When you're struggling to pay bills, it's almost impossible to think about anything else outside keeping a roof over your head and feeding your family...and the rich know that.
@Ford Fanatic I haven't said that the amount you pay as taxes doesn't matter but that taxes don't bring you into financial peril. You, for instance, still have about 117,000 left.
@Ford Fanatic I really don't but where do you live that 9000 a month don't suffice to live well? Japan? Is the unit Yen? Sure, you could pay them to your employees but would you? Consider that the reason for such taxation and spending thereof to exist in the first place is that employers overall don't (or haven't). And what would be the point of distributing these 50,000 among your employees, if they now don't have health care and have to pay for it out of their own pocket? Aside from private insurance being more expensive than public, this is a pointless effort. And 30% does not constitute "taxing the hell out of every one". Even if you don't have progressive taxation, 70% is still the lion share.
Brainwashing the younger generations because they know older generations can see through their bullsh1t, in a couple of generations they’ll have a population of compliant fools that will dance to their every whim.
She's not giving her opinion she's repeating what scientists have been saying for a long time now but many people can't seem to understand that and decide to get angry at a little girl instead.
Bastard ecologists will be planting trees, recycling waste and reducing pollution next, take them to court it's a disgraceful project. PUT SOLAR PANELS ON YOUR ROOF! :) like that you can take the power to yourself and save S...Tloads of oil and electric bills? You are a hoax if you say you don't understand chemistry to such a deep level that you think it's an illuminati cult of anti oil power redistribution, poor oil companies...
Yes, and now even a moron can see it's also a huge wealth redistribution scam, agreeing to pay other countries for the "damage" we did by putting out share of 2.75 % of atm. CO2 into the air.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." H L Mencken
@D. E. Chomsky is wrong about 9-11, that's true. I wonder if he is choosing his battles, like, being strategic. That's a guess. Still, he's a towering figure, imho.
Crazy how we’ve accepted stagnant wages for higher prices on the essentials and assets for 43 years now. Just because our amenities and gizmos are cheap. We’re hoodwinked by Netflix and IPads and don’t see our living standards dropping in real time.
It's not that "we've accepted it," it's more that we know the cops will shoot us in the face with rubber coated bullets if we get uppity about it. It has always been about violence.
@@jonathonsmith6831 We're getting poorer. The planet was rich with natural wealth before we started fucking it up. If I could trade walking to work to get back coral reefs, I would.
@@aluisious we never had it as good as we've had it past 50 years. It's alot better than my grandma's time. People don't realise how good they have it. We live like kings
Whilst the hottest 5 years have happened in last 10 and right now the oceans are breaking heat records but as long as one country has been cold then it doesn't matter about rest
God, I wish I could take a glimpse into 2050 to see what kind of excuses the left will come up with why the world isn't underwater. It's remarkable how well they've been able to market this whole scam. People REALLY are totally just scared little children, waiting for daddy government to tell them what to do, how to think, and how much $$$ to pay.
His book manufacturing consent changed my life. I basically had to unlearn everything I'd learned up until that point in my existence. It's helped open my eyes to reality. Unfortunately, reality is fucking depressing.
@@ragnaarminnesota6703 they were just exaggareting you idiot. They did not say straight up they are depressed cause if something is depressing, doesnt mean it makes other depressing lmao.
I have had a few millions & it did not make me happy. Just feel sorry for those who are fatally addicted to holding wealth. Giving it to charity will make them better people - without doubt. Then their friends will be genuine ones.
@@vladimirolujic6637 lol op is clearly a righty. Fact is, Chomsky is right on 50-95% of topics cause he’s a genius and has so much free time to think about things. This is more or less true for most intellectuals which is why chimsky put out his “responsibility for intellectuals” 😅😅😅😅
I have a lot of respect for this guy. Even though I don't agree with him on most issues, at least he challenges my beliefs in a rational way. "If you find yourself among the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ---- Mark Twain He makes me think.
Hell yeah man that’s how everyone should be. Question everything. Hold people accountable if wrong and just learn for your own good. Keeping an open mind is rare and if you are willing to listen as much as you talk you may see some of your own thoughts change on things. How we move ahead with our species. Seems some people in power don’t want that though unfortunately.
I also respect all your comments and I agree with Noam on most things. I've corresponded with him several times and I spent a couple years reading his books. I actually am not that interested in hearing more of what you all think as most people don't commit the necessary time to really study Noam's work. thanks
Living in the mountains of North Carolina from October to the end of May, we've had to wear our heavier clothes earlier every year and into the first couple of weeks of June. It's not warming up folks, it's staying colder longer in the mountains of North Carolina!
I always thought Americans needed to buy insurance because your government didn't spend a penny on it. Well that is clearly not the case... The US spend approx. $8500 per capita on healthcare. That constitutes almost 18% of GDP, more than any other other country in the world. Then to top of that off you personally have to buy (for who knows how much) insurance, or receive Medicaid if you're eligible?! Why? How can it spend that much money, your money, on a system that isn't even universal? It's ridiculous. The second biggest spender (my country) spend $5600 per capita (which is less than 10% of GDP), and that's it. Simple really. I'm happy to pay my taxes for it.
@Scooters Videos yes, what about them? Are they even relevant for this discussion? These are relevant though, you are welcome to watch one of them. ruclips.net/video/MvqY2NcBWI8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/w-IHJbzRVVU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/mmlHbt5jja4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Yze1YAz_LYM/видео.html
Are you talking about yearly US government spending on health care? $8500 per capita of 333,000,000,000? That alone would be 70% of the annual budget. You are greatly exaggerating.
For most people, you don't get any part of a governmental health insurance. They are to well payed to medicaid and such programs. You or the company that hires you pay for an health insurance. That is why some people with medical issues are bound to not get married or a job, because then they could not afford the health care costs, and health care insurance companies refuses to insure them, as they are already sick. So yes, the cost for a person in USA are higher for health care then the rest of the world with universal health care in some form. Yes, they also have private doctors. Yes, they can also add another insurance for health care of things not treated by the universal health care. So yes, universal health care systems could and should made suitable for USA, but you should also look at others for inspiration.
I think people get fed bad info and dont want to accept the truth they rather stick to their guns until the evidence is so overwhelming that their is no disputing without looking crazy or just being a complete idiot
@@Blowmontana707 Even if there was overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic caused global warming, that doesn't mean the mainstream solutions being offered are favorable or that they would even be effective in solving the problem that they claim are solvable. Honestly, it just sounds like a justification for a massive power grab for the global elite. They sell the promise of certain safety in exchange for human liberty, when there is no certainty. The only certainty I can see is a guaranteed tyranny.
Noam Chomsky got it wrong on vaccines and got it wrong on climate change. He must have got something right and I'm anxious to learn what and perhaps have some respect for his opinion on something.
"Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." --Patrick Henry
I hope people will realize that this guy has been a professor at MIT for 50 years and is regarded as one of the most honest and important intellectuals of this generation. I hope people will at least looks at some of the things he has said in the past to see what character he has. Then maybe you can have an open mind on what he has to say.
I'm an MIT professor and a highly regarded intellectual. I know it all, blah blah blah. All the Wooley Mammoth farts melted all the glaciers during the last ice age.
Yeah so he's a deeply embedded member of a corrupt system run by Billionaires ...and this impresses you? Well that makes you a member of the Happy Lemming Useful Idiots Society- HLUIS Congrats moron!
Guys i am not trying to put you guys down i am just saying i have spent some time listening to a lot of what this guy says on many topics and have read a a few books by him. And for myself i cannot speak for others, he seems to tell the truth or what he believes to be the truth a large amount of time. Now you can argue if you agree with his points on certain subjects, but listen to a few things by him (even on unrelated topics, like on the mass media) and come up with your own opinion. Like if this is your first time hearing from him you might think he is a certain way when you might have painted him in an unfair manner to his true character. Again i am not trying to sound morally superior, just give the guy a fair shot.
I used to listen to him and agreed with alot he said. I gave him a fair shot until I became wiser and realized that he's pushing a communist agenda. He might mean well and truly believe he's doing good, but he's just another overly intelectualized tool.
Just listen to the co founder of green peace. He’s a scientist and one of the first hard core environmentalist And he says carbon is plant food and sun cycles play a huge role in temperature change. Like he’s a freaking expert with a different opinion yet the media says all the experts say Carbon is bad and increase the temperature
The majority of climate scientists eh? Maybe you should tell the majority of climate scientists that they are supposed to all be in agreement that global warming is a thing. The majority of climate scientists actually disagree with that premise.
@@birgittabirgersdatter8082 the petition you're referring to did not vet the qualifications of any of its signatories. Closer examination shows that a lot are not climate scientists. Many aren't even scientists. Some entries are obviously fake, including Geri Halliwell and Perry Mason.
500 billion tons of carbon dioxide since 2015 (NOAA) and not a fraction of a degree of warming, however, the satellites show a slight cooling, notwithstanding, the medieval and the Roman era’s where on average 2 degrees warmer whilst carbon dioxide levels stood at approximately 280ppm, some 140ppm lower than today.
While Chomsky is a well-respected intellectual and dissident, there have been other respectable people who have given some pretty good argumentation against global warming. We aren't where Gore said we would be by now. The pro-warming people have totally ignored some things like explaning the roles of Malankovich cycles and solar variations as well as having blatantly lied. I don't hear any good counter-evidence from Chomsky so far. Just more doom and gloom.
Eric...You're right about that. Chomsky, being the world's foremost authority on everything has such a busy schedule being interviewed by people that think he's an intellectual. He probably hasn't had the time to really check into the AGW controversy. I do know that he's smarter than Al Gore but then again everyone is smarter than Al Gore.
Do you think climatologists haven't thought about that? Instead of assuming they didn't, why don't you actually do some research to see that milankovitch cycles, and solar variations don't correlate with the warming we are experiencing? I'd recommend you watch "Potholer54" he delves deep into the details of climate science.
Why are you comparing reality to something that Al Gore said? Al Gore has no relevant scientific expertise and has not published anything climate related. Listen to the published science, free for everyone to read.
I hear this argument all the time and its just crazy. The population ends up paying for everything. We pay for corporate profits, and their taxes (as both are included in the price of the item/service), we pay for the government and its spending, we pay for our own living and taxes, we pay for economic development. There is no wealth until something has been made, sold and bought, and the working class is behind all that activity. The only way around it is to have workers in another country pay.
He is a brilliant psychologist, specializing in language. Not a hard scientist, and very left wing politically. His views are not surprising, but carry no more weight than Al Gore's.
6:25 super-important point about unions and healthcare: in Canada, unions fought for healthcare for all, (:-) while in America, unions fought only for members' healthcare coverage (:-(
Unions are bleeding the Canadian Healthcare system dry...and have been for decades. What a gig when your union can get you a job to clean the cafeteria for $35.00/hr when anywhere else it would be $18.00...
@@zeroceiling Dude the solution isn't to decrease their salaries so it costs less, but to tax rich people and bring back unions in every industry so the average person has it better. The workers are the ones doing the work and the ones who deserve the fruit of their own labour, not the super rich property owners. Companies are private dictatorship, nothing more.
@@paifu. Company owners are the ones who risk their investments to create a business and have to set up all the systems which make a business, a business. They bear the cost and risk of investment, so they bear the rewards. Why should those who are simply labour workers be entitled to the same compensation when they incur none of the risks?
@@paifu. and to add onto Riley’s response, taxing the rich more doesn’t work. If another nation will take less of my taxes, I’ll just move my business there. And all the jobs I’ve created will go along with me.
When's the last time you saw an article that exemplified the seriousness of the situation. It should be featured every fucking week. He's right. It's minimized. But don't get it twisted, I'm kinda excited for thunderdome 2050. We're a virus, so I say bring it. But I'm not blind to what we're doing...
@@libertyordeath8351 Guns, God, and Government brother. Pledge thee allegiance. Hell yeah. Fuck these commies! They ain't taking my diesel truck. CO2 is good for plants. Plants love CO2. The more the better. It's so obvious. The New World Order wants to push their agenda on us using the United Nations, but I'm no dummy! Fuck them. Am I right. What about Grand Solar Minimum or Milankovich Cycles. We know what's up. Plants love co2. Planet's never been better, am I right brother?! It's all a conspiracy, but I can see through that. NASA sells lies ya know. We gotta band together. They'll try to take our Freedom! Outta my cold dead hands...
@@American-Dragon I see you have a young human in your life. I guess he'll find out more than anyone how well chemistry, biology, and thermodynamics stand up against conspiracy theories. I've looked into the subject exhaustively on both sides. Climate scientists, not alarmists or environmentalists, scientists who've been studying this stuff for 10 and 20 years, are literally afraid to have children. I hope I'm wrong, I hope they're wrong, I hope you're all correct about this I really do. Maybe the planet will be able to handle the speed of our destruction and adapt quickly. But historically, no matter what your argument, it's never happened like this. We've never been here before, remember? We've never burned carbon products before in e Earth's history, remember? As for me, my amateur assessment- it's so much worse than they're reporting and predicting and modeling. Things are going to spiral out of control beyond anyone's predictions, and it's now an unstoppable force. It's too late. If I were you, I'd teach that kid to toughen up. Teach him survival. Teach him the worst of human nature. Teach him he might need to be hard as nails. Because it's coming. I mean, most of the world's scientists could be wrong, but would if they're not. Ever consider the consequence if your wrong?
What evidence do you have? I ask this because you seem to have , either a physical or mental lust for this man which could be clouding your POV. If NC said you - Janes Berkowitz - were a pedophile would you agree with him?
@Stanley Goddard them people seem to think theres a love in when someone like NC threatens their ideologies. It was 98 Fahrenheit in Siberia yesterday above the arctic circle. Their defence "the earth has aaaaalways had periods of heating n cooling"...We know this ! The ice caps permanently migrate and retreat, but this is excelled by mans stupidity and the rate of this change is unprecedented. At the current rate London will be submerged in a couple of hundred years. The truth is.....they dont give a fuck !!!
