Demystifying Three Climate Lies - The Road to Decarbonisation | Thomas Stocker | TEDxBern

[@linzearth]

So good of you to allow comments on this video. Too many producers disable the ability to question or disagree. After all the idea of consensus on this matter is contrary to doing good science. Nothing was demystified here.

[@doobidoo095]

CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2500"C of heat energy. That is bonkers. It also breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more bonkers. However, the climate is changing. This is because of deliberate geoengineering programmes, in particular ozone thinning away from the poles. Though largely unreported ozone thinning effect is directly observable, this summer you can see a unnaturally bright sun just as we did last year. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared. (Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, ripple patterns caused by HAARP installations, bizarre and unnatural cloud formations). Climate change is a programme to force change in accordance with the implementation of Agenda 21 /2030. Current events demonstrate this transition is well underway and will involve massive population cull through injected nanotech (re transhumanist programme). Agenda 21 also sees the permanent loss of all property rights with the introduction of universal basic income (ref NESARA/GESARA) and has/is being promoted by The World Economic Forum. 'You will own nothing and you will be happy' WEF In a depopulated world the surviving brainwashed and controlled population will be confined to mega cities. Carbon limits will be used to restrict consumption and liberty. Meanwhile the re-greened wilderness will be the exclusive playground of the ultra rich elite posing as conservationists. The CO2 hoax amounts to the theft of the world and the enslavement of humanity by a parasitic few. Welcome to the future! _________ I have included a debunking of 'accumulated heat' as it is so often used to explain how trace elements, so called 'greenhouse gasses', can warm the planet. Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is. When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case. NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect. As I have just explained, this is totally impossible and fundamentally violates all the laws of thermodynamics. That respected scientists should support such uneducated, unthinking nonsense is disturbing and only reflects that in terms of being able to think clearly about a subject they have no facility or inclination. These are the Dark Ages of science. Belief has outweighed logic or any critical thought. It tells us that we should not unquestioningly accept anything we are told, that experts can be fools. (NB: be aware of attempts to discard thermodynamics by talking about biology. Eg. 'It only takes a drop of arsenic to kill a person.' This would be somewhat desperate, muddled thinking. Clearly biological processes based on the reaction of a cell are not the same as the laws of physics/thermodynamics).

[@johnmcardle8016]

100% of the comments seem to conclude that this guy hasn't a clue.

[@peted3637]

97% ;-)

[@Globovoyeur]

If only science were a matter of opinion, eh?

[@hemiedwards217]

@@Globovoyeur and ill-formed one's at that lol.

[@clairewhite5789]

It's a world economic forum elite agenda just read what Klaus Schwab has planned for the world!

[@jean-marclamothe8859]

Like a wise one said it’s not important the beauty of the thing, the intelligence of the one who made it, the laps of time they used to do it, if it doesn’t match the reality, the terrible facts, it’s not working,it’s not good. 30 years of really wrong predictions but all those brainwashed still looking everywhere else to not see the elephant in the place.

[@Fitin10nation]

We don’t even know what has caused the past heating and cooling cycles but we know what’s causing this one? Speculation and/or correlation are not causation. The reality is we don’t know ...and I don’t understand why some scientists refuse to admit this.

[@joephysics5469]

As a physicist myself I understand how this guy loves to think everything can be simplified. But also as a physician who works with outrageously complicated systems of the human organism it is obvious to me that he really doesn't comprehend how complex the climate truly is. He also doesn't include how human bias is rampant when studying very complex systems. Scientists often find what they want to find in these complex systems because of their natural bias. Medical studies are notoriously false because of natural bias.

[@hartunstart]

Agreed. H2O is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere. On dry areas lots of IR can escape to space. On wet areas vapor (greenhouse gas) can easily turn into a cloud (=more albedo, no greenhouse). Inside a cloud there may be vertical latent convection, that transfers energy up. Modeling these things is easy. Only modeling them right is difficult. ;)

[@scottgate4983]

@@davidgeissbuhler6285 If he's so great then why in his first debunking does he claim in the last 800,000 years it's never been so high and show a graph for only the last 1,000 years? debunking debunked already, so typical they only show what meets their requirement and not the whole facts.

[@flemme4580]

@@scottgate4983 You did not read even the axis of the chart. The unit is 1000 years. So the chart shows 800 000 years. Your statement says a lot about you but little about Stocker.

[@scottgate4983]

@@flemme4580 so i missed read something i am human but i guess you must be perfect to make such claims about others, still doesn't make his argument right as it's been proven many times that there is no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. As stated by Joe at the start of this thread things are a lot more complex than they make them out to be and i haven't seen 1 climate model yet taking into account all factors and if this doesn't happen then their models are wrong by default and automatically bias.

[@flemme4580]

@@scottgate4983 I reacted this way not because I am perfect but because you claimed you had debunked him and then immediately generalized how typical his behavior is. The correlation between co2 and temperature is very strong. Just look at any graph from the ice core data. Mind you, correlation is not causation, so maybe you did not mean correlation. Yes climate is complicated. We do understand the immediate effect of co2 but we understand much less some of the feedback loops. However at the moment there seems to be no credible alternative theory explaining the current warming.

[@joltinjack]

The coming ice age in the 1970s, Acid Rain in the 1980s, Depleted Ozone in the 1990s, Global Warming in the 2000s, and the "can't miss", "catch all" scare, Climate Change. Chicken Little science.

[@danweaver4304]

exactly, JJ. Although, the acid rain thing was real: rubber factories in Indiana & Ohio, and Steel factories in western PA, generated significant amounts of sulfur emissions. The Great Lakes added significant amounts of water to the sulfur through natural evaporation. The mixture of sulfur + water = sulfuric acid. Even high school chemistry teaches how strong is sulfuric acid compared to carbonic acid (CO2+water). While the weak acid helps keep rain water from immediately growing microorganisms, the strong acid kills fish and other creatures who only drink from streams in upstate NY, VT, NH, MA, and even CT. Thus, some states suffered damage as a result of pollution created in other states. Very important legislation put an end to such pollution, but also sent the tire manufacturing jobs to Japan, Korea & China, where the Pacific Ocean takes up the sulfuric acid, causing the ocean to become less basic (ocean water pH is slightly basic, not acidic). When you hear idiots blame CO2 for such a change, don't believe it. Only scientific illiterates (including SCOTUS justices) could believe CO2 is a pollutant.

[@nigelliam153]

Man made continental drift will be next😉

[@rogerphelps9939]

Acid rain was a real threat. The evidence was very plain and the problem was addressed. The same goes for depleted ozone.; it has not recovered completely yet. There was no "coming ice age" in the 1970s; someone wrote a paper that was very quickly debunked, that is all. Clearly you have very little understanding of science otherwise you would not have posted such nonsense,

[@drjukebox]

CO2 below 150 ppm would mean the end of life on earth (plant starvation), Even at the levels we see today, around 400 ppm, plants are still starved of CO. How you can come up with the idea that the current level of CO2 could in any way be a threat is mind boggling. We come from a very cold period. In the 1800s people starved because of poor harvests. We have had one degree of warming since then. Not because of CO2, but still a good thing. Let's enjoy it while it lasts. Now, if you ever can observe and quantify the necessary feedback effects between CO and water vapour to cause significant heating, get back with us. Noone ever has. Chances are noone ever will. And there is no linear relationship between ppm CO2 and global temperature.

[@springbloom5940]

The real problem, is 'popsci' cultists, who seem to think the climate should, would, or could remain comfortable for one self-aborbed, infant species - adapt or perish.

[@GentlemanBystander]

Shout it from the roof tops, brother!

[@waynebow-gu7wr]

@@springbloom5940 The problem being.... we should be adapting to global freezing. Were being set up with a system of trade ( think food ) and solar / wind power, that is being adapted for heat. If a mini ice age sets in were going to freeze and starve to death !

[@gregggoodnight9889]

This guy apparently is an expert on lies, so we need to listen to him. He uses typical alarmist misdirects. He shows only the corrupted surface temperature record, replete with homogenization, infilling, and uni-directional adjustments. Does not mention the satellite temperature record that clearly shows "the pause" in the last 20 years. Does not mention that water is the most important greenhouse gas. Uses relative CO2 concentrations (not absolute values) to typify CO2 levels as "high". News flash: 400ppm is only 0.04%. In what world is this a "major" macroscopic driver? Nobody I know contends that the earth hasn't warmed in the last century (about 1C). What "deniers" suggest is that natural climatic cycles are significant and not zero, as he and others assume. Full disclosure, this guy was a co-chair of IPCC working group #1. The UN is pushing global governance, wealth redistribution, and socialism, and energy policy is the best tool to accomplish all.

[@matthewk87]

An important question is when are you measuring. His first myth starts by saying "if you count 1 million molecules in the air". But when is this count occurring? Also important is the rate of which increase in molecules is reflected in warming. He seems to imply that additional warming would be at a rate proportional to initial warming (though he asserts the natural greenhouse gases account for 33C to work backward to a baseline of -15C.... however, how does he determine the warming effect of natural greenhouse gases?), but clearly that is not the case, because otherwise we would be looking at around a 15C increase today as opposed to the 1.5-2C actually observed.

[@VFN556]

So encouraging to read intelligent comments.

[@natureisallpowerful]

Natural cycle of the earth. You have no 1000 year data.

[@gregggoodnight9889]

@@natureisallpowerful yes you do. It is generally termed "proxy data" by which temperatures are computed. These include isotope ratios in ice cores, among others.

[@natureisallpowerful]

@@gregggoodnight9889 I knew that ice core samples would come out. What about natural shrinking and expanding glaciers. I think we have a tiny impact on it,lets hope it stays that way.

