Who is attempting to regulate our lives? Seems like anyone with power is on the fast track. The greenhouse effect was demonstrated around 1850. Oil and gas has known of global warming from burning fossil fuels since the 1950's. The issue started going public in the 1980's. Coincidentally the tobacco knew about addiction to nicotine and extreme health risks due to smoking in the 1950's but kept it out of the public discourse for decades. I graduated high school 1965. Despite their knowledge of health risks and probably because of the knowledge of addiction cigarette companies where handing out smokes at blue collar work places and marketing the hell out their product. Self interest over the good of all. That is who is attempting to regulate or avoid regulation that would change the flow of cash. Why are so many Americans ignorant of the whole picture? People commenting on this video seem, for the most part, to cling to and repeat only the stuff that suits their biases. One thing I would ask is just how much change to affect production of fossil fuels or change to an economy that is more sustainable have we seen and how much has it cost? By 1990 the US had spent $10 T on the nuclear portion of the cold war ($20 T in 2020 dollars). None of that benefited the ordinary American.
@@wallyhunt The cold war effort benefitted none? Are you a moron? Seems like you are. The birth of electronics industry that puts millions of people to work around the world stems from cold war. Inventions that stems from the space effort that originates from that same cold war puts another few millions of people around the globe to work. From chemicals industry to textiles to plastics. Even the chemical that turns your ordinary frying pan to nonstick ones came from that cold war. Clearly you can't see any of these since your IQ point is the same value as the CO2 in the atmosphere
@@tedthesailor172you can change uneducated to dastardly an that one one because reports on such numbers are hidden greatly from public view and access in order to push a warrantless agenda, like the man said, at 0.002% plant life becomes unsustainable, we're barely double that.
You realize these panelists are industry folks, not politicians or scientists, right? Mr. Boyd, for example, was there representing the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. Mr. Dreher was representing Associated Builders and Contractors. Y'all making fun of industry execs representing their respective business interests, who for the most part agree with you. Crazy how y'all will jump on anybody that looks like they might be "woke" without doing any actual thinking.
How embarrassing and disgraceful it is that people who are in charge literally know nothing about the things they are forcing onto the general public, despicable.
My high school level of chemistry allowed me two decades later to guess “less than .1 percent”. It’s baffling that people who make their living out of it not only don’t know the actual number but actually missed it by a factor of 100-200 times…
@ashes-7425 from Britanica: "at the elevation of the planet’s mean radius it is about 95 bars, or 95 times the atmospheric pressure at Earth’s surface. This is the same pressure found at a depth of about 1 km (0.6 mile) in Earth’s oceans." Did you ever stop to think that using extraplanatary examples may not win you any arguments? You are right that it's mostly CO2, but it's a dumb thing to mention if you're going to pretend it's the same thing at all. The point is, stop repeating things you hear from these people, because they will always twist facts in their favor.
@@ashes-7425 apologies. I thought you were saying that greenhouse gasses will certainly kill us because look at Venus. Being hyperbolic, of course, but no need to rehash it.
Rodolfo that is exactly what I was thinking, the basic high school education.......I'm thinking even earlier than high school........78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen. I would not expect them to say 0.04 percent, but I would at least expect them to say 1% takes in everything else that's not nitrogen and oxygen. Any tiny less than 1% number, I could understand not having the exact number on the tip of their tongue, but five percent? Seven percent? Disgraceful.
It’s a total humiliation that those panelists can’t answer such a simple question while wanting to impose $multi-billion laws. Frankly they should all resign.
My physics textbook from 1970 states CO2 is 0.04%. Now more than 50 years later the answer still is.....0.04%. (Edit: Now it is a year later and I have been inundated with replies (several hundreds). Some are polite and some are nasty and arrogant. I worked in a qualitative/quantitative/thermal analysis laboratory for 34 years at a large university. Please do not insist that atmospheric CO2 is never reported as a percent. That is incorrect. I had a state of the art Gas Chromatograph, and reports were always generated as percentages in scientific notation which makes sense because you cannot report "contents" in different units when the normalized total is 100%. Lastly, the original comment was a simple factoid which for some odd reason offends many people. I am 71, and if I said that "55 years ago I saw something unusual or interesting", why would you countermand it? It was a very simple statement that (at the time) I had no reason to disbelieve or believe; my life has not revolved around this textbook. My basic point is: why is everyone quibbling over 40 to 45 ppm of CO2? Please accept that IMO it is not harmful. If you have a different opinion that is fine with me. IMO, stating that CO2 has risen by a third in the last century means nothing to me. Stating it has risen by 45 PPM in the last 60 years is at least objective. Please refrain from posting comments that are not objective. Thank you.
What is CONSEQUENTIAL is that fact that all this green social engineering is being driven by woke politicians who get their information from “experts” that don’t even know the basics, like the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thank you for showing that you have such a woke bias that you missed that most salient point.
The voters are all still parroting these lies. So they continue to vote for the corruption thats pocketing the money. To be fair, it's not all bad. EPA/CARB has done some good but at what cost? It was all band-aid fixes. Now California roads are garbage, money spent elsewhere. Electrical Infrastructure is approaching 60 years behind upgrades. Now we need electric cars? California can not handle the ones we got. Locally a transformer blew up last week. Age? Life-cycle acceleration? Demand? Young voters are voting for this.
Human induced climate change is an established fact; they don't need to go back to the fundamentals of it when discussing legislation. If you went to order carpet from a store would you expect the salesperson to ask if you knew how many square inches are in a square foot? Not relevant to the conversation.
the best one I've heard is during a house committee investigation , an oil CEO asking the head of the Environment Protection Agency "how come there is crude oil in the Arctic "...the guy shrugged and answered it must have migrated there " ......the oil man smiled and said nothing , he knew the oil was formed some millions years ago when the north pole was ice free and full of vegetation
@@sparkyfromel Ok that was a bit rhetorical of a question on my part. Oil and gas per the biogenic theory of origin comes from marine organisms not land plants. And how productive each region of ocean is for sediments resulting in kerogen once it is free of ice cover may not vary too wildly. As to global warming, there is a factor most ignore and that is the weakening of our planet's magnetic field. It maybe a much stronger factor than CO2. It is said by some most of the green house effect comes within the first couple of hundred ppm of CO2 such current increases in CO2 have negligible effects. Currently, I've not formed a strong opinion except that those who push the CO2 heating theory are a best poorly informed and at worst are pushing a false narrative for profit and even malice. Could the elites be correct? Maybe somewhat but even their solutions may be worse than the problem. I am more focused on WW3 (end times), economic crash, increasing of totalitarian controls, the Covid and Vaxx crimes being pushed by Facebook, the UN, the WHO, the UK,. the USA, China, etc, etc.
I'm a Science teacher with 40 yrs experience. The composition of gases in our atmosphere is a standard piece of info taught to 13 yr old school students. Many years ago Carl Sagan stated many times of his concern that, despite all of us are living in societies largely measured and driven by advances in Technology and Science, there is barely a politician in any government anywhere who has a background in Science. Just brood on that conflict for a minute.
This is a perfect example of the government jumping into an industry and "just doing something" to make it appear that they are more capable than industry, regardless of the "little" details.
This is a perfect example of a bunch of people who have no idea what you’re talking about. Trying to make a decision. Including the narrator. Oh look this is a really small number. I should be able to ignore then. He’s just as ignorant as the people he’s calling out.
@@neilkurzman4907 Do you even know what clouds are made of bud..? Cause that's your real Global Warmer right there.. Are you gonna blow 🌬 them off planet with a really Big Fan..?
I learned the proportions of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and CO2 in 7th grade earth science. Not sure what’s worse….the fact that no one on the panel knows this, or the fact that these panelists have never been curious enough to find out. Or the fact that obviously these panelists have never had anyone ask this question to them before. Sad on all sides.
Exactly.. I do not understand american school grades [i am in the uk] but any reasonably bright school kid would know the atmosphere is more or less 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and yet these so called educated politicians do not!!! Seriously stupid..
@@caerleon87 Reasonably bright school kid? So two to three students every school. So very very few people. Get a mike and go out asking people on what our atmosphere is contained from and you will be shocked on how few know.
The dream is gone....and I, have become comfortably numb! De Amerikaanse droom stuurt ons regelrecht 'down the drain'. In potentie geweldig volk, maar compleet geconditioneerd door de deep state, aka new world order.
America is falling hard because the republican's live off of an anger addiction. They have a long list of anger issues, gays, Mexicans, CRT (which doesn't exist in any K-12 school) grooming by teachers (also made up), Mini Mouse, M&M's, replacement theory, vaccinations, immigration, its one anger issue after another with those people. Yet, republicans know nothing about the science that is rapidly changing our economy and leading us to self-driving cars, artificial intelligence, robotics, modern medicines that work at a molecular scale. We need more immigrants to build more homes and reduce home prices, pick more food and reduce food prices, fill the 6 million open jobs in restaurants, hotels, farms and construction and PAY for millions of baby boomers on retirement. Republicans are addicted to anger about things that have ZERO effect on their lives. ZERO EFFECT ON THEIR LIVES. Republican are addicted to opioids and anger.
@@shaneanderson7757 it real doesn’t work that way. Some of it is that way but not even close to all. It’s a perfect storm of the greedy, ideological, and psychotic. We have bureaucrats with power you couldn’t imagine and they answer to no one.
Kind of explains everything that's going on in the US. Crime, the economy and it's getting worse. Creating and solving non existing problems for political gain is a recipe for disaster.
Stop living in California and move to a solid red state. You're contributing to CA's 54 electoral votes just by living there. Get out, and starve the blue states of their power.
don't worry give it some time , they are probably starting a smear campaign on him as we speak and will make him out to be a pedo, homophibic racist that tortures puppies
They rely on advisers that supposedly are in the know. That is how these organisations get captured by idiots or people with an agenda to drive through. No one questions the narrative because they are too ignorant of the realities of science and other "reality based" subjects to have their warning bells rung (ie recognise a scam). Too many of the populace are also scientifically ignorant and will just believe anything they are told, providing it comes from the" right sources, tugs at their emotions, and is repeated enough.
Common sense spoken aloud is always such a breath of fresh air. Look at how calm and collected he is, in contrast to the stunned people being questioned.
Pretending that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is in any way relevant or a number ur supposed to know if u claim to be an expert on the topic is not common sense. It is showing that you are staggeringly ignorant on the theory.
@@360lootgoon3 Even though it would seem that CO2 levels are very low since they make up 0.04% of our atmosphere, that represents an increase of 43% since the industrial revolution began. Not only that, but with CO2, even a miniscule change from 0.04% to 0.05% can have devastating effects on the planet. I'm not sure what percent of CO2 would have to be in the atmosphere before you would start to care, but it doesn't take much to change drastically. And either way, Fossil Fuels are a finite resource. We will run out and that is a fact. Why not invest in tech that can give us renewable energy from the sun, wind, and water. Or invest in nuclear. You really think pumping millions of tons of CO2, a proven greenhouse gas and nonbreathable gas is fine for either people or the planet?
@@360lootgoon3 Correct the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely irrelevant to climate change. It is about the increase in CO2 in ppm and how this inhibits the earth from regulating its temperature.
@@lisacarden1309 It is astounding that despite the evidence people ate still reluctant to believe we have been sprayed like roaches for decades through Stratospheric Aerøsol Injectıøn Campaıgns with heavy funding from uncle Bill and his geøengineering boyfriends. You're the only one I have seen in years recommending that documentary. I have it on my play list and point people to it often. Well done 👍 😎 👍
They're executives from transportation industries like railroad and trucking. It's not their job to know. Usually when you want to know something about the climate, you ask a climate scientist, not a 70 year old transportation executive.
Im in southern oregon and have the paperwork to deliver water to the forest fire fighters, but we cant get the paperwork to deliver to northern california because our truck is not new enough and may put off too much pollution. They dont know if it does, but at that age, they believe it will. Now im pretty sure fires will put out smoke longer and kill more wildlife if theres no water to fight them.
What percentage of O2 or N2 causes green house gases. Zero because it's not a green house gas. So the question is irrelevant. CO2 is about half of the green house gas effect.
This whole comment section is people who don’t understand. CO2 is measured in PPM not %. Bunch of science illiterate folks crying hurrr durrr 0.4% is such a small number why does it matter? Well how about drink a cup of water with only 0.4% plutonium in it. I beg you please drink it
So I used to be a commercial diver. Gas mixtures, pressures, and how your body reacts to different breathing mediums under different pressures was nailed into our heads. We were taught the atmosphere contains roughly 21% oxygen and roughly 78% nitrogen. That leaves 1% left for "other gasses." And these people think CO2 makes up 5-8% of our atmosphere. Incredible.
