Matt Ridley on How Fossil Fuels are Greening the Planet
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 мар 2013
- Matt Ridley, author of The Red Queen, Genome, The Rational Optimist and other books, dropped by Reason's studio in Los Angeles last month to talk about a curious global trend that is just starting to receive attention. Over the past three decades, our planet has gotten greener!
Even stranger, the greening of the planet in recent decades appears to be happening because of, not despite, our reliance on fossil fuels. While environmentalists often talk about how bad stuff like CO2 causes bad things to happen like global warming, it turns out that the plants aren't complaining.
Approximately 18 minutes.
Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.
Go to reason.com/reasontv/2013/03/11... for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's RUclips Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.
![Latto - Sunday Service (feat. Megan Thee Stallion & Flo Milli) [Remix] (Official Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9gL0F1xIt2I/mqdefault.jpg)
Ive worked in forestry for 50 years and ive noticed over the years the rings on trees are getting bigger each year
Rewrite: It's I've, or I have. After working in Forestry for over 50 years, I have noticed .... But what is your point about tree rings?
@@halwag they R getin bigga as if they R gettin more carbon dioxide
@@halwag We get it: Scientific evidence is debunked by bad grammar in a RUclips comment. Move along.
Those tree rings are increasing (expanding) over the years as more and more CO2 fills the atmosphere. But is this necessarily bad, IE, does all this injure the forests?
@@halwag greater growth from greater carbon capture. Pretty simple.
Photosynthesis becomes more productive the higher carbon dioxide gets.
Less water is lost while stoma stay open for shorter periods of time to produce a given amount of organic matter.
Joe Rogan should interview this man
Yes!
Despiser Despised its too bad you’re right. I heard people call Joe Rogan a shill like a year ago, now I’m afraid they’re correct
I agree. Would be a great podcast
There seems to be more men that watch Joe than don't these days
What about putting someone who's an expert to interview him instead? He's full of it, but to know that you'd need to do some research into his claims... how many of you did that?
Greenhouse growers could have told you that, They release extra CO2 into their greenhouses to bring their plants on.
That’s why CO2 is called “a greenhouse gas”. The climate change activists borrowed the term and threw it into they’re “the Sky is falling ...chicken little story” ...lies and half-truths to SCARE and ACTIVATE naive and already brainwashed children into a new generation of followers in they’re new religion of Climate deism.
We as parents need to enlighten our kids with scientific facts. Sit them down like we used to and teach them the truth. THEY ARE BEING LIED TO!
It’s up to us to stop the lies they’re teaching our kids.
Congratulations you just explained exactly why they're called greenhouse gases.
@Mygg_Jeager
No one is denying the existence of greenhouse gases lol
@@gy5240 in this thread? You might be right. There's only three of us here LOL. But in this entire comments section? Oh God yeah, they're fucking everywhere.
In the controlled environment of a greenhouse things are quite different than in cropland and forrests. In those places soil water and nutrient content and temperatures will counteract any benefit excess CO2 will provide
Oh thank god, I'm not crazy... I was teaching science at a middle school, and made a point of putting environmentalism into my classes throughout the whole year and not just during the environmentalism segment of the book - but the way I teach, I encourage my students to ask "why" and help them find the answer... so our pursuits led us to biomass, and I taught them what it is and asked them why it might be useful to know how much biomass is in and area or in total... kind of a diversion, but why not. Well, that forced me to do my own research, and I found the records of CO2 in the atmosphere from ice cores, and I also found some info about the spread of deserts. So, over time, it looks like desertification spreads in tandem with drops in CO2 levels. And yes, the first surprise was that CO2 was falling over a long period before our machines debuted. So the heretical thought came into my head... maybe we need the CO2... maybe more CO2 would turn into plant biomass and reverse desertification. This is exactly the opposite of what I was taught. And yeah, correlation isn't causation and all that. My next question was (and still is), if it was that easy for a middle school science teacher to figure it out... wtf?
You are not crazy all life needs carbon because we are carbon based. CO2 in the air is good for plants. As I stated in other posts CO2 is at a little over 400 ppm in our atmosphere and plants thrive best at a range of 1,000 to 4,000 ppm. We are actually in a major CO2 drought which humans have been helping to pull us out of by the burning of fossil fuels. The hysteria of climate change has been caused by people with the desire to control other people. Fear is the easiest way to get people to surrender control. Carbon in the atmosphere is not the only way we can fight against desertification though. We also need to enrich our soil which has been heavily depleted of carbon by removal of grazing animals. Grazing animals play a major part in breaking down the plants growing so that they can fertilize the soil and prepare it for the next season's growth. Check out holistic farming, the next evolution to studying how to be proper stewards for our planet.
@@theroachoftheroachea9199 you're preaching to the choir, my friend. Holistic farming and permaculture are how we can heal the Earth
@@fusion9619 Wow, that's new. I didn't even know there was a choir.
@P A of course there are a lot of factors to consider. I never said it's as simple as dump more CO2 to green the earth - you said that. I'm pointing out the other side of the equation, that it appears that desertification may have been accelerated or even caused by falling CO2. That's not quite the same as saying "more CO2 = more plants." However, it might be an important part of the puzzle of how to fix the Earth. I think two things are obvious: 1, the Earth needs some help, and 2, nefarious forces are trying to use the predicament to gain more power at everyone else's expense. The two are not mutually exclusive - both are true. Considering how important CO2 is to life, we should not accept the propaganda that "carbon is bad." If you compare the downsides of planetary warming with other, often relatively ignored problems, like declining insect populations, or the 100k+ industrial chemicals being dumped into the environment (which we don't even know their effects), or plastic friggin everywhere, it is obvious that CO2 is in fact not the biggest problem. I argue that it may actually be a benefit, if we can take advantage of it. Desertification is the primary problem, not CO2. We should look at factors causing desertification, and address them.
And yeah, I'm the Illuminated One, biotch.
@@theroachoftheroachea9199 maybe the elite are lizard people who can't stand C02 and their terra-forming our planet for their survival... haha
how dare youuuuu Matt, how dare youuuuu - Greta sends her regards
I was thinking the same thing.. lol.
