THE GREAT DEBATE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июн 2024
- Is Global Warming real? What do the statistics prove? And are those same
statistics really accurate? INSEAD Finance Professor Theo Vermaelen and
Paul Dubrule Chaired Professor of Sustainable Development Paul
Kleindorfer debate the issue in the wake of Copenhagen.
Why are there so few climate debates? Most of the videos that come up when searching climate change are 4 minute videos showing an animation of CO2 particles bouncing radiation back to Earth but no charts and graphs.
Because its not a debate, its true.
true meaning global warming is a fact and its man made.
@@olmis6289 Name 5 uninhabited places ( to avoid heat island) that are warming & provide temperatures & sauces. I bet you can't find one.
John Sergei I can’t off the top of my head. Wether or not I can or can’t doesn’t mean anything though. Why do you want me to find 5 places how is it relevant?
@@olmis6289 Try research (so they ask the search engine the meaning of the word).
We will look at C02 warming the world, but first let's see if the world is warming?
How do we determine that. We have head island effects in cities & thousands of miles of ocean & land ( arias large enough to swallow Europe & America, together, that we have no and/or almost no temperature readings for, ever.
"Who has an incentive to build half a bridge? The bridge builders"
Happened near Sydney, The Unindarra - Maldon rail line, stopped 30 years ago & was never completed. 1/2 a large bridge just sitting in the forest. No rail line for miles.
The govt has no disincentive to build half a bridge.
Werner Heisenberg was a German scientist who is known for, among other things, "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The premise of this theory is that it is difficult/impossible to know, with certainty, even the measureable results from an experiment, since the monitoring devices (in this case climate scientists) always alter the results. Is it naive to believe scientists asking the advanced democracies to pay $250 trillion to limit global warming because we trust them to be above our natural self importance, poor judgement and self serving that afflicts most of us? When you consider that for much less it would be possible to eradicate hunger, and provide education and health caree to every living human being on the planet, I think, yes.
This was the ONLY climate change debate I COULD FIND between legitimate scientists. RUclips! Where are the others!!?
They are out there but you have to dig to find them, here are just a few. And yes if you weren't skeptical before seeing debates from actual climate scientists, you will be after you watch these:
ruclips.net/video/gJwayalLpYY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/6wBDR-5ltVI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/SQFCKICwFEQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/sZsnAdGaxkY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/TjlmFr4FMvI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/RAbELlpAxe8/видео.html
You believe them both to be legitimate scientists? Refer to the description box.
We dont need debates to know whether the sun will rise in the east or west every night.
@@102nickplays I see, this is your new religion. It does have all the essential elements, including original sin. Enjoy your dogma, it will eventually fall apart just like every other religion. It is already starting to happen so...
@@ericmichel3857 Science is not a religion.
“... in 2013 everyone will see their predictions were wrong...”. YUP!!!
Er, maybe there were a couple of years where the temperature didn't rise, fine. But, since then, even you can surely see the trend is continuing upwards - confirming the predictions.
Very much enjoyed this video. This is how a debate should be. Supporting arguments with facts and each side respecting the others opinion. You earned a subscriber
no, the alarmist did not respond to the claim that study revealed a decline in temperature but mr. hockey stick micheal mann hide it.
7:50 I smacked my forehead when she said "it could create jobs". Sure you could create a lot of jobs if you tax the population and pay people to run in hamster wheels. Is this a business school, seriously?
Fucking Muppet
WWII kind of managed. Ended the depression.
The jobs argument is made for idiots, which most people are unfortunately.
Worst year of the Great Depression was 1945 in terms of living standards in America and living standards rose dramatically in 1946. So not really if you mean what you seem to imply.
ok fool. Right now there are 2.5 milion green jobs in the EU. this will rise to 30 million by 2030. not many work in oil
CO2 levels on earth came close to reaching a point where plants could no longer grow. The earth is recovering from a very low level of carbon dioxide. Plants prefer a much higher level of carbon dioxide. The earth has become greener and crops more productive as temperature and CO2 level rise.