[@jesussuperlightchris5797]

He lied, carbon was 4000ppm in the past

[@drekpaprika]

Citation please!

@@drekpaprika i will help hear, look up ice cores, co2 content,much higher in he past, as was earths temperature

[@donready119]

@@drekpaprika Just google geologic co2 levels. Wikipedia and many others have great sources. One geo journaled paper I read said flatly, there is no correlation between C02 levels and geologic time scale temperatures. We had ice ages when C02 was 2000ppm.

[@nyali2]

@@drekpaprika yep he is wrong it wasn't 4000ppm but above 8000ppm when life erupted.

[@Aanthanur]

no, he did not lie, he was talking about the past 800 000 years, ice cores don't go further back. those past Co2 levels you talk about, IPCC is btw at 8000 ppm a few million years ago, but that is on very few proxies and mostly modeled with Geocarb.

[@jouniantero]

Predicting a complex system 50 years into the future seems to me at least quite difficult, no matter what this guy says. And when it comes to climate change, I would say that as soon as some of the past predictions would be even close to what they predicted I could start to believe in this. So far they never got it right. Every time they have radically over estimated the human-effect and warming. Recently the IPCC also change their latest predictions to a less catastrophic direction. This was, of course, done in silence...

[@bds3919]

If that was true, you would already believe it. The climate models have been remarkably accurate.

[@neiljohn2894]

@@bds3919 Please produce the remarkable evidence for this statemen.t

[@anthonyjames4478]

@@bds3919 No, they haven't. And more to the point is that no one, NO ONE, has yet explained or proven that even the predicted increase in temperature would necessarily be bad. The planet has had warmer spells in the past and look! we're still here!!

[@insomniacbritgaming1632]

@@bds3919 Every single prediction has failed massively!! by 2008 half of the UK costal regions were supposed to be under water...

[@Heavywall70]

Climate change is an absolute constant, PERIOD. Massive end level events that caused rapid heating or cooling of earth have never been caused by the human race. Don’t believe me, ask a wooly mammoth 🦣 I live, and have lived at sea level for more than twenty years, the ocean is right where they put it. Torrential rains north of my location pushing fresh water downstream will raise tides briefly at the Gulf of Mexico, sometimes we get a flood and then it always goes down. As a matter of fact the river levels are quite low at present. A little rain would help.

[@iichthus5760]

As a scientist I am left wondering where the science was in this “scientific discussion”? I mean beyond the pedantic and over simplified statement of assertions with no supporting actual, factual information... The leaps from unrelated minutia to assertions of pseudo fact would make Peter Pan green with envy.

[@peteflint8609]

Which oil company do you work for? Disinformation from those like you is why so many idiots don’t believe in climate change

[@HxTurtle]

oh wow-thank you for writing this! (I read this before watching, lol.)

[@lesliesurette5010]

The science was in the red stamp colours = climate emergency.

[@HxTurtle]

@@lesliesurette5010 so, a book with a nicely sounding title that you really like is therefore automatically a science book, right?

[@notyou1877]

3 years later and the IPCC finally relented and allowed to include the water vapor (clouds) in their next round of climate predictions models. It is not perfect, but a step in the correct direction.

[@bonysminiatures3123]

How do they actually have a model when the climate is chaotic and random i`m sure physics does not work like that for other science

[@notyou1877]

@@bonysminiatures3123 it's called a guess.

[@AlphaMoist]

@@bonysminiatures3123 When you have accurate data collected from millions of different variables, you can very easily predict climate change patterns in the future, which we have successfully done since the 1900s

[@bonysminiatures3123]

@@AlphaMoist millions of different variables = millions of different outcomes

[@AlphaMoist]

@@bonysminiatures3123 Why do you think that’s true?

[@markjohnston9119]

Reading this comment section makes me want to cry. I am simply baffled.

[@atwaterpub]

"Prepare for doom" - Zobo the Clown

[@grindupBaker]

"I am simply baffled". Well that's because you've never heard of "wealth", "money", "cash", "stuff, "fun", "moolah", "more stuff", "additional fun", "lucre", "the green" and "survival of the best to lie, cheat, scam, subjugate, bamboozle". A huge knowledge gap in your science studies. Become fulled learned and, like me, you'll never be simply baffled again.

[@atwaterpub]

Like all other human talents, "empathy" and "caring" are not equally distributed. Some people are sadly deficient, much to the detriment of the rest of us. I feel your pain. sorry. "that's life"

[@jeffgold3091]

try watching the video from Finnish tv about the hockey stick on you tube . it might open your eyes . climate doomers have billions invested in propaganda . its hard to find much info reported that hasn't been put out by alarmists . but if you look there is plenty of good science with a different view

[@ralphalf5897]

@@atwaterpub you use the word talent when you mean attributes... akin to your lack of cognitive capability.

[@Gomez39905]

What a nut. There is no causation here. The number of hamburgers eaten has also increased in the last 250 years.

[@bjornelmqvist4546]

What do you mean? The hamburgers are part of the causation. Should he have talked more about carbon sources? Or gone more into detail on how greenhouse gases work?

[@MikeWalls7829]

Scott, this guy doesn't get it

[@johnrogers5825]

Whatever. You're the nut lol.

[@ub2bn]

You need to educate yourself regarding industrialized farming vs. permaculture. The latter reintroduces carbon (and co2) back into the soil. Planned livestock grazing improves soil conditions significantly; and quite quickly, as a matter of fact. The water table gets restored, and crop yields increase greatly. Denying grazing only results in desertification, which is the result of fewer cows, not more. Support local, grass fed, grazed beef, if you are serious about saving the planet.

[@bbbrucebb]

what about the number of beans ?

[@johnliposky7226]

I thought I could trust TED to offer real science. This was opinion only propaganda

[@carusmike]

Your first sentence made me laugh

[@bjornelmqvist4546]

Explain what you mean. Did you not understand the talk? Or are you saying that I did'nt understand it?

[@philippechauvin7207]

Why do you say that. What do you think is wrong in what he says?

[@nyali2]

@@philippechauvin7207 it is biased, he is starting with ppms and saying we owe them +30c. Then he continues saying that we added +40% to these. He fails to mention that we have recorded only 0,5c temperature increase since. Hardly a strong correlation. They also tend to fail to let people know, that co2 levels were +8000ppm when life erupted on Earth. They also fail to mention that ice ages occured around and above 1000ppm and we still don't know if co2 levels were low due to ice age or ice age due to low co2. It is a political debate at this stage.

[@philippechauvin7207]

@@nyali2 No, he doesn't pretend that the +30°c are due to CO2! Of course not. The +30°c (+33°c in fact) is the result of the mix of GHG particles in the atmosphère, most of it being water. Among these 33°c CO2 with its very low concentration, plays a very limited role (a little bit more than 1 degree (direct and through retroactions) and Thomas Stocker doesn't pretend otherwise. This is the reason why +40% of CO2 increases the temperature by around 5°c and the rest of the increase is coming from the increase of other GHGs, mostly water (due to more evaporation due to the increase of temperature due to CO2 and CH4). Furthermore, you can't make accurate calculation just on average temperatures. Pic temperatures have increased more than average temperatures and pic temperatures increase has a stronger impact on water evaporation than average temperatures increase. Thomas Stocker figures are simplified because real figures are much more complex, and all scientists who know the real calculation and have analysed all detailed information agree on the conclusion that the situation is critical. Last calculation made in Europe and presented last month show that the global warming will be between 6 and 7 °C. In US the topic is political, so you don't have the real information. But in Europe and in Asia nobody contests these conclusion. And I remind you that +4°c means that all the US and Europe being a desert.

[@duckpuddles]

Atmosphere; 78% Nitrogen, 21% oxygen, CO2 0.04% (He missed out N2O which I thought was 300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2) I agree that these gases are important and I agree that the planet is warming and I agree we should be thinking of solutions but CO2 0.04% 97% caused by nature 3% by human activity of the 3% caused by human activity just 1% of the 3% is caused by UK If we all abandoned all vehicles/wood and coal fires/all military activity/all manufacturing/ shut down the NHS it all would not make one bit of difference to greenhouse gases relative to the scale of the issue. Certainly put the money towards clean air, conservation of non renewable resources, and plastic pollution of our oceans. But the CO2 question for me remains debatable How are you going to achieve anything without the Chinese and Americans on board? Put the money into depopulation initiatives. Pay people for not having children until the World population goes down to manageable levels, say 2 to 3 billion Put the money into desalination plants for fresh water Look after the seas and produce food from the sea in a sustainable way to prevent destruction of forestry for agriculture and the very inefficient system of growing animals for food. At the moment CO2 argument has all the hallmarks of a religious extremism in that you are not able to even question some of the science without being shut down as a denier. "The science is settled" I hear people say. No science is ever settled, it is not science if it is not open to questions. 1. What were the causes of previous heatings and freezings of the planet before 4x4 V8 vehicles were invented and the burning of fossil fuels? 2 why do the ice core samples show that warming occurred about 800 years before maximum CO2 in graphs over many thousands of years? Something he conveniently ignored in his talk. 3 How can you accurately measure sea level rise to the nearest millimetre when there are so many variables 1. The Earth is not a sphere 2. the planet is spinning 3 the planet has a wobble 4 the seas are influenced by the variable gravitational pull of not only the moon but also all the other planets and their variable orbits of the sun 5 our variable orbit of the sun 6 the suns variable activity 7 The different quality of measurement by satellite and other methods has improved over the years so is not a constant. 8 The Earth has a molten core and a crust with plate movements and some land is sinking and other land is growing 9 El Nino and other current and weather factors. 10 Political interference with the statistics. I remain a possibilarian but someone needs to convince me of the above first

[@mekuranda]

well said !

