I can't believe I am seeing this video six years after it was uploaded. I blame it on RUclips algorithm against pushing honest information that doesn't support leftist ideology.
A lot has changed in that time. Renewably sources energy is becoming more abundant and cheaper with every passing year. Also we have just had record global average daily temperatures, the highest since records began.
@@supercal333you seem to have missed his points regarding data. Cherry picked data to demonstrate a trend: hottest on record. If all data are included, we are not in the hottest ever. We are actually in a cool period. Please try to talk yourself out of your first choice. Ask yourself, what if my sources are corrupt? You may find that consensus is not science.
It’s not bullshit, but it fails to consider the implications of doing nothing forever because the math doesn’t identify an immediate high return. I guess humans can’t be satisfied with small improvement
Because we are tired of the constant lies and deception, not to mention the vast hypocrisy of those pontificating over us. The time for PCness has ended, it's time to call out the liars publicly and tell the truth.
@@jaredpayot5280negligible change, even if you can possibly identify it as improvement. We're talking about reverting to the stone age for all the billions of people on the planet to get less change in forecasts than the forecasts have statistical variability. Even IF the forecasts were right, which they're not. And regarding actual improvements, we've BEEN improving. There's less emissions and better mileage NOW compared to when the automobile was first invented. Same with all CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use. Only place we haven't improved on CO2 emissions is by decreasing animal respiration, but environmentalists tend to frown on mass slaughter of animals, so...
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/19/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems That links should be compulsory. Also, Christy's mea culpas about the several math issues with his satellite data should be examples on why you should not puff out your chest when you think adding and subtracting are the same thing.
Already in 1966 the coal industry realised that it was causing global warming. But that was not a good truth so people in the indudtry has tried to hide it since and we are now at the point that the industry will pay anybody to stand up and not tell the truth. The situation is like when the tobacko industry claimed smoking is healthy.
And more, how FEW in audience did the homework necessary to ask the truly challenging questions of this self-described biased scientist hailing from overheated/exploited/toxic/obese Alabama .
Dr. Christy is one of the very best climate experts on the planet. He's honest and a true scientist - which appears to be an endangered species these days.
@@scottekoontz Ohh really? Have you seen the latest 7 year data set from NOAA, it's a cooling trend of -0.10C per decade. BTW, skeptics don't make predictions, only alarmists do.
Of course it doesn't. It's goes against the popular narrative, spread by media that is in all likelihood on the take from climate crisis pushing agencies. Let's not forget the brainwashed majority out there drinking these lies up!
Maybe the lack of views is because Americans know it's a scam, they know it's about shutting down the US economy and taking America of the most powerful nation list, they see that the Chinese and India aren't going to act till way in the future, yet by the both countries emissions will double by then.....
Sorry but its dated BADLY. I have looked at Professor Christy's Wikipedia page and read some of his more notable comments. There are some things I'd agree with and others I'd strongly disagree with. I agree that some of the panic clowns have done more harm than good but people like professor Christy are also doing harm as well. I am an aerospace engineer and am trained in complex system analysis. I strongly dislike scientists and engineers who put statements on slides that are misleading. I especially hate things that take a science or engineering degree to understand why what's said is WRONG. At 6:23 in this talk he has a slide up for seasonal weather in America and to the left is the statement: _"In science, a fundamental principle is that when you understand a system, you can predict its behavior."_ That's an incredibly MISLEADING statement because it can be both TRUE and FALSE depending on the system. In complex systems you can't predict what all the inputs are. Its like the game plans for sport. Once the game starts things become less predictable because you can't predict what the other side will do. You can guess their likely behavior and what that might do. With complex systems you can ESTIMATE BEHAVIOR but you cannot PREDICT and certainly not predict the details with 100% certainty. That slide is horribly misleading.
... oh so so terrifyingly HORRIBLE! My how you do fly of into outer space with your hyperbole! You turn a minor point into a nightmare! That's what really nuts people do. For the most part his statement on prediction of systems IS TRUE orher than your NIT PICKING special case of "really complex" systems, (which climate is). HE IS SAYING NO ONE CAN PREDICT CLIMATE, AT LEAST NOT TOTALLY ACCURATELY. That alone nullifies your entire pseudo scientific rant.
Climate is this man's job. His evidence is available for review and discussion. His testimony FITS the data. It is not about making a compelling argument, it is about science.
& the MOST IMPORTANT NUMBER….the amount of MONEY$ the climate change ‘professionals’ receive for being climate change alarmists. THESE SCIENTISTS ONLY GET THEIR GRANT RENEWED IF THEY KEEP THE CLIMATE CHANGE NARRATIVE GOING!🤑
@@aztekenen1 Many things are possible, but that does not make them logical, reasonable or right. Each claim of fact needs to be taken on its own merits. Generalities such as yours are hard to discuss because they offer no specifics with which to gauge them. The basis of progress is one of logic and reason. Can some people fake it? Sure, but if you know logical fallacies, it's easier to see through the hype.
@@mustbtroubleHis rebuttals to climate alarmists are on target. Alarmists show one graph, which would be the computer model, which is completely wrong. Little known fact is that CO2 doesn't have a proportional increasing effect as a greenhouse gas. It's just about maxed out. That is stunning info I just found out.
@@mustbtrouble Okay I looked it up. There doesn't appear to be any association/funding with Exxon or koch. Show your proof. Better yet tell us what you can refute in the lecture above instead of casting bs ad hominess dispersion's.
I stumbled on this video in Oct 2021. It is interesting that currently many countries have found that wind and solar are not cutting in right now. The UK, Germany and Australia are in the news all the time talking about it. I believe all three of those countries are now adding back more coal and natural gas electrical generation into their systems in order to balance base and peak load demands. California has recently approved 5 new natgas cogen facilities to be installed for the same reason. And then there is China and the huge number of coal generation being built there and that they are not going to COP26. The problem isn’t moving to a higher percentage of renewables in the world’s energy mix, it is the speed that Governments forced the change. I do think that the early adopters rushed into wind, solar and to a much smaller amount biomass for political virtue signalling reasons, not using a well thought out and achievable timeline to form their policies.