@@blustamove These discussions boil down to whether you trust nasa or the met office etc or not. Nasa: climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Met Office: www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/effects-of-climate-change - Fighting the power is an oxymoron as that requires power.
Chomsky is a linguist. What, _exactly_ , lends his words ANY authority when speaking about the _complexity_ of climate change? As I understand it, even _measuring_ the global temperature is *non-trivial* .
@@hiltonjacobs8910 dude he just references the SUPERMAJORITY of available evidence. If your house was on fire, and a neighbor said “hey, you should leave!” Would you seriously say to them “well you’re not a fireman, so I guess I’ll just wait and see”
I'm not sure I understand....but it seems like what you're proposing is that science (whatever that means) proves to some objective standard that something is true?
@@jordanp8063 It is the most effective methodology we have devised so far to figure out how stuff works. It is not perfect nor does it pretend to be. ruclips.net/video/0OtFSDKrq88/видео.html
This video is from 12 years ago. What has happened with global warming since then? Where is the 'cliff' we have fallen off as society? These predictions never take place, it seems. Or should we wait another 30 years before the world wide tsunami hits??
The irony of a linguistics professor criticizing meteorologists for speaking out of their scope regarding climate change.... Noam is a classic talking head.
There is only 1 question to ask a climate cult leader like Chomsky. Is CO2 good or bad? CO2 is the ‘gas of life’ without which we and every other carbon based life form does not exist. This on its own should be enough. Chomsky truely believes CO2 is bad. Chomsky is the best example of the meaning of ‘ideological subversion’ I can think of. He has no clue of any basic science we all learnt at junior high. Its called photosynthesis.
I am something of an old fart, and I remember Chomsky very earnestly stating that the US was totally responsible for anything going on in Cambodia, and that the Khmer Rouge were agrarian reformers. This video is at a similar level of resemblance to reality.
He's right we shouldn't listen to meteorologists, we should listen to a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. Sometimes described as "the father of modern linguistics"
Re: ideas that are created here in the U.S.A. are manufactured elsewhere. That's because business owners are taught in MBA school that they should enrich themselves at the expense of their workers. They think they "deserve" a salary that is a hundred or a thousand times that of their workers. Your life is Time. Your Time is the same in value as every else's. Your life is the same in value as everyone else's. The last thirty years should be known as the Era of Unfettered Greed.
An Anthem for Justice by Margaret Anna Alice The Armenian Genocide was not a mistake. Holodomor was not a mistake. The Final Solution was not a mistake. The Great Leap Forward was not a mistake. The Killing Fields were not a mistake. Name your genocide-it was not a mistake. That includes the Great Democide of the 2020s. To imply otherwise is to give Them the out they are seeking. It was not botched. It was not bungled. It was not a blunder. It was not incompetence. It was not lack of knowledge. It was not spontaneous mass hysteria. The planning occurred in plain sight. The planning is still occurring in plain sight. The philanthropaths bought The $cience™. The modelers projected the lies. The testers concocted the crisis. The NGOs leased the academics. The $cientists fabricated the findings. The mouthpieces spewed the talking points. The organizations declared the emergency. The governments erected the walls. The departments rewrote the rules. The governors quashed the rights. The politicians passed the laws. The bankers installed the control grid. The stooges laundered the money. The DoD placed the orders. The corporations fulfilled the contracts. The regulators approved the solution. The laws shielded the contractors. The agencies ignored the signals. The behemoths consolidated the media. The psychologists crafted the messaging. The propagandists chanted the slogans. The fact-chokers smeared the dissidents. The censors silenced the questioners. The jackboots stomped the dissenters. The tyrants summoned. The puppeteers jerked. The puppets danced. The colluders implemented. The doctors ordered. The hospitals administered. The menticiders scripted. The bamboozled bleated. The totalitarianized bullied. The Covidians tattled. The parents surrendered. The good citizens believed … and forgot. This was calculated. This was formulated. This was focus-grouped. This was articulated. This was manufactured. This was falsified. This was coerced. This was inflicted. This was denied. We were terrorized. We were isolated. We were gaslit. We were dehumanized. We were wounded. We were killed. Don’t let them get away with it. Don’t let them get away with it. Don’t let them get away with it.
It's kind of sad that he cited the 98% thing as "guys who know anything." Hopefully he didn't know how shady that survey was before spouting off some of this stuff. I wonder how some of these people will answer if the people who say the sun and cloud cover are the most important factors, and that carbon in the atmosphere is just a lagging factor; considering their concern for carbon is killing millions of poor people across the world.
+Bruce Keller Yes thats right Bruce. Nature is singling out poor people to kill. , but hey maybe its Gods fault. You just have to do something about this Bruce
+Bruce Keller The survey was peer-reviewed and corroborated by other studies. Nothing shady about it, apart from the attempts to discredit the relevant research--none of which are peer-reviewed and none of which pass basic scrutiny.
+Kropotkin2000 If you asked a bunch of priests whether or not they supported the public policy of their employer, the figure you get is pretty much unanimous - and of zero value despite all the peer review. Science which purports to tell the future is something like that - nonsense from start to finish. No confirmation is possible as no data has been generated.
Too bad that it is indeed hoax and he is just promoting it, thats why he said absolutely nothing scientific only politics. Make sure you are scared enough, they can tax you more then. Oh and the natural gas all life depends on is now bad. Lmao
Scho0rschi To illustrate how bad your last point is consider this logic applied to sugar: Oh and the substance all humans depend on is now bad. That’s defintitely a great argument for eating loads of sugar
@@mightymaniac8712 Well I could illustrate how bad your point is, but I dont have to, you did it yourself. Not only did you use sugar as an example, when sugar is not a substance all life depends on, but you also had to say "loads of sugar", as in too much sugar. Well, idiot, too much of a gas, that exists in nature and all life depends on would be 100 times more than it is today. Btw, if this natural gas reaches half of what it is today, trees dont grow. Now stfu, go visit a greenhouse, learn what a CO2 generator does and forget the propaganda, that a gas, which creates life is a dangerous substance. Simple facts, noone can deny them.
Scho0rschi Notice how I didn’t say all life dependd on it. Of course i had to say loads of it. No one is arguing that the natural co2 in the atmosphere is bad, it’s absolutely necessary. It’s only when we humans pollute the atmosphere with loads of co2 it’s a bad thing
@@mightymaniac8712 How stupid can you be. It is impossible to pollute nature with a gas that already exists in nature and all life depends on it to even exist and only becomes dangerous if it has a cosistency 100 times more of what it is today which is impossible anyway and therre are at least 50 other natural factors influencing it, with 1 Tera Watt energy difference compared to each other and humans are a joke compared to them.
He has such authority in speaking on this subject but does not seem to have spoken to anyone who has studied climate change. The world did not begin in 1900. In fact it began over 4 Billion years ago. The records in rock show that we are at a very low temperature now and that trends upward are somewhere on the order of 97% natural. It has been much warmer in the distant past, ice age cycles are in the 100,000 year cycles and there have been many. A first year geology or paleoclimatology student could easily argue with Noam. Too bad. Sounding authoritative is not enough. I don't know how he can feel comfortable talking on this subject.
AS much as Norm Chomsky is respected, his expertise is linguistics philosophy and political activism with emphasis on the activism in this case, not any of the climatology sciences.
@@patricklincoln5942 Because its all theory on the climatechange subject. Its all theses that havent being prooved. So bothsides are conspiricy theorists. :)
There's really no reason for the lack of general knowledge about current events I see in this comments section since we're on the internet and can look up anything. Greenland never stopped melting this winter. Hundreds of square kilometers of Arctic Ocean are bubbling from methane hydrate melting. Miami is flooding during high tide. We're 80 years ahead of worse case scenarios from just a few years ago. All these things have been reported on multiple times in the last few months alone, just not by Faux News or CNN or the other large, state influenced news networks.
Greenland also was above geothermal activity ( vulcanism ). A little lava melts ice just fine. The methane is scary stuff. It lies all over the place at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico too. Its change of state contributed to failure of blowout mechanisms and was an integral part of the Deepwater Horizon gusher from 6 miles down ( the bottom was 1 mile but the hole another 5 ). Still, if it can build up on the bottom that far south, it may be more stable than we give it credit for.,
John Farnham - the ocean water temperature is 4 degree C everywhere below 1000 m, so being south is not relevant in terms of temperature. It's because water has the highest density at 4 degree C. And yes, methane hydrate is scary.
Chomsky is "on the money" on some issues--such as American imperialism--but NOT on this problematic AGW scenario (about which they did some "fancy footwork" and now call "Global Climate Change").
Bill Benton Study from both sides of the question of GWarming suggests your are right, on ‘this problematic AGW scenario”. • Too many good scientists are questioning this concern. Politics of agreement on this topic certainly is a curious part of the AGW question, especially as it disdains discussion that questions it presumption. • Current global warming on all planets certainly demands an inquiry into what is going on, how the sun influences all planet environments, and most disconcertedly, investigation into the honesty, rights and freedoms of discussion within the science community. • But many, Bill, refuse to let the facts get in the way of a good story supported by commercial media- Corporate Interests and Powers and Governments. • I am most surprised in Noam’s take on this issue of compliance without question. But maybe this is a trail he must avoid for it only distracts from his main cause. Namaste and care, mhikl
***** I appeciate the courteous reply. MANY on these pages are full of acrimony and a resolute refusal to examine the facts. Also a considerable amount of rudeness...even to the point of the use of profanity and character assassination.
***** Please consider (objectively): 1. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. 2. The primary "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. 3. The models used by proponents of this hypothesis have flaws. 4. The predictions..e.g,, of ocean rising.. have not panned out. 5. Recent temp. rises have been very modest..on the order of a half degree, and this trend ended around 1998. 6. The issue has become much more a matter of politics--and dogma--than science...with a huge amount of name-calling...and a refusal of honest debate. 7. The actual pattern in the history of the planet has been that temperature elevation occurs, then is followed--generally much later--by a rise of CO2.
Bill Benton I have found all of which you make point. • From my studies the issue of man’s influence on his immediate environment (lands and water) he greatly can influence. On our communal air, not so much. It needs no ticket to move as it desires, and no mountain holds it back. :-) • Have you studied The Electric Universe, “The Thunderbolts Project”? It takes to task common science. A new science, a better world is near. Very near. • I like to study all sides of a question. Little, other than a good meal, gives me more pleasure than coming to toss a long held belief. Yet every belief I hold is tethered, ever so loosely, as willingly I am, to toss a burdensome possession on the dust heap. • Kim Greenhouse, at Rainmaking Time is where I first had my old presumptions on the topic of weather, challenged. She is not a box sitter, once herself accepting the common direction of the idea. Her topics are eclectic. She does not agree with all presenters, but she is respectful, and allows discussion to take place. itsrainmakingtime.com/robert-felix-joe-daleo-dr-tim-ball-true-inquiry-climate-and-weather/ • regarding curtesy, Bill, it is our nature, and by good fortune of family and friends, my history. Anger and disrespect deplete spirit. We need all the spirit we can gather, for true joy comes from connecting with caring engagement; even with those who usually engage from anger and resentment. Namaste and care, mhikl
Bill Benton ***** I have a PhD in Chemistry and have never come across any other topic where reluctance to take scientific -facts- opinions at face value was vilified. Even some decent people I personally know have this tendency of wanting to assassinate my character among my circles just because I've been a skeptic. Even if Climate Science is not my field, the data sets are quite easy to comprehend and so are most of the publications. As of now there has never been any hard evidence to support AGW. At best there has been computed generated predictions that have overly exaggerated feedback from other GHGs like Vapor. Also any scientist that has published journals knows quite well that these studies that recorded a consensus among scientists on AGW does not mean anything. It is a consensus in scientific opinion and that too is questionable. If I requested for grant money by writing a proposal that wanted to observe new species of pests as a result of AGW, I would quite easily get the funding. Because I would become part of the consensus that thinks AGW is real. Does not matter if I am only an entomologist that is PRESUMING AGW is real.
He was on the money with Manufacturing Consent. He's either forgotten or been paid to forget. Whatever the mainstream are shoving down our throats, it always fits the same pattern: there's always an ostensible reason "for the greater good", while those pushing the narrative can be seen in plain sight (or private plane sight) acting like hypocrites. And, any dissent - what we used to call open scientific debate - is crushed. The cough-cough crisis was *exactly* the same - parties and curry nights for the politicians (UK), while locking the rest of us down.
I happen to know personally a very clever *_real_* meteorologist, who works for the British Royal Meteorological Office. He finds the disbelief that is rife in the USA almost unbelievable,
A meteorologist is not a climatologist and his opinion is just that based on information that he's exposed to not firsthand information. That in itself has no weight in value
@@petercamacho310How do you figure a climatologist looking at ice cores has more "firsthand information" than a meteorologist using dozens of instantaneous atmospheric measurements?