[@mutantinfant]

Make sure to hang your stocking near the fireplace!

[@TheDajoca]

Well said.

[@boffeycn]

"of the 3% caused by human activity just 1% of the 3% is caused by UK" Really? where dod the Industrial Revolution start and where was the industrial heart of the world for a hundred years or so? Vanuatu?

[@kimlibera663]

I believe you are correct on N20.

[@mattyk82]

I deeply care about this issue but I just wasted nearly 20 minutes of my time. No relevant science exists here.

[@bjornelmqvist4546]

Not relevant for you perhaps, but there are people who still believe in those myths.

[@RJones-Indy]

You wasted your time because his lecture confirmed the science that you disagree with? It is getting harder and harder to find any credible scientist who disagrees with the findings of the most recent IPCC report. The data is now overwhelming and convincing.

[@chrishunt4718]

@@RJones-Indy You say this with an authority like you have a clue what your are submitting, but it is in-fact not true at all. There are many people that are in disagreement with the claims made based on the data model findings and the coupling of those projections with real measurements that have been taken. Your reference to credible scientist must be your halo, in this example I am easily able to assume you are referencing the ones that are behind the belief of looming climate disaster based on the funding they receive. If you were getting paid via systems that required you to have the belief, then of course you will have the belief.

[@RJones-Indy]

@@chrishunt4718 Chris, I not-so-humbly disagree and I do say it with authority. I hold an earned Ph.D. in environmental science, and while I am NOT a climate scientist, my 30+ years in the industry/academia at least allows me to interpret the data better than most commenting on these forums. Feel free to post your sources of those that have published in peer-reviewed journals and I will be happy to review. Note as well, there are multiple models, run by different academic/scientific organizations and they are all generally congruent. You may also want to review the videos of "potholer 54" as well on this topic as well as the skeptical science website.

[@RJones-Indy]

@@chrishunt4718 I see, so when asked to produce the science, you revert to the old trope of, "its a global conspiracy"! Thousands of scientists, dozens of national science organizations, hundreds of universities, all faking data to conspire against humanity and line their pockets...very believable. But, if you can produce even the thinnest veneer of contrarian view with some pseudo-scientific jargon (not too complicated of course), - Fox News will trot you out like you have just won the Nobel! Really Chris?

[@markustilgner]

If you have a different opinon of climatechange you can not even be part of IPCC. This shows how scientific the IPCC really is.

[@Bakkienouklaar]

Because the IPCC is not based on opinions, rather on scientific inquiry

[@markustilgner]

@@Bakkienouklaar A proper evaluation needs the work of different scientists. If you select only certain scientists you will only get the results that you want.

[@alex.velasco]

@@markustilgner Are you a scientist? No? I thought not.

[@karenaubert8852]

His smug comments regarding politicians "and even Presidential candidates" ignores the fact that even some very reputable scientists disagree that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is catastrophic.

[@barnichua]

It maybe depends on what you may call "catastrophic". And remember global warming is just starting, let's discuss it in a few decades.

[@bds3919]

This is settled science. It's been settled for over 30 years.

[@L4SERB0Y]

CO2 is vital for life on earth and is a very poor greenhouse gas, paling in effect with water vapour.

[@ofdrumsandchords]

Just dig a little further...

[@ryanm7263]

CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. It is not as significant as we've been told. Humans are impacting the climate. Humans are not impacting it as severely as we've been told.

[@johnstonclark5412]

A couple critiques worth making: 1. The pot analogy is a bad one since adding CO2 isn't adding analogous to adding energy, it's like adding a lid. If we did add a lid to the pot it will heat faster but won't heat above 100C because the pressure will push the lid off! To assume it will keep heating is fooling - it will stay at 100C. In a similar way, if we add more CO2, do we know what will happen? Maybe we will get a logarithmic relationship with a limit in the same way. Will the clouds change to reflect more light? Will the volume of water vapor increase and absorb the added heat? We simply don't know - its' too complex to predict! However we do know that in nature, there are very few positive feedback loops. It is much more likely to be a negative feedback as i describe - we just don't know the limit. 2. Proposing a (forced) revolution is dangerous. Especially a top-down government sponsored revolution. Those tend to end in bloodshed... The revolutions he used as examples weren't forced - they simply happened when people used technology to support human prosperity. Let's try that instead. Stop saying "CO2 is bad" and start looking for ways to address our real technological challenges, like providing cheap energy to the developing world. CO2 isn't killing anyone today and until it start, we have bigger fish to fry. 3. He simply assumes that warming (and more CO2) is bad. Why? Maybe it's good! But we don't know! Stop pretending we do. My biggest problem with the global warming is the hysteria, not the scientific claims. Stop freaking out - we are going to be okay! Your great-grandparents had to fight the Nazis, the Japanese and the USSR. I swear it's like peanut allergies: a lack of any real pathogens or problems and Millennials become allergic and afraid of the first 'crisis' they are exposed to.

[@frankblangeard8865]

The earth's climate on average has been much warmer than it is today or than it will be in the next hundred years. We are living in a rather cool period of the earth's climate.

[@johnholleran]

I found this talk interesting but ineffective, primarily because of his unsupported assertions.

[@danweaver4304]

I like the discussion at 14:00 about “complex” systems. However, I would like to propose the problem of measuring the average global temperature is a little bit more complicated than a boiling pot of water. A better example is another system everyone encounters regularly: a microphone, an electrical amplifier and a speaker. This system amply demonstrates the concepts of positive & negative feedback which are critical to understanding the climate change science. Those who think they can predict future global temperatures based on flawed global climate models are like inexperienced sound engineers who aim the speaker at the microphone. Positive feedback causes the system to runaway into a high-pitched squeal! Negative feedback causes forcing to be damped, and the sound system can recover quickly from loud sounds. Negative feedback is used in many electronic circuits to create stability, and prevent extreme reaction to variable inputs. This is like the real climate system, which holds a planetary temperature within a few degrees C over hundreds of years. The “standard deviation” on mean annual global temperature has been about 0.1%. If no forcing at all existed, then we could still expect temperature anomalies to range from -0.5 to +1.2C. That’s three standard deviations on 286K, the approximate mean temperature of earth over the past 200 years.

[@petec9686]

The 1998-2012 leveling is right in front of his face ans he ignores it in the graph at 8:45. He also ignores the center of the graph, 1940-80. Where there was actual cooling. Anyone remember 1978? These same alleged scientists were predicting an ice age during that period and, of course, it was our fault.

[@Eiraart]

petec9686 they don’t care about the climate as much as they care about the politics behind policing the global climate commerce agenda. The more you did into the info it becomes clear there’s more politics than science in what they claim.

[@byroncjohnston1]

Are you saying that global warming is a myth?

[@petec9686]

@@byroncjohnston1 no. The climate is always changing. In 1800 it was much colder than it had been 500 years earlier, or even 2000 years earlier. The Romans had vineyards in Northern Britain. THe Vikings had settlements in Greenland which they had to abandon because it got too cold. Since the early 1800s, it has been warming. This warming began before we really started boosting the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Have we raised the CO2 levels? Of course. Is this good or bad? The jury is still out on that one. It is a fact that cold still kills way more than heat. There are undeniable benefits. CO2 is plant food. We can grow more food and with less water. Satellite data proves that the earth has greened over the last 50 years. I would recommend you watch some of Bjorn Lomberg's videos. He says that the key to making life better for all is to make us richer. This is because wealth allows people the luxury of worrying about the environment. Poor people are too busy just trying to keep from starving. And at this time, artificially suppressing this wealth by shutting down the carbon economy is a bad idea.

[@geoffmcintosh3]

Nice to see the 1930s temps have been.......adjusted

[@kennicholson1590]

They had to do that to give credence to their deception.

[@clivehorridge]

Incredible - fake graph, not only the 1930s

[@richarddesbiens796]

Also starts after little ice age

[@glidercoach]

How about the extensive worldwide temperature readings from 1901? 9:42 Full coverage... including the oceans!

[@theangora9512]

What graph do you even refer to?

[@gadgetman_nz4092]

Oh dear, just a researcher that has researched the view he is looking for. This is not from a scientist and is missing huge parts of the climate jigsaw. And showing graphs of skewed data, .... it just goes on.

[@ralphalf5897]

When's the ice age we were warned about in the 70s going to hit?? Asking for a friend.

[@alex.velasco]

Who cares? What’s your point?

[@bkm83442]

He doesn't actually debunk the first myth. He lumps all the greenhouse gases and their effects together. Water vapor is not only the most abundant greenhouse gas, but each molecule of water vapor is far more potent than a molecule of CO2. The effect of CO2 by itself is quite insignificant compared to that of water vapor, the relative increase notwithstanding. The amount of water vapor is controlled by equilibrium with the oceans, not by artificial emissions.

[@_Miss_Mary]

Pro Tip : adjust the play back speed to 1.75X. it's then somewhat watchable so you can then determine there is little to zero science to this video. No sources and absolutely misconstrued information / graphs. Made up / missing information is primarily presented here.

[@theangora9512]

There's sources on every graph, troll.

[@fannyhaddock6302]

@@theangora9512 He works for the UN, that should give you a hint. Take a look at their Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, not to mention this current crisis they have construed for us based on lies.

[@bonysminiatures3123]

Try applying physics to a chaotic and mostly random climate ... you cannot

[@pookatim]

Where did he get the numbers? I cannot find anything that says we added 330 molecules per million of CO2 in 250 years. Everything I see shows CO2 was actually higher 250 years ago. I would like to see this data.