Here it is a year later, November 2022. Europe is in deep energy trouble after going so far to renewables and in Germany, relying on Putin and Russian gas is backfiring. Things are so bad Germany is currently removing windmills as they need to expand a coal mining operation! People went crazy this past summer when London had anomalous high temperatures for a few days, screaming climate change when it was nothing more than weather, at least at this point in time. COP 26 resulted in more infighting than inter-governmental agreement and right now COP 27 is underway with another echo chamber gab fest complete with the ubiquitous private jets littering the nearest airport. (Just like Davos). I was hoping that we would start to see a reasonable approach to a climate sustainable future but that’s not happening as alarmist arm waving is still the order of the day.
@@catocall7323 Absolutely. Huge investments have been made in the green gold, and now they demand to see their returns. They are sending activists around in the streets to warn governments. After creating fake money with their financial tools, now they want us, normal citizens, to pay the bill. The inflation burst we had in the last year is another sign. They demand to monetize with our wealth: money deposits, houses, whatever we have. They are asking governments to impose taxes to fund the "green transition", which means: we want your citizen's wealth.
@@catocall7323 Yes! You phrase it perfectly. Thanks for that. 🙂 It's basically what every seller does. Such a shame they (the govmnts) are selling us this amount of costly, inadequate and in the end highly polluting crap. But it will fill their pockets greatly... 😕
Those words don't buy votes however. You need fear and panic to bring people in to blindly vote for economic policies that create a new generation of peasents.
Yes agree, common-sense should prevail. Climate change reminds of ants. One ant will for no reason commence on a circular path laying down pheromones as proceeds endlessly around. Other ants join in and before you know there is whole colony of going round and round till they all die. This is because an ant has no vision just the scent trail laid down by a colleague. Well with climate change it is exactly the same. Every scientist is too shit scared to challenge the narrative. They may not get funding, get published or colleagues deride them. Dr John is correct go by the observations and if the predictions are different from the observation then Houston we have a problem.
Canada is one such country that is finding out how extraordinarily expensive climate policy is. The cost of living is going through the roof and for what benefit?
@@mrunning10carbon tax.. is partly to blame. The rest is due to inflation from doubling the national debt and the libtards unrestrained immigration policy causing huge supply/demand issues in the economy.
Fascinating presentation. I am in the field of science and believe science is 100% data and analyzing them in true unbiased way is the only truth seeking.
@@drkstrong yes, you should start with Algore, the idiot. Who Photoshop the satellite picture of earth from NASA and have no clue which direction Hurricane rotates. Christy's data is used by NASA and all over the world. And you could analyze IPCC data correctly and you will get the opposite results of the so-called politically compromised scientists. In fact Christy's data is much better since it collects Balloons from the troposphere and satellite data. That is much more accurate than the surface thermometer data with tremendous bias from surface structures around.
I'm just a little younger than you. Where I live snow would be a foot deep by mid September and last until mid April. That was the sixties. Winter is getting shorter. Green Christmases are normal now. Snow gone by mid-march. I sold my snowmobile over a decade ago. The gradual reduction in snow got to the point that there wasn't enough snow to use it more than a few weeks. The climate has been warming gradually for at least 6 decades of my life.
@@Joe-nz5ql Well that's just oostrich thinking. Humans have managed to burn , and therefore release, millions of years of accumulated carbon in just one century. At this point only a complete bithering, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing troglodyte would claim this is a natural thing
COULD BE THE BEST LECTURE I HAVE HEARD ON THE NET!! THANKS FOR CARING ABOUT THE TRUTH, PEOPLE, AND REAL SCIENCE!! I WILL PASS THIS VID ON TO MY FRIENDS....BUT THE ENLIGHTENED LIBS WILL NOT WATCH IT ANYWAY.....YOU ARE THE MAN!! FANTASTIC...
BRIAN ROGERS ALL CAPS EH? Brainwashed all caps typing imbecile can't see a lying shill when it's right in front of you. It's not hard to do your own research into the ACTUAL facts and see that this is all lies. It's sad that idiots like this guy are muddying the data and making it more difficult for our species to take the necessary precautions to avoid a climate disaster. Instead of saying " I told you so" I will say "fuck you traitor to humanity!"
Hence we conclude things like: "All computers will fail in the year 2000." "Life assembled itself from primordial soup." "Fossils are made over millions of years." "Covid-19 will kill 2 million people in the first wave." "Biden, most popular president in history." "Dinosaur bones are millions of years old." "Carbon dioxide is a pollutant that will end the world." "Oil spills and consumer plastic will end all ocean life."
Yes! A model is nothing more than another format to present a theory, or a prediction to a theory. Sadly, they are misused and presented as crystal balls...and people therefore see them as such. People are weird
Imo depends on how you define "data". If you put numbers into a random algorithm, you get numbers out, and those numbers definitely constitute "data", even if it's completely useless and doesn't predict anything. If you only narrowly define data as "useful data that correctly predicts reality", then of course models don't produce data.
@@michaelsorensen7567 GIG O the algorithms within a model are based onthe assumptions of the people who coded the model. One might call the output "data" but those data are the conclusion of running the model. Useless data that don't reflect data are of course, by definition, useless.
People leading media massively lack the minimum capabilities to understand the simplest of the graphs. No hope for them to realize how deep and simple are professor John Christy explanations. I have a sad feeling on that.
"Simple" is correct. Or more like "simpleton." He speaks science and math HORSESHIT continuously. "global temperatures change more than that day by day" THAT is called "weather" Dr. Christy, that is HORSESHIT "science" Weather is not CLIMATE you lying moron. You CAN detect and "attribute" 3 / 100s change over "100 years" it is called the fucking SCIENCE of the MATH of fucking AVERAGING you lying moron. This is the global AVERAGE temperature CHANGING over long time scale you LIAR. ANYONE who listens and takes Dr. Christy seriously is an ignorant human being barely able to know where to take a dump in the proper place. Dr. John Christy is a HORSESHIT LIAR.
I have done much work in Kenya, developing groundwater resources for villages in the Rift Valley and other areas well outside of the major cities of Nairobi, Mombasa, and Eldoret. I realized very quickly during my first long-term period of work in the Rift Valley that the lack of access to energy resources we take for granted in the West is THE major factor that affects the quality of life for a most Kenyans. The average Kenyan would love nothing more than to have half the energy-driven conveniences that we enjoy. Life in the Kenyan bush is harsh. Kenyans who live there would laugh in the face of any westerner who preaches the Green New Deal gospel peddled by clueless American environmentalists and politicians.
