Why not address the people on the climate change side that have money to gain, its not just the oil and gas companies. NASA said that the ice is increasing last year, they just can’t definite the depth of the ice.
As a scientist, I argue that climate change takes place non-linearly and exponential. It is slow now, but after few years, non-linear change might happen. Another point that I want to make is that climate change and air pollution are correlated. right? Most of the perturbation that leads to air pollution end up in climate change. Therefore, taking precautions to control climate change is crucial.
@@sureshkumar-kx2xz I'm curious, are you able to explain how the Laurentide ice sheet was formed? What caused it to disappear almost completely within just about 1,000 years? Why did it form over Canada and not the pole? How did humans survive 300-400 foot increase in global sea levels over the course of a very small time frame? How did humans of around 13,000 years ago survive 18 degree temperature swings over the course of decades? If we today cannot survive a 1.5 degree temperature change over a century, how did we survive over the last 20,000 years? If you cannot explain how the climate changes into and out of a glacial period, I don't think there is any consensus over climate change. There is no consensus over how the global temperature fluctuated 18 degrees on the span of decades when atmospheric CO2 remained stable and low. The scientific community is at the beginning of understanding global climate change, not the end.
When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happenes. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.
Great comment. I would add religions to the list of culprits. I'd be tempted to put them at the top too, religions and governments have always been bed buddies. That's especially true when it comes to this topic.
Yes it’s very accurate indeed. There is in fact a group of people that believe a small scale nuclear war would be beneficial to stop global warming believe it or not. Before K Schwab started WEF he also worked with C/A, Kissinger, JH’s University, Pierre Trudeau etc. Can find that info in a search for “Schwab; how the CFR taught me to ❤️ the bomb”. The amount of disdain the elites have for the lower class is real & telling when you investigate some of their writings from the 80’s, the WEF’s Head advisor Yuval Harari who’s videos are here on YT etc. He openly mocks & dismisses “free will”, classes humans as all “hackable beings” now etc. Imo he’s one truly 👿 human.
Some wise words to be said by the man himself Charlie munger "I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do"
Although it sounds fancy, his stance on bitcoin shows a CLEAR lack of understanding of what it is. And holding onto his belief so strongly goes exactly, against that.
I've been told at least 4 times in my lifetime that we have 12 years before we're extinct. In the 70's we were supposed to be on the verge of a new ice age. Now we are alternately cooking or freezing depending on the weather holocaust of the week. Actually, it appears to be morphing into, "the weather itself will kill us all," as opposed to any particular temperature gradient. We're still here.
Also I'm pretty fucking sure we were supposed to run out of gas right around now. Fuck happened to that? Oh they found out we have a lot more gas lmfao
Um I doubt that, especially since you're not sure exactly how many times you've supposedly been told that. Another dude clinging to what he believes the "strong men" of industry want to hear because he's afraid he'll be fired. Exxon was at the forefront of climate change research, they're the ones who discovered that it is happening and how, then they got busy burying the findings for decades. Do your research and don't buy any property in Florida unless kayaking across your house is for you.
When I was a kid in the 80s and 90s our science classes told in in early 2000s global warming was going to cause Florida to be submerged, NYC to be flooded and California to be an island. This is the problem with linear thinking, when clearly our environment works on cycles.
How does it demonstrate linear thinking? I mean, what do you want to say when using that phrase? People who extrapolate a trend linearly and makes conclusions on it?
@@FrederikFalk21 you got it exactly. The government officials take the studies that feed their agenda and use linear charts. A Lot of gov thinking is if this then that across a trend line. They don't use logarithmic or higher type scales because they don't understand them, only the scientists use those models.
@@ericmccance4149 Essentially it's the estimate that to cut CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050 (to avoid more than 1.5 Celsius warming), emissions would have to be on a path to fall by about 45 percent by around 2030 (so 11 years now).
Any time I see the fact-checking "context" warning on a RUclips video, I know I'm about to see something that is a) going to be good and b) something the tech giants would really like to censor.
RUclips does often do remove it. I have watched several channels that are gone. I found out they were defunded later removed. They did not fit the corporate line.
If people don't want u to see it. Theres a massive reason why. And if u can only think of a tiny minor reason, keep looking cause it's bigger then u think
You know he's on to something when they have to put a disclaimer on the page just because he wants people to have an actual conversation about this topic.😏 Great video Patrick
Not a mention of chemtrailing yet its being debated in Congress. If I link it, the algorithm or human censorship will chop this comment, but the debate is about the patented elements known to cause weather modification. Barium, strontium, and aluminium nano particles are the biggest, with silver dioxide and now graphine oxide proven in laboratory's to be coming out of 100 ton payload jumbo jets times however many are flying every day in every continent. Could there be an elephant in this room we call the sky?
Let's start with the fact that, long ago, the Earth was 6ﾟ warmer, there were no icecaps, deserts were green and carbon dioxide ppm was in the 1000's not the 100's. The Earth did not burn up and life was thriving. The idea that life will not exist in 12 years is kind of stretch especially since the temperature rise has stalled out since about 1998. I think we have some time for rational discourse. PS Electric cars, solar panels and windmills are not carbon neutral and have some very real pollution drawbacks. I am all for clean energy but the truth behind our current proposed solutions would be nice. If our C02 output is actually a problem, nuclear is about the only real solution currently.
Reality; Just not because of You @Noel D or Co2. We live in an electric universe powered by double torus magnets with the Sun's planets & moons held in position by and between the two energies. The (Galactic) Milankovitch cycles cause our climate cycles with Obliquity causing climate trends between Aphelion & Perihelon with he galactic bulge every 60,000 years, Precession causing cataclysmic END TIMES climate change when our solar system eclipses the centre of our galaxies Magnetic Nucleus at Alpha Omega equinoxes NOW & Eccentricity the 235,000 year rotation of the galactic bulge being the EM driver outside force. The Antikythera device was a predictor of the (Galactic) Milankovitch cycles. Jesus warned us about the Anti-Goylumites & these the climate change END TIMES with the book of REVELATION & the cause with the 7 north stars of the PRECESSION of the Alpha Omega equinoxes he held in his hand. The climate change disasters your witnessing now are just the birthing pains Mother Earth's WATER won't break until 2033 when teh conjunction of the planets pulls the oceans around the planet east to west 800 mph at the equator. And then every 40 years when the planets are in conjunction for the millennium it takes to cross the Milky Way. The last equinox when we eclipsed the galactic plain was 12,000 years ago as recorded in geological, astronomical, archaeological, Biblical, Vedas, evidence. Sphinx water erosion, Younger dryas boundary layer, Clovis people, Washington scablands, Gobekli Karahn tepe were buried by 19 separate tsunami's spaced 40 years apart spanning a millennium according to Klaus Schmidt's report.
The first question is the earth warming.? The second question is how much? The third question is there an optimal healthy level of the global temperature? The third question is whether there an increase in inclemency with a rise in temperature? The fourth question is how much is human caused, which determines how much conservation can modulate climate change. Let's get to the brass tacks, if we are forced to conserve forget about air conditioning and personal transportation.
Most glaciers are receding and have been since recorded history. The glaciers where I live in Juneau have receded noticeably in my lifetime but I can easily see evidence of their presence on land 10,000 yrs ago. Climate change is not a new phenomena.
@@cooganalaska3249 NO, BUT BEFORE HUMANS IT WAS A DIFFEERENT STORY, NOW EVER SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL AGE STARTED HUMANS ARE THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE, AND NOW ARE CAUSING THE EXCESS HEAT, STORMS, FLOODS, HURRICANS AND TYPHONES THAT ARE ALL STRONGER NOW THEN BEFORE,
@Jim Leask you don't have to be a scientist. High school education science covers this. Physics of light ( he clearly missed this in high school ) chemistry of gasses ( he wasn't paying attention ) statistical analysis ( you need this even in business course in high school) On the latter he has problems in this and virus video. Use of statistical fallacies galore.
If that is true, it is no different than previous generations. Why do you think racism, poverty, and neoliberalism has lasted for such a long time? The world is getting more and more polluted and you seem to try to ignore that this is a result from the previous generations
the problem is that they don't teach you logic and true open mindedness in school. Logic used to be a requirement with the first universities that Muslims created, and I believe it was also continued in the Christian universities that followed. They both studied Greek philosophy in depth and understood that all discussion had to be based on a rational basis. If there's no one to understand logical communication and there is no demand for us to communicate in the language of logic, then anyone can say anything and you wouldn't know the weaknesses in their arguments and you wouldn't know how to question that person to arrive at the truth. Then everything becomes about emotion like we see today - emotion + superficial logic
This is indeed a huge problem, perhaps the biggest one we will face. Critical thinking as is sjown in this video isn't bring taught in schools and universities.
Why wouldn't youtube like it? This whole piece as spun as being neutral but in reality it supports the hypothesis that man made climate change is real and its bad. He doesn't mention that 20 times more people are killed by cold than by heat . he claims scientists that say climate change is fake are bought off while the others are "Honest" he lies about ice in Antarctica is receding while the truth is its increasing. The lies permeate threw this whole piece.Its clearly bias.
he is a man of honour so he will definitely willingly "sacrifice" some of his metrics for the search of truth.. his idea was so briliant tho, gather the 2 side, talk for 3 hours minimal, show both side best arguments, and then we decide, to be neutral or leaning to one side 👍👍👍
John Consistency is the key to success. Consistency leads to habits. Habits form the actions we take every day. Action leads to success. It’s not what we do once in a while that shapes our lives. It’s what we do consistently. 🔥🔥🔥
I like your presentation Pat, but as you know, the earth has had fluctuating climate for all of it's existence ..... 4-1/2 billion years. I know you are familiar with the reasons for climate change in the past Billions of years, but maybe your audience is not, so here we go. The Earth's climate is governed by four items; Solar radiation, Axial tilt, Axial precession and Earth's Orbital changes from circular to eclipse, the latter three being called the Milankovitch Cycles. Axial Tilt has had the greatest influence on the Earth's climate, with a tilt that ranges from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees from the Ecliptic Plain, called the Obliquity of the Ecliptic. In fact it is this Obliquity change that has been the primary cause of the last 26 ice ages during the last 2.6 million years. We are presently in an Interglacial Minimum, between Ice Ages, where the Earth's temperature is unusually warm. We will soon enter another Ice Age. I agree that man is contributing to the present warming cycle, but It is such a small contribution that it is probably not measurable. Other elements that contribute 5-10 times more than CO2 are Methane, Water Vapor and Dust that are circulating in the Earth's atmosphere and are never mentioned as contributors to climate change. When we discuss "Climate Change", we need to put more science into it, instead of treating it as a Religion or as a discussion of more people believe this or more people believe that. Science is not a democracy, it is a method of analyzing facts. Thank you again for your great review.
90% spot on. Note IPCC 6 also include particle forcing impacts from the sun into the earths climate. None of the current models that use IPCC 6 include any modeling of the effects of particle forcing from solar wind or magnetic coupling. Interesting that numerous scientific papers in peer reviewed publications over decades of research highlight the mechanisms yet few discuss the impacts or accounting in computer modeling.
How about we all quit acting like we know WTF has been going on "the past billions of years", and continue doing what works until a better alternative presents itself.
Rate of change is the problem. AGW effects this rate of change. GW on its own is not a problem. Ice cores indicate these processes occurring over 100,000's of years. It previously took 20,000 years to see 100ppm increase in CO2. Recently, its taken 50 years of industrial revolution. Go figure.
My prof has a really good take that I’ve adopted as well. He states that he doesn’t believe in climate change, rather climate volatility. Are temps changing? Yes, they always have, and we’ve been hot before such as in the medieval ages, and cold in various ice ages, and this was before we had a large scale impact. The other point is that the earth has numerous negative feedback loops that prevent large change, such as clouds cooling the earth back down. In regards to greenhouse gases we have cycles for those just as there is a water cycle. Nitrogen, CO2, etc, all have cycles that naturally occur. Volatility occurs in any large scale “system”, and the earth is no exception, rather a miracle.
That all true! The only difference with medieval ages is that we have gasoline cars and plastic since 200 years. That's speeding up the process. Without that nature would fix itself again.
I agree. However, we could certainly manage our resources better to maintain a better balance and leave less of an net negative impact on the Earth. We take and take without replenishing adequately.
Yeah that's all fine until you throw humans in the mix...which accelerate what your professor calls climate "volatility" which is kind of a misnomer because climate changes extremely slowly. Weather is volatile.
The problem is, when a solution is met a big name company either buys out the owner and discards the idea or threatens the owner into burying the idea. If not for big companies the government itself more than likely has a plethora of solutions to different problems, but due to outside influences are keeping quite about it. The people may want change, but can we really say the same for those in charge?
@Pouty MacPotatohead No, not yet. The truck are still some time away. The weight plus distance makes the batteries very very heavy, making payload small.
I disagree it’s more like a nightmare. This world is filled with organisms eating each other, and chocked full of deadly natural conditions from ice ages, earth quakes, Tsunamis, floods, disease epidemics, etc. In spite of all this conflict and pain we have managed at great sacrifice to impose a small measure of order and stability with technology and determination. The idea that our CO2 emissions are a big problem is a big fat lie. There are 100 more pressing issues and most of them are due to natural forces we don’t have much control over. I like a clean act as much as the next person. But it wasn’t too long ago that the developed countries has institutionalized slavery, genocide and nasty sanitation problems plus a long list of disgusting habits. I say wait another 20 years to watch the IPCC predictions fail like they have for the last 20.
@Pouty MacPotatohead I see. But wouldnt weight requirement laws probably be based off infrastructure limitations. Thousands of old bridges, ramps, culverts, road matterials? For the sake of arguing lol.
Coming from a Natural Resources Management major and teacher, you did an amazing and clear mini course here. Lots of ❤️ and blessings being sent your way.
He got a few things wrong though. 1) Northern Irish government didn't collapse because of one scandal. You'd need to only understand how politics works there to understand what happened. In relation to the scandal, the issue was the lack of proper oversight. 2) He said there's no way of measuring how much of the carbon in the air is because of man. That's completely wrong. The carbon emitted from burning organic matter (eg fossil fuels) is different from carbon emitted in any other way. Scientists know exactly how much is becuase of man. He left out so much information and reduced it to talking points. Go to Potholer54's channel here on RUclips if you want a comprehensive explanation on the science.
More like he completely misrepresents the scientific consensus as if it's 50/50 and then says "make your own decisions" after poisoning the well for 20 minutes.
Human-based greenhouse gases cause global warming: www.climatelevels.org "Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence." nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/#fig-2-1 The total CO2 released from coal, oil & gas over the last 30 years, is greater than the rest of all human history. ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute
WELL, EITHER YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AND DATA, OR YOU DON'T, HOT AIR HOLDS MORE MOISTURE THAN COLD AIR, AS A TESTAMENT TO THAT AND PROOF, JUST LOOK AT CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW, LOTS OF RAIN WHEN IT DUMPS, ALL A SIGN OF THE EARTH HEATING UP AND THIS WILL GET WORSE CLIMTE CHANGE IS NO LONGER DEBATABLE, ITS HERE IN FULL FORCE
@@ethanshelbyskateboarding9980 YES, THAT IS WHY IT IS NOW BREAKING HEAT RECORDS IN ALL THE SOUTHEAST AND FLORIDA NOW AT 90 DEGREES TWO MONTHS AHEAD OF TIME FOR FEB. AND MORE COMIMING, MASSIVE FLOODS NOW IN BRAZIL, MANY PEOPLE DEAD, HMMMM, WARM AIR HOLDS MORE MOISTURE THEN COLD AIR, H MMMMMM DO YOU WOUNDER IF THERE IS A CONNECTION
There are two other factors that you did not discuss that contribute to the fluctuations of earth's climate. One is water vapor. Check the percentage of water vapor in the air, which also traps heat. And the second is solar flares and sunspots. These phenomena are cyclical and affect the amount of heat we get from year to year.
You should also mention the fact that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, since about 1859, when the Carrington event occurred. This is cyclical, which occurs about every 12000 years. This allows the solar plasma, & non-visible radiation to penetrate further into our atmosphere. This is evident from the ground-up lightening, as well as aurora being visible, from far lower latitudes, than has occurred, in our lifetime.
