Rather than Science it was Junk science. First when Congress created Yellowstone Park, Tribal Treaty Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Rights were eliminated. Then in the 1940s man-killing Man-eating Gray Wolves were eliminated from the lower 48 States including Yellowstone Park. Then in the late 1970s reports began that herds of Ungulate and Beaver populations were too large and by the late 1980s exceeded their forage and threatened their health. Enter Park Service Wildlife Biologist and Wolf crazy Doug Smith. Being a trained Wildlife Biologist he defines Wildlife as all animals except Mankind and domesticated animals. He concluded and recommended releasing man-killing Man-eating 70 to 130 Gray Wolves with a fence in place or any plans for a containment plan. In 1995 the livestock insurance industry was Zero, in 2023 was $3 billion and insurance Executives on Long Island plan to deposit $6 billion in premium checks in 2030. Releasing Wolves is an insurance scam. Mankind is part of the Natural Wildlife and Apex Predator on Planet Earth. Congress should restore Tribal Treaty Fishing, Hunting and Trapping Rights in Yellowstone Park subject to limitations imposed by Park Service Wildlife Biologists. Men with Hunting Tags can control Ungulate populations and man with trapping permits can control Beaver populations. Congress should eliminate Protections for man-killing Man-eating Gray Wolves and Bears. Keep Bears, Cougars and Gray Wolves safe in Zoos.

What an amazing conversation! than you very much for these reflections, great to listen to you all.

He obviously hasn’t been touched by globalisation, his type of job is safe and he has prospered…I take it. Social media arrived just after globalisation brutalised millions of people in the world. A lot of the anger stems from that! Why have people voted Brexit or for Trump…because the working class have been abandoned by the very people they trusted. Social media is an outlet for their anger, not the cause. If you take that away from people then anger will show itself in different ways. You are trying to get rid of the safety value.

Imran, the self promoted censor of net, who decides what is hate and what is not hate....

Scary authoritarian bloke isn’t he?

volcanic ash fertilizing to grow algae is less natural than biological annihilation.

Let's first ask whether carbon removal tech is foreseeably able to work at the scale of the problem. That means answering who will finance it, how a build-out at industrial scale would work, but also the opportunity cost of pouring tax money into it. Billions might be more directly and effectively spent to help industries or people to electrify. Startups and industry will happily take public money (and “other people’s money”) until that dries up. At present the only financially viable CCUS are oil industry projects which re-use CO2 for ‘enhanced oil recovery’ = to produce and burn more oil. The biggest sequestering hopes are perhaps with biochar and soil use solutions because these have tangible co-benefits unlike super expensive direct air capture gadgets.

10 billion tons of carbon is the equivalent of 22 billion tons of air dry wood which would cover NYC to a depth of 65 feet or weigh the same as 440 great walls of China. It is also equivalent to 40 billion tons of CO2 which is what we're dumping into the atmosphere per year. Carbon removal is an integral part of the IPCC projections which limit warming to below 2°C. It is already used as a justification to extend the target date of "net zero" to beyond 2060.

~49:00 I have to challenge some of these comments, too. It's just not true that nothing was being done several decades ago. What's being pushed now, in regard to efficiency and renewables, was a subject of much interest in the Seventies, in particular, when oil prices spiked, but really these are trends that have been going on since before any of us were around. The difference now is that some of them are reaching proportions where they cannot be ignored.

~42:00 This is not as complicated as it's being made to sound here. If you, as a consumer, benefited from use of cheap fossil fuels, and disposal in the Atmosphere, the producer's cost savings got passed on to you in lower prices. LIkewise, if producers are required to pay for their cumulative emissions, they will pass on those extra costs in higher prices. It works in both directions. As for morality of past actions, many things in life fall into a category you could call "it's not your fault, but it is your problem."" No need to put anyone on trial for criminal offenses (unless there is willful criminality, of course), it's just part of the cost of doing business.

Discussions like this need much more attention to audio levels. This is hard to hear, and attempts to compensate can lead to other problems. For example, irritated neighbors.

~29:00 So there might be some tradeoffs, and we shouldn't focus exclusively on CO2? Well, OK, out with it. What ARE the tradeoffs? I don't want to hear just about how there MIGHT be some tradeoff. Show some real information.