In most cases, temperatures on earth increased prior to increases in CO2. CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, as compared to the influence of water vapor.
Higher temperatures - an effect of higher CO2 and other gases - are causing soil infertility, desertification, danger to outdoor farmers, and loss of crops due to flooding, so the overall effect is not beneficial. It actually causes conflict and mass-migration.
The debate isnt about whether the climate is or isn't changing. It's always changing. It's about human caused climate change. There is a real debate to be had there. Why is there not more debates on this??
Because climate phonies refuse debate. All science frauds refuse debate.
Because it is clear it is 100% us burning fossile fuels.
because the alarmists would lose the debate, they would and always have done run away from debate
Well today all of the models were wrong. So when will they admit they have been wrong ever since 1957. They have had no models the have come to fruition
It's a lot of holes in their theory. Green house gasses! High CO2 levels! Man made! Anyone who believes in the global warming/climate change movement is either subliminally or openly thinking of mass HUMAN GENOCIDE!!! Human beings make up the CO2 and if they're saying it is a problem then less people will make it a lesser problem.
I thought those supercomputers that provides this data and other data can't predict weather or weather patterns/conditions pin point accurately over 5 days 🤣🤣🤣 so 20 years is a stretch. So where are you getting this from? It sounds like FAITH to me and the Global Warming/Climate Change movement is the Religion!!!
The only model that has been accurate as of 2023 was a russian one, it predicted vastly lower temp increases and is pretty close to observed data which is same as always a slow upward trend hardly noticable.
@@silverdale3207 Most of the climate scientists have also predicted a gradual upward trend, but when we/they say "gradual", we mean about a quarter degree every ten years, which is what it is now. Actually, compared with previous ages that is VERY FAST. Do you know the idea of the "boiling frogs"? The story is that, if you put frogs into boiling water, they jump right out again - because they instantly notice the difference. BUT, if you put them in cold water, and heat it VERY slowly, they don't notice the gradual change, stay in the water, and boil to death. That's why so many people aren't worried about warming - it's not much difference from one year to the next, and sometimes you get a couple of slightly cooler years.
100 billion dollars a year could be better spent on aquaponics, reforrestation, desalination plants, education, health etc
They don’t want to solve it. They just want control. Man made climate change alarmist are dangerous if you don’t educate yourself.
Too many goals
Then came fracking and we are well below peak oil 10 yrs later.
How many people know that? Left wings were always manipulative and cunty but now they just started a psychological warfare
Even if we cannot agree on climate change, surely we can all agree on the value of eliminating single-use plastics, harmful pesticides, excessive logging, preserving habitat for endangered species, focusing on clean energy and improving recycling activity?
Skeptics: 1 Alarmists: 0
may i correct you?
alarmists: 1 sceptics: 0
Philly Wister wrong.
hate to inform you but predictions of CO2 warming go way back. Edison was worried about the effects of CO2.
@@phillywister9957 you didn;t watch the debate
I wanted to tear my hair out by the poor credentials of these debaters. Why not have 2 climate scientists one an alarmist and the other a skeptic? The reason is that the bedwetting climate scientists refuse to debate.
Here is a good one... Trying to find more but it's kinda hard.
ruclips.net/video/gJwayalLpYY/видео.html
What should be coincidental about a staedy warming rate after a "little ice age"? A warming rate that already happened in 1910 to 1940 without the human emissions.
If you don't think human were contributing to C02 emissions from 1910 to 1940 you should just sit this one out. Good Lord. Read a book.
If you knew climate change mathematics you'd know Logarithmic Relationship: The logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature is based on the fact that the warming effect of each additional unit of CO2 decreases as CO2 concentrations increase. In other words, doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not double the warming effect.
The warming of the early part of the 20th century was to do with human ghg emissions. It was the principle driver along with natural variability at the time such as decrease volcanic activity and increased sunspots.
The 1940s - 1970s did indeed show a modest reversal of the warming despite rising ghg emissions. This coincides with natural -NAO and ENSO cycles conducive to cooler temperatures. There was also a huge amount of sulphur dioxide released after the industrial output increasing massively after the war increasing solar reflectivity further dampening the CO2 forcing.