John Christy deals with reality. He uses graphs and numbers to support his points...What can we take away from this lecture to think about tomorrow? The most important thing is that the governments of countries that have huge numbers of poverty stricken people will do what they have to do to help their people. They want access to continuous, economical and reliable energy and wind mills and solar panels do not meet that definition. As Christy says, economical energy saves lives. Wasting huge money on wind and solar energy will ultimately cost lives.
@@drkstrongWith the huge amount of them needed, and the reticulation costs, together with intermittency and low energy density, you just can't be serious.
@@geoffreyparker926 With the huge amount of coal needed to be mined, transported, processed, burned and the ashes disposed of, you cant be serious. Check the figures, they are readily available,
@@drkstrong It's cheap, and they are all failing in Wind and Solar, a fools quest when you need reliable base load power for a civilisation. Check it out. My brother worked for Deutsche Aerospace back in 1993, and the engineers there with him pronounced Wind and Solar a failure in Germany right back then. You are forgetting the huge government subsidies for W & S, and the huge penalties for Coal and Gas, and that is what makes them look cost effective. The infrastructure is huge, copper wire costs a fortune, and the maintenance costs are huge, when compared with a coal fired power station, which will last for fifty years, with a much simplified grid for load balancing. I respectfully disagree. There are good reasons why wind power was abandoned for ships, and solar power has never been a serious option. The energy density of both is far too low, and a limiting factor on both. And battery technology for 100% wind and solar is a pipe dream: you'll never power a big city on that as backup. How come no country has found they can't provide cheap electricity using coal, as it's been done for 100 years with electricity costing 8c per kilowatt hour in Australia back when I was a kid, and cleaning up ash and mining coal was never an issue to push up those costs back in the 1950s and 1960s. Germans are now unable to afford their electricity, and people in Europe are cutting up trees and buying coal to heat their homes. Check out the situation there. AGW Climate Change is the biggest politically motivated fraud ever played out on the Human Race in our increasingly dysfunctional Western World. There will be a reckoning for Science in allowing this fiasco to occur, without scientists calling it out for the nonsense it is. Trillions have been wasted on a Quixotic, muddle-headed quest against a mistaken danger. I took a bet against two of my scientist friends that they were wrong in telling me back on January 12 2015, that all life on Earth would be extinguished by 2025. I thought they were joking, but they were serious! They will be sharing the cost of a five course meal for me at the restaurant of my choice on 12 January 2025, getting closer by the day. I have not noticed any discernible change in the climate over these past years, and I plan to order a very expensive meal to teach them a lesson!
It only confirms how corrupt governments are just what my gut was telling me,when I doubt trust your gut,covid,climate change,transgender,wars etc.&more, there will be more crap you can count on it.
His brilliant. Science is organized knowledge, wisdom organize life. Mr Christy has it all,I would certainly like to forward him the article on climatic changes written in the early 80's,certain he would be able to analyze.
I am an Engineer who has lived and worked in most of the places Prof. Christy speaks about. He is Impeccable in his evaluations. He obviously paid attention to his experience.
Life survived all throughout the climate history of this earth, this is true. Modern human civilization will not survive the chaos of the climate we are creating, this is also true.
@@scottekoontz Oops! You are making a claim based on lies. Dr. Christy never claimed Earth wasn't warming. And if you had actually watched the video, you would know this; his data shows a very slight degree of warming. His data with Dr. Roy Spencer (on Spencer's website) shows a warming trend continuing right through to today. Backtrack? You are the one who needs to backtrack!
NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN The data has been wrong. Reported on many credible sources including NYT, BBC. wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/claim-data-does-not-prove-that-climate-models-are-wrong/
I know scientists who works at Australia's CSIRO - they know that this ACGW is an utter hoax - but they can't say anything because they will lose their position and/or lose their government funding. Sad. It's actually getting cooler.
Susan Webster. It is far more likely you are a liar than it is "actually getting cooler". The arctic ice anomaly this winter has ominous signs of extinction for humans n 9 years, but we don't care about that. What we want is civilization we have known for a couple hundred years. You are more likely a person who can't handle the situation & will deny it as if your life depended on it.
This guy's whole point is if all of your experiments and models don't line up with clear observable data, your experiments and models are either lacking data or are populated with erroneous data. What should drive this point home for people is something he pointed out. All of the predictions are higher than the observable data. None are lower. This indicates either there are unseen forces keeping the temps down or the effects of some variable are exaggerated. Either way, no conclusions are possible, other than, they got it wrong.
If the models can't predict the outcome then they are no good! The scaremongering scientists should learn more before they put any faith in these models (which give no value to water vapor - the biggest greenhouse gas of them all and a huge factor in determining the albedo of the atmosphere). But, of course, these "hockey stick" believers really aren't interested in the truth. They have an ugly political agenda to drive forward and, unfortunately, they have won that battle to date. As a freedom-loving taxpayer I seeth with anger when I think about the thievery of "carbon" taxes we have to now pay. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a pollutant and is completely necessary for all plant life (including plankton in the ocean) to survive on our planet. Shame all you alarmist bastards!
Christy is carefully choosing the data to compare the models to, namely upper atmosphere and satellite data, not on-the ground temperatures. If you consider the latter, then your will find that the climate models do a reasonable job of prediction. Whether you believe climate models or not, the observed trends are undeniable: global average land temperatures are increasing; ocean temperature is increasing. glaciers are collapsing; ice sheets are metling--e.g. Greenland is losing hundreds of gigatons of ice every year; the thickness of the polar ice cap has declined 40%; permafrost is melting; heat waves are more common; extreme cold is less common; the list goes on and on. The linkage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature was not well-understood 20 years ago. It is now. Carbon dioxide has exerted a powerful influence on climate in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Christy is right to point out that the burning of fossil fuels has led to the improvement of our standard of living in the West, and is doing so now in India and China and elsewhere. No one disputes that. This country was built on the backs of coal miners. But the unfortunate side-effect is that burning fossil fuels releases CO2, which is wreaking havoc with the Earth's energy balance. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels also causes a host of respiratory illnesses, occupational deaths (think coal mining accidents, for example), environmental disasters (e.g. oil spills, strip mining, etc.) and cancer deaths. These are facts that Christy ignores. Solar and wind and other renewable energy sources offer a way out of this mess. Why does he dismiss them? Contrary to his claims, Germany and other EU countries (Denmark, the U.K, Netherlands) have embraced renewable energy and are doing very nicely.