For each method of CCS, how much energy would be required to construct, implement, and operate the systems being proposed... what is the EROEI? How great is the atmospheric CO2 investment to get even a break even CO2 removal benefit?

So-called "greenhouse effect" physics: It happens in Earth's troposphere. The H2O gas & CO2 in Earth's atmosphere manufacture ~1,500 times as much radiation as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (or something of that scale, hundreds of times as much). Taking 1 Unit as the Sun's radiation that Earth absorbs (which is 99.93% of all energy going into the ecosphere, geothermal and all the human nuclear fission and fossil carbon burning are 0.035% each) and the 1,500 times as a workable example (not accurate) to describe the physics concept: Units 1 Solar SWR that Earth absorbs (1/3rd in the air, 2/3rds in the surface) 1,500 LWR manufactured by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere 1,497.64 LWR absorbed by H2O gas & CO2 molecules in Earth's atmosphere 0.92 Leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere and goes to space 1.44 Leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere and goes into the surface (Note: There's 0.08 LWR straight from the surface to space because H2O gas, CO2, CH4, O3, NOx, CFCs don't absorb those wavelengths) So there's the balance with 1 Solar SWR Unit being absorbed and 0.92+0.08=1 LWR Unit being sent to space. The "greenhouse effect" is the fact that only 0.92 leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere but a larger 1.44 leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere into the surface, because only the leakage to space gets rid of the constant stream of solar SWR energy, not the leakage into the surface. If they were both the same, both 1.18, then there'd still be 2.36 leaking out of Earth's atmosphere but there'd be no "greenhouse effect" (as you see, out of the top of Earth's atmosphere to space has gone up from 0.92 to 1.18 so there's obviously much more cooling). The reason why they are unbalanced with more leaking out the bottom than out the top is simply because Earth's troposphere is usually by far (much) colder at the top than at the bottom and colder gases make less radiation than warmer gases because they collide less frequently and with less force (that's what "colder" means, it's just molecules bashing other molecules less frequently and with less force). ------ If more H2O gas & CO2 molecules are added into Earth's troposphere then the 0.92 that leaks out the top of Earth's atmosphere is reduced and the 1.44 that leaks out the bottom of Earth's atmosphere is correspondingly increased. For example, add some ghg molecules for a 0.01 Unit effect and the 0.92:1.44 leakage changes to 0.91:1.45 leakage, so there's more "greenhouse effect". That 0.01 Unit example is a "forcing" of 2.4 w/m**2 which is 60 years of the current ghgs increase and is expected would warm by ~2.4 degrees with the feedbacks.

Not only will there be an increase in emissions while we work on this project, the project itself will generate tremendous emissions assuming it will use steel, concrete and plastic.

If radiation hits bald surface.

To point out earth uses the AirSeaInterface to exchange gases at_scale vs on land/lg.islands one must remove it from the greenhouse layer not below it the constraint. Fwiw

SCientist "believe" "consensus"??? we are fucck!

WHat a huge pile of CRAP !!! 97.03% of CO2 emissions arte from NATURAL SOURCES soil respiration, photosintesis, oceans, Plants microbes decerbonize my ass !!! This further reinforces the argument that attributing atmospheric temperature changing forcing to anthropogenic causes “is and absolutely ignorant, stupid and unsupported dogma,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the soil respiration, photosynthesis, trees and plants, continental rift, and oceans degassing (97.03% of CO2 equivalent emissions). On top of which other major forcing have to be accounted for: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo ...and of course, the main source of energy the Sun. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural earth's emissions of CO2 eq are in fact, 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. Annual increments of 2.5 ppmv into the atmosphere include all sources. Since man-made or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, the unfeasible results from the global ignorant + stupid policies of Net Zero CO2 are perverse, twisted, and fraudulent, since the retarded, childish, and silly absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~30-50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic coal, gas, and petroleum emissions combined. All species on Earth thrive at an “optimal” 20 degrees Celsius Note1: Plants thrive at ~23.3°C. Note 2: Mean surface temperature of Earth today is about ~15°C. Son in average earth’s average temperature require to increase 5-8 °C. to reach optimum life temperature. Conclusion: The estimated temperature -changes- due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions.

Carbon removal is a crime against life.