[@atwaterpub]

HAHA.. You are wrong. Total CO2 in atmosphere increased 5% from 1957 to 1975 alone

[@pookatim]

@@atwaterpub What is 5% of 0.037 ? It did not increase to 5% of the atmosphere. The latest data says CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 0.040 %

[@atwaterpub]

@@pookatim The fact that from the year 1957 to 1976 the content of the CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 5% is indisputably true. Check the data yourself. Compared to 1957, in 1976 there was 5% more CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, Today there is more CO2 in the atmosphere that there has been in the past 2 million years. We can tell this from ice core samples and other archaeological data.

[@pookatim]

@@atwaterpub My mistake. I didn't realize you are only a troll.

[@atwaterpub]

@@pookatim there is no place for personal attacks on youtube. Check the data and you will find it independently correct. CO2 content of the atmosphere is increasing over the past 150 years. As long as we burn petroleum products on planet Earth, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase. It is just math.

[@hyotis]

Yes, of course! Predicting (and measuring) the temperature in a boiling pot of water is just like predicting the temperature for the entire planet.

[@Globovoyeur]

They are alike in this respect: that if you add more heat energy than escapes, you will raise the average temperature within them.

[@hyotis]

@@Globovoyeur Yes. And unalike in many many others.

[@anthonyjames4478]

@@Globovoyeur You're missing the most important point of all. No one argues that increasing the heat applied raises the temperature of the thing heat is applied to. Guess what! When the sun radiates more heat, the planets in the solar system pick up that additional radiation. The point in all of this is whether man is increasing the heat, though whatever you wish to believe about the temperature increasing, it hasn't been worth the notice. Oceans are still where we'd expect them; food production continues to increase every year; and no one talks about drowning polar bears anymore. Gee, I wonder why!

[@Globovoyeur]

@@anthonyjames4478 You can accept what the climate scientists are telling us, or you can choose to disbelieve them. I'll stand with the scientists.

[@insomniacbritgaming1632]

@@Globovoyeur what about the variables of the poles with their extreme cold weathers?

[@marcemmamcquilliam6516]

Very selective choice of information and graphs used. Never heard any media give anything other than a pro climate change propergangda.

[@mutantinfant]

Get your ears cleaned!

[@marcemmamcquilliam6516]

thanks...will do 👍

[@davenportbarbell734]

When he said that temperatures are higher than they have ever been in the last 800,000 years he lost all credibility

[@skyforge118]

learn to listen. He said the concentration of CO2. Learn to read....the graph also says concentration. Same for the 14 idiots that liked the comment.

[@stevelenores5637]

Note: He changed the wording of the myths from when he first presented them to his conclusions. Left does a lot of this moving target argument when their evidence is weak. Some of arguments are straw men that skeptics never proposed (words and phrases matter). This talk could be destroyed pretty effective as I have done with other videos but I'm too tired to chase the wacka-moles (wacky-mole might be more accurate) around anymore. I'll just do one of them. Carbon Dioxide is one molecule out 2500 molecules in our atmosphere so definitely is a trace gas. It does have warming effect but other factors are much more important such as the ocean currents, cloud cover, and solar activity (sun spots not thermal radiation) have a far greater effect. If someone responds to this comment I'll demonstrate that the other arguments he gives a re groundless as well. I miss the days when weather was the lest controversial and safest of subjects to talk about. Old geezers like me know what I'm talking about.

[@RJones-Indy]

If you think the evidence is "weak", please elucidate on exactly how? Do you have evidence to counter what is presented? If so, please enlighten us.

[@stevelenores5637]

​@@RJones-Indy To clarify ( a 10 cent word to replace the 10 dollar elucidate) I'll first cover the initial straw man arguments then move on to somewhat changed arguments at his conclusion. As I stated before his initial arguments are not claimed by skeptics. I will cover the 1st one briefly again. Tiny is not claimed, 1/2500 molecules CO2/All atmospheric molecules is a trace gas but over the entire atmosphere is considerable. It is not claimed that CO2 does not have an effect, just less than the affects I listed above, this makes humans not the primary cause of climate change (chronic effect) or of weather (acute effect). Also water vapor has at least twice the effect of CO2 and average cloud cover (a solar shielding effect) is approximately 1/3 of Earth's surface varies with the amount of cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. increased sun spots > increased solar winds > decreased cosmic rays > decreased cloud cover > warmer planet. Low solar activity (like we have now) > decreased solar winds > more cosmic rays hitting Earth > more clouds > cooler planet. Any way that's part 1A (re-explaining in detail what I said before. Simpler and clearer but not over simplistic. If someone responds again I'll move on 2A. This will require more work because of how the data is collected, what data is used, and what assumptions are made on parts of world where even to this day much less data is received compared to industrialized nations.

[@RJones-Indy]

@@stevelenores5637 You do not appear to understand the difference between carbon flux and anthropogenic carbon input. The current models used by the IPCC include cloud forcing and still come to the same conclusion. You are not bringing anything up that has not already been accounted for. Your point of solar minimums, is correct, we are in a period of reduced activity which should be causing a cooling affect. Where is it? It is there, but overwhelmed by the enormous increase from AGW. Go back and look at the peer-reviewed research. Please, don't take my word for it. This is all well established science.

[@stevelenores5637]

@@RJones-Indy I understand BS terminology when I smell it. "carbon flux" and "anthropogenic carbon input" are two of them. Ever since Cicero in Roman times rhetoricians have stretched words to the breaking point to impress audiences. I'm not so easily impressed. As for IPCC models their greatest weakness is following the data after the predictions and they fail. They don't work forward or backward looking. Take these models to any point in the past and they fail again. Peer review is another is another way of say consensus opinion and science is not done by vote but repeatable(means results can be duplicated) experimentation (note computer models are hypothetical not actual data). This is what I'm talking about when I say it's an exhausting game of wacky-mole. Since your mind is obviously made up go back and follow Greta who believes the planet is on fire. As for me I'm not disposing of my cold weather gear anytime soon.

[@fredneecher1746]

I have never heard such shocking lack of logic in a talk that calls itself "scientific"!

[@glidercoach]

But he had a fancy battery powered perpetual motion toy and a graphic with shades of red proving the earth is burning up. He's legit! 🤣

[@thorbly7919]

Self assured ignorance regurgitated.

[@boffeycn]

No, just facts presented quietly.

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

The complacency, stupidity, selfishness, ignorance and arrogance that your four-word response to this carefully thought-out talk by a senior climate scientist displays (and, more importantly, the fact that it has prompted 48 'likes') makes the prospect of democratic societies taking action to avoid catastrophic climate change seem unlikely. The chaos that ensues from catastrophic climate change will make democracy a dim memory. Congratulations.

[@boffeycn]

@@ilikethisnamebetter After interacting with deniers for many years one thing other than the lies funded by fossil fuels and mining has become obvious, and that is there are two main denier camps. One is those that believe it is their biblical EndTime and the other that puny humans can not affect their god's perfect creation Spencer and Christy are in the second camp. Also apparent is their overwhelming support for Trump and Brexit.

[@alex.velasco]

@@boffeycn indeed!

[@gordonquickstad]

Who doesn't know that water vapor is THE major greenhouse gas? Who doesn't know that we are impounding more surfce water and irrigating far more land than we did 50 years ago with sprinkler systems? Who doesn't know that water vapor is the most significant product of our combustion of fuels (2 water molecules vs. 1 CO2 molecule)? Who doesn't know that nearly all the carbon in the rotting detritus of plant materials goes back into the atmosphere as CO2? Water vapor in the atmosphere is at higher levels than at any other time in history and climate alarmists will not emphasize the causes I listed.

[@garyguinnessbrown8514]

Ok if the complex systems can be predicted why is that almost all climate model's predictions over the past 20 years have been wrong?

[@noposmeh6855]

They were aproximated

[@thepepperlanders]

You are right. The problem has continually been underestimated.

[@bobdeverell]

Stocker presents the traditional view that 'greenhouse effect' will cause a disproportionate rise in the earth's temperature. Yet new research suggests atmospheric pressure, rather than CO2, maybe the mechanism on Venus rather than any 'run-away' greenhouse effect. More research is needed into this before coming to definite conclusions.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Greenhouse gas effect on the Venus proven WRONG...

[@dnickaroo3574]

There are so much evidence of Global Warming -- how could anyone be unaware of them?

[@georgeh8937]

@@dnickaroo3574 could it be because alarmists hurt their own case by using deception exaggeration lying? 1) haven't you noticed that climate activists use verbal descriptions when quoting numbers doesn't have enough punch? like "hottest decade since records were kept". that means since 1880. plus it hides the tiny actual temperature increase of 1 degree centigrade that took over a century to happen. 2) how about "the rate has doubled". so instead of 1.5 millimeters of sea level rise per year you have 3! or instead of 0.1 degrees per decade it is now 0.15. Are we up to our hips in water yet? 3) haven't you noticed climate activists look for proxies instead of direct data. like polar bear populations or coral bleaching. tbc

[@dnickaroo3574]

@George Hong No, I have not noticed that. The evidence is quite easy to find. Why ignore what is so obvious?

[@georgeh8937]

@@dnickaroo3574 so the next question is how much should we worry about this tiny rise in temperature? What is your position? Warmist or centrist or skeptic?

[@ayanbanerjee989]

The pendulum example is a joke. Is this guy even a scientist?