I do like an unstated guy. The subject though is too important to allow these drongoes to get away with goofing about like school kids that failed to study for the test. This video needs to go everywhere to expose their failings.
@@BelloBudo007 Atmospheric carbon dioxide is very effective at trapping heat. The amount of CO2 has *_increased 50%_* over the past 100 years (from 280 to 420 ppm). That is catastrophic. Period.
@@sergeikhoudiakov1914 It's high school level physics, I'm sure you could dig it up somewhere pretty easily. But in so doing also be sure to remember that 0.00006% of the atmosphere is responsible to blocking 99% of cosmic radiation. And also remember we are currently in a solar minimum (sun is colder) since 2019, which logically should result in atmospheric cooling... which isn't happening in our layer, only in the layers above the 0.00006% I mentioned earlier. Considering that that 0.00006% layer is currently growing, and that that growing should also cause cooling in our layer, it is clear that something is causing warming.
@@GeoRyukaiser Nice of you not to explain. But since you seem to be an Ozone expert I'll re-phrase my question for you: Will doubling Ozon concentration block proportionally more cosmic radiation? How about x10?
When I was a child ( a long time ago) we were told that in under 50 years we would run out of oil and coal and then given all of the scary things that this would create. We were given lists of animals that would be extinct in 20 years, including tigers and elephants. We were told that sea levels would rise and London would be flooded, we were told we were heading for a new ice age and would all freeze to death, we were told that the ozone layer would be depleted within 100 years and we would all fry to death. You would think that they would have at least got one nearly right - unfortunatley due to simple entropy there are some animals that will die off, there will be various changes in climate and the natural world but killing off human beings through poverty and famine to try and stop it is clearly not the answer.
Many of us have seen these radicals make dire predictions for decades that never came to fruition. We know by experience that they're frauds, but the younger generations are true believers!
This ng scientist never believed it was getting colder 50 years ago, that was entirely the media looking at one scientific report suggesting climate change could make some places colder and running with it claiming the next ice age was coming, a lot of what you hear was never said by or believed by scientists but regardless their credibility was lowered by the media and people like you went along with it.
The woman claims "... we know that transportation causes 49% of CO2..." which is also completely wrong. According to the EPA , "greenhouse gas emissions from transportation account for about 27% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions". It is embarrassing how ignorant those so-called "experts" are.
I was confused about this too, like it makes sense that transportation people wouldn't know co2 concentration cause they just would never be dealing with that, but it seemed crazy that she somehow got that statistic wrong, but I looked it up and I guess she was just talking about California specifically lol
The ignorance of policy makers is unbelieveable. If they don't even know that, how can they even begin to understand all the other absurd, hopeless and corrupt proposals thrown at them?
You realize the guy just said it went from .03% to .04% in the last few decades right? You don't see any reason for concern about the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere increasing by 33% in the last few decades on a planet that's billions of years old?
Science lesson: If carbon dioxide is currently roughly estimated at 400 PPM. Then it would be .04% of the troposheric content. CO2 only holds about 40% of the infrared radiation striking the Earth's surface. Even that eventually makes it out of our atmosphere back into space. It's like a blanket that self regulates, or like a thermostat that maintains a comfortable surface temperature. There are a lot of misnomers about the greenhouse effect. If the greenhouse effect could so easily run away and heat the surface of the Earth to an unlivable Venus like temperature, then it would have occurred many times in the past, and none of us would be here. Earth has experienced what are referred to as greenhouse periods in geologic history. The P.E.T.M. 56 million years ago, for example. But it was the orbital variances and the axial tilt of Earth that were responsible. Not carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide levels only rise when the co2 molecule is excited by heat. Heat on the surface is caused by infrared radiation exciting molecules, which is friction, which causes heat. Another misnomer is that methane is the most potent of all greenhouse gases. Technically, It is. But methane can not exist for too long in the presence of oxygen because it oxidizes into water and carbon dioxide, Ending it's role in the carbon cycle. Anthropogenic warming theory leaves out water's role as the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Al Gore made that statement very early on in this conspiracy theory. It's in his "fictional movie." Water vapor is the only reason why any of us are alive today. Water vapor contains a specific amount of carbon dioxide from winter to summer, from greenhouse period to glacial period. Water absorbs carbon dioxide when it is cold, and it emits carbon dioxide when it is warm. It rises and falls with the amount of infrared radiation that is striking the earth's surface. Take the money out of the climate change conspiracy theory, and nobody will be talking about it anymore.
remember, we do not know how much CO2 is needed to raise the earths temperature. Mars a smaller planet has the same tonnage of CO2 as the earth, instead of a half a percent of their atmosphere it is 95 percent of it's atmosphere, and Mars is frigid. So CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we don't know how much it takes to make a difference, all we do know is if it gets below 300 PPM the plants start dying, and we are trying to be net zero, and we are fighting forest fires, the natural CO2 plant savers, we could kill the planet trying to save it.
Germany has done the same thing- their diesel fleet was already the cleanest in Europe (possibly the world), but additional regulations forced the removal of vehicles that were already the cleanest in Europe to be replaced with new “greener” vehicles. Worse yet, those vehicles that were replaced were rendered inoperable so they could not be exported to other countries with old, less efficient fleets of diesel cars/trucks. No BS, I personally witnessed it.
Exactly.....and brought all his brain dead zombies with him. That clip of Creepy needs to go viral again.Subject him to the same rules they tried to apply to 45.
There is a rock on the shore in Plymouth that marks the level of the highest tide and every time the tide is at its highest point it's never covered this rock completely. The reason I mention it is because it has a date carved on it. The date is 1620... So much for rising sea levels and global warming sinking 20% of the islands of the Pacific!
The thing that seems odd to me about the global warming/melting icecaps sthick is if anything the ocean level would stay roughly the same or drop. Water has the peculiar function of occupying a greater volume when it turns solid. Meaning when said icecaps melt either the lost displacement would cause the water level to drop (because less overall volume occupied) or it would stay about the same because there'd be a greater quantity of liquid H20 in said oceans to offset said volume shift.
@@aguyontheinternet9095 - Your point is correct for the ice cap at the North Pole because that ice is floating in the water. However, melting ice sitting on land, like Greenland and Antarctica, will produce higher ocean levels (to the extent that the melted ice exceeds new snow fall on top of the ice cap).
I’m live in Michigan and suffered through the Gov Granholm era here. I worked in public utility regulation for 30 years. Granholm tried to impose a 90% reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. When my agency and utility private sector experts informed her that the equipment to measure that level of emissions did not exist her response was “if we impose the regulation then the industry will invent the necessary instruments.” They still cannot measure mercury emissions that small. So of course Biden made her Secretary of DOE. She is an attorney with zero technical knowledge of energy.
Absolutely not! You are forgetting the media or better yet fake journalists. The incompetence starts where the "news" comes from, only after that do you take a look at the sources.
These politicians are not the ones considering themselves experts. That's why they have these hearings. This farmer clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about, he just found a random piece of trivia online and is parroting it. He literally says at 1:34 that .03 to .04 is a small change. Its actually 33% change if you do the math. I wouldn't expect a farmer to understand that though, nor the implications. It's probably best left to the climate experts.
@@yokotaashi wow 33% sounds like a lot when you forget it’s referencing a measurement in the ten-thousandths. Of course it’s easy to fool the public when manipulating the view of statistics, isn’t it?
It is now above 0.04% so you expected the wrong answer from them. We are at 429 PPM according to numbers I could find. BTW: In 1998 it was about 330PPM.
@@SeraphsWitness Market forces dominate. Shipping is a big deal. Tariffs are a big deal as well. In the Western US water rights are a huge deal. So many things shape what is grown and where.
@@debi5292 I don't think I'd be so bold as to say market forces are dominating in agriculture. It's been heavily subsidized for a long time. Big Ag is one of the primary REASONS we have a water shortage out west. They're the primary consumers. Residential water consumption is only 5% of the total. So yes, when you incentivize farmers to grow almonds, for instance, of course they're going to go to greater lengths to grow almonds even if the market forces don't incentivize it; because the government is handing out free money. And almonds are one of those crops that is insanely thirsty. So yes there are many forces that shape the industry. But federal subsidy is easily the biggest. Look, California is the #1 producer of avocados in America by a long shot, yet we still import most of our avocados from Mexico because they're cheaper. Our market incentives are completely jacked up.
I could care less whether the public chooses to buy solar panels or windmill turbines, but I do care whether the US government decides to buy and pay for to install both for everyone's home or business providing these corporations a government a large subsidy at the US taxpayer's expense... Are we a socialist nation or a capitalist/free enterprise nation? If you choose to buy and install solar panels or windmill turbines, DO SO AT YOUR EXPENSE! NOT MINE!
The communists in Moscow a hundred years ago removed guys like LaMalfa from the planet for just that reason. You can't have people who can think, let alone critically. They have this pesky way of seeing through the communist lies and bullshit.
They no longer teach logic and critical thinking in school anymore. Those studies have been replaced by Critical Race Theory, Correct Pronouns, and Gender Identity
The burning of fossil fuels affects the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm. We have now reached about 414 ppm, so we are on the way to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of this century. Scientists say that if CO2 doubles, it could raise the average global temperature of the Earth between two and five degrees Celsius
@@MikeAIright and? what do you not care about the trees? why you soo adamant on suffocating the trees? you do know that tree's don't inhale oxygen, right?
Evil runs the world, these leaders receive their authority from that source of evil, who's sole purpose is to steal, kill and destroy! Only one hope is the way out, The living Son of the living God! The devil's minions do what is in their nature to do......malice indeed!! But God is the ultimate power, and at the appointed time....evil will be brought to nothing! Don't lose hope, the best is yet to come!
We need more like Doug! Most, DO NOT have our best interest at heart. Electric Cars are not even possible with our grid...there are SO many logical reasons this is stupidly insane. Thanks Doug!
@@crystalcompass368 Virtually every scientist on the planet who is not on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry disagrees with you. Your "logic" needs a workover.
Putting these hacks in charge of setting climate policies, who don’t have a clue about the actual amount of CO2, is just about as effective as riding a dolphin through the Sahara.
Doug LaMalfa is my Congressman. 20 years ago, I was asked by my city to be part of a team to go to the bay area to lean about the turf they planned to use in their sports complex. In less than one hour, I learned more than the entire city council from my home. They were voting to spend over one million dollars. It sadden me to think not one of them spent even an hour researching before voting to give away that kind of money.
There's always been "climate change," it's called Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. C02 is good for plants & animals; plants flourish with more C02, animals eat the plants & flourish, people eat the animals and plants and flourish. Or, we can cut C02 and start dying out. Which do you choose?
The compliant sheep would come back with: No! Climate change is measured in 30 year weather cycles!!!! and then they would fail in noting what the weather was like 30 years ago, and what the prevailing theory was back then.. Part of me wonders if they fully consumed enough of the climate change koolaid, and will plan their own little "Jones Town like celebration", in the next 6 years. But then I realize, just how amazing its going to be, in watching them realize their junk "doom clock" in Chicago, wasn't real.. 🤭
It's hilarious seeing the CO2 truck behind the woke campus refilling the cafeteria and science bldg tanks. Not to mention at the greenhouses at the horticultural annex
The new phrase of the new century is " Being SEEN to be doing the right thing" Even when the reason has long since past gone away or never even existed.
Brian, I'm afraid we all neglect the fact that we have voted for leaders who do what they are supposed to do: they take care of their popularity in order to keep power, that's what every politician does because it wouldn't be rational to behave otherwise. Having choice between good and what appears good they choose the first because it's what the majority expects from them. We are trapped and the only solution would be to educate believers who incidentally are voters. However I seriously doubt education is what politicians as well as voters are interested in. They prefer getting simple answers appearing to be right ones.
In addition to what he taught them, the human contribution to that is 1/100th (which is. 0004%!). This whole thing is MADNESS. People with their hearts in the right place, but whose ignorance on basic aspects of this is so badly exploited. Absolute MADNESS.
I have yet to see someone who is pro-conformist on the climate change propaganda know the difference between the stratosphere and troposphere, but they sure know that we need to enact a list of massive changes to our energy production and transportation infrastructure. They are never aware of how extensive the raw materials supply side needs to be, or what countries those come from.
Many of these cult members DO NOT have their heart in the right place. They either want to appear "uber-woke" amongst their friends, get rich, or both... no exception.
@@luigivincenz3843 Na Elon was much more childish than that, he didn't even have any figure's of his own. But I guess both of them asked a very stupid question and made themselves look stupid though so maybe it is.