@@mthunzimapatwanathe climate is always changing as evident with the Greenland ice cores. The Roman and mid evil warm periods were warmer than today plus the climatic optimum. There have also been points in the past where CO2 was 10 times the current amount at 4000ppm and the earth was entering an ice age. CO2 is a trace gas making up only 0.0004% of our atmosphere and is basically plant food. China and India combined emit around 75% of all co2 emissions so if everyone else stopped completely, CO2 concentration would continue to rise. Sea levels were rising and glaciers melting with temps rising a full 40 years before the industrial revolution and haven't deviated from that trend at all. They don't know crap about the future of the earths climate and can't even explain the past like how was a polar ice sheet all the way down over Cincinnati Ohio while Islands 400 miles from the north pole were lush and green and supported a massive megafauna populations. Those same islands can't have Vegetation today as they are in total darkness 6 months of the year. It's all a sham.
@@citizengkar7824I personally don't think the magnetic field records are accurate. We see clear reversals on enormous timescales but what happens in between?! The earths crust is what moves, not the magnetic pole.
The Earth was warming from 1890 to 1940 and then it started cooling from 1940 to 1973 (remember how all the scientists were saying we are entering into a new ice age ) and it warmed again until 2012 and now it is starting to cool again.
That's why the climate alarmists changed the name of their movement from Global Warming to Climate Change, because they can never be wrong as the climate changes cyclically all the time.
I think one of the main points is if you're believing any words out of any politician's mouth about the weather or anything else for that matter, there's something wrong with you. Your parents and teachers have failed you. I thought it was common knowledge to never trust a politician. Especially when you have years of video evidence of every single thing they say is a lie.
Awesome, unbiased, common sense outlook on this increasingly important topic! I completely agree with your idea of a 3- hour debate. We’re you ever able to make it happen? Would love to watch it! Thanks again, good stuff!!
Its neither - Its the biggest conn on the history of mankind. 2nd biggest conn is the cofcof measures and shot. Both with the major role of the govs in making them possible.
me personally, I don’t understand why is he even explaining the green house effect, all general aspects of atmosphere, physics etc. don’t people have to know that already? I really liked to hear different explanations and maybe some more advanced science he got into, but seriously other people don’t who don’t know what the green house effect or people who don’t know what the atmosphere is? people don’t know all those basics that they were supposed to learn in school? If not well here is your reason why this country is going on the way the hard bottom. absolute ignorance.
@@MrBrendanabc and with low quality security and control standarts and threats of tsunamis and earthquakes simultaneously. by today's technology, you actually have to TRY to mess it up, in order to repeat fukushima.
Great teaching, the GW alarmist won’t talk about the fact that even though we have exponentially increased fossil fuel use globally, yet global warming has only increased 1 degree, as you mentioned. There are deserts 🌵 that have actually turned green by absorbing carbon dioxide. I think we need to clean our environments rationally, slowly. The sky isn’t falling, God will provide for what he created. God bless you all.
Exactly and if you know anything about the bible and God you should know that he's coming back soon and the last thing that we should worry about is climate change!!! Right now every bible on earth has been supernaturally changed and I believe it's a huge end times sign!!! Amos 8 11 says that there will be a famine not for food or water but for God's word and we are in that famine right now! Check out the site, Truth Shock TV on youtube and see how badly the bible has been corrupted!!! Also Jesus said that not one generation would pass and Israel is 74 years old so by strength a generation is 80 years and that means 6 years left!!! The bible has never been wrong not once until recently with these changes and humanity better take notice and start watching for his return!!! God bless!!!
@@Simon-pb9cs You think a multi-millionaire can't do on the scale of one mansion what the Netherlands have done on the scale of a country? Also he might have been hoping that humanity would listen to him and not sink his house
@@iwersonsch5131 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha dont have children and please give back the drivers license you found in the Cornflakes package!!!
@@Simon-pb9cs That's because the rise is tiny at the moment. If the Greenland Ice sheet goes though then get ready for a 7m sea level rise and mass migration.
we are supposed to be underwater right now, the issue with the scientific predictor methods Gore went off is the massive difference in variability as more time passes. also the evaporation of water due to increased temp. .... Gore did more damage to the cause of global warming with his fear mongering than good
I love the way you simply nail down the facts on both sides, and then come up with the right questions. Absolutely, it's a question of the % of damage/no damage from natural cycles or manmade. Thank you for yet another video of facts, and the admonition to now go out and study it for yourself!
@viktorvaneeden Yeah, concluded without any evidence. That's a big problem when anyone is trying to prove a story, it's a complete failure when you claim to be a scientist.
Hey Pat! You gotta tell the "whole truth' ABOUT RAYMOND! While he was CEO of Exxon he spearheaded the merger w/MOBIL and the two Cos. turned out to be way more valuable then each separately, so he unlocked a lotta hidden value >THAT'S why he was given the huge farewell pkg!!! Come on Pat! You gotta be more honest than the JewsMedia!!!
8:46 "Burning of fossil fuels..." shows a nuclear reactor power plant with water vapor steam coming out them. A nuclear reactor outputs steam rather than CO-2. Water vapor is, however, the greatest greenhouse gas by a large margin.
Good that you spotted Nuclear Power Plant, don't disturb the subject tho. Generating energy using nuclear has !!! 0 CO2 !!! trail. It is the cleanest way we can generate electricity. It is true that Water vapor is a greenhouse gas but it will just rain back to Earth after a few DAYS, whereas CO2 doesn't rain and stays in atmosphere for YEARS.
The water vapor is contained within the plant. Its not supposed to be an emission. But we should switch to liquid fluoride thorium reactors. LFTRs are far safer, more efficient and better for the planet than pretty much any of the other forms of energy production. Also, co2 is not a problem. Nobody has proven any negative effects of a lofe giving gas responsible for plant and life growth
@@MrCorruptedShadows Fluoride salts are toxic and less stable than "scientist" proponents are willing to admit. Never discount terrorism to blow centralized plants up or be controlled by money men who want inflated prices for the energy thus produced. Ideally every electrical item that we have should be self powered by energy from the space time vacuum. If the costs are not socialized by larger groups of people, then greedy bankers shall loan out the required amount, but then charge HUGE sums of interest. The financiers using the bank loan shall want to recoup their investment ASAP so shall mark up the costs each year of operation--as is the usual practice in our inflationary debt-based monetary system. Supposedly when you jolt the ether with EM energy, more energy can be tapped using the "right" kind of physics. Just like complex numbers predict certain electrodynamic situations, an alternate dimensional situation may be at work in these cases. I do not discount anything that free energy from the vacuum proponents claim unless seeking money from me for yet another prototype like that Joseph Newman energy machine guy kept doing his entire life. His stuff was expensive to build too. He had one larger machine that had 4 expensive huge neodymium magnets and about 50 to 60 kilometers of enameled copper wire. It produced slow moving motor torque, and pulsed DC that he used to recharge dead batteries. It may have operated using standing waves in the long drive / pickup coil to not put hardly any drain on the battery used to make the armature turn. www.google.com/search?q=free+energy+machine+of+Joseph+Newman&newwindow=1&tbm=vid&sa=X A Japanese manufactured machine used left-handed materials like bismuth and oscillator resonance to extract energy, but the trouble was that if the machines were in close enough proximity to one another, they caused some interference with one another that supposedly the Japanese government determined caused a dangerous situation of some sort so pulled them from the market. Another guy Steven Mark produced a machine that captured ambient Earth 7.8 Hz frequency and could power a few 100 Watt light bulbs until the capturing coil heated up too much after about 10 minutes. www.google.com/search?q=free+energy+tpu+steven+mark+jack+durban&newwindow=1&tbm=vid&sa=X A meltdown failure would happen if left on for about 15 minutes. Some means should have been used to use 4 such units, and cycle switch through them. The excess heat could have been tapped to heat water for home use for hot water, etc. The guy tried to trick investors with a relay switch of some kind that turned off the machine if placed upside down. He did not want anyone to know what were the actual operating principles so used such deception. The trouble with greedy men is that they seek out licenses to protect their inventions called patents. The governments of most countries are in huge debts and are essentially a slave to the lender. As such these greedy people use YES MEN to steal the stuff from others that would otherwise cause a paradigm shift of centralized control to de-centralized individual control (freedom from the greedy money men). As such laws are in place that permit the governments to declare that a certain kind of working invention must be sequestered as threatening national security, etc. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada signed a seizure order for the equipment being used by John Hutchison an amateur physicist-inventor who was living in Vancouver, BC, Canada. His equipment produced unusual effects such as force at a distance, antigravity, molecular transformation of materials such as metals and wood that got intermingled with one another. www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=%22Brian+Mulroney%22+%22John+Hutchison%22+inventor+confiscation+OR+seizure+lab+18+March+1990 Hutchison's neighbors complained that things in their nearby houses were inexplicably moving by themselves when Hutchison turned on and fiddled around with his experiments.
@@oldspammer its extremely difficult to melt down a LFTR. Still far safer than current nuclear power plants. But if there are better solutions out there, why not develop them. Solar and wind are not better solutions. They're a decent solution for supplemental energy, but not for being there main provider to the electric grid
You should also point out the trees and rainforest are healthier than ever. We plant more than we cut its a renewable, they make what we need oxygen and we make what they need, also we always here about running out of water, we have the same amount as we had a million years ago. It stays here.
We're running out of water lakes and rivers drying up or being drained to product our beverages, which in your body or say vehicle if you let the water run low your body or vehicle runs hotter which damages your brain or in a vehicle damages your engine.
But some of these forest you see today are non native or mono cultures that disrupt the ecosystem and provide less biodiversity. That’s what the actual problem is rather than just climate change
The evidence is pretty certain that climate change is NOT what they (media, leftwing politicians, climate activists) say. Check our comment above for some REAL perspective.
Vinny Holiday didn’t mean to put a stake in the ground. I practice the scientific method day in and day out. If I’ve learned one thing, it’s that the truth, the real truth, is an elusive beast that you always think you have in your crosshairs, but always escapes leaving you with something less. What you are left with is still a useful nugget which describes incredibly well what you are studying, but it’s still falls short of the pure truth. All I’m saying is that if the history of humans practicing the scientific method has thought us anything, it’s that it can’t provide us with certainty. Anthropogenic global warming may be the truth, but we should always question that truth and never be afraid to do so.
Vinny Holiday I'm told that atmospheric carbon only "traps" heat for about one third of a second before releasing it in various directions. Does Co2 behave differently?
@@pokerwiz101 Interestingly, no culture has thought the world was flat - Bertrand Russell made it up - on a seemingly solid basis. Just an interesting note.
Climate change is caused because of evil. All of creation is crying out to be delivered from all the evil that has taken over the world. The blood of aborted babies are crying out. Gender confusion being taught to the young generation . Every kind of evil & debasement is taking place. The people have chosen evil instead of good.
I f****** love valuetainment. Keep doing what you doing. In a world with a lot of censorship and propaganda it's great to hear the truth on valuetainment. I don't watch it very often but when I do I know I'm getting the truth and not a bunch of manipulation or censorship. Thank you Patrick bet-david. I feel like this is like me in the most important ways.
@@gypsylips1950 Exactly, the reason it's taking so long to combat climate change is because idiots are still debating it. I love Pat, but he always tries to be too neutral, unbiased is one thing, but when you pretend both sides are valid with everything it's fucking stupid.
Science is never fully settled. Just read a science text book from a 100 years ago. Do you think the science books we have today are fool proof 100 years from now? I'm not saying the evidence isnt conclusive for climate change... I'm just saying anyone who says dont bother showing two sides is closed minded....and closed minded people are people who can never truly learn
@@bc6893 The problem is, we've been having this debate for decades. It's enough, EXON has known about it since the 50s. We can't perpetually argue while our planet is literally burning. You think Elon is giving his patents away for no reason? This bullshit debate is the reason we haven't already solved this problem.
@@stormsurge1850 actually it's the day that those who bring such attention to the matter ACTUALLY practice what they preach... when Bernie and al Gore and all these other hypocrites actually live out what they say (sell all your mansions, fancy cars, etc) then maybe will see change...
Thanks for being a grownup. It is Sooo refreshing to see someone who is not just hooked like a fish by other people's agendas. I don't think that anyone wants to destroy our planet but let's just get to the truth of it all and find out honestly how much time we have to make a meaningful plan that makes since and is free of bickering politics.
WELL, THE PLAN IS ALREADY IN MOTION, SOLAR, WIND, NUCLEAR, AND HYDROGEN IS NOW FRONT AND CENTER, AND SOON ALL GAS STOVES WILL NOT BE SOLD ALSO, TO MUCH CO2 AND METHANE GOING UP INTO THE AIR
LMFAO. This is the agenda. 99% of climate scientists agree. This is kind of a big deal. No one is saying we only have 12 years left to live, despite this moron, but if we don't act now, then there will be a point where we will not be able to stop it, per the SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY THIS.
@@employee0 YES, THE MELTING PERMAFROST IN SIBERIA CREATING MASSIVE BLOWOUT CRATERS IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO BELIEVE IT IS GETTING WARMER, AND METHANE IS 25 MORE DEADLY THEN CO2
Oil companies knew that climate change was real and caused by our greenhouse gas emissions in 1977. Then what happened ? They instilled a slight doubt in people minds. They didn't need more to slow down the transition. And 46 years later, here we are. With incompetent people making videos on a topic out off their area of expertise, because they didn't understand that the time for debate is gone. It doesn't really matter if IPCC exaggerates a little or underestimates the problem. These are projections, by definition not accurate. Look at what is happening in Spain, South of France, Greece. It's happening. The house is burning, said president Chirac in 2002. Stop finding excuses.
Thank you so much for educating the public. You are able to explain everything so everyday people can understand all without sounding arrogant. Peace be with you!!
With all due respect, a hussle businessman explaining a broad scientific phenomenon. If majority of global/credible scientists state it is happening, and big companies are making changes to their model because if it (not regulation), it is a non political indication to me that it is really happening. A 3 hours debate may not decipher it
Fehad Bilgrami listen to the professionals. The scientists! They say it is happening so I listen to the professionals. If I get a plumber or a builder I don't question them ask them to explain every detail of their Trade. No ! I listen to them and trust in them to do their job.
Fehad Bilgrami Those men in lab coats are never wrong, those human beings like me and you are 100% factual and unable to be corrupted. You take their word as fact without thinking for yourself because the Government is your God and you must rely on “faith” in imperfect men. They wouldn’t lie to you?... would they?
@@reinaldomartinez13 How do you become a scientist? By going to College and taking on extreme Debt. You also need your work to be peer reviewed and accepted by other Scientists. What happens when a Fresh Scientist hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt decides to pursue controversial findings that go against established doctrine and theory? That guy can say goodbye to his career and credibility and have fun paying off his insane debt cleaning dishes.
Yep it's called a "neutrality bias", which is flawed logic. The truth is... the peer reviewed scientific literature is true. What the "other side" says is irrelevant unless they can produce a study.
ScorpionXII What you’re thinking of is, “False balance,” or “bothsidesism.” Which, to be frank, you’re wrong. This video doesn’t have that bias. “False balance” intentionally presents an issue as more balanced than the evidence supports. This video doesn’t do that. If you watch the video, he acknowledges that peer-reviewed scientific essays are on the side of those who believe that climate change is man-made. He also shows the opposing side’s belief, that corruption had falsified scientific data in the past, particularly with cigarettes. He’s not leaving things out to make it look more balanced. He’s just presenting both sides of the argument. It’s obvious that you would lean much further towards one side if you trust scientists, and that you think the other argument is invalid. If anything, he reaffirmed your belief that this argument is one-sided through his unbiased approach, because you believe that the opposing belief is ridiculous. But I like the fact that he presented this ridiculous belief alongside the scientific one. A civil discussion of clashing ideas is what makes America great, which is why I love free speech so much.
@@JoshSJoshingWithYa "If you watch the video, he acknowledges that peer-reviewed scientific essays are on the side of those who believe that climate change is man-made" That's the problem, the peer reviewed scientific literature sets the standard for belief; listing contradictory beliefs is just muddying the waters and reducing the informative quality of the video. It's like watching a video about evolution, and 50% of it is talking about how some people believe humans can from dust 6,000 years ago. Why bring that up? It reduces the informative quality of the video. If I'm watching a video about the solar system, why ought 50% of the video be dedicated towards people who believe the Earth is flat? The question posed in the video is... "myth or reality"? How do you answer this question? Like this... Premise 1: It's a reality. Premise 2: Here's a mountain of science as to why. What is a terrible way to answer this question? Well... Premise 1: Here's a bunch of claims. Premise 2: Here's a bunch of claims that contradict the other claims. "He also shows the opposing side’s belief, that corruption had falsified scientific data in the past, particularly with cigarettes" That's a false equivalency, because the corruption of cigarette companies was an attempt to cover up the damage of cigarettes to avoid bad publicity, while the scientific method is producing climatology to uncover the damage of fossil fuels. If you want a real comparison with cigarette companies, oil companies spreading propaganda about how coal is really good for the environment is a better comparison. "which is why I love free speech so much" Yeah here's my free speech... putting logically bankrupt ideas out there and pretending they are comparable to the scientific method is a logically bankrupt way to create an educational video.
