2021 Annual GWPF Lecture | Steven E Koonin | Unsettled
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 май 2024
- Professor Steven E. Koonin, New York University, and former Under Secretary for Science in the US Department of Energy, gives the 2021 Annual GWPF lecture on 'Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters'.
London, Tuesday 16th November
Steven - if there is one criticism that can be levelled at the Climate Sceptic community is that there is too great a willingness to engage in an endless debate about the science when it is plain to see that the climate crisis is politically and more importantly economically motivated by the political and moneyed classes in order to obtain an increasing stake in the public and private purse. You shouldn't need to have to don a deerstalker hat in order to understand the need to "follow the money" is paramount to solving the political problem and hence the climate debate. Bearing in mind that there may be a Moriarty or two at the end of the trail, a deerstalker needs to be well prepared for what he might find and what countermeasures may be necessary. I believe that most intelligent and well-informed people understand that this is indeed the much bigger problem, and really don't know how to deal with it. It's just much easier to keep talking, and that's what everyone seems much more comfortable doing.
Really good point and well said, but I'd say that Prof. Koonin is already on the path you suggest.
The Climate scare lab rats keep wringing their hands over a climate computer models that show unequivocally that the data you guys need to validate your fake crises points to global warming.
Funny thing.... the ACRIM I and ACRIM II
Solar Radience Sattelites measuring the Tropical Troposphere since 1978 show little warming.
And your so called " Hockey Stick" modeling showing an upward spike in temperatures since 1900 ,were faked.
You clowns have based your phony climate crisis on computer modeling instead of real facts.
Most or the lions share of 6000 of the NOAA run climate measuring stations are sited on or near heat island effected areas in cities where concrete and heavily populated areas give off phony readings.
That's why NOAA shut down over 600 of them ,but you guys still take your climate change numbers from flawed readings.
Your economic destroyers.
All you morons will succeed in doing is create starvation, and poverty.
It is great news that the Europeans are forced to fire up their coal and natural gas plants to generate electricity.
Because once the population has no electricity, due the Russians shutting off their oil and gas, they will do a Sri Lanka revolt and kick you idiots and your power mad politicians out of their climate controlled offices and hang them in effigy.
Celebrate the burn!
@R Berger You seem like someone who may have some science up your sleeve to support your viewpoint, and as such I'd only be too happy to hear your perspective - if you can inform us all of one specific science fact that provides incontrovertible evidence for anthropogenic climate change then I will let you know both my counterpoint, and then one specific science fact that I use to illustrate just how impossible anthropogenic climate change really is. I look forward to our debate.
give us some ideas on what to do.This man has written a book and now he is giving us some ammunition, we can buy the book and lend it to our brainwashed freinds.
@@bevanthistlethwaite3123 I'm not entirely sure of your position given the opening statement, but the last one suggests you might be a sceptic, which I am. My position on it is if we were to have a fair scientific test to measure exactly how much CO2 contributes to any warming (or maybe even cooling as the case may be?) we would need a control earth, one that is identical in all ways apart from it not having an industrial revolution.
Democracy requires freedom of choice, equality of opportunity, and the rule of just law. Simple as that.
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ― Ayn Rand
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ― JFK
Good quotes! People seem to overlook a psychological perspective of this issue. People who have worked hard to attain a position will motivate themselves to succeed by envisioning an empowering end result. Thus an Olympic athlete envisions winning a gold medal and acquiring recognition and perhaps lucrative endorsements. A prospective police officer imagines a future of busting drug dealers or white collar criminals (thus using his new-gained expertise to make the world a better place) to get through the grind of the Academy. A person who has been slighted due real or perceived racial bias might use that perception to spur them to persevere and earn a degree in Ethnic Studies, and make the world better by pointing out incidences of racism. They (we) all become specialists in our societal niches. And the emotion or desire that motivated us is at the very base of our way of perceiving the world.
When a problem is presented to a police officer the solution is to find the criminal that caused it. If what gives your life meaning is that racism is the root of all evil and you see someone of your race being treated badly, confirmation bias will inform you that is due to race despite other people of other ethnicities being treated badly under the same circumstances. When legislators are presented with a perceived problem (and lobbyists get paid big money to impart those perceptions!) their ‘go to’ solution is to pass another law. To paraphrase Abraham Maslow ‘If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail’.
If we are not experiencing what we thought we would on accomplishing a goal, it would do well for us to take a good look back at our motivating perceptions first rather than to hold onto them and project that bias onto the world.
With the climate change hoax, we have a bunch of people who ‘want to change the world’ as their motivation. They want to be heroes but are wallowing in bureaucratic mediocrity. Then a group of one world government advocates gives them a problem to solve that will create worldwide laws (and worldwide population control by this elite.) The mediocre minds at last have a way to be heroes! At last their hard work will give their lives meaning! ‘We’ve got trouble! Right here in River City!’ We need to roll up our sleeves and get down to the business of saving the world! Just tell me what to do! At last I can be a hero!
Excellent presentation! I'm wondering.... How many (mainstream) journalists attended? How many policy makers? How many politicians? How many "green" activists?
In the audience were John Redwood, Steve Baker, Peter Lilley.
As a 'green' I have watched it and it is very selective in choice of quotes.. and as for the loss of ice sheet the 2020 paper acknowledges current ice loss of the Greenland ice cap
@@julesdingle Watched it ? ? Have you read his book ?
@@julesdingle if you are a 'green' should you not be in favour of maximizing photosynthesis on this plant and therefore maximizing atmospheric CO2? you do realize the planet is getting greener with every day?
@@julesdingle and talking of cherry picking, why does AR6 WG1 omit deep ocean temperature change data, as dinstinct from thermal energy increase? Or why does it omit global wildfire data? One would think both are critical to understanding 'climate change' yet nada!
Not one prediction in the last 40 years has ever come about , and of course everyone's forgotton about them or they get updated every ten years because they havent come true
Here are all the predictions that have come true. They were all made over 40 years ago:
19 of the last 20 years were the warmest on record, according to NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the UK Hadley Met Office and Copernicus. 2020 tied for first. (2) Record hot temperatures are outpacing record cold ones by a nearly 2 to 1 margin. (3) The icecaps are melting at rates unprecedented in recorded history, according to NASA and the National Academy of Sciences. See NASA FACTS: ICE SHEETS. (4) Sea level rise has doubled since the 1990s, according to the World Meteorological Organization. (5) According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south has risen 400% since the year 2000. It's up 1100% along the Gulf Coast. Even the northeast, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. Sea level off China has risen 3.3 inches since 2011 according to the National Marine Environmental Monitoring Center. (6) Heatwaves have tripled since the 1960s, according to the EPA. (7) Marine heatwaves are up 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. (8) Extreme, one-day precipitation events have increased dramatically, according to the EPA. Nine of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1996. (9.)According to NOAA, hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade over the last 40 years. Taiwan reports show that typhoons have also strengthened 35% in past four decades. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094722000329?via%3Dihub 10.) According to an IPCC report, more regions of the world are being affected by worsening droughts. According to the 2020 study in Science, human-caused climate change made southwestern drought conditions between 2000 and 2018 about 46% more intense than they would have been naturally,. (11) According to a study by the U.S. Forest Service, wildfire seasons are a month longer than they were 35 years ago in the western United States, Mexico, Brazil, and East Africa. In California, 14 of the 20 largest wildfires on record have occurred over the past 15 years. (12) the cost attributable to climate change for Hurricane Sandy's storm Surge into New York was $8 billion, based on the rise of sea levels. (13) The cost attributable to climate change for Hurricane Harvey was $67 billion, based on warmer air's ability to hold more water. (14) A new UN report shows that environmental disasters nearly doubled over the past 20 years.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 no one believes any data put out by the IPCC, NOAA, or NASA they are all paid millions to push the global warming agenda . All the scientists who have retired from these organisations have said the data is all manipulated to suit the political agenda . Sea level rise is about 3mm per year or unmeasurable , they have been rising for 18,000 years since the last ice sheet advance . . All the government agencies you mention are funded to push the UN political agenda. Have you personally checked these facts . The ice caps are not melting , and the Antarctic has never been colder last year was a record. BTW global temperatures have not increased since 1999 thats why the alarmists have stopped calling it global warming and now call it man made climate change. You have wasted your time giving me these opinions because they are not facts . I am a Geo scientist and a marine engineer . Most of your statements are concerned with weather and not climate change . Climate change is measured over hundreds of years . Surface temperatures of planetary bodies are determined by atmospheric pressure and density and mean molar values and the sun, NOT co2 , which has no measurable effect on climate or temperatures. Go read or listen to lectures by INDEPENDENT scientists who are not funded by government agencies
@@bsmith8950 Sure, only idiots believe the world's most respected scientific institutions. The smart people go with internet conspiracy theorists, even though they've published no climate change papers, have no climate science PhDs, and have never put men on the moon.