So what did you learn? Did you learn WHY non-scientists claim the proportion of atmospheric CO2 is relevant? If so, I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you can direct me to the timestamp where this happened.
@@MrYahboo - What we “learned” from the video, is that government bureaucrats, that spend billions of our tax dollars, and make rules/laws for the peasants to live by, have absolutely no knowledge about the topic at hand. If you can’t see the hoax by now, there is probably no hope for you. The big, bloated, corrupt, inefficient, ineffective, self serving government is not your friend.
@@MrYahboo Well, I didn't know that CO2 represented only .04% of atmospheric gases. No doubt you did; so it's a shame you weren't on the panel. Otherwise, to say we "learned" something is perhaps too strong. It would be more accurate to say that the video provided further evidence that climate change activists have no clue what they're talking about. As for the timestamp, you might want to look at the upper left-hand corner of the video for the date of the hearing.
Informative? How? What did you learn? Do you honestly expect leglators to know the details of climate science to make decisions on fighting climate change? Or to know anything about road construction to debate infrastructure funding? Or that they are trained in medicine before voting on funding your local hospital. You are cheering on a show boating politician for raising Red Herrings instead of solving problems.
@@marcusthespotus the problem here is that the number is correct, but the minimal change from 0.028%, which was the pre-industrial level to 0.04% which we have now, does indeed have tremendous consequences for the balance of energy in the atmosphere. Regardless of this shit show in which one ignorant shames some other ignorants.
@@firebush1343 well to be fair you do have an over reliance on cars there in the US, a problem that won't be solved with EVs either (at least not with electric cars).
@@kensmith5694 yeah and that's with massive increases to the amount of vehicles, people, farming, aeroplanes and rocket launches etc since then...... Back in 1998 the global population was 5.98 billion, today it's 7.94 billion and in 1951 it was 2.58 billion, the global population has basically tripled within the last 70 years and yet co2 only went up 0.007% It's almost as if more people mean more co2 entering the atmosphere but only by a marginal amount and given time I'm sure the planet will readjust the atmosphere and balance itself back out like it's done numerous times in the past without our help
@@Idlepit2 The planet will adjust. Mankind will have to also. In the adjustment there will no doubt be wars and famine etc as the areas that could grow crops no longer can. The human population may well decrease in the result. Some of it will happen even if we did manage to cut CO2 production but less will.
No, transportation does NOT cause 43% of CO2. Humans barely occupy 1% of the surface of the earth, and only a small % of that has running vehicles on it. 2/3 of the earth is a radiator. Any 7th grader should know all of that.
There's a reason they made a 14 year old Swedish girl throwing a temper tantrum so she didn't have to go to school the face of the whole ridiculous movement.
I think even a five year old could do a better job than these idiots. These people are either horribly corrupt or ideologues hellbent on proving their case and enforcing their agenda no matter what they have to do.
This is EXACTLY correct, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is pathetically small, plants are right on the edge of suffocation. If we put more CO2 in the atmosphere plant life would explode with vibrancy & then when the trees began to multiply the global temperature would become milder. They do NOT want more life on Earth, they want LESS.
No, increasing CO2 doesn't make plant life do a lot better. Plant life is adapted to a world with about 300PPM of CO2. The CO2 content right now is over 400PPM. There is no huge increase in plant life and some varieties are actually having trouble. We need water to drink but we can also drown.
@@kensmith5694 You should actually look at the evidence instead of just trusting "the narrative" as it will limit your ability to critically think through this stuff. The reality is that there has been MUCH more CO2 in the biosphere in the past & the plant life was much more plentiful as a result. We have been though many surges in the CO2 amount & the plants went through greening surges as a result, but unfortunately so much of the CO2 of the past is now locked away in limestone & fossil fuels. Even just with the amount of extra CO2 we have released into the biosphere since the industrial revolution has measurably increased the greening of the planet, so you are completely incorrect about this. The fact is that the evidence shows our star the Sun is the only significant source of any change in climate on Earth & when the sun increases the temperature on Earth, the amount of CO2 goes up as a result.
@@kensmith5694 Ken with all due respect, you are simply wrong. Increased co2 increases the health and size of plants. This has been shown by simple teenage science fair projects. Also, with more co2 the plants require significantly less water since they develop fewer structures to take in Co2. I have seen estimates that with a doubling of co2 the Sahara desert would bloom and reduce the severity and frequency of hurricanes impacting North America. Also, having a bunch of biologists and geologists in the family I have had the benefit of the truth. As a retired businessman, all I can say is if someone comes to me saying in exchange for all my liberty and freedom he will control the weather, I say bulls**t!
@@kensmith5694 Yes it does. Green houses for commercial vegetables use CO2 generators machines in order to increase the percentage of CO2 inside the green house to make the crops grow faster and bigger. Go to a green house farmer and you see it by yourself.
Methane = 1.7 parts per million , Carbon Monoxide =1 part per 10 million ,Nitrous Oxide = 1 part per 3 million , knowledge , truth ,simple arithmetic = zero.
You are mistaken. Their plan is much bigger. 40 Percent of the world population will never see this Green transformation. Basically starvation for the rest.
Can you explain to me the significance of being able to come up with this number? Can you tell me what percentage of radon in the air is considered hazardous by the EPA?
@stargazer7644 The significance is these people claim to be experts. Yet they do not understand something as basic as that number. As for radon that's more EPA. Out doors normal background. Is roughly .4 pCi/L. Once that gets between 1 and 2 it's a concern. 4 is the EPA action level. How do I know thus? I Looked it up. The same as these so called experts should have.
@@stargazer7644 the significance is children learn that at school. If they were unable to learn something specific for their job from school they aren’t even incompetent, they are just ignorant.
@@Mythhammer These are politicians. They do not claim to be experts. They consult experts, and they make laws. You didn't answer the question I asked. What percent of radon in air is 4 pCi/L? What is the significance of that number? Why is it 4 and not 2, or 400? You're demonstrating my point. The fact that you were able to pull 4 out of the internet doesn't tell you anything about the significance of that number. Even if one of the reps had uttered 400 parts per million, that wouldn't mean they know any more than you do why 4 pCi/L is significant, or have any idea how that relates to a percentage of radon in air.
0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. The proportion of the CO2 total that is attributable to the burning of hydrocarbons and other human activities is guess what… also 0.04%, which means it is an infinitesimal amount. And it has been amply demonstrated that CO2 is not a driver of climate change, and that the levels today are amongst the lowest in the history of the planet.
They know it doesn't make sense... it's not about sense, it's about power. Political power and money. Criminalizing political opposition and feeding their partisan pet projects using other people's money through taxes.
0.05% of Blood Alcohol levels is likely to cause coma and respiratory failure, but it's ok to drink that crate of whisky, because it was expensive and farmer Doug tells you so.
You know back when I was a kid, they used to teach us in school. To just plant some trees to offset the CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants and plants some grass... Why do we got to spend all this money to offset CO2?
When I was a kid, they told us repeatedly that the Amazon rain forest was the "lungs of the world", but that it was disappearing at the rate of 50 acres a day. Now the Amazon is gone and the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, but the environmentalists all act surprised.
i keep saying this exact same thing. You never hear about deforestation any more, or planting more trees. All you hear about is high-tech solutions that cost huge amounts of money and that cost then being passed on to every-day people. And its only western civilisation thats doing this. It seems a deliberate tactic to destabilise the west. How can we compete with the rest of the world with one hand tied behind our backs? And its our own 'leaders' that are tying our hands.
The climate crazies have become more annoying than vegans at a BBQ. The sky isn’t falling and even if it was there is nothing you could do about it anyway.
The "crisis" is what it's always been. Meant to serve as an excuse or tool to accomplish a certain unrelated agenda. There are a few such scams going on right now.
You must be quite stupid if you have not noticed the increases in severe weather in recent years. Open you eyes, and stop quaffing fossil-fueled propaganda.
Just because co2 is necessary, it doesnt mean that more is good. The balance is important. If there were more fractionally more oxygen then fire wouldn't be extinguished and we'd all burn. So writing off climate change as bogus isnt a good idea either.
With that sentence you just make yourself ridiculous because you show that you dont understand the topic. Bevore humans started burning fossile coal and gas plants already grew and the co2 concentration in the air was constant. So if we stop buring stuff plants will still grow. Like talking to a 4 year old kid...
BINGO! But "Pant Food" sounds silly especially if Christopher Monckton of Brenchley says it. But "Essential component of photosynthesis" is too much of a mouth full. I dunno there really needs to be some really good bumper sticker/sound bite to get the point across.
His question made no sense. Thats why they were taken back. Doug has not even the basic high school understanding of the planets climate system. No concept of a feedback system. An example... you take a pill for high blood pressure that is less than 40 milligrams. That's just a few grains of salt in size. It completely takes over your entire circulatory system. Just 20 more could lower your pressure so much your dead. Doug is just another ignorant politician
They are trained to switch off when facts arise from debate, then it's back into reset mode immediately after questioning stops, the lights are on but there is no one home MO. All one of the pannel need do was google the question for the answers, tech at their fingertips but no answers.
What happens if you have some insulation, and you mix in an other kind of insulation? Will it isulate more or less? That depends on whether, the added type is a better or worse insulator (If we don't look into what mixing them might do chemically, as we - I - never have heard anyone talk about that) or just happens to have the same effect. It's not like we go from 100 % atmosefere to more than 100% (not like putting an extra blanket on top of the currect one) so before someone proves, and tells us about, what the numbers are, and what they result in, I'll go with the historical data, that says, Co2 LAGS temperature NOT the other way around..
man.. IQ is not measured in %, but I agree with the sentiment. One has to be special stupid to go on a panel on green initiative and not know % CO2 in atmosphere..
The more educated one becomes the more compartmentalised they become, and follow the money, this is how higher education rumbles. Mattias Desmet has explained it quite nicely and how higher does not always mean wiser.
@@MotorcycleEngineering101 If you will use that argument we may as well use snail races to determine politics. Having a basic respectable education would be a start in giving a nation a flying chance of collective success.
@@MrSaemichlaus Every nation could easily recover from the globl and corporte theft machine, of our labour and cornucopia, all we need is real life skills a plenty to create what we need in house, once we loose this most valuable commodity we begin to die as a nation, slowly at first bolstered by the cheapness of the poor worker out of sight and mind, then as time progresses we fall away rapidly as was intended by every free trade conundrum, the ending salvo is a broken peoples with hands that can no longer do their own dishes, it is not a pretty long term synopsis, the end of our prowess and cycle is pretty close to completion.
@@ladydi4537 If Jack and Jill put at least ten thousand hours into any hobby they can be king and queens of their own dint and or direction, we have done this several times over the last fourty years and are masters of all we share with others, anyone can achieve this, all they need is tiime and determination and self discipline, the rest will follow, all Roads lead to ones own kind of Rome in the fulness of time.
Jeopardy contestant: “I’ll take hoaxes for $200” Alex: The answer is, “Which hoax compels experts to be wrong by orders of magnitude?” Jeopardy contestant: “What is climate change?” Alex: correct
The Truth of the matter is, no one knows 100% one way or the other. That includes you. All we can do is follow most likely causes and seek alternatives that benefit everyone on the whole. To do nothing, is as fruitless as it sounds and is a plague that is infecting our govt about literally every issue the country is facing. Jeopardy Contestant: "I'll take uneducated youtube commentors for $1,000" Alex: The answer is, "What youtube commentor is overly confident and self-righteous to post about global warming being hoax when he himself has no knowledge with certainty above that of those he critiques?" Jeopardy Contestant: "Who Is Mike Simonson" Alex: ''Correct''
this was brilliant by Lamalfa, never felt like he was attacking anybody just asking simple questions and answering everything from the heart, really blindsided that panel
He wasn't blindsided, because these were the Republicans witnesses. They were friendly witnesses. Here in case you don't believe me: Mr. Marc D. Williams, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, On Behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; Mr. Dwayne Boyd, Regional President, CRH, On Behalf of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; Mr. Aric Dreher, Assistant General Manager, Cianbro, On Behalf of the Associated Builders and Contractors; Ms. Paula Hammond, Senior Vice President, WSP USA, On Behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. This was not a "gotcha" moment at all.
Blindsiding the panel with an irrelevant question is the point. it doesn't matter what the accurate number for the % of CO2 is, the world is experiencing the effects regardless of whether or not the panel can answer a stupid question.
@@joeshithragman3264 He asked a basic question pertaining to the topic. If they're going to make an argument for reducing carbon emissions because it's leading to the end of civilization ,that's a relevant question. The fact that they couldn't answer it ,because they're clueless shows how not serious they are.