To put in perspective the 1945 - 1970s 'cooling' still yields a temperature anomaly estimating +0.3 C against the 'colder' 19th century - 1800's average.
@@Andy-wn6wm You are making assumptions. Neiher it is certain that "The warming of the early part of the 20th century was to do with human ghg emissions."
nore that the naturual forcings are as certain as. "...warming despite rising ghg emissions. This coincides with natural -NAO and ENSO cycles conducive to cooler temperatures. There was also a huge amount of sulphur dioxide .."
This is all a huge uncertainty dillema.
Basicly it makes no sense in the first place that the global temperature changes several degrees if you change a trace gas from 0,03% to 0,06% in the atmosphere. these are total out of proportion assumed energy forcings.
The carbon cycle is not certain either. The ipcc mentions the uncertainty in flora and ocean CO2 sinks. In the past ice ages way more CO2 was absorbed by cool oceans. It could mean that we with our human share are not able to raise the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
The logarythmic nature you mentioned.. Did you try to apply that eariler or later? What is when you start the logarythmic calculation with 2ppm already and why would you start at 280ppm? The whole logarythmic aspect has uncertainties in itself. So called Saturation of CO2, Schwarzschild et al..
"To put in perspective the 1945 - 1970s 'cooling' still yields a temperature anomaly estimating +0.3 C against the 'colder' 19th century - 1800's average."
You need to put in perspective that you are taking the end of the little ice age, an unusual cold period in the whole holocene, as the baseline. Then you assume that 0,3° is still something out of the norm. Truth is we do not know. UNCERTAINTY and UNKNOWNS.
Meh, climatologist, scientologist, what's the difference?
wanna point out a few cherries of this interesting, pleasant debate:
4:34 left guy's face is priceless when the alarmist launches his proof bomb at the general public of cringing statisticians
also a nice moment:
6:37 "the relatively small stakes" [of moving to a low-carbon world-wide economy] :D
but to his credit, the alarmist was at least still being afforded to be honest about the situation
5:42 "what's uncertain is: [...] what are the other drivers of the climate change which we are seeing."
5:59 "the problem is that we face such significant uncertainties at this point [...]. we could say, let's not do anything until we know the facts"
8:12 "we cannot have consequentialist(s?) reasoning here alone."
The Truth About Climate Change - Dr. Patrick Moore - Greenpeace Co-Founder
he was not the co-founder, www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/
@@fabiofxvanni he was a co-founder, green peace just does not want people to know, Moore attended DMWC meetings, and was part of the committee when its name was changed to the Greenpeace Foundation. Other committee members included committee founders Bob Hunter, Rod Marining and Ben Metcalfe. Moore describes himself as a founding member of Greenpeace, but the organization denies this claim.
When can we get off this co2 and back to reducing pollution
CO2 is now a form of pollution. lots of people in denial here.
@@garyheiden3120 Co2 is amazing for life! Take a look at the cambrian explosion, CO2 was at 7000 parts per million. This is the greatest know explosion of life on earth.
@@garyheiden3120 CO2 never was and never will be a pollutant. It is a another climate lie. CO2 is the essence of life, and we need more not less. It does not drive climate.
@@adrianfewster8391 you obviously dont understand all the science data behind Co2 levels and how it affects heat radiating from Earth. I encourage you to keep researching this subject. dont give up...a mind is a terrible thing to waste!
@@jupyjones4823 talking about the Cambrian explosion, yes a great time for humanity.
good conversation
I remember in the 70's (yes I'm old) when it was the coming ICE AGE! What happened to it? Scientist CAN be wrong. That's science. Always changing.
you need to read more..that was the problem. Edison in the 1930s was concerned w CO2 heating the world and it goes further back than that my friend. they were concerned about ice age for 2 reasons, #1 the geological timing seems to indicate we should be slowly heading into new ice age. #2 these scientists were worried about human-produced propellants cooling the atmosphere.