I hope she made it back to school, that's where she should be and she was furious being called away!
You've stolen my childhood, my dreams!! "Weeps"
Im on your side, but you cant react negative, doesnt help what we want.
you joker
OMG, I am so happy for this video. I try to tell to my people these truths, and this lecture is a big support.
I’m surprised RUclips hasn’t taken this video down yet.
It doesn't even have 250k views. If people were thinking clearly it should have millions.
It is ok to share fake news on youtube. There is so much crap on the internet including this video
RUclips hasn't taken this down because this is not fake news. However, people are drawing the wrong conclusion from this. Global warming is still a problem. A little bit of current greening is negligible in the big picture
This is for the anthropogenic climate change deniers:
It's interesting that there is a global greening effect occuring around the world. However, this effect does not in any way justify the status-quo (i.e. increasing emissions for endless economic growth). Secondly, global greening does very little to mitigate the threats of climate change such as sea level rise, more intense storms and extinction of pollinators...etc. There is no point of having greener plants today, if the larger ecosystem will greatly suffer in the future... Thirdly, global CO2 increase has only shown marginal increase in greening. There are other critical factors that influence plant growth, such as nutrient,mineral and water availability which are independent of CO2 atmospheric concentrations
Give them a little more time. Perhaps when it gets close to a million views YT will take notice
Hey RUclips. Your algorithm is recommending videos to me that fall outside the climate-change doom narrative. You might want to get an engineer to look into that ;)
This, but unironically
The engineer's reply: this video is climate-change doom narrative.
When everything relies on fossil fuels and its quantity is limited, no supply is the future.
Then what? Back to the past? 😉🙂
daniel grosmaire assuming they’re won’t be enough fossil fuels and innovation in time to get us to another form of energy like thorium or mass solar panels/wind farms xD
@@rhett3185 🤔 peak oil was 2008, end of it ~2050 (according to IPCC). Even if a break-through happens now with Thorium or fusion, still need to build, prototype and mass produce power plants which is unprecedented in history (who knows, a miracle?).
Solar panels pollutes more than plastics and other electronics...And their efficiency, just like wind farms is extremely low even once fossil fuel manufacture's deducted.
Not to mention it's on average 5% max of all energy production in most developped countries and it is intermittent. Heavily relies on batteries then, mostly made out of Lithium, which resource ends in ~2030.
As we need to replace current fossil fuel machines by an unknown alternative within 10 to 20 years (meanwhile, usually people going to wars to accumulate resources for themselves), we can dream the new religion "Science" will save us from going back to a level of consumption more "pre industrial era" type...🙂🤞
😉😱
* Your algorithm. With the apostrophe in there you're saying to RUclips "You are algorithm".
Yet, even when I was 15 I knew from very basic chemistry and biology that animals 'excrete' CO2 and consume O2, whilst plants consume CO2 and 'excrete' O2. More CO2 means more plant 'food,' which means more plants.
Problem, environmentalists?
Ben Aaron but only in proper proportion
Plants “need” water but simply giving them more than they could use will not green the planet
Same with fertilizer
Hmm i was thinking that 300 million years ago during the carboniferous period. The oxygen levels shot up and so did the size of insects. So perhaps its not too far out to believe the inverse is possible
Oh yeah, sure, you are smarter than everyone else, even at 15. Dude stfu will you? You might think you are smart but you just sound so stupid with that comment. Such a simple minded view and comment that shows you actually don't understand shit about it. It is NOT a case of "more plant food means more trees". The problem was deforestation to create more land for farming, for industrial etc. 11:38 he says "there's economic growth, so people don't have to destroy forests, they can have jobs in cities instead." Did you think the trees and forests were just dying or something? lol dumbass. It's hilarious when people say things that makes them think they sound smart but really it shows they are dumb as fuck and know nothing
Hot take: plants also excrete Co2 and consume O2, they literally also breathe like us.
The problem with Co2 accumulation has nothing to do with plant metabolism, but due to global warming.
@@FaithfulOfBrigantia People in denial will clutch at anything to try to justify their denial and this is no different. They will latch on to stuff like this video to continue their denial as long as possible.
"Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data - first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements."--Klaus-Eckart Puls
Yes, Listen to everyone., read all you can, and believe nothing that you can not verify for yourself _ Bill Cooper
It's not all false, it's just a lot more complicated than what is being proposed. The whole biofuel stuff is nonsense. Using renewable energies (water etc.) Combined with syntesised fossil fuels is however very good.
Lol that fool has been proven as wrong as tony Heler. They're all nutso.
The summaries and stupid media personalities are what push the agenda, the full IPCC data actually correlates with what is being discussed here (especially sets such as this:www.ipcc-data.org/observ/ddc_co2.html, the last graph is the most revealing) and I really recommend it because it is quite comprehensive.
Alos - I don't think you are looking at the graph right. The green line is normal pattern observed pre human industrialization and where the co2 would be at if industrialization never happened. Then you have the red verticle line at year 0 going to the Mauna Loa measurement. So basically the red vertical line is due to us using fossil fuels over the last 150 years. As much as we'd like to deny it, and despite some current greening, climate change is a real problem. It won't keep greening forever, and the oxygen gained/ co2 lost from the greening is negligible compared to the amount of co2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. Once we pump too much, experiment after experiment indicates you the potential of a runaway warming and then venus.
From visual experience in my area, it is confirmed on "completely uncultivated" slopes of our hills and mountains of northern Italy, (that is over my lifetime, and I am now 83 years old), and these have become more dense with healthy vegetation. Thus had come to a similar deduction. Recently, the government published that the green area of the country has also increased by around 15%.
I've noticed it too in my area, vegetation is much more dense than it was 30 years ago
@@SoulDelSol Could it be because we changed eye glasses?! or maybe because we DO LOOK at was/is around us ?
15 years ago we could see grass from far between trees or bushes, while now one would battle to walk through from how dense it has become.
Thank you also for your view of nature.
An increase of 15% sounds like a lot but in actual numbers it represents a very small percentage increase in actual air volume.
Example. Air right now is about 4 parts of carbon dioxide and 9,956 parts other gasses. An increase of 15% CO2 would bring it up to around 5 parts carbon dioxide and 9,955 parts other gasses.