Total garbage. The climate is not sensitive enough to Co2 to explain atmospheric changes. If it was there would have been impossibly high (for life) average temps and runaway climate get change. The fact is you’re arguing that 0.018% extra Co2 is changing the climate. It’s preposterous.
A great book to read by an honest gentleman trying to understand the climate narrative as presented today is Alan Longhurst's book, "Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science." Alan is an author of over 80 papers and an Oceanographer. He is the former head of the Bedford Institute on Oceanography. He wrote the book 10 years ago with an update in 2023. Remarkably, Alan is 98 years old in 2023. The title of his book comes from a book written in 1953 with almost the same name. Alan added the word "Climate" in his title. He points out many aspects of using consensus science to establish a fortress of opinion. He resents the lack of natural skeptical science needed to create a debate worthy of Science itself. Furthermore, Alan also expresses real doubt about peer-reviewed papers. This book is a must-read for those who have an interest in science and how it should be carried out. A somewhat difficult read but can be managed by someone with little knowledge. Longhurst presents his opinions based on years of knowledge.
If you don't get papers peer-reviewed, they don't have any validity. The whole point of peer-reviewing is to assess validity - it's the whole basis of modern science. He probably resents peer review because his own papers were ripped apart academically.
Oh I like this man already Numbers are beautiful. We can depend on numbers. A calculation is the same 2000 years ago, and will be the same in 2000 years time. Numbers negate the reasoning of opinion, other than considered opinion gathered from experimentation.
The most interestingly curious piece of all of this to me when looking at the 102 CMIP-5, the drops in temps between 1982-1987 and 1992-1997 seem rather significant. Both the predicted and observed show it so it's not something to debate really but the magnitude of the effect is rather impressive.
When you step back and look at the tiny plateau of warmth in a sea of cold called the current Ice Age, you might notice the gigantic mountains of warmth behind us -- as much as +20C warmer for millions of years, with CO2 levels as much as 4000 ppm (10x today's) and no runaway warming. Life thrived from equator to poles. And Warming Alarmists are afraid of life? We live in an Ice Age and the UN wants to cool down the planet. The Holocene has already shown signs of shutting down 3,000 years ago. This "modern" warm period may well be the last of 10 warm periods in the Holocene before the next glacial period starts. And glacial periods are deadly. I'd rather see the Ice Age end and get on with warming all the way to the poles. Disruption? Sure! Change always disrupts, but you can't stop change. Hope for change in the right direction -- toward warmth and life (not ice and death).
@@RodMartinJrExcellent points, Rod. When disruptions occur, man has shown the ability to adapt. If Obama's waterfront property gets flooded, he'll move to higher ground, maybe in tropical Alberta or Saskatchewan.
@@bearowen5480 I suspect it'll be a few million years before central Canada is tropical again. We may already be headed for the next glacial period of the current Ice Age. At least the cooling trend of the last 3,000 years suggests this. If CO2 were the control knob of temperature (and it isn't), it would still take thousands of years to melt all of the polar ice. Working against this is the fact that as Earth leaves its current Ice Age, warmer weather would mean more evaporation from the tropics and more snow at the poles, slowing down the melting process. I can't see Greenland melting any faster than 10,000 years, and Antarctica any sooner than 100,000 years. But, again, that's assuming the Ice Age were to start shutting down now, and I don't see any evidence of that. Even if all the ice were to melt by next Tuesday, Obama would have to move, but Al Gore would still be about 300 feet above sea level in his West Coast mansion.
Sorry, you're talking about Milankovitch Cycles, and we're not due an ice age for another 25,000 years or so. That said, melting ice at the poles caused by global warming is now affecting the direction of the Gulf Stream. A recent report in Nature estimates this has the potential to cause an ice age in Europe in around 2050, give or take. That's within our lifetime.@@RodMartinJr
The two teachers I have spoken to about AGW, both said they judge their students based on their faith in AGW. I know, only a sample of two, but I think it is common to be a liberal first and teacher second.
I'm not sure what you mean by correlation, but there is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. This was first established 150 years ago@@tnekkc
Reminds me of my geology professor. The liberal kids fresh out of high school used to try to argue with him, an actual scientist with years of field work in climatology and vulcanology.
MAGA-ON Dude! Dr. John Christy is a PAID liar for the fossil fuel industry, just keep those revenues pumping into our back accounts Boys! (with the help of the US Congress)
Quick question, as the Earth warms as we are coming out of an ice age which ended around 1880, what’s the “normal” rate of change of warning as we come out of an ice age?…
All we can do is compare to the previous 5 interglacial periods of the past 500k yeats. So far, temperatures are still lower than previous...so natural warming seems possible and tirally normal.
Um, your question makes no sense. The last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago. On your second question.. we don't have enough specific data to know 'normal' warming rates. That requires detailed and widespread collection of temperature data.. and we just don't have that prior to about 200 years ago. So the answer to that question is impossible to determine and will be for all time (unless someone invents time travel).
@rbarnes4076 we are in an inter-glacial. Still polar ice pack. Even so, climate has been warmer and colder (than it is now) over the past 12,000 years.
Dr. John Christy is NOT a "climate scientist" and his hosts of conspiracy deniers is drying up. Ask Dr. John Christy to post his last 20 years of income tax returns and then FOLLOW the fucking MONEY straight from the fossil fuel industry. Wake UP and try to get a fucking CLUE.
whenever you have the issue of people repeating things that they hear without doing thier own research to verify those claims--which is what happens in politics--youre going to have people putting thier own bs spin on things they think they have the gist; when in reality, they have no clue about whats going on. Politicians and politics are a problem in a great many things. Why would this be any different?
@@HaroldBrice The point is simple. Once a subject becomes the focus of politics, bad information is guaranteed to be provided. It is the nature of politics to use lies to create a desire in the citizens to 'fix the issue' (trying to create a need for a given politician to be re-elected to help 'fix the issue'), even if from an expert's point of view there is no known solution.
Dr. Christy's presentation and the data reinforces my belief and scientific logic. I know there are other climate and environmental experts all agree with this. However, it is difficult to ignore the 'political correctness' entirely unless you are Trump. We need to enlighten each other with the truth, evidence, and science with critical thinking and deemphasizing political correctness.