@@ScorpionXII the point is the create a space for both sides to learn. If people who believe in climate change come. They can learn more about the science. If deniers come. They can find a non aggressive source of information that addresses their concerns and questions in a single place.
@@ScorpionXII you need to present both sides or else the side u ignore and call wrong won't listen. It's not about just telling the truth it's about trying to educate others about what you believe
These debates have happened many times, every debate I have watched in the 10 years was won by the real scientists. The ones that have made different facets of the climate their lifes work. Richard Lindzen, Nills Axel Morner, William Happer, Patrick Michaels, Patrick Moore, Tim Ball the list is so much longer and none of these guys get paid to do these debates, none areonany oil companies payroll. In the last few years historians have gotten on board , ( Tony Heller & John Robson)they are debunking so many of the IPCC’s misinformation statements and showing in their videos where the written word from the past has proven that the climate hostory is being changed to suit the IPCC narritive. The Polar Bear extinction story is a lie, The death of the Great Barrier Reef is a lie (Dr. Peter Ridd Austrailia) Take a few minutes , google how CO2 at 600 to 800 ppm improves the plant life in greenhouses, it makes the vegetables larger, more succulent and they resist disease much better.. We are Carbon based creatures, everything on the planet that has LIFE is the result of CO2, cut the CO2 as John Kerry says (0 ppm) Is what infact will cause all life on this planet to cease to exist.
Patrick seems like a pretty good guy and also fair. The scientists who don’t go along with the man-made global warming/climate change narrative are largely censored and demonized by the Left. It’s as if you don’t accept the extremist ideology of the Left, you’re a “denier” or an “infidel” for not believing in their religion of man-made climate change. Even when you mention the names of the top scientists and climate experts who have data that supports their position, it’s just automatically ignored or discounted. While there might be some elements of truth in both camps, it’s important to know what so-called evidence is fabricated or is intentionally misleading.
Looking at the CO2 counts in PPM over the past tens of thousands of years through ice core samples indicates that this warming trend accelerated during the Industrial Revolution. Considering this shouldn’t we proceed with caution and humiliation and prevent a potential disaster?
Of course. Which makes the Milankovitch cycles become irrelevant as the climate system exits the Quaternary Period and enters the Anthropocene. We know that the climate variations of the last 2 million years occurred with CO2 levels between 180 and 280 ppm. They described a relaxation oscillator, loosely synchronized to the Milankovitch cycles, but driven mostly by variations in CO2 and its water vapor feedback. There is no reason to expect that synchronization to hold with CO2 levels at the current 415 ppm and if it is headed for 600, which is highly likely.
You are one of the few people I know who really cares about facts, truth and intellectual honesty. Thank you Patrick (from Angola, Africa). All the best .
Thanks for a balanced presentation of climate change! I've been in the energy efficiency industry for over 30-years. I know what it takes to reduce energy consumption or switch to a different form of renewable energy. In the old days, we thought we'd run out of oil and so there was a big push to find renewable energy sources. Today, we realize that we have more coal and oil reserves than we ever thought possible in the 1970's. We have been trying to reduce energy consumption and switch to renewable energy for the past 50-years... and we have utterly failed to reduce CO2 levels. The notion that we can make a big push to buy electric cars and get all of our electricity from solar and wind is a farce. The power source that will allow us to reduce CO2 is nuclear power. The fact that environmentalists are against nuclear power generation tells me that they don't truly believe their own propaganda. I don't believe it either. If you want a practical presentation of the climate change situation, I urge you to read the book, "False Alarm" by Bjorn Borg. It demonstrates the real threat with real solutions... instead of the alarmism coming from the political propaganda. As for the oil companies investing in renewable energy... Yes, they will jump on any band wagon. They are opportunists. If they see a large group of people buying electric cars, they will put their capital in electric infrastructure, regardless of the science. Exxon-Mobile and Chevron have been investing heavily in hydrogen, fuel-cell technology, bio-fuels, and other renewable technologies for the past five decades. It doesn't mean that climate alarmism is real science.
Hi after reading your reply I'd like to ask you if you've ever heard of Joseph W. Newman? If so what's your opinion since you been in the energy industry for many years. TIA looking forward to hearing back from you soon. Respectfully
Being in the energy industry, you must have read the book "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin, which describs oil barons as hard nosed and ruthless businessmen, who used their power and wealth to block and to destroy their competions. Alternative energies are competions to the oil barons, who have used all of their wealth, power, lawers, Congressmen, Presidents, propagandas, and even purchasing rouge scientists to supress these competions. Before Musk's Teslar, there was GM's California electric cars using advanced NMhd battery, and these first modern electric cars were getting popular and well liked. A movie was made to claim the oil barons destroyed this effort. The patent for the new battery was supposely bought by an oil company to supress the patent. Up to now, it was a lot easier for the oil barons to elect Congressmen, and Presidents like oil state Governor Reagan with his Texas oil company owner Bush, who defunded President Carter's alternative energy projects, and who went to Arabia to rescue OPEC from breaking up after the US downsized cars by relabeling compact cars as full sized cars with the standard 380ccV8 engines replaced by 225cc 6 cylinder engines, and with the US adopting the foreign 4-cylinder engines. They also trashed the high-milage car laws, which by a few strokes of the pen, produced drastic reductions in oil use. It is a lot easier for the oil barons to screw alternative energy than to participate in alternative energy adoptation, which entails a lot of hard work, and capital expenditures. Daniel Yergin's book "The Prize" shows all of this machinations by oil barons. One has to be careful in reading fossil fuel biased economic books by authors who may not have children nor grandchildren to worry about their blood decendents may have to face hellish climate conditions in the future.
@@lisapantelogiannis6126 I was approached with several "free energy" ideas. None have produced "free energy". The natural laws of physics prevent such "free energy" machines from existing. If we discover new laws, then I suppose it's possible. Most perpetual motion machines are scams. The closest approximation in our present day is nuclear hot fusion. This idea is primarily theoretical, but it has been demonstrated to generate electricity. Hopefully, in the next ten years, we will see a prototype nuclear hot fusion reactor generating commercial power.
Your LACK of science knowledge is not a reason for U to deny what U clearly dont understand.... GHGs absorb IR radiation and CO2 is a GHG... There is a LAW in physics called Arrhenius Law of mixed gases that accounts for CO2 heating the earth... So can you disprove that ?
@@Proemed44G I never addressed how greenhouse gases are are are not affecting the climate. For your information, I am a mechanical engineer. I am very aware of how radiation heat transfer works; the greenhouse effect; and the green house effect of various gasses. Why do you start your comment with an unfounded insult? Is that where we are with discussions... start off calling names in the hopes that people will back down? Since you've brought it up, climate warms and cools for a variety of reasons. Greenhouse gasses are probably the least impactful of these reasons. It's one of the reasons, climate activists have changed their rhetoric from "global warming" to "climate change"... because the climate is not warming as much as was predicted by greenhouse gas models. Empirical science is a "bitch" for the theoretical alarmists :)
*RE: "Excellent job. You distilled a complex subject down to an 18 minute presentation that was entertaining and concise. Thank you."* ......Almost as good as a Roadrunner cartoon. Equally concise and entertaining.
Please dig deeper than what media is throwing out there today. A story went out recently about the wRmest water temps recotded in the keys damaging the corals, well come to find out where those temps were taken was in Fla. Bay an area of the keys on the gulf side where the water is shallower and the current not as active as on the Atlantic side thusly affecting the more higher temps recorded, details matter.
I give you 1 more to think. If we are not sure what we are doing the most vise thing is stop what we are doing. Actually we are experimenting with our children future!
The both sides approach is dangerous. One of them is true and one of them is false. If you asked me how are babies made and I told you it was storks brought them to the mothers and then you ask someone else and they say it's through sex one of us is wrong and one of us is right. Should we consider history from the Viewpoint of nazis? The s*** we consider what child molesters think about how they should be allowed to interact with children? In any given situation there is only one objective truth and sooner we can all come to that truth and start working on the problem the better
Anyone can give a source for this "we have 12 years to live"? I thought it was more like "if we don't change within 12 years, damages are irreversible". And the statement on scientists that only surround themselves with people that agree with them is really wrong; A fundamental aspect of the scientific process is what we call "peer reviewing" and among scientists, it is always great and thrilling to prove someone wrong but also to prove oneself wrong. When there are mistakes in a paper, don't worry, there will be hordes of positively opportunistic scientists that will tackle the mistakes. You can't fathom how the scientific community is amazingly ruthless, every published paper is assaulted by other scientists trying to find problems. Although, I totally agree that the subject has been corrupted by politics, It shouldn't be left vs right. It should be all of mankind trying to assess the danger and solving the problem.
The source for this AOC, where AOC got this from is a UN report saying if we don't change in 12 years, we can't keep GW below 2C
5 лет назад+1
If only this was how science worked. The reality is over 70% of scientific articles published in scientific journals for the last two decades can't be duplicated. So much for the peer review. Scientists are human. The field still runs off of economic incentives.
@ Yes, the petrol industry is massively involved and is one of the wealthies sector of the economy. The have indeed powerful lobbies that pay scientists to publish climate denial papers, you're right. That's why the middle east isn't too fond of climatology. Most of their wealth come from oil.
5 лет назад+1
@@amadexi you deliberately mistook my statement. I didn't say anything about specific articles in specific publications. This problem in science goes across many disciplines. Self citing issues are also becoming a problem. The economic incentives have begun to reward attention grabbing headlines, not quality study. They have come to reward fast conclusions over accurate and tine consuming conclusions.
@ Yes exactly. I would add to that that people's bias greatly effects what's published and what is "acceptable". These scientists have careers, so there will be politics. For many issues they have to appeal to their bosses' perspectives and the dominant cultural understanding that is acceptable with their peers. So if they come with something against that they will be taking a risk. Not only that but for a lot a lot of scientists, publishing articles and research is just about their career advancement. They are less interested in the truth, and more interested in numbers, titles, and connections to get ahead. Not saying it's all like this, but we should be critical and keep trying to find where there are problems and what are the possible solutions
I stopped at this video because of how much Respect I have for Patrick and his astute ideas and opinions, very appreciative of him sharing his thoughts
jacob bogers Well if that’s true.. then tell me why? It’s not beneficial for politicians to bring it up because the way to stop it effectively is to change the public’s habits and their life style. Do you think that makes them popular? No way! Humans are lazy and we don’t like to change our habits, even if they benefit us in the long term :)❤️
I don't understand why this guy is covering it. Far more accomplished and capable people have spoken about it. Haven't even watched the full thing yet. Potholer54 here on RUclips does a great job
@@ballbag9641 Not at all the reason. Its because theres a lot of mythbusters and truth speakers. And those are the ones being shut down. It is not politically correct to give a correct explanation of the climate and other sensitive topics.
Now I understand why in my earliest years while studing in university, my biology teacher after I tried to look like a super enviromentally person in one exam, he corrected my global warming thinking, he said: the earth naturally gets warm and cold, it changes in a natural cycle. I've never had a car, I have tried to eat as much vegetarian as possible, but global warming created for business men, I wont follow.
There is nothing you can do about the issue to be honest. It all in the hands of governments and large corporations. Individuals attempting to make a difference is like someone owing a debt of 30 billion and paying back .50 cents a month. It’s irrelevant. You should keep your money.
The earth *does* change climate in natural Milankovitch cycles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles But the Malankovitch cycle should have us on a slow cooling trend, yet we are definitely on a global warming trend, so the Milankovich cycle serves only as more evidence that our current warming is *not* part of that natural cycle. We are causing rapid climate change, and we can stop it. Such a topic of extreme importance calls us all to listen to creditable expertise. Kudos to this video for inviting reasoned discussion.
Lucky for you man made climate change danger is not real. Spraying particulate matter into the sky can lower the temp to anything we desire for merely 1 billion dollars a year. Problem solved you can all go home now.
@@frankgriffin6293 we may end up spraying sulfates. But we'd have to continue it non-stop for centuries, and it would do nothing for ocean acidification mitigation. And we don't know nearly enough about it to know whether it would disrupt The Gulfstream, monsoons, etc
I totally agree with you, especially with your final questions about exact percentages. Thanks for your content Pat. In Germany you are not able to discuss this topic, they instantly call you a climate change denier,allthough you just ask some skeptical questions.
Yeah. Did you hear that the biggest German psychology institution is suggesting to treat climate change deniers? That reminds me of something we discussed in history class that happened like 80 years ago
Hi Wilhelm! Percentages could be misleading. Human carbon emissions are so minimal compared to the natural carbon cycle, yet these minimal values are enough to inbalance earths system
Yeah, that was an odd remark. Love to David from metric NZ - one of apparently 192 countries that use the metric system. The countries that use imperial: The U.S., Myanmar and Liberia, lol.
Well done video. I agree, we need actual debate on this topic. I'm in the camp that thinks this is all about control and has nothing to do with the climate. That said, I am open and interested in listening to a real debate from both sides, but I fear that will never happen.
Technically most countries use other units of measurement as well it's just they have their units listed OFFICIALLY as the metric system's, and usually it's apart of the clause of being apart of the European Union, of course Britain has broken that rule.
The funny thing is climate change is a disputed topic in those countries only where old system of measurements is used. Some people just hate new idea and hostile towards change.
Problem: *Climate Change.* Solution: *Keep current Environmental regulations, spend millions Planting more trees.* Solution from Politicians: Spend *Trillions* Eliminating all fossil fuels. Regulate CO2 for financial gain, while keeping themselves *exempt* from such regulations. In other words, you can't fly from point A to B, but they sure can.
Okay wait wait. It’s incredibly important to regard the fact that nobody says there wouldn’t be a climate change without humans. It’s normal for the earths climate to shift from an ice age(in wich we currently are in->frozen poles) to a warmer climate. The problem is not the climate change itself but the fact that irresponsible use of fossil fuel etc. is accelerating this change in a really dangerous way. And it shouldn’t be a discussion if it’s real or not because there is a scientific consensus that climate change IS reality and it doesn’t care if you believe in it or not because you will suffer it’s consequences like everybody else.
Milan Meyer yeah I don’t buy. Water levels have barely risen since my dad was a kid. He’s told me they’ve been feeding this global warming, climate change shit to people forever. They always say in 12 years, then 12 years comes and the earth is fine. I don’t believe that humans, who don’t even fully understand how the climate of earth works due to so many different complexities, can produce a computer model that can accurately predict the earths climate because i call bullshit. go do some research yourself and not listen to everything the MSM tells you because it’s a fuckin joke. look up tony heller and watch some of his vids and tell me that the climate change alarmists are 100% full proof, bet u can’t
@@mispap1 1. Unless you or your dad is a climate scientist your thoughts and opinions are worth jack shit when it comes to the actual science of sea level change, which you should read by the way: science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/ 2. "They always say in 12 years, then 12 years comes and the earth is fine" -- the only people who say this are dipshit politicians and those in the media. The science would never predict something so stupid, and it never has. This quote is often misunderstood from an actual report by the IPCC ( www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ ) that says we only have 11 years (as of right now) to seriously change the amount we rely on fossil fuels if we want to try and keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5C 3. "I don’t believe that humans, who don’t even fully understand how the climate of earth works due to so many different complexities, can produce a computer model that can accurately predict the earths climate because i call bullshit." -- Well lucky for us, we don't have to rely on you simply not understanding how it works, we can look at the actual evidence and decide for ourselves. If you have evidence to suggest we've gotten our climate models wrong, I'd love to see it. ( www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/globaltemps_agency_comparison_2018.gif ) 4. "go do some research yourself and not listen to everything the MSM tells you" I 100% agree that you shouldn't listen to everything MSM says about science, after all, you still have news channels that want to promote the idea that it isn't even a problem or has nothing to do with humans. You should go look at the actual science instead! 5. "look up tony heller" Tony Heller is completely full of shit when it comes to the science of climate change. I dare you to produce one peer-reviewed scientific research paper that is published in a credible scientific journal that agrees with the dumb shit he spews out.
@@mispap1 I agree. To say "is accelerating this change in a really dangerous way" is something that could not be proven even if it were all true. You would need 2 earths, one with our conditions and one with less carbon dioxide observed over generations. LOL. I think the solar output cycles (surely) and (it seems, possibly) changes in earths magnetic field may have more to do with it. They cannot even say there has been average warming globally in the last decade anyway, hence changing the name to climate change. We have many environmental issues but I doubt 400 parts per million ( 0.04 %) of atmospheric carbon dioxide is amongst the most pressing.
