but human activity speeds up the progress
Also because global warming in the past helped agriculture it doesn't mean that the climate can just change without us being affected
The effect human activity has on the climate is not accurately quantifiable.The idea that politicians could or even would do anything to affect the climate if we gave them more power and more tax dollars is utterly preposterous. All they would do is ask for more power and higher taxes because we didn’t give them enough to fix the problem in the first place.
@Simon Bolduc I believe we are fowling our nest. If the Gullible warming crowd has just said; hey, we need to clean up our act, they would have found me there, waiting impatiently for them to catch up. But, the 'never let a crisis go to waste' crowd, Al Gore and the left, had to claim to be able to control the climate.
The arrogance and hubris involved in that boondoggle snake oil sales pitch is epic and dangerous.
@Simon Bolduc That statement starts with the false conclusions that A) that there is climate change and B) that mankind is responsible for an unprovable claim. There is NO PROOF of Anthropogenic Global Warming. To have scientific proof you would need the scientific method, which requires a control. In this case it would mean having an identical planet Earth in an identical orbit from which you could remove humans, study it for a couple of hundred years and reach a conclusion. And you would need to be able to repeat that experiment over and over. You would also have to remove fossil fuels and study it for a couple of hundred years and reach a conclusion. And you would need to be able to repeat that experiment over and over.
That’s not possible. All some scientists have is anecdotal observations and disputed computer projections. If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. That is not proof.
@Simon Bolduc e-ro-sion [ih-roh-zhuh n] Spell Syllables
noun
1.the act or state of eroding; state of being eroded.
2.the process by which the surface of the earth is worn away by the action of water, glaciers, winds, waves, etc.
Learn it know it, it's been happening since there has been liquid water on the surface of the earth.
@Simon Bolduc And besides that, where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
@Simon Bolduc Polar bears are thriving. Glaciers have come and gone multiple times in earth's geologic history. North America used to be covered with them down to what is currently St Louis. and started receding about 11,000 years ago. Faster, because of man? tThat's again not accurately quantifiable.
Try this. Take a bottle, fill it full with ice and then water. Put a cap on it tightly. Mark the level . Let all the ice melt. Then undo the cap. Now check the level again. What happens to the level of the liquid?
I felt like he was just on the verge of saying “I don’t believe in pollution”
Nah. He said climate change is happening but not as much as what people always tell
A sensible response to a straight question. The climate will always be the climate and what might be happenning now has happened in the past and will happen again - everything is cyclic. Don't panic.
But Cat 5’s are most frequent than ever in recorded history.
Ben concedes over 50% of climate
change can be attributed to humans
Then warns people to stay away from alarmists
Then says it would be economically cheaper not to address climate change
But dodges the simple question: should we attempt to do something now?
"Humans will migrate like they always have". Ok so what happens as about 350 Million people from Bangladesh an India have to suddenly migrate somewhere else? The land there is flat and almost sea level and it is extremely densely populated. How are these amounts of humans just "migrate" somwhere else? Where? And with what money are they gonna build a whole new country?
I liked Ben's argument. However, thers is a question of air quality and taxes that needs addressing. Essentially climate activists raise taxes to "solve" this problem by stealing workers wages forcing a greater migration from developed cites to less developed towns. I hope Ben can address this. I left Berkeley CA for that reason.
?/! You're onto something.
I wish he would expand on his answer. His rationale seems sound but he leaves out a two key points. First, it was a choice by the economy to go the fossil fuel route. 120 years ago Big Oil basically made sure that world would turn toward the internal combustion engine, oil was already in demand and this was a tremendous potential market for them, which stunted the growth of electric vehicles for a century. It simply wasn't profitable or worth it to take on such a large industry. We are only now seeing that electric vehicles are more powerful and have a much smaller long term impact on the environment. By that I mean that it is a much more carbon emission producing process to make an electric vehicle then a gas, but you quickly see that the carbon deficit of an electric vehicle shrinks when compared to a gas vehicle running for 5 to 10 years. I don't think its a magic bullet to fight climate change due to the way that most electricity is created, either by coal, trash burning, or oil, but its a good start to say the least. Second, climate change is much more than rising sea levels. Most scientists agree that it will cause widespread changes in weather pattern, amongst other things, that can lead to crop failures, mass extinctions, etc... Try to imagine if bread all of a sudden cost $100 a loaf because there was a failed wheat harvest or if a steak cost $250 because pasture land has shrunk to almost nothing and now only the rich can eat beef. In other words, putting it in pure eceonomic terms, its an extremely complicated issue and we do need to think about if making today's dollar is worth massive wealth erosion in the future.
The Arctic sea ice volume declined by a massive 75% in just 40 years, from 17,000 km3 in 9/1979 to only 4,000 km3 in 9/2019. We urgently need to reduce our CO2 output to save the remaining 25%.
The rich people don’t even believe their global warming pitch. They fly private jets, build homes near the ocean etc etc
No they are talking about you...you pay, you sacrifice you make it work for them, you are to
Blame... get it?
rich people can take the loss.
Ben is such a brilliant, brilliant man.
Shapiro answering a question. Was it supposed to be impressive?
Snake Plissken nope, just his take on the question. People are interested in that
Always nice to hear what someone who does a lot of logical research - has to say on something that's constantly pushed by the media without logical backing and alternatives. People don't do their research yet they get behind all these movements and attack those who are "skeptic".
@@2MuchSwag4Funzies Who does "a lot of logical research"?
Lol "logical research"? I was about to say wtf to that lol
Snake Plissken Matter of opinion. I liked it.
Two things...1) it's not about humans and storms, it's about the impact on species, like corals, birds, etc. 2) the USA was number one in carbon reduction (well done), but was also number one in carbon emissions (number 2 now). So Ben skips some key points here.
Nobody knows exactly how much human activity has contributed to the global rise in temperature. But i think it is good to start somewhere to reduce emission of greenhouse gases and stop ocean pollution
He didn't address the fact that 50% of our oxygen comes from the ocean and warming the oceans will disrupt that production.
Because that's not correct. Our oxygen comes from plants, and trees. Ocean plants also contribute, but at the depths these plants are, it would take millions of years to disrupt. 70 degree swings dont change them, because the temps are more constant on the floor.
Under-valued comment. There is a lot he didn't address.
@@outkast187 Jay Cray is correct. He is not referring to plants on the ocean floor... He's referring to algae at the surface, which accounts for about 3/4 of marine plants.
@@evanwilliams1447 the plants on surface use sunlight. With less ozone, we get more intense sunlight. So we are making the world better with more oxygen with this theory.