Political correctness isn't hard to ignore at all. If you need to append a word you immediately change its definition. So appending the word correct with anything means that it's not correct. Shove the politics and stick to what's real. It's really not that hard
The ladies first question was related to Climate before Satelite Measurements first went online in 1976. But during that time, (early 60s at least to the Mid 1970s), the Earth's Climate was cooling. And the so-called Climate Scientists were fear mongering us about Global Cooling, -the coming Ice Age. And the fear that all of our crops would freeze (food insecurity was a major issue).
We all died in the year 2000, didn't we? which in the 1970s was the time at which the "the science is settled" experts were telling us we would all be frozen to death unless we paid higher taxes.
@@Qkano - We all died in the year 2000 literally and figuratively and people simply don't know it or understand why that's true. That was the year the Globalist Usury International Central Bankers initiated World War III on humanity in most countries (Western Nations) without a shot being fired. Many things were done in 2000 (and the late 1990s) which were hugely detrimental to mankind (not going to elucidate all of them). Then they literally executed 9/11 and the wars in the Middle East. When Bill Clinton left Office (due to Reagan and not because Clinton was a "good" President) we had a National Surplus. After these Wars were over and also due to their Engineered Great Recessions and Plandemics, merely 20 years later, our National Debt was $30+ Trillion (and total debt and unfunded liabilities somewhere closer to $140+ Trillion with every household responsible for close to $1,000,000 of it). ' So it could definitely and reasonably be argued that the main reason for 9/11 and the wars was to indebt our nation and citizens to the Zionist International Central Bankers, and to Destroy the Middle Class, Working Class, and poor, cause the death of around 12 Million people in total in their Eugenicist ways, and usher in a system (almost exclusively under authoritarian Democrat/ Leftist/ Liberal rule) presumably justified by the completely unscientific farce of AGW, Climate Change, and the therefore presumably necessitated "U.N. Agenda 21/ 2030 and so-called un "Sustainable Development" in order to Create Artificial Scarcity, Under the Guise of Environmental Necessity. This war and attack on humanity has only ramped up exponentially during this time, and especially in the last 2 to 5 years. We are being attacked from a 1000 different angles/ ways and the vast majority of people don't even know it -- and believe it's just "market forces" of a supposedly failed system of Free Enterprise called "Capitalism". Nothing could be further from the truth though and they are brainwashed into believing this propaganda, because we haven't had anything remotely near Free Market Capitalism for several generations.
@@leelarue1354 According to the offical Democratic party policy, we will all be dead in under 6 years from n ow. The "Green New Deal" they affirmed 100% was for 12 years time "unless we stopped using fossil fuels now" and in fact work fossil fuel usage has continued to rise. So I'm guessing everything will stay the same till the day before then the world will be engulfed in a ball of flame. Either that or they were lying bullcrappers.
Conceptually you could argue that increasing CO2 means you'll trap more of the heat in the planet, but I have a counter to that. If you increase CO2 then you also increase plants capacity to grow and put off more O2. The ozone is made out of O2 and this blocks a number of the rays from the sun. If you increase the capacity to trap heat on the planet with CO2, you end up also increasing the capacity to repel incoming heat from the sun by having a higher concentration of O2 from the plants being improved. In other words, the temperature will not change in a manner not conducive with life.
OOh charts! I like charts! I especially like Al Gore's hockey stick. It makes it all so official. "What science is' is not a murky issue. People like Al Gore make it murky. right off the bat. It's a search for verifiable facts. Theories supported by provable facts and repeatable experiments. Not murky at all.
@@mrunning10 No, I'm saying I haven't seen any. Because you know, (I think you know) the scientific method requires it. Otherwise you just have data and a consensus of opinions. And if its consensus it isn't science yet. Please, point to some. I've been looking for decades.
HORSESHIT. Christy was told by God to present these LIES. HORSESHIT science, HORSESHIT graphs comparing apples and oranges and knowing people never look at the sources and never question him A LIAR.
What is the effect of planned obsolescence on CO2 production? Since durable consumer trash eventually falls apart what happens to the depreciation? Ask an economist?
1142 the graph shows an increase of 0C to 1.2C. This is 273.2Kelvin to 274.4K, 0.4%. If the graph were shown in true scale, the increase would not be visible.
Flooding around major rivers accross the country is due to the lack of dredging brought about by EPA mandates. This is particularly true in the case of New Orleans, most of which is below the level of the Mississippi. I lved in CA for 24 years. The cycle of drought and flooding is predictably based on sun spot cycles. But CA and Federal Environmental agencies put a moritorium on dredging the Sacramento River which has resulted in flooding that gets wirse every 10 to11 years
Well. We always need MORE evidence of bad things happening which can be blamed on climate change, even if they have to be manufactured by government neglect.
But according to those in power, the science is settled, so there is no use in discussing it further. Accept what they tell you without question. Where has this video been? It's amazing how we are being lied to , and we go along with it.
Our models are far from perfect because climate and weather are chaotic systems. What we can predict is the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and the relentless increase in global temperatures. The better our understanding, the more effective our planning can be, and the more measures we can put in place to prevent or delay catastrophe. The more people listen to nonsense like this, the harder politically this endeavour becomes.
@@timothyrussell4445 there have been fewer extreme weather events than early 20th century not more. I understand that weather modeling is difficult, inaccurate and chaotic which is my point. Until they are accurate, we should not put much weight into them, nor be dishing out massive amounts of money for inaccurate predictions.
I agree with Dr. Christy, I'd also like to make a deeper dive into it. Can anyone find the court transcript, docket number or case number? I've looked but I can't find anything to do with SessionsIII and AB 1493....
Stop being a fucking moron. HERE: Firmament: The Hidden Science of Weather, Climate Change and the Air That Surrounds Us (-) Paperback - May 9, 2023 READ science NOT politics. Dr. Christy puts up charts that SHOW the Earth is warming and then says "don't worry." It's a test of our stupidity (and YOURS) If we do NOTHING we may DIE. If we FIX this we live. Why the fuck would anyone, but ignoramuses and lunatics, pick the first??
@@mrunning10amazing. And yet, I can find zero evidence to support your claim. I bet you're a manmade catastrophic climate change acolyte, too. Used to baseless claims, aren't you.
If green house gases raise temperature then the dinosaurs must have really liked the heat. The CO2 levals were 10 times higher back then. Also I would guess that humans fart more methane than cows.
It was hotter then and our society could not have existed as we now know it. And factually humans do not fart more methane than cows. Get a refund on your education.