You need to look at the actual data. The alarmists can quite simply be rebuked with actual data. Then concentrate on ‘carbon’. The relationship between temp and CO2… and the evidence on its ‘effect’ to change temp. Look at the evidence/data…
Well said. The climate zealots solely embrace wild hyperbolic speculations of future events that never materialize. The data from actual events clearly demonstrates that there is no threat.
But it moved at a glacial pace. Now, humans have put their foot on the pedal. Even oil company scientists agree. Are they bucking for research money? No, but they're covering it up.
I would love to see this 3hr debate. However, there have already been others like Jhon Stossel who have issued similar challenges/debates. The "climate change deniers" are the only ones who show up. I can't trust people who won't answer to a challenge.
Triple fife I’m sure the scientists in question know a trap when they see one. You might have better luck with a consensus trusted figure but who today in our polarized world fits that bill. I saw a debate moderated by Mehdi Hassan on BBC I think. It had Richard Lindzen with an IPCC scientist. Not a heavy hitter and Lindzen might be the AGCC skeptics most capable and accredited climate scientist. He didn’t change my mind, despite being given a lot of rope to speak, and never really was able to render the consensus theory inoperable at all. This debate will likely not succeed because the conditions for the bate are political and no one wants to step into a lions den.
@@reganjo1955 you only prove my point. Even if it was a trap, a lions den or whatever else you want to call it, to say they won't show up because its a trap, makes it sound as though they can't handle it. Can you really trust those who can't handle a simple debate? They either are to scared, have knowingly to weak of a argument or are unable to handle a simple debate. Frankly I don't have any respect for those who are to afraid of what may happen or are to afraid of what their peers may think. Lastly if it lands on them knowingly having a weak argument or are unable to handle the debate, then they already prove with their absence who has the stronger evidence/convictions. Again, I'd love to see it, but I have little faith it will actually happen for the above reasons I stated. Thanks for the comment and furthering the conversation. Hope all is well.
Triple fife what I was trying to say was Stossel’s venue at heartland was an obvious setup. I’d be all for an actually neutrally moderated debate with structure and actual chance of hearing about the science.
@@reganjo1955 fair enough. Still, even if it is your view as to it being a setup, then what about me calling into question their faith in themselves? If someone was sure of their argument, what would it matter if it had taken place with Stossel as the moderator or a unbiased robot judge (since every human and even robots have built in bias I used this as a example)? When people don't show up, it shows they don't fully believe in what they are preaching. Then there is the "we aren't going to debate them because they are X" argument that I end up hearing often enough. The X being something they don't agree with. Why would any critically thinking adult put their trust in those who are unwilling to allow another's thoughts and instead using the silent treatment in order to "win" the debate which never happens. "The silent treatment is an abusive method of control, punishment, avoidance, or disempowerment (sometimes these four types overlap, sometimes not) that is a favorite tactic of narcissists, and especially those who have a hard time with impulse control, that is, those with more infantile tendencies." Would you trust someone who employs such tactics against you?
Triple fife I suppose the real question for thinking people is what do you make, from your own research, of the evidence and arguments out there? I can mind read their motives and come up with valid reasons why they could avoid that venue and still act in good faith. My views on the science arose before they were politicized. AGCC has a strong case, skeptics haven’t presented anything I’ve read that refutes the left side of this guys blackboard. He did a good job except for framing nature’s obviously profound influence on climate over eons but misses the correlation of mankind’s intensifying and accelerating economic activity over the past several decades. These compressed timeframes combined with industrial inputs, second order effects like feedback loops, reduced albedo etc nullify the puny human can’t produce the kinds of changes we are seeing. So I’ve looked cosmic ray cloud seeding in some layman’s depth and find it wanting, I can refute the too little CO2 argument relative to total, when you look at measurements longer than those cherry picked a few years back it looks to me like measurements are right. So you can see I’m not focusing on the ‘what do we do about it’ piece. I cannot credit any argument, and I’m not saying you would make this argument, that doesn’t start with is mankind causing it and how fast will temperatures rise and what effect would that have on the biosphere. If we can agree on that then we can debate what to do about it.
What challenge? The percentage of climate change caused by man is easily determined by looking at the historic (800,000 years) increases in carbon concentrations found in ice samples, versus what we have seen over the past 170 years (since the start of the 2nd industrial revolution). We have done in 170 years (primarily 50 years) what has historically taken thousands of years. Bottom line, look at any 170 year period starting 800,000 years ago up until 1830 and compare to the past 170 years. You will likely find that man is responsible for 90% (or more) of the increased carbon...i.e. global warming.
This is a great breakdown of the topic. I believe that climate change is real and that it's happening. Climate disasters have gotten worse over the past few years. I also see that in the long run, clean energy is also beneficial for the economy.
IGNORING carbon and "clean" --> the Oil & Gas & Coal WILL run OUT. ANYBODY saying different is exposing themselves for what they truly ARE, interested only in the tip of a penis or clitoris, respectively.
I've heard a good argument for nuclear energy being cleanest and most effective, but public associates it with some tragedies from poorly build plants from 70-ish years ago. It's been incredibly safer since then and even back then people went into a more stable nuclear plant for safety. But again, public opinion still frowns upon it by association - Steven Pinker.. Food for thought!
What to do about the radioactive waste produced? Perhaps we should resolve that problem first, before we advocate for more. This has been a problem from the outset that has been swept under the rug.
@@andrewbaillie6291 Andrew, I just replied to kazammi about finding uses for spent radio active waste. You just mentioned a potential of this recycling approach of win win thought. Energy must exist in spent waste which can benefit society. Recycling approach is real and it needs musk types to consider the vast win win possibilities of American people to invest and invent in full understanding of the subject of the matters we face.
... Andrew, you heard right. The decay process for Uranium is different than for Thorium, which does not decay into plutonium, which is used in weapons. Search for TedTalks about Thorium and read the book Super Fuel by Martin. We had a working Thorium reactor in the late 1960s and it's a very interesting story of how this technology was rediscovered. That's what the book is about.
Pat is the best I've seen on an open and honest presenter, interviewer and or mediator. He's clear and concise in a way for any non-genious to understand. Well done Pat.
An increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also increases vegetation on the earth, as plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and the plants excrete oxygen.
Co2 is a green house gas not because it makes the atmosphere thicker.. its because it obsorbs heat... not all particles in the atmosphere is heat obsorbing.
CO2 has the ability to transform the Sun's rays to a form that warms the lower levels of the atmosphere. It is also a larger heavier molecule, which tends to mean most of it will stay on the down low. But the math is complicated so the correlation between the modelled outcomes and the measured ones are not good.
All particles & matter absorb heat. Greenhouse Effect = as you add heat, there's no temperature change until the mass becomes saturated with heat. This appears as cooler highs. When heat is removed, there's no temperature change until the mass empties it's heat capacity. Greenhouse Effect is the Heat Capacity phenomenon. All gases (and liquids & solids) have heat capacity. But the amount of heat capacity differs. If you have 2 gases, the one with greater heat capacity is called the greenhouse gas.
Alternate Man not only Venice, Rijeka(Croatia) where im from is starting to flood every year, last week our big market near our port was flooded. The rains will sink us in 10 years max with the sea rising as well. Thanks boomers I guess..
Aanthanur DC So Tony is incorrect on all info he uses? Including dates ? Just curious as I am trying to work thru this mess. Too much money in this deal now. Untold amount of which relies on the perpetual slow movement of this but with no absolute certainties. (I know , not a physical possibility). Additionally no human can be that certain on something so complex. Don’t know why more peeps will not talk about the massive conflict of interest I see. I mean after all, would you go tell your boss to fire you, not give you a paycheck and that your job position isn’t even needed? Not likely..... this is a huge problem. Beyond description I think
@@lethal2453 Big oil fossil fuels spends billions every year on climate denial, paying scientists, funding denial websites and blogs. www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR1Qmg1z38D48BV6AD0iSffUeDM69e4ywoLCwb0bJwIfFxqfGEWwt4u2GRg#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01
Patrick, in your summary you nailed it. If I just sit and think about this, only one question emerges: how much of this are we responsible for? That's obviously at least to me a math question, and if I think on it more, there's probably no way to quantify it, and if there was it would be covered up and dismissed if it didn't fit a certain narrative. Or, what temperature are we shooting for? If we ever could achieve that, could we maintain it forever? Can we control the weather? Just wondering.
Quantify it? You're kidding right? We KNOW how much co2 is in the atmosphere. We KNOW the Sun's average intensity of solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere directly facing the Sun is about 1,360 watts per square meter, we KNOW the Earth rotates so we can calculate how much of that actually reaches the atmosphere, we KNOW what co2 along the 2 frequencies does with that radiation, we KNOW how much re-radiates back into space. The remainder ENEGY is CAPTURED by the Earth. Closed system + adding ENERGY = it gets HOTTER. Here: ΔF = α ln (C/C0) If anyone has ever found any OTHER reason for the rise in the Keeling Curve, then they're either a conspiracist denier or a space alien.
If people are really worried about this why are banks giving loans to people buying houses near the sea and why are those same people telling us it’s humans flying jets all over emitting more than hundreds of thousands of people ever will? The argument holds no water
When North America was covered in ice up to 3000 ft thick, the world average temperature was only about 5 to 9C less than it is now. It doesn't take much of a temperature change to have a large effect on the earth's climate.
The next global issue I believe is weight change. I know some people who constantly struggle with this. First they're over weight then at times they're underweight. Depending on numerous factors of course. There is no need to measure the trend in any particular direction, the way you would deal with absolutes. But I can assure you people's weight is changing at a rate that will one day make walking, or running intolerable.
I'd recommend Simon Clark since he is a Phd on climate science and also a youtuber that speaks about this topic frequently. It is true that the "end of the world" often is an exaggeration although I think it makes sense since climate change has a pro cyclical nature, so even if we will only see severe effects 60 years from now, after 15 or 20 it might be exponentially more complicated to mitigate them.
Share your thoughts with Patrick Bet-David by texting 310.340.1132 or click here my.community.com/patrickbetdavid
Why not address the people on the climate change side that have money to gain, its not just the oil and gas companies.
NASA said that the ice is increasing last year, they just can’t definite the depth of the ice.
As a scientist, I argue that climate change takes place non-linearly and exponential. It is slow now, but after few years, non-linear change might happen. Another point that I want to make is that climate change and air pollution are correlated. right? Most of the perturbation that leads to air pollution end up in climate change. Therefore, taking precautions to control climate change is crucial.
Without question, Tony Heller from realclimatescience.com ...
@@sureshkumar-kx2xz I'm curious, are you able to explain how the Laurentide ice sheet was formed? What caused it to disappear almost completely within just about 1,000 years? Why did it form over Canada and not the pole? How did humans survive 300-400 foot increase in global sea levels over the course of a very small time frame? How did humans of around 13,000 years ago survive 18 degree temperature swings over the course of decades?
If we today cannot survive a 1.5 degree temperature change over a century, how did we survive over the last 20,000 years?
If you cannot explain how the climate changes into and out of a glacial period, I don't think there is any consensus over climate change.
There is no consensus over how the global temperature fluctuated 18 degrees on the span of decades when atmospheric CO2 remained stable and low.
The scientific community is at the beginning of understanding global climate change, not the end.
You left out the Ocean that releases more Co2 then anything else in this planet.
When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happenes. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.
You are so correct!
Great comment. I would add religions to the list of culprits. I'd be tempted to put them at the top too, religions and governments have always been bed buddies. That's especially true when it comes to this topic.
Could you name some of the gloom and dooms that never came true over the years?
Yes it’s very accurate indeed. There is in fact a group of people that believe a small scale nuclear war would be beneficial to stop global warming believe it or not. Before K Schwab started WEF he also worked with C/A, Kissinger, JH’s University, Pierre Trudeau etc. Can find that info in a search for “Schwab; how the CFR taught me to ❤️ the bomb”. The amount of disdain the elites have for the lower class is real & telling when you investigate some of their writings from the 80’s, the WEF’s Head advisor Yuval Harari who’s videos are here on YT etc. He openly mocks & dismisses “free will”, classes humans as all “hackable beings” now etc. Imo he’s one truly 👿 human.
@@upbruckner Once it gets it act together, for sure.
Some wise words to be said by the man himself Charlie munger
"I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do"
Xxsunber - “im convinced I could make my opponents case better than them each time. And we are both better off for it”. Hitchens
My new favorite quote! Thank you!
I never take heed of the words spoken by a dude named "munger".
Although it sounds fancy, his stance on bitcoin shows a CLEAR lack of understanding of what it is. And holding onto his belief so strongly goes exactly, against that.
I've been told at least 4 times in my lifetime that we have 12 years before we're extinct. In the 70's we were supposed to be on the verge of a new ice age. Now we are alternately cooking or freezing depending on the weather holocaust of the week. Actually, it appears to be morphing into, "the weather itself will kill us all," as opposed to any particular temperature gradient. We're still here.
Also I'm pretty fucking sure we were supposed to run out of gas right around now. Fuck happened to that? Oh they found out we have a lot more gas lmfao
@@fuckjewtube69 lmao
Lmao
@@fuckjewtube69 Yes and when the California Governor gets his way by pushing his EV agenda there will be a lot more Gas available,Lol.
Um I doubt that, especially since you're not sure exactly how many times you've supposedly been told that. Another dude clinging to what he believes the "strong men" of industry want to hear because he's afraid he'll be fired. Exxon was at the forefront of climate change research, they're the ones who discovered that it is happening and how, then they got busy burying the findings for decades. Do your research and don't buy any property in Florida unless kayaking across your house is for you.
When I was a kid in the 80s and 90s our science classes told in in early 2000s global warming was going to cause Florida to be submerged, NYC to be flooded and California to be an island. This is the problem with linear thinking, when clearly our environment works on cycles.
things like that is easy tell: one side wants argument and debate, the other said: debate is over, take whatever I give you. so, it's clear.
@@seanleith5312 Yes. We are the science!
And nothing happened
How does it demonstrate linear thinking? I mean, what do you want to say when using that phrase? People who extrapolate a trend linearly and makes conclusions on it?
@@FrederikFalk21 you got it exactly. The government officials take the studies that feed their agenda and use linear charts. A Lot of gov thinking is if this then that across a trend line. They don't use logarithmic or higher type scales because they don't understand them, only the scientists use those models.
Activists: We only have 12 years to live.
Banks: _Here is your 50-year mortgage plan_
& for your new ocean front property. Mom renewed her loan for beach house & they didnt say 1 word.
@@kevinodom2918 The bank doesn't hold the mortgage. They have no issues selling it to investors.
'12 years to deal with climate change' - not '12 years to live'. Quite a big difference.
If the 12 years is true in the prospectus it would show that you're screwed.
@@ericmccance4149 Essentially it's the estimate that to cut CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050 (to avoid more than 1.5 Celsius warming), emissions would have to be on a path to fall by about 45 percent by around 2030 (so 11 years now).
Any time I see the fact-checking "context" warning on a RUclips video, I know I'm about to see something that is a) going to be good and b) something the tech giants would really like to censor.
RUclips does often do remove it. I have watched several channels that are gone. I found out they were defunded later removed. They did not fit the corporate line.
Same thought here👋😉
Absolutely ‼️‼️👍🇺🇸
If people don't want u to see it. Theres a massive reason why. And if u can only think of a tiny minor reason, keep looking cause it's bigger then u think
@@garyreed6310 You did ur
Homework.
You know he's on to something when they have to put a disclaimer on the page just because he wants people to have an actual conversation about this topic.😏
Great video Patrick
Exactly. Anyone who doesn't have there head up the're butts would see that too
We don't need some idiot RUclips middleman to pollute the conversation.
Not a mention of chemtrailing yet its being debated in Congress.
If I link it, the algorithm or human censorship will chop this comment, but the debate is about the patented elements known to cause weather modification.
Barium, strontium, and aluminium nano particles are the biggest, with silver dioxide and now graphine oxide proven in laboratory's to be coming out of 100 ton payload jumbo jets times however many are flying every day in every continent.
Could there be an elephant in this room we call the sky?
Let's start with the fact that, long ago, the Earth was 6ﾟ warmer, there were no icecaps, deserts were green and carbon dioxide ppm was in the 1000's not the 100's. The Earth did not burn up and life was thriving. The idea that life will not exist in 12 years is kind of stretch especially since the temperature rise has stalled out since about 1998. I think we have some time for rational discourse.
PS Electric cars, solar panels and windmills are not carbon neutral and have some very real pollution drawbacks. I am all for clean energy but the truth behind our current proposed solutions would be nice. If our C02 output is actually a problem, nuclear is about the only real solution currently.