[@shadowdance4666]

HEY 👀. everyone! “”Big Oil troll is the House””

[@lk-sb8ql]

no, he isn't

[@reinhardweiss]

No, or at least the last thing he is talking about is science ... well, UNless you’re talking about political science!!! 🤪The argument about the amount of CO2 was pathetic ... frankly if you talk exclusively about numbers magnitude but not effect magnitude: you are saying nothing ... there’s far more nitrogen, so what?!? If CO2 impact was EVEN (which it is not, higher concentrations actually have diminished effects), you get nowhere near what the climascam frauds are pushing... they are pushing this deranged ‘cascade’ which does not exist and never has been shown (it is nothing but a computer generated fallacy).

[@kennicholson1590]

@Martin G Shame he didn't do anything with it?

[@patharvard]

Thanks for proving nothing.

[@4Nanook]

One of the myths that is presented in this video is that absorption is linear with the amount of CO2 in the air. This is not true. You reach a point where the spectral lines CO2 absorbs is saturated, and after that you only slightly widen the absorption curve, you do not substantially increase absorption.

[@FacePalmTheWorldArmy]

tell that to the agricultural government website written by farmers lol go find out how much co2 is pumped by burning fuels into our crops in greenhouses... after all, its called "the greenhouse effect, right". I used Canada's. here's a hint, its around 1200ppm while the earth has sat at 400-440ppm for decades...dun dun dun keep paying that tax and smile, you're saving the world by throwing money at it :D

[@bsmith8950]

Exactly

[@alfredvinciguerra532]

It’s a log relationship

[@johnford2508]

@@FacePalmTheWorldArmy That doesn't change the fact of saturation. In terms of plant life, 400ppm is a dearth of CO2. If you care to go back further than a few decades, you'll find that plant life developed and thrived at levels such as 1500 ppm.

[@FacePalmTheWorldArmy]

@@johnford2508 at no time in our current history was it 1500. That's in greenhouses we use to farm today, which are filled with by using burning gas. As for the death of co2, that's a Bill Gates goal. Also, My plants seem to do just fine outside in the summer.

[@amosjsoma]

How can anyone with any degree of credibility deliver a talk on climate change and not discuss the Milankovitch cycles. How can anyone discuss climate and not explain how the earth was warmer 120,000 years ago and the sea level was 25' higher than it is today. How can they fail to explain why the earth was more than 2 degrees C at that time than it is today. How can they fail to explain why the earth started to cool until at the height of the last ice age the temperature was more than 7 degrees cooler than it is today. How can they fail to explain how the earth started to warm about 16,000 years ago when there was an ice sheet a mile thick where New York City now sits and the sea level was 140 meters lower than it is today. The earth warmed, the ice sheet melted and the sea level rose. Man played no part in any of that. How can they fail to explain how these cycles will not continue and that there is nothing man can do about it, except prepare.

[@grindupBaker]

+ Amos Soma 'warmer 120,000 years ago and the sea level was 25' higher than it is today. How can they fail to explain why the earth was more than 2 degrees C at that time than it is today'. Actually assessed at 0.5-1.0 degrees higher GMST than now at 126,000-122,000 years ago, not 2 degrees. 'at the height of the last ice age the temperature was more than 7 degrees cooler than it is today' Actually assessed at 5-6 degrees lower GMST than now (deep ocean 3.5 degrees lower temperature than now). ' How can they fail to explain how the earth started to warm about 16,000 years ago'. Actually started to warm from glaciation ¬22,000 years ago not 16,000 years ago. I agree this talk is very thin & basic. It's for little children which is why you responded to it.

[@riccardopusceddu6232]

All the changes you've listed occurred over a much longer timescale than nowadays global rising temperatures. How can you fail to notice that after scientists telling us over and over again?

[@williambaikie5739]

3 straw-men arguments. Over simplified greenhouse gas effects. Basically fear and alarm without a solution. Therefore hoping to get the public clamoring to their governments for action. Governments respond with impoverishing carbon taxes and mandates which further crushes the public without doing anything about global warming. But bureaucracies grow immensely.

[@johnstonclark5412]

Absolutely correct William. 1. No serious "skeptic" says CO2 has no effect. 2. Most agree the earth is warming but disagree how much it will warm. 3. And of course the climate is unpredictable - he said it and actually helped prove it with his talk about the weather. What about in 50 years? Good luck accurately predicting the consequences of warming.

[@atwaterpub]

HAHA One of the most rambling, incoherent, and disorganized TED talks I have ever listened to. Sorry. The message is not being communicated

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

I take it the message you want to be communicated is "I'm down the pub, and I have nothing to say."

[@atwaterpub]

@@ilikethisnamebetter No, sorry. I like the ideas and have watched the video a few times. But I think the data could have been presented in a different manner so it is more easily analysed and assimilated.

[@ilikethisnamebetter]

@@atwaterpub I managed to follow it.

[@atwaterpub]

@@ilikethisnamebetter Well then, hopefully my opinion is in the minority. Thanks.

[@ub2bn]

But you have to admit, the man can play a room.

[@firdausabharali]

Really like that fact that the intro music is significantly louder than the speaker voice. Not only this video, but for the most of TED talks..

[@Burningquest]

Who was also puking cause of the intro?

[@davidaemayhew]

And look how greener it makes earth.

[@porterrockwell3135]

I don't mind listening to both sides of the argument, but Im always skeptical when i hear people say 99% of scientists agree with climate change. When was the last time 99% of anyone agreed on anything? Let alone something that will tax me and my grandchildren to ad infinitum.

[@davidrice7568]

tell me someone that disagrees the the value of pie ?

[@byroncjohnston1]

Read something other than what you are apparently reading. And as David Rice suggests in his comment ... how many scientists agree with the value of pie?

[@chhu_1753]

He said from 1880 to 2000, temperature is rising, climate is changing.

[@iancampbell6925]

As we were coming out of the little ice age should we be surprised .As world wide industrialisation had not yet started is that another myth debunked

[@insomniacbritgaming1632]

don't mention pre 1850, they freak out

[@buckfisherGBY]

Without CO2, there would be no life as we know it. We are in a CO2 drought, if the CO2 levels go down much lower, ll plants will start to die, and so will the animals that eat plants, like us. You fail to mention that warmer temperatures are good for life on the planet, although there has been no major change in temperature in the 20th century. What we know to be a very regular, repeating climate anomaly, happening uninterrupted for at least 3 million years, is the 100,000 year glaciation periods, collecting miles thick glaciers made of packed snow that can't melt, due to the colder temperatures. This is followed by a relatively short warming, allowing the ice to melt, filling the oceans again, for approximately 10,000 to 20,000 years.

[@nickforsman7045]

@Dog Oh, our species would explode alright.

[@boettie]

While watching this video I quickly came across an error. Can happen right? But soon I noticed more strange, incorrect or poorly substantiated things. Why did he only use a period of 800,000 years? After all, we have data over much longer times, but that data would undermine his claims. It is very special to deny the pause in the warming-up because this is one of the problems that the IPCC is struggling with and could not find an explanation for what can be found in their own reports. Then I read that he worked for the IPCC and everything fell into place. This is a caricature of a scientist who does not adhere to the principles of science.

[@johnrogers5825]

The 800K is from Ice core sampling that measures air trapped in the ice. How far back do you want him to go lol? How many reports do you need lol? I would like a reference for those longer data you mention.

[@ZigZagHockey]

Nice jump from global warming/global temperature to record hot years (climate) in 2014 and 2016 in some locations. Global surface temperatures available everywhere since 1880 - I don't think so. Maybe since satellites were put into orbit. A declaration that additional 'green house gases' must have caused extra warming but no data. And then the final charade boiling water and declaring that predictions of complicate systems are possible because we can work out how long a given quantity of water will take to boil even though we cannot describe the movements of the molecules of water in the center of the mass as it boils. There is no link between the two questions. Nothing that was said persuaded me that any of the 'myths' he attacked were myths.

[@Ctajm]

"Some locations" aren't the climate. Temperatures in urban areas affected by the heat island effect aren't the climate. Mean temperatures taken from rural areas across the nation are 8-10 degrees cooler than in the 1930's when the CO2 concentration was much lower.

[@ZigZagHockey]

@@Ctajm Exactly. Climate could be said to be the mean of national or international (depending on what is being considered) temperatures (plus rainfall etc.) over a given period. In other words long term weather over a very large area.

[@Stwinge44]

There is a link between water boiling and individual molecules. To bring up osmosis as another example, you'd know that the definition is a net movement of water molecules from more negative water potential to less negative water potential. It's all about macro vs micro. When observing osmosis, you can't predict whether a certain molecule will travel in a certain direction, but you know that examining all the molecules will give a net result. Similarly, in his analogy we don't know where each individual molecule will go and how much energy it has, but combined together you know that a majority of particles have enough energy to overcome the partial pressure of atmosphere, and hence vaporise.

[@PeterOzanne]

@@Ctajm That's a huge difference, but I'd like to know where you got your stats.

[@Ctajm]

@@PeterOzanne Tony Heller has the data collected from only actual thermometers in rural locations going back to 1900 provided by National Climate Research. NOAA has it, too, but doesn't use it because it doesn't support the agenda. Watch his videos. He documents everything he claims.

[@jeremydodds1761]

This guy has a clear agenda, just state the facts. Debunking agenda has no place in science

[@boettie]

Today we know from many studies that in all power structures, especially journalists, intellectuals, and scientists working in government-relevant areas have a tendency to align themselves like iron filings in the force fields of power. Prof. Rainer Mausfeld

[@bjornelmqvist4546]

I guess this statement does not need to be backed by data?