@@Moleena 1. How would I know what? That our society would be ruined by every coastal area being inundated and the desertification of inland areas? We’d be limited to a small coastal range which would be grossly inadequate for the food needs. We know this because this was how the world was at the time mentioned. 2. Why on earth do you think I want humanity extinct? What a bizarre claim.
@@drkstrongno lol. Estimates are that co2 levels during the dinosaur age were actually around 20 times higher than today. That’s why plant life was ginormous during that age.
Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank [Source: DeSmogBlog]...
@@michaelsorensen7567 Even that is not true, after a certain point increasing CO2 makes no difference. Also over time plants adapt and take in less CO2 so they return to their original size because that's what Nature designed them to be so they can support their own weight against winds and heavy rain. See ruclips.net/video/Ve-lDmw9V4g/видео.html - lots of myths busted there.
@@drkstrong The earth has added 15 - 20% more green and crop yields (food) are increasing thanks to CO2 emissions. This has held ambient CO2 at 420 ppm for the last 15 years.
The most disheartening thing from this presentation is the abundance of brainwashed kids in the audience. They are really ignorant yet convinced they know what's going on on a scientific matter that is perhaps the most complex we have in our hands. I even noticed some of them leaving the Q&A right after they expressed their disbelief towards Dr. Christy (ok, perhaps they had other reasons to leave but still, makes me wonder if they had any).
I noticed the same things. They are so emotionally brain washed that despite their obvious intellect, they struggle to accept the facts presented. One even called it “the problem we have caused” after he just showed statistically no real increase in rate of change commensurate with increase in CO2 production.
Does current temperature data continue to support the use of fossil fuels? This lecture is very convincing, but it needs to be updated to include the 7 years that have passed.
@@jamemswright3044 they are because they're raising prices. Shifting away from that established energy Market would mean massive investments in new technologies and buying up the current smaller companies which make up green energy producers. Oil companies have already sort of started to do this but as long as there is no cap on carbon emissions or attempt to regulate oil consumption they will milk fossil fuel for every last dime until it's gone from the Earth. The informed public would be the greatest enemies because that would generate concern and action to address climate change now ,rather than the do nothing approach in the face of skepticism from so many people
There is a simple solution to the political and economic questions. If you want action on climate change, you pay for it! If we could solve the issue at Zero cost, no 0ne would oppose action. It is the fact that the cost is significant that causes dispute. This contention can be removed by the proponents picking up the bill. Their reluctance to do this shows their real motivations - to farm the incomes of others.
Wow, this has got to be a record for logical fallacies per minute. Yes, make this compulsory viewing material in a critical thinking class so students can learn to spot logical fallacies, rhetorical tricks, and disinformation carefully designed to convince people that something they desperately want to believe is valid. So many learning opportunities to unpack here, I lost count 2 minutes in.
Believe nothing he says, he believes God gave Man the Oil so it's OK to use it and nothing bad can happen. That's it. In the meantime Congress and "institutes" (paid for by fossil fuel funding or indirect PACs) pay for him to give these HORSESHIT talks to convince the public to continue to VOTE for politicians that keep their insane TRILLIONS in revenues flowing into their bank accounts All clear?? Dr. John Christy = HORSESHIT @@daveisbrill
The Earth's climate is in equilibrium, for every system in equilibrium having an input must generate an output. Climate scientists love telling us how much CO2 is going into the system but conveniently omit telling us how much is absorbed by the system to maintain the current equilibrium. Even the solutions proposed always seem to be aimed at reducing CO2 output and almost never about getting the Earth to absorb more CO2.
YOU are a climate MORON. Obviously your degree is in Hair Styling. "getting the Earth to absorb more co2" What the fuck? NO knowledge basis in chemistry or physics with your hair styling degree I guess? Why not volunteer your bedroom where you sleep? The dead air inside your head would "absorb more co2" and put the earth "back in equilibrium." You can't even take 10 minutes out of your busy conspiracy day and check out a NOAA or NASA webpage and fucking READ can you? (oh! I understand, that's all just propaganda and lies "to get funding" right?) MAGA-ON Dude!!
@@mrunning10its literally insane of you to think funding only affects those you are opposed to. Covid has demonstrated that science can be easily bought by politicians, and it will be decades before scientists will reclaim their credibility thanks to 'i am the science' liar Fauci and all the other lying scientists out for $$$$ and power.
And we've also seen a massive increase in disastrous weather events like flooding, wildfires and droughts, as well as global temperatures. He wasn't too prescient about that though, was he?
I believe he mentions transmission costs, not just generation costs. We can't just put solar where the fossil generation was. The infrastructure is expensive.
@@BryceLeeatgoogle Have you watched the video?There is a quite clear introduction on what levelized cost is.It is neither transmission nor generation cost, it is levelized cost which is well defined and needs no further clarification.So back to my comment.Find me a source that calculates the levelized cost of solar photovoltaic systems at 40 cents per kwh because from what I've found it is way way off.
@@stefanoskam the chart he showed was from 2010. In 2015 the cost for residential collection and storage (using a Tesla Powerwall) was much lower at $0.23). The argument for storage of an intermittently available resource is provocative, but I'm sure those costs have continued to fall since 2015 as well, but doubt battery costs are falling at the same rate as PVs
@@BryceLeeatgoogle Levelized cost includes storage cost, so let's just say levelized cost and not mix the definitions. The levelized cost of $0.40/kwh is terribly wrong for 2010 and I don't know where he got this from.$0.15/kwh is more accurate. In 2015, when the video was uploaded, we are talking about less than $0.08/kwh. Why are you referring to residential costs (which are higher) when the video is about state-wide implemedation of solar PV (utility scale systems)?You can't change categories as it suits you to play with prices.You can't use commercial and residential levelized costs when you are talking about a country's energy grid.Also what is your source for that $0.23/kwh cost for residential systems?It seems wrong too. Battery costs are indeed falling slower and storage is a huge and probably unsolvable problem for the near future. My original comment stands.The levelized cost he claims for solar pv is wrong. Source: Re-considering the Economics of Photovoltaic Power Morgan Baziliana,b, IjeomaOnyejia , Michael Liebreichc, Ian MacGilld, Jennifer Chasec, Jigar Shahe, Dolf Gielenf, Doug Arentg, Doug Landfearh, and Shi Zhengrong
@@stefanoskam love to see your sources. Since I'm not an expert I should be easy to convince, but until then I can't see a reason to not accept his numbers, given that this is an old video and the economics are evolving. At least he is an identifiable person, with credentials.