Everything we do releases carbon dioxide, so the Carbon Cult want to control everything. There will be global starvation if fossil fuels are eliminated. At risk in coming decades will be half of the world’s 8.5 billion to 10 billion people who are fed by crops grown with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Getting to Net Zero by 2050 would cost $9.2 trillion a year globally (McKinsey). That's not going to be good value for money. That's nearly one-tenth of global GDP. That money would be better spent on a myriad of things including educating the fifth of humanity who are illiterate and represent a 7% annual loss to the world's economy. Any country that attempts it will be indebted or impoverished. Example: For the UK to reach net zero by electrification of its transport fleet and heating system, it will require a tripling (as a minimum) of its current electrical generation capacity among other things. It will mean increasing wind power generation from 75TWh (in 2020) to 665TWh (in 2050 - these are UK National Grid figures). That's around 100,000 giant wind turbines. And by the time you get to 2050, the 4,000 wind turbines you needed to install in 2025 would have reached the end of their working lives and will need to be buried in landfill, and replaced with another 4,000. It's all impossible and absurd. The cabling and additional structures to connect all this together will essentially require the UK consuming huge amounts of copper and other rare metals for the next 25 years. 1.5 billion tonnes of concrete 42 million tonnes of steel (which is going to need 27 million tonnes of coking coal) 1.9 million tonnes of copper 1.3 million tonnes of zinc 184,000 tonnes of manganese 122,000 tonnes of chromium 56,000 tonnes of nickel 54,000 tonnes of other critical minerals. No doubt all of these materials will be ethically sourced using low carbon processes. Nuclear power would require less than ½ of these resources and Coal power around ¹/10th. The cost will be unaffordable and the skilled manpower levels unattainable. And that is just to eliminate the 1% of the global CO2 emissions that the UK is responsible for. So times that by 100 for the Earth. 10,000 child slaves in the cobalt mines of the Congo not enough for you? Make it a million. Imagine all the human suffering and environmental damage done from all that resource extraction! It's pointless anyway. In just 8 years (prior to 2021) China emitted more CO2 than Britain did since the start of Industrial Revolution that began over 220 years ago! And China plans to vastly increase its coal fired generating capacity. An electric vehicle requires 6 times the mineral input compared to a conventional one, and the carbon cost is greater until you reach 80,000 miles. Production of all of these minerals has been mastered by China: a totalitarian communist regime that thinks nothing of the mass murder of its own citizens, imagine how much it cares about the rest of us. And why are we embarking on this great net zero crusade? For what? So someone can virtue signal by driving around in a Tesla. Maddeningly, there is no climate crisis. The Earth was warmer in the recent and distant past.

Highlight: 13:39: Overview of carbon removal pathways, and attributes framing (conventional/novel. Readiness, potential, timescale.)

Just finished watching, excellent team. One key argument mentioned is that there will be winners and losers and that strong nations are likely to make decisions that they hope (!!) will benefit them. Not good. The other is about unintended consequences but I'd emphasize that unlike releasing bunnies in Australia those consequences will be felt globally. Finally: Read Neal Stephenson's Termination Shock for a SF author's take on this very subject. You'll run into pretty much all arguments in this matter wrapped into a fast paced story. MV

The people I have met who worry about "chemtrails" are not very informed or logical types, in my experience. When I point out that jet engines produce water vapour, which condenses into water droplets, they come up with nonsense replies. Yes water is a "chemical", but it is a well known product of combustion of aviation fuel.

Not 1000 years. This is just nonsense scaremongering. We are past peak oil, so CO2 emissions are self-limiting in a matter of a few decades. Not even in 100 years let alone 1000. In 1000 years people will be worrying about the next ice age. Scaremongering is not helping.

Private companies and concerned individuals (whether ultra wealthy or not) will just go ahead and do it, if governments continue to dither. Look up Make Sunsets. Two concerned individuals, just getting on with it. Of course at a small scale. But imagine thousands or millions of concerned people doing similar projects. Maybe using high altitude balloons as they are, or by other ways such as high altitude aircraft, or drones at sea spraying salt mist etc.

Stop the scaremongering, SRM just needs to be done. Nobody is scaremongering termination effect about if CCS were stopped suddenly. It is the same argument. Ozone would be slightly reduced, because sulphur does slightly absorb UV. But it is a marginal effect. CFCs are the main problem for ozone still.