Don’t forget that CO2 is a heavy gas. It lays in lower lying areas in more concentrated form. So ... far up the mountain there is less which also accounts for tree lines on the mountains. The higher you go the smaller the trees and shrubs until there are none. There also is a depletion in the amount of Oxygen. It is mostly Nitrogen and lighter trace gasses like neon, Helium and methane. Trees and shrubs need Carbon Dioxide to grow. Humans need oxygen to live. Thus...there are no trees on the tops of mountains. Just barren rock all year round. It’s also why men need oxygen to climb high mountains.
Plants feed from carbon dioxide , higher CO2 levels increase plant growth , if CO2 levels plummet expect famine
@@OldDocSilver I was referring to the foothills starting around 250 to 1400 meters a.s.l.. When I was younger, in now Tanzania, I was responsible for the emergency road construction on Mt. Kilimanjaro, to reach the saddle between Kibo and Mawenzi, i.e. @4400 meters, and all the machines had to work downhill, as uphill they really struggled due to lack of oxygen. The vegetation was very sparse at this altitude.
Thank you for the virtual dialog, as you are obviously an interesting person.
If interested, use FB with "John" instead of my Italian name.
I've said this for ages. The most biodiverse and productive ecologic time in this planets history was the Cambrian explosion when temps where higher and CO2 was through the roof
It makes sense because as far as I know, most organisms are based on carbon, especially flora. In a sense we have even helped earth's vegetation by digging up carbon, which can now be embodied in vegetation and thus support more animal life. And us in turn. I'm quite amazed by this talk and at the same time it's logical that the whole optimistic perspective about earth is left out and unheard of when we only ever think fatalistically about earth.
@@MrSaemichlaus yeah. As with everything on this planet it's a circle. Be it water evaporating and falling as rain on land or anything else. The problem is we need to figure out how to effectively manage and maintain the cycle.
Based on current understanding we believe it takes a long time for the planet to make crude oil, (although there's suggestions of old wells refilling but that does seem negligible). But it makes sense. Carbon gets locked up in the ground via sedimentation. Pressure via gravity provides the energy needed to compact into hyrdocarbons only to be ejected out via volcanos or us digging them up. Particularly with us we then convert them back into base elements when using the energy stored only for plants to photosynthesis the base elements back into hyrdocarbons and carbohydrates.
Basic physics does prove it's not sustainable and we'd need to use the sun's energy to synthesise oil to burn, but that does seem like a reasonable suggestion.
Either way we need to consider the science and evidence not the politics of it all.
So what do you have to say about the extinction of several species on the planet today?
No humans back then Adam, and the cause of the Cambrian explosion is not clear. Finally a lot of ‘data’ on CO2 levels and global temperatures millions of years ago, comes from studying climate and climate change. So these scientist factor that into their current predictions and the possible consequences of the unprecedented speed of climate change.
@@muskaankathuria2107 That the rate is quite low.
I am a small grain farmer. Tremendous yields are possible for many reasons. But I cannot believe the incredible results we have been achieving. C02 is a large factor.
My farming relatives used to pray for the corn to be “knee-high by the Fourth of July.” Now it’s shoulder- high, or more, by the 4th of July.
Not only is it making the earth greener, in turn that means it`s making it CLEANER!!
They found coastal marine life growing on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Pollution is actually improving the environment.
Outstanding!! This speech needs to be shared everywhere!!
Lol.
It’s good to hear from the other point of view. But this guy is not a climate scientist. And he’s talking bullshit. And this video is 8 years old.
@@chain8847 Truth has no time limit.
Industrial hemp when the seed is pressed for oil gives 30% yield and you get human consumable grade flour so no ether or problems exist. You also get fiber for cloths, ropes, high quality paper and replacement for fiberglass in body panels. The cellulose from the center of the stalk is used in building materials of high IR value and plastics of all kinds.
And if you want to get high off it you need to smoke a telephone poles worth in under an hour.
Barskor1 do you have a source for this data?
@@artistman75 Man source is everywhere just search it...
You could collect the hemp and extrac5 the very little thc thats in it . And get high as fuck
Reggie Watts haha, hemp is pretty cool. But capitalists don’t work that way man. Protectionism of that kind is impossible to achieve. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I do disagree with hemp regulation and I say best of luck to hemp enthusiasts but it’s not a cure-all.
@@manofcultura Capitalism is private control of trade. The government banning hemp is public control of trade, the opposite of capitalism.
makes sense. If you grow MJ, often times people will hook up a C02 tank to their rig, to feed the plants.
and when the non-industrialized world advances to the stage the US was in around 1950, we'll probably have to use even less land than we do now.
Dad took over the family farm when he was 12 or 13. A county agent advised him that nitrogen fertilizer was commercially viable, and suggested he put it out at the rate of 100 lbs/acre of corn. Being an experiment, Dad only sowed 1 acre of corn under this system, and the other 19 acres was done as they had been doing it forever.
Average yield without the nitrogen fertilizer was about 15 bushels/acre. His fertilized acre produced about 100 bushels. And by today's standards, even 100/acre is paltry. Normal across the farm belt in the US these days is about 200 bushels/acre.
Anyway, under the new system, and assuming he wanted to maintain status quo ante, he'd only need to plant 3 acres of corn, not 20 - an 85% reduction in land use. They could grow other cash crops and so forth on that spare 17 acres, or not use it.
Al Gore has painstakingly demonstrated (using Mann's hockey-stick graph) that more CO2 makes plants (trees) grow better.That graph had as much to say about warming as the cobblestones in the street outside my house. True, warmth is one of the factors that enable trees to grow better (so a warmer world is a greener one, whether that warmth is the result of increased CO2 or not; so Al Gore has made it clear that more CO2 is better.
I've been saying this for years. Good to see more details coming out.
is co2 going up or down?
@@AyeTVsco Up, of course. The increasing emissions from industrial complexes, factories, motor vehicles, and so on, are releasing CO2 immensely.