Funding is given to scientists to gather data, not prove climate change. Conclusions are reached after the data is analyzed, not before, and funders have no say in the outcomes nor their interpretations.
No scientist can simply make things up to satisfy anyone's "agenda." Any data gathered must be PROVEN with quantitative evidence. The evidence then must be peer reviewed, published, debated with other scientists and then replicated and corroborated by others. You can't cheat without being caught. And if you're caught, you lose your funding, your reputation and your career.
What retired climate scientists have said all the data is "manipulated?" Give me some names.
The rate of sea level rise has doubled since the 1990s, according to satellite altimeter data, worldwide tide gauges, and the World Meteorological Organization. When two entirely different methodologies agree on the numbers, we probably should take that pretty seriously.
According to NOAA statistics reported from coastal cities and towns, high tide flooding along the American south has increased 400% since the year 2000. It's up 1100% along the Gulf coast. Even the northeast, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%.
Sea level rise has jumped from an average of 1.5mm per year during most of the 20th century, to 3mm per year in the 1990s, to over 5mm per year now. At the present rate of acceleration, sea level is projected to be about a foot higher along the east and Gulf coasts by 2050.
@@bsmith8950 If you were a real geo scientist and not a poser:
You'd know that 19 of the last 20 years were the warmest in recorded history and you wouldn't parrot denier mythology that global temperatures have remained the same since 1999.
You'd also know that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" have been used in scientific journals since the 1950s, and that they mean two different things, with "climate change" encompassing global warming and ALL OF ITS EFFECTS.
You'd know that it was Republican political strategist Frank Luntz (Google him) in a now famous 2002 memo that ordered the GOP to stop using "global warming" in speeches because he thought it sounded too scary. He advised them to start using "climate change" instead. They did exactly as he advised. In 2001, George Bush's speeches are full of references to global warming but are completely replaced by "climate change" in following years. Members of congress did the same, which helped to usher "climate change" into mainstream usage.
You'd know that the icecaps and glaciers are melting at rates unprecedented in recorded history, and you wouldn't try to hide the fact by cherry-picking the six months in the Antarctic when an unusually strong circumpolar vortex kept the region isolated from the rest of the atmosphere. As such anomalous cold struck that region, the rest of the world continued to warm. Climate is measured over 30-year spans. Climate change is measured over the entire globe over 30-year spans, not one region over a six month period.
You'd know that without C02, the earth's temperature would average minus 21 degrees Celsius.
You'd know that my previous statements all had to do with climate, not weather. Weather happens on an hourly and daily basis. I posted nothing about daily weather stats, just long-term stats.
“….icecaps and glaciers are melting at rates unprecedented in recorded history,…”. So you are cherry-picking a span of less than ten thousand years vs. geological timespans.
10:40 The only thing he said with which I really take issue..... It's not a long game of telephone. At this point I don't see how any reasonable, prudent person could believe it's anything beyond deliberate misinformation.
I agree.
I would have liked to have heard the Q&A. There must have been some interesting questions.
Even the most ignorant of people must see that he's a real expert in the field and makes a lot of intelligent comments. (Determining the real experts from the self-proclaimed "experts" is a huge problem because the media seems to believe anything that a press release says about the level of expertise of the person or people being quoted.)
Nobody can be a 'real expert' in the multiple fields he covers - he's not superman
The media don’t believe, the media does follow the orders from their boss and the ultimate boss is Georges Sorros or kind of.
Just read the book : The Man Behind the Curtain
he is not an expert in that field, he just reads the researches. that's completely different. For example, climate change is highly related to human activity, as nature does not change like that on its own. Read "the limits of growth"
Would love to hear his thought about the UK and Europe especially Germany from February 2022 the Ukraine issue- until 30 November 2022 regarding power supplies, as they enter their winter. Many thanks for presenting this on this platform. A very knowledgeable and nice man.
Just to clarify. Tyndale was not burned for translating the Bible. As for progress over 500 years, yes, people who contradict the conventional wisdom (or whatever term you want to use) are not strangled or executed in any other way. At least not in the USA or the UK. But consider the current treatment of people who contradict the "elite" view on whether or not a man can become a woman. For people in the UK, consider the treatment of J. K. Rowling. Or, probably less well-known, consider the treatment of Kathleen Stock, a professor at Sussex University. Or consider the treatment of people who have refused to bake cakes to celebrate homosexual "weddings". Or consider the treatment of Carolyn Farrow, who has been harassed by a transgender activist and had a gang of police arriving at her house to arrest her. Or the people that lose their jobs because they express the view that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Progress?
Excellent Steven Koonin.
I write letters to the editor of my newspaper. I am a big fan of Lomborg and Koonin. One problem I have is that they reference something from the IPCC report. I go to that report and find it is many pages long. I looked probably an hour and still did not fine the reference in writing. It would make them more believable if they reference the page in the report so we can confirm it. I sent an email to Lomborg asking for a more detailed reference and did not get a response. They can do better.
Modellers are fortune tellers with PhDs
According to the climate scientist Peter Taylor who wrote a book called Chill the earth is just going through natural cyclical cycles.
Exactly, we are just coming out of the 17th century mini ice age.
Excellent presentation. Sadly, we have NO critical thinkers either in government or in the media. I concur with the "follow the money" crown when it comes to this nonsense.
Is CO2 Earth's Thermostat?
Carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming. CO2 Is currently traced at 400 ppm. That is one carbon-dioxide molecule for every 2500 parts of the atmosphere. Humans contribute only a scant 16 ppm, which is 4% of the total CO2 accumulated in a year. CO2 only holds heat for a few seconds, and there is not enough of it to drive climate change. It is thermodynamically impossible!
Also, bear in mind, that water vapor is the earth's most abundant and effective Greenhouse Gas. CO2 is only 5% of the earth's CHG. Water vapor is 95% of the earth's GHG and holds heat far longer than CO2.