@@Earthgazer Because the meteorologist is passing on information based on a chart that in itself can be set to exhibiting biases. The meteorologists has the expertise in reading the chart. The meteorologist did not collect the information, if the chart is flawed because of computer modelling parameters then his ability to read that chart has, while it is specialized, is just reading faulty information, because of the faults in the modelling of the information. A climatologist has the expertise to discuss those parameters and qualitatively explain how slight variations in computer modelling over different time periods drastically alter the perception when plotted on a graph. And thereby demonstrating or exhibiting a predetermined bias. The ipcc has repeatedly shown their own predictions to be when compared to their own data, demonstrating that the graphing information presented was seriously flawed because of choosing parameters that suited, or at least were demonstrated to be false. Demonstrating a biased or at a minimum in error. Rather than admitting their error, the ipcc makes adjustments to the timing of their conclusions and or adds inventive justifications, allowing themselves to unalter their narrative. Conclusion as exhibited by their own findings, although without admitting it, the effects of climate change due to The Human Experience is negligible. Inconsequential over time periods of fifty to a hundred years and will not change. Regardless of the human contribution and are in no way as dramatic, as has been shown by their own data. In short they are pushing fear for ulterior motives. Any further challenge, rightly to be contested with the purveyors of this information. ruclips.net/video/lQqPQ0i_fl0/видео.html Then consider this information. www.mtdemocrat.com/news/agenda-21-central-planning-on-steroids-global-warming-believers-unmasked-by-climategate/ Also View this World has three years left to stop dangerous climate change, warn experts www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/world-has-three-years-left-to-stop-dangerous-climate-change-warn-experts And this. UN Grants Earth A(nother) 20 Year Reprieve From Global Warming m.ruclips.net/video/EBKohYsIan0/видео.html Done. Although I do have more. Peace Peter
@@Earthgazer what can I tell you. I suggest the error is yours and you haven't taken the time to digest the material. I did my research, if there is any error that I have made it is slight and inconsequential to the point I was making. These aren't my ideas I'm reflecting my research. If you have any argument, argue with the expertise of my sources. And presents your argument with evidence and words rather than one line dismissal, out of hand. Good day to you sir. Peace.
***** It's not just politics. We The People don't want to believe in climate change, because in our rational, non-denialistic (is that a word?) minds we know that _any effective action_ we might take to address climate change would, _at the very least_, involve _giving up our toys!_ So, naturally, anyone not wanting to abandon their SUV-Goes-To-Walmart lifestyle and go back to foraging for nuts and berries (as if that's even an option for the human race at this point) is either going to join in the chorus of nay-sayers, or do everything in their power to avoid the issue altogether.
***** So we should wait for the rich to give up their life of luxury and go broke or atleast come down to our level? That wont happen... well not soon anyway... And till then we should do nothing and see more of our states facing drought many years in a row. So what should we actually do about it? For example: Why dont we actually start by reducing the frequent use of our car. Use public transport. That will reduce our carbon footprint. I am a out of state student right now so i use my bike or use a bus to travel. These things seem trivial, but just think if every one does this... the overall use of oil/gas will naturally reduce. Which is a good thing is it not?
LightningAlchemist7 Unfortunately, your proposition is incompatible with existing infrastructure. This problem has been in the making for centuries. It is the end result of our relentless pursuit of Economic Progress. The planet probably wouldn't care if ten, or even a few hundred thousand people drove around all day in gas guzzling SUVs, eating corn fed beef, and letting their waste products runoff into the oceans.. It DOES CARE that Seven going on Twenty Billion are doing it! And NO ONE, regardless of their social or political status, even wants to ACKNOWLEDGE this issue, because morality demands we do nothing to address the underlying cause. So, we try to guilt each other into buying more energy efficient light bulbs, and hope that the problem will just _work itself out_.
LightningAlchemist7 Oh, I don't know that population control is necessarily a "best-worst" solution. If nothing else, think of what you could have if there weren't so many "others" to contend with. Maybe you could go to a beach again without having to pay admission; or not have to spend all day in an airplane terminal being scanned for explosive devices; or be able to drink out of a river without being poisoned. If you ask me, we're stupid for NOT doing it! So, what do you say... Auto-sterilizers at the entrance to every Walmart? Who's with me?
THANK YOU NORM, FOR BEING A PROFESSIONAL ABOUT THIS AND, TELLING IT !!! THIS COUNTRY MUST FIGHT OFF THESE CRIMINALS TRYING TO DESTROY PROGRESS, AND DISTURB THE PEACE #BOYCOTTTHEMAINSTREAMMEDIA; #BOYCOTTKOCH !!!
At least there was actual vested interest for the sugar industry to say that, whereas who has a vested interest in cooking up a climate hoax? There are far more, far more rich and powerful people who stand to benefit from denying anthropogenic climate change
@@roostercogburn1943 Chomsky needs to get out into the real world and put his ideas to the test. Karl Marx was another who never actually tested his own beliefs he was just a journalist.
Wow, what a relief! I thought when I clicked on this that Chompansky was actually on the CORRECT side of this BS debate. If he said there's no crisis--THEN I would become concerned, since he is a reverse barometer for the truth.
@@jakobhancock106 Seriously, I don't get why people that hate him so much would be running to all his videos to bash him. They either secretly, subconsciously like him or are working on a disinformation/smear campaign of some kind. It's really weird
Absolutely brilliant dismantling and explanation of the motives and mechanisms that drive climate change denial / inaction and affordable healthcare blocking. Chomsky is nothing short of a genius, inescapable clarity of thought, probably the greatest intellect of our time.
The population of the world has doubled to 8 billion since 1975. Population growth with middle class expansion in China and India are driving carbon output. A few people driving a Prius instead of a Ford-150 isnt going to reconcile this. All you have a shaky theory and no plan or ability to mitigate this. If you really think were doomed by 2050 then just STFU about it unless you want to dabble in genocide.
You must "think of yourself" superior and smarter to me, don't you? You are a typical elitist liberal, no doubt... Excuse me if I don't surrender to your imperious authoritarian decrees....
I don't consider myself a member of any political party. I just find it ironic that you are disregarding mathematical models when you can't spell the word correctly.
Mack Lack Also, let me apologize for being so abrasive. It doesn't help us have a meaningful dialogue. I'm sorry; it was distasteful of me. To talk a little about mathematics, I'm actually an engineering and math undergraduate. I've taken programming classes, the full Calculus sequence, Real Analysis, Probability and Statistics, Calculus based Physics I and II, Chemistry I and II, and more. I only mention them to *maybe* give some credibility to my statements. Climate science is all about understanding weather patterns (which is physics, basically) and using huge amounts of data (statistics and probability) to create mathematical models. I'm not saying this means I can understand the issue and you can't. A year ago, I was skeptical of anthropogenic global warming too. I decided that if I really wanted to figure out what was true, I should pick up a book written by scientists about the issue. After all, they are the ones who study the climate for a living. The book I read used to be free on Amazon, but now they have a kindle version for $1.00: www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Evidence-Impacts-Choices-ebook/dp/B00E8IXZJS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449603803&sr=8-1&keywords=climate+change+evidence I don't expect you to take me for my word. Honestly, I just believe climate change is a pressing issue and that the data are supportive. I really want us all to work together to solve the problem and make a better world. So don't believe me, that's fine -- but consider taking the time to read the book I linked. What's crucial is that you find a book written by climate scientists who are in the thick of the research. They know the issue better than anyone.
+Nick Steamier Apology accepted. I am a registered Professional Engineer with graduate & undergraduate degrees in Electrical Engineering. I know a little bit of math myself...
I don't know why this guy is held in such high esteem. He is so off-base on so many topics that it disqualifies him as an authority. What is he,- a linguist? He rarely studies any of the topics he speaks on in any depth.
Igaluit he got a degree in linguistics in the 60's or whenever. What relevance does that have? Why does that mean he couldn't have dedicated the other 50-odd years of his life to politics? He's the 3rd most cited author ever, his views are clearly held in high regard.
Yes, of course. But you'll notice in his speech, that he uses deconstructionist theory, where he'll correct words other people use and it betrays the ideology that if you change language, you will change society - which is a lot of hokum.
Igaluit, I think you should consult a hearing specialist. Chomsky often cites quotes and gives sources when he does. You should watch his speeches again. While it's common for folks in the scientific community, it is rarely the case when it comes to politics. I sometimes verify his sources and haven't found a mistake yet.
This guy is brilliant but like Saruman his pride has grown too much because of it and he believes himself to be an expert on every subject. Richard Lindzen, also of MIT would tear him a new asshole on climate science, especially as he is actually a climate scientist, and he is also brilliant btw.
Chomsky is a socialist who thinks the government should control everything. He see's everything through socialist ideology and he does not understand the wisdom of free markets. I have corresponded with him a number of times and the only thing I agree with him is that the USA should not give foreign aid to Israel. I oppose all foreign aid. Chomsky gets his facts wrong on many issues and makes absurd statements. He thinks the world does not need the profit motive to work, but it does. Go to Venezuela and see where socialism gets you.
You must be a very young person. I corresponded with Noam years ago before he tweeted. I don't read tweets anyway. Noam, of course, is a socialist as anyone knows. Anarchy does not work. Look at Somalia. It is funny that he thinks he is a socialist and made socialist arguments to me, but you don't think he is one. You seem to think you know his mind better than he does. Noam dances around the obvious failures of socialism. He blames everything on capitalism. He lives in a dream world and writes well, but it is all a dream, like Lord of the Rings. His philosophy is built on denying reality, not properly explaining reality.
The global warming alarmists have smear campaigns on any public speaker against them. Richard Lindzen is one they have successfully smeared. Enough so, that I am a global warming skeptic, who will not quote him as evidence. Chomsky and Lindzen have been in MIT for over 30years but never seem to refer to each other. This is just a little anecdotal evidence as to why I don't trust Lindzen. Nothing scientific about that. But the extremists, control all the data and information. You cannot have a conversation on a factual basis with them. You will notice that although he is a very anti establishment speaker, there are no sites listing Chomsky to any big tobacco or oil companies. This is because he is pro man made global warming. Chomsky is a great intellect and his pro warming stance is the only thing I've ever found exception to in his talks. So without science, or some other quantifiable fact, why am I anti man made global warming? These are two posts I've left on other sites. The 1st is in answer to why are the alarmists so stupid? 1. "What's stupid about it? It falls into line with western world political best practice. It provides the people in government with a massive problem that only they are in a position to fix. For members of the science fraternity that are willing to blur their results, it pays them with $4.7 billion dollars funding for global warming works in the US alone. This is not stupid, it is unscientific, but it is the way they have chosen to play the game. The attitude, waste of money and level of deceit towards the people is what I take offense too." 2. "As I said before, I smell a rat. This is why the pro global warming community is starting to fail world wide. About 4 years ago the Mekong river was slightly overflowing into Pnom Pehn. The next year when it was at the lowest level I've ever seen it, half the people on the evening boat cruise I went on, were specialists in their various fields, to study the effects of Global warming. I've never seen any scientists before or since in this area. Why only when the river was at it's lowest and not to study the impacts of the flood? I know this argument is not scientific. But people the world over are starting to see things, they don't understand why exactly, but their instincts tell them, this isn't right.That is why the global warming alarmists are losing traction." My reasons for being a skeptic of global warming are highly unscientific, and just based upon, many examples of the above I've seen in my own life. It all just doesn't fit, seem right, or I smell a rat. My choice is based upon my instincts and life experiences.
***** I'm sorry I'm not intelligent enough for you. Fortunately the countries of America and Australia aren't either. They have both voted in governments that have anti man made global warming stands. With many of their best known members listed on the denier lists, of most of the internet sites, deliberately set up to discredit "deniers" of their faith (not any word as neutral as skeptics of course). Perhaps it may be prudent for you not to be talking down to dumb asses like me, and perhaps to take our gripes a little more seriously, if you want to maintain your glorious scare campaign?
Noam I am a great follower of your work in all ways, and have been over many years . However it seems that the experts are saying the idea re global warming is based on reading and measuring computer models. Many first class scientists are taking serious measurements and showing no global warming. They even changed the terminology from Global warming to Climate change. What are we to believe? Alistair p s health care like gun control is way too late to alter in the USA the doctors are too used to big wages. and the Gun Crowd are also making too much money from this. I believe that money is always the problem and Love is always the answer. Please don't say I am naïve .We have a great health care here in the UK doctors are well enough paid but not all millionaires. Brotherly love dear friend Alistair excuse typing parkinsons disease.
Here in the UK, we hear a lot more from believers in Global Warming than from oil companies wanting to deny it. When I look at the NOAA graphing page, almost everywhere in the USA has seen no warming or a little cooling for the last 15 years or so, compared to a very high rate of warming from 1980 onwards. The same thing is true when we configure it for the Global temperature (unfortunately we cannot see component countries and continents of the Globe). Only the Sea temperature, not the Sea+Land has shown much recent warming. Google around and you will see a lot of papers trying to explain how the sea could be soaking up the warming, and how it will eventually spring back. A popular theory seems to be that the recently very strong El Nino cycle has resulted in strong easterly winds which have transferred water or at least the heat in it, westward, resulting in cooling over the land. And most parts of Antarctica have shown recent cooling, even though the Larsen B shelf is clearly warming. The solution to this anomaly seems to be to concentrate on Larsen B, even though it is a very small proportion of Antarctica, which sticks out into warm Pacific currents. Despite the recent industrialisation of China and India and far Eastern countries like Korea, the percentage CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise at approximately the same rate as 10 years ago. All this casts doubt on the current estimates of the warming rate, which were made in the 90's, it appears on statistical grounds only, not on deep models which explain the actual mechanisms. So, although nobody could deny either the rise in CO2 or the effect of Global Warming, it does appear likely that we have a bit more time to plan than we expected. Timing is important, since the technology continues to improve. I was putting off installing solar panels until the promised new designs with +30% efficiency arrived. But because my government is drastically cutting its subsidy from January, I had them installed last month.
+John Brown "almost everywhere in the USA has seen no warming or a little cooling for the last 15 years or so" The Northeast US just shattered the old record for warmest December - by FIVE DEGREES FARENHEIT.
+jaspernatchez , sure but what matters is the shape of the graph. There have always been spiky periods. Google "NOAA Climate at a Glance". You can graph it for every US state and region, and most of them have been cooling for 15 to 19 years, depending on how you fit the graphs. For example, California has been essentially flat since 1998, with +/-4F excursions up AND down. NOAA produces a report every year where they cherry pick a few worst cases, like the one you refer to, or the retreat of this or that glacier. I think I read that many of the 40 glaciers across Antarctica have grown and not retreated. Of course, this warm end to 2015 could be the start of a new rising curve, like the very steep one between 1980 and 1998. But even if it is, and it lasts for the same time interval, that would reduce the global rate of warming by approaching 50%. It appears not to be as fast as we were promised. Thank goodness.