@@amihere383 right, despite all the vegetation growth these deniers are talking about. They can't see their point is redundant
@@AyeTVsco I've always kind of wondered about that. "Oh my god we're gonna destroy the planet with co2 emissions! Everything is gonna die!" They say. Then there's me, in my high school biology class, pondering how that makes sense when literally 99.9% of all plants worldwide need co2 to survive. I've always been skeptical. That's not to say there aren't environmental issues we need to tackle, but co2 emissions aren't really one of them.
@@amihere383 literally *nobody* is saying co2 doesn't help plants grow. The point is the level of co2 in the atmosphere is leading to a run away green house effect. And yes everything dies if we don't stop it now
Has the research mentioned around 4:30 been released? If so anyone have the link?
Anyone who grows cannabis for profit or greenhouse farmers know that 1000 ppm of CO2 is ideal. In fact plants as they are now evolved during a period that had 2100 ppm of CO2 in the air. Current atmospheric CO2 is 407 ppm, what’s interesting is during the last ice age CO2 went as low as 150 ppm.
Now I won’t share links, this stuff is so easy to find. If you truly want truth YOU will look for it. I don’t teach my students by doing their work for them. All this is common sense and common knowledge. You’re just being bombarded by propaganda, which makes seeking difficult, but it is possible.
Bodhi Sattva
Firstly... Most climate scientists DO not agree in the current anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. Most of them, in fact 77%, have NO POSITION on the topic and are in fact nuetral. Of the 23% remaining 88% agree with current climate change propoganda. It is wrong to claim most scientists agree! Because most don’t even comment on it, in their various studies of climate.
Second, fossil fuels are safest and most efficient form of energy currently. There is technology that can bring down emissions from coal by 97% by using advance scrubbers that collect the soot and can solidify the excess CO2 by combining it with iron sulfide can be used in manufacture pure hydrogen molecules and various organic thiol compounds that can be solidified and disposed of to prevent atmospheric release.
So really there’s no excuse for you or OP to understand that this climate change rhetoric is just fear mongering by powerful interests to keep industrialized society stagnant and ensure their hold on power.
@Bodhi Sattva
Co2 credits+carbon tax=money and control over businesses and consumers
Talking points=politicians
emergency= news stories
And I think everyone is looking for evil to fight
The biggest red flag is that those that speak out, tend to wait until they are no longer in employment.
The libertarian and republican party should have their own climate boards tho
@@manofcultura shen was there 2100 ppm.. I"ve seen research that shows less that 300ppm for 800,00 years. So was 2100ppm before that?
Cary Littleford the 2100ppm is from the Cambrian explosion. The atmosphere has been low on CO2 the past million years or so but also for that million years 95% was in the grip of an ice age. We only came out of the last one recently.... 12500BC.
So just to repeat my stance. I don’t believe in global warming caused by humans, although I concede we do have some effect.
If we do cause significant warming, then I firmly believe that the earth needs to be warmer to ensure that no ice age comes.
Because I’d rather live in a hot earth than a frozen one.
NASA reports a study that says:: From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. [2016] An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States. And this study only looked at the land surface, not the oceans that cover 70% of the planet.
NASA reports, "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds" www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Well why do you think you can buy carbon dioxide generators for greenhouses?? The whole carbon dioxide debate is shameful. Absolutely shameful
It just shows you the state of ‘science’ today, where only one side of the argument can be voiced.
Sounds great and all, but I'm not seeing any sources.
What does it say below the graph at 6:38? If you're not seeing any sources, try opening your fucking eyes
This video deserves millions of more views than it has!
Agriculture could be even productive through permaculture enriching the soil.
Don't scare the corporations...they don't like that
That's something I discovered myself when keeping reptiles in bio active enclosures. The more life in the soil the cleaner the environment and plants are far healthier for it. I figured if I could do it in an apartment our scientists and industrialists could pull it off on a grand scale.
Yes! Search for Geoff Lawton on youtube - he teaches permaculture
Viktor M you make the point of permaculture in your own comment - the potato field requires manual feeding and maintainence - the permaculturists notice the rainforest achieves that yield WITHOUT manual feeding and maintainence. Secondly i would comment that there can be no true single value for the productivity per area of rainforest but i hear that you might be able to compare very roughly.
@Monarchy is the best! hmm, well Idk if this already exists, but there could be a big market for nitrogen fixing bacteria. Sell it like some companies sell yeast, and permaculturists can use it to accelerate the transition of depleted soils into healthy and productive biospheres... someone look into this and start this business, I don't think I can do it right now
Give those facts and thoughts a round of applause. Tell it like it is. All of us!
Excellent talk. Slowly but surely the insights of wise men like Ridley will displace the unhinged projections and vivid imaginings of those intent on scaring us witless about our impact on climate.
The entire continent of Australia would like to know your location.
This year the state of Montana lost a court case because the enlightenment this talk promised has yet to happen
@@friendlyone2706 And the enlightenment is that Hawaii burning to the ground was a good thing? 😏
@@Mygg_Jeager The inability of people to warn others in a timely fashion is suspicious, as our some of the eyewitness reports about how the fire was spread.
ReasonTV, where do I go to see his citations?
Holy cow. my wife and I really liked, and were encouraged by this video. What was shocking was that, when I went to click on 'like' afterwards the number was only 75 (as of early August 2023). You would think such valuable and encouraging info would be shouted from the rooftops, and there would be hundreds of thousands of views. But no. Probably because he did NOT spew out unfounded scary alarmism. He spoke about data, about facts, about rational cause and effect, and he challenged conventional thinking. We call that science. I wish more people would respect and listen to real science on issues of real importance. Thank you sir for this talk, and for your work.
@RT-nm2pb Today, Aug 21, 2023, the number of likes is 12k. Even then, the number should have been higher.
Shipping and burning wood for green energy. That got an audible chuckle out of me
Three times each week ships are loaded with wood chips in Portsmouth, Va. Those chips were purposefully harvested near Franklin, VA. They are not waste chips. The chips are headed to the UK.
Bloody amazing!!! Probably the most important video I've seen in a long while!
Here's another goodie that just poped up. 50 to 1 Project - David Evans Interview
ruclips.net/video/xI3doCKhI7Q/видео.html
Brilliant lecture! It is always a pleasure to listen to someone who presents unexpected ideas with the kind of reason and intelligence as Ridley.