Reality; Just not because of You @Noel D or Co2.
We live in an electric universe powered by double torus magnets with the Sun's planets & moons held in position by and between the two energies.
The (Galactic) Milankovitch cycles cause our climate cycles with Obliquity causing climate trends between Aphelion & Perihelon with he galactic bulge every 60,000 years, Precession causing cataclysmic END TIMES climate change when our solar system eclipses the centre of our galaxies Magnetic Nucleus at Alpha Omega equinoxes NOW & Eccentricity the 235,000 year rotation of the galactic bulge being the EM driver outside force.
The Antikythera device was a predictor of the (Galactic) Milankovitch cycles.
Jesus warned us about the Anti-Goylumites & these the climate change END TIMES with the book of REVELATION & the cause with the 7 north stars of the PRECESSION of the Alpha Omega equinoxes he held in his hand.
The climate change disasters your witnessing now are just the birthing pains Mother Earth's WATER won't break until 2033 when teh conjunction of the planets pulls the oceans around the planet east to west 800 mph at the equator. And then every 40 years when the planets are in conjunction for the millennium it takes to cross the Milky Way.
The last equinox when we eclipsed the galactic plain was 12,000 years ago as recorded in geological, astronomical, archaeological, Biblical, Vedas, evidence. Sphinx water erosion, Younger dryas boundary layer, Clovis people, Washington scablands, Gobekli Karahn tepe were buried by 19 separate tsunami's spaced 40 years apart spanning a millennium according to Klaus Schmidt's report.
The first question is the earth warming.? The second question is how much? The third question is there an optimal healthy level of the global temperature? The third question is whether there an increase in inclemency with a rise in temperature? The fourth question is how much is human caused, which determines how much conservation can modulate climate change. Let's get to the brass tacks, if we are forced to conserve forget about air conditioning and personal transportation.
The clip of the ice melting in Alaska was filmed in the summer, and that happens every summer but it's frozen up again every winter
Omg load of funny shit over 9 years. This fruitcake is saying? 😆😆😆
THE PERMAFROST IS MELTING IN RUSSAI AND ALASKA, CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND IS HERE WITH A VENGANCE
Most glaciers are receding and have been since recorded history. The glaciers where I live in Juneau have receded noticeably in my lifetime but I can easily see evidence of their presence on land 10,000 yrs ago. Climate change is not a new phenomena.
@@cooganalaska3249 NO, BUT BEFORE HUMANS IT WAS A DIFFEERENT STORY, NOW EVER SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL AGE STARTED HUMANS ARE THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE, AND NOW ARE CAUSING THE EXCESS HEAT, STORMS, FLOODS, HURRICANS AND TYPHONES THAT ARE ALL STRONGER NOW THEN BEFORE,
I like it; 'Bro science'
This guy is a GREAT teacher. We really need more like him.
I fully agree with you 💯💯💯
Shame he does not understand how science works.
*sniffle sniffle*
preacher*
@Jim Leask you don't have to be a scientist. High school education science covers this. Physics of light ( he clearly missed this in high school ) chemistry of gasses ( he wasn't paying attention ) statistical analysis ( you need this even in business course in high school) On the latter he has problems in this and virus video. Use of statistical fallacies galore.
Young Student's are being taught "What to Think" rather than "How to think"...so you can see where the future is going..!
Whose students? Not mine
If that is true, it is no different than previous generations. Why do you think racism, poverty, and neoliberalism has lasted for such a long time? The world is getting more and more polluted and you seem to try to ignore that this is a result from the previous generations
I agree
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but how it thinks”
Something like that
(Christopher Hitchens)
the problem is that they don't teach you logic and true open mindedness in school. Logic used to be a requirement with the first universities that Muslims created, and I believe it was also continued in the Christian universities that followed. They both studied Greek philosophy in depth and understood that all discussion had to be based on a rational basis. If there's no one to understand logical communication and there is no demand for us to communicate in the language of logic, then anyone can say anything and you wouldn't know the weaknesses in their arguments and you wouldn't know how to question that person to arrive at the truth. Then everything becomes about emotion like we see today - emotion + superficial logic
This is indeed a huge problem, perhaps the biggest one we will face. Critical thinking as is sjown in this video isn't bring taught in schools and universities.
All about money more money for the elite who call us fools
I would carefully monitor your metrics after this video if I were you. I have a feeling RUclips’s algorithm wont like this.
John that’s the only certain thing 🙄
If I were you John, I would watch Dane Wigington…..as you appear to be clueless about this matter as well.
Why wouldn't youtube like it? This whole piece as spun as being neutral but in reality it supports the hypothesis that man made climate change is real and its bad. He doesn't mention that 20 times more people are killed by cold than by heat . he claims scientists that say climate change is fake are bought off while the others are "Honest" he lies about ice in Antarctica is receding while the truth is its increasing. The lies permeate threw this whole piece.Its clearly bias.
he is a man of honour so he will definitely willingly "sacrifice" some of his metrics for the search of truth..
his idea was so briliant tho, gather the 2 side, talk for 3 hours minimal, show both side best arguments, and then we decide, to be neutral or leaning to one side 👍👍👍
John Consistency is the key to success. Consistency leads to habits. Habits form the actions we take every day. Action leads to success.
It’s not what we do once in a while that shapes our lives. It’s what we do consistently.
🔥🔥🔥
When I was growing up in the 70’s we were told that an ice age was going to happen by 2000.
Restrictions & control.
I like your presentation Pat, but as you know, the earth has had fluctuating climate for all of it's existence ..... 4-1/2 billion years. I know you are familiar with the reasons for climate change in the past Billions of years, but maybe your audience is not, so here we go. The Earth's climate is governed by four items; Solar radiation, Axial tilt, Axial precession and Earth's Orbital changes from circular to eclipse, the latter three being called the Milankovitch Cycles. Axial Tilt has had the greatest influence on the Earth's climate, with a tilt that ranges from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees from the Ecliptic Plain, called the Obliquity of the Ecliptic. In fact it is this Obliquity change that has been the primary cause of the last 26 ice ages during the last 2.6 million years. We are presently in an Interglacial Minimum, between Ice Ages, where the Earth's temperature is unusually warm. We will soon enter another Ice Age. I agree that man is contributing to the present warming cycle, but It is such a small contribution that it is probably not measurable. Other elements that contribute 5-10 times more than CO2 are Methane, Water Vapor and Dust that are circulating in the Earth's atmosphere and are never mentioned as contributors to climate change. When we discuss "Climate Change", we need to put more science into it, instead of treating it as a Religion or as a discussion of more people believe this or more people believe that. Science is not a democracy, it is a method of analyzing facts. Thank you again for your great review.
No
90% spot on. Note IPCC 6 also include particle forcing impacts from the sun into the earths climate. None of the current models that use IPCC 6 include any modeling of the effects of particle forcing from solar wind or magnetic coupling. Interesting that numerous scientific papers in peer reviewed publications over decades of research highlight the mechanisms yet few discuss the impacts or accounting in computer modeling.
How about we all quit acting like we know WTF has been going on "the past billions of years", and continue doing what works until a better alternative presents itself.
@@vincentratliff9419 Right, I’m amazed by the sheer mass of climate scientists in the comment section.
ruclips.net/video/CA1zUW4uOSw/видео.html
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
Please help people know facts
Jordan peterson was right when he said we're not even capable of having a sensible discussion about this kind of stuff
This is probably the single strongest indicator that something dishonest is going on.
@@ryanm7263
True
Jordan Peterson also believes the only TRUTH that exists is that which benefits HUMANITY.
@J P AGW is by definition not a natural process.
Rate of change is the problem. AGW effects this rate of change. GW on its own is not a problem. Ice cores indicate these processes occurring over 100,000's of years. It previously took 20,000 years to see 100ppm increase in CO2. Recently, its taken 50 years of industrial revolution. Go figure.
My prof has a really good take that I’ve adopted as well. He states that he doesn’t believe in climate change, rather climate volatility. Are temps changing? Yes, they always have, and we’ve been hot before such as in the medieval ages, and cold in various ice ages, and this was before we had a large scale impact. The other point is that the earth has numerous negative feedback loops that prevent large change, such as clouds cooling the earth back down. In regards to greenhouse gases we have cycles for those just as there is a water cycle. Nitrogen, CO2, etc, all have cycles that naturally occur. Volatility occurs in any large scale “system”, and the earth is no exception, rather a miracle.
Yes I too wonder how much longer our luck may hold....or not.
That all true!
The only difference with medieval ages is that we have gasoline cars and plastic since 200 years.
That's speeding up the process.
Without that nature would fix itself again.
I agree. However, we could certainly manage our resources better to maintain a better balance and leave less of an net negative impact on the Earth. We take and take without replenishing adequately.
Oh, did you “pick” (find) something that appeased your lizard brain? That’s a good little lemming...
Yeah that's all fine until you throw humans in the mix...which accelerate what your professor calls climate "volatility" which is kind of a misnomer because climate changes extremely slowly. Weather is volatile.
Regardless of what side a person takes, we NEED to clean up our act. This planet is a beautiful gift.
The problem is, when a solution is met a big name company either buys out the owner and discards the idea or threatens the owner into burying the idea.
If not for big companies the government itself more than likely has a plethora of solutions to different problems, but due to outside influences are keeping quite about it.
The people may want change, but can we really say the same for those in charge?
@Pouty MacPotatohead
No, not yet. The truck are still some time away. The weight plus distance makes the batteries very very heavy, making payload small.
I disagree it’s more like a nightmare. This world is filled with organisms eating each other, and chocked full of deadly natural conditions from ice ages, earth quakes, Tsunamis, floods, disease epidemics, etc. In spite of all this conflict and pain we have managed at great sacrifice to impose a small measure of order and stability with technology and determination.
The idea that our CO2 emissions are a big problem is a big fat lie. There are 100 more pressing issues and most of them are due to natural forces we don’t have much control over.
I like a clean act as much as the next person. But it wasn’t too long ago that the developed countries has institutionalized slavery, genocide and nasty sanitation problems plus a long list of disgusting habits.
I say wait another 20 years to watch the IPCC predictions fail like they have for the last 20.
@Pouty MacPotatohead
I see. But wouldnt weight requirement laws probably be based off infrastructure limitations. Thousands of old bridges, ramps, culverts, road matterials? For the sake of arguing lol.
Gift from who or from where?
Al Gore: The shorelines are gonna be disappearing!!
Also Al Gore: *Buys Oceanfront Property*
Don
Hahaha
Don even Obama bought oceanfront property not too long ago
BDom
Don't forget bathhouse Marco Rubio
Rafael Pola
He has a house in Qatar
Danibolical 1
Grumpy Greta
Coming from a Natural Resources Management major and teacher, you did an amazing and clear mini course here. Lots of ❤️ and blessings being sent your way.
Amazing, just amazing. This is such a healthy way to consume information. You give me the respect to let me make my own decisions.
Yes, I agree bet-david is very cool and professional.
He got a few things wrong though. 1) Northern Irish government didn't collapse because of one scandal. You'd need to only understand how politics works there to understand what happened. In relation to the scandal, the issue was the lack of proper oversight. 2) He said there's no way of measuring how much of the carbon in the air is because of man. That's completely wrong. The carbon emitted from burning organic matter (eg fossil fuels) is different from carbon emitted in any other way. Scientists know exactly how much is becuase of man.
He left out so much information and reduced it to talking points. Go to Potholer54's channel here on RUclips if you want a comprehensive explanation on the science.
@@jarletto Interesting, at the end he explained this is a challenge for a debate he is going to host.
More like he completely misrepresents the scientific consensus as if it's 50/50 and then says "make your own decisions" after poisoning the well for 20 minutes.
Human-based greenhouse gases cause global warming: www.climatelevels.org
"Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence." nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/#fig-2-1
The total CO2 released from coal, oil & gas over the last 30 years, is greater than the rest of all human history.
ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute
I wish more people would look at both sides of every issue as you have presented this.
WELL, EITHER YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AND DATA, OR YOU DON'T, HOT AIR HOLDS MORE MOISTURE THAN COLD AIR, AS A TESTAMENT TO THAT AND PROOF, JUST LOOK AT CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW, LOTS OF RAIN WHEN IT DUMPS, ALL A SIGN OF THE EARTH HEATING UP AND THIS WILL GET WORSE CLIMTE CHANGE IS NO LONGER DEBATABLE, ITS HERE IN FULL FORCE
It's a complete fraud, it's a fact that man made climate change doesn't exist and never existed
@@ethanshelbyskateboarding9980 YES, THAT IS WHY IT IS NOW BREAKING HEAT RECORDS IN ALL THE SOUTHEAST AND FLORIDA NOW AT 90 DEGREES TWO MONTHS AHEAD OF TIME FOR FEB. AND MORE COMIMING, MASSIVE FLOODS NOW IN BRAZIL, MANY PEOPLE DEAD, HMMMM, WARM AIR HOLDS MORE MOISTURE THEN COLD AIR, H MMMMMM DO YOU WOUNDER IF THERE IS A CONNECTION
@@domcizek irrelevant man made climate change is a HOAX
@@ethanshelbyskateboarding9980 KEEP RIDING YOUR SKATEBOARD, AND IN THE FUTURE IT WILL BE A SURFBOARD WITH OCEAN RISE ON THE WAY,
There are two other factors that you did not discuss that contribute to the fluctuations of earth's climate. One is water vapor. Check the percentage of water vapor in the air, which also traps heat. And the second is solar flares and sunspots. These phenomena are cyclical and affect the amount of heat we get from year to year.
You should also mention the fact that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening, since about 1859, when the Carrington event occurred. This is cyclical, which occurs about every 12000 years. This allows the solar plasma, & non-visible radiation to penetrate further into our atmosphere. This is evident from the ground-up lightening, as well as aurora being visible, from far lower latitudes, than has occurred, in our lifetime.
The scientists say that clouds are a major factor in the temp.
@@garyrodriguez8414clouds are a major factor in temperature but not much in climate change.
@@mthunzimapatwanathe climate is always changing as evident with the Greenland ice cores.
The Roman and mid evil warm periods were warmer than today plus the climatic optimum.
There have also been points in the past where CO2 was 10 times the current amount at 4000ppm and the earth was entering an ice age.
CO2 is a trace gas making up only 0.0004% of our atmosphere and is basically plant food.
China and India combined emit around 75% of all co2 emissions so if everyone else stopped completely, CO2 concentration would continue to rise.
Sea levels were rising and glaciers melting with temps rising a full 40 years before the industrial revolution and haven't deviated from that trend at all.
They don't know crap about the future of the earths climate and can't even explain the past like how was a polar ice sheet all the way down over Cincinnati Ohio while Islands 400 miles from the north pole were lush and green and supported a massive megafauna populations.
Those same islands can't have Vegetation today as they are in total darkness 6 months of the year.
It's all a sham.
@@citizengkar7824I personally don't think the magnetic field records are accurate. We see clear reversals on enormous timescales but what happens in between?!
The earths crust is what moves, not the magnetic pole.
The Earth was warming from 1890 to 1940 and then it started cooling from 1940 to 1973 (remember how all the scientists were saying we are entering into a new ice age ) and it warmed again until 2012 and now it is starting to cool again.
That's why the climate alarmists changed the name of their movement from Global Warming to Climate Change, because they can never be wrong as the climate changes cyclically all the time.
Seems like it is fine tuning....or maybe our creator is doing so.
A negative feedback loop
That’s why they changed their language to climate change from global warming and or global cooling
I think one of the main points is if you're believing any words out of any politician's mouth about the weather or anything else for that matter, there's something wrong with you. Your parents and teachers have failed you. I thought it was common knowledge to never trust a politician. Especially when you have years of video evidence of every single thing they say is a lie.
Awesome, unbiased, common sense outlook on this increasingly important topic! I completely agree with your idea of a 3- hour debate. We’re you ever able to make it happen? Would love to watch it! Thanks again, good stuff!!
The climate alarmist won’t debate because the science is settled, that should tel you something.
I came out of this video convinced we have never been on the moon. If those moon Temps are for real. I gotta look into that.
@@Bobswartz It's 'Soyance'.
it is not increasingly anything lol 50 years ago they said the same thing as this guy florida will be under water lol
The 'Eco-Terrorist'..Left Fears the 'Truth'...will Never Even Debate it...Says its Settled Science...Total..B.S...!!!
Its neither - Its the biggest conn on the history of mankind. 2nd biggest conn is the cofcof measures and shot.
Both with the major role of the govs in making them possible.