+John Brown Just listen to yourself. You're talking about rising curves as if you're anything except some stupid loser posting to yt comments, as if you have a milligram of expertise that would entitle you to an opinion on the subject of climate. You, in your amazing presumptuousness, think that the THOUSANDS of climate scientists who are in agreement about climate change haven't thought about your fucking rising curve and glaciers. You talk about cherry picking as if thousands of scientists could be in some massive global conspiracy to hide the truth, a truth that YOU, some moron on yt, will reveal to an ever-thankful world. These comments show me just why the world is in the shape it is - it is filled with incredible morons like you.
+EmptyCountry "He's entitled to his opinion" Why do you say that? How do you know he's entitled? I think it's far more likely that, like me, he's far too ignorant of climate science to have an opinion. The difference between him and me is that I'm smart enough to know that I can't possibly amass enough knowledge to compare with the professional climate scientists, probably all of whom have doctorates and have published papers in peer-reviewed journals, who have agreed about AGW, and he is not. Neither, apparently, are you.
+EmptyCountry "But you need to always vet their work" LOL! I suppose YOU, some nobody without education or intelligence, "think" you have "vetted" thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to trying to save the world as well as overcome morons like you because you've spent a few hours on bogus websites. What could possibly be funnier or more pathetic?
I was looking so forward to this interview. Meteorology is, in fact, the scientific study of the atmosphere including the subdisciplines of climatology, atmospheric physics and atmospheric chemistry. Undergraduate and graduate programs are offered at, I believe, most American Ivy league schools in this academic domain. With all due respect, Mr Chomsky, maligning an entire aspect of atmospheric science seems unsavoury and unintellectual. Just sayin'.
i like chomsky , but his sniggering dismissal of meteorologists , many with phd’s , is pure elitist condescension . he’s a bit too intoxicated by his ideology and self righteousness
I don't know where you're getting your data, but I'm looking at the HADCRUT 4.2.0.0 from the Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets and you're incorrect. Depending on the years you analyze, conservative estimates for this type of data are around +0.11C/dec although you can cherry pick much greater trends from other years, which is what alarmist ecology groups have done in the past... You're in good company.
Nathan Rowe Dude, do you have any fucking idea how MUCH 0.11/dec is? What are you planning for, the habitability of earth for another 200 years? But oh yeah, you got Chomsky so hard, man! He‘s obliterated! Fucking moron.
If only there was some form of government that could gather the resources to institute the necessary changes, but was insulated from the fickle will of the people. Maybe Stalin had some ideas along those lines
Quantumwolf45 the only way for humanity to coexist within communism, is if we are able to outsource every level of production, from the discovery and extraction of resources to the delivery of the finished product, to a self maintaining machine hierarchy. This includes inventive thought, and the extinguishment of free will. This is my opinion, because no matter how good your intentions, you cannot force anyone beyond their own free will without force or coercion.
Not An Oxymoron, What are those fact you speak of ? In the 80's they called it "the greenhouse effect" which never happened, then in the 90's they called it "global warming" which never happened and now they call it "climate change" wow how convenient, now the weather can go up in temp and it's "climate change" and the weather temp can go down and it's "climate change" You would have to have taken leave of your senses to believe the hoax of "man made climate change" The Earth's climate has always changed on it's own and always will. Noam says at 10:30 that if the United States collapses then the whole world will collapses. What a self indulgent and pretentious thing to say. I've read a few of Chomsky's books and he is clearly a very bright man and I've agreed in the most part to what he says and has written. Nevertheless, for American's to think they are the be all and end all of the world is so laughable and for Noam to say this, is embarrassing to hear, to say the least. Great empires have come and gone many times throughout history and another empire has always been there to fill the void and that's just a fact. I can't believe in this hoax. No one will ever convince me of it...no one ! It hasn't become hotter and it hasn't become colder. It's just the normal cycles of the Earth. Scientists, say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And we have about150 years of recorded weather at best. And they want us to believe they know what's going on with the earths climate. They don't ! "Scientists" will be the death of us all...not the climate. Respect intended !
So, according to you, massive CO2 regulation has caused record CO2 emissions? The fact is, there has been very little CO2 regulation, but the natural gas boom has cut CO2 emissions in the U.S.
I used to live in southern Oregon we were in 1998, USDA zone hardiness 7 as of 2015 we are in Ashland and Medford Oregon, USDA zone 9. My husbands family is still in Oregon and I watch it for that reason. In 1999 we moved to Kansas where my family Lives. We have always been USDA zone 5 since we (father, mother, sister, brother) moved there in 1972. As of 2015 we are now in (2016) changed to zone 6. There are plants and trees that I could not grow before such as a fig tree, that I can grow now. Our once colder and snowy wet winters have become mild and drier. The insects that fight us for our vegetable crops have increased in numbers so that we are going to need to find better more efficient ways to grow organic without pesticides. We have never seen so many beetles volume and variety decimate our crops because the insect populations are not dying back due to cold frozen 2-3 week periods. So I do not know where you are getting your information from, but our climate has warmed both here in Kansas and in Oregon.
Crowned Glorious...your observations do not prove or even support CO2 as a cause of anything, but I can tell you that in the NE, the last freeze date in May used to be 8 May, my Dad's birthday, and is now listed as 15 May. So my anecdote competes with yours. Then again, more growth due to more CO2 (a true plant food as opposed to a nutrient) may lead to more insects to eat the plant for the same reason that predator/prey levels cycle, and fox births rise as rabbit population increases, then fall when rabbits run into some virus and die off.
Peter Simmons, How arrogant to assume you are the single "intelligent" voice on this or any thread! My GPA at University was 3.89 , I made the Deans list on many occasions and phi kappa. Have been invited to join Mensa....etc. We are all in this together on this small planet earth and we all have an impact on the lives of those around us.
***** Not wanting to be Taxi Driver, I'll assume you were writing to me, and simply reply that you have your energy absorption facts exactly wrong, so perhaps you want to go back to CHEM 100, Book 1 before you make silly comments like that. The "greenhouse effect" is the absorption of IR energy so that it is retained in the low atmosphere (heat) instead of radiating out to space. The IR energy did not come directly from the Sun, but from ground absorption of much of the spectrum, and return of IR. Most of that IR retention is due to water vapor, not CO2.
So are those who put the discussion into terms of denying science - when no science has been presented to deny regardless. The best part ? Science begins by denying certainty and playing with ' what if's ' rather than denying discussion and exchange of ideas.
you've completely twisted that point about discussion. Yes, science begins by playing with certain ideas, but when near to 100% of a scientific community agrees on a matter, it is not longer about "discussing". its about accepting the scientific fact and moving to act before the whole of our species is destroyed. But speaking to people like you makes me think maybe thats a good idea....
At 1: 30, "... 98% of scientists ...". He doesn't know where the 97% number originates. Cook counted papers which presumed or accepted AGW. That was a count of --papers--, not climate scientists. At 3:20, why does this argument not apply equally to leaders of political movements?
Finally, Harriet1822, someone who has researched the topic! Indeed, when the papers analyzed in Australia more closely only 0.6% of the 1100+ papers examined concluded that the authors of the papers on climate change concluded it was a problem.
"The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (100%). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (97%). "Expert credibility in climate change" (97%). "Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming" (97%). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" (97%) Those are 5 scientific studies. "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature", researched by John Cook and others has "examined 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'." They found that "66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" is a peer-reviewed scientific study with 600 citations in a high-impact journal.
This is the same guy who used to just 10 years ago preched that peak oil was true and we were almost there and oil prices would skyrocket to $200 or more. Then we found the shale oil reserves and his little theory kind of disappeared. he was actually not wrong with the information he had at the time but there were other variables that he didn't factor in. Sound familiar to what's going on now?
And how do you know catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is happening? Dollars to donuts, you are blindly believing what you are being told without any individual analysis, and acting intellectually superior for being a malleable follower.
When you're struggling to pay bills, it's almost impossible to think about anything else outside keeping a roof over your head and feeding your family...and the rich know that.
@Starwars Fan360
Paying taxes doesn't mean that you struggle to make ends meat, though.
@Ford Fanatic
I haven't said that the amount you pay as taxes doesn't matter but that taxes don't bring you into financial peril.
You, for instance, still have about 117,000 left.
@Ford Fanatic
I really don't but where do you live that 9000 a month don't suffice to live well?
Japan? Is the unit Yen?
Sure, you could pay them to your employees but would you?
Consider that the reason for such taxation and spending thereof to exist in the first place is that employers overall don't (or haven't).
And what would be the point of distributing these 50,000 among your employees, if they now don't have health care and have to pay for it out of their own pocket?
Aside from private insurance being more expensive than public, this is a pointless effort.
And 30% does not constitute "taxing the hell out of every one".
Even if you don't have progressive taxation, 70% is still the lion share.
That is the situation we have and that's exactly what the devil wants
That‘s why you get no social security in the u.s.
Just turned off the TV ,on the BBC a 6 year old environmentalist telling us what we need to do
Brainwashing the younger generations because they know older generations can see through their bullsh1t, in a couple of generations they’ll have a population of compliant fools that will dance to their every whim.
Commies come in all ages, shapes and sizes.
For the children, that gets the woman gaslighted.
She's not giving her opinion she's repeating what scientists have been saying for a long time now but many people can't seem to understand that and decide to get angry at a little girl instead.
It's not only a hoax it's a money and power grab.
See Rosa Koire : Behind the Green Mask.
GOOD TRUTH
Bastard ecologists will be planting trees, recycling waste and reducing pollution next, take them to court it's a disgraceful project. PUT SOLAR PANELS ON YOUR ROOF! :) like that you can take the power to yourself and save S...Tloads of oil and electric bills? You are a hoax if you say you don't understand chemistry to such a deep level that you think it's an illuminati cult of anti oil power redistribution, poor oil companies...
Yes, and now even a moron can see it's also a huge wealth redistribution scam, agreeing to pay other countries for the "damage" we did by putting out share of 2.75 % of atm. CO2 into the air.
its not a hoax
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge
to rule it."
H L Mencken
ruclips.net/p/PL-fZHN5imids889-f2SgovdG_WHABhItJ
I love Chomsky, but I think he's got it wrong here. Runaway global warming doesn't seem to be actually happening.
MrR. Taxation dear boy. Taxation. It appears in various forms.
@D. E. Chomsky is wrong about 9-11, that's true. I wonder if he is choosing his battles, like, being strategic. That's a guess. Still, he's a towering figure, imho.
@D. E. can you point me to a lie?
Crazy how we’ve accepted stagnant wages for higher prices on the essentials and assets for 43 years now.
Just because our amenities and gizmos are cheap. We’re hoodwinked by Netflix and IPads and don’t see our living standards dropping in real time.
You can't keep getting richer on a finite planet
It's not that "we've accepted it," it's more that we know the cops will shoot us in the face with rubber coated bullets if we get uppity about it.
It has always been about violence.
@@jonathonsmith6831 We're getting poorer. The planet was rich with natural wealth before we started fucking it up. If I could trade walking to work to get back coral reefs, I would.
@@aluisious we never had it as good as we've had it past 50 years. It's alot better than my grandma's time. People don't realise how good they have it. We live like kings
Actually, things were better when I was growing up, in the 1960s and 70s.
Twelve years later and Australia just went through a historically cold month of May.
Whilst the hottest 5 years have happened in last 10 and right now the oceans are breaking heat records but as long as one country has been cold then it doesn't matter about rest
@@jonathonsmith6831 Interesting. So you determine what’s worth reporting? I don’t think that’s how science is supposed to work.
Oh no, whatever will Australia be ok!?!? 😂😂
@@Big_ol_bass Sure it will. Just like the rest of the planet.
God, I wish I could take a glimpse into 2050 to see what kind of excuses the left will come up with why the world isn't underwater. It's remarkable how well they've been able to market this whole scam. People REALLY are totally just scared little children, waiting for daddy government to tell them what to do, how to think, and how much $$$ to pay.
His book manufacturing consent changed my life. I basically had to unlearn everything I'd learned up until that point in my existence. It's helped open my eyes to reality. Unfortunately, reality is fucking depressing.
So you are depressed. I don't think you are supposed to be. He did that to you? Never read a thing by him, and I am not depressed.
@@ragnaarminnesota6703 because your ignorant, ignorance is bliss
@@ragnaarminnesota6703 they were just exaggareting you idiot. They did not say straight up they are depressed cause if something is depressing, doesnt mean it makes other depressing lmao.
“Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.”― Ernest Hemingway
You're reading the wrong books.
This human desire to die rich never dies.
it should tho.... fuck money
I have had a few millions & it did not make me happy. Just feel sorry for those who are fatally addicted to holding wealth. Giving it to charity will make them better people - without doubt. Then their friends will be genuine ones.
@@Xenibalt ‘’fuck money’’ , then stop worrying about the rich.
@@Bebopin-69 lol shhhh....
I have no interest in becoming rich. I'd rather live an honest life and do honest work.
The edge of the table at the bottom of the screen made me feel like his hands were coming out of the screen for a second.
Looool
Who cares ?
That's not what the video is about, smart ass...
Haha same here!!
Zygmunt Banaszak Cheer up Mr. Negative!
Out of the frying pan aye
Chomsky showed his idiocy during the pandemic. I'll never forget how wrong he was on that issue. Why should I believe he's right on anything?
Because he is not a scientist. Those people can talk a lot because they are narcistc
Because it's a pretty small percentage of everything else he's done in his life?
@@vladimirolujic6637 lol op is clearly a righty.
Fact is, Chomsky is right on 50-95% of topics cause he’s a genius and has so much free time to think about things.
This is more or less true for most intellectuals which is why chimsky put out his “responsibility for intellectuals” 😅😅😅😅
It's pretty illogical to discard every opinion someone shares because of other views they might hold that you dislike
What exactly did he say during the pandemic that was wrong?