[@cognitivedissonance4413]

@@bjornelmqvist4546 You are an eager beaver

[@robertrichard6107]

This is true, it shows this hamburg effect wasn't important enough for Donald Trump to notice, and buy all the McDonald's franchises he could (And be able to be his own Ronald McDonald). The money's in becoming an oilygarch and getting that oil for his buds in Iran, Venezuela, and the Arctic. You can make lies figure, but this gentlemans figures don't lie. These gaslighters here all work for big oil HR departments.

[@byroncjohnston1]

@@robertrichard6107 regardless of the different theories a person would have to be quite dense not to see the effects of Global warming. The climate trends have to worry any intellectual person. of course many, about 40%, have been influenced by Prof. Mausfeld's discussed manipulative techniques,

[@insomniacbritgaming1632]

@@bjornelmqvist4546 If I was being paid by a government to say, "you can eat your own poo to sustain life to help fix climate change" guess what? I'm taking my big pay day lol

[@normsky5504]

What he hasn't told us is, that global temperature could not be calculated accurately, until the first satellite's were launched in 1979. So his graph's are unreliable. Also measurements were originally based solely on air temp. readings, then in recent decades water temperature was factored in to the figures, which causes confusion.

[@ArticWolfv]

I love the boiling water part. I wonder if he understands that the sun is anywhere near as consistent as setting the stove to 3. and that it fluctuated quite a bit, and recent indicates are that we may be entering a solar minimum.

[@shadowdance4666]

The earth should be in a cooling phase by most of the cycles that influence climate but, it’s not even deniers won’t contest that anymore that it’s not cooling. Once the Greenland ice sheets really start fracturing no one knows what is next

[@Ctajm]

I'm disappointed by the fact that he didn't mention that in late 2017, scientists discovered 91 currently active volcanoes 1-2km below the surface of the ice sheet in Western Antarctica, in addition to the 47 active volcanoes they were already aware of. The water off Western Antarctica might have in fact been boiling from a release of geothermal heat...which has nothing to do with man made CO2.

[@Ctajm]

@@shadowdance4666 For the past two years, the ice on Greenland and the Arctic has been expanding. But not as fast as it's been expanding in Antarctica where 90% of the Earth's ice is. We are, in fact, entering a cooling phase, as predicted by those who follow the cycles of sunspot activity, who predict a solar minimum that could last 15-20 years.

[@shadowdance4666]

Jeff Miller 2 years hmm. Not much of trend. Got a credible link or are you just spreading propaganda. The Milanković cycles I believe are the more dominant factor than the less consistent or predicable sunspot cycles

[@Ctajm]

@@shadowdance4666 Tony Heller does a great job of showing us NOAA data and charts they've published in the past, comparing them to current charts and "adjusted" data that make it appear cooler in the past than it actually was, and warmer now than it actually is. Spend the next few days watching Hellers videos and those of Anthony Watts. It will be good for your soul. "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." - Thornton Wilder

[@jerryw6699]

Lets talk a while about all of the benefits of a warmer planet, there are many, far more than a colder climate.

[@johnlanford3607]

Couple of points along the way: First, I had an Economics class (B.S. Economics, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, 1970) with Professor Jared Hazleton, in my last semester. His was the only mention of greenhouse gases in my hearing for what seems a very long time. His description of the role of those gases was not as a "heat sink" - that they just held more heat in the atmosphere, but that they made the atmosphere like a greenhouse, thereby holding the solar radiation in the system. Please understand this: the normal energy of the sun will normally re-radiate into space in some percentage or other. The greenhouse gases will LOWER that percentage! It's like slightly (but incrementally) raising the windows in your parked car. Every time you raise them, you raise the temperature. A simple enough model, but the more people I hear talking about it, the fewer seem to grasp that point. Second, I just heard Allan Savory's Ted Talk. And yes, I've begun to review some of the "debunking"retorts. Right now, from what I have seen and what I know (I do live in cattle country), I would and will support and defend the general notion of managed livestock (and no, Virginia. It doesn't have to be cattle! Nor sheep nor goats). Dial the clock back, centuries or millennia. Imagine the myriad communities with their small flocks and dad and the kids (mostly boys in those days, perhaps, leaving a lot of room for improvement). Now, using the combined sciences which describe livestock and land systems (I promise, this won't hurt), offer a little seed money (c.f. Micro banking) to help small family businesses in the informed initial startup situations. Put together a group of poorly paid volunteers (a kind of a Peace Corp kind of a thing), give the life lines to keep in touch, and you're off and running. Maybe this is a government program - or not. Maybe there's a boatload of people wanting to donate, volunteer, organize, whatever. Maybe there are churches, businesses, schools and universities who will help. Only this time, the animals will be saving the people... in the ark. Maybe we can find some people who don't find sport in killing ideas like they kill animals; that is wholesale, and without much thought. Jonny geo

[@groblerful]

I fully agree Jonny

[@bradkeen1973]

Glad that he scientifically ran the numbers at the start, on the composition of air - 'as physicists do'. Then completely left out the 10,000 argon molecules.

[@markfoster1520]

Argon Fan Boy!

[@Beorndk]

Mark Foster. You can say what you want. He does not react.

[@Pierrot110194]

There are no argon molecules. There are no known compounds containing argon and argon by itself is one single atom, to make a molecule, according to the official definition, you need at least two atoms bound to each other.

[@bradkeen1973]

Peter Pepper. Okay, he left out the monotomic gas argon. At 1% it's still 25 times more than CO2.

[@Pierrot110194]

But his slide said "molecules", he would have been wrong if he'd written Argon under that bullet point! (I'm joking, I know what you mean, I think you're right actually, it's just a technicality)

[@jameswest4819]

Most Climate Models take into effect the "Grant Bias Effect" one way or another. Other models look directly at the "Righteous Indignation Effect" stimulated by the "Heretical Deniers."

[@robd3470]

Lindzen, Happer, Salby, Moore, Soon, Dyson, and many more disagree with this take..

[@skyforge118]

Keeps listening to the 3%. That will finish well i'm sure.

[@kimlibera663]

The reason earth cannot duplicate Venus is indeed due to the extreme atmospheric pressure on Venus. Venus also lacks oceans & vegetation.

[@kimlibera663]

CO2 residence time ranges from 5 years to thousands of years. The bulk is transferred to the ocean. CO2 injection into the atmosphere is not permanent because of the sinks. There is also the possibility that if nuclear fusion & hydro & renewables became mainstream, over a lengthy period of time, that balance would indeed change. Remember carbons is also taken up by corals & gazillions of bivalves plus plankton.

[@petermitchell6348]

The reason for the increase in CO2 over the last 50 years is perfectly normal and totally acceptable. The standards that IPCC 'scientist' measure modern CO" against (1850ad -1900ad), are the lowest temperatures over the last 5,000 years!!! You would hope it would rise. If the rise does NOT happen then a new Ice Age is the result, with life on earth almost totally wiped out!

[@zl1David]

I'm so glad that as an amateur meteorologist/ statistician, I just report my readings. No hypothesis required. Temps are on the incline here in the NE, nonetheless

[@ChiefCabioch]

Seems normal in mid summer for Temps to climb......jus sayin.

[@retlcdrusn]

why don't any of these presentations talk about the "carbon cycle" We use oxygen but all green plants use carbon. An increase in carbon is good for plants. Every stoner knows this.

[@AlphaMoist]

The carbon cycle is a balanced process that requires an equal amount of CO2 removal as there is CO2 released by natural means. We do not have enough plants on earth to absorb the amount of excess CO2 we have released over the last century.

[@lauramarkee5536]

Yeah but we're not plants.

[@ChrisM186]

Look up this interview between Chris Williamson and Patrick Moore (Ex-president of Greenpeace): Is Climate Change Fake? Really good.

[@ronandingridjohnson1409]

Chris Williamson vs Patrick moore

[@LazlosPlane]

Excuse me, but H2O is the most common greenhouse gas.

[@RedRider1600]

Yes, and he showed that in his numbers -->> 3:40 He said the last 3 numbers are greenhouse gasses. N2 = 780,000 O2 = 210,000 H20 = 3,900 CO2 = 280 CH4 < 1

[@RedRider1600]

Some Guy They don't mention it because Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas.

[@RedRider1600]

@Some Guy So are you saying all gases are greenhouse gases? . . . lol . . . You are a moron. Nitrogen is NOT considered a greenhouse gas.

[@Elite7555]

Yes, but it is only relevant as positive feedback. There is only so much water vapor the air can hold before it rains. But when we put CO2 into the atmosphere and it gets warmer, more water vaporizes. And CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands of years. So you cannot really compare those two.

[@RedRider1600]

Some Guy Yes it does, you moron.

[@draugami]

Scientists shouldn't ask the question, " What answer do you want me to come up with?"

[@victorharris746]

What a waste. By these numbers, plant is dying from lack of CO2. We need more CO2 in the air. I'm going to have to drive my car around the block to help the environment.

[@PInk77W1]

I don’t even own a car, I will have to go borrow one

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

High C02 depletes crops of iron, zinc and protein and strips part of their natural defenses against insects. It isn't harmless. And more of a good thing isn't.

[@groblerful]

Just breath out faster.@@PInk77W1

[@PInk77W1]

Hugh C LoL for realz

[@lauraanderson5407]

@@PInk77W1 pq

[@defendingco2inairfoundatio383]

This gentleman is simply saying he is fully aware that Climate Change is pure nonsense, however he has a job to secure.