Lastly, CO2 will increase only after temperatures rise (eg. El Nino) and oceans degas. Conversely, CO2 levels drop as temperatures cool. In other words, CO2 levels are influenced by heat or the lack thereof and therefore do not drive climate but follow climate.
Clearly, CO2 is actually a thermometer and not a thermostat!
Climate change is a non problem looking for a solution.
If you follow the money you will find that hydrocarbon interests are spending money convincing people its not a problem. I wonder why that would be?
The GWPF is there to propagate misinformation and is funded by fossil fuel interests. Do critical thinking.
Ice Ages were modulated by ice-sheet albedo, not by CO2.
CO2 is not the primary control knob - as I have demonstrated in my peer-review paper. In reality, the feedback agent modulating ice ages was actually ice-sheet dust-albedo. See: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
The first problem with ice ages is:
When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent.
The second problem with ice ages is:
Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2.
The third problem with ice ages is:
During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response.
Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper - the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming.
The fourth problem with ice ages is:
The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly.
Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years.
All of the above points strongly suggest that ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2. …. Increased dust is caused by low CO2 concentrations, because CO2 is plant-food, and the most essential gas in the atmosphere. Thus low CO2 concentrations cause the death of all C3 vegetation at high altitude, causing CO2 deserts to form across the Gobi plateau. Dust from these CO2 deserts formed the huge dust deposits of the Loess Plateau, and also covered the northern ice sheets in dust - which lowered the albedo of the ice sheets and precipitated melting.
See: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
Ralph Ellis
@@tidtidy4159 if you actually "followed the money" you'd see that far more money is being poured into the Global Warming alarmists, much of it through government grants (meaning YOUR tax dollars). If you actually follow Big Oil, they've wised up and they, too, are putting their money into the Alarmist coffers, recognizing it is driving up the value of their product while knowing full well we CANNOT give up their use. It's a win-win for them. So, wake up. The funniest part is, Mother Nature doesn't care how much the Alarmists wave their hands. She's going to do what she's going to do. I've lost count of the number of dire predictions that haven't come true in the last 30 years of watching this nonsense.
At 22:26, Koonin shows a chart of "Daily Records per Station." I'm not sure I understand it. At first, I thought it was record highs for the station for that date. I'm not sure how to interpret it that way since if you keep having record highs it might depend on what the high was.
Has anybody ever found a debate between climate scientists anywhere? I'd love to watch it.
There are some here on RUclips:
- ruclips.net/video/ieGcx3IXSBY/видео.html
- ruclips.net/video/IGNSGyhK_z0/видео.html
There is one between Tony Heller and Gerald (someone) (not me!). Hour and a half. It starts with Tony eating his lunch; he's that not concerned. It ends with Tony eating the other guy's lunch, it went that badly.
The climate alarmist went (no surprise) for consensus and appeals to authority. Tony went for sience, data, and historical record. The alarmist cited 12 conspiracy theories that Tony presented. Tony was un-fazed. When the alarmist called Tony a denier, Tony said, "That's an attempt to link holocaust deniers wit h climate deniers. I'm Jewish; that slander won't work." Again, totally calm, totally nonplussed, not even up to an eye-roll.
The data is not on the alarmist's side.
@@zenlokamaya There's also an old one twixt Roy Spencer and a WG1 climate scientist I've not seen or heard elsewhere.
@@geraldfrost4710 I just found that one and have it in my queue. Thanks.
Holy crap YT. Someone gave me two debates that exist on youtube and now YT won't show that reply. How nuts and totalitarian. Making Orwell a prophet once again.
I would argue that the climate crisis started back in the 70s and 80s, and not with the IPCC reports. The narrative was decided, and slowly the plan they hatched was executed.
In the 1960s and early 70s the climate crisis was that we were heading rapidly for an 'ice age'.
@@MsBiggles51 And, would you credit it, the cooling has started with the GSM of 2020 to probably 2035.
The cyclical dip in solar magnetic field was predicted but the careful scientists were not dogmatic, it was either this one or the next and they are truthful about being unsure whether it will be as bad as the Maunder Minimum.
Good, careful and honest science utterly dedicated to the OBSERVATIONS.
Ice Ages were modulated by ice-sheet albedo, not by CO2.
CO2 is not the primary control knob - as I have demonstrated in my peer-review paper. In reality, the feedback agent modulating ice ages was actually ice-sheet dust-albedo. See: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
The first problem with ice ages is:
When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent.
The second problem with ice ages is:
Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2.
The third problem with ice ages is:
During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response.
Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper - the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming.
The fourth problem with ice ages is:
The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly.
Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years.
All of the above points strongly suggest that ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2. …. Increased dust is caused by low CO2 concentrations, because CO2 is plant-food, and the most essential gas in the atmosphere. Thus low CO2 concentrations cause the death of all C3 vegetation at high altitude, causing CO2 deserts to form across the Gobi plateau. Dust from these CO2 deserts formed the huge dust deposits of the Loess Plateau, and also covered the northern ice sheets in dust - which lowered the albedo of the ice sheets and precipitated melting.
See: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
Ralph Ellis
So low CO2, plants die, dust goes on the ice sheets, dust lowers the albedo of the ice sheets, the ice sheets melt from this extra heat they've absorbed.
Is that it in very basic terms?
I apologise, this is most definitely not my area of expertise as I'm sure you can tell, but I'm trying.
OK, looks like you've schooled genius CARL SAGAN, PLANETARY SCIENTIST PAR NONE!😂😂😂😂😂😂
Tyndall is an excellent example of popularising dense text - not least because it occurred to me as he mentioned searching for a historical analogy
This is in my field. I do believe the debate is more about politics & control by use of fear. It is no different than GWB's use of yellow cake & WMD to launch the Iraq War. My training indicates that it is not some little man behind the curtain that controls something like climate. Indeed the thermodynamics is complex. Natural hazards are determined by the physics, chemistry, biology, geology, ecology, oceans, soils response to processes like forces, energies, thermos, gibbs free energy. Mankind's input is there but is small in comparison to the world at large. Climate is natural. Policies as stated reflect values so to speak but whose? It appears that politicians just want to control people & don't tolerate rejection. Politicians use fear-that is classical poli sci. They act like they are the sole authors of omnipotence. If they were then Hurricane Ian would have never got off the ground. There are some innovative strategies to control carbon which won't shrink the supply side of fossils or create havoc in people's lives. The theme of the politicians in this age is create chaos & then come in like superman to persuade the people they can fix if they say Simon says. Instead it creates more chaos & the goal is the realization by the lawmakers oh we must take over the entire sector of science. I'd like to know Steve, what you think of Salby's, Happer's, Dyson's, Lindzens, Christy & Spencer's work. I am persuaded by their revelations on the complex physics of the atmosphere.
Over 88000 climate studies published in the last ten years agree that human activity is driving global warming, not nature. That's according to the most recent audit of the scientific literature by Cornell University. Please do put up some data that refutes what the 99.9% consensus is stating.
Dyson wasn't a climate scientist and admitted he knew little about climate change. He even acknowledged not knowing how Ice Ages began. A brilliant scientist in one field is not necessarily a brilliant one in another, especially when he has no formal training. Happer is also not a climate scientist. His specialty is OPTICS, and for years he worked on behalf of the oil industry when he headed the C02 Coalition to INCREASE THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS. Lindzen has been debunked by 22 of his fellow MIT professors. (See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: Richard Lindzen, at the Skeptical Science website. ) Christy and Spencer have been forced to acknowledge multiple errors in their data and have been corrected numerous times by peers. Spencer's faith in "Only God controls the climate" has blinded him to the empirical evidence all around him.