@@garyheiden3120 park your car, turn off your energy supplies
You forgot about the water has alot to do with it to
Water no 1 greenhouse gas. How many people know that
@@meghanachauhan9380 I do! They are many other factors. These clowns don't get it!
The sun is also a big factor.
So, don't use aeroplanes? ....IF you don't fly to the sunny holiday, but the plane went there anyway, without you on it...what have you saved?
When they park their private jets and limousine columns, let me know. Until then, don't waste your co2 on me. Not you, them.
"We are beyond peak oil" , no no we are not.
Beyond peak oil? Lolol
Citing Pascals wager as a defense of climate change is pretty god Damn laughable... Basically saying yeah there is strong data against our climate change case and we could be wrong but why not believe in it just in case
Climate change? I thought it was global warming? How about we reduce the money all the alarmists have is equal to the rest of us?
4. Man on Earth = Ants on a Human body can ants' olympics cause structural changes on Human body ? Offcourse Human gets a fever every once in a while but thats either due to Large external things (weather,Sun) or internal thing like a lack of sleep.
Sea levels are increasing, temperatures are increasing, and stupidity is increasing.
Correct, you are stupid
holy hell this is 9 years ago, things look a little bit different now, warming has continued dramatically. i really like the finance profs talking points. really down to earth and actually knows quite some stuff.
Has warming continued has it?
You must be real easy to be scammed!
Please use unadjusted temperature statistics as with adjustments of data let people spin fairy tails. Now we have to look at the heat island effect of urban areas and only use rural areas that are still rural for comparison. Looking back farther than instrumental measurements of temperature we can use accounts of crop times dates regional specialties. The Viking Age so happens to coincide with accounts of climate as warm or warmer than today according to how far north wheat and other crops could be grown. Are we destroying the planet by putting a little more plant food in the air for them? No! If I proposed cutting the national park acreage by a third people would rightfully have a cow but going to preindustrial levels would effectively do that because plants are the base of the food chain.
@@philognosis6409goodness me absolute inability to think rationally here.
HUMANS are warming the planet up dangerously. Can't spell it out clearer...
Recorded meteor-logical history. And how long has that been? Not very long.
Talk to a geologists. They can tell you climate change goes in cycles. Rocks etc. show the history better than a climatologist can. We happen to be in an upward cycle. That's all folks!
"Meteorological". You a geologist are you?
@@paulrussell1207 I take it you are't very smart...? Don't get my point, apparently. SMH
@@KM-nj3cm I do get your point sadly. That is why I am being sarcastic.
@@paulrussell1207 stop being a gay and just make your point clearly already jeez
Actually, the upward cycle stopped almost 20 years ago. Global warming and cooling have been on pause. The data is there!
Well, the funny thing is Antarctica just had a Sigma 5 deviation of where the ice usually is this year during its winter period. That signifies a big change. No, i don't think EVs will matter.
Carpe diem.
Lolololol
BUT it did happen !!! People should look at this now and judge.
yes, things have changed quite a bit since this debate
I have no doubt part of the problem is humanity. and the problem is greater than just rising arctic temperatures. anytime a population increase from approx. 1 billion to 7 + billion and growing within a hundred years...as the rate of consumption also increase exponentially, somethings got to give. maybe humans will start eating jellyfish? this debate was in 2010...since then the rapid decline of mt. glacial ice is scary. the ice sheets are breaking up. yes, certain species can destroy their own environment. humans will pay a stiff price one day for their attention deficit disorder.
Theo wins, flawless victory. Plain and logical. He sees through all the political crap. Paul kept appealing to the consensus and making excuses (they make predictions and then move the goal posts when the predictions are wrong).
delusional. That hockey stick has been confirmed and extended.
@@denisdaly1708 Oh, sorry. I didn't realise it has been "confirmed". By 97% of scientists, I suppose?
the problem is we have waited too long. the first electric car was invented in the 1830s. if we had channelled our technology in that direction sooner we would be in a better position. the Gas, oil car industry lobbied to kill electric trolleys throughout America. they were replaced by gas-guzzling buses. why???