I might add another ... Baruch Spinoza
Try Tony Heller on RUclips.
@@glidercoach Thank you. What a breath of fresh air. I’m sick of smelling the sewers of climate change activists spewing out all that crap.
@@OldDocSilver
We have an uphill battle fighting against a corrupt system. RUclips bans me from posting any website to back any arguments I make.
I posted this earlier today feel free to share.
I'm going to use simple math to bust the "sea level rise.is accelerating", myth.
NASA claims that sea level rise has been accelerating since 1990 and today has reached 0.9mm/ year. That's pretty substantial.
If a tide gauge has been rising consistently at say, 2.77mm/ year for 160 years (tide gauge at "The Battery^ in New York), then from 1990, it should indicate a substantial curve upwards on NOAA's tide gauge graphs. There is no curve.
In fact, all NOAA's tide gauges worldwide should be affected since the oceans are interconnected.
Simple math tells me that if a tide gauge that has historically been *falling* at -0.79mm/ year for 90 years (tide gauge in Crescent City California), starting in 1990, it would indicate a slowing of sea level drop and at some point reverse and begin rising. That's not what NOAA's tide gauge graphs are indicating.
NASA's claim of sea level rise is accelerating does not pass the scientific evidence.
Well this didn't age well.
Why isn’t this on main stream media.it’s an eye opener for sure.
Don't think of it as 'fossil fuel consumption', think of it as a 'forest growth stimulant release'
You mean if I put more CO2 in the atmosphere which plants eat we get more plants? Well I'll be damned.
Context Should Matter Climate activists aren’t worried that the the plants won’t survive our excess release of greenhouse emissions. They’re worried that WE won’t survive it. And while more trees is certainly a nice benefit of releasing CO2, it won’t be enough to prevent the problems that an increase in temperature will lead to. Look into the IPCC report, or find a video summary, and you’ll get a better idea of what I mean.
Let'sBreakItDow let’s say global warming is a thing, an you think of any positive consequences of it?
Like with a warmer climate we need less energy to heat our homes in winter? That kind of thing.
@@jamessmyth3952 That only works for a certain part of the world, sure you won't need to heat your home in winter, but all your crops will dry out in the summer it's not so simple as to just ignore all the issues caused by it
Allopali I’m not agreeing that our planet is warming and drying up. (In fact it’s genuinely impossible for water to leave our planet, only move somewhere else) however, please keep in mind that it is the struggle and the suffering and mankind’s ability to evolve and adapt that has revealed a great potential.
If the planet was becoming inhospitable, I implore you to watch mankind overcome yet another hurdle of life and be better off for it.
Stop trying to protect and save mankind (or the climate for that matter). It’s when we are free that we grow and become greater than we are.
I adamantly believe their is no climate change emergency, however I am not stubborn enough to not acknowledge all the fascinating ways mankind has attempted to solve the problem which doesn’t exist. Alternative energies? Cool! But I believe in the right tool for the job, for example I would prefer a 2-stroke gas engine to power my chainsaw over a dry cell battery any day!
Trigger Bear so you think it’s a good thing that millions of people will be forced to move from their homes (the majority of which are in poverty stricken areas) in the coming decades?
Ocean acidification and heavy metals from air pollution is still a problem.
The oceans are basic, not at all acidic.
but those are the kinds of problems society can address, independent of any sort of climate change alarmism.
@@Gianneaux - Not only are they basic, they’re also buffered meaning the pH doesn’t change much at all.
Love this. I like his ability to put two and two together and explaining the give/take or cause/effect. I was shocked by the .6% ethanol replacement of petroleum and using 40% of the maize stock. Ethanol is damaging to fuel systems and is why mixed gasoline is only shelf stable for about 6 months but I am a proponent of biofuels. I like the idea of growing my own diesel from peanuts or some other seed crop. So yeah, plants eat co2 and give us o2........ Cheap energy directly reduces poverty. Until fusion nuclear and molten salt nuclear is the main-stay, petroleum is king. Venus is only hot because of greenhouse gases, take away the co2 and it's an iceball.
Alot of the "credit" goes to Western Civilization!
🤔
They will never say "look we're doing great" because there is no money in that.
what
Theres no power in that
Theres a load more money in the fossil fuel industry.
Bradley Woods what
Why would this be devastating to greta and Co? It's good news. But you still have to take into account that a runaway greenhouse effect could have longterm bad consequences.. If all insects die off we still have a huge problem.
He sounds like the CEO of Oil, never mentions anything negative about Fossil fuels in this talk, but still found this very worth while viewing.
Anytime someone says that fossil fuels aren't literally the devil toasting the planet on his hayfork, they're suddenly "the CEO of oil"? What pray tell is evil about fossil fuels if they're literally saving the planet by increasing forests?
Why you bother to comment shit
The major difference I see between alarmists and sceptics-
The sceptics have wit and candour.
Oh- and the sceptics actually make arguments.
Almost every scientist who talks about NDVI refers to the term 'greenness' which most lay people interpret as vegetation coverage. Is the phenomenon of 'increase in greenness', as measured by the satellite sensors, an indication that vegetation coverage has increased or is it that existing vegetation has a greater chlorophyll content? I feel the onus should be on scientists to clearly define what 'greenness' means to the lay person. For example when Dr. Ridley refers to the Amazon Basin getting greener, is the existing vegetation getting greener while rain forest clearing still continues. Loss of vegetation/habitat cover may be just as important in the overall equation.
You are right. Amazon rainforest continues apace.
Theres also the distinction between a 'forest' and a plantation, which rarely seems to get a mention...
My understanding from what he said is that the satellite measures green land area vs non green area, not so much colour intensity. So more green means more plant coverage, as the forests and jungles grow while the deserts shrink.
@@johnfrench4137 Thanks John. Your comment is exactly my point. NDVI is a digital measure of the chlorophyll content of the plant leaf. So if the pixel value moves from its average of say '45' to '60' - this does not necessarily equate to an increase in spatial coverage. To avoid the confusion arising between an increase in spatial coverage of green vegetation and/or the increase in brightness of the digital value of existing vegetation the video poster should provide proof of this phenomena. For example 'the Sahel' has expanded by 'x' amount of km2 - notice he avoids any quantitative peer reviewed reference.