@@calvinquitevis2291 I dont think its relevant question. Its like a question " What %tage of you body weight is cholesterol circulating in your blood?" But it doesn't mean that your cholesterol level 500 is meaningless to health.
To be fair we had a US Representative say that he opposed sending additional Marines to Guam because he was afraid it would tip over and capsize, and people reelected him, so I’m not too optimistic.
@@Andy-de3li So that video. He was seriously asking of the danger of the island capsizing because of too many people and the army general was trying to hold himself from laughing.
Those are not law makers, they were invited for Doug LaMalfa to make a video for his website and people think its real. Its just a show for RUclips. Notice that no names are posted you got punked.
Because knowing the CO2 level in the atmosphere is NOT directly germane to their task. They are not climatologists and they don't need to be. Nuance is hard.
Because it is a elaborate Scam to achieve a certain globalist NWO outcome. They can shut of a EV's any time they want and that's how they like it . CO2 is a lifeforce and they want to kill it and most of us !
This is a stupid question. Who cares if going from .04% to .07% is what turns earth into Venus? The question suggests that you need to have a massive amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere to destroy the earth, which is not true. The reason it's only .04% is because the atmosphere of the earth is TINY. SUPER THIN. It only looks like we have a lot when your looking up at the sky. Look at our atmosphere from space, and its a sliver of gases around our planet, that we need, and we need the correct amount of gasses, or we all die.
@@MrYahboo more carbon means a far greener planet. Always has throughout the history of earth. You know what that means? Runaway heating is impossible because at some point the plants and ocean protozoa level out the co2. That's just 1 point here.
He didn't prove anything. Those people were not climate specialists. They were witnesses representing road infrastructure companies. LaMalfa pointed out that CO2 is only a small fraction of the atmosphere. That's correct. But what he doesn't tell you is that even that small fraction is essential. Breaking that fragile balance in the atmosphere is having severe consequences. Sometimes small fractions matter: the connector connecting you steering wheel to your vehicle is only a small fraction of the car, but you won't go anywhere without it.
@Montecoucou. Breaking that fragile balance is having severe consequences? Tell that to your leaders who destroyed the Nord Steam gas line and suppliers of missiles and rockets in a proxy war.
@@montecoucou53 what happens when there is more co2 in atmosphere? Photosynthetic life on land and in the ocean thrives. What happens when that happens? Co2 balances out and then decreases. Wow. Science.
All he really needed to ask was "Who finances your research" that will tell you everything about what that panel are up to. Embarrassing they didn't know the answer to his first question
yup! Follow the cash. I remember Obama saying, "No one should own more than one house". He owns four the last I heard. All beach front mansions. This is after he was president. that should tell you all you need to know about most politicians. They go in pour, and come out rich. so the question is, where is the money coming from and why do you love it, more than your own people (country)?
The ignorance of those who would presume to regulate our lives is staggering.
It's not ignorance it's greed.
Who is attempting to regulate our lives? Seems like anyone with power is on the fast track.
The greenhouse effect was demonstrated around 1850. Oil and gas has known of global warming from burning fossil fuels since the 1950's.
The issue started going public in the 1980's.
Coincidentally the tobacco knew about addiction to nicotine and extreme health risks due to smoking in the 1950's but kept it out of the public discourse for decades. I graduated high school 1965. Despite their knowledge of health risks and probably because of the knowledge of addiction cigarette companies where handing out smokes at blue collar work places and marketing the hell out their product.
Self interest over the good of all.
That is who is attempting to regulate or avoid regulation that would change the flow of cash.
Why are so many Americans ignorant of the whole picture? People commenting on this video seem, for the most part, to cling to and repeat only the stuff that suits their biases.
One thing I would ask is just how much change to affect production of fossil fuels or change to an economy that is more sustainable have we seen and how much has it cost?
By 1990 the US had spent $10 T on the nuclear portion of the cold war ($20 T in 2020 dollars). None of that benefited the ordinary American.
@@wallyhunt I agree, it’s flooring to see such ignorance en masse.
@Wallace Hunt looks like you also are just clinging to what people you agree with are saying.
@@wallyhunt The cold war effort benefitted none? Are you a moron? Seems like you are.
The birth of electronics industry that puts millions of people to work around the world stems from cold war.
Inventions that stems from the space effort that originates from that same cold war puts another few millions of people around the globe to work.
From chemicals industry to textiles to plastics. Even the chemical that turns your ordinary frying pan to nonstick ones came from that cold war.
Clearly you can't see any of these since your IQ point is the same value as the CO2 in the atmosphere
How unfortunate that non-technical people are making technical decisions with no idea about what they are doing.
They are wrong only by 20000%, so there is still a very small chance they are not going to deliver well planned disaster 😂🤬
For "non-technical" read "uneducated"...
@@tedthesailor172you can change uneducated to dastardly an that one one because reports on such numbers are hidden greatly from public view and access in order to push a warrantless agenda, like the man said, at 0.002% plant life becomes unsustainable, we're barely double that.
Welcome to politics haha
When have you ever known our government to know what they're doing?
We can't have these people make decisions for us anymore.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
The first book of/on science is the Bible and it’s reliable.
@@MrJohnL21 Only when this country self destructs and/or is destroyed by external forces. It appears to be terminal.
Representatives instead of leaders.
You realize these panelists are industry folks, not politicians or scientists, right? Mr. Boyd, for example, was there representing the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. Mr. Dreher was representing Associated Builders and Contractors. Y'all making fun of industry execs representing their respective business interests, who for the most part agree with you.
Crazy how y'all will jump on anybody that looks like they might be "woke" without doing any actual thinking.
How embarrassing and disgraceful it is that people who are in charge literally know nothing about the things they are forcing onto the general public, despicable.
At best it makes them easily manipulatable.
So global warming is a myth? Does the knowledge of Congress change the facts? You're scared, so you're dissembling.
Remember their chant "Follow the science!" Pretty sure science could bite them on the @$$ and they wouldn't recognize it.
That's what happens when Congress is only the first step to the big money with lobbyists and govt/private partnership. Follow the money.
Politics as usual
My high school level of chemistry allowed me two decades later to guess “less than .1 percent”.
It’s baffling that people who make their living out of it not only don’t know the actual number but actually missed it by a factor of 100-200 times…
Its an actual conspiracy led by clueless idiots who laugh and guess.
Insane
Same
@ashes-7425 from Britanica:
"at the elevation of the planet’s mean radius it is about 95 bars, or 95 times the atmospheric pressure at Earth’s surface. This is the same pressure found at a depth of about 1 km (0.6 mile) in Earth’s oceans."
Did you ever stop to think that using extraplanatary examples may not win you any arguments? You are right that it's mostly CO2, but it's a dumb thing to mention if you're going to pretend it's the same thing at all.
The point is, stop repeating things you hear from these people, because they will always twist facts in their favor.
@@ashes-7425 apologies. I thought you were saying that greenhouse gasses will certainly kill us because look at Venus.
Being hyperbolic, of course, but no need to rehash it.
Rodolfo that is exactly what I was thinking, the basic high school education.......I'm thinking even earlier than high school........78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen. I would not expect them to say 0.04 percent, but I would at least expect them to say 1% takes in everything else that's not nitrogen and oxygen. Any tiny less than 1% number, I could understand not having the exact number on the tip of their tongue, but five percent? Seven percent? Disgraceful.
It’s a total humiliation that those panelists can’t answer such a simple question while wanting to impose $multi-billion laws.
Frankly they should all resign.
Man, what a con job. The panelists not being able to answer that simple question masked the fact that rep LaMalfa's premise was total nonsense.
Every politician around the world will be out of a job very soon.
The Perfect Government is coming soon 😇
I believe one was BOYD of Boyd Trucking, answering a Diesel question too.
It would appear as though our government is sabotaging its own country and they're doing it with useful idiots
be executed you mean...
My physics textbook from 1970 states CO2 is 0.04%. Now more than 50 years later the answer still is.....0.04%.
(Edit: Now it is a year later and I have been inundated with replies (several hundreds). Some are polite and some are nasty and arrogant. I worked in a qualitative/quantitative/thermal analysis laboratory for 34 years at a large university. Please do not insist that atmospheric CO2 is never reported as a percent. That is incorrect. I had a state of the art Gas Chromatograph, and reports were always generated as percentages in scientific notation which makes sense because you cannot report "contents" in different units when the normalized total is 100%. Lastly, the original comment was a simple factoid which for some odd reason offends many people. I am 71, and if I said that "55 years ago I saw something unusual or interesting", why would you countermand it? It was a very simple statement that (at the time) I had no reason to disbelieve or believe; my life has not revolved around this textbook. My basic point is: why is everyone quibbling over 40 to 45 ppm of CO2? Please accept that IMO it is not harmful. If you have a different opinion that is fine with me. IMO, stating that CO2 has risen by a third in the last century means nothing to me. Stating it has risen by 45 PPM in the last 60 years is at least objective. Please refrain from posting comments that are not objective. Thank you.
It's always been a big lie ! 😪
@@rkeith4442 It's all about power and control, and money.
Gods pretty good at taking care of planets :)
but some day it might go up to 0.0401%. and we're going to pretend that's a bad thing.
@@guillermoelnino, it'll be a good thing, because it's good for vegetation, actually.
If this committee worked for me, they'd be gone the very next minute. You're all fired! Done, get out. Next.
I would propose them to breathe 5% CO2 air for half an hour. Just as an experiment.
Remarkable how ignorant these people are that push these green initiatives. I’m glad they got exposed.
What is CONSEQUENTIAL is that fact that all this green social engineering is being driven by woke politicians who get their information from “experts” that don’t even know the basics, like the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thank you for showing that you have such a woke bias that you missed that most salient point.
@@gossumx we have had much higher levels and the planet had far more life on it
@@gossumx One of them claimed transportation is 49% of CO2...
Completely absurd.
The voters are all still parroting these lies. So they continue to vote for the corruption thats pocketing the money. To be fair, it's not all bad. EPA/CARB has done some good but at what cost? It was all band-aid fixes. Now California roads are garbage, money spent elsewhere. Electrical Infrastructure is approaching 60 years behind upgrades. Now we need electric cars? California can not handle the ones we got. Locally a transformer blew up last week. Age? Life-cycle acceleration? Demand? Young voters are voting for this.
.02% plant life dies, it seems like we're OK for a while by my simple math.
They want to set the rules, and claim to be the experts, but they don't understand the basics of the topic. What else is new?
They’re just executives passing on what their employees told them😂
Proof that a college education is worthless and ppl need to walk away from their indoctrination camps called “educational institutions.”
They spout what the WEF tells them to.
@@tiberianexcalibur Coincidentally, .04% is the exact amount of brain function the climate nutters have.
Human induced climate change is an established fact; they don't need to go back to the fundamentals of it when discussing legislation.
If you went to order carpet from a store would you expect the salesperson to ask if you knew how many square inches are in a square foot? Not relevant to the conversation.
The ignorance of the so called experts is absolutely overwhelming.
Overwhelming, but far from surprising. The "climate cult" is called such for a reason. These people are literally insane.
the best one I've heard is during a house committee investigation , an oil CEO asking the head of the Environment Protection Agency
"how come there is crude oil in the Arctic "...the guy shrugged and answered it must have migrated there " ......the oil man smiled and said nothing ,
he knew the oil was formed some millions years ago when the north pole was ice free and full of vegetation
@@sparkyfromel Are we talking the formation of crude oil or coal?
@@man_at_the_end_of_time oil and gas
@@sparkyfromel Ok that was a bit rhetorical of a question on my part.
Oil and gas per the biogenic theory of origin comes from marine organisms not land plants. And how productive each region of ocean is for sediments resulting in kerogen once it is free of ice cover may not vary too wildly. As to global warming, there is a factor most ignore and that is the weakening of our planet's magnetic field.
It maybe a much stronger factor than CO2.
It is said by some most of the green house effect comes within the first couple of hundred ppm of CO2 such current increases in CO2 have negligible effects.
Currently, I've not formed a strong opinion except that those who push the CO2 heating theory are a best poorly informed and at worst are pushing a false narrative for profit and even malice. Could the elites be correct? Maybe somewhat but even their solutions may be worse than the problem.
I am more focused on WW3 (end times), economic crash, increasing of totalitarian controls, the Covid and Vaxx crimes being pushed by Facebook, the UN, the WHO, the UK,. the USA, China, etc, etc.
I'm a Science teacher with 40 yrs experience. The composition of gases in our atmosphere is a standard piece of info taught to 13 yr old school students.