I admire your bravery at posting such a comment as in the climate science world, any questioning "the consensus" can lead to being ostracized, ridiculed, and even subject to disciplinary action.
@@wadesworld6250 Name one climate scientist who was censored or faced disciplinary action because he disagreed with the consensus.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Peter Ridd lost his job. Roger Pielke was investigated by Congress and ended up having to resign his role. Polar Bear expert Mitchell Taylor was removed from the PBSG because of his views on climate change.
How's that for a start?
@@wadesworld6250 Peter Ridd didn't lose his job because he disagreed with a consensus, even though right-wing media falsely portrayed it that way. Look up what Judge Vasta, who handled the legal case said about it. Vasta made crystal clear in his judgment that his dissent with climate science was not on trial. Here's his quote:
“Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.
Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”
That's right, Ridd's firing was due to breaching a clause in his contract, not opposing his scientific peers. Please do look it up and verify it for yourself.
Roger Pielke Jr's investigation came on the heels of the Willie Soon scandal. Soon secretly took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to peddle his "it's-all-the-sun's-fault" mantra and neglected to disclose his conflict of interest in his scientific papers, as is the academic norm.
Should members of Congress be concerned about how widespread such a practice might be? Um, yes.
If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem disclosing your funding sources right? Because climate scientists like Michael Mann, James Hansen and others have been pestered from pillar to post by right-media to disclose everything about their work, including proprietary code.
The Bush Administration caused an uproar when it interfered with, supressed and distorted the work of climate scientists for political reasons. They even went so far as to bar the use of the term "climate change" at NOAA conferences and to edit government reports in order to downplay the anthropogenic role in global warming. The administration brought in Pielke to testify on Bush's behalf, claiming that the Clinton Admininstration had done the same thing, which the Union of Concerned Scientists flat out rejected as poppycock in its "A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science." That Pielke would support Bush's personal cancel culture, in direct opposition to empirical evidence and corroborated data, spoke volumes about where his loyalties sat. So it came as no surprise that Congress would want to shine some light on any hidden motives he might have.
Roger Pielke Sr. resigned on his own from the IPCC because he disagreed with them, not the other way around.
For more, see CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: ROGER PIELKE
Taylor wasn't invited to a PBSG meeting because he was no longer active in polar bear research and management. The former chair of the PBSG was also not invited because he was no longer involved in research and management either. Taylor signing a climate denial declaration with the Heartland Institute, long funded by the fossil fuel industry to sow seeds of doubt about climate science, certainly didn't help his cause. It's akin to astronomers signing a declaration calling for scientists to take the skepticism of flat earthers seriously.
That device measuring the height of the Nile River was called a Nilometer. There different types. Some had a graduated pole, or a gauge on a wall or a staired well inside a building to gauge the level of the Nile and compare to previous years. This was critical in predicting the potential crop yield that year and thus the economy. Nilometers became obsolete when the Aswan dam on the Nile in 1962 stopped the annual rise a fall of the Nile that had happened for thousands of years.
I read Koonin's book, he nails 95% of the climate insanity.. One thing that stands out is his lack of understanding of CO2 and it's relationship to plants. 430PPM or more of CO2 does nothing but good things for plants. Thank you for your stand for truth Prof. Koonin. We need more people with your strength and understanding on the issue of climate.
He IGNORES 95% of the climate SCIENCE. And you're not much better. Yes "plants" love co2, and if we continue to increase it, the arable land will MOVE towards the poles and it will become fucking difficult to GROW all the "plants" we need to feed 8+ billion mouths.
Duh.
Koonin implies throughout the book that climate scientists have conspired to downplay uncertainty and exaggerate the risk, unaware knowingly? of the FACT that INCREASED uncertainty means increased risk.
Nowhere does he care to mention that climate sensitivity is described in the scientific literature by a probability density function that is highly skewed, with a long high-sensitivity tail that we cannot discount with certainty. Risk is the integrated product of probability and consequences.
If he's wrong and we fix this, we live.
If he's right and we fix this, we live.
Duh.
@@mrunning10 follow the money
@@jagers4xford471 I have and I do. Straight outa MY pocket into the pocket of Oil & Gas who fund the Oil & Gas LOBBY that continue to PAY via their PACS to elect politician who will CONTINUE the Oil & Gas OBSCENE revenue and profit stream by supplying the world with DIRTY energy.
How's THAT for "insanity?" Apparently by YOUR comment you certainly IGNORE this, lets see what do they call it? Ah yes, VALUE STREAM.
FUCK OIL FUCK GAS FUCK COAL and even perhaps the PAID-OFF "naysayers" like Koonin and his shit for science book.
@@jagers4xford471 Straight from YOUR pocket into the revenues of Oil & Gas & Coal
did you BUY Koonin's book?
Outstanding on the actual data, and the practicable courses of action that should be taken (not the alarmist shut our civilisation down nonsense).
This man is confident, he has a message to convey. He knows his "stuff". All that is apparent from the way he presents himself (coming round the podium, removing the virtual barrier), one hand in his pocket, and doesn't need notes.
You can trust him.
cut the crap, manmade climate change leading to global warming? real or scam? just say it.
Now I know how non-verbal style has to look like, to convince you about everything I want. Thank you. EXXON
A fantastic presentation !
Can you comment on the islands in the South Pacific and other areas that seem to be going under water?
South Pacific is subject to the effect that started in 1995. The published paper was February 2014. It's a huge effect. It's a huge ocean.
Actually a report by the university of Auckland confirmed 80% are stable or growing. Nefarious people, like Guterrez, are using those fake statistics to push their pernicious narrative and the unscrupulous leftwing Australian government in power now is furthering that narrative.
Education and truth is critical more than ever now in this world of tyrannical dictatorships masquerading as democractic leaders.
In 1988 they said the Maldives would be completely submerged within 30 years. They are not. Many of these islands in the South Pacific, such as Tuvalu, are growing in size.
@@MsBiggles51 thanks good to know!
Some of it may be geological lowering such as tectonic plates or natural sinking. Described of course by alarmists as sea level rise.
Well done!
The thing is with greenhouse gas behavior in the atmosphere is they are only considered active in earth's greenhouse effect. The thing with earth's greenhouse effect is it is the model of a system in saturation where adding more active elements to it can not cause it to have more effect. No matter how little water vapor there is in the atmosphere water vapor still holds earth's greenhouse effect in saturation such that all the radiant greenhouse energy from the surface is considered to be totally absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules within 20 meters of the surface to add 10°F (5..55°C) to earth's average temperature. Its further heat transfer is by convection i.e. molecules bumping into each other.
The greenhouse effect is high school taught science and described as above. The United Nation's IPCC science report in the back of some 200 pages in an obscure paragraph it states they took their greenhouse gas samples at 20 THOUSAND meters altitude. This statement is a legal back stop that will protect the instigators from criminal fraud if brought to trial. It can be argued in court that the IPCC has been very transparent with their data and taking greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters is common knowledge not where greenhouse gases are active or where the greenhouse effect takes place. If you then go on to follow the report a reasonably educated reader would known they are not discussing these topics with well known science that controls earth's greenhouse effect. It is of little practical use for the study or discussion or global warming.