Gary you are so ignorant. Where are you going to get the nickel, cobalt, lithium and rare earth's needed to manufacture these fantastic green cars?
They'll run out too!!
save the whales !!!
Of course we couldnt accurately measure temps back in the 1400's-1600's etc. But what we can do and have done as scientists, is take samples and cores from 50-60 feet down, into the earth, and are able to analyze the amount of carbon in the samples which can tell us *with great accuracy* how much carbon was in the atmosphere during those times, compared to today's modern measurements.
You are not completely accurate, hence a debate. Also, you are hyperfocusing on ONE factor (CO2). There are several factors. Some have a greater influence on the climate. Water vapor (clouds) is the greatest influencer. Why don't they mention that? (They understand how ridiculous it would sound to have a cloud tax!).
You have been duped.
Antartic ice cores have been studied for a long time. Know what they found? Cyclical over the past 250,000 years.
The debate between sponsored liars and unsponsored prophets.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Not for you ignoramus. Ask your grandkids (you bred yet?)
This man keeps on harping on about the 80%. How this came about was that a prof. from New Zealand published a little known paper and the contents revealed the opinions of 10 000 scientists where 30% of them attributed some climate change to humans and 97% of the 30% claimed humans were to blame. Eversince it has been the claim that 97% of scientist agree.
A post graduate student from Cook University in Brisbane Australia, I think.
Why have the 30s been left out of those measurements. I believe they represent the hottest years in the 20th century.
They haven't been 'left out.' You're watching a 13 year old vid you stupid person. The 30's data was adjusted for fucking ACCURACY. And by the fucking way, adjusted or left alone, the models still forecast WARMING.
Wake UP.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then is humanity itself.“
- Club of Rome,Thinktank for the United Nations.So you see folks THEY CAME UP WITH THE IDEA ,yes the climate is changing but>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>Until you address the fact that there are agencies manipulating weather through chemical disbursements into the atmosphere your parroting which is being displayed here matters nought.
5:18 No this is NOT certain.
Oh really? And in what YEAR did the world reach maximum production? And AFTER that year??? less less and less.
The Oil Will End
numbnuts.
Dude said there's no conspiracy! 😭... People with the same religion don't have to "conspire"... They "believe" in particular dogmas... And behave accordingly!😅... The smart scientist with a brain.. using reason and logic, destroys the graph in just about one minute! 🤣..... And the "wild guess" fairytale believer glosses over his point .... Apparently with the only defense he could come up with 😭..."there's no conspiracy!".... Which is obvious BS on its face!.... But they will win anyway.... Because people for the most part don't really think! And it's going to get bad!..(think about "everything" that coal and petroleum provide, including consumer food... It's going to take you awhile....)
You mean the great lie
Stop talking crap
Carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere and it has an effect for the first 50 parts per million and once it's done its job then it's finished and you can double it and quadruple it and it has no effect because we've seen that in the geological past, and we've seen it in times gone by when the carbon dioxide content was 100 times the current content. We didn't have runaway global warming, we actually had glaciation, so there's immediately a disconnect. So carbon dioxide is absolutely vital for living on earth; it's plant food, all of life lives off carbon dioxide. To demonise it shows that you don't understand school child science.
: "Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland July 11/23 since it’s first spewing of volcanic ash, has in just four days, negated every single effort you have made in the past five years to control C02 emissions on our planet.
All of you of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress-it’s the vital chemical compound that every plant requires to grow and synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know … it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius Hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only 2 squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day riding your bicycle, replacing all of your .50 cent light bulbs with eco friendly bulbs…..Well, all of these things you’ve done have gone down the tube in just 4 days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just 4days - Yes, just 4days - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 48 active volcanoes spewing out this crud at any one time - every day!
I don’t want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all it’s years on earth !
Yes folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it……….
Just remember that your Government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus “human caused” climate change scenario.
YOU are horseshit Mr. Science. It fucking does not matter that the absorption curve of co2 levels off as the concentration increases.
The fucking ENERGY has been ABSORBED and it STAYS here TRAPPED.