Is it possible that the earth is both getting greener AND warmer? So water levels will still rise?
Wild Outstanding World . It’s not just possible, both are happening simultaneously right now.
Eventually it will even itself out, I believe
@@yoursoupson3581 Even when there was no ice on the planet there was the mega continent Pangaea. There are a few scientific theories out there that say the weight of the extra water will compress the crust. So maybe a slight rise, but not the waterworld the fear mongers suggest.
i've been saying this for years that if co2 is the problem, plant more plants! its literally basic science
For over twenty years I've raged against over population and deforestation my latest source of anger is marine plastic pollution.
Don't get me wrong I'm Scottish and I thrive on rage.
God that makes me angry too
Plastic pollution wouldnt of been a thing had they not controlled hemp in the early 1900s, entirely biodegradable plastics would have been available to all, cheap
@@airriflemaniac Hemp? 😏 Jute is safer option less chance mistaking it for tobacco and smoking it.
Over population is a scam.
Deforestation should be controlled.
Plastic pollution is a problem everywhere, not just the ocean.
Well that's a red pill for the green dill.
Pressurized co2 has been used in the planted aquarium trade for some time you couldn't grow half the species in the trade without it.
The two largest freshwater lakes on the planet are in the Sahara Desert currently bone-dry but the Milankovitch cycles make it come and go as it has done for way longer than we've been around to notice or you would have known about it already. Look around Chad it can be spotted from orbit to Elevation changes rather than water on the surface but it's under there still I don't think it ever dries up completely it just comes and goes at regular intervals and when it's not there it's retreated below the surface ready to return again with the Rains when they come back and the favorable conditions to facilitate that return
This guy is great his is a gift that keeps on giving .
Why are the plants breathing pollution ? Those poor oppressed plants ! My heart bleeds for you GIA !
Plants don't breathe Co2, they eat breathe O2 just like us.
They "eat" Co2.
@@FaithfulOfBrigantia Huh? Wow, all this time I thought plants took in Co2 and put out O2. Thanks for the correction.
@@Pulmyfgr
They also do.
Plants breath in O2 and out Co2.
But they also absorb Co2 for photosynthesis and excrete O2 as a result.
Overall, they absorb more CO2 for photosynthesis than they exhale CO2, and they excrete more O2 than they breath in. So the overall result is a reduction in CO2 and increase in O2
"Because we use fossil fuel the earth is getting greener" this must be the quoute pf the decade
the idea of cutting down trees to replace fossil fuel is baffling.
@@munchkinsiegfried5065 it doesn't make any sense but as most eco friendly things, it's not about actually improving the use of resurces, it's about feeling good about themselvs
@@dumyjobby it's disappointing that these guys would rather dig further into denial and anybody trying to get them back up to tell them how this stuff is harming he planet, they call them a fear mongering alarmist.
@@leastepicanon844 plastic pollution is a big problem moslty caused by poor countries that don't have garbage disposal but a lot of the fear monghering was ingenuine. climate is changing, it always had and will continusly evolve. co2 is not as big of a problem on fact i don't think it is at all. now if the planet is warming we could end up melting huge gas deposits and those are very dangerpus because are not processed back by plants. the zero emission staff is often more polluting than the conventional staff, just look at electric cars, the so called zero emissions, the renuable fantasy that has proven costly and havent achived much in decades of huge spending. A lot of the rethoric of global warming has been proven wrong, that why you don't hear anymore about global worming, now the new term is climate change wich is like saiyng that the water is wet
@@dumyjobby can you please explain what those rhetorics that are proven wrong for global warming?
Some arguments are really good, but here are some points he got wrong or failed to mention:
-Bio-fuels are, in general, roughly carbon neutral. The carbon it produces when it's burned is, generally speaking, the same carbon it absorbed from the atmosphere as a plant in the first place.
-While it is true that higher levels of carbon dioxide increase plant growth, and thus help keep the system stable, it also inhibits performance of all oxygen breathing creatures (us included).
-While it is true that richer countries trend to become more environmentally minded in what nature preserves are considered. They also still emit a lot more CO2 per capita, an issue in itself.
PS: sources in the description would be very welcome.
This is SIX years old?! Why have I not seen this?? ...Yeah, silly question...
A scientist could probably tell you what was said here in more technical terms. What was actually said was that plants are growing more abundant, following the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. Which makes sense because plants "breathe" carbon dioxide for photosynthesis like we breathe oxygen.
The Mesozoic Era saw an increase in green house gases and global temperature due to volcanic activity and plants grew to tremendous sizes then.
This video was certainly interesting
He didn't mention that because of drug laws,it is more profitable to produce things like heroin instead of wheat or corn. If you take the enormous profits out of drugs by legalizing them, then most people would choose to grow food instead.
interesting factoid... And a good point indeed. Also though, 90+ percent of the cost of food is marketing, packaging and transportation. AND, ethanol from corn is free because cows aren't designed to eat starch, some 98 percent or so of corn is eaten by cows. So grain turned to ethanol has the starch taken out and what's left is called distiller's grain which is used to feed cows.
No one ever talks about the fact that "cold weather deaths" kills SEVEN TIMES more people than warm weather deaths including hurricanes etc. Isn't the whole point to reduce human death?? Considering this fact and the greening of the planet then "global warming" or climate change is a good thing overall.
So I guess conservation and the reduction of pollution are far more important than emissions reduction.
ziah Reid Nope, the guy at no point stated that more plants would decrease temperature rising, more plants doesnt mean less CO2, it might just be a positive sideaffect of a much worse effect
@@adrianhutabarat1736 I'm talking about keeping the planet hospitable to life, not trying to prevent climate change. Preventing climate change is only important if climate change has a negative impact on life.
Yep
because Carbon Dioxide... That's what plants need..... (Idiocracy reference)
The sad part is, you think you've made a point.
@@raderator Sea Bee is most likely a leftist, who seem to be increasingly religious in their beliefs. They actually abhor real science these days.
Crave Sea Bee, Crave. How dare anyone point out CO2 can cause mass greening to the GREEN movement.