SRM to stabilise global temperature entirely would cost around $500 million per year. Using ex-military jets to take sulphur to the stratosphere. Jets such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F15 can take multiple tonnes per sortie to 60,000 ft. And they can be adapted to do so in a matter of weeks, not years or decades. It would be very quick to stop if needed - say a large volcano erupted and put sulphur into the stratosphere, the plane flights could be stopped straight away. There is very little risk of overdoing it, because solar flux is measured by satellite in near real time.

The termination argument is spurious because it ignores the point that temperature rise would be starting from a much lower level with SRM, than if SRM had not been used. Also phytoplankton need sulphur. They produce DMS (Dimethyl Sulphate), which is a powerful cooling molecule. Without sulphur they of course cannot produce DMS. So cutting sulphur from ship fuel is likely to reduce DMS production too.

We are at or close to 1.5 C already. The temperature rise rate is increasing according to James Hansen.

CO2 should not be removed too quickly or there would be crop yield collapse, and there would be vast starvation.

It is inevitable that we will do SRM. Cutting CO2 is unlikely to happen quickly.

Your video is great but Your video SEO Score is very low.

'promo sm'

Ahh, so this is the state sponsered stool pideon, another 'ADL' type clone. Another 'democracy for me, not for thee' 'organisation'. Be careful folks, and question EVERYTHING, especially orgs with names like 'Centre for countering bla bla and bla'. Suppresion and state narrative moulding is what the 'democratic' so called 'US' and its tools are doing.

The global land surface data is far from accurate being heavily weighted to measurements in the USA and Europe with in recent years sites selected for ese of connection to the internet for the new electronic thermometers. This has meant a preponderance of WMO Class 4 sites, for example airports, that are subject to the Urban Heat Island Effect that can add several degrees to the true value. This record of measurements 1.5 metres above the surface is combined with sea surface temperatures which distort the values further. The only accurate atmospheric global temperatures we have are those from balloon and satellites but the latter only go back to 1979 just as the accurate Argo sea surface ones only go back to 2002. This means we can really say very little about long term global temperature trends especially as those in the Southern Hemisphere rise as those in the Northern Hemisphere fall and vice versus.

You introduce the wolves then expect Ranchers to compromise how does that work...I don't get it

Wolves are amazing incredibly efficient and intelligent killing machines may Colorado's Deer and Elk population rest in peace they don't just prey on the weak and old they lay waist to every thing...just visit Yellowstone and try to find an Elk....I hope these irresponsible introductions don't migrate to Utah

Center for Countering Digital Hate has only ONE paid government employee. Imran cannot give evidence of a single assertion he makes. 100% government propaganda!

Lived for 45 years where they released ten wolves in radium. Hardly a wilderness area, 5000 people a day in the summer rafting there, wolves should have a lot to eat. Who resurched this hair brain idea! The people who want wolves live in boulder and denver, release them there.

Hi dear, I was analyzing your KZbin channel (0) and are you struggling with subscribers and video views for monetization? I can help you grow your KZbin channel. We offer a complete KZbin monetization/marketing/promotion/video SEO service.

"One study in a simulation might" youre guessing on this whole thing. Theres no thesis statement here. Youre experimenting and its gross and reckless.

Other than a surviving population, what is the intended outcome of a thriving wolf population? Its amazing how all the advocacy never talks about what the goal to the world will be. Its all "wait and see" while we seek out positives.

Dominick Moreno mentioned that lawmakers are stretched so thin and have to rely on outside experts. Sadly Colorado has very short terms for representatives (2ys) and senators (4 ys) which means once elected they need to immediately start campaigning for reelection instead of gaining expertise in their chosen fields. Industry loves it that way because lawmakers depend on lobbyists to write Cliff notes for them. Term limits may look appealing but preventing lasting competence in lawmakers is the hidden goal.

Depopulation is the name of the game. Don't take the cheese.

Well, this didn't age well at all. Among other things, Imran Ahmed has been exposed as a fucking liar and anti-free speech agent.

Since the disasters in Paradise CA and Maui its more obvious than ever that we MUST move from long distance energy transmission, to community based power generation.

Censorship is a way to fight people's truth.

Imran only wants you know his(Far Left Medical Industrial Complex Socialist Control) definition of the truth. Not the REAL truth.

🤡🌍🤣🤪😡