[@mark4asp]

But: 1. CO2 is plant food. It fell to 180ppm in atmosphere during the last glaciation. If it fell to 150ppm all plant life on earth would die of starvation. CO2 in atmosphere has never been as low as it is now. 2. Radiative equilibrium for CO2 = -77.8°C. Above that temperature CO2 emits more often than it absorbs infrared. Blame more CO2 for warming? It makes as much sense to blame cooling on more CO2 because more CO2 in atmosphere allows atmospheric cooling to go faster. 3. Temperature chart shown here is massaged. It is not raw data but data with the past artificially cooled. 4. 1930s saw the warmest temperatures in USA by far. Often 10F above anything seen today during summer. This data has been erased by artificial cooling. 5. Radiative forcing is pseudoscience. It was never inferred from data. It does not rest on empiricism. With bad modeling like this one can predict any doomsday scenario. But the predictions will never be right.

[@mikevw6767]

All these “smart” people and so far nobody has ever been able to answer the very simple question, what temperature should the earth be? There’s more living things on this planet than there ever has been….

[@matthewhalpin8351]

Third world countries need to develop they are not going to do it without fossil fuel no matter how you chop it up. OR do you want them left behind for a reason

[@wildman4126]

Myth 1... no myth when you are looking at the chemicals that he is refering to as GHG's (water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) all combined they make up about 0.004 percent of the atmosphere. So they are tiny. That said I agree with his opinion that we are using energy in a reckless manner with no long term plan and also the burning of all these hydrocarbon will have some effect (law of conservation of mass) we just dont know yet fully what it will be. And all these anthropomophic climate changer scientist will not admit it. Also what seems to be forgotten in all this climate change talk is thermodynamics. The "R" value (the capacity of an insulating material to resist heat flow) of CO2 and the amount of it being added to atmosphere does not quantify the amount of planetary temperature change. For instance, It would be like adding 0.004% insulation to your attic and expecting a 2 degree temperature differential. It is ludicrous. Also if CO2 is directly related why does the temperature graph not indicate such? Explain the dips in the temperature when CO2 was increasing. Myth 2/3: Using weather to explain climate. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Climate is based on 10,000 year periods are so which are usually real global change. These are natural and have been happening before we began burning hydrocarbons. Also a bad analogy on the simple systems vs. complicated systems. Scientist have been forming mathematical algorithms to explain complicated systems all the time. Also thermodynamics can be applied to complex systems such as the planets climate to understand this topic but for some reason it is not used. Or at least I have never seen it.

[@wildman4126]

One other thing the global climate is changing but scientifically we have no evidence yet that humans are behind it. FACT!

[@Sableagle]

Awww, those optimistic days of 2016, before ... well, we all know what happened.

[@justinmccarthy2195]

I've seen a number of TED presentations on global warming. In one given by a "Green Energy" venture capitalist he used a visual of a dried up lake as evidence of global warming. I had to laugh because it was of the Salton Sea in California that is an artificial water body that is being starved of water by water agreements on distribution of Colorado River water between metropolitan areas and agriculture. Maybe it was intended as metaphorical. Another, AGW activist once posted a picture of a dried up lake in China as his evidence of climactic change. It took about three minutes on Google to identify that the lake was drained by the construction of the massive Three Gorges Damn project in China. I have no clue whether AGW is real or not. It is such tactics along with the hyperbole, histrionics and ad hominem attacks toward scientists who question the AGW thesis along with the tactics of the Climate Unit at East Anglia refusing to share the computer code and algorithms that give me doubt. But, I understand politics and the economic redistributive effect in jobs and economic growth of putting a costly green energy yoke on the US while letting the Third World continue to burn coal for decades. If the UN is really serious it needs to push the WTO to mandate a carbon tariff on all trade goods manufactured for export and shipped using fossil fuels requiring that the tariff fund green energy in the recipient country. This would induce the developing world to accelerate adoption of green energy if they want to ship goods to US and EU. If AGW is real; globalism is the accelerator. In my opinion, trade is where you start the effort. What is the carbon footprint of globalism?

[@acxezknightnite1377]

When I did my physics degree, one thing that stuck in my mind from meteorology was that, in order to forecast weather, you have to assume that the atmosphere is an ideal gas.....so no variation in temperature, pressure, density etc.....and this is why forecasts can only predict a few days ahead - because all of the errors in the assumptions compound over a very short time until it quickly becomes meaningless beyond about five days. So a complex system is incredibly hard, if not impossible to predict. The number of variables involved in atmospheric calculations is imponderable. Yes, we can try, and our computer models have failed many times. What this guy is saying is pure nonsense to me, and rather condescending. Listening to this, I had endless questions as to the relevance, accuracy and reliability of his ‘data’.

[@dnickaroo3574]

@acxez knightNite However, the Arctic Icecap has lost a lot of Ice (and the Antarctic Icecap is melting 6 times faster than in the 1970's). Glaciers throughout the world are melting. The Permafrost is melting, causing twisted, warped roads; and rapid changes in the landscape.

[@acxezknightnite1377]

D Nickaroo no ice cap in the Arctic. Basic geography here. Arctic ice sheets are floating on water. Ice sheets melt and re-form. Always have done. The Antarctic ice cap has a western Antarctic peninsula which melts when the surrounding waters periodically warm - which has happened for millennia. The rest is going nowhere. SOME glaciers are shrinking. Others are growing. It appears that you’ve been spoon-fed these headlines by the media, but if you have some evidence, I’ll be happy to see it.

[@dnickaroo3574]

@acxez knightNite You clearly know nothing about the state of the Arctic Icecap, nor about Glaciers.

[@acxezknightnite1377]

D Nickaroo backup your claim or say nothing. Typical lefty snowflakes always turn a discussion into personal insults as though they have to ‘win’. It gets very boring, you know.....so don’t do it.

[@dnickaroo3574]

@acxez knightNite Take your own advice.

[@leighpike6572]

A question I have, based on my middle school science classes, if CO2 is essential for all life on earth, especially plants and trees and warming the seas which will increase H2O molecules in the atmosphere such a bad thing. It seems to me that more water in the atmosphere will lead to greater evapotransporation therefore more precipitation, thereby reducing droughts and increasing food growth meaning less starvation. Just another observation, from the longer-term history of humanity, we are one of the most successful species on earth. I believe we achieved this by being highly adaptable, as has been proven over the best part of the the last million years or so. Of course I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me that the current climate alarmism is much ado about nothing

[@mauriciocastro7505]

I can't understand this IPCC people. They don't like fosil fuels, nuclear, and hydro.

[@bjornelmqvist4546]

Fossil: Because climate Nuclear: Because halflife Hydro: Because rivers Tell me if you need mor details

[@jeffgold3091]

@@bjornelmqvist4546 solar and wind require base load back up . they are falling far short of expectations in England at exorbitant cost and escalating price of electricity .

[@tristramgordon8252]

FFS! It's like listening to paint dry

[@jamesmdeluca]

The speaker neglected to include nuclear energy as the major source of carbon free energy generation that can provide continuous base load energy at low cost.

[@JohnSmith-qz6dj]

no he did not it is not a stable system

[@JohnSmith-qz6dj]

if anything goes wrong it is chernobyl russia all over

[@shadowdance4666]

That’s neither here or there

[@martinpieterse6470]

You are right. Any solution that does not include large amounts of nuclear energy is doomed to failure. It's just math.

[@shadowdance4666]

Martin Pieterse BS

[@matthewthomas7824]

I want to live in a greenhouse not a WEF prison camp.

[@tyraeast]

what a clown. he carefully cherrypick his engineered data. we have had iceages with 1000s of ppm co2. Look at the models and how well they perform fyi. they are all predicting to warm.....

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

The last time we had 1000 ppm of C02, temperatures rose so high that ALL of the polar ice caps melted and flooded Canada and the United States with a 1000-foot-deep ocean (the Western Inland Sea) that remained there for millions of years. Harmless back in the dinosaur days. But today we have billions of humans in harm's way. Increased high tide flooding (it has doubled along the southeastern coast in the last 30 years, according to NOAA) is already costing U.S. cities billions. By 2100, damage will be in the trillions.

[@swiftlytiltingplanet8481]

Hundreds of millions of years ago, our main sequence sun was much weaker and dimmer. Our type of sun brightens over millions of years as part of its normal evolution. That allows for much higher C02 levels without the melting of ice sheets.

[@joaoc_PT]

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481almost as long as a socialist takes to understand that socialism doesn't work. Btw, coastal flooding, for example in pacific Canada, BC, is caused by subduction of the continental plate. But then again, some alarmists also blame that on global warming ;)

[@mikevw6767]

The Florida coast has lost 200 miles over the last 20,000 years or 52 ft/year….but somehow the last 10” over the last 100 years are all cause of humans. Haha

[@yishaistatter1254]

So what happened to the global cooling scare of my childhood?

[@RedRider1600]

Yishai Statter That didn't work out. The climate got warmer. And there was no money in it. Carbon tax could bring in Trillions of dollars to governments over time.

[@warrenpeece1726]

And the biggest myth of all...that climate is unaffected by that big yellow thing in the sky.

[@boffeycn]

Prsy tell, who told you that?

[@ajbassbone]

@@boffeycn ICPP dosnt account for the sun and cloud activity in there models - and by the way, there models have NEVER been correct - not even close.

[@boffeycn]

@@ajbassbone Can we have citations from reputable sources?