There is no correlation between noncondensing greenhouse gases and global warming . Global warming was reported at 1.1°C in 1991 and again 1.1°C in 2022. During this thirty year end-to-end period carbon dioxide levels continues to rise in the atmosphere much as they had done in the 1980s when global warming was going up at 2/10°C per decade while during this thirty year period global warming stayed around 1°C.
THIS is a fucking TEST, so pay attention! If MAN (YOU) had NOT started digging UP the CARBON from UNDER the GROUND about 400 years ago would there STILL be a "greenhouse" effect?
Bravo, Professor Koonin! And read the book, folks - it's excellent.
Where can you obtain it in UK ?
A great presentation, but why does he talk about still wanting to reduce carbon in the future? He's a friend of Prof Will Happer, so he must know that reducing carbon/CO2 will kill millions, makes no sense!
The more oxygen carbonyl the greener the earth in dryer regions will be, the more food we can grow and faster.
carbonyl ??? a family of substances
Fe (CO)5 ....iron penta carbonyl
Ni (CO)4 ....nickel tetra carbonyl
Re (CO)3 .....rhenium tri carbonyl
H2 (CO)2 .... glyoxal
> O (CO) .... oxygen mono carbonyl
Excellent presentation. The issue is of course how to make people think more for thenselves so in essense phsychological. How to combat groupthink? Very hard to do when the climate panic actors (and some are real ones)grab the headlines. They refuse to have anything to do with 'the other side' because they are trained in black and white, good and bad and they believe they are with the good. So, a book will persuade a lot of people already skeptical but how can you shift the thinking in the likes of Leonardo di Caprio? That is in my opinion the key. And how to persuade a biased politician when he/she is wrapped up in a whole construct with power, influence and money? And persuade we must as presenting the mere facts will likely not do it. They need a REASON. They wont shift as they are all in the same boat together with mainstream and social media. I wouldnt start with politicians as they mostly are weather vanes reacting to the prefailing winds. There are large groups of ordinary people protesting and that will continue. The stronger that gets the more difficult it will be for journalists to ignore or waylay it. So, imo it will come from the bottom up. COPs will come and go. The best thing anyone can do is to try and halt or reverse local climate legislation. The climate activists have managed to put in supra national laws to get their way and we see countries falling under pressure, especially in the EU.
I’m not sure if this is your creation or someone else’s, I have not seen a better quote to describe politicians as “weather vanes reacting to the prevailing winds”. The problem is that this can be used to describe most of the individuals in our society. No one seems to care about the real science and facts. This is the hurdle that needs to be addressed.
Politicians don't care. If they see the green agenda as a "morally" correct way to practice corruption to better themselves financially, then that is what they will do
@@gregggehring792 The even more notable thing about that quote is the typo: "politicians...are weather vanes reacting to the prefailing winds"! How apt is that word 'prefailing'? I have clicked the "add this word to dictionary" button.
The irony of watching this with YT's Climate Change sky blue disclaimer banner staring me in the face.
I was going to say Search Prof Michel Kelly* when the auto play brought up his address to the same body
* fellow New Zealander, alumnus of Francis Douglas Memorial College (Catholic boys’ secondary school, New Plymouth, Taranaki (province) in the North Island of New Zealand. 3 places above me in gold letters on the academic top marks league board).
NS Sherlock, a good friend of mine, once assuredly said:"Don't take any hack from any Jack at a podium, even if he's standing next to it in full body view. 😎🤓🐇
All well and good, but this is still working on the assumptions that human activities are having some effect on climates, and that there is such a thing as "greenhouse effect" and human emissions are influencing this. There is also the assumption that any more warming will be bad, and that the warming that we have had will continue.
He didn't cover that, but he did look at the empirical evidence which does not support the predictions of models based on the greenhouse effect. It is far easier for people to see the data than to be presented with physics which they may not understand.
The greenhouse effect is a fact. Without it we would all be dead.
Sadly only 77k people saw it . This should be showed in schools!
Not SUPPOSED to teach LIES in our schools. (Unless you're Hitler, Stalin, or Mao)
@@mrunning10 What are you referring to as a lie I wonder?
@@mmc5005What? You want a fucking LIST I suppose? Did you even read the book or watch this vid? Try some logic first. Do nothing, we may DIE. Do something, we LIVE.
I'll take the latter, fuck the Oil and Gas OBSCENE profits.
(you work perhaps for an Oil or Gas lobby?)
\
@@mmc5005 95% of Koonin's book, the weather is not the fucking climate. nor is it climate change.
Depriving people of energy puts millions of lives at stake so climate change hysteria is just the tool to achieve that objective.
Any true scientific hypothesis must start with an observed natural phenomenon. What is the observed natural phenomenon?
This video has gotten few views and the evening news has many.
Why do you think everyone believes the politicians?
That's the state of things and it's the much greater threat.
If anyone believes politicians now after years of demonstrable covid lies in order to terrify us in to compliance, then they need go see a psychiatrist!
Remove the money and see how quick the carbon interest dies - fades away !
My polar bear went missing years ago. Last I saw him, said he was going to the store for some smokes.
and to grab a six pack of beer LOL
How can anyone prescribe policy with 5% science if that?
Why does the IPCC omit the EMISSIVITY of CO2 in the radiative forcing Calculations? The emissivity of CO2 is 0.0017 and they use emissivity as 1. This is 500 time more than CO2 is capable of absorbing and emitting !
please post a link to this number you claim, because I think you got it very wrong and are LYING about it. You know so little regarding physical chemistry that you can't even ask a fucking SENSICAL question. "emissivity" is physical principal NOT a "capability"
so that tells me you are a degreed Hair Stylist. (or a bot)
Great presentation.
But it's not in the script , we all know what's coming
Germany thru EU policy manipulation is putting efforts to torpedo Poland's adopted energy policy of building 2 nuclear power generating stations by 2035. All of that while for the past 20 yrs the EU policy has forced Poland to abandon the utilization of it's rich black coal reserves as a reliable energy source. German policy was to maximize the whole EU dependency on gas from RUS.
Your book was very informative and I found your focus on Political policy to be quite revealing. It’s worse than bad science and a complete fraud.
19:11 I've been wracking my brain as to what Koonin reminds me of and it just came to me. Gwildor, the wizard from the Masters of the Universe movie. They could almost be brothers :) ruclips.net/video/FKGCpeKlQQM/видео.html
Concerning sea level, rise the regulators mandate surface sewage that drains rainfall on roads, streets, highways, roofs, parking lots and all the rest, the surface sewers, many lead to rivers, which lead to the ocean, especially along the eastern seaboard. Hmmm sea level rise is this a result of regulatory policy, ???
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom whose aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, have been characterized as practising and promoting climate change denial.
In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" was created to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles sceptical of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.
Name the Names. WHO or WHAT organization or companies FUND the GWPF? Name the Names.
You mark yourself as a troll.
First, a scientist of even mediocre scholarship will describe the issue as it truly is "Man made runaway global warming by the use of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
All scientifically literate persons, coming from the purest of physics through biology, geology, meteorology, botany, anthropology, palaeontology and many others will know there is extensive hard evidence of continuous changes in the climate of the earth and the many solar system and orbital influences involved. Anyone denying that climate changes is as wrong as someone saying water is not wet.
Second, you pay no attention to the actual genuine measurements of the temperature and the sea level being done since the fraudulent and deceptive "Inconvenient Truth" both of which are more and more different from every IPCC prediction in each of its iterations based on flawed coarse grained models.