I have a lot of respect for this guy. Even though I don't agree with him on most issues, at least he challenges my beliefs in a rational way.
"If you find yourself among the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
---- Mark Twain
He makes me think.
@Marcel Nehrig i respect both of you because you just care to know the truth.
Hell yeah man that’s how everyone should be. Question everything. Hold people accountable if wrong and just learn for your own good. Keeping an open mind is rare and if you are willing to listen as much as you talk you may see some of your own thoughts change on things. How we move ahead with our species. Seems some people in power don’t want that though unfortunately.
I also respect all your comments and I agree with Noam on most things. I've corresponded with him several times and I spent a couple years reading his books. I actually am not that interested in hearing more of what you all think as most people don't commit the necessary time to really study Noam's work. thanks
He will kill you to remove C02.
@@AvaaSlays_Swiftie Move ahead. LOL. These killers will take out anyone who opposes them. The human brain hasn't moved ahead in 400,000 years.
Living in the mountains of North Carolina from October to the end of May, we've had to wear our heavier clothes earlier every year and into the first couple of weeks of June. It's not warming up folks, it's staying colder longer in the mountains of North Carolina!
I always thought Americans needed to buy insurance because your government didn't spend a penny on it. Well that is clearly not the case...
The US spend approx. $8500 per capita on healthcare. That constitutes almost 18% of GDP, more than any other other country in the world. Then to top of that off you personally have to buy (for who knows how much) insurance, or receive Medicaid if you're eligible?! Why? How can it spend that much money, your money, on a system that isn't even universal? It's ridiculous. The second biggest spender (my country) spend $5600 per capita (which is less than 10% of GDP), and that's it. Simple really. I'm happy to pay my taxes for it.
@Scooters Videos yes, what about them? Are they even relevant for this discussion?
These are relevant though, you are welcome to watch one of them.
ruclips.net/video/MvqY2NcBWI8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/w-IHJbzRVVU/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/mmlHbt5jja4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Yze1YAz_LYM/видео.html
Good - you pay for the fraud - I choose to bow out !
@@dianekeil2967 which fraud are you talking about? Who are you talking too?
Are you talking about yearly US government spending on health care? $8500 per capita of 333,000,000,000? That alone would be 70% of the annual budget. You are greatly exaggerating.
For most people, you don't get any part of a governmental health insurance. They are to well payed to medicaid and such programs. You or the company that hires you pay for an health insurance.
That is why some people with medical issues are bound to not get married or a job, because then they could not afford the health care costs, and health care insurance companies refuses to insure them, as they are already sick.
So yes, the cost for a person in USA are higher for health care then the rest of the world with universal health care in some form.
Yes, they also have private doctors. Yes, they can also add another insurance for health care of things not treated by the universal health care.
So yes, universal health care systems could and should made suitable for USA, but you should also look at others for inspiration.
Hey chill triggered dudes. He is doing fairly good job in explaining how you got brain washed.
Lmaoooo
I think people get fed bad info and dont want to accept the truth they rather stick to their guns until the evidence is so overwhelming that their is no disputing without looking crazy or just being a complete idiot
-- Damn son, if you are really that triggered, they must have done a good job with you.
--
Is that what triggers you? Wages of a professor that doesnt buy into your bull shit?
@@Blowmontana707 Even if there was overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic caused global warming, that doesn't mean the mainstream solutions being offered are favorable or that they would even be effective in solving the problem that they claim are solvable. Honestly, it just sounds like a justification for a massive power grab for the global elite. They sell the promise of certain safety in exchange for human liberty, when there is no certainty. The only certainty I can see is a guaranteed tyranny.
Noam Chomsky got it wrong on vaccines and got it wrong on climate change. He must have got something right and I'm anxious to learn what and perhaps have some respect for his opinion on something.
He did some good work on linguistics. That’s about it.
"Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." --Patrick Henry
I hope people will realize that this guy has been a professor at MIT for 50 years and is regarded as one of the most honest and important intellectuals of this generation. I hope people will at least looks at some of the things he has said in the past to see what character he has. Then maybe you can have an open mind on what he has to say.
I'm an MIT professor and a highly regarded intellectual. I know it all, blah blah blah.
All the Wooley Mammoth farts melted all the glaciers during the last ice age.
Yeah so he's a deeply embedded member of a corrupt system run by Billionaires ...and this impresses you? Well that makes you a member of the Happy Lemming Useful Idiots Society- HLUIS Congrats moron!
Guys i am not trying to put you guys down i am just saying i have spent some time listening to a lot of what this guy says on many topics and have read a a few books by him. And for myself i cannot speak for others, he seems to tell the truth or what he believes to be the truth a large amount of time. Now you can argue if you agree with his points on certain subjects, but listen to a few things by him (even on unrelated topics, like on the mass media) and come up with your own opinion. Like if this is your first time hearing from him you might think he is a certain way when you might have painted him in an unfair manner to his true character. Again i am not trying to sound morally superior, just give the guy a fair shot.
And a man who doesnt know that meteorology is a science with relation to global temperatures.
I used to listen to him and agreed with alot he said. I gave him a fair shot until I became wiser and realized that he's pushing a communist agenda. He might mean well and truly believe he's doing good, but he's just another overly intelectualized tool.
Just listen to the co founder of green peace. He’s a scientist and one of the first hard core environmentalist
And he says carbon is plant food and sun cycles play a huge role in temperature change. Like he’s a freaking expert with a different opinion yet the media says all the experts say Carbon is bad and increase the temperature
Wow, lots of people in the comments here know more about the climate than the majority of climate scientists.
Perhaps? 🤔
The majority of climate scientists eh? Maybe you should tell the majority of climate scientists that they are supposed to all be in agreement that global warming is a thing. The majority of climate scientists actually disagree with that premise.
@@birgittabirgersdatter8082 the petition you're referring to did not vet the qualifications of any of its signatories. Closer examination shows that a lot are not climate scientists. Many aren't even scientists. Some entries are obviously fake, including Geri Halliwell and Perry Mason.
Natesh Mayuranathan, we need Perry Mason!!! I remember Geri Haliwell.
Natesh Mayuranathan not talking about a petition, twat. I'm talking about real scientists, archaeologists, meteorologists, geologists, physicists etc.
500 billion tons of carbon dioxide since 2015 (NOAA) and not a fraction of a degree of warming, however, the satellites show a slight cooling, notwithstanding, the medieval and the Roman era’s where on average 2 degrees warmer whilst carbon dioxide levels stood at approximately 280ppm, some 140ppm lower than today.
While Chomsky is a well-respected intellectual and dissident, there have been other respectable people who have given some pretty good argumentation against global warming. We aren't where Gore said we would be by now. The pro-warming people have totally ignored some things like explaning the roles of Malankovich cycles and solar variations as well as having blatantly lied. I don't hear any good counter-evidence from Chomsky so far. Just more doom and gloom.
Eric...You're right about that. Chomsky, being the world's foremost authority on everything has such a busy schedule being interviewed by people that think he's an intellectual. He probably hasn't had the time to really check into the AGW controversy. I do know that he's smarter than Al Gore but then again everyone is smarter than Al Gore.
Do you think climatologists haven't thought about that? Instead of assuming they didn't, why don't you actually do some research to see that milankovitch cycles, and solar variations don't correlate with the warming we are experiencing? I'd recommend you watch "Potholer54" he delves deep into the details of climate science.
Why are you comparing reality to something that Al Gore said? Al Gore has no relevant scientific expertise and has not published anything climate related. Listen to the published science, free for everyone to read.
I hear this argument all the time and its just crazy. The population ends up paying for everything. We pay for corporate profits, and their taxes (as both are included in the price of the item/service), we pay for the government and its spending, we pay for our own living and taxes, we pay for economic development. There is no wealth until something has been made, sold and bought, and the working class is behind all that activity. The only way around it is to have workers in another country pay.
He is a brilliant psychologist, specializing in language. Not a hard scientist, and very left wing politically. His views are not surprising, but carry no more weight than Al Gore's.
6:25 super-important point about unions and healthcare: in Canada, unions fought for healthcare for all, (:-) while in America, unions fought only for members' healthcare coverage (:-(
Unions are bleeding the Canadian Healthcare system dry...and have been for decades. What a gig when your union can get you a job to clean the cafeteria for $35.00/hr when anywhere else it would be $18.00...
@@zeroceiling Dude the solution isn't to decrease their salaries so it costs less, but to tax rich people and bring back unions in every industry so the average person has it better. The workers are the ones doing the work and the ones who deserve the fruit of their own labour, not the super rich property owners. Companies are private dictatorship, nothing more.
@@paifu. Company owners are the ones who risk their investments to create a business and have to set up all the systems which make a business, a business. They bear the cost and risk of investment, so they bear the rewards. Why should those who are simply labour workers be entitled to the same compensation when they incur none of the risks?
@@paifu. and to add onto Riley’s response, taxing the rich more doesn’t work. If another nation will take less of my taxes, I’ll just move my business there. And all the jobs I’ve created will go along with me.
@@paifu. bull crap if rich people don’t have money to create jobs who will Government? 😂
0:35
When was the last time you actually saw a NYT article that dared to try and go against the grain of the AGW claim?
When's the last time you saw an article that exemplified the seriousness of the situation. It should be featured every fucking week. He's right. It's minimized. But don't get it twisted, I'm kinda excited for thunderdome 2050. We're a virus, so I say bring it. But I'm not blind to what we're doing...
@@mr.lucasifer Dumb Ass
@@libertyordeath8351 Guns, God, and Government brother. Pledge thee allegiance. Hell yeah. Fuck these commies! They ain't taking my diesel truck. CO2 is good for plants. Plants love CO2. The more the better. It's so obvious. The New World Order wants to push their agenda on us using the United Nations, but I'm no dummy! Fuck them. Am I right. What about Grand Solar Minimum or Milankovich Cycles. We know what's up. Plants love co2. Planet's never been better, am I right brother?! It's all a conspiracy, but I can see through that. NASA sells lies ya know. We gotta band together. They'll try to take our Freedom! Outta my cold dead hands...
@@mr.lucasifer why don't you look into the subject? It falls apart with the leas bit of scrutiny.
@@American-Dragon I see you have a young human in your life. I guess he'll find out more than anyone how well chemistry, biology, and thermodynamics stand up against conspiracy theories. I've looked into the subject exhaustively on both sides. Climate scientists, not alarmists or environmentalists, scientists who've been studying this stuff for 10 and 20 years, are literally afraid to have children. I hope I'm wrong, I hope they're wrong, I hope you're all correct about this I really do. Maybe the planet will be able to handle the speed of our destruction and adapt quickly. But historically, no matter what your argument, it's never happened like this. We've never been here before, remember? We've never burned carbon products before in e Earth's history, remember?
As for me, my amateur assessment- it's so much worse than they're reporting and predicting and modeling. Things are going to spiral out of control beyond anyone's predictions, and it's now an unstoppable force. It's too late.
If I were you, I'd teach that kid to toughen up. Teach him survival. Teach him the worst of human nature. Teach him he might need to be hard as nails.
Because it's coming.
I mean, most of the world's scientists could be wrong, but would if they're not. Ever consider the consequence if your wrong?
Meteorologists know as much as your barber, I love this guy.
What evidence do you have? I ask this because you seem to have , either a physical or mental lust for this man which could be clouding your POV. If NC said you - Janes Berkowitz - were a pedophile would you agree with him?
@Stanley Goddard them people seem to think theres a love in when someone like NC threatens their ideologies. It was 98 Fahrenheit in Siberia yesterday above the arctic circle. Their defence "the earth has aaaaalways had periods of heating n cooling"...We know this ! The ice caps permanently migrate and retreat, but this is excelled by mans stupidity and the rate of this change is unprecedented. At the current rate London will be submerged in a couple of hundred years. The truth is.....they dont give a fuck !!!
@@blustamove These discussions boil down to whether you trust nasa or the met office etc or not. Nasa: climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ Met Office: www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/effects-of-climate-change - Fighting the power is an oxymoron as that requires power.
Chomsky is a linguist. What, _exactly_ , lends his words ANY authority when speaking about the _complexity_ of climate change? As I understand it, even _measuring_ the global temperature is *non-trivial* .
@@hiltonjacobs8910 dude he just references the SUPERMAJORITY of available evidence. If your house was on fire, and a neighbor said “hey, you should leave!” Would you seriously say to them “well you’re not a fireman, so I guess I’ll just wait and see”
I’ve never really listened to Noam, however I got the measure of him in the first 1 min of this video. Thanks
Well thank you, Mr Einstein!
@@robertdavidson8028 🧠
So you know not to listen anymore . Full of rubbish these days
Talk to Randal Carlson and try to make these claims. Chomsky will NOT be missed.
Even the language gives it away. You don’t “believe” in science. It is based on fact not feelings. It is also not based on consensus.
I'm not sure I understand....but it seems like what you're proposing is that science (whatever that means) proves to some objective standard that something is true?
@@jordanp8063
It is the most effective methodology we have devised so far to figure out how stuff works. It is not perfect nor does it pretend to be.
ruclips.net/video/0OtFSDKrq88/видео.html
Wake up smell the roses
He knows what he talking about
If he was shifty
Maximize short-term profits or your're out. Exactly, Noam.
This video is from 12 years ago. What has happened with global warming since then? Where is the 'cliff' we have fallen off as society? These predictions never take place, it seems. Or should we wait another 30 years before the world wide tsunami hits??
Hoax is not the correct word. BS is the correct word.
It's not BS. However, the liberal solutions are BS.
@@aristocraticrebel It is BS and the climate extremists are pushing the world off a cliff.
Didn’t watch the video, lmao
The irony of a linguistics professor criticizing meteorologists for speaking out of their scope regarding climate change.... Noam is a classic talking head.
There is only 1 question to ask a climate cult leader like Chomsky.
Is CO2 good or bad?
CO2 is the ‘gas of life’ without which we and every other carbon based life form does not exist. This on its own should be enough.