I can't believe I am seeing this video six years after it was uploaded. I blame it on RUclips algorithm against pushing honest information that doesn't support leftist ideology.
Yes it pretends to be factual
A lot has changed in that time. Renewably sources energy is becoming more abundant and cheaper with every passing year.
Also we have just had record global average daily temperatures, the highest since records began.
Great point
@@supercal333you seem to have missed his points regarding data. Cherry picked data to demonstrate a trend: hottest on record. If all data are included, we are not in the hottest ever. We are actually in a cool period. Please try to talk yourself out of your first choice. Ask yourself, what if my sources are corrupt? You may find that consensus is not science.
People with green hairs and nose rings decide what will we watch. That is not normal.
Watching this in 2023 it's astonishing how civil the discourse is. This would never happen now.
Because it's total BS then and now.
It’s not bullshit, but it fails to consider the implications of doing nothing forever because the math doesn’t identify an immediate high return. I guess humans can’t be satisfied with small improvement
the irony of your comment amuses me 😊
Because we are tired of the constant lies and deception, not to mention the vast hypocrisy of those pontificating over us. The time for PCness has ended, it's time to call out the liars publicly and tell the truth.
@@jaredpayot5280negligible change, even if you can possibly identify it as improvement.
We're talking about reverting to the stone age for all the billions of people on the planet to get less change in forecasts than the forecasts have statistical variability. Even IF the forecasts were right, which they're not.
And regarding actual improvements, we've BEEN improving. There's less emissions and better mileage NOW compared to when the automobile was first invented. Same with all CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use. Only place we haven't improved on CO2 emissions is by decreasing animal respiration, but environmentalists tend to frown on mass slaughter of animals, so...
Four years on and this truly honest man is even more right . This lecture should be compulsory in all schools and colleges.
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/19/republicans-favorite-climate-chart-has-some-serious-problems
That links should be compulsory. Also, Christy's mea culpas about the several math issues with his satellite data should be examples on why you should not puff out your chest when you think adding and subtracting are the same thing.
Truely honest? Wheredo you get that from? He is a criminal.
He is honest and good.
Already in 1966 the coal industry realised that it was causing global warming. But that was not a good truth so people in the indudtry has tried to hide it since and we are now at the point that the industry will pay anybody to stand up and not tell the truth. The situation is like when the tobacko industry claimed smoking is healthy.
@@scottekoontz Thank you for referencing an ultra-left wing rag with pathological levels of bias.
What’s scary is how few people are there for this key lecture.
And more, how FEW in audience did the homework necessary to ask the truly challenging questions of this self-described biased scientist hailing from overheated/exploited/toxic/obese Alabama .
Probably because they've got better things to do, like go to the bathroom
Dr. Christy is one of the very best climate experts on the planet. He's honest and a true scientist - which appears to be an endangered species these days.
And he was wrong about the planet cooling. It was warming.
@@scottekoontz Ohh really? Have you seen the latest 7 year data set from NOAA, it's a cooling trend of -0.10C per decade. BTW, skeptics don't make predictions, only alarmists do.
@@scottekoontz Where is you4 proof he has the data not you
@@georgedavidson1221 That troll named Scott Koontz can be ignored.
Carbon Footprint’ Was Coined by Big Oil to Blame You for Climate Change
Search it out
This does not have enough views. It is a well crafted and factual presentation, and should be spread to all.
Of course it doesn't. It's goes against the popular narrative, spread by media that is in all likelihood on the take from climate crisis pushing agencies. Let's not forget the brainwashed majority out there drinking these lies up!
Maybe the lack of views is because Americans know it's a scam, they know it's about shutting down the US economy and taking America of the most powerful nation list, they see that the Chinese and India aren't going to act till way in the future, yet by the both countries emissions will double by then.....
which is why they will make sure nobody ever sees it except for a small niche of us
Prof. Christy your work will not be in vain. Your honesty and ethics will never be forgotten.
AOC forgot it already
@@csabo1725 Therefore she requires reminder
Sorry but its dated BADLY.
I have looked at Professor Christy's Wikipedia page and read some of his more notable comments. There are some things I'd agree with and others I'd strongly disagree with. I agree that some of the panic clowns have done more harm than good but people like professor Christy are also doing harm as well.
I am an aerospace engineer and am trained in complex system analysis. I strongly dislike scientists and engineers who put statements on slides that are misleading. I especially hate things that take a science or engineering degree to understand why what's said is WRONG.
At 6:23 in this talk he has a slide up for seasonal weather in America and to the left is the statement: _"In science, a fundamental principle is that when you understand a system, you can predict its behavior."_ That's an incredibly MISLEADING statement because it can be both TRUE and FALSE depending on the system. In complex systems you can't predict what all the inputs are.
Its like the game plans for sport. Once the game starts things become less predictable because you can't predict what the other side will do. You can guess their likely behavior and what that might do.
With complex systems you can ESTIMATE BEHAVIOR but you cannot PREDICT and certainly not predict the details with 100% certainty. That slide is horribly misleading.
... oh so so terrifyingly HORRIBLE! My how you do fly of into outer space with your hyperbole! You turn a minor point into a nightmare! That's what really nuts people do. For the most part his statement on prediction of systems IS TRUE orher than your NIT PICKING special case of "really complex" systems, (which climate is). HE IS SAYING NO ONE CAN PREDICT CLIMATE, AT LEAST NOT TOTALLY ACCURATELY. That alone nullifies your entire pseudo scientific rant.
@@tonywilson4713 it's clear that you don't understand what understand means.
John says it ALL! …….and back in 2016 too. He’s a great teacher; clear, calm and logical. Love it 😊
I hope you're air conditioner is working this summer.
Yes, El Nino is very intense.@@supercal333
@@supercal333 ... it's been so cool in the summers lately here in PA. that all I ever use is a fan.
@@supercal333 Why? Those cause global warming. Stop causing the death of billions of people by turning on your AC.
Clear, calm, logical and lying...
I can't believe this video is from 7 years ago, yet so right about 2022-2023 Germany.
So did he predict the sweeping away of Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler?
Climate is this man's job. His evidence is available for review and discussion. His testimony FITS the data. It is not about making a compelling argument, it is about science.
A compelling argument *_IS_* science, and good science is based on facts and conclusions which can be tested.