Are ridiculing this video using a biological fact that actually contradicts your point? I need to sit down.
CARBON DIOXIDE IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE
Would be nice if he suplied some sources for his information.
Go back to school then, on the OTHER side of the ocean !
I'm from the uk mate as is he.
Great reality check, well done.
Seven years on and this plays like a monologue from a tragic-comedy. Fast forward a few years and I'm sure Mr Ridley's views will be even more darkly hilarious.
Nope
@@Mobius118 yep.
The increase in vegetation does not disprove the problems causes my climate change i.e. Extreme weather events such as droughts and hurricanes
Yeah the weather not trying to kill me has more priority to me then some extra green.
How about a presentation on nuclear energy, the greenest one we have?
What for, carbon is greener than nuclear
massive wind farms also disrupt natural weather patterns by changing winds and rainfall. and the turbines are replaced about every 20yrs, and the old ones are buried in massive landfills because they are made of unrecyclable composite materials.
massive wind and solar farms also destroy fertile lands unless it's sited in the desert.
C02 is plant food, I learned this in grade school.
OMG. Everyone knows that there was a period of time in the Earth's past where the atmosphere contained a lot more CO2 and plants thrived. This is no supposed to be something amazing? Just wow....
You don't want that world, the average temperature was about 10-15 degrees hotter back then, meaning cat 5 hurricanes would be the norm probably year round, sea levels would be about 100 metres higher, most of the world would have a humid tropical climate while the equatorial region would basically be uninhabitable with extreme temperatures and humidity.
O2 levels would increase over time as well, leading to huge arthropods....
@@rey_nemaattori Yes , that is a very likely scenario .
This video should be on the mainstream curriculum for all educational institutes in the whole of Europe if not the world! The most productive period in the planet's history had CO2 levels of 7000ppm., we currently have slightly more than 400ppm., and during that time there was an explosion of plant and animal life forms!
Biologist here. The problem isn't the change, it's the rate of change which always causes mass extinctions. The diversity of life we enjoy won't come back for a long, long time. But yes, life will bounce back eventually, possibly being more diverse than our era, especially after we join the extinct species list.
Implying that it would be good for humans to join the extinct species list - in order to worship a pagan Earth deity is disqualifying.
Thank you for the interesting perspective.
The real problem is water contamination, synthetic fertilizer, cleaning products and waste products are hard to remove from drinking water by the average person.
Thanks for not having listed any of the sources for your claims....
I’d be curious to know if plants will evolve to the new level of co2 and become more efficient over time.
They had no trouble adapting to 300PPM from earth's normal 6000PPM they just produce 1/20th as much fruit!
Yes... they do and will. They starve and die at 150ppm. Most all need warmth to grow. Exactly why spring and summer are called the growing season. Commercial green houses pump in EXTRA CO2 to produce higher yields. In fact, because of technology and higher CO2 levels, f9od crops are at their highest yield levels ever recorded. The war against fossil fuel isn't about the environment. It's about power, govt and corruption!
@@Sabotage_Labs in the green house the flowers and vegetables we had started to wilt a 200PPM
We farmers and gardeners know this. Anyone with a greenhouse knows this. Listen to THE expert on CO2, the physicist, William Happer.
I've already begun to increase my co2 emissions where possible and as much as possible, I recommend we all start doing that to counter the catastrophic co2 reductions imposed by the government's.
😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Holy shit
Fantastic presentation!! Must watch! Respectful to environmentalists but not good news for the global warming crowd. He didn't even mention windmills' threat to birds and taking up huge sections of land. He could have. Personally, up here in ND, I'd much rather see fields of native prairie grasses than fields of windmills. Enrich and stir up the soil again, 'green it up' around here. Ya know? Windmills are the ugliest thing I've ever seen on the prairie.
native prarie land grasses, no windmills but intersperesd with noddong oil derrick, open cast mines and fracking - ya - much better, more 'natural' than windmills
Do you know how much energy and resources a large windmill takes to put up and then, at the end of its life, decommission? So much, that without major government subsidies, nearly all of them are economically unviable.
Man, the planet, and wildlife is doing perfectly well, and BETTER than it was 50 years ago! SO why change what we are doing?
zzebowa No! Animals eg koalas are going extinct and we don't want to smell your tailpipe!!
@@blank.9301
Really? Looks like you have been fed some BS news and are buying it.
7news.com.au/news/environment/koala-population-growing-so-rapidly-some-areas-are-introducing-contraception-c-124779
koalainfo.com/koalas-population-increased-at-the-end-of-20th-century
@@blank.9301 koalas are dying mostly from chlamydia
Can’t believe this came out 10 years ago! Aged like wine! :-)
I was a garden weed-puller for decades. Over time, I’ve seen weeds thicker snd faster growing than 50 years ago.
This lecture should be made compulsory viewing in every school in the world. The stupidity of the current political class is incredible.
You've got rhat right!
ok, but what about raising sea levels and the pollution of water and air?
Water and air pollution are being caused mainly by _industrializing_ countries that are going through growing and learning pains similar to those of Europe & North America in the 18th-20th centuries. They _are_ moving through them a lot faster because the technology progress curvehas already been laid out, and there's a lot less learn-as-you-go. China is one of the chief contributors owing simply to the scale and the population to serve; China puts more radioactivity into the air burning shale coal than the entire nuclear industry of North America.
Water pollution, whether toxic and radioactive waste dumping off the coast of Ethiopia, or the Great Garbage Heaps in the northern and southern Pacific, are ultimately everybody's problem, regardless of whose fault it is. My solution is water desalination and filtration; and yes, powered by nuclear power plants (that's a different soapbox).
Industrialization may be causing many environmental problems - but we know from looking at the economic history of Europe and North America, that industrialization has an endpoint. Fossil fuels are not the modern plague they're being made out to be - that's just power centers pursuing agendas and generating fear and hysteria as fuel. What will destroy us is not progress- the West came through two centuries of hubris and greed with more conscientiousness and responsibility than any other metaculture. The real enemies are fear and ignorance.
It's criminal that in 8 years this only has 260k views. If it doesn't spread fear it's not good enough for the algorithm I suppose.