Chomsky truely believes CO2 is bad.
Chomsky is the best example of the meaning of ‘ideological subversion’ I can think of. He has no clue of any basic science we all learnt at junior high. Its called photosynthesis.
"Create" a common enemy, that way the powerful are able to shape the dialogue.
I am something of an old fart, and I remember Chomsky very earnestly stating that the US was totally responsible for anything going on in Cambodia, and that the Khmer Rouge were agrarian reformers. This video is at a similar level of resemblance to reality.
Is there a subject Chomsky isn't an expert on?
True god
Wicked angel satan and devil who earned those titles as apposed first born who said i love my father because i know who he is his ways
I don’t think that was a compliment Evan!! Chomsky is just a know it all...just ask him!!
One instance about polpot got my attention was what a certain one quoted of deads
One who actually
Acclaimed throughout western media
He's right we shouldn't listen to meteorologists, we should listen to a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. Sometimes described as "the father of modern linguistics"
and that man used to be the advisor of my advisor.. good thing i left the uni
Yeah reject the ENTIRE field climatology, thousands of scientists, and just take the word of this one guy, who knows nothing about climatology.
@@woohooman-fl9vq I'm pretty sure he talked about TV weather forecasters and not about the science behind them.
He is an old red. in the end he talks about unions and national healthcare.
@@woohooman-fl9vq climatology is all a money grab
I lived in Miami for most of my life. The sea level didn't change as global warming cultists claim it would have in my 22 years there.
Re: ideas that are created here in the U.S.A. are manufactured elsewhere. That's because business owners are taught in MBA school that they should enrich themselves at the expense of their workers. They think they "deserve" a salary that is a hundred or a thousand times that of their workers. Your life is Time. Your Time is the same in value as every else's. Your life is the same in value as everyone else's. The last thirty years should be known as the Era of Unfettered Greed.
An Anthem for Justice
by Margaret Anna Alice
The Armenian Genocide was not a mistake.
Holodomor was not a mistake.
The Final Solution was not a mistake.
The Great Leap Forward was not a mistake.
The Killing Fields were not a mistake.
Name your genocide-it was not a mistake.
That includes the Great Democide of the 2020s.
To imply otherwise is to give Them the out they are seeking.
It was not botched.
It was not bungled.
It was not a blunder.
It was not incompetence.
It was not lack of knowledge.
It was not spontaneous mass hysteria.
The planning occurred in plain sight.
The planning is still occurring in plain sight.
The philanthropaths bought The $cience™.
The modelers projected the lies.
The testers concocted the crisis.
The NGOs leased the academics.
The $cientists fabricated the findings.
The mouthpieces spewed the talking points.
The organizations declared the emergency.
The governments erected the walls.
The departments rewrote the rules.
The governors quashed the rights.
The politicians passed the laws.
The bankers installed the control grid.
The stooges laundered the money.
The DoD placed the orders.
The corporations fulfilled the contracts.
The regulators approved the solution.
The laws shielded the contractors.
The agencies ignored the signals.
The behemoths consolidated the media.
The psychologists crafted the messaging.
The propagandists chanted the slogans.
The fact-chokers smeared the dissidents.
The censors silenced the questioners.
The jackboots stomped the dissenters.
The tyrants summoned.
The puppeteers jerked.
The puppets danced.
The colluders implemented.
The doctors ordered.
The hospitals administered.
The menticiders scripted.
The bamboozled bleated.
The totalitarianized bullied.
The Covidians tattled.
The parents surrendered.
The good citizens believed … and forgot.
This was calculated.
This was formulated.
This was focus-grouped.
This was articulated.
This was manufactured.
This was falsified.
This was coerced.
This was inflicted.
This was denied.
We were terrorized.
We were isolated.
We were gaslit.
We were dehumanized.
We were wounded.
We were killed.
Don’t let them get away with it.
Don’t let them get away with it.
Don’t let them get away with it.
It’s all a scam
It's kind of sad that he cited the 98% thing as "guys who know anything." Hopefully he didn't know how shady that survey was before spouting off some of this stuff.
I wonder how some of these people will answer if the people who say the sun and cloud cover are the most important factors, and that carbon in the atmosphere is just a lagging factor; considering their concern for carbon is killing millions of poor people across the world.
+Bruce Keller Yes thats right Bruce. Nature is singling out poor people to kill. , but hey maybe its Gods fault. You just have to do something about this Bruce
+Bruce Keller The survey was peer-reviewed and corroborated by other studies. Nothing shady about it, apart from the attempts to discredit the relevant research--none of which are peer-reviewed and none of which pass basic scrutiny.
+Kropotkin2000 If you asked a bunch of priests whether or not they supported the public policy of their employer, the figure you get is pretty much unanimous - and of zero value despite all the peer review. Science which purports to tell the future is something like that - nonsense from start to finish. No confirmation is possible as no data has been generated.
ruclips.net/video/zQ3PzYU1N7A/видео.html
This comment section proves his point so depressingly well
Too bad that it is indeed hoax and he is just promoting it, thats why he said absolutely nothing scientific only politics. Make sure you are scared enough, they can tax you more then. Oh and the natural gas all life depends on is now bad. Lmao
Scho0rschi To illustrate how bad your last point is consider this logic applied to sugar: Oh and the substance all humans depend on is now bad. That’s defintitely a great argument for eating loads of sugar
@@mightymaniac8712 Well I could illustrate how bad your point is, but I dont have to, you did it yourself. Not only did you use sugar as an example, when sugar is not a substance all life depends on, but you also had to say "loads of sugar", as in too much sugar. Well, idiot, too much of a gas, that exists in nature and all life depends on would be 100 times more than it is today. Btw, if this natural gas reaches half of what it is today, trees dont grow. Now stfu, go visit a greenhouse, learn what a CO2 generator does and forget the propaganda, that a gas, which creates life is a dangerous substance.
Simple facts, noone can deny them.
Scho0rschi Notice how I didn’t say all life dependd on it. Of course i had to say loads of it. No one is arguing that the natural co2 in the atmosphere is bad, it’s absolutely necessary. It’s only when we humans pollute the atmosphere with loads of co2 it’s a bad thing
@@mightymaniac8712 How stupid can you be. It is impossible to pollute nature with a gas that already exists in nature and all life depends on it to even exist and only becomes dangerous if it has a cosistency 100 times more of what it is today which is impossible anyway and therre are at least 50 other natural factors influencing it, with 1 Tera Watt energy difference compared to each other and humans are a joke compared to them.
He has such authority in speaking on this subject but does not seem to have spoken to anyone who has studied climate change. The world did not begin in 1900. In fact it began over 4 Billion years ago. The records in rock show that we are at a very low temperature now and that trends upward are somewhere on the order of 97% natural. It has been much warmer in the distant past, ice age cycles are in the 100,000 year cycles and there have been many. A first year geology or paleoclimatology student could easily argue with Noam. Too bad. Sounding authoritative is not enough. I don't know how he can feel comfortable talking on this subject.
AS much as Norm Chomsky is respected, his expertise is linguistics philosophy and political activism with emphasis on the activism in this case, not any of the climatology sciences.
As soon as they land their private jets they can talk to me about not using a drinking straw.
he must not of done much research into climate change because man's effect is a TINY part of it.
I would have thought he would be aware of how those institutions he hates profit from alarmism.
You speak of a conspiracy theory. You don't know what you are talking about.
@@patricklincoln5942 Thats a conspiracy theory on your side. ;)
@@gedankenfang3931: My comment on one person's conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory? How so?
@@patricklincoln5942 Because its all theory on the climatechange subject. Its all theses that havent being prooved. So bothsides are conspiricy theorists. :)
@@gedankenfang3931: You mean like how gravity is a theory?
here we are in 2023 and the climate cooled and greenwashing is power and money grab🎉
2023 hottest year on record and 2024 above that so far
@@UnknownPascal-sc2nk when did the record start?
What Noam Chomski tells also goes for The Netherlands 1 on 1 .
Thanks for posting this video .
wat bedoel der precies?
????
He's pushing a global scam.
There's really no reason for the lack of general knowledge about current events I see in this comments section since we're on the internet and can look up anything. Greenland never stopped melting this winter. Hundreds of square kilometers of Arctic Ocean are bubbling from methane hydrate melting. Miami is flooding during high tide. We're 80 years ahead of worse case scenarios from just a few years ago. All these things have been reported on multiple times in the last few months alone, just not by Faux News or CNN or the other large, state influenced news networks.
Greenland also was above geothermal activity ( vulcanism ). A little lava melts ice just fine. The methane is scary stuff. It lies all over the place at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico too. Its change of state contributed to failure of blowout mechanisms and was an integral part of the Deepwater Horizon gusher from 6 miles down ( the bottom was 1 mile but the hole another 5 ). Still, if it can build up on the bottom that far south, it may be more stable than we give it credit for.,
John Farnham - the ocean water temperature is 4 degree C everywhere below 1000 m, so being south is not relevant in terms of temperature. It's because water has the highest density at 4 degree C. And yes, methane hydrate is scary.
Please go see Tony Heller's video!
Chomsky is "on the money" on some issues--such as American imperialism--but NOT on this problematic AGW scenario (about which they did some "fancy footwork" and now call "Global Climate Change").
Bill Benton Study from both sides of the question of GWarming suggests your are right, on ‘this problematic AGW scenario”.
• Too many good scientists are questioning this concern. Politics of agreement on this topic certainly is a curious part of the AGW question, especially as it disdains discussion that questions it presumption.
• Current global warming on all planets certainly demands an inquiry into what is going on, how the sun influences all planet environments, and most disconcertedly, investigation into the honesty, rights and freedoms of discussion within the science community.
• But many, Bill, refuse to let the facts get in the way of a good story supported by commercial media- Corporate Interests and Powers and Governments.
• I am most surprised in Noam’s take on this issue of compliance without question. But maybe this is a trail he must avoid for it only distracts from his main cause.
Namaste and care,
mhikl
***** I appeciate the courteous reply. MANY on these pages are full of acrimony and a resolute refusal to examine the facts. Also a considerable amount of rudeness...even to the point of the use of profanity and character assassination.
***** Please consider (objectively):
1. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
2. The primary "greenhouse gas" is water vapor.
3. The models used by proponents of this hypothesis have flaws.
4. The predictions..e.g,, of ocean rising.. have not panned out.
5. Recent temp. rises have been very modest..on the order of a half degree,
and this trend ended around 1998.
6. The issue has become much more a matter of politics--and dogma--than
science...with a huge amount of name-calling...and a refusal of honest
debate.
7. The actual pattern in the history of the planet has been that temperature elevation occurs, then is followed--generally much later--by a rise of
CO2.
Bill Benton I have found all of which you make point.
• From my studies the issue of man’s influence on his immediate environment (lands and water) he greatly can influence. On our communal air, not so much. It needs no ticket to move as it desires, and no mountain holds it back. :-)
• Have you studied The Electric Universe, “The Thunderbolts Project”? It takes to task common science. A new science, a better world is near. Very near.
• I like to study all sides of a question. Little, other than a good meal, gives me more pleasure than coming to toss a long held belief. Yet every belief I hold is tethered, ever so loosely, as willingly I am, to toss a burdensome possession on the dust heap.
• Kim Greenhouse, at Rainmaking Time is where I first had my old presumptions on the topic of weather, challenged. She is not a box sitter, once herself accepting the common direction of the idea. Her topics are eclectic. She does not agree with all presenters, but she is respectful, and allows discussion to take place.
itsrainmakingtime.com/robert-felix-joe-daleo-dr-tim-ball-true-inquiry-climate-and-weather/
• regarding curtesy, Bill, it is our nature, and by good fortune of family and friends, my history. Anger and disrespect deplete spirit. We need all the spirit we can gather, for true joy comes from connecting with caring engagement; even with those who usually engage from anger and resentment.
Namaste and care,
mhikl
Bill Benton ***** I have a PhD in Chemistry and have never come across any other topic where reluctance to take scientific -facts- opinions at face value was vilified. Even some decent people I personally know have this tendency of wanting to assassinate my character among my circles just because I've been a skeptic.
Even if Climate Science is not my field, the data sets are quite easy to comprehend and so are most of the publications. As of now there has never been any hard evidence to support AGW. At best there has been computed generated predictions that have overly exaggerated feedback from other GHGs like Vapor.
Also any scientist that has published journals knows quite well that these studies that recorded a consensus among scientists on AGW does not mean anything. It is a consensus in scientific opinion and that too is questionable. If I requested for grant money by writing a proposal that wanted to observe new species of pests as a result of AGW, I would quite easily get the funding. Because I would become part of the consensus that thinks AGW is real. Does not matter if I am only an entomologist that is PRESUMING AGW is real.
Remember this guy would destroy the world
People like him are the reason why criminals can pass as politicians.
He was on the money with Manufacturing Consent. He's either forgotten or been paid to forget. Whatever the mainstream are shoving down our throats, it always fits the same pattern: there's always an ostensible reason "for the greater good", while those pushing the narrative can be seen in plain sight (or private plane sight) acting like hypocrites. And, any dissent - what we used to call open scientific debate - is crushed. The cough-cough crisis was *exactly* the same - parties and curry nights for the politicians (UK), while locking the rest of us down.
I happen to know personally a very clever *_real_* meteorologist, who works for the British Royal Meteorological Office. He finds the disbelief that is rife in the USA almost unbelievable,
A meteorologist is not a climatologist and his opinion is just that based on information that he's exposed to not firsthand information. That in itself has no weight in value
@@petercamacho310How do you figure a climatologist looking at ice cores has more "firsthand information" than a meteorologist using dozens of instantaneous atmospheric measurements?
@@Earthgazer Because the meteorologist is passing on information based on a chart that in itself can be set to exhibiting biases. The meteorologists has the expertise in reading the chart. The meteorologist did not collect the information, if the chart is flawed because of computer modelling parameters then his ability to read that chart has, while it is specialized, is just reading faulty information, because of the faults in the modelling of the information.