Many years ago Carl Sagan stated many times of his concern that, despite all of us are living in societies largely measured and driven by advances in Technology and Science, there is barely a politician in any government anywhere who has a background in Science. Just brood on that conflict for a minute.
This is a perfect example of the government jumping into an industry and "just doing something" to make it appear that they are more capable than industry, regardless of the "little" details.
It's a perfect example of government inventing a crisis to justify more and more controls.
This is a perfect example of a bunch of people who have no idea what you’re talking about. Trying to make a decision. Including the narrator. Oh look this is a really small number. I should be able to ignore then.
He’s just as ignorant as the people he’s calling out.
@@neilkurzman4907
Do you even know what clouds are made of bud..? Cause that's your real Global Warmer right there..
Are you gonna blow 🌬 them off planet with a really Big Fan..?
The same as gun control.
@@aowi7280 Perfect example.
I learned the proportions of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and CO2 in 7th grade earth science. Not sure what’s worse….the fact that no one on the panel knows this, or the fact that these panelists have never been curious enough to find out. Or the fact that obviously these panelists have never had anyone ask this question to them before. Sad on all sides.
Exactly.. I do not understand american school grades [i am in the uk] but any reasonably bright school kid would know the atmosphere is more or less 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and yet these so called educated politicians do not!!! Seriously stupid..
I bet they dont know that it was much higher before modern man started walking.
All they are interested in is passing laws and taxing co2
@@caerleon87 Reasonably bright school kid? So two to three students every school. So very very few people.
Get a mike and go out asking people on what our atmosphere is contained from and you will be shocked on how few know.
Yeah no ones gonna remember it. Thats stuff you'll probably forget by the end of the year.
For me growing up in The Netherlands in the 80s California was always synonymous for The American Dream but now it’s definitely The American Disaster.
Thanks to woke democrats
The dream is gone....and I, have become comfortably numb! De Amerikaanse droom stuurt ons regelrecht 'down the drain'. In potentie geweldig volk, maar compleet geconditioneerd door de deep state, aka new world order.
Leave it to the liberals....
Living and seeing the disaster every day.
@@Carlos.Rivera efine woke
Can these people please resign immediately?
Rep. Doug LaMalfa exposed that Ship of Fools.
these are people making equipment not policy wonks, so they are not to blame
@@samthing4thetrack806 Yet, they promote the fallacy, take the subsidies, and don't question it.. yeah, totally unrelated, its not their fault..🙄
Someone needs to take out all the Biden’s now. We need to stop f ing around and do it
@@samthing4thetrack806 They are part of the policy process and yet they know nothing.
regardes their bank accounts by merican system of ''values'' they aint so morons as they are in reality.
All you have to do if you are wondering why America is falling hard...watch videos like these.
I watch videos about female penis, or listen to our president talk to get that effect.
America is falling hard because the republican's live off of an anger addiction. They have a long list of anger issues, gays, Mexicans, CRT (which doesn't exist in any K-12 school) grooming by teachers (also made up), Mini Mouse, M&M's, replacement theory, vaccinations, immigration, its one anger issue after another with those people. Yet, republicans know nothing about the science that is rapidly changing our economy and leading us to self-driving cars, artificial intelligence, robotics, modern medicines that work at a molecular scale.
We need more immigrants to build more homes and reduce home prices, pick more food and reduce food prices, fill the 6 million open jobs in restaurants, hotels, farms and construction and PAY for millions of baby boomers on retirement. Republicans are addicted to anger about things that have ZERO effect on their lives. ZERO EFFECT ON THEIR LIVES. Republican are addicted to opioids and anger.
Think yourselves lucky you don’t live in Europe.
It’s not just America. It’s the west
Indeed - and they still think we went to the moon!
If the people on the panel have any authority then America is stuffed.
Dear sir , you got some optimistic expectation about that ??
@@shaneanderson7757 it real doesn’t work that way. Some of it is that way but not even close to all. It’s a perfect storm of the greedy, ideological, and psychotic. We have bureaucrats with power you couldn’t imagine and they answer to no one.
@Alexander Everhart the government exists to infringe on your God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Kind of explains everything that's going on in the US. Crime, the economy and it's getting worse.
Creating and solving non existing problems for political gain is a recipe for disaster.
As too Here in Australia!
I am so glad that RUclips provides context notes for this. Man I would just be lost if they didn’t tell me how to think.
Rep. LaMalfa, you're one of the few remaining hopes in government we have left in CA. Thank you.
L S, We're lucky up here in his district. Northern California.
It's to late goodbye Commiefornia
Stop living in California and move to a solid red state. You're contributing to CA's 54 electoral votes just by living there. Get out, and starve the blue states of their power.
@@larryzach7880
Yeah the whole of the US is screwed.
don't worry give it some time , they are probably starting a smear campaign on him as we speak and will make him out to be a pedo, homophibic racist that tortures puppies
This is crazy! How on earth is this level of ignorance acceptable from people who claims to know how we should live!?
✡️s
what you say is so important. Here in France same problem, our leaders are so ignorants, it is scary.
The people who would vote emotionally will accept it, or he knows the truth but he's on some external payroll
Imma get u banned👊👌
They rely on advisers that supposedly are in the know. That is how these organisations get captured by idiots or people with an agenda to drive through. No one questions the narrative because they are too ignorant of the realities of science and other "reality based" subjects to have their warning bells rung (ie recognise a scam). Too many of the populace are also scientifically ignorant and will just believe anything they are told, providing it comes from the" right sources, tugs at their emotions, and is repeated enough.
Common sense spoken aloud is always such a breath of fresh air. Look at how calm and collected he is, in contrast to the stunned people being questioned.
Pretending that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is in any way relevant or a number ur supposed to know if u claim to be an expert on the topic is not common sense. It is showing that you are staggeringly ignorant on the theory.
@@beertje6394 yes, the ones complaining about CO2 not knowing the % of CO2 is not relevant at all...
Who’s staggeringly ignorant again?
@@360lootgoon3 Even though it would seem that CO2 levels are very low since they make up 0.04% of our atmosphere, that represents an increase of 43% since the industrial revolution began. Not only that, but with CO2, even a miniscule change from 0.04% to 0.05% can have devastating effects on the planet. I'm not sure what percent of CO2 would have to be in the atmosphere before you would start to care, but it doesn't take much to change drastically. And either way, Fossil Fuels are a finite resource. We will run out and that is a fact. Why not invest in tech that can give us renewable energy from the sun, wind, and water. Or invest in nuclear. You really think pumping millions of tons of CO2, a proven greenhouse gas and nonbreathable gas is fine for either people or the planet?
@@360lootgoon3 Correct the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely irrelevant to climate change. It is about the increase in CO2 in ppm and how this inhibits the earth from regulating its temperature.
@@beertje6394 Are you two communists or just trying to destroy humans on your own?
Thank you Mr. LaMalfa!
We need more people like you!
Dumb people in Congress? No, we already have more than enough.
The ignorance of those who are causing so much damage to the economy, society and life on the planet is astounding!
Exactly 💯 watch the documentary The Dimming
It's planned destrution, they don't care about the numbers because they already know it's not the problem
@@lisacarden1309
It is astounding that despite the evidence people ate still reluctant to believe we have been sprayed like roaches for decades through Stratospheric Aerøsol Injectıøn Campaıgns with heavy funding from uncle Bill and his geøengineering boyfriends.
You're the only one I have seen in years recommending that documentary. I have it on my play list and point people to it often.
Well done 👍 😎 👍
They're executives from transportation industries like railroad and trucking. It's not their job to know. Usually when you want to know something about the climate, you ask a climate scientist, not a 70 year old transportation executive.
They play dumb but they know it's a scam.
Im in southern oregon and have the paperwork to deliver water to the forest fire fighters, but we cant get the paperwork to deliver to northern california because our truck is not new enough and may put off too much pollution. They dont know if it does, but at that age, they believe it will. Now im pretty sure fires will put out smoke longer and kill more wildlife if theres no water to fight them.
What percentage of O2 or N2 causes green house gases. Zero because it's not a green house gas. So the question is irrelevant. CO2 is about half of the green house gas effect.
This should be shown to the world. They're advocating for someone they don't even understand.
This whole comment section is people who don’t understand. CO2 is measured in PPM not %. Bunch of science illiterate folks crying hurrr durrr 0.4% is such a small number why does it matter? Well how about drink a cup of water with only 0.4% plutonium in it. I beg you please drink it
So I used to be a commercial diver. Gas mixtures, pressures, and how your body reacts to different breathing mediums under different pressures was nailed into our heads. We were taught the atmosphere contains roughly 21% oxygen and roughly 78% nitrogen. That leaves 1% left for "other gasses." And these people think CO2 makes up 5-8% of our atmosphere. Incredible.
The "other gases" is actually closer to 1%, further reinforcing your point. It's criminal how uneducated these policy makers are upon examination.
@T yeah I couldn't remember exactly how much nitrogen but I knew I was in the ballpark
So why do greenhouse add co2 to make the plants grow faster and larger.
@@warrenpuckett4203 Are you asking why plants can thrive off of more CO2 while humans can't?
21% Oxygen 78% Nitrogen which actually leaves 1% of which they must claim that Carbon Dioxide makes up 0.4% of….
The man did his homework, good job Rep.
I do like an unstated guy. The subject though is too important to allow these drongoes to get away with goofing about like school kids that failed to study for the test. This video needs to go everywhere to expose their failings.
@@BelloBudo007 Atmospheric carbon dioxide is very effective at trapping heat. The amount of CO2 has *_increased 50%_* over the past 100 years (from 280 to 420 ppm). That is catastrophic. Period.
@@paulrousseau9144 please explain how increasing CO2 levels traps more heat
@@sergeikhoudiakov1914 It's high school level physics, I'm sure you could dig it up somewhere pretty easily.
But in so doing also be sure to remember that 0.00006% of the atmosphere is responsible to blocking 99% of cosmic radiation.
And also remember we are currently in a solar minimum (sun is colder) since 2019, which logically should result in atmospheric cooling... which isn't happening in our layer, only in the layers above the 0.00006% I mentioned earlier. Considering that that 0.00006% layer is currently growing, and that that growing should also cause cooling in our layer, it is clear that something is causing warming.
@@GeoRyukaiser Nice of you not to explain. But since you seem to be an Ozone expert I'll re-phrase my question for you: Will doubling Ozon concentration block proportionally more cosmic radiation? How about x10?
Thank you LaMalfa for always standing up for the people of Northern California.
Yes. Thank God. This isn't by accident, This is what our Educational system has produced, we need to clean house.
When I was a child ( a long time ago) we were told that in under 50 years we would run out of oil and coal and then given all of the scary things that this would create. We were given lists of animals that would be extinct in 20 years, including tigers and elephants. We were told that sea levels would rise and London would be flooded, we were told we were heading for a new ice age and would all freeze to death, we were told that the ozone layer would be depleted within 100 years and we would all fry to death.
You would think that they would have at least got one nearly right - unfortunatley due to simple entropy there are some animals that will die off, there will be various changes in climate and the natural world but killing off human beings through poverty and famine to try and stop it is clearly not the answer.
I'm still waiting for the flying cars we were promised in the year 2000!!!
Many of us have seen these radicals make dire predictions for decades that never came to fruition. We know by experience that they're frauds, but the younger generations are true believers!
Well Steve....democrats were lying then too!
This ng scientist never believed it was getting colder 50 years ago, that was entirely the media looking at one scientific report suggesting climate change could make some places colder and running with it claiming the next ice age was coming, a lot of what you hear was never said by or believed by scientists but regardless their credibility was lowered by the media and people like you went along with it.
Actually we use much less oil and gas back then. Also the ozone was definitely true to some degree.
The woman claims "... we know that transportation causes 49% of CO2..." which is also completely wrong. According to the EPA , "greenhouse gas emissions from transportation account for about 27% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions". It is embarrassing how ignorant those so-called "experts" are.
I’m fairly certain if memory serves correct that 97% of the atmospheric CO2 comes from natural sources
I was confused about this too, like it makes sense that transportation people wouldn't know co2 concentration cause they just would never be dealing with that, but it seemed crazy that she somehow got that statistic wrong, but I looked it up and I guess she was just talking about California specifically lol
@@jojo-beans her number is so far off, it’s dystopian
Greenhouse gas emissions are not the same as Carbon emissions. Transport has had considerable efforts put into reducing greenhouse gasses.
But she certainly sounded confident in her stupidity, so there's that.
