So eye-opening and inspiring! So happy that a Wisconsin native can preach these issues on such a prominent stage. I hope this is only another stepping stone to bigger things for Pr. Patz and the earth!
It is still as relevant today as it was 6 years ago. When are we going to change our old habits? When will the U.S.A. be more ethically responsible? Africa is a great example, why aren't we following their example today? We cannot only observe when these things happen as a domino effect. We need many organizations working together toward the same efforts. We can make a difference individually and together as society! It is statistically possible to make things better even if it is by walking or cycling more, and it's neurological and physically beneficial to us humans to exercise, so why aren't we changing these habits in any way possible yet?! Health is quality of life and a better world for future generations 💜
Why? Who gets the money? Rich globalists. We live in an Ice Age and they plan to cool the planet. That could kill off 7+ BILLION of us. Bill Gates and Harvard have their first live run of their cooling tech in spring 2019. That could end our interglacial real fast. We could have permanent snow throughout Canada within 50 years instead of the typical 5,000 to 10,000 natural cooling. Imagine that! Being tricked into thinking warmth is bad in an Ice Age. It's almost funny, if it weren't so deadly.
Take a ten speed to Denver, or Sacramento, or heck, just a couple of hundred miles,....and then try it in a wheel chair, cars give us mobility, if you don't like cars, sell yours....leave mine alone....
William, I wouldn't share it with my students. It's junk based on lies with lies. Did you know that we live in an Ice Age and that the Globalists want to cool down the planet. Bill Gates and Harvard have a live run starting in spring 2019. Study history! You'll find that all of the major warming periods coincide with eras of prosperity; cooling aligns with periods of societal stress and collapse because of famines.
97 percent consensus on dangerous man made global warming? The Studies ask Different Questions and have different parameters. Not a basis for agglomerated consent. Many scientists who do not agree with catastrophic AGW are listed in with those who do agree. Their objections are ignored, even if they publicly reject the results of studies that claim to prove the consensus. Actual study results Naomi Oreskes 2004 Study was published 4 days before the Kyoto Conference, before it was peer reviewed. It is always cited as a peer reviewed paper. there was Global Cooling noted by 2006 Al Gore claimed broadly, citing the Orensky study, that zero scientists disagreed w the AGW B. Pizer in England did same study as Orensky with very different results 13 explicit endorsement of CAGW 322 endorse but focus on impacts 89 mitigation proposals 67 reject or doubt consensus 470 no position at all… they just mentioned CC in their papers unrelated to climate change 44 natural factors 87 focus on methods Doran and Zimmerman 2009 Margaret Kendall Zimmermans thesis The consensus on the consensus 10257 earth scientists 3246 responded 79 self selected themselves to represent the study… they publish papers on climate Questions asked 1. Compared to pre 80s do you think the mean temperature has gone up or down? 2. Do you think humans are causing the uptick? This is an opinion poll… not empirical data. That's not science Data Base 38 objected… its the Sun 5 said humans have a nominal effect 1 said its HDCC 77 out of 79 agreed with one of the questions and 78 out of 79 agreed with the other. This is haberdashery. Anderegg et al - student paper published in the National Academy of Science Journal -not peer reviewed wrangled in by Steven Schneider “contributed articles” - scientific op ed, Angderegg went through the IPPC list and found out that 34 percent of scientists in the IPPC disagree with the notion of Catastrophic AGW. However, Andereeg chose to narrow the study to only the IPPC members who publish. They only make up 5 percent of the IPPC scientist staff. 97 percent of those who publish are with the ADGCC. One of the most cited studies: John Cook definition question/statement : Humans Cause Warming 67 percent had no position .5 percent endorsed AGW Many authors who are included in the study objected to how their work was characterized Actual Percentages of endorsements for Catastrophic AGW: Orensky 1.2 percent Doran and Zimmermann 2.38 percent Anderegg 66 percent Cook and al 0.54 percent
In all honesty, I started as a climate change denier until I started hearing just absolute nonsensical things from other denialists like Tony Heller. I stopped paying attention to social media, pundits, bureaucrats, and politicians. I started reading the actual research papers (not blogs, videos, or independent publishers). Climate change is not difficult to understand. Like weather, there are limited factors which affect climate. Understanding what they are and how they interact isn’t difficult.