A climatologist has the expertise to discuss those parameters and qualitatively explain how slight variations in computer modelling over different time periods drastically alter the perception when plotted on a graph. And thereby demonstrating or exhibiting a predetermined bias. The ipcc has repeatedly shown their own predictions to be when compared to their own data, demonstrating that the graphing information presented was seriously flawed because of choosing parameters that suited, or at least were demonstrated to be false. Demonstrating a biased or at a minimum in error. Rather than admitting their error, the ipcc makes adjustments to the timing of their conclusions and or adds inventive justifications, allowing themselves to unalter their narrative.
Conclusion as exhibited by their own findings, although without admitting it, the effects of climate change due to The Human Experience is negligible. Inconsequential over time periods of fifty to a hundred years and will not change. Regardless of the human contribution and are in no way as dramatic, as has been shown by their own data.
In short they are pushing fear for ulterior motives.
Any further challenge, rightly to be contested with the purveyors of this information.
ruclips.net/video/lQqPQ0i_fl0/видео.html
Then consider this information.
www.mtdemocrat.com/news/agenda-21-central-planning-on-steroids-global-warming-believers-unmasked-by-climategate/
Also View this
World has three years left to stop dangerous climate change, warn experts
www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/world-has-three-years-left-to-stop-dangerous-climate-change-warn-experts
And this.
UN Grants Earth A(nother) 20 Year Reprieve From Global Warming
m.ruclips.net/video/EBKohYsIan0/видео.html
Done. Although I do have more.
Peace
Peter
@@petercamacho310 That was a lot of words to convey the fact that you don't know the difference between a meteorologist and a weatherman.
@@Earthgazer what can I tell you. I suggest the error is yours and you haven't taken the time to digest the material. I did my research, if there is any error that I have made it is slight and inconsequential to the point I was making. These aren't my ideas I'm reflecting my research. If you have any argument, argue with the expertise of my sources. And presents your argument with evidence and words rather than one line dismissal, out of hand. Good day to you sir.
Peace.
The saddest part of the whole thing is that the _public debate_ is even relevant!
*****
It's not just politics. We The People don't want to believe in climate change, because in our rational, non-denialistic (is that a word?) minds we know that _any effective action_ we might take to address climate change would, _at the very least_, involve _giving up our toys!_ So, naturally, anyone not wanting to abandon their SUV-Goes-To-Walmart lifestyle and go back to foraging for nuts and berries (as if that's even an option for the human race at this point) is either going to join in the chorus of nay-sayers, or do everything in their power to avoid the issue altogether.
***** So we should wait for the rich to give up their life of luxury and go broke or atleast come down to our level? That wont happen... well not soon anyway... And till then we should do nothing and see more of our states facing drought many years in a row. So what should we actually do about it? For example: Why dont we actually start by reducing the frequent use of our car. Use public transport. That will reduce our carbon footprint. I am a out of state student right now so i use my bike or use a bus to travel. These things seem trivial, but just think if every one does this... the overall use of oil/gas will naturally reduce. Which is a good thing is it not?
LightningAlchemist7
Unfortunately, your proposition is incompatible with existing infrastructure.
This problem has been in the making for centuries. It is the end result of our relentless pursuit of Economic Progress. The planet probably wouldn't care if ten, or even a few hundred thousand people drove around all day in gas guzzling SUVs, eating corn fed beef, and letting their waste products runoff into the oceans.. It DOES CARE that Seven going on Twenty Billion are doing it! And NO ONE, regardless of their social or political status, even wants to ACKNOWLEDGE this issue, because morality demands we do nothing to address the underlying cause. So, we try to guilt each other into buying more energy efficient light bulbs, and hope that the problem will just _work itself out_.
***** Yes you are correct. Population control is in a way the best "worst" solution to this mess.
LightningAlchemist7
Oh, I don't know that population control is necessarily a "best-worst" solution. If nothing else, think of what you could have if there weren't so many "others" to contend with. Maybe you could go to a beach again without having to pay admission; or not have to spend all day in an airplane terminal being scanned for explosive devices; or be able to drink out of a river without being poisoned. If you ask me, we're stupid for NOT doing it!
So, what do you say... Auto-sterilizers at the entrance to every Walmart? Who's with me?
aged like milk, no increase in mean temp in 10 years, epies mate
THANK YOU NORM, FOR BEING A PROFESSIONAL ABOUT THIS AND, TELLING IT !!!
THIS COUNTRY MUST FIGHT OFF THESE CRIMINALS TRYING TO DESTROY PROGRESS, AND DISTURB THE PEACE #BOYCOTTTHEMAINSTREAMMEDIA; #BOYCOTTKOCH !!!
11 years later he's been proven wrong.
This reminds me of the “fat is bad and will kill you” LIE.
i want to deep fry things in butter and beef tallow :3
At least there was actual vested interest for the sugar industry to say that, whereas who has a vested interest in cooking up a climate hoax? There are far more, far more rich and powerful people who stand to benefit from denying anthropogenic climate change
It's true in one sense and false in another. Being fat will kill you sooner but eating fats won't.
We should be monitoring"weather manufacturing" as well to accurately weigh the influences
YES
Noam's an expert on everything like hiding in a classroom
Wisdom cannot come from books alone- Horace
@@roostercogburn1943 Chomsky needs to get out into the real world and put his ideas to the test. Karl Marx was another who never actually tested his own beliefs he was just a journalist.
@@Jay9999 Marx left most of his work undone, because it didn't make sense then or now.
Wow, what a relief! I thought when I clicked on this that Chompansky was actually on the CORRECT side of this BS debate. If he said there's no crisis--THEN I would become concerned, since he is a reverse barometer for the truth.
Really please do tell some examples of him being wrong.
@@jakobhancock106 Seriously, I don't get why people that hate him so much would be running to all his videos to bash him. They either secretly, subconsciously like him or are working on a disinformation/smear campaign of some kind. It's really weird
Scientists are run by money and power and not science.
And it gets worse ... ruclips.net/video/-vb7JRK4Yko/видео.html
... The remarks about the Republicans in particular strike an even deeper chord here in 2024 ...🤔🤨🥴😵💫😵
it is a hoax
Absolutely brilliant dismantling and explanation of the motives and mechanisms that drive climate change denial / inaction and affordable healthcare blocking.
Chomsky is nothing short of a genius, inescapable clarity of thought, probably the greatest intellect of our time.
The population of the world has doubled to 8 billion since 1975. Population growth with middle class expansion in China and India are driving carbon output. A few people driving a Prius instead of a Ford-150 isnt going to reconcile this. All you have a shaky theory and no plan or ability to mitigate this. If you really think were doomed by 2050 then just STFU about it unless you want to dabble in genocide.
10 years later and things only keep getting worse...........
How so? Crisis is being manufactured at this point.
@@thejarjosh Hehe. Stop your social media account my friend, see the world, outside.
Yeah, it keeps getting worser. He's friends with Epstein. How much worser can it get?! 😵💫
@@cypress13372023 hottest year on record and 2024 above that so far.
Give me enough money and I'll mathematicly model you anything...
+Mack Lack mathematically* Forgive me if I doubt your ability to model even the simplest phenomena.
You must "think of yourself" superior and smarter to me, don't you? You are a typical elitist liberal, no doubt... Excuse me if I don't surrender to your imperious authoritarian decrees....
I don't consider myself a member of any political party. I just find it ironic that you are disregarding mathematical models when you can't spell the word correctly.
Mack Lack Also, let me apologize for being so abrasive. It doesn't help us have a meaningful dialogue. I'm sorry; it was distasteful of me.
To talk a little about mathematics, I'm actually an engineering and math undergraduate. I've taken programming classes, the full Calculus sequence, Real Analysis, Probability and Statistics, Calculus based Physics I and II, Chemistry I and II, and more. I only mention them to *maybe* give some credibility to my statements. Climate science is all about understanding weather patterns (which is physics, basically) and using huge amounts of data (statistics and probability) to create mathematical models.
I'm not saying this means I can understand the issue and you can't. A year ago, I was skeptical of anthropogenic global warming too. I decided that if I really wanted to figure out what was true, I should pick up a book written by scientists about the issue. After all, they are the ones who study the climate for a living. The book I read used to be free on Amazon, but now they have a kindle version for $1.00: www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Evidence-Impacts-Choices-ebook/dp/B00E8IXZJS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449603803&sr=8-1&keywords=climate+change+evidence
I don't expect you to take me for my word. Honestly, I just believe climate change is a pressing issue and that the data are supportive. I really want us all to work together to solve the problem and make a better world. So don't believe me, that's fine -- but consider taking the time to read the book I linked. What's crucial is that you find a book written by climate scientists who are in the thick of the research. They know the issue better than anyone.
+Nick Steamier Apology accepted. I am a registered Professional Engineer with graduate & undergraduate degrees in Electrical Engineering. I know a little bit of math myself...
I don't know why this guy is held in such high esteem. He is so off-base on so many topics that it disqualifies him as an authority. What is he,- a linguist? He rarely studies any of the topics he speaks on in any depth.
that's factually false, actually.
Exactly
Igaluit he got a degree in linguistics in the 60's or whenever. What relevance does that have? Why does that mean he couldn't have dedicated the other 50-odd years of his life to politics? He's the 3rd most cited author ever, his views are clearly held in high regard.
Yes, of course. But you'll notice in his speech, that he uses deconstructionist theory, where he'll correct words other people use and it betrays the ideology that if you change language, you will change society - which is a lot of hokum.
Igaluit, I think you should consult a hearing specialist. Chomsky often cites quotes and gives sources when he does. You should watch his speeches again. While it's common for folks in the scientific community, it is rarely the case when it comes to politics. I sometimes verify his sources and haven't found a mistake yet.
Chomsky is a national treasure. If only we could replace the greedy careerists that run this country with people like him.
@Lightbringer 29, hahaha!!! That’s funny!!! 🤪🇬🇷🤪🇬🇷🤪🇬🇷🤪🇬🇷🤪🇬🇷🤪
This guy is brilliant but like Saruman his pride has grown too much because of it and he believes himself to be an expert on every subject. Richard Lindzen, also of MIT would tear him a new asshole on climate science, especially as he is actually a climate scientist, and he is also brilliant btw.
Chomsky is a socialist who thinks the government should control everything. He see's everything through socialist ideology and he does not understand the wisdom of free markets. I have corresponded with him a number of times and the only thing I agree with him is that the USA should not give foreign aid to Israel. I oppose all foreign aid. Chomsky gets his facts wrong on many issues and makes absurd statements. He thinks the world does not need the profit motive to work, but it does. Go to Venezuela and see where socialism gets you.
You must be a very young person. I corresponded with Noam years ago before he tweeted. I don't read tweets anyway. Noam, of course, is a socialist as anyone knows. Anarchy does not work. Look at Somalia. It is funny that he thinks he is a socialist and made socialist arguments to me, but you don't think he is one. You seem to think you know his mind better than he does. Noam dances around the obvious failures of socialism. He blames everything on capitalism. He lives in a dream world and writes well, but it is all a dream, like Lord of the Rings. His philosophy is built on denying reality, not properly explaining reality.
You are not impressing anyone by using 8th grade language. An irrational rant is not an argument. Have a great day.
The global warming alarmists have smear campaigns on any public speaker against them. Richard Lindzen is one they have successfully smeared. Enough so, that I am a global warming skeptic, who will not quote him as evidence. Chomsky and Lindzen have been in MIT for over 30years but never seem to refer to each other. This is just a little anecdotal evidence as to why I don't trust Lindzen. Nothing scientific about that. But the extremists, control all the data and information. You cannot have a conversation on a factual basis with them. You will notice that although he is a very anti establishment speaker, there are no sites listing Chomsky to any big tobacco or oil companies. This is because he is pro man made global warming. Chomsky is a great intellect and his pro warming stance is the only thing I've ever found exception to in his talks.
So without science, or some other quantifiable fact, why am I anti man made global warming? These are two posts I've left on other sites.
The 1st is in answer to why are the alarmists so stupid?
1.
"What's stupid about it? It falls into line with western world political best practice. It provides the people in government with a massive problem that only they are in a position to fix. For members of the science fraternity that are willing to blur their results, it pays them with $4.7 billion dollars funding for global warming works in the US alone.
This is not stupid, it is unscientific, but it is the way they have chosen to play the game. The attitude, waste of money and level of deceit towards the people is what I take offense too."
2.
"As I said before, I smell a rat. This is why the pro global warming community is starting to fail world wide.
About 4 years ago the Mekong river was slightly overflowing into Pnom Pehn. The next year when it was at the lowest level I've ever seen it, half the people on the evening boat cruise I went on, were specialists in their various fields, to study the effects of Global warming. I've never seen any scientists before or since in this area. Why only when the river was at it's lowest and not to study the impacts of the flood?
I know this argument is not scientific. But people the world over are starting to see things, they don't understand why exactly, but their instincts tell them, this isn't right.That is why the global warming alarmists are losing traction."
My reasons for being a skeptic of global warming are highly unscientific, and just based upon, many examples of the above I've seen in my own life. It all just doesn't fit, seem right, or I smell a rat. My choice is based upon my instincts and life experiences.
*****
I'm sorry I'm not intelligent enough for you. Fortunately the countries of America and Australia aren't either. They have both voted in governments that have anti man made global warming stands. With many of their best known members listed on the denier lists, of most of the internet sites, deliberately set up to discredit "deniers" of their faith (not any word as neutral as skeptics of course).
Perhaps it may be prudent for you not to be talking down to dumb asses like me, and perhaps to take our gripes a little more seriously, if you want to maintain your glorious scare campaign?
I see a ton of climatologies expressing their vast knowlage on climate change here lmao
Erick Romero we’re in good hands...😩
It is a hoax.
Thanks Professor Dementia for those words
Listening to this in 2023, still spot on.