It is so nice to see someone that's searching for the truth, good luck and I'm looking forward to watching it if you get the people together to do it
me personally, I don’t understand why is he even explaining the green house effect, all general aspects of atmosphere, physics etc. don’t people have to know that already? I really liked to hear different explanations and maybe some more advanced science he got into, but seriously other people don’t who don’t know what the green house effect or people who don’t know what the atmosphere is? people don’t know all those basics that they were supposed to learn in school? If not well here is your reason why this country is going on the way the hard bottom. absolute ignorance.
Why does he show a nuclear reactor and say fossil fuels. Lol. Nuclear is no carbon.
Nomadic Fanatic stickers maybe because the green fascists are against nuclear power as well. You are right though.
Maybe areas with fault lines and storms with names shouldn’t have nuclear reactors.
@@MrBrendanabc and with low quality security and control standarts and threats of tsunamis and earthquakes simultaneously. by today's technology, you actually have to TRY to mess it up, in order to repeat fukushima.
it looks to be emitting a lot, even though its all water vapor
Running full steam. Everybody’s charging their cars. Lol
Great teaching, the GW alarmist won’t talk about the fact that even though we have exponentially increased fossil fuel use globally, yet global warming has only increased 1 degree, as you mentioned. There are deserts 🌵 that have actually turned green by absorbing carbon dioxide. I think we need to clean our environments rationally, slowly. The sky isn’t falling, God will provide for what he created. God bless you all.
Makes sense
We just need to deal with pollution then it will look after itself.
We don't need another trading scheme like carbon credits just more bs
Exactly and if you know anything about the bible and God you should know that he's coming back soon and the last thing that we should worry about is climate change!!!
Right now every bible on earth has been supernaturally changed and I believe it's a huge end times sign!!!
Amos 8 11 says that there will be a famine not for food or water but for God's word and we are in that famine right now!
Check out the site, Truth Shock TV on youtube and see how badly the bible has been corrupted!!!
Also Jesus said that not one generation would pass and Israel is 74 years old so by strength a generation is 80 years and that means 6 years left!!!
The bible has never been wrong not once until recently with these changes and humanity better take notice and start watching for his return!!!
God bless!!!
Agreed
When they said go green, they meant Soylent Green
This dude reminds me of the sniper character in the movie 'Behind Enemy Lines'. Even the sweater he's wearing! 😂
"Ocean levels are rising"
"In other news, huge sky-scraper to be built in Miami Beach, investments top half a billion dollars."
Al Gore bought a Beach Mansion in Florida although he warned the public of rising sea levels in his movie An Inconvenient Truth.
@@Simon-pb9cs You think a multi-millionaire can't do on the scale of one mansion what the Netherlands have done on the scale of a country? Also he might have been hoping that humanity would listen to him and not sink his house
@@iwersonsch5131 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha dont have children and please give back the drivers license you found in the Cornflakes package!!!
@@Simon-pb9cs That's because the rise is tiny at the moment. If the Greenland Ice sheet goes though then get ready for a 7m sea level rise and mass migration.
we are supposed to be underwater right now, the issue with the scientific predictor methods Gore went off is the massive difference in variability as more time passes. also the evaporation of water due to increased temp. .... Gore did more damage to the cause of global warming with his fear mongering than good
I love the way you simply nail down the facts on both sides, and then come up with the right questions. Absolutely, it's a question of the % of damage/no damage from natural cycles or manmade. Thank you for yet another video of facts, and the admonition to now go out and study it for yourself!
Pollution is are biggest issue. The earth will always be here, with or without mankind.
yup, but the mankind part pretty important if you're a man.
*our biggest issue. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
eventually even the earth will be consumed by something.
Anything that you're not allowed to argue in a public forum without being attacked clearly has something else going on
this typ of content is pure fire. Arguments and counterarguments, clearly presented. epic stuff, I hope to see more.
No. Without empirical evidence that humans are causing climate change, there is no argument. It's simple pseudoscience.
@viktorvaneeden
Yeah, concluded without any evidence. That's a big problem when anyone is trying to prove a story, it's a complete failure when you claim to be a scientist.
@viktorvaneeden
My apologies, I thought you might be someone who required evidence. My mistake.
@viktorvaneeden
No. You believe in something for which scientists have no evidence.
I note you have none to offer, either.
Lynchmob mentality?
All I know is that the subject of climate change is a massive money maker for lot of people
For example...?
Can you back up hollow statements like this?
Al Gore, Bill Nye the government aka "the carbon tax". Billions are being generated for something that may or may not be an issue
The oil industry is a bigger money maker.
@@ericselectrons that may be but we also know oil is 100% real. We can't say the same for climate change. Tell me in the year 2089 if it's real or not
Keep it up Pat ...we love your passion for teaching !✅
Hey Pat! You gotta tell the "whole truth' ABOUT RAYMOND! While he was CEO of Exxon he spearheaded the merger w/MOBIL and the two Cos. turned out to be way more valuable then each separately, so he unlocked a lotta hidden value >THAT'S why he was given the huge farewell pkg!!! Come on Pat! You gotta be more honest than the JewsMedia!!!
8:46 "Burning of fossil fuels..." shows a nuclear reactor power plant with water vapor steam coming out them. A nuclear reactor outputs steam rather than CO-2. Water vapor is, however, the greatest greenhouse gas by a large margin.
Good that you spotted Nuclear Power Plant, don't disturb the subject tho. Generating energy using nuclear has !!! 0 CO2 !!! trail. It is the cleanest way we can generate electricity. It is true that Water vapor is a greenhouse gas but it will just rain back to Earth after a few DAYS, whereas CO2 doesn't rain and stays in atmosphere for YEARS.
The water vapor is contained within the plant. Its not supposed to be an emission. But we should switch to liquid fluoride thorium reactors. LFTRs are far safer, more efficient and better for the planet than pretty much any of the other forms of energy production.
Also, co2 is not a problem. Nobody has proven any negative effects of a lofe giving gas responsible for plant and life growth
@@MrCorruptedShadows Fluoride salts are toxic and less stable than "scientist" proponents are willing to admit. Never discount terrorism to blow centralized plants up or be controlled by money men who want inflated prices for the energy thus produced.
Ideally every electrical item that we have should be self powered by energy from the space time vacuum. If the costs are not socialized by larger groups of people, then greedy bankers shall loan out the required amount, but then charge HUGE sums of interest. The financiers using the bank loan shall want to recoup their investment ASAP so shall mark up the costs each year of operation--as is the usual practice in our inflationary debt-based monetary system.
Supposedly when you jolt the ether with EM energy, more energy can be tapped using the "right" kind of physics. Just like complex numbers predict certain electrodynamic situations, an alternate dimensional situation may be at work in these cases.
I do not discount anything that free energy from the vacuum proponents claim unless seeking money from me for yet another prototype like that Joseph Newman energy machine guy kept doing his entire life. His stuff was expensive to build too. He had one larger machine that had 4 expensive huge neodymium magnets and about 50 to 60 kilometers of enameled copper wire. It produced slow moving motor torque, and pulsed DC that he used to recharge dead batteries. It may have operated using standing waves in the long drive / pickup coil to not put hardly any drain on the battery used to make the armature turn.
www.google.com/search?q=free+energy+machine+of+Joseph+Newman&newwindow=1&tbm=vid&sa=X
A Japanese manufactured machine used left-handed materials like bismuth and oscillator resonance to extract energy, but the trouble was that if the machines were in close enough proximity to one another, they caused some interference with one another that supposedly the Japanese government determined caused a dangerous situation of some sort so pulled them from the market.
Another guy Steven Mark produced a machine that captured ambient Earth 7.8 Hz frequency and could power a few 100 Watt light bulbs until the capturing coil heated up too much after about 10 minutes.
www.google.com/search?q=free+energy+tpu+steven+mark+jack+durban&newwindow=1&tbm=vid&sa=X
A meltdown failure would happen if left on for about 15 minutes. Some means should have been used to use 4 such units, and cycle switch through them. The excess heat could have been tapped to heat water for home use for hot water, etc. The guy tried to trick investors with a relay switch of some kind that turned off the machine if placed upside down. He did not want anyone to know what were the actual operating principles so used such deception.
The trouble with greedy men is that they seek out licenses to protect their inventions called patents. The governments of most countries are in huge debts and are essentially a slave to the lender. As such these greedy people use YES MEN to steal the stuff from others that would otherwise cause a paradigm shift of centralized control to de-centralized individual control (freedom from the greedy money men). As such laws are in place that permit the governments to declare that a certain kind of working invention must be sequestered as threatening national security, etc.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada signed a seizure order for the equipment being used by John Hutchison an amateur physicist-inventor who was living in Vancouver, BC, Canada. His equipment produced unusual effects such as force at a distance, antigravity, molecular transformation of materials such as metals and wood that got intermingled with one another.
www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=%22Brian+Mulroney%22+%22John+Hutchison%22+inventor+confiscation+OR+seizure+lab+18+March+1990
Hutchison's neighbors complained that things in their nearby houses were inexplicably moving by themselves when Hutchison turned on and fiddled around with his experiments.
@@oldspammer its extremely difficult to melt down a LFTR. Still far safer than current nuclear power plants.
But if there are better solutions out there, why not develop them. Solar and wind are not better solutions. They're a decent solution for supplemental energy, but not for being there main provider to the electric grid
Nuclear power plants are pretty safe, safer than solar and wind lol
You should also point out the trees and rainforest are healthier than ever. We plant more than we cut its a renewable, they make what we need oxygen and we make what they need, also we always here about running out of water, we have the same amount as we had a million years ago. It stays here.
We're running out of water lakes and rivers drying up or being drained to product our beverages, which in your body or say vehicle if you let the water run low your body or vehicle runs hotter which damages your brain or in a vehicle damages your engine.
But some of these forest you see today are non native or mono cultures that disrupt the ecosystem and provide less biodiversity. That’s what the actual problem is rather than just climate change
This quote resonates in this debate...
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”
-Voltaire
Ummm... That could be applied to flat eathers prespective as well.
The evidence is pretty certain that climate change is NOT what they (media, leftwing politicians, climate activists) say. Check our comment above for some REAL perspective.
Vinny Holiday didn’t mean to put a stake in the ground. I practice the scientific method day in and day out. If I’ve learned one thing, it’s that the truth, the real truth, is an elusive beast that you always think you have in your crosshairs, but always escapes leaving you with something less. What you are left with is still a useful nugget which describes incredibly well what you are studying, but it’s still falls short of the pure truth.
All I’m saying is that if the history of humans practicing the scientific method has thought us anything, it’s that it can’t provide us with certainty. Anthropogenic global warming may be the truth, but we should always question that truth and never be afraid to do so.
Vinny Holiday
I'm told that atmospheric carbon only "traps" heat for about one third of a second before releasing it in various directions. Does Co2 behave differently?
@@pokerwiz101 Interestingly, no culture has thought the world was flat - Bertrand Russell made it up - on a seemingly solid basis. Just an interesting note.
If the Sopranos ever opened a school the teachers would all look like this.
Yeah, machinegun-teaching LOL
Lol
Man thank you so much for putting this video out. Why can’t others just be this honest! Pat this is amazing!
The weather is weaponized
Climate change is caused because of evil. All of creation is crying out to be delivered from all the evil that has taken over the world. The blood of aborted babies are crying out. Gender confusion being taught to the young generation . Every kind of evil & debasement is taking place. The people have chosen evil instead of good.
This is 5 years ago but wow! I appreciate the intent of this video. Thank you for this type of work. More of this!!
I f****** love valuetainment. Keep doing what you doing. In a world with a lot of censorship and propaganda it's great to hear the truth on valuetainment. I don't watch it very often but when I do I know I'm getting the truth and not a bunch of manipulation or censorship. Thank you Patrick bet-david. I feel like this is like me in the most important ways.
I like that you show both sides. Too many people only look at one side and consider people who think otherwise are idiots.
JonnyBeoulve
And that's what is wrong with today's society
Nobody knows how to agree to disagree
Danibolical 1
And he made a lot of money selling his cable TV network to Al Jazeera
I disagree one side is clearly right, truth doesn't have multiple perspectives - 2+2=4 u know
sayit1196
The side that Is right is the side that disagrees that the world will end in 12 years
John stossel literally just tried this. The pro climate change activists didn't want to debate. Good luck I'd love to see this.
Stosels a shill
@@rudystraight1750 A shill of whom?
He purposely edits out educated debaters just just The Daily Wire does.
I saw that video too. Love John Stossel.
@@SystemsPlanet Agreed!
The ability to assess both sides is the first step.
Do it!!!!! Please. Let's make this meeting happen. I'm on the fence of we have something to do with climate change.
This is how news SHOULD be... both sides and YOU decide...well done Patrick, blessings brother.
This gives the illusion that climate change is up for debate....
@@gypsylips1950 Exactly, the reason it's taking so long to combat climate change is because idiots are still debating it. I love Pat, but he always tries to be too neutral, unbiased is one thing, but when you pretend both sides are valid with everything it's fucking stupid.
Science is never fully settled. Just read a science text book from a 100 years ago. Do you think the science books we have today are fool proof 100 years from now? I'm not saying the evidence isnt conclusive for climate change... I'm just saying anyone who says dont bother showing two sides is closed minded....and closed minded people are people who can never truly learn
@@bc6893 The problem is, we've been having this debate for decades. It's enough, EXON has known about it since the 50s. We can't perpetually argue while our planet is literally burning. You think Elon is giving his patents away for no reason? This bullshit debate is the reason we haven't already solved this problem.
@@stormsurge1850 actually it's the day that those who bring such attention to the matter ACTUALLY practice what they preach... when Bernie and al Gore and all these other hypocrites actually live out what they say (sell all your mansions, fancy cars, etc) then maybe will see change...
Thanks for being a grownup. It is Sooo refreshing to see someone who is not just hooked like a fish by other people's agendas. I don't think that anyone wants to destroy our planet but let's just get to the truth of it all and find out honestly how much time we have to make a meaningful plan that makes since and is free of bickering politics.
WELL, THE PLAN IS ALREADY IN MOTION, SOLAR, WIND, NUCLEAR, AND HYDROGEN IS NOW FRONT AND CENTER, AND SOON ALL GAS STOVES WILL NOT BE SOLD ALSO, TO MUCH CO2 AND METHANE GOING UP INTO THE AIR
LMFAO. This is the agenda. 99% of climate scientists agree. This is kind of a big deal. No one is saying we only have 12 years left to live, despite this moron, but if we don't act now, then there will be a point where we will not be able to stop it, per the SCIENTISTS WHO STUDY THIS.
@@employee0 YES, THE MELTING PERMAFROST IN SIBERIA CREATING MASSIVE BLOWOUT CRATERS IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO BELIEVE IT IS GETTING WARMER, AND METHANE IS 25 MORE DEADLY THEN CO2
Oil companies knew that climate change was real and caused by our greenhouse gas emissions in 1977. Then what happened ? They instilled a slight doubt in people minds. They didn't need more to slow down the transition.
And 46 years later, here we are. With incompetent people making videos on a topic out off their area of expertise, because they didn't understand that the time for debate is gone. It doesn't really matter if IPCC exaggerates a little or underestimates the problem. These are projections, by definition not accurate.
Look at what is happening in Spain, South of France, Greece. It's happening.
The house is burning, said president Chirac in 2002. Stop finding excuses.
Thank you so much for educating the public. You are able to explain everything so everyday people can understand all without sounding arrogant. Peace be with you!!
It's a presentation that needs to be taken seriously. What an amazing guy!
Nice effort, but he's 40 years too late for that.
With all due respect, a hussle businessman explaining a broad scientific phenomenon.
If majority of global/credible scientists state it is happening, and big companies are making changes to their model because if it (not regulation), it is a non political indication to me that it is really happening.
A 3 hours debate may not decipher it
Fehad Bilgrami Thank you! I was losing hope reading these comments 😅
Fehad Bilgrami listen to the professionals. The scientists! They say it is happening so I listen to the professionals. If I get a plumber or a builder I don't question them ask them to explain every detail of their Trade. No ! I listen to them and trust in them to do their job.
Fehad Bilgrami Those men in lab coats are never wrong, those human beings like me and you are 100% factual and unable to be corrupted. You take their word as fact without thinking for yourself because the Government is your God and you must rely on “faith” in imperfect men. They wouldn’t lie to you?... would they?
@@RandySavag so you belive the hundreds of thousands of scientists, around the world are being bought? That's not realistic
@@reinaldomartinez13 How do you become a scientist? By going to College and taking on extreme Debt. You also need your work to be peer reviewed and accepted by other Scientists. What happens when a Fresh Scientist hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt decides to pursue controversial findings that go against established doctrine and theory? That guy can say goodbye to his career and credibility and have fun paying off his insane debt cleaning dishes.
I like the unbiased analysis of this video. Good job!