Third, the source of information and the distribution of knowledge and opinion has no bearing on the truth of a matter.
The IPCC is a lobby group exclusively designed to deal with only one side of a question.
“There is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away…I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environmental agenda item, but the science is not valid.” -
John Coleman, Meteorologist, co-founded The Weather Channel
John Coleman (RIP) never published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career was in TV weather for over half a century. He spoke with authority, injects an irreverent sense of humor and knew how to connect with his viewer, but he was not a climate scientist.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Why on earth should we trust these ‘climate alarmist experts’, just look how they have mislead us in the past and there are many more faux warnings!
N.B. ❌ = Didn’t happen!!
1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975 ❌
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969) ❌
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000 ❌
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980 ❌
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030 ❌
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070 ❌
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast ❌
8. 1974: Another Ice Age? ❌
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life ❌
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent ❌
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes ❌
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend ❌
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s ❌
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs ❌
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not) ❌
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000 ❌
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not) ❌
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is ❌
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy ❌
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024 ❌
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018 ❌
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013 ❌
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World ❌
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’ ❌
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014 ❌
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (it’s not) ❌
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’ ❌
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide ❌
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources ❌
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years ❌
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years ❌
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s ❌
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000 ❌
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020 ❌
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010 ❌
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes! ❌
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015 ❌
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985 ❌
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable ❌
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish ❌
41. 1970s: Killer Bees! ❌
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production (its increasing due to higher Co2) ❌
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century ❌
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum ❌
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980 ❌
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018 ❌
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020 ❌
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past ❌
49. 1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming ❌
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter ❌
@@venenareligioest410
Nice copy and paste. Those aren't scientific models. Follow the science. Look this up, "Hausfather et al 2019, "Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections".
@@hosnimubarak8869 Explain why these false warning were issued by ‘climate alarmist’ and the lazy press which report that sh!t without questioning it!! Sceptics - 50, Clmate extremists - 0 😆
N.B. ❌ = Didn’t happen!!
1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975 ❌
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969) ❌
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000 ❌
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980 ❌
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030 ❌
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070 ❌
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast ❌
8. 1974: Another Ice Age? ❌
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life ❌
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent ❌
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes ❌
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend ❌
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s ❌
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs ❌
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not) ❌
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000 ❌
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not) ❌
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is ❌
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy ❌
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024 ❌
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018 ❌
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013 ❌
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World ❌
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’ ❌
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014 ❌
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (it’s not) ❌
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’ ❌
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide ❌
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources ❌
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years ❌
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years ❌
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s ❌
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000 ❌
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020 ❌
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010 ❌
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes! ❌
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015 ❌
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985 ❌
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable ❌
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish ❌
41. 1970s: Killer Bees! ❌
42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production (its increasing due to higher Co2) ❌
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century ❌
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum ❌
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980 ❌
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018 ❌
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020 ❌
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past ❌
49. 1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming ❌
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter ❌
@@hosnimubarak8869 There is really no such thing as a climate scientist. Such a person would have to be an expert in atmospheric physics, solar physics, oceanography, vulcanology, astrophysics, etc. etc. etc. Nobody is an expert in every one of the many dozens of factors affecting the climate. This is part of the problem actually -- experts in each field talk to each other but not to experts in the other groups.
Superb presentation.
I'd like to hear Neil Tyson or Brian Cox debate this man, but it won't happen
Because Neil and Brian don't debate a propagandist from an oil lobby.
He had a lot of debates...
@@mrunning10 why? Would be perfect to embarrass him live..
Koonin is literally a fucking genius, MIT PhD. He KNOWS that what he is saying (PAID by BP by the way), is mis-direction, weather that is not climate, doubt, he is smart enough to know to never put himself in such a "debate" situation with the people (they're called Atmospheric Scientists) who DO the ACTUAL work. WE will NEVER see this.
How does he do this? Easy, his audience is the MAGA minions out there, he checks their box of conspiracy, do it enough over and over (Christy, Happer, Curry, Lindzen, etc. etc.) and the lazy ignorant minions vote for politicians who keep the TRILLIONS in fossil fuel REVENUES rolling into the bank account. Literally THAT is what's it's ALL about.
@@ahriman1608
This is an excellent book rooted in logic and reason. Refreshing..right! We need so much more of these discussions and the book is exactly what is needed. Breakinng down into lay terms so the average person can understand the want these reports say.
Obviously, we can't rely on the media to be truthful on this subject or...any other it seems....anymore. Media is money. The modern media industry exists in a simple profit margin mechanism of fear and division, pitting groups against one another and always forwarding an emotional agenda. No longer do they hold the powerful accountable? They are the powerful. Social media is in lock step with them as well. Well, there has been a change in that lately but... You only need to see the response of the media to this change to understand the point I'm making. Just now incredibly insane and backwards is it that the modern media now advocates against free speech? It's an oxymoron... Right. Well, they only attack it when it challenges their power. Especially since the are seeing it slip away.
One other point he made is one that I'm most concerned with. What they are doing to our children is so unbelievably cruel and evil. Worse, the motives are purely evil to it's core. In way to many areas we no longer treach our children and prepare them for adulthood. We don't teach them the basic skills needed. We are creating activists and soon to be adults to be ruled by emotion only and not how to think critically. Now to question and be curious. We are training followers and not leaders. Obedient servants. Worse..we are scaring the living hell out of them and creating generations of anxious and depressed people who will only ever suffer. It's as disgusting as it is infuriating.
This issue of global climate, an incredibly complex system we still don't understand, is a political issue. The science community has been taken over by politicians using the same tool the ruling class has always used? Cold hard cash!
Think you'll get funding to disprove the climate crisis or even investigate. Nope!
Will NASA get more funding to build and launch satellites that supports the narrative or challenges it?
Will climate journalists get articles published saying climate change isnt all that bad?
Will local and state govts get federal grants to "prepare" for climate change if these is no need?
Will green energy companies get fed contracts or grants and then funnel money back to Democrats campaign coffers?
Will universities get federal grant money to study the impact of climate change?
Worse of all...will honest and ethical science tell the trust and risk their career and reputation to say whoa.... Slow down.... Let's look at the data and realize that thowing trillions at a problem will end up being so much more worse that the problem itself.
Appalling recording of the event. What we want to see is the screen and the data, but it keeps flipping away and shows the audience, which is quite irrelevant. Could we have a presentation of his slides, which are fascinating.
Pause the video on the data screen
Or buy his excellent book. He goes into much more detail.
But but but, politicians are supposed to be honest!
Al Gore just said the The oceans are BOILING. LOL. What a hack.
when? where?
@@mrunning10 this years, 2023, WEF annual meeting
LIAR
@@mrunning10
are you new to using Google?
@@bogeybichon7000 "Google?" What's THAT? I just checked in my 1972 Funk & Wagnalls, NOTHING, so you're a liar.
There’s billions to be made by political donors in climate change mitigation.
Revenue capture by the carbon brokerage industry is now in the trillions. When the carbon tax price faces incremental increases on the order of $50 per tonne, this revenue capture will increase exponentially with every compounded charge on affected goods and services. Wealth redistribution - to a boat load of bureaucrats for JUNK SCIENCE and the flimsy overinflated anecdotal fear mongering that drives it.
Excellent
This video needs to be shared and shown on every media platform to stop the morons from glueing themselves to things like spoilt children.