It is a good idea,.but unfortunately no one will move his investments. Collectively we don't act like worried people at all, that's why collapses exists.
Taking action is only as good as the direction. And cooling in an ongoing Ice Age is worse than folly. Cold kills; warmth promotes life and prosperity. These guys have it backwards.
Anything beyond surfeit can be a pollutant.... we're looking at a question of balance.... excess CO2 is not taken up by plants that are not allowed to exist.... and our current Agricultural and Industrial Methods are disruptive in the EXTREME.... for Natural Nurture FROM plant growth..... around the World. At the Same time we started hyper-injecting fossilized carbon into our atmosphere.... we began proliferating Iron Plow Tillage.... agriculturally disrupting photo-synthetic carbon sequestration.... effectively Doubling the Damage....at LEAST. We MIGHT be able to turn THAT around faster than anything else we CAN do.... EXPONENTIALLY increasing Soil Carbon Retention by adopting all-around no-till organic agricultural methods.... MANY beneficial Societal effects here... MO' Bettah Food&Health/Mo' Bettah Money (at the GROUND-level.... where LongGREENMoney makes Mo' Bettah Benefits in a bubble-UP ECOnomic model) & LESS+LESS money for the Manufacturers of Agri-Toxins.... where Mo' Money makes BUT Mo' Profit$forPoi$on$ and LITTLE el$e.... be$ide$ Profit$ for Political Power in Proliferation of Populate Pain AND Penury.... and THERE'$ your trouble.... NOW we know why it's so hard to even TALK about making beneficial changes much less understand root Need for So doing AND....Root Cau$e for NOT. Go ahead.... Wave your magic Wand.... even WITHOUT climate crisis.... these agri-poison$ cause Air/Water/Food AND Health Pollution.... so IF you should find yourselves mentally incapable of grasping a WIDER Scope for this Impending Horror... understand clearly NOW.... that carcinogenic and other-wise Toxic agri-chemical residues are CURRENTLY doing to your body&being what the manufacturers of those chemicals are doing to all Life IN and ON Earth. It is Time to Change.... not just how we generate and use our energy (Roof-topSolarW/BatteryBack-upNOnukes) but how we grow the very food we eat....and in So doing we can.... in all likelihood.... RESOLVE our Climate AND Pollution PROBLEMS.... in REAL Time.
Really? I used to believe in the greenhouse effect since the mid-70s. Earlier this year, I learned of something that eliminated the greenhouse effect as a possible cause of warming there and on Earth. Empirical evidence shows that the rise and fall of CO2 does NOT drive temperature.