[@mantamanta2422]

as far as im aware greenhouses provide better growth for plants. bring on the green house gasses, were heading for an ice age. u will be praying for more co2 in the atmosphere :)

[@dharmappabarki9557]

First thing first: it’s a good presentation. Statistics can be used to prove ones own point, because it (I mean, statistics) offers two faces (of coin). And, when your above a flat-lying coin you absolutely see one face and when you see a unstably standing coin from above, how’re close sight you have from the top-centre, you never see either of the faces! So, guys, everyone has faltered and faltering on the climate change issues! It’s like an ancient Indian story of six blind men touching an elephant and describing as to how an elephant looks like, in their own broken understanding. Let’s take few leaves out of this presentation: climate change is complex and hence difficult to predict. We should accept this cardinal fact. Yes, we should also accept that man has caused the temperature rise on the planet. It was the mad industrialisation that gave some life comforts. Nature has its own way balance itself. Man has pushed the nature one side too much and temperature rise is the causative symptom. Yes, modern man has identified the problem and he will struggle to fix it because his theories are debunked often! Climate Change is not the issue for arguments but for constant debate.

[@DidivsIvlianvs]

3 myths: 1) Assuming that the relation of greenhouse gas concentration to temperature is linear. It is not. Look it up. 2) That any warming is bad for humanity. History shows that in fact conditions are better now in most places, and that the slightest cooling is always disastrous. And 3) That an industrial revolution based on solar, wind & water power will produce a better economy even though unlike the first 3 he named, it is driven by non-economic considerations, government subsidies and force. That is highly unlikely. (I notice he left out anti-greenhouse nuclear which works but has its own problems.)

[@rstevewarmorycom]

+Didivs Ivlianvs There's NO "cooling" in sight. Get THAT out of your head right now!!! The problem with the small warming so far is that we do not know how long it will keep rising even if we all went back to living in mud huts today. So, IS ANY warming too much?? Hmmm? The worse problem is that the use of fossil is causing more warming and we don't know if we can stop it at all! You see, it really doesn't matter if solar and wind and ground sourced geo and wave and tidal is all we get from here on out to use for our economy. Why? Because it may be the ONLY economy that is feasible, the alternative being NO economy at all!! That means extinction of our species, chilluns!!

[@ingebrecht]

Yep, CO2 comes from fossil fuel consumption. When we kill each other over that last ton of coal and barrel of oil the co2 problem will go away. Ironically we might choose to do this with a very cost efficient, low foot print technique that involves nuclear energy.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

+Didivs Ivlianvs Problem is, you ignore the future. We have yet to know how far the warming will go just from the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere. That warming will continue as long as the CO2 is there!!! Who knows where the new equilibrium for the earth's temperature is!!?? The research is uncertain: Is it 2 degrees or 5 degrees!! The latter is in the range that caused the Permian Extinction!! And if so that allows us NO further CO2 production AT ALL!! Wait to die. The economy that allows our survival is waaaay more important than any other!! Whining that he just doesn't like what we MUST do to survive is just not helpful!! It is like a christian sticking with the bible for the afterlife, when there really isn't any!! The only thing wrong with nuclear is that it COSTS 2.5 times as much as wind and solar for the same kW-hrs!!

[@michaeledwards2251]

Didivs Ivlianvs 1. The statement was temperature is rising approximately linearly: this is expected as green house gas emission is roughly proportional to industrial activity which is rising exponentially. To infer the temperature increase use the log of the total greenhouse gases. The exponential and logarithmic functions are inverses of each other: the net effect is linear temperature increase. 2. Your referring to the Dark Ages. The temperature changes prior to industry were tiny compared to the temperature change already experienced since 1750. In an important sense catastrophic heating has already arrived: world food reserves in case of a bad harvest are virtually non-existent and probability of a global harvest failure rises every year with increasing temperature. 3. There is no alternative to Solar power: Why? Lookup "Our Finite World" Gail Tiverberg. The needed power consumption per head of population is 100,000 Kw hours per person per year. Assuming a global population of 10 billion, an annual global power consumption of 1 Trillion Kw hours is needed, 100 x current levels. Fossil Fuels cannot meet this demand: there are many details to be overcome but the long term dominance of Solar power over Fossil Fuel is forced by this consideration alone.

[@thecastle09]

whos paying him for his lies???ugh..cant stand ppl like this who share some truths while ignoring many other truths...disgraceful.

[@skyforge118]

Please enlighten us. Share the other truths so we can have a good laugh.

[@NovusMaximus]

There are so many deliberate errors in his speech, he is relying that the audience is completely uniformed to be believable. Example 1: when trying to prove that CO2 has in the highest concentration ever, he went back 800,000 years. 800,000 years is actually a very SHORT period of time compared to the age of the earth (4.5 billion years). 80 million years ago (still very recent history) CO2 concentration was about 10 times higher compared to today's levels. People were not around then, and we were not burning fossil fuels. The earth was much warmer than it is today. Talking about picking and choosing carefully to make sophistry sound like science. Example 2: He mentioned that the period from 1998 to 2012 where there was no rise in temperature, is too short to draw any conclusions. That is correct. HOWEVER, the IPCC predictive model that he is pandering had predicted a VERY sharp rise in temperature during said period. People like me question how the precise model is so wildly off, yet they are asking us to trust its new predictions. I can go on and on...this was a political speech, not a scientific one.

[@p.r.745]

You know, 80 million years ago there were no people around. Of course currently raise of temperature is NOT a danger for the earth - in fact it is an massive crisis for human civilization.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

NovusMaximus You should learn Science so you understand ALL the causes of CO2 rise. But its effects are ALWAYS higher temperature.

[@michaeledwards2251]

He went back 800,000 years because air trapped 800,000 years ago in ice can be measured today. All the statements he made about carbon dioxide are free of any possible speculation or source of error. Your statements about carbon dioxide 80,000,000 years are subject to revision because they had to be inferred by indirect methods. Rock isotope levels had to be used to infer carbon dioxide and temperature with confirmation from leaf vacuoles. The talk throughout avoided any statements with any potential for query. At no point did he state cellular models, such as the IPCC standard models, are trustworthy. On the contrary the examples he gave, such as a pan of boiling pan, and the difficulties with determining water velocity, were showing the limitations of such models. The climate projections made overall do not rely on cellular analysis.

[@joemcbulge379]

You scientist want us to believe your theories even though you still can't figure out how to build a car that runs on water like Stanley Meyers did...give me a break...it's just like it's always been since Nikola tesla. science today is just a money grab and silence anyone who dare to provide tech for free!

[@michaeledwards2251]

Joe The method you are referring is used for submarine torpedo propulsion by the Russians. By adding an extra hydrogen atom to water you get a fluid which looks like water but it is capable of explosion. The advantages: ease of handling, cleanliness, and low pollution combustion.

[@alexbraithwaite4550]

CO2 IS THE GAS OF LIFE, without which we do not exist as we are a carbon based life form. It is also a trace gas, or as I call it ‘the barely there’ gas at 0.042%. How does a gas that is barely there and is essential for all life on Earth and photosynthesis get called a pollutant ravaging the planet. How does a trace gas have so much heating power as this chap would suggest. It doesn’t, and here is why. Temperature controls CO2 release or absorption with only 3% of annual CO2 man made. With the very slight natural warming since the Little Ice Age, CO2 is released into the atmosphere mainly from the ocean as it contains 45 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. The climate cult ignore simple facts and physics and like to control you through fear. This very convincing chap should go back to school and listen to the teacher this time.

[@patheally]

This guy just made the most absurd leap I've ever heard. "We can know the average temperature of a pot of boiling water...therefore we need to lower co2 in the atmosphere." What? This guy is a huckster, not a scientist.

[@bobinthewest8559]

Acting as if the fact that we can know the temperature of the boiling water, is the reason we need to lower co2... is an even bigger leap.

[@gregadamms9761]

Isn't funny how they only talk about the last 10 or 20 years and how they never talk about how the Vikings grew crops and animals on Greenland between AD 500 and AD 1300 or the record high temps in the 1930s, some of which were much hotter than now Perhaps they don't want to confuse the issue with facts

[@drekpaprika]

Citation please!

[@guameruureyes4356]

1.- if all the nations of the world stop their emissions how many degrees will the temperarue decrease? 2.- temperature increases each 1000 years, and 3000 years ago there were no industry yet it was wormer than today, then Why increases in temperature (Global warming) is due to human activity?

[@amosbatto3051]

Carlos Levy, You obviously know nothing about climate science. The earth experiences significant warming periods roughly every 100,000 years due to the Milankovitch cycles in the Earth's orbit. 3000 years ago, the temperature was significantly lower than today.

[@guameruureyes4356]

the temperature charts that all scientists use shows peaks of 0.5°C to 1°C each 1000 years, look at the graph the years 7000 B.C., 8000 B.C., 6000,5000,4000,3000 etc, and there is no industries.

[@paulpizzo2013]

The issue is not whether we should work toward cleaner technology and more frugal use of energy. The issue is, whether we are going to allow these experts to seize hold of our economy, bog it down with massive taxes and create big disruptions that will impoverish millions just because they are in panic mode about these threats. Only prosperous, productive nations demand a better environment.

[@colwem]

Paul Pizzo I don’t understand the opposition to a carbon tax. If you make it revenue neutral and introduce it gently there’s no reason to think it would harm our economy. By revenue neutral we mean you offset the revenue gain in the carbon tax by a reduction in income taxes. The whole economy has the same tax burden. Carbon gets more expensive but at the same time everyone has more money to spend. Then the idea is we respond to the prices and spend more of that money on less carbon intense products.

[@drekpaprika]

@@colwem Haha. Dont throw diamonts to a swine :)

[@Rajo1012]

Don't read the comment section. It just makes you wonder wtf is going on there.

[@boffeycn]

People believing the lies paid for by Peabody et al is what.

[@la7dfa]

The stupidity of the right wing baffles me. They dont deserve science or any benefit from science.

[@jenpsakiscousin4589]

Stop polluting the oceans: good idea. Stop producing CO2: really bad idea.