How about the fucking CARBON?
big oil really Steven E Koonin
Spot ON. Paid by BP to write and promote his fucking book of weather related horseshit.
All very interesting, but the claim that Carbon Dioxide is the main greenhouse gas which causes global temperature rise seems to be accepted as correct.
Why is that not questioned? Does CO2 cause Global Warming?
Atmospheric science is very complex and much is still to be learned about the effects of various gasses and compounds, at various levels, in the atmosphere, (that is clear), but why is CO2 singled out as the main villain?
If CO2 can be shown to be not the problem that it is accused of being then the Climate Activists will lose their main argument.
Their evidence should be attacked and disproved
CO2 is in fact the main control knob of the climate. CO2-driven warming accelerates evaporation, which fills the atmosphere with increased water vapor which, itself a powerful greenhouse gas, then works synergistically with CO2 to warm the planet further than either could do on its own. That warming melts permafrost, which then releases methane, another powerful greehouse gas, and the icecaps, which reduce earth's albedo, allowing greater solar insolation and causing even greater warming.
CO2 is the main control knob because water vapor rains out. CO2 does not. It accumulates for centuries.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 bull manure
@@bigboots6114 See ATMOSPHERIC CO2: PRINCIPAL CONTROL KNOB GOVERNING EARTH'S TEMPERATURE, a landmark study by Lacis et al, published in SCIENCE, Oct 15, 2010.
"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state." ---Lacis/Schmidt, NASA GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, 2010
Whenever someone like this calls for "forming some graceful decarbonisation pathways", I have to wonder if they have the basics about carbon wrong should we listen to them at all? Carbon is being used as a completely unfounded basis to control us. I call working for the enemy here.
Very simple, Follow the Money. Who is benefiting from this insistence of shifting all energy to electricity? What is the real upside?
Who is benefiting from climate change denial? Fossil fuel industry CEOs make ten times more than PhD-level climatologists and are protecting trillions of dollars in financial assets. Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch peddles climate misinformation daily because he co-owns a fossil fuel company, Genie Energy, and sits on their board. Russian state TV spreads climate misinformation in 30 different languages to media outlets around the world. Yes, follow the money indeed.
Isn’t it weird how it’s always the environmentalists who are money mad and not the people who are making billions pumping pollution into the atmosphere…. As you say, very simple.
@@Stealthbong Stop voting for any politician funded into office either directly or by any fossil fuel Lobby, PAC money, or the fucking Koch Brothers.
Humans are clearly contributing to climate change. Minimizing carbon output and increasing carbon sinks is wise.
Everyone can agree smog is bad for health, oil trade deficits are bad and efficiency can be improved.
Oil is a finite resource and leads to much geopolitical instability.
I've noticed those older then 50 tend to be the most complacent in continuing in an unsustainable foreign oil trade deficit and elective copious consumption habits of all resources be it food, water, lumber or oil.
I believe teaching financial literacy in schools and macro economic, combined with incentives to increase efficiency will be the best short term solution.
Using less for a similar outcome is good.
Smaller Homes and cars are good for a efficient, competitive society.
My children will live to see 2100.
Readily accessible oil is rapidly being depleted. Forests with good buildable lumber have been exhausted. Mass deforestation and desertification is rampant throughout the world.
Fish stocks depleted.
Fat baby boomers in fat cars and fat houses claim it will destroy society to be fit, have reasonable sized homes and have efficient vehicles.
I personally look forward to the baby boomers dying in mass in the next 15-25 years.
A generation that is clearly selfish and rather take everything with them before they die.
Be efficient, plant trees now so people in 2100s have lumber.
We need oil primarily for artificial nitrogen.
Seems all of you in the comments are very pleased that koonie give you free reign to consume more resources than your parents and leave limited resources for your legacy.
America and western society has been in free fall under the baby boomers stewardship.
Vote senile and dementia 2024.
am curious, are you a baby boomer? so what's the solution?
He has no solutions, only vitriol for a portion of the population he knows nothing about.
Taking a brush and washing these people is a failure and more importantly cancels his whole argument.
6C and economic damage is selective quoting of the economist Toi [2018] every other economist says otherwise and the science determines that civilisation would struggle to survive
Well I have to disagree with the statement that cyclones have not be come worse. There is indisputable evidence that hurricanes and typhoons have become significantly more severe. In the media.
silence! you speak wrongly, it is NOT any one cyclone or hurricane, Koonin harps on this and it is weather HORSESHIT.
it is the long time span fucking AVERAGE that is meaningful. How long have we been MEASURING the "force" (category) of these events?
Plot it out on a chart over time, is the severity, ON FUCKING AVERAGE, increasing?
One of the things that make me a skeptic is that the solutions that have been proposed over the last 40 years I have been watching don’t solve the stated problem or are unrealistic at scale. Ethanol and biofuels generate carbon dioxide. Carbon offsets are a scam. Windmills and solar fields never pay for the carbon debt they create making the windmills or solar panels. They destroy environments both surface and ocean. Geothermal has some uses in specific locations. Batteries , fuel cells etc will strip mine the world and fail to scale appropriately. Additionally they don’t work in the cold at all or work well in the heat.
Ever considered checking out your own assumptions?
Obviously not, you lied, repeatedly.
@@jaykanta4326 where did I lie? Burn carbon (biofuels and ethanol) get carbon dioxide. Check out Michael Moores “Planet of the Humans” to see how windmills and solar panels are made. Look at slave labor in China Africa or Asia to see how cobalt nickel and low level radioactive materials are mined by children and what waste is dumped in third world countries. Batteries and fuel cells in cars freeze in the winter and can’t hold a charge. Even with warners installed this winter people were stranded in sun zero weather unable to get the lithium battery warm enough to take a charge without burying into flame. Last summer those same batteries in Tampa burst into flames because they got flooded with sea water. Hydrogen fuel cells produce water as a by product rather than CO2 . Great but in cold weather that water freezes on the fuel cell. Look up one of the largest solar fields in the US called IVANPAH in Nevada. See how much land it used and how it disintegrated into a wreck of a project over the years. I don’t think you know what your talking about at all. There are successful windmill and solar projects in the sense they are being maintained and are on the grid but they also poison the earth kill wildlife (like whales and eagles and any ground animals). But they require massive mining efforts smelting efforts shipping efforts that all use coal gas or oil. A windmill has to run 30 years to make up for the CO2 that it took to make it. The larger the windmill the longer it has to run. Size matters.
@@dabronx340 Not a bit of evidence. Michael Moore is not a scientist.
Why didn't you bring actual credible scientific evidence? You're essentially repeating fossil fuel talking points, and you have as much credible evidence as the fossil fuel industry.
@@dabronx340 "A windmill has to run 30 years to make up for the CO2 that it took to make it."
Citations required.
@@jaykanta4326 I am repeating basic high school chemistry “burn carbon get carbon dioxide”. I used Moore as a lefty source of aggregated data. His conclusions saw silly as if top down authoritarian governments can remind the laws of nature by fiat. It looks s your contention that lithium ion batteries do not burst into flames at cold temperatures? Why do airline tell you not to put them in checked baggage? Or that windmills solar panels do not use radioactive materials mined in China and Africa by slave labor? To make one 1000 lb EV battery you need to mine 500000 lbs of dirt in various locations. This is done by child slaves in Africa and heavy diesel using equipment in China. It needs to be smelted down in the sand way steel construction I beams are smelted down. Using huge furnaces and lots and lots of coal. It’s not magic it’s technology. The you’re not a scientist bullshit is an absurd retort. You have no idea who I am but regardless I can read and study and learn . This worship of scientist is highly selective. The scientist in this video would agree with what I’ve said here. There is no silver bullet solution to the problem presented by CO2. The as always are only trade offs. I’m saying the politicians who present these mythical solutions yet buy beach front property and fly in private jets don’t act like they believe what they are saying. That makes me skeptical.