Yep it's called a "neutrality bias", which is flawed logic. The truth is... the peer reviewed scientific literature is true. What the "other side" says is irrelevant unless they can produce a study.
ScorpionXII What you’re thinking of is, “False balance,” or “bothsidesism.” Which, to be frank, you’re wrong. This video doesn’t have that bias.
“False balance” intentionally presents an issue as more balanced than the evidence supports. This video doesn’t do that. If you watch the video, he acknowledges that peer-reviewed scientific essays are on the side of those who believe that climate change is man-made. He also shows the opposing side’s belief, that corruption had falsified scientific data in the past, particularly with cigarettes.
He’s not leaving things out to make it look more balanced. He’s just presenting both sides of the argument. It’s obvious that you would lean much further towards one side if you trust scientists, and that you think the other argument is invalid. If anything, he reaffirmed your belief that this argument is one-sided through his unbiased approach, because you believe that the opposing belief is ridiculous.
But I like the fact that he presented this ridiculous belief alongside the scientific one. A civil discussion of clashing ideas is what makes America great, which is why I love free speech so much.
@@JoshSJoshingWithYa "If you watch the video, he acknowledges that peer-reviewed scientific essays are on the side of those who believe that climate change is man-made"
That's the problem, the peer reviewed scientific literature sets the standard for belief; listing contradictory beliefs is just muddying the waters and reducing the informative quality of the video. It's like watching a video about evolution, and 50% of it is talking about how some people believe humans can from dust 6,000 years ago. Why bring that up? It reduces the informative quality of the video. If I'm watching a video about the solar system, why ought 50% of the video be dedicated towards people who believe the Earth is flat? The question posed in the video is... "myth or reality"? How do you answer this question? Like this... Premise 1: It's a reality. Premise 2: Here's a mountain of science as to why. What is a terrible way to answer this question? Well... Premise 1: Here's a bunch of claims. Premise 2: Here's a bunch of claims that contradict the other claims.
"He also shows the opposing side’s belief, that corruption had falsified scientific data in the past, particularly with cigarettes"
That's a false equivalency, because the corruption of cigarette companies was an attempt to cover up the damage of cigarettes to avoid bad publicity, while the scientific method is producing climatology to uncover the damage of fossil fuels. If you want a real comparison with cigarette companies, oil companies spreading propaganda about how coal is really good for the environment is a better comparison.
"which is why I love free speech so much"
Yeah here's my free speech... putting logically bankrupt ideas out there and pretending they are comparable to the scientific method is a logically bankrupt way to create an educational video.
@@ScorpionXII the point is the create a space for both sides to learn. If people who believe in climate change come. They can learn more about the science. If deniers come. They can find a non aggressive source of information that addresses their concerns and questions in a single place.
@@ScorpionXII you need to present both sides or else the side u ignore and call wrong won't listen. It's not about just telling the truth it's about trying to educate others about what you believe
I love this guy. I hope he gets this debate going.
Nate_The_Mechanic people are we too dumb to debate this, sadly
"People are we too dumb..."
@@derekmarks8969 ?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
These debates have happened many times, every debate I have watched in the 10 years was won by the real scientists. The ones that have made different facets of the climate their lifes work. Richard Lindzen, Nills Axel Morner, William Happer, Patrick Michaels, Patrick Moore, Tim Ball the list is so much longer and none of these guys get paid to do these debates, none areonany oil companies payroll.
In the last few years historians have gotten on board , ( Tony Heller & John Robson)they are debunking so many of the IPCC’s misinformation statements and showing in their videos where the written word from the past has proven that the climate hostory is being changed to suit the IPCC narritive. The Polar Bear extinction story is a lie, The death of the Great Barrier Reef is a lie (Dr. Peter Ridd Austrailia)
Take a few minutes , google how CO2 at 600 to 800 ppm improves the plant life in greenhouses, it makes the vegetables larger, more succulent and they resist disease much better..
We are Carbon based creatures, everything on the planet that has LIFE is the result of CO2, cut the CO2 as John Kerry says (0 ppm)
Is what infact will cause all life on this planet to cease to exist.
@@floroy9265 that is all lies...
Patrick seems like a pretty good guy and also fair. The scientists who don’t go along with the man-made global warming/climate change narrative are largely censored and demonized by the Left. It’s as if you don’t accept the extremist ideology of the Left, you’re a “denier” or an “infidel” for not believing in their religion of man-made climate change. Even when you mention the names of the top scientists and climate experts who have data that supports their position, it’s just automatically ignored or discounted. While there might be some elements of truth in both camps, it’s important to know what so-called evidence is fabricated or is intentionally misleading.
Looking at the CO2 counts in PPM over the past tens of thousands of years through ice core samples indicates that this warming trend accelerated during the Industrial Revolution.
Considering this shouldn’t we proceed with caution and humiliation and prevent a potential disaster?
Of course. Which makes the Milankovitch cycles become irrelevant as the climate system exits the Quaternary Period and enters the Anthropocene.
We know that the climate variations of the last 2 million years occurred with CO2 levels between 180 and 280 ppm. They described a relaxation oscillator, loosely synchronized to the Milankovitch cycles, but driven mostly by variations in CO2 and its water vapor feedback. There is no reason to expect that synchronization to hold with CO2 levels at the current 415 ppm and if it is headed for 600, which is highly likely.
You are one of the few people I know who really cares about facts, truth and intellectual honesty. Thank you Patrick (from Angola, Africa). All the best .
Thanks for a balanced presentation of climate change! I've been in the energy efficiency industry for over 30-years. I know what it takes to reduce energy consumption or switch to a different form of renewable energy. In the old days, we thought we'd run out of oil and so there was a big push to find renewable energy sources. Today, we realize that we have more coal and oil reserves than we ever thought possible in the 1970's. We have been trying to reduce energy consumption and switch to renewable energy for the past 50-years... and we have utterly failed to reduce CO2 levels. The notion that we can make a big push to buy electric cars and get all of our electricity from solar and wind is a farce. The power source that will allow us to reduce CO2 is nuclear power. The fact that environmentalists are against nuclear power generation tells me that they don't truly believe their own propaganda. I don't believe it either. If you want a practical presentation of the climate change situation, I urge you to read the book, "False Alarm" by Bjorn Borg. It demonstrates the real threat with real solutions... instead of the alarmism coming from the political propaganda.
As for the oil companies investing in renewable energy... Yes, they will jump on any band wagon. They are opportunists. If they see a large group of people buying electric cars, they will put their capital in electric infrastructure, regardless of the science. Exxon-Mobile and Chevron have been investing heavily in hydrogen, fuel-cell technology, bio-fuels, and other renewable technologies for the past five decades. It doesn't mean that climate alarmism is real science.
Hi after reading your reply I'd like to ask you if you've ever heard of Joseph W. Newman? If so what's your opinion since you been in the energy industry for many years. TIA looking forward to hearing back from you soon. Respectfully
Being in the energy industry, you must have read the book "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin, which describs oil barons as hard nosed and ruthless businessmen, who used their power and wealth to block and to destroy their competions. Alternative energies are competions to the oil barons, who have used all of their wealth, power, lawers, Congressmen, Presidents, propagandas, and even purchasing rouge scientists to supress these competions. Before Musk's Teslar, there was GM's California electric cars using advanced NMhd battery, and these first modern electric cars were getting popular and well liked. A movie was made to claim the oil barons destroyed this effort. The patent for the new battery was supposely bought by an oil company to supress the patent. Up to now, it was a lot easier for the oil barons to elect Congressmen, and Presidents like oil state Governor Reagan with his Texas oil company owner Bush, who defunded President Carter's alternative energy projects, and who went to Arabia to rescue OPEC from breaking up after the US downsized cars by relabeling compact cars as full sized cars with the standard 380ccV8 engines replaced by 225cc 6 cylinder engines, and with the US adopting the foreign 4-cylinder engines. They also trashed the high-milage car laws, which by a few strokes of the pen, produced drastic reductions in oil use. It is a lot easier for the oil barons to screw alternative energy than to participate in alternative energy adoptation, which entails a lot of hard work, and capital expenditures. Daniel Yergin's book "The Prize" shows all of this machinations by oil barons. One has to be careful in reading fossil fuel biased economic books by authors who may not have children nor grandchildren to worry about their blood decendents may have to face hellish climate conditions in the future.
@@lisapantelogiannis6126 I was approached with several "free energy" ideas. None have produced "free energy". The natural laws of physics prevent such "free energy" machines from existing. If we discover new laws, then I suppose it's possible. Most perpetual motion machines are scams. The closest approximation in our present day is nuclear hot fusion. This idea is primarily theoretical, but it has been demonstrated to generate electricity. Hopefully, in the next ten years, we will see a prototype nuclear hot fusion reactor generating commercial power.
Your LACK of science knowledge is not a reason for U to deny what U clearly dont understand.... GHGs absorb IR radiation and CO2 is a GHG... There is a LAW in physics called Arrhenius Law of mixed gases that accounts for CO2 heating the earth... So can you disprove that ?
@@Proemed44G I never addressed how greenhouse gases are are are not affecting the climate. For your information, I am a mechanical engineer. I am very aware of how radiation heat transfer works; the greenhouse effect; and the green house effect of various gasses. Why do you start your comment with an unfounded insult? Is that where we are with discussions... start off calling names in the hopes that people will back down?
Since you've brought it up, climate warms and cools for a variety of reasons. Greenhouse gasses are probably the least impactful of these reasons. It's one of the reasons, climate activists have changed their rhetoric from "global warming" to "climate change"... because the climate is not warming as much as was predicted by greenhouse gas models. Empirical science is a "bitch" for the theoretical alarmists :)
Excellent job. You distilled a complex subject down to an 18 minute presentation that was entertaining and concise. Thank you.
*RE: "Excellent job. You distilled a complex subject down to an 18 minute presentation that was entertaining and concise. Thank you."*
......Almost as good as a Roadrunner cartoon. Equally concise and entertaining.
Please dig deeper than what media is throwing out there today. A story went out recently about the wRmest water temps recotded in the keys damaging the corals, well come to find out where those temps were taken was in Fla. Bay an area of the keys on the gulf side where the water is shallower and the current not as active as on the Atlantic side thusly affecting the more higher temps recorded, details matter.
This guy is great. Just discovered him. His most important message is about looking at all sides of an issue!!
I give you 1 more to think. If we are not sure what we are doing the most vise thing is stop what we are doing.
Actually we are experimenting with our children future!
The both sides approach is dangerous. One of them is true and one of them is false. If you asked me how are babies made and I told you it was storks brought them to the mothers and then you ask someone else and they say it's through sex one of us is wrong and one of us is right. Should we consider history from the Viewpoint of nazis? The s*** we consider what child molesters think about how they should be allowed to interact with children? In any given situation there is only one objective truth and sooner we can all come to that truth and start working on the problem the better
I really appreciate this presentation. it's well argued and honest.
Anyone can give a source for this "we have 12 years to live"? I thought it was more like "if we don't change within 12 years, damages are irreversible".
And the statement on scientists that only surround themselves with people that agree with them is really wrong; A fundamental aspect of the scientific process is what we call "peer reviewing" and among scientists, it is always great and thrilling to prove someone wrong but also to prove oneself wrong. When there are mistakes in a paper, don't worry, there will be hordes of positively opportunistic scientists that will tackle the mistakes.
You can't fathom how the scientific community is amazingly ruthless, every published paper is assaulted by other scientists trying to find problems.
Although, I totally agree that the subject has been corrupted by politics, It shouldn't be left vs right. It should be all of mankind trying to assess the danger and solving the problem.
The source for this AOC, where AOC got this from is a UN report saying if we don't change in 12 years, we can't keep GW below 2C
If only this was how science worked. The reality is over 70% of scientific articles published in scientific journals for the last two decades can't be duplicated. So much for the peer review. Scientists are human. The field still runs off of economic incentives.
@ Yes, the petrol industry is massively involved and is one of the wealthies sector of the economy. The have indeed powerful lobbies that pay scientists to publish climate denial papers, you're right.
That's why the middle east isn't too fond of climatology. Most of their wealth come from oil.
@@amadexi you deliberately mistook my statement. I didn't say anything about specific articles in specific publications. This problem in science goes across many disciplines. Self citing issues are also becoming a problem. The economic incentives have begun to reward attention grabbing headlines, not quality study. They have come to reward fast conclusions over accurate and tine consuming conclusions.
@ Yes exactly. I would add to that that people's bias greatly effects what's published and what is "acceptable". These scientists have careers, so there will be politics. For many issues they have to appeal to their bosses' perspectives and the dominant cultural understanding that is acceptable with their peers. So if they come with something against that they will be taking a risk. Not only that but for a lot a lot of scientists, publishing articles and research is just about their career advancement. They are less interested in the truth, and more interested in numbers, titles, and connections to get ahead. Not saying it's all like this, but we should be critical and keep trying to find where there are problems and what are the possible solutions
I stopped at this video because of how much Respect I have for Patrick and his astute ideas and opinions, very appreciative of him sharing his thoughts
It's frustrating that climate change turns into a political issue. I guess it makes sense, but still frustrating.
noisycarlos yes! Society should step up on its own and prevent it as much as it can.
jacob bogers
Well if that’s true.. then tell me why?
It’s not beneficial for politicians to bring it up because the way to stop it effectively is to change the public’s habits and their life style.
Do you think that makes them popular? No way!
Humans are lazy and we don’t like to change our habits, even if they benefit us in the long term :)❤️
jacob bogers
What does my gender matter? Are you living in the 60s..?
Most politicians don’t look any further than their election cycles tbh
@jacob bogers political tool? Explain.
I don't understand why this guy is covering it. Far more accomplished and capable people have spoken about it. Haven't even watched the full thing yet. Potholer54 here on RUclips does a great job
You know you're doing something right when the RUclips Commisars put a disclaimer on your video.
Best truth Ive heard for a while! Thanks for being enlighted!!
John Harvey It’s on literally any topic that’s political now. It’s because there’s such an insane amount of misinformation on the platform now.
@@ballbag9641 Not at all the reason. Its because theres a lot of mythbusters and truth speakers. And those are the ones being shut down. It is not politically correct to give a correct explanation of the climate and other sensitive topics.
James last You’re the prime example of why these disclaimers are needed. You’ve fallen hook line and sinker into the youtube truthseeker delusions.
@@ballbag9641 And you are the prime example why parents shouldnt give ipads to their toddlers
Now I understand why in my earliest years while studing in university, my biology teacher after I tried to look like a super enviromentally person in one exam, he corrected my global warming thinking, he said: the earth naturally gets warm and cold, it changes in a natural cycle.
I've never had a car, I have tried to eat as much vegetarian as possible, but global warming created for business men, I wont follow.
There is nothing you can do about the issue to be honest. It all in the hands of governments and large corporations. Individuals attempting to make a difference is like someone owing a debt of 30 billion and paying back .50 cents a month. It’s irrelevant. You should keep your money.
@@Ruder6163 really who is going to stop plate tectonics from slamming all the land back together end ending most life here a million years from now?
The earth *does* change climate in natural Milankovitch cycles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles But the Malankovitch cycle should have us on a slow cooling trend, yet we are definitely on a global warming trend, so the Milankovich cycle serves only as more evidence that our current warming is *not* part of that natural cycle. We are causing rapid climate change, and we can stop it. Such a topic of extreme importance calls us all to listen to creditable expertise. Kudos to this video for inviting reasoned discussion.
Lucky for you man made climate change danger is not real. Spraying particulate matter into the sky can lower the temp to anything we desire for merely 1 billion dollars a year. Problem solved you can all go home now.
@@frankgriffin6293 we may end up spraying sulfates. But we'd have to continue it non-stop for centuries, and it would do nothing for ocean acidification mitigation. And we don't know nearly enough about it to know whether it would disrupt The Gulfstream, monsoons, etc
Whatever happened to the sault water motes that surrounded coastal castles? And will they ever return?
Was the sea higher during the Roman times? Was the earth not much warmer then? Wasn't Egypt green? What happened? Will it ever return to that?
I totally agree with you, especially with your final questions about exact percentages. Thanks for your content Pat. In Germany you are not able to discuss this topic, they instantly call you a climate change denier,allthough you just ask some skeptical questions.
Wilhelm G lmao poor Germany you guys are reeeaallllyyy paying for being a country that had balls.
Yeah. Did you hear that the biggest German psychology institution is suggesting to treat climate change deniers?
That reminds me of something we discussed in history class that happened like 80 years ago
Hi Wilhelm! Percentages could be misleading. Human carbon emissions are so minimal compared to the natural carbon cycle, yet these minimal values are enough to inbalance earths system
HiFisch94 yep
Paco Rutten I heard about that, but do you Really think the earth would be so unstable?