97 percent consensus on dangerous man made global warming? The Studies ask Different Questions and have different parameters. Not a basis for agglomerated consent. Many scientists who do not agree with catastrophic AGW are listed in with those who do agree. Their objections are ignored, even if they publicly reject the results of studies that claim to prove the consensus. Actual study results Naomi Oreskes 2004 Study was published 4 days before the Kyoto Conference, before it was peer reviewed. It is always cited as a peer reviewed paper. there was Global Cooling noted by 2006 Al Gore claimed broadly, citing the Orensky study, that zero scientists disagreed w the AGW B. Pizer in England did same study as Orensky with very different results 13 explicit endorsement of CAGW 322 endorse but focus on impacts 89 mitigation proposals 67 reject or doubt consensus 470 no position at all… they just mentioned CC in their papers unrelated to climate change 44 natural factors 87 focus on methods Doran and Zimmerman 2009 Margaret Kendall Zimmermans thesis The consensus on the consensus 10257 earth scientists 3246 responded 79 self selected themselves to represent the study… they publish papers on climate Questions asked 1. Compared to pre 80s do you think the mean temperature has gone up or down? 2. Do you think humans are causing the uptick? This is an opinion poll… not empirical data. That's not science Data Base 38 objected… its the Sun 5 said humans have a nominal effect 1 said its HDCC 77 out of 79 agreed with one of the questions and 78 out of 79 agreed with the other. This is haberdashery. Anderegg et al - student paper published in the National Academy of Science Journal -not peer reviewed wrangled in by Steven Schneider “contributed articles” - scientific op ed, Angderegg went through the IPPC list and found out that 34 percent of scientists in the IPPC disagree with the notion of Catastrophic AGW. However, Andereeg chose to narrow the study to only the IPPC members who publish. They only make up 5 percent of the IPPC scientist staff. 97 percent of those who publish are with the ADGCC. One of the most cited studies: John Cook definition question/statement : Humans Cause Warming 67 percent had no position .5 percent endorsed AGW Many authors who are included in the study objected to how their work was characterized Actual Percentages of endorsements for Catastrophic AGW: Orensky 1.2 percent Doran and Zimmermann 2.38 percent Anderegg 66 percent Cook and al 0.54 percent
So eye-opening and inspiring! So happy that a Wisconsin native can preach these issues on such a prominent stage. I hope this is only another stepping stone to bigger things for Pr. Patz and the earth!
It is still as relevant today as it was 6 years ago. When are we going to change our old habits? When will the U.S.A. be more ethically responsible? Africa is a great example, why aren't we following their example today? We cannot only observe when these things happen as a domino effect. We need many organizations working together toward the same efforts. We can make a difference individually and together as society! It is statistically possible to make things better even if it is by walking or cycling more, and it's neurological and physically beneficial to us humans to exercise, so why aren't we changing these habits in any way possible yet?! Health is quality of life and a better world for future generations 💜
You need to get this to all people
Agree
I'm watching toda August 2021. They were right.
It is so amazing and wonderful. You are a Doctor with a good heart. I LOVE YOU DOCTOR KHAM .
I love that you included putting a price on GHG emissions. Great job!
Why? Who gets the money? Rich globalists. We live in an Ice Age and they plan to cool the planet. That could kill off 7+ BILLION of us. Bill Gates and Harvard have their first live run of their cooling tech in spring 2019. That could end our interglacial real fast. We could have permanent snow throughout Canada within 50 years instead of the typical 5,000 to 10,000 natural cooling.
Imagine that! Being tricked into thinking warmth is bad in an Ice Age. It's almost funny, if it weren't so deadly.
Hello j worship you I worship you🐕🐩
Precisely today I have had an argument with a workmate that denies human responsibility with climate change.
Yes, also the health benefit of more bikes rather than more cars! Think, less obesity, asthma, more happiness!
Take a ten speed to Denver, or Sacramento, or heck, just a couple of hundred miles,....and then try it in a wheel chair, cars give us mobility, if you don't like cars, sell yours....leave mine alone....
I cannot like this video enough.
Wonderful talk, Jonathan! I'm sharing it with my students -- indeed, it's now required watching.
Hey, thanks for sharing this news! Much appreciated.
William, I wouldn't share it with my students. It's junk based on lies with lies. Did you know that we live in an Ice Age and that the Globalists want to cool down the planet. Bill Gates and Harvard have a live run starting in spring 2019. Study history! You'll find that all of the major warming periods coincide with eras of prosperity; cooling aligns with periods of societal stress and collapse because of famines.
97 percent consensus on dangerous man made global warming?
The Studies ask Different Questions and have different parameters.
Not a basis for agglomerated consent.
Many scientists who do not agree with catastrophic AGW are listed in with those who do agree. Their objections are ignored, even if they publicly reject the results of studies that claim to prove the consensus.