And fucking volcanoes again. YOU just make non-science horseshit statements, volcanoes account for about ~3% of the INCREASE in co2 in our atmosphere over the past million fucking years. NOT "...than the entire human race has emitted...."
Utter HORSESHIT nonsense from a science ignoramus. That's YOU.
Paul Dubrule does not accurately represent the state of climate science. His statement that there is still a large amount of uncertainty is patently false. In fact, there is a very high level of confidence among climatologists regarding ACC. Having him debate a skeptic who engages in classic cherry picking is really tragic since Mr. Dubrule didn't pick up on that important detail. The debate gives the false impression that the science is unsettled when in fact it is very settled.
This video is well done, and much appreciated given the shrill nature of so many other videos. We need to stop calling each other "believers" or "deniers" (some of us are neither and want to see more information debated by people wiser than ourselves... this video is particularly appreciated in that regard). Having said that, remember "All models are wrong; some models are useful." In order to make policy decisions that have such enormous impact, we must have a model that is at least reasonably predictive. We must also be certain of the causation link vs. simple correlation. I am very environmentally conscious and I believe in finding smart ways to reduce pollution...but the scare tactics are creating conflict which needs to be replaced by thoughtful debate that can lead to good public policy, and private action.
How can the science be "very settled" when we do not know:
- Whether CO2 is a direct cause of global warming
- What increase in CO2 is required for x amount of global warming?
- Whether mankind is responsible for the increase in CO2. If so, by how much? Is this enough to account for the data we see?
@@pbaylis1: These questions of yours are logical and very important.
What surprises me is that Theo Vermaelen doesn't push back immediately on the nonsense from Paul Dubrule, that "..TEN OF THE HOTTEST YEARS EVER are in the last decade..."
We all know that the 1930s - especially 1934 (which was the hottest) - was far hotter than what we have now. Why is this "ten hottest years" rubbish not refuted? This really weakens Vermaelen's position; and apparently strengthens that of Dubrule...
Paul Dubrule's use of Pascale's Wager (a tired, old trick) is a stupid argument, anyway. It says that even if the science is screwy, we should go along with it, "just in case"...
Rational Points:
While nitrogen's contribution is 78%; and oxygen's 21%, CO2 represents 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Of that - 1.3% represents mankind's contribution
Of the 400ppm CO2, humans' contribution is 5.2ppm
...and according to the IPCC, Our CO2 is responsible for ALL of the warming, so those 5.2 molecules (0.00052% of the atmosphere) drive the whole world's temperatures upward and we're all going to die...?
Besides the logical- and scientific impossibility of such an assertion, we know that there is ZERO 'correlation' between carbon dioxide and temperatures. Al Gore uses his phoney 800,000-year 'correlation' graph to imply that CO2 does drive temperatures - the correspondence between the two traces do indeed appear to suggest this, but in the same sentence, professor Gore also mentions that the relationship is "complicated", without explaining what this "complication" is...
It's even possible - actually, very, very likely - that professor Gore doesn't understand this "complicated relationship".
However, those who DO understand it, point out that if we zoom in on the data, we see a clear correlation - and that it's the TEMPERATURE driving the CO2 - not the other way around. The temperature rise is followed - not "sometimes", but EVERY TIME - by the CO2 rise, by many hundreds of years (from 800- to 1200 years).
This point having been established - and, of course, ignored by the alarmists - we should see no more of its being used as a valid argument, but that's wishful thinking.
The earth is NOT prevented from freezing, or from a 'default black-body temperature of by the presence of any 'greenhouse' gas. The surface air temperature results from the COMPRESSION of the atmosphere at the surface
Rob Manzoni
Hold on! Of the 400 PPM CO2, humans only contribute 1.3% of that ?!? What ?!? Can you please link me something that will show me this. Genuinely interested. Thanks.
the science is unsettled or there would be no debate, and has been proven that the models that are used are flawed, just like when he said about the ocean temps and the rising level, the true fact is there is no climate emergency, the eart is not dying,and places like florida or not going to flood with water in a few years