6:26 « for some of you guys in Europe »
Canada: Am I a joke to you?
Yeah, that was an odd remark. Love to David from metric NZ - one of apparently 192 countries that use the metric system. The countries that use imperial: The U.S., Myanmar and Liberia, lol.
Well done video. I agree, we need actual debate on this topic. I'm in the camp that thinks this is all about control and has nothing to do with the climate. That said, I am open and interested in listening to a real debate from both sides, but I fear that will never happen.
It's the biggest scam ever put on humans. It use to be acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, etc.
Im from the Caribbean..and i can tell you the sea is raising. I watch the water claim the seashore.
6:24
" for some of you guys in Europe "
More like :
" for literally everyone else on the planet "
No, for everyone on the planet
And miles only for USA and UK
Technically most countries use other units of measurement as well it's just they have their units listed OFFICIALLY as the metric system's, and usually it's apart of the clause of being apart of the European Union, of course Britain has broken that rule.
The funny thing is climate change is a disputed topic in those countries only where old system of measurements is used. Some people just hate new idea and hostile towards change.
@@najibyarzerachic No.
South America and Europe (if you are trying to be different *UK*), yes.
Pat, your videos are POWERFUL! Grateful to have the chance to learn from you and be inspired by what you do. Thank you!!
Problem: *Climate Change.*
Solution: *Keep current Environmental regulations, spend millions Planting more trees.*
Solution from Politicians: Spend *Trillions* Eliminating all fossil fuels. Regulate CO2 for financial gain, while keeping themselves *exempt* from such regulations. In other words, you can't fly from point A to B, but they sure can.
6:23 Thank you. I couldn’t properly fathom that distance until you put it into km.
Okay wait wait. It’s incredibly important to regard the fact that nobody says there wouldn’t be a climate change without humans. It’s normal for the earths climate to shift from an ice age(in wich we currently are in->frozen poles) to a warmer climate. The problem is not the climate change itself but the fact that irresponsible use of fossil fuel etc. is accelerating this change in a really dangerous way. And it shouldn’t be a discussion if it’s real or not because there is a scientific consensus that climate change IS reality and it doesn’t care if you believe in it or not because you will suffer it’s consequences like everybody else.
thank you for clearing the shroud amongst confused people in a informative manner.
Milan Meyer yeah I don’t buy. Water levels have barely risen since my dad was a kid. He’s told me they’ve been feeding this global warming, climate change shit to people forever. They always say in 12 years, then 12 years comes and the earth is fine. I don’t believe that humans, who don’t even fully understand how the climate of earth works due to so many different complexities, can produce a computer model that can accurately predict the earths climate because i call bullshit. go do some research yourself and not listen to everything the MSM tells you because it’s a fuckin joke. look up tony heller and watch some of his vids and tell me that the climate change alarmists are 100% full proof, bet u can’t
@@mispap1 1. Unless you or your dad is a climate scientist your thoughts and opinions are worth jack shit when it comes to the actual science of sea level change, which you should read by the way: science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/
2. "They always say in 12 years, then 12 years comes and the earth is fine" -- the only people who say this are dipshit politicians and those in the media. The science would never predict something so stupid, and it never has. This quote is often misunderstood from an actual report by the IPCC ( www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ ) that says we only have 11 years (as of right now) to seriously change the amount we rely on fossil fuels if we want to try and keep global temperatures from rising above 1.5C
3. "I don’t believe that humans, who don’t even fully understand how the climate of earth works due to so many different complexities, can produce a computer model that can accurately predict the earths climate because i call bullshit." -- Well lucky for us, we don't have to rely on you simply not understanding how it works, we can look at the actual evidence and decide for ourselves. If you have evidence to suggest we've gotten our climate models wrong, I'd love to see it.
( www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/globaltemps_agency_comparison_2018.gif )
4. "go do some research yourself and not listen to everything the MSM tells you" I 100% agree that you shouldn't listen to everything MSM says about science, after all, you still have news channels that want to promote the idea that it isn't even a problem or has nothing to do with humans. You should go look at the actual science instead!
5. "look up tony heller" Tony Heller is completely full of shit when it comes to the science of climate change. I dare you to produce one peer-reviewed scientific research paper that is published in a credible scientific journal that agrees with the dumb shit he spews out.
@J P I responded in your other comment
@@mispap1 I agree. To say "is accelerating this change in a really dangerous way" is something that could not be proven even if it were all true. You would need 2 earths, one with our conditions and one with less carbon dioxide observed over generations. LOL. I think the solar output cycles (surely) and (it seems, possibly) changes in earths magnetic field may have more to do with it. They cannot even say there has been average warming globally in the last decade anyway, hence changing the name to climate change. We have many environmental issues but I doubt 400 parts per million ( 0.04 %) of atmospheric carbon dioxide is amongst the most pressing.
Was there EVER a follow up on this?
Very interesting.
You're a really great negotiator.
I look forward, Pat, to seeing this great panel of scientists on both sides to settle this issue. Thank you and love your videos!
You need to look at the actual data. The alarmists can quite simply be rebuked with actual data. Then concentrate on ‘carbon’. The relationship between temp and CO2… and the evidence on its ‘effect’ to change temp. Look at the evidence/data…
I'd like to see you say that to 97 out of a hundred doctors giving you a cancer diagnosis. "just alarmism."
Well said. The climate zealots solely embrace wild hyperbolic speculations of future events that never materialize. The data from actual events clearly demonstrates that there is no threat.
Reality regardless of industry: the climate changed consently before humans existed.
But it moved at a glacial pace. Now, humans have put their foot on the pedal. Even oil company scientists agree. Are they bucking for research money? No, but they're covering it up.
I would love to see this 3hr debate. However, there have already been others like Jhon Stossel who have issued similar challenges/debates. The "climate change deniers" are the only ones who show up. I can't trust people who won't answer to a challenge.
Triple fife I’m sure the scientists in question know a trap when they see one. You might have better luck with a consensus trusted figure but who today in our polarized world fits that bill. I saw a debate moderated by Mehdi Hassan on BBC I think. It had Richard Lindzen with an IPCC scientist. Not a heavy hitter and Lindzen might be the AGCC skeptics most capable and accredited climate scientist. He didn’t change my mind, despite being given a lot of rope to speak, and never really was able to render the consensus theory inoperable at all. This debate will likely not succeed because the conditions for the bate are political and no one wants to step into a lions den.
@@reganjo1955 you only prove my point. Even if it was a trap, a lions den or whatever else you want to call it, to say they won't show up because its a trap, makes it sound as though they can't handle it. Can you really trust those who can't handle a simple debate?
They either are to scared, have knowingly to weak of a argument or are unable to handle a simple debate. Frankly I don't have any respect for those who are to afraid of what may happen or are to afraid of what their peers may think. Lastly if it lands on them knowingly having a weak argument or are unable to handle the debate, then they already prove with their absence who has the stronger evidence/convictions.
Again, I'd love to see it, but I have little faith it will actually happen for the above reasons I stated. Thanks for the comment and furthering the conversation. Hope all is well.
Triple fife what I was trying to say was Stossel’s venue at heartland was an obvious setup. I’d be all for an actually neutrally moderated debate with structure and actual chance of hearing about the science.
@@reganjo1955 fair enough. Still, even if it is your view as to it being a setup, then what about me calling into question their faith in themselves? If someone was sure of their argument, what would it matter if it had taken place with Stossel as the moderator or a unbiased robot judge (since every human and even robots have built in bias I used this as a example)?
When people don't show up, it shows they don't fully believe in what they are preaching. Then there is the "we aren't going to debate them because they are X" argument that I end up hearing often enough. The X being something they don't agree with.
Why would any critically thinking adult put their trust in those who are unwilling to allow another's thoughts and instead using the silent treatment in order to "win" the debate which never happens.
"The silent treatment is an abusive method of control, punishment, avoidance, or disempowerment (sometimes these four types overlap, sometimes not) that is a favorite tactic of narcissists, and especially those who have a hard time with impulse control, that is, those with more infantile tendencies."
Would you trust someone who employs such tactics against you?
Triple fife I suppose the real question for thinking people is what do you make, from your own research, of the evidence and arguments out there? I can mind read their motives and come up with valid reasons why they could avoid that venue and still act in good faith. My views on the science arose before they were politicized. AGCC has a strong case, skeptics haven’t presented anything I’ve read that refutes the left side of this guys blackboard. He did a good job except for framing nature’s obviously profound influence on climate over eons but misses the correlation of mankind’s intensifying and accelerating economic activity over the past several decades. These compressed timeframes combined with industrial inputs, second order effects like feedback loops, reduced albedo etc nullify the puny human can’t produce the kinds of changes we are seeing. So I’ve looked cosmic ray cloud seeding in some layman’s depth and find it wanting, I can refute the too little CO2 argument relative to total, when you look at measurements longer than those cherry picked a few years back it looks to me like measurements are right. So you can see I’m not focusing on the ‘what do we do about it’ piece. I cannot credit any argument, and I’m not saying you would make this argument, that doesn’t start with is mankind causing it and how fast will temperatures rise and what effect would that have on the biosphere. If we can agree on that then we can debate what to do about it.
Not a single pro climate scientist will accept that challenge. It's been offered and declined every time.
What challenge? The percentage of climate change caused by man is easily determined by looking at the historic (800,000 years) increases in carbon concentrations found in ice samples, versus what we have seen over the past 170 years (since the start of the 2nd industrial revolution). We have done in 170 years (primarily 50 years) what has historically taken thousands of years. Bottom line, look at any 170 year period starting 800,000 years ago up until 1830 and compare to the past 170 years. You will likely find that man is responsible for 90% (or more) of the increased carbon...i.e. global warming.
This is a great breakdown of the topic. I believe that climate change is real and that it's happening. Climate disasters have gotten worse over the past few years. I also see that in the long run, clean energy is also beneficial for the economy.
IGNORING carbon and "clean" --> the Oil & Gas & Coal WILL run OUT.
ANYBODY saying different is exposing themselves for what they truly ARE, interested only in the tip of a penis or clitoris, respectively.
This is great. Thanks for covering this subject. I’ve been wondering about this.
I've heard a good argument for nuclear energy being cleanest and most effective, but public associates it with some tragedies from poorly build plants from 70-ish years ago. It's been incredibly safer since then and even back then people went into a more stable nuclear plant for safety. But again, public opinion still frowns upon it by association - Steven Pinker.. Food for thought!
I would like to know about Thorium used in the reactors. They say it can't be used to make nuclear weapons.
What to do about the radioactive waste produced? Perhaps we should resolve that problem first, before we advocate for more. This has been a problem from the outset that has been swept under the rug.
@@andrewbaillie6291 Andrew, I just replied to kazammi about finding uses for spent radio active waste. You just mentioned a potential of this recycling approach of win win thought. Energy must exist in spent waste which can benefit society. Recycling approach is real and it needs musk types to consider the vast win win possibilities of American people to invest and invent in full understanding of the subject of the matters we face.
@@kazzana9013 Maybe re-processing to it's natural form and put deep to Earth?
... Andrew, you heard right. The decay process for Uranium is different than for Thorium, which does not decay into plutonium, which is used in weapons. Search for TedTalks about Thorium and read the book Super Fuel by Martin. We had a working Thorium reactor in the late 1960s and it's a very interesting story of how this technology was rediscovered. That's what the book is about.
Pat is the best I've seen on an open and honest presenter, interviewer and or mediator. He's clear and concise in a way for any non-genious to understand. Well done Pat.
An increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also increases vegetation on the earth, as plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and the plants excrete oxygen.
Co2 is a green house gas not because it makes the atmosphere thicker.. its because it obsorbs heat... not all particles in the atmosphere is heat obsorbing.
Lol you do not understand what heat is
CO2 has the ability to transform the Sun's rays to a form that warms the lower levels of the atmosphere. It is also a larger heavier molecule, which tends to mean most of it will stay on the down low. But the math is complicated so the correlation between the modelled outcomes and the measured ones are not good.
All particles & matter absorb heat. Greenhouse Effect = as you add heat, there's no temperature change until the mass becomes saturated with heat. This appears as cooler highs. When heat is removed, there's no temperature change until the mass empties it's heat capacity. Greenhouse Effect is the Heat Capacity phenomenon. All gases (and liquids & solids) have heat capacity. But the amount of heat capacity differs. If you have 2 gases, the one with greater heat capacity is called the greenhouse gas.
The other argument for ice melt is that if ice were to start showing up somewhere else would you know about it? Is the sea rising? Not where I live.
eric hughes - they have been having floods every year in Venice - it’s sinking.
@@nomorewar4189 Venice has always been sinking.
Alternate Man not only Venice, Rijeka(Croatia) where im from is starting to flood every year, last week our big market near our port was flooded.
The rains will sink us in 10 years max with the sea rising as well.
Thanks boomers I guess..
Good to know there are people like me in this world.
This is a great podcast with heaps of useful info! Thanks again!
You should watch the videos from "Tony Heller" for real science!
LOL the clown has been exposed as the liar he is over and over again, watch Portholer if you want to learn about science.
Aanthanur DC So Tony is incorrect on all info he uses? Including dates ? Just curious as I am trying to work thru this mess. Too much money in this deal now. Untold amount of which relies on the perpetual slow movement of this but with no absolute certainties. (I know , not a physical possibility). Additionally no human can be that certain on something so complex. Don’t know why more peeps will not talk about the massive conflict of interest I see. I mean after all, would you go tell your boss to fire you, not give you a paycheck and that your job position isn’t even needed? Not likely..... this is a huge problem. Beyond description I think
@@freeandcriticalthinker4431 yes he is wrong on a ything.
@@freeandcriticalthinker4431 there is only one conflict of intereest. That of the fossil fuel lobby
@@freeandcriticalthinker4431 so you would lie to the
world and fake data to keep your job?
Thank you Pat you're legit one of the only people who brings a non biased view
No he just starts out by accusing us of thinking Climate Change is a hoax, and that it's the oil companies that told us that... unBias my arse
@@lethal2453 Big oil fossil fuels spends billions every year on climate denial, paying scientists, funding denial websites and blogs. www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR1Qmg1z38D48BV6AD0iSffUeDM69e4ywoLCwb0bJwIfFxqfGEWwt4u2GRg#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01
So you dont care that he knows nothing about the subject?
Patrick, in your summary you nailed it. If I just sit and think about this, only one question emerges: how much of this are we responsible for? That's obviously at least to me a math question, and if I think on it more, there's probably no way to quantify it, and if there was it would be covered up and dismissed if it didn't fit a certain narrative. Or, what temperature are we shooting for? If we ever could achieve that, could we maintain it forever? Can we control the weather? Just wondering.
Quantify it? You're kidding right? We KNOW how much co2 is in the atmosphere. We KNOW the Sun's average intensity of solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere directly facing the Sun is about 1,360 watts per square meter, we KNOW the Earth rotates so we can calculate how much of that actually reaches the atmosphere, we KNOW what co2 along the 2 frequencies does with that radiation, we KNOW how much re-radiates back into space. The remainder ENEGY is CAPTURED by the Earth.
Closed system + adding ENERGY = it gets HOTTER.
Here: ΔF = α ln (C/C0)
If anyone has ever found any OTHER reason for the rise in the Keeling Curve, then they're either a conspiracist denier or a space alien.
If people are really worried about this why are banks giving loans to people buying houses near the sea and why are those same people telling us it’s humans flying jets all over emitting more than hundreds of thousands of people ever will? The argument holds no water
Its all your fault🙂
@@carlosmantilla4018 Damn Sun.
PBD: How do you learn anything in 20 minutes.
PBD: Releases a 20 minute video on the subject.
When North America was covered in ice up to 3000 ft thick, the world average temperature was only about 5 to 9C less than it is now. It doesn't take much of a temperature change to have a large effect on the earth's climate.
The next global issue I believe is weight change. I know some people who constantly struggle with this. First they're over weight then at times they're underweight. Depending on numerous factors of course. There is no need to measure the trend in any particular direction, the way you would deal with absolutes. But I can assure you people's weight is changing at a rate that will one day make walking, or running intolerable.
Psychedelics fix all that personal crap 🌞
I can assure humans are getting fatter, especially Americans.
You're one of the few people I would actually trust to talk about your take on this. Great content!
I'd recommend Simon Clark since he is a Phd on climate science and also a youtuber that speaks about this topic frequently.
It is true that the "end of the world" often is an exaggeration although I think it makes sense since climate change has a pro cyclical nature, so even if we will only see severe effects 60 years from now, after 15 or 20 it might be exponentially more complicated to mitigate them.