Actual study results
Naomi Oreskes 2004
Study was published 4 days before the Kyoto Conference, before it was peer reviewed. It is always cited as a peer reviewed paper.
there was Global Cooling noted by 2006
Al Gore claimed broadly, citing the Orensky study, that zero scientists disagreed w the AGW
B. Pizer in England did same study as Orensky with very different results
13 explicit endorsement of CAGW
322 endorse but focus on impacts
89 mitigation proposals
67 reject or doubt consensus
470 no position at all… they just mentioned CC in their papers
unrelated to climate change
44 natural factors
87 focus on methods
Doran and Zimmerman 2009
Margaret Kendall Zimmermans thesis
The consensus on the consensus
10257 earth scientists
3246 responded
79 self selected themselves to represent the study… they publish papers on climate
Questions asked
1. Compared to pre 80s do you think the mean temperature has gone up or down?
2. Do you think humans are causing the uptick?
This is an opinion poll… not empirical data. That's not science
Data Base
38 objected… its the Sun
5 said humans have a nominal effect
1 said its HDCC
77 out of 79 agreed with one of the questions and 78 out of 79 agreed with the other. This is haberdashery.
Anderegg et al - student paper
published in the National Academy of Science Journal -not peer reviewed
wrangled in by Steven Schneider
“contributed articles” - scientific op ed,
Angderegg went through the IPPC list and found out that 34 percent of scientists in the IPPC disagree with the notion of Catastrophic AGW.
However, Andereeg chose to narrow the study to only the IPPC members who publish. They only make up 5 percent of the IPPC scientist staff. 97 percent of those who publish are with the ADGCC.
One of the most cited studies: John Cook
definition question/statement : Humans Cause Warming
67 percent had no position
.5 percent endorsed AGW
Many authors who are included in the study objected to how their work was characterized
Actual Percentages of endorsements for Catastrophic AGW:
Orensky 1.2 percent
Doran and Zimmermann 2.38 percent
Anderegg 66 percent
Cook and al 0.54 percent
he gave me so many ideas used in Ielts writing task 2 haha
In all honesty, I started as a climate change denier until I started hearing just absolute nonsensical things from other denialists like Tony Heller.
I stopped paying attention to social media, pundits, bureaucrats, and politicians.
I started reading the actual research papers (not blogs, videos, or independent publishers).
Climate change is not difficult to understand. Like weather, there are limited factors which affect climate. Understanding what they are and how they interact isn’t difficult.
It is a good idea,.but unfortunately no one will move his investments. Collectively we don't act like worried people at all, that's why collapses exists.
I would love to get the full reference list for the talk, does anyone if the slides are published anywhere?
I have a calipso on this so thank you for teaching us
how did you forget animal agriculture??
excellent talk, see climate change as an opportunity a s well as fixing the pending disaster that awaits humanity if we continue to do nothing
Taking action is only as good as the direction. And cooling in an ongoing Ice Age is worse than folly. Cold kills; warmth promotes life and prosperity. These guys have it backwards.
I'm so proud of DR OFENMU RUclips CHANNEL for his good Medication. I finally defeated Hsv1&2 completely after taking his medication. Thanks
❤
It's not clear to me about the message of sedentary lifestyles that you wanted to convey. It seems to distract me on your topic.
If we had a chance to end all wars forever, Trump wouldn't do it because "wE wOuLd lOsE a tOn oF jObS"
😢
Anything beyond surfeit can be a pollutant.... we're looking at a question of balance.... excess CO2 is not taken up by plants that are not allowed to exist.... and our current Agricultural and Industrial Methods are disruptive in the EXTREME.... for Natural Nurture FROM plant growth..... around the World. At the Same time we started hyper-injecting fossilized carbon into our atmosphere.... we began proliferating Iron Plow Tillage.... agriculturally disrupting photo-synthetic carbon sequestration.... effectively Doubling the Damage....at LEAST. We MIGHT be able to turn THAT around faster than anything else we CAN do.... EXPONENTIALLY increasing Soil Carbon Retention by adopting all-around no-till organic agricultural methods.... MANY beneficial Societal effects here... MO' Bettah Food&Health/Mo' Bettah Money (at the GROUND-level.... where LongGREENMoney makes Mo' Bettah Benefits in a bubble-UP ECOnomic model) & LESS+LESS money for the Manufacturers of Agri-Toxins.... where Mo' Money makes BUT Mo' Profit$forPoi$on$ and LITTLE el$e.... be$ide$ Profit$ for Political Power in Proliferation of Populate Pain AND Penury.... and THERE'$ your trouble.... NOW we know why it's so hard to even TALK about making beneficial changes much less understand root Need for So doing AND....Root Cau$e for NOT. Go ahead.... Wave your magic Wand.... even WITHOUT climate crisis.... these agri-poison$ cause Air/Water/Food AND Health Pollution.... so IF you should find yourselves mentally incapable of grasping a WIDER Scope for this Impending Horror... understand clearly NOW.... that carcinogenic and other-wise Toxic agri-chemical residues are CURRENTLY doing to your body&being what the manufacturers of those chemicals are doing to all Life IN and ON Earth. It is Time to Change.... not just how we generate and use our energy (Roof-topSolarW/BatteryBack-upNOnukes) but how we grow the very food we eat....and in So doing we can.... in all likelihood.... RESOLVE our Climate AND Pollution PROBLEMS.... in REAL Time.