Haha, me too. Hello to the Future humans reading this in 2043
Noam I am a great follower of your work in all ways, and have been over many years . However it seems that the experts are saying the idea re global warming is based on reading and measuring computer models.
Many first class scientists are taking serious measurements and showing no global warming. They even changed the terminology from Global warming to Climate change. What are we to believe? Alistair p s health care like gun control is way too late to alter in the USA the doctors are too used to big wages. and the Gun Crowd are also making too much money from this. I believe that money is always the problem and Love is always the answer. Please don't say I am naïve .We have a great health care here in the UK doctors are well enough paid but not all millionaires. Brotherly love dear friend Alistair excuse typing parkinsons disease.
Sir Earth was once hot ball of fire. It's always changing nothing to weep about.
Yes, Global Warming didn’t work, so they’re trying the unprovable Climate Change. Deception is a feature of the despicable immoral ones.
A ton of y'all literally didn't watch the video and only read the title AND IT SHOWS
You have never read a book and it shows.
@@roostercogburn1943 Read far more than you, chucklefuck. Nice ad hominem though.
@@KravenTheHaunter You must be a Noamie. ...
@@roostercogburn1943 He's pretty good, but I don't do cult worship. Shame I can't say the same about you.
Here in the UK, we hear a lot more from believers in Global Warming than from oil companies wanting to deny it. When I look at the NOAA graphing page, almost everywhere in the USA has seen no warming or a little cooling for the last 15 years or so, compared to a very high rate of warming from 1980 onwards. The same thing is true when we configure it for the Global temperature (unfortunately we cannot see component countries and continents of the Globe). Only the Sea temperature, not the Sea+Land has shown much recent warming. Google around and you will see a lot of papers trying to explain how the sea could be soaking up the warming, and how it will eventually spring back. A popular theory seems to be that the recently very strong El Nino cycle has resulted in strong easterly winds which have transferred water or at least the heat in it, westward, resulting in cooling over the land. And most parts of Antarctica have shown recent cooling, even though the Larsen B shelf is clearly warming. The solution to this anomaly seems to be to concentrate on Larsen B, even though it is a very small proportion of Antarctica, which sticks out into warm Pacific currents.
Despite the recent industrialisation of China and India and far Eastern countries like Korea, the percentage CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise at approximately the same rate as 10 years ago.
All this casts doubt on the current estimates of the warming rate, which were made in the 90's, it appears on statistical grounds only, not on deep models which explain the actual mechanisms.
So, although nobody could deny either the rise in CO2 or the effect of Global Warming, it does appear likely that we have a bit more time to plan than we expected. Timing is important, since the technology continues to improve. I was putting off installing solar panels until the promised new designs with +30% efficiency arrived. But because my government is drastically cutting its subsidy from January, I had them installed last month.
+John Brown "almost everywhere in the USA has seen no warming or a little cooling for the last 15 years or so" The Northeast US just shattered the old record for warmest December - by FIVE DEGREES FARENHEIT.
+jaspernatchez , sure but what matters is the shape of the graph. There have always been spiky periods. Google "NOAA Climate at a Glance". You can graph it for every US state and region, and most of them have been cooling for 15 to 19 years, depending on how you fit the graphs. For example, California has been essentially flat since 1998, with +/-4F excursions up AND down. NOAA produces a report every year where they cherry pick a few worst cases, like the one you refer to, or the retreat of this or that glacier. I think I read that many of the 40 glaciers across Antarctica have grown and not retreated. Of course, this warm end to 2015 could be the start of a new rising curve, like the very steep one between 1980 and 1998. But even if it is, and it lasts for the same time interval, that would reduce the global rate of warming by approaching 50%. It appears not to be as fast as we were promised. Thank goodness.
+John Brown Just listen to yourself. You're talking about rising curves as if you're anything except some stupid loser posting to yt comments, as if you have a milligram of expertise that would entitle you to an opinion on the subject of climate. You, in your amazing presumptuousness, think that the THOUSANDS of climate scientists who are in agreement about climate change haven't thought about your fucking rising curve and glaciers. You talk about cherry picking as if thousands of scientists could be in some massive global conspiracy to hide the truth, a truth that YOU, some moron on yt, will reveal to an ever-thankful world. These comments show me just why the world is in the shape it is - it is filled with incredible morons like you.
+EmptyCountry "He's entitled to his opinion" Why do you say that? How do you know he's entitled? I think it's far more likely that, like me, he's far too ignorant of climate science to have an opinion. The difference between him and me is that I'm smart enough to know that I can't possibly amass enough knowledge to compare with the professional climate scientists, probably all of whom have doctorates and have published papers in peer-reviewed journals, who have agreed about AGW, and he is not. Neither, apparently, are you.
+EmptyCountry "But you need to always vet their work" LOL! I suppose YOU, some nobody without education or intelligence, "think" you have "vetted" thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to trying to save the world as well as overcome morons like you because you've spent a few hours on bogus websites. What could possibly be funnier or more pathetic?
This man is a paradox ..
I was looking so forward to this interview. Meteorology is, in fact, the scientific study of the atmosphere including the subdisciplines of climatology, atmospheric physics and atmospheric chemistry. Undergraduate and graduate programs are offered at, I believe, most American Ivy league schools in this academic domain. With all due respect, Mr Chomsky, maligning an entire aspect of atmospheric science seems unsavoury and unintellectual. Just sayin'.
i like chomsky , but his sniggering dismissal of meteorologists , many with phd’s , is pure elitist condescension . he’s a bit too intoxicated by his ideology and self righteousness
I don't know where you're getting your data, but I'm looking at the HADCRUT 4.2.0.0 from the Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets and you're incorrect. Depending on the years you analyze, conservative estimates for this type of data are around +0.11C/dec although you can cherry pick much greater trends from other years, which is what alarmist ecology groups have done in the past... You're in good company.
Nathan Rowe Dude, do you have any fucking idea how MUCH 0.11/dec is? What are you planning for, the habitability of earth for another 200 years? But oh yeah, you got Chomsky so hard, man! He‘s obliterated! Fucking moron.
& Jab got the Jab hahahahahahah
Noam Chomsky is also an authority on quantum physics. Just ask him.
If only there was some form of government that could gather the resources to institute the necessary changes, but was insulated from the fickle will of the people. Maybe Stalin had some ideas along those lines
Stalin wasn't a communist. He ran a totalitarianian government and a CAPITALIST economy.
Quantumwolf45 the only way for humanity to coexist within communism, is if we are able to outsource every level of production, from the discovery and extraction of resources to the delivery of the finished product, to a self maintaining machine hierarchy. This includes inventive thought, and the extinguishment of free will. This is my opinion, because no matter how good your intentions, you cannot force anyone beyond their own free will without force or coercion.
@@Quantumwolf45 Good point. If Stalin had been a TRUE COMMUNIST, he would have killed a lot more people and been far wealthier.
@@Quantumwolf45 You are an idiot! The state owned everything.
If only those books behind Noam could speak, Noam would be run out of town on a rail.
And Noam's followers think he is an impartial intellectual, one of the philosopher kings they need to interpret the shadows on the walls..
And who do you prefer to listen to? The Koch Brothers?
+Not An Oxymoron How about looking into the facts for yourself and making up your own mind, or is that too much work for you?
Feel free to lock yourself in a Faraday Cage and look for facts completely on your own.
The facts are in. Man made climate change is real. Chomsky or no.
Not An Oxymoron, What are those fact you speak of ? In the 80's they called it "the greenhouse effect" which never happened, then in the 90's they called it "global warming" which never happened and now they call it "climate change" wow how convenient, now the weather can go up in temp and it's "climate change" and the weather temp can go down and it's "climate change" You would have to have taken leave of your senses to believe the hoax of "man made climate change" The Earth's climate has always changed on it's own and always will. Noam says at 10:30 that if the United States collapses then the whole world will collapses. What a self indulgent and pretentious thing to say. I've read a few of Chomsky's books and he is clearly a very bright man and I've agreed in the most part to what he says and has written. Nevertheless, for American's to think they are the be all and end all of the world is so laughable and for Noam to say this, is embarrassing to hear, to say the least. Great empires have come and gone many times throughout history and another empire has always been there to fill the void and that's just a fact. I can't believe in this hoax. No one will ever convince me of it...no one ! It hasn't become hotter and it hasn't become colder. It's just the normal cycles of the Earth. Scientists, say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And we have about150 years of recorded weather at best. And they want us to believe they know what's going on with the earths climate. They don't ! "Scientists" will be the death of us all...not the climate. Respect intended !
So, according to you, massive CO2 regulation has caused record CO2 emissions?
The fact is, there has been very little CO2 regulation, but the natural gas boom has cut CO2 emissions in the U.S.
This comment section is filled with masses who's consent is manufactured. Thanks for trying to shed some light on the world, Professor.
... both ways without knowing about the basics of climat science, like solar physics, Milankovitch cycles,
Holocen interglacial etc.
I used to live in southern Oregon we were in 1998, USDA zone hardiness 7 as of 2015 we are in Ashland and Medford Oregon, USDA zone 9. My husbands family is still in Oregon and I watch it for that reason. In 1999 we moved to Kansas
where my family Lives. We have always been USDA zone 5 since we (father, mother, sister, brother) moved there in 1972. As of 2015 we are now in (2016) changed to zone 6.
There are plants and trees that I could not grow before such as a fig tree, that I can grow now. Our once colder and snowy wet winters have become mild and drier. The insects that fight us for our vegetable crops have increased in numbers so that we are going to need to find better more efficient ways to grow organic without pesticides. We have never seen so many beetles volume and variety decimate our crops because the insect populations are not dying back due to cold frozen 2-3 week periods. So I do not know where you are getting your information from, but our climate has warmed both here in Kansas and in Oregon.
Cool! You are demonstrating that a warming climate is beneficial to life. A cooling climate would be killing off life.
Crowned Glorious...your observations do not prove or even support CO2 as a cause of anything, but I can tell you that in the NE, the last freeze date in May used to be 8 May, my Dad's birthday, and is now listed as 15 May. So my anecdote competes with yours. Then again, more growth due to more CO2 (a true plant food as opposed to a nutrient) may lead to more insects to eat the plant for the same reason that predator/prey levels cycle, and fox births rise as rabbit population increases, then fall when rabbits run into some virus and die off.
Peter Simmons,
How arrogant to assume you are the single "intelligent" voice on this or any thread!
My GPA at University was 3.89 , I made the Deans list on many occasions and phi kappa. Have been invited to join Mensa....etc.
We are all in this together on this small planet earth and we all have an impact on the lives of those around us.
*****
Not wanting to be Taxi Driver, I'll assume you were writing to me, and simply reply that you have your energy absorption facts exactly wrong, so perhaps you want to go back to CHEM 100, Book 1 before you make silly comments like that. The "greenhouse effect" is the absorption of IR energy so that it is retained in the low atmosphere (heat) instead of radiating out to space. The IR energy did not come directly from the Sun, but from ground absorption of much of the spectrum, and return of IR. Most of that IR retention is due to water vapor, not CO2.
The climate science deniers are on a rampage in these comments.
So are those who put the discussion into terms of denying science - when no science has been presented to deny regardless. The best part ? Science begins by denying certainty and playing with ' what if's ' rather than denying discussion and exchange of ideas.
ThawedTroglodyteJury ian giaever
you've completely twisted that point about discussion. Yes, science begins by playing with certain ideas, but when near to 100% of a scientific community agrees on a matter, it is not longer about "discussing". its about accepting the scientific fact and moving to act before the whole of our species is destroyed. But speaking to people like you makes me think maybe thats a good idea....
This is the video to watch. From the best and most serious channel of the British isles: channel 4. ruclips.net/video/D-m09lKtYT4/видео.html
By "are on a rampage" you mean that they express their opinions? (smile).
Noam works labour unions into every speech, no matter the topic. Says 1000 words to not really say anything.
Don't listen then if you can't hear him .
This is almost prophetic. Stunningly current in regard to the political atmosphere of the last election.
This video is all lies, just like CO2 caused catastrophic global warming.
Yeah,I always go to an ignorant,supercilious,linguistic for my physics lessons
Isn't it the other way around aren't the climat-change alarmists the ones who are frightening the ppl with horror scenarios which aren't true..
Cut off the funding for these quacks, creeps, shysters and twerps!
At 1: 30, "... 98% of scientists ...". He doesn't know where the 97% number originates. Cook counted papers which presumed or accepted AGW. That was a count of --papers--, not climate scientists.
At 3:20, why does this argument not apply equally to leaders of political movements?
Finally, Harriet1822, someone who has researched the topic! Indeed, when the papers analyzed in Australia more closely only 0.6% of the 1100+ papers examined concluded that the authors of the papers on climate change concluded it was a problem.
Aussies have bad genes? Dream on sunshine. The only bad genes are yours. Probably because your parents were brother and sister.
www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/don-beyer/don-beyer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/
"The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (100%).
"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (97%).
"Expert credibility in climate change" (97%).
"Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming" (97%).
"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" (97%)
Those are 5 scientific studies.
"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature", researched by John Cook and others has "examined 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."
They found that "66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" is a peer-reviewed scientific study with 600 citations in a high-impact journal.
This is the same guy who used to just 10 years ago preched that peak oil was true and we were almost there and oil prices would skyrocket to $200 or more. Then we found the shale oil reserves and his little theory kind of disappeared. he was actually not wrong with the information he had at the time but there were other variables that he didn't factor in. Sound familiar to what's going on now?
Climate Change deniers:
Securing that Darwin Award for us all.
And how do you know catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is happening? Dollars to donuts, you are blindly believing what you are being told without any individual analysis, and acting intellectually superior for being a malleable follower.
Can't deny something that hasn't been proven. You are the same clowns that say you believe in science but say a dude can be a chick.....HAHAHA
It isn't real and isn't that bad😂.
Btw I know the degree graph 😂