Here is someone from Germany. Along our motorways, the green stuff is growing like crazy.
How about the ocean acidification resulting from more carbonic acid with the dissolving co2? How is that a good thing?
Shhh .... ignore the actual science...
@@ezrinwaggoner6082 Indeed. Even if we conclude that Earth is getting greener, not only has ocean acidification endangered kelp forests and killed numerous marine species; the overall rising of the temperatures across the planet has led to increased ocean levels because of the melting of the Arctics. A greener Earth won't solve the issue of waters rising, which will be fuckin' disastrous in the future because where are all the major cities located? Near water. So there's multiple pieces of the puzzle here, but even if CO2 causes one right, it doesn't justify the numerous wrongs it causes. I mean ... we don't breathe fuckin' CO2 - that's a gigantic health hazard, as well as acid rain. When you're indoors you can get headaches because of the oxygen displacement. Now imagine a world full of CO2 - it'd basically be like always being indoors, with you unable to get any fresh air and always having headaches. Real fun stuff.
@Sini
Ok, but there is not going to be enough carbon dioxide to the point that we cant get enough oxygen unless oxygen is reduced. We’re not going to have eternal headaches.
What if I told you that Co2 levels are actually at very low point in earths history. What if I told you that Co2 levels were 17 times higher in the Cambrian period than current levels and sea life was absolutely flourishing. What if I told you that Co2 levels would of continued to drop to a dangerous level (150 ppm) if it wasn't for anthropogenic Co2. You're also glossing over the real issue with our oceans, the amount of plastics and chemicals that are being dumped into them by developing countries. At current rates plastic mass with outweigh life mass in our oceans by 2060.
@@candlestyx8517 I agree with you about the plastic. Where do those plastics come from? They are petroleum products made from fossil fuels. The more we start shifting to alternatives, the less plastic will be building up.
What if I told you the type of life that flourished during the Cambrian period (hundreds of millions of years ago) is not the same type of life existing today. There were no Coral reefs, no mammals, completely different systems of micro fauna, etc etc.
What if I told you Australia is on fire? So much on fire that 3 times the first cover as was destroyed in California and the Amazon combined last year has already burned and it's creating local weather systems like for tornados. This is not done far off fantasy. This is happening today
Thank 😊 you for that, I actually learned something that is true, acute and unbiased.
and utterly incomplete, trust me friend , no land is being "spared".
I have been saying much of this for years. Don't know the percentage but many people alive today would have never been born without the existence of fuel hydrocarbons.
The modern world as we know it today would not exist without fossil fuels.
Listening to this 10 years later …………… how sad.
If we take for example the time of the dinosaurs, co2 levels were double of what it is now. Given the size of those animals, it is only fair to recognize that the plants must have been enormous as well, and in abundance. The correlation is obvious!
Correlation does not equal causation.
At the time of the dinosaurs the soil was not being destroyed by human pollution and monocultures. The microbes in the soil were allowed to thrive allowing plants to actually use that carbon in the atmosphere.
Plants dont use c02 to grow , they use c02 and light to create sugars to trade with microbes for minerals, water, nutrients, and protection from pathogens. That's how they grow. If you dont have the microbes you dont have the need for carbon
Looks like it's always 4:20 over there.
That aside, great info, thanks for sharing! :)
It’s “astonishing” that greenhouse gas is green.
Very good, although i don't like your chances of getting a slot on the 6pm news, keep up the great work
Can you provide sources for this, please? I would love to read this.
@@evangrey4737 Can you quantify that? Is this reason.tv a thing you're aware of? What makes you say that? have you followed the money or fact checked it? I honestly would love a fact check of this video, as he's quite persuasive and it's certainly heretical when environmentalism is concerned. It's quite hopeful if these claims have any merit.
The speaker has written several articles (and perhaps books) with plentiful source notes.
@@evangrey4737 lol. You make me laugh with a clever non answer :)
Ive looked into it since. He's controversial. Hes gotten in trouble for ethics breaches, and has coal interests. That isn't enough to entirely dismiss things though. The greening effect has been backed up by many others. Nasa seems to suggest though that this reaction to higher co2 cant hope to catch up to the massive spike we have created. Thus if it helps, its not enough to save us.
Well done I try to bring the same material to people's attentions all the time but I don't have the soap box that you do so thanks for your efforts and for introducing everybody to another very Inconvenient Truth that being everything is fine and we have just all been lied to now we have to ask ourselves so hard questions like why...
and press for the answers and hold these narcissistic parasites feet to the fire otherwise they'll just continue to do it and do it again and again and again
Very interesting! Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Good point, why aren’t the environmentalists shouting these statistics from the rooftops? They too deserve a credit. Unless of course the doom and gloom scenario sells more “green energy” which in turn makes more money for those who support it. We need to share this information as much as possible. Human beings need to know, so we can all be proud of our collective achievements. We aren’t killing this planet. We need to focus on making everyone richer. By improving everyone’s lifestyle we also improve the environment. Capitalism, open market economy and fossil fuels are not the issue here. Misinformation and mass manipulation are the main causes for concern.
They don’t care about the environment, they’re only pushing their agenda so they can profit from solar , wind turbines, tidal generation etc technology and selling electricity
The development of the LFTR (thorium molten salt reactors) solves a lot of the issues that conventional reactors deal with.
I'm also rooting for that tech, although I'd rather breed from nuclear waste than thorium. It's the reactor design, not the fuel that's so stellar imo.
@@davidcampbell1420 Yes I also agree the reactor design is paramount.
Just burn coal
@@sammyd7857 thats gross. Kills people.
@@davidcampbell1420 where?
Excellent talk. I subscribed!
I live in Virginia Beach, Va.. 20 miles from here, every week, 3 ships full of wood chips leave Portsmouth, Va, heading toward England. Those chips are not waste wood chips. Those chips are from trees purposefully harvested near Franklin, VA, and are headed to England to be turned into Electricity. The ships are burning diesel fuel. And if 3 are leaving each week headed to England, 3 are on their way back from England... all 6 ships burning diesel fuel.
It’s utterly absurd. Then again, England is one of the most densely inhabited countries in the world, and doesn’t grow enough food to feed itself.