The ignorance of policy makers is unbelieveable. If they don't even know that, how can they even begin to understand all the other absurd, hopeless and corrupt proposals thrown at them?
You'd be surprised, but this is in everything. The decision makers in this world don't ever understand what it is that they are making decisions on.
There’s no ignorance. They know exactly what they’re doing.
They don't.
Ignorance is a requirement for the current global cabal , sell your soul , but dont worry we'll promote you
You realize the guy just said it went from .03% to .04% in the last few decades right? You don't see any reason for concern about the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere increasing by 33% in the last few decades on a planet that's billions of years old?
Thank you
Science lesson:
If carbon dioxide is currently roughly estimated at 400 PPM.
Then it would be .04% of the troposheric content.
CO2 only holds about 40% of the infrared radiation striking the Earth's surface.
Even that eventually makes it out of our atmosphere back into space.
It's like a blanket that self regulates, or like a thermostat that maintains a comfortable surface temperature.
There are a lot of misnomers about the greenhouse effect.
If the greenhouse effect could so easily run away and heat the surface of the Earth to an unlivable Venus like temperature, then it would have occurred many times in the past, and none of us would be here.
Earth has experienced what are referred to as greenhouse periods in geologic history.
The P.E.T.M. 56 million years ago, for example.
But it was the orbital variances and the axial tilt of Earth that were responsible.
Not carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide levels only rise when the co2 molecule is excited by heat.
Heat on the surface is caused by infrared radiation exciting molecules, which is friction, which causes heat.
Another misnomer is that methane is the most potent of all greenhouse gases.
Technically, It is. But methane can not exist for too long in the presence of oxygen because it oxidizes into water and carbon dioxide, Ending it's role in the carbon cycle.
Anthropogenic warming theory leaves out water's role as the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
Al Gore made that statement very early on in this conspiracy theory.
It's in his "fictional movie."
Water vapor is the only reason why any of us are alive today.
Water vapor contains a specific amount of carbon dioxide from winter to summer, from greenhouse period to glacial period.
Water absorbs carbon dioxide when it is cold, and it emits carbon dioxide when it is warm.
It rises and falls with the amount of infrared radiation that is striking the earth's surface.
Take the money out of the climate change conspiracy theory, and nobody will be talking about it anymore.
Nice science lesson...
Very well stated. All life on this planet is definitely under threat, but NOT from the climate!
@@lilyflower4962 The planet is not in danger,....We are.!
remember, we do not know how much CO2 is needed to raise the earths temperature. Mars a smaller planet has the same tonnage of CO2 as the earth, instead of a half a percent of their atmosphere it is 95 percent of it's atmosphere, and Mars is frigid. So CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we don't know how much it takes to make a difference, all we do know is if it gets below 300 PPM the plants start dying, and we are trying to be net zero, and we are fighting forest fires, the natural CO2 plant savers, we could kill the planet trying to save it.
What a well written explanation. Thanks. I learned quite a bit from your comment.
Germany has done the same thing- their diesel fleet was already the cleanest in Europe (possibly the world), but additional regulations forced the removal of vehicles that were already the cleanest in Europe to be replaced with new “greener” vehicles. Worse yet, those vehicles that were replaced were rendered inoperable so they could not be exported to other countries with old, less efficient fleets of diesel cars/trucks. No BS, I personally witnessed it.
How's the battery and battery by product recycling over in germany? just curious how e-waste is being handled by my betters
@@Hector-ig8th can’t speak to that.
I thought Germany just fudged their emission reports to look good ;)
"We have put together, i think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." - Brandon
Exactly.....and brought all his brain dead zombies with him.
That clip of Creepy needs to go viral again.Subject him to the same rules they tried to apply to 45.
" I don't need your vote to get into the office I need you after I get in the office "
Joe Biden
The only truth Brandon ever told.
We will stop Northstream.
But we can’t prove it so we just repeat this until all smooth brains agree
❤ TRUTH is POWER ❤
There is a rock on the shore in Plymouth that marks the level of the highest tide and every time the tide is at its highest point it's never covered this rock completely.
The reason I mention it is because it has a date carved on it. The date is 1620... So much for rising sea levels and global warming sinking 20% of the islands of the Pacific!
Global warming is a fallacy created by the Democrat party to Garner power and money
The thing that seems odd to me about the global warming/melting icecaps sthick is if anything the ocean level would stay roughly the same or drop.
Water has the peculiar function of occupying a greater volume when it turns solid. Meaning when said icecaps melt either the lost displacement would cause the water level to drop (because less overall volume occupied) or it would stay about the same because there'd be a greater quantity of liquid H20 in said oceans to offset said volume shift.
@@aguyontheinternet9095 Devils advocate here but what about the ice that is above sea level?
@@aguyontheinternet9095 - Your point is correct for the ice cap at the North Pole because that ice is floating in the water. However, melting ice sitting on land, like Greenland and Antarctica, will produce higher ocean levels (to the extent that the melted ice exceeds new snow fall on top of the ice cap).
@@aguyontheinternet9095 Liquid water expands as the temperature rises - everywhere.
A classic example of politicians introducing laws for things they totally don’t understand
It's the problem when decisions are made based on emotions rather than facts.
Mulvayny comes running down
@alanrace4156 - Most of our lawmakers are 'Jack of all trades, but masters of none'.
Money and emotion seem the rule. 🤔
All they understand is money and how much this new bill can make for them
I’m live in Michigan and suffered through the Gov Granholm era here. I worked in public utility regulation for 30 years. Granholm tried to impose a 90% reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. When my agency and utility private sector experts informed her that the equipment to measure that level of emissions did not exist her response was “if we impose the regulation then the industry will invent the necessary instruments.”
They still cannot measure mercury emissions that small.
So of course Biden made her Secretary of DOE. She is an attorney with zero technical knowledge of energy.
Wow that’s awesome!!!
Great job Doug!!! There’s some common sense!!!
Knowledge is more accessible than ever, yet we seem to know less and less as time goes by...
Politicians are the only people who can get away with being this absurdly incompetent at their jobs.
The job isn't about competence, it's about networking
Absolutely not! You are forgetting the media or better yet fake journalists. The incompetence starts where the "news" comes from, only after that do you take a look at the sources.
I'd like to add WeatherMen.
These politicians are not the ones considering themselves experts. That's why they have these hearings. This farmer clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about, he just found a random piece of trivia online and is parroting it. He literally says at 1:34 that .03 to .04 is a small change. Its actually 33% change if you do the math. I wouldn't expect a farmer to understand that though, nor the implications. It's probably best left to the climate experts.
@@yokotaashi wow 33% sounds like a lot when you forget it’s referencing a measurement in the ten-thousandths. Of course it’s easy to fool the public when manipulating the view of statistics, isn’t it?
I used to live in San Francisco and I'd ask that question to every vapid Climate Alarmist I met. Not once did they know the answer is 0.03-0.04%.
And below .02 plants die.
Exactly right.
the next question after that is now much does man contribute to CO2 levels, hint, it's insignificant.
Research is hard for the fear mongers.
It is now above 0.04% so you expected the wrong answer from them. We are at 429 PPM according to numbers I could find. BTW: In 1998 it was about 330PPM.
This man has hit the nail on the head.....take note to what he is saying.
He seemed to say that a shift of .02% can have catastrophic effects. I'm sure that was what he was going for though.
The percentage quoted doesn't sound like much but is a 50% increase over what it should be, so his argument is wrong and misleading.
We need a whole lot more discussion like this.
True! They should ask about nuclear energy. I never get good answers from posters. They don't know anything about it.
My heart goes out to all those farmers. It's EVIL, what's being done to them! I pray we can help them sooner than later.
They get plenty of socialized help from the feds.
@@joshd79 Only when weather or politics get in the way.
Yea don't feel bad, they're federally subsidized to farm inefficiently. Grow avocados where avocados don't grow, that kind of thing.
@@SeraphsWitness Market forces dominate. Shipping is a big deal. Tariffs are a big deal as well. In the Western US water rights are a huge deal. So many things shape what is grown and where.
@@debi5292 I don't think I'd be so bold as to say market forces are dominating in agriculture. It's been heavily subsidized for a long time. Big Ag is one of the primary REASONS we have a water shortage out west. They're the primary consumers. Residential water consumption is only 5% of the total.
So yes, when you incentivize farmers to grow almonds, for instance, of course they're going to go to greater lengths to grow almonds even if the market forces don't incentivize it; because the government is handing out free money. And almonds are one of those crops that is insanely thirsty.
So yes there are many forces that shape the industry. But federal subsidy is easily the biggest. Look, California is the #1 producer of avocados in America by a long shot, yet we still import most of our avocados from Mexico because they're cheaper. Our market incentives are completely jacked up.
Doug LaMalfa -- living proof of the power of critical thinking, a rarity in today's world.
LaMalfa and critical thinking? Please don't joke about it.
I could care less whether the public chooses to buy solar panels or windmill turbines, but I do care whether the US government decides to buy and pay for to install both for everyone's home or business providing these corporations a government a large subsidy at the US taxpayer's expense... Are we a socialist nation or a capitalist/free enterprise nation? If you choose to buy and install solar panels or windmill turbines, DO SO AT YOUR EXPENSE! NOT MINE!
The communists in Moscow a hundred years ago removed guys like LaMalfa from the planet for just that reason. You can't have people who can think, let alone critically. They have this pesky way of seeing through the communist lies and bullshit.
No. Anti-critical though. "Common sense" is a thought terminating tactic used by people who can't substantiate their claims.
They no longer teach logic and critical thinking in school anymore. Those studies have been replaced by Critical Race Theory, Correct Pronouns, and Gender Identity
That's right, some in Ca know and care, good on ya Brother!
This needs to be televised on a loop.
you fall for it didn’t you?
The burning of fossil fuels affects the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm. We have now reached about 414 ppm, so we are on the way to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of this century. Scientists say that if CO2 doubles, it could raise the average global temperature of the Earth between two and five degrees Celsius
@@MikeAIright and? what do you not care about the trees? why you soo adamant on suffocating the trees? you do know that tree's don't inhale oxygen, right?
@@jackasshomey and you're missing the point.
@Judess 69er you make my head hurt
I cannot fathom - apart from plain malice - why we are governed by people who are doing everything they can to destroy life.
How is saving the planet destroying your life? The only ones trying to destroy your life are oil companies
because we don't complain enough ,all the idiots get a job in government quangos because no one else will employ them .
Evil runs the world, these leaders receive their authority from that source of evil, who's sole purpose is to steal, kill and destroy! Only one hope is the way out, The living Son of the living God! The devil's minions do what is in their nature to do......malice indeed!! But God is the ultimate power, and at the appointed time....evil will be brought to nothing! Don't lose hope, the best is yet to come!
We need more like Doug! Most, DO NOT have our best interest at heart. Electric Cars are not even possible with our grid...there are SO many logical reasons this is stupidly insane. Thanks Doug!
@@crystalcompass368 Virtually every scientist on the planet who is not on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry disagrees with you. Your "logic" needs a workover.
We need to have protest like the unions do and run out these criminal criminal woke politicians!!!
Yes.
Putting these hacks in charge of setting climate policies, who don’t have a clue about the actual amount of CO2, is just about as effective as riding a dolphin through the Sahara.
Omg not WOKEAPHOBIA! 😂😂😂 I needed a good laugh today and that one did for me!😊
Clown world what a ridiculous decade we live in 😅
Only when everybody's broke will Americans finally go s*** we better do something!
“Maybe you’ll bring generators…” I’m laughing so hard
Luckily, they don't produce C02 emissions, generators run on unicorn farts!
@@stapleman007 ; You see , I did not know that , think of what you could accomplish without a Democrat ?
Thank you yes Generators #
Hey maybe set up wind turbines there? Remote area, open field, sounds like a good spot.
@@HoChiHoChiPlays We have plenty of those, they don't produce 1/10 of what nuclear plants could produce on less than half the land used for turbines.
Stunning that the children are in charge of the household.
Doug LaMalfa is my Congressman. 20 years ago, I was asked by my city to be part of a team to go to the bay area to lean about the turf they planned to use in their sports complex. In less than one hour, I learned more than the entire city council from my home. They were voting to spend over one million dollars. It sadden me to think not one of them spent even an hour researching before voting to give away that kind of money.
They care more about themselves and money than the truth.
having a difficult time understanding that...
Becuase it's not thier money being spent. It's OUR money they're spending.
That is government in all times and all places 4 U
Hoax
We are fools
Whenever someone pretends to not hear a clearly worded question, you know they’re in trouble.