Whoa Koonin broke one of his own rules at 17:37. He showed a single tide gauge (so maybe representative of 0.028% of the ocean, 300 x 300 km chunk) and pretended that it's representative of the other 99.972% of the global ocean. Naughty naughty Steve really did that thing, broke his own unbreakable scientific rigor & ethic rule, presumably for the Greater Good of his preferred Social Team.
Edit few weeks later: Just saw-heard Steve Koonin do the same sea level nonsense in a very good public debate at ruclips.net/video/ieGcx3IXSBY/видео.html I think this sea level misrepresentation might be his only wart that I've ever come across. So he pointed out the ~125 M, SLR ~22k to ~8k years ago that we all know, not really relevant but that's fine, it's just paleo proxy fact. But then he lied and said that SLR has much-more-slowly been continuing the last 8k years. Oh no it ain't. It continued tapering down to nothing at ~4k years ago and that's it. Since then it's all like +/- 1.5 m up & down but that's clearly just errors in competing proxies because it has like measurements maybe 1 m different at the same time. Richardson used total Sun eclipses the last 2,800 years and concluded negligible sea level change (Munk didn't say, presumably immeasurably small, zero within the uncertainty) but the simple thing is the Roman fish ponds, sea level still within a few inches of where it must have been when the ponds were installed. If sea level had been rising at the 3.6 mm / year of the last few decades (4.1 mm / year 2012-2022) the Roman fish ponds would be under about 7.2 m (22 feet of water) but there they are within inches of when they were installed. Then Steve does his single tide gauge cherry pick again when we all know that sea level is rising in the West Pacific, an absolutely vast area, a few times faster than elsewhere and it's dropping around Greenland because of Greenland ice gravity, the huge wind boost thing that started in 1995 and maybe AMOC change. Battery Park situation don't mean diddly squat, Earth is a planet and there's colour-coded global sea level rise and fall (which is actual ocean depth increase & decrease because that's what's measured since 2002) all over the internet, even animations showing where the ice water went around Earth as 10 years went by.
----------------
It started i n 1995, I saw a wind speed plot in 2014. By 2012 it had sped up a huge 30% (1 m/s) since 1995. Unprecedented back nearly 200 years of records.
Quote: "Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. "We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean," said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales."
----------------
Quote: "The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says."
----------------
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
Nature Climate Change 4, 222-227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014
Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations
"Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades-unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models-is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake."
All bought and payed by Black Rock and Van Guard Groups says this is MISINFORMATION. Lol. Thanks.
Tyndale's manipulated version of the Bible served purely revolutionary, anticlerical and anti-Catholic purposes. It was a means of propaganda. It's a very unfortunate comparison.
well informed greta will tell you what to think but first buy her books mansions and jets are not cheap
Obviously a dangerous climate denier.😅
When he is vigorously refuted by NASA and NOAA with facts and data, yes, he is.
He doesn't deny climate changing. Which other sources should we read to have the right knowledge about the topic?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 were can I find those refutations?
@@Ignasimp "A NEW BOOK MANAGES TO GET CLIMATE SCIENCE BADLY WRONG"---Scientific American, May 13, 2021
' A CRITICAL REVIEW OF STEVE KOONIN'S 'UNSETTLED"---YALE CLIMATE CONNECTIONS, May 25, 2021
'A NEW BOOK FEEDS CLIMATE DOUBTERS ,BUT SCIENTISTS SAY THE CONCLUSIONS ARE MISLEADING AND OUT OF DATE"---Inside Climate News, May 4, 2021
'WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE REPEATS MULTIPLE INCORRECT AND MISLEADING CLAIMS MADE IN STEVE KOONIN'S NEW BOOK 'UNSETTLED"---Climate Feedback, April 25, 2021
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 this serves nothing. Actual refutals of the data and conclusions from the book. Not just Headlines.
The amount of blatant false interpretation and selective data is stunning and irresponsible.
Spot On. Why and how? Koonin was PAID by British Petroleum to write and "promote" his book. All the while, the final end result? Preservation of TRILLIONS in revenues generated by selling US fossil fuels. It's THAT simple.
Koonin is HORSESHIT. How does this happen? A denial book is checked by lawyers for SLANDER, NOT the fucking SCIENCE. Koonin is laughing at us all the way to the fucking BANK.
@billmattson2001
Wonderful to see a former rep of BP stand in to misinterpret a science he has no expertise in to people who have no expertise in the same field.
Thankyou for that. Always nice to hear from the scientifically literate here. You're a rare breed. ;)
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Someone used this as a source. I was obliged to check it. But when I showed them the problem with it, they ignored it and jumped to something else. Standard practice, it seems.
@@RichardRoy2 Yes, the behavior is staight out of the denier playbook.
you are a physician and you should stick to that, not to enviromental science, which is clearly not your field. Probably you did not even read the CSSR
It's NOT unsettled , ..... Its ALL BOLLOX !!!
Cite your data that refutes the mountain of evidence gleaned from over 350,000 climate studies.
BOOOOOORRRRRRIIIINNNNGGGG
Good argument. Tell me more.
@@coolisfoolable Watch the led by donkeys video on the GWPF and tufton street.
@R Berger Nope, GWPF and the tufton street liars for hire are boring and busted.
@@TheDisproof nope
@@coolisfoolable Ok then, REALLLLYYY BORING
Nice grift you have got going on. #scam
Don't believe his bollocks.
@Peter Powell
So who’s bollocks should we believe?smh
Wow, thank you, unbiased stranger!
Contrary to the oft-repeated mantra by climate extremists that today’s CO₂ concentration is unprecedentedly high, our current geologic period, the Quaternary, has seen the lowest average levels of carbon dioxide since the Precambrian. Though CO₂ concentrations briefly peaked 320,000 years ago at 300 ppm, the average for the past 800,000 years was 230 ppm (Luthi 2008).
*** The death level for ALL plant life on earth is 150ppm!!!
The average CO₂ concentration in the preceding 600 million years was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times our current amount and 2.5 times the worst case predicted by the IPCC for 2100. Our current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average CO₂ concentration in more than 600 million years!
Reference: Berner RA, Kothavala Z (2001)
GEOCARB Ill: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time, IGBP PAGES and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Data Contribution Series # 2002-051.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology
Program, Boulder, CO, USA.
Who are these guys? Who funds them?
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a charitable organization in the United Kingdom whose stated aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[2] The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, have been characterized as practising and promoting climate change denial.[3][4]
In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" was created to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles sceptical of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.
What the fuck does historical forest fires have to do with the CARBON we've added to the atmosphere and the CARBON we continue to add to the atmosphere?
Anybody? Beuller?
CO2 is a necessary gas for life on this planet. water vapor is a pollutant which will kill because your lungs fill with fluids
Carbon very common element. Nothing living without carbon in its structure and metabolism. Historically low CO2 in "Anthropocene", if lower than 180 all photosynthesis ceases and all life on earth extinct. Best levels for abundant life is between 1000 and 4000. You are ignorant and foolish.