Glad someone mentioned Agriculture, the elephant in the room he didn't mention, effectively his is not holistic.
Congrats!!
If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, you can go live on Venus ;-)
Really? I used to believe in the greenhouse effect since the mid-70s. Earlier this year, I learned of something that eliminated the greenhouse effect as a possible cause of warming there and on Earth. Empirical evidence shows that the rise and fall of CO2 does NOT drive temperature.
97 percent consensus on dangerous man made global warming?
The Studies ask Different Questions and have different parameters.
Not a basis for agglomerated consent.
Many scientists who do not agree with catastrophic AGW are listed in with those who do agree. Their objections are ignored, even if they publicly reject the results of studies that claim to prove the consensus.
Actual study results
Naomi Oreskes 2004
Study was published 4 days before the Kyoto Conference, before it was peer reviewed. It is always cited as a peer reviewed paper.
there was Global Cooling noted by 2006
Al Gore claimed broadly, citing the Orensky study, that zero scientists disagreed w the AGW
B. Pizer in England did same study as Orensky with very different results
13 explicit endorsement of CAGW
322 endorse but focus on impacts
89 mitigation proposals
67 reject or doubt consensus
470 no position at all… they just mentioned CC in their papers
unrelated to climate change
44 natural factors
87 focus on methods
Doran and Zimmerman 2009
Margaret Kendall Zimmermans thesis
The consensus on the consensus
10257 earth scientists
3246 responded
79 self selected themselves to represent the study… they publish papers on climate
Questions asked
1. Compared to pre 80s do you think the mean temperature has gone up or down?
2. Do you think humans are causing the uptick?
This is an opinion poll… not empirical data. That's not science
Data Base
38 objected… its the Sun
5 said humans have a nominal effect
1 said its HDCC
77 out of 79 agreed with one of the questions and 78 out of 79 agreed with the other. This is haberdashery.
Anderegg et al - student paper
published in the National Academy of Science Journal -not peer reviewed
wrangled in by Steven Schneider
“contributed articles” - scientific op ed,
Angderegg went through the IPPC list and found out that 34 percent of scientists in the IPPC disagree with the notion of Catastrophic AGW.
However, Andereeg chose to narrow the study to only the IPPC members who publish. They only make up 5 percent of the IPPC scientist staff. 97 percent of those who publish are with the ADGCC.
One of the most cited studies: John Cook
definition question/statement : Humans Cause Warming
67 percent had no position
.5 percent endorsed AGW
Many authors who are included in the study objected to how their work was characterized
Actual Percentages of endorsements for Catastrophic AGW:
Orensky 1.2 percent
Doran and Zimmermann 2.38 percent
Anderegg 66 percent
Cook and al 0.54 percent
The natural market-based solutions to bio-hazardous pollutions are the same as the natural market-based solutions to woman-made climate change....
Scam
So.. him.. trying to show a better way and a healthier way of living as a health scientist.. makes u think of “ scam “ ?
Ignoramous.
Educate yourself kid