And asks for it to be repeated...🔥
Or that they know it’s a stupid question, but one that has a politically loaded misunderstanding behind it that you need to be accurate in answering……
@@jgreen9361
Nope, no ambiguity in these questions.
And it's a question that clearly, they had not expected.
And therefore, had not pondered.😂
PARENT: "Who tracked mud into the house."
KID (stalling): "What?........Who tracked what in the house?"
There's always been "climate change," it's called Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. C02 is good for plants & animals; plants flourish with more C02, animals eat the plants & flourish, people eat the animals and plants and flourish. Or, we can cut C02 and start dying out. Which do you choose?
Seasons are not climate change. Saying that makes you look just as dumb as these bureaucrats.
Chech out the Younger Dryas period....
The compliant sheep would come back with: No! Climate change is measured in 30 year weather cycles!!!!
and then they would fail in noting what the weather was like 30 years ago, and what the prevailing theory was back then..
Part of me wonders if they fully consumed enough of the climate change koolaid, and will plan their own little "Jones Town like celebration", in the next 6 years. But then I realize, just how amazing its going to be, in watching them realize their junk "doom clock" in Chicago, wasn't real.. 🤭
It's hilarious seeing the CO2 truck behind the woke campus refilling the cafeteria and science bldg tanks.
Not to mention at the greenhouses at the horticultural annex
CO2 is also very good for a couple of mighty families out there and thier plans to make us their slaves. Globally.
C02 is heavily than air. I'd like to see them explain to the world how it all gets up there in the first olace when its heavier than air?
Pretty simple : density of air and carbon dioxide depends of pressure and temperature. You should know that.
It's all about doing stuff that appears good on the surface with no concern for unintended consequences.
Oh the powers that be have a ton of bad intentions and know full well they have terrible consequences, they don’t care.
Oh no, the consequences are fully intended.
That's what their controllers play on - useful idiots.
The new phrase of the new century is " Being SEEN to be doing the right thing" Even when the reason has long since past gone away or never even existed.
Brian, I'm afraid we all neglect the fact that we have voted for leaders who do what they are supposed to do: they take care of their popularity in order to keep power, that's what every politician does because it wouldn't be rational to behave otherwise. Having choice between good and what appears good they choose the first because it's what the majority expects from them. We are trapped and the only solution would be to educate believers who incidentally are voters. However I seriously doubt education is what politicians as well as voters are interested in. They prefer getting simple answers appearing to be right ones.
In addition to what he taught them, the human contribution to that is 1/100th (which is. 0004%!). This whole thing is MADNESS. People with their hearts in the right place, but whose ignorance on basic aspects of this is so badly exploited. Absolute MADNESS.
It's worse than that even, because the measurement error and internal variability of natural flows is larger than the human contribution.
I have yet to see someone who is pro-conformist on the climate change propaganda know the difference between the stratosphere and troposphere, but they sure know that we need to enact a list of massive changes to our energy production and transportation infrastructure. They are never aware of how extensive the raw materials supply side needs to be, or what countries those come from.
The road to hell(on earth)is paved with good intentions.
@@LRRPFco52 Not doing your own research makes you stupid.
Many of these cult members DO NOT have their heart in the right place. They either want to appear "uber-woke" amongst their friends, get rich, or both... no exception.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
it's like When Elon simply asked questions back to the BBC "reporter" James Clayton. The other side simply talk out of their behinds
Don't let human rights get in the way of government business 😂
These are your rulers. Enjoy!
@@luigivincenz3843 Na Elon was much more childish than that, he didn't even have any figure's of his own. But I guess both of them asked a very stupid question and made themselves look stupid though so maybe it is.
@@StartabusinesswithJustin And elite individuals.
The smartest people in the room "Experts" So sick of the establishment!! #DefundDC
This was a very composed discussion where the Rep had questions we would want to hear and answers the panelist had no idea of. Very informative.
So what did you learn?
Did you learn WHY non-scientists claim the proportion of atmospheric CO2 is relevant? If so, I must have missed that bit. Perhaps you can direct me to the timestamp where this happened.
@@MrYahboo - What we “learned” from the video, is that government bureaucrats, that spend billions of our tax dollars, and make rules/laws for the peasants to live by, have absolutely no knowledge about the topic at hand. If you can’t see the hoax by now, there is probably no hope for you. The big, bloated, corrupt, inefficient, ineffective, self serving government is not your friend.
@@MrYahboo Well, I didn't know that CO2 represented only .04% of atmospheric gases. No doubt you did; so it's a shame you weren't on the panel. Otherwise, to say we "learned" something is perhaps too strong. It would be more accurate to say that the video provided further evidence that climate change activists have no clue what they're talking about. As for the timestamp, you might want to look at the upper left-hand corner of the video for the date of the hearing.
Informative? How? What did you learn?
Do you honestly expect leglators to know the details of climate science to make decisions on fighting climate change? Or to know anything about road construction to debate infrastructure funding? Or that they are trained in medicine before voting on funding your local hospital.
You are cheering on a show boating politician for raising Red Herrings instead of solving problems.
@@marcusthespotus the problem here is that the number is correct, but the minimal change from 0.028%, which was the pre-industrial level to 0.04% which we have now, does indeed have tremendous consequences for the balance of energy in the atmosphere.
Regardless of this shit show in which one ignorant shames some other ignorants.
Putting this in perspective: Imagine asking the executive team at Ford how many cylinders there are in a V8 and they don't know.
Anytime you try to explain it to some rando tho they say but we have so many cars how can we not be effecting it....
@@firebush1343 well to be fair you do have an over reliance on cars there in the US, a problem that won't be solved with EVs either (at least not with electric cars).
I'd say it's 5?!
Not really a good example since you could anyone even with zero knowledge of what an engines is and chances are they would get that question correct
Lol. He could have just asked, "What's a V8?" They'd probably say, "It's a vegetable drink." lol.
Just checked and confirmed via World Atlas, it is indeed 0.04% of our environment.
This is a great video, very sharable.
In 1998 it was 0.033%
@@kensmith5694 yeah and that's with massive increases to the amount of vehicles, people, farming, aeroplanes and rocket launches etc since then...... Back in 1998 the global population was 5.98 billion, today it's 7.94 billion and in 1951 it was 2.58 billion, the global population has basically tripled within the last 70 years and yet co2 only went up 0.007%
It's almost as if more people mean more co2 entering the atmosphere but only by a marginal amount and given time I'm sure the planet will readjust the atmosphere and balance itself back out like it's done numerous times in the past without our help
@@Idlepit2 The planet will adjust. Mankind will have to also. In the adjustment there will no doubt be wars and famine etc as the areas that could grow crops no longer can. The human population may well decrease in the result. Some of it will happen even if we did manage to cut CO2 production but less will.
No, transportation does NOT cause 43% of CO2.
Humans barely occupy 1% of the surface of the earth, and only a small % of that has running vehicles on it.
2/3 of the earth is a radiator.
Any 7th grader should know all of that.
Frightening to see how ignorant these officials are.
That's the problem with paying attention... once you see this, you can't unsee it... and realize it's very much the norm.
It's like watching five year olds fix the world's biggest problems.
There's a reason they made a 14 year old Swedish girl throwing a temper tantrum so she didn't have to go to school the face of the whole ridiculous movement.
I think even a five year old could do a better job than these idiots. These people are either horribly corrupt or ideologues hellbent on proving their case and enforcing their agenda no matter what they have to do.
hey, don't insult the worlds 5 year olds against these donkeys!!!😁
World's biggest problems?
If it was a real problem, they'd be dodging, ducking, and weaving.
The best part is the so called climate change is not even a real problem to begin with.
This is EXACTLY correct, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is pathetically small, plants are right on the edge of suffocation. If we put more CO2 in the atmosphere plant life would explode with vibrancy & then when the trees began to multiply the global temperature would become milder. They do NOT want more life on Earth, they want LESS.
No, increasing CO2 doesn't make plant life do a lot better. Plant life is adapted to a world with about 300PPM of CO2. The CO2 content right now is over 400PPM. There is no huge increase in plant life and some varieties are actually having trouble. We need water to drink but we can also drown.
@@kensmith5694 You should actually look at the evidence instead of just trusting "the narrative" as it will limit your ability to critically think through this stuff. The reality is that there has been MUCH more CO2 in the biosphere in the past & the plant life was much more plentiful as a result. We have been though many surges in the CO2 amount & the plants went through greening surges as a result, but unfortunately so much of the CO2 of the past is now locked away in limestone & fossil fuels. Even just with the amount of extra CO2 we have released into the biosphere since the industrial revolution has measurably increased the greening of the planet, so you are completely incorrect about this. The fact is that the evidence shows our star the Sun is the only significant source of any change in climate on Earth & when the sun increases the temperature on Earth, the amount of CO2 goes up as a result.
@@kensmith5694 Ken with all due respect, you are simply wrong. Increased co2 increases the health and size of plants. This has been shown by simple teenage science fair projects. Also, with more co2 the plants require significantly less water since they develop fewer structures to take in Co2.
I have seen estimates that with a doubling of co2 the Sahara desert would bloom and reduce the severity and frequency of hurricanes impacting North America.
Also, having a bunch of biologists and geologists in the family I have had the benefit of the truth. As a retired businessman, all I can say is if someone comes to me saying in exchange for all my liberty and freedom he will control the weather, I say bulls**t!
@@kensmith5694 Some greenhouse owners use CO2 generators to increase yields.
@@kensmith5694 Yes it does. Green houses for commercial vegetables use CO2 generators machines in order to increase the percentage of CO2 inside the green house to make the crops grow faster and bigger. Go to a green house farmer and you see it by yourself.
Methane = 1.7 parts per million , Carbon Monoxide =1 part per 10 million ,Nitrous Oxide =
1 part per 3 million , knowledge , truth ,simple arithmetic = zero.
What’s even more concerning is they don’t know, but want to overhaul an entire industry. 🙄
Oh they know.
Their plan is to have us stop any form of industry and instead rely on china for it.
Bingo patriot ,see you in the trenches just like Ukraine
WITH OUR MONEY!
It's worse than that, they are going to use it to enslave you!
@@MichaelSmith-jj3pz
And our livestock, our lands, our supply chains, our vehicles, and our properties, and our freedom, etc.
Great job, Doug. These folks want the country to fail bigly!
Bigly 👍
Another 👍 for bigly!!
I’m Bigly, and I approve this message! In all seriousness… WTF.
You are mistaken. Their plan is much bigger. 40 Percent of the world population will never see this Green transformation. Basically starvation for the rest.
Bigly 😂😂
OMG what a incompetence. And those people are making decisions? We are moving to "Idiocracy".
Moving? We are well past that stage.
Can you explain to me the significance of being able to come up with this number? Can you tell me what percentage of radon in the air is considered hazardous by the EPA?
@stargazer7644 The significance is these people claim to be experts. Yet they do not understand something as basic as that number. As for radon that's more EPA. Out doors normal background. Is roughly .4 pCi/L. Once that gets between 1 and 2 it's a concern. 4 is the EPA action level. How do I know thus? I Looked it up. The same as these so called experts should have.
@@stargazer7644 the significance is children learn that at school. If they were unable to learn something specific for their job from school they aren’t even incompetent, they are just ignorant.
@@Mythhammer These are politicians. They do not claim to be experts. They consult experts, and they make laws. You didn't answer the question I asked. What percent of radon in air is 4 pCi/L? What is the significance of that number? Why is it 4 and not 2, or 400? You're demonstrating my point. The fact that you were able to pull 4 out of the internet doesn't tell you anything about the significance of that number. Even if one of the reps had uttered 400 parts per million, that wouldn't mean they know any more than you do why 4 pCi/L is significant, or have any idea how that relates to a percentage of radon in air.
0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. The proportion of the CO2 total that is attributable to the burning of hydrocarbons and other human activities is guess what… also 0.04%, which means it is an infinitesimal amount. And it has been amply demonstrated that CO2 is not a driver of climate change, and that the levels today are amongst the lowest in the history of the planet.
Why idiots like those allowed to make rules for the rest of the people? Why the people allowing this to happen?
They are politicians NOT scientists!
Because everyone's too afraid of the alternative
Why the people allowing it , aren’t you part of the people? Why are you allowing it to happen.
They're "experts."
The answer is money to be made .there the answer in a nut shell
What a breath of fresh air from this gentleman. And from California no less.
He's owns farmland in the central valley. When he's not in congress or doing his duty as a rep, he's running a combine or tractor on his farm.
Democrats and common sense don't mix.
Democraps and stupidity are one and the same. Can't fix stupid.
Oil and cents do
Yes cos its all done on emotion and NOT on science facts
What a group of Thicko's
Oil and water, oil and water.
They know it doesn't make sense... it's not about sense, it's about power. Political power and money. Criminalizing political opposition and feeding their partisan pet projects using other people's money through taxes.
0.05% of Blood Alcohol levels is likely to cause coma and respiratory failure, but it's ok to drink that crate of whisky, because it was expensive and farmer Doug tells you so.
You know back when I was a kid, they used to teach us in school. To just plant some trees to offset the CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants and plants some grass... Why do we got to spend all this money to offset CO2?
Because there's government (OUR) money to be made, and people to control and keep in a perpetual state of fear.
Duh.
When I was a kid, they told us repeatedly that the Amazon rain forest was the "lungs of the world", but that it was disappearing at the rate of 50 acres a day. Now the Amazon is gone and the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, but the environmentalists all act surprised.
i keep saying this exact same thing. You never hear about deforestation any more, or planting more trees. All you hear about is high-tech solutions that cost huge amounts of money and that cost then being passed on to every-day people. And its only western civilisation thats doing this. It seems a deliberate tactic to destabilise the west. How can we compete with the rest of the world with one hand tied behind our backs? And its our own 'leaders' that are tying our hands.
They want to over populate us to make us become desperate.
Meaning, they could care less about a real solution.
@@arklainquirk Now, perhaps. Before it was cut down, it absorbed far more CO2 and generated far more O2.
A better question would be to ask them who they are being paid by to front for this fraud!!
Exactly
And the answer would be that the money ultimately comes from governments. No conflict of interests here, right?
WEF
Initials: GS, founder of the rebellion extinction cult.
It is, approx, 0.04%. A ten second check on google gives the answer. Two hundred years ago it was around 0.02%. So the CO2 level is rising.
And a 5 second Google search shows you that we are at a record low level compared to any other geological era. So, CO2 levels are not a concern.
The climate crazies have become more annoying than vegans at a BBQ. The sky isn’t falling and even if it was there is nothing you could do about it anyway.
The "crisis" is what it's always been. Meant to serve as an excuse or tool to accomplish a certain unrelated agenda. There are a few such scams going on right now.
Handing these people money is the last thing that will help that is for sure !!!!!
“vegans at a BBQ”! Epic!
You must be quite stupid if you have not noticed the increases in severe weather in recent years. Open you eyes, and stop quaffing fossil-fueled propaganda.
Exactly!
If you rephrase "Ban CO2" as "Ban plant food", you see how ridiculous this whole agenda is.
Me and my friends concur!
Just because co2 is necessary, it doesnt mean that more is good. The balance is important. If there were more fractionally more oxygen then fire wouldn't be extinguished and we'd all burn.
So writing off climate change as bogus isnt a good idea either.
Idiocracy
With that sentence you just make yourself ridiculous because you show that you dont understand the topic.
Bevore humans started burning fossile coal and gas plants already grew and the co2 concentration in the air was constant. So if we stop buring stuff plants will still grow.
Like talking to a 4 year old kid...
BINGO! But "Pant Food" sounds silly especially if Christopher Monckton of Brenchley says it. But "Essential component of photosynthesis" is too much of a mouth full. I dunno there really needs to be some really good bumper sticker/sound bite to get the point across.
The look on their faces when he started his question. 🤣😂
Look like they all just shit themselves 🤣 knowing they’re going to get caught.
His question made no sense. Thats why they were taken back. Doug has not even the basic high school understanding of the planets climate system. No concept of a feedback system. An example... you take a pill for high blood pressure that is less than 40 milligrams. That's just a few grains of salt in size. It completely takes over your entire circulatory system. Just 20 more could lower your pressure so much your dead. Doug is just another ignorant politician
They are trained to switch off when facts arise from debate, then it's back into reset mode immediately after questioning stops, the lights are on but there is no one home MO.
All one of the pannel need do was google the question for the answers, tech at their fingertips but no answers.
Priceless 😊
Thanks, I had to go back and watch it again.
Ha ha
🦌🔦🔦 (I need a headlight emoji)
Spot-on, Doug LaMalfa 👍😬🇬🇧❤️
Incredible. A sober, knowledgeable adult asking questions of the intellectual equivalent of Moe, Larry, and Curly.
You got the names of the three stooges intellect wrong its: Biden, Harris and Newsom
@@DrDoom-uu3cj ; Well done , Ha !
John, great comment. So accurate.
Moe, Larry, cheese.
What happens if you have some insulation, and you mix in an other kind of insulation? Will it isulate more or less? That depends on whether, the added type is a better or worse insulator (If we don't look into what mixing them might do chemically, as we - I - never have heard anyone talk about that) or just happens to have the same effect. It's not like we go from 100 % atmosefere to more than 100% (not like putting an extra blanket on top of the currect one) so before someone proves, and tells us about, what the numbers are, and what they result in, I'll go with the historical data, that says, Co2 LAGS temperature NOT the other way around..
And by an extraordinary coincidence, 0.04% also happens to be the collective IQ of this panel.
man.. IQ is not measured in %, but I agree with the sentiment. One has to be special stupid to go on a panel on green initiative and not know % CO2 in atmosphere..
IQ of room temperature.
I think you are being generous
You are overestimating!
No, thats not possible actually
The fraction of politicians that are actually highly educated and experienced in what they talk about is seemingly about the same as 0.04%.
The more educated one becomes the more compartmentalised they become, and follow the money, this is how higher education rumbles. Mattias Desmet has explained it quite nicely and how higher does not always mean wiser.
@@MotorcycleEngineering101 If you will use that argument we may as well use snail races to determine politics. Having a basic respectable education would be a start in giving a nation a flying chance of collective success.
@@MrSaemichlaus Like 'Jack of all trades, but master of none'. 🤔
@@MrSaemichlaus Every nation could easily recover from the globl and corporte theft machine, of our labour and cornucopia, all we need is real life skills a plenty to create what we need in house, once we loose this most valuable commodity we begin to die as a nation, slowly at first bolstered by the cheapness of the poor worker out of sight and mind, then as time progresses we fall away rapidly as was intended by every free trade conundrum, the ending salvo is a broken peoples with hands that can no longer do their own dishes, it is not a pretty long term synopsis, the end of our prowess and cycle is pretty close to completion.
@@ladydi4537 If Jack and Jill put at least ten thousand hours into any hobby they can be king and queens of their own dint and or direction, we have done this several times over the last fourty years and are masters of all we share with others, anyone can achieve this, all they need is tiime and determination and self discipline, the rest will follow, all Roads lead to ones own kind of Rome in the fulness of time.
True perspective on CO2 and the electric vehicle myths.
Jeopardy contestant: “I’ll take hoaxes for $200”
Alex: The answer is, “Which hoax compels experts to be wrong by orders of magnitude?”
Jeopardy contestant: “What is climate change?”
Alex: correct
kun gf lu d eaths would also be an acceptable answer.
lol that's a funny one haha
Alex is dead? RIP Mr Trebek we love and miss you except for this guy He doesn't respect you AT ALL!
Climate Change brings:
Cheating.
Charges.
Champagne sipping Charlatans.
Chargrined.
The Truth of the matter is, no one knows 100% one way or the other. That includes you. All we can do is follow most likely causes and seek alternatives that benefit everyone on the whole. To do nothing, is as fruitless as it sounds and is a plague that is infecting our govt about literally every issue the country is facing.
Jeopardy Contestant: "I'll take uneducated youtube commentors for $1,000"
Alex: The answer is, "What youtube commentor is overly confident and self-righteous to post about global warming being hoax when he himself has no knowledge with certainty above that of those he critiques?"
Jeopardy Contestant: "Who Is Mike Simonson"
Alex: ''Correct''
this was brilliant by Lamalfa, never felt like he was attacking anybody just asking simple questions and answering everything from the heart, really blindsided that panel
He wasn't blindsided, because these were the Republicans witnesses. They were friendly witnesses. Here in case you don't believe me: Mr. Marc D. Williams, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, On Behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; Mr. Dwayne Boyd, Regional President, CRH, On Behalf of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; Mr. Aric Dreher, Assistant General Manager, Cianbro, On Behalf of the Associated Builders and Contractors; Ms. Paula Hammond, Senior Vice President, WSP USA, On Behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. This was not a "gotcha" moment at all.
Blindsiding the panel with an irrelevant question is the point. it doesn't matter what the accurate number for the % of CO2 is, the world is experiencing the effects regardless of whether or not the panel can answer a stupid question.
@@joeshithragman3264 He asked a basic question pertaining to the topic. If they're going to make an argument for reducing carbon emissions because it's leading to the end of civilization ,that's a relevant question. The fact that they couldn't answer it ,because they're clueless shows how not serious they are.
@@joeshithragman3264 Why are you wasting CO2 by commenting of a device that uses electricity?
@@calvinquitevis2291 I dont think its relevant question. Its like a question " What %tage of you body weight is cholesterol circulating in your blood?"
But it doesn't mean that your cholesterol level 500 is meaningless to health.
if there are still people thinking that politicians are educated and know what they are doing, you have a reason to change opinion..
Politicians become politicians because they are useless at everything else.
To be fair we had a US Representative say that he opposed sending additional Marines to Guam because he was afraid it would tip over and capsize, and people reelected him, so I’m not too optimistic.
@@Andy-de3li What would tip over and capsize ?
@@markme4the island of Guam
@@Andy-de3li So that video. He was seriously asking of the danger of the island capsizing because of too many people and the army general was trying to hold himself from laughing.
No need to go electric, you can go amish.
Saying these people are qualified to make laws, is like saying a McDonald's employee is qualified to build a nuclear reactor.
Or a decent burger! 😂
I have more confidence in the McDonald’s employee
Those are not law makers, they were invited for Doug LaMalfa to make a video for his website and people think its real. Its just a show for RUclips.
Notice that no names are posted you got punked.
Bureaucrats don't make laws.
If they don't know the current CO2 levels, how the hell can they work on anything related and what good are they?
Because knowing the CO2 level in the atmosphere is NOT directly germane to their task. They are not climatologists and they don't need to be. Nuance is hard.
Because it is a elaborate Scam to achieve a certain globalist NWO outcome. They can shut of a EV's any time they want and that's how they like it . CO2 is a lifeforce and they want to kill it and most of us !
@@snuffyballparks6501 as Crrow777 quips - belief is the enemy of knowing.
@Snuffy Ballparks yep... that's like having a toddler tell you how to fix a computer.
This is a stupid question. Who cares if going from .04% to .07% is what turns earth into Venus? The question suggests that you need to have a massive amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere to destroy the earth, which is not true. The reason it's only .04% is because the atmosphere of the earth is TINY. SUPER THIN. It only looks like we have a lot when your looking up at the sky. Look at our atmosphere from space, and its a sliver of gases around our planet, that we need, and we need the correct amount of gasses, or we all die.
That guy just categorically laid out a perfect case and the other people fell right into it
I don't think he did. Feel free to persuade me otherwise by explaining what this 'perfect case' was.
@@MrYahboo more carbon means a far greener planet. Always has throughout the history of earth. You know what that means? Runaway heating is impossible because at some point the plants and ocean protozoa level out the co2. That's just 1 point here.
He didn't prove anything. Those people were not climate specialists. They were witnesses representing road infrastructure companies. LaMalfa pointed out that CO2 is only a small fraction of the atmosphere. That's correct. But what he doesn't tell you is that even that small fraction is essential. Breaking that fragile balance in the atmosphere is having severe consequences. Sometimes small fractions matter: the connector connecting you steering wheel to your vehicle is only a small fraction of the car, but you won't go anywhere without it.
@Montecoucou. Breaking that fragile balance is having severe consequences? Tell that to your leaders who destroyed the Nord Steam gas line and suppliers of missiles and rockets in a proxy war.
@@montecoucou53 what happens when there is more co2 in atmosphere? Photosynthetic life on land and in the ocean thrives. What happens when that happens? Co2 balances out and then decreases. Wow. Science.
This session shows us clearly how under educated most of these bureaucrats really are
All he really needed to ask was "Who finances your research" that will tell you everything about what that panel are up to. Embarrassing they didn't know the answer to his first question
Yes. Good point!
97% of scientists discover what they are paid to discover!
@@wheelsofafricathat's how the cigarette industry used to operate and the fossil fuel industry still does.
He will never ask that because most of his campaign donations come from the oil industry.
yup! Follow the cash. I remember Obama saying, "No one should own more than one house". He owns four the last I heard. All beach front mansions. This is after he was president. that should tell you all you need to know about most politicians. They go in pour, and come out rich. so the question is, where is the money coming from and why do you love it, more than your own people (country)?