& the MOST IMPORTANT NUMBER….the amount of MONEY$ the climate change ‘professionals’ receive for being climate change alarmists. THESE SCIENTISTS ONLY GET THEIR GRANT RENEWED IF THEY KEEP THE CLIMATE CHANGE NARRATIVE GOING!🤑
He knows it's a global scam but he can't say that because they will call him a conspiracy theorist. They tried to murder him a few years later at UAH.
@@RodMartinJrdebatable. people can also talk convincingly and come across as more knowledgeable than they really are. therefore also, 'compelling'.
@@aztekenen1 Many things are possible, but that does not make them logical, reasonable or right. Each claim of fact needs to be taken on its own merits. Generalities such as yours are hard to discuss because they offer no specifics with which to gauge them.
The basis of progress is one of logic and reason. Can some people fake it? Sure, but if you know logical fallacies, it's easier to see through the hype.
John Christy is a gem. Wonderful educator + ethical, delightful man.
Hes funded in part by Exxon Mobil American fuel and petrochemical manufacturers koch Industries.... What about that is ethical.
@@mustbtrouble You are making assumptions that are not true.
@@HaroldBrice there's no assumptions you can look this stuff up
@@mustbtroubleHis rebuttals to climate alarmists are on target. Alarmists show one graph, which would be the computer model, which is completely wrong.
Little known fact is that CO2 doesn't have a proportional increasing effect as a greenhouse gas. It's just about maxed out. That is stunning info I just found out.
@@mustbtrouble Okay I looked it up. There doesn't appear to be any association/funding with Exxon or koch. Show your proof. Better yet tell us what you can refute in the lecture above instead of casting bs ad hominess dispersion's.
Notice RUclips has to have their little blurb -I’m amazed this clip got through with their politically slanted anti-real science algorithm
Oh, there's an awful lot of this BS on RUclips, but thankfully most people are in the know so it's marginal
It is refreshing to see the predominantly respectful tone of the questions.
I stumbled on this video in Oct 2021. It is interesting that currently many countries have found that wind and solar are not cutting in right now. The UK, Germany and Australia are in the news all the time talking about it. I believe all three of those countries are now adding back more coal and natural gas electrical generation into their systems in order to balance base and peak load demands. California has recently approved 5 new natgas cogen facilities to be installed for the same reason. And then there is China and the huge number of coal generation being built there and that they are not going to COP26. The problem isn’t moving to a higher percentage of renewables in the world’s energy mix, it is the speed that Governments forced the change. I do think that the early adopters rushed into wind, solar and to a much smaller amount biomass for political virtue signalling reasons, not using a well thought out and achievable timeline to form their policies.
Here it is a year later, November 2022. Europe is in deep energy trouble after going so far to renewables and in Germany, relying on Putin and Russian gas is backfiring. Things are so bad Germany is currently removing windmills as they need to expand a coal mining operation! People went crazy this past summer when London had anomalous high temperatures for a few days, screaming climate change when it was nothing more than weather, at least at this point in time. COP 26 resulted in more infighting than inter-governmental agreement and right now COP 27 is underway with another echo chamber gab fest complete with the ubiquitous private jets littering the nearest airport. (Just like Davos). I was hoping that we would start to see a reasonable approach to a climate sustainable future but that’s not happening as alarmist arm waving is still the order of the day.
Wind and/or solar. Inadequate, ugly. Go nuclear except for my 55 Chevy.
They sold it with virtue signaling, but in essence it's just another gold rush. There's lots of government cheese in this.
@@catocall7323 Absolutely. Huge investments have been made in the green gold, and now they demand to see their returns. They are sending activists around in the streets to warn governments. After creating fake money with their financial tools, now they want us, normal citizens, to pay the bill. The inflation burst we had in the last year is another sign. They demand to monetize with our wealth: money deposits, houses, whatever we have.
They are asking governments to impose taxes to fund the "green transition", which means: we want your citizen's wealth.
@@catocall7323 Yes! You phrase it perfectly. Thanks for that. 🙂
It's basically what every seller does. Such a shame they (the govmnts) are selling us this amount of costly, inadequate and in the end highly polluting crap. But it will fill their pockets greatly... 😕
Isn't it amazing how a little observation and common sense can bring real understanding to a situation
Those words don't buy votes however. You need fear and panic to bring people in to blindly vote for economic policies that create a new generation of peasents.
Yes agree, common-sense should prevail. Climate change reminds of ants. One ant will for no reason commence on a circular path laying down pheromones as proceeds endlessly around. Other ants join in and before you know there is whole colony of going round and round till they all die. This is because an ant has no vision just the scent trail laid down by a colleague. Well with climate change it is exactly the same. Every scientist is too shit scared to challenge the narrative. They may not get funding, get published or colleagues deride them. Dr John is correct go by the observations and if the predictions are different from the observation then Houston we have a problem.
Canada is one such country that is finding out how extraordinarily expensive climate policy is. The cost of living is going through the roof and for what benefit?
And you're blaming "the cost of living" on those de-carbonizing Canadian Policies? Really? Please fucking EXPLAIN that logic.
@@mrunning10carbon tax.. is partly to blame. The rest is due to inflation from doubling the national debt and the libtards unrestrained immigration policy causing huge supply/demand issues in the economy.
Nicely presented and well said. Thank you Prof. Christy.
Fascinating presentation. I am in the field of science and believe science is 100% data and analyzing them in true unbiased way is the only truth seeking.
Then Christy is not the place to start.
@@drkstrong yes, you should start with Algore, the idiot. Who Photoshop the satellite picture of earth from NASA and have no clue which direction Hurricane rotates. Christy's data is used by NASA and all over the world. And you could analyze IPCC data correctly and you will get the opposite results of the so-called politically compromised scientists. In fact Christy's data is much better since it collects Balloons from the troposphere and satellite data. That is much more accurate than the surface thermometer data with tremendous bias from surface structures around.
You're not a scientist. Why you lying?
I agree with everything you said. I'm 74 yrs old so I've been around a while and what I've seen is it's not getting hotter than it was back in 1950s
I'm just a little younger than you. Where I live snow would be a foot deep by mid September and last until mid April. That was the sixties.
Winter is getting shorter. Green Christmases are normal now. Snow gone by mid-march.
I sold my snowmobile over a decade ago. The gradual reduction in snow got to the point that there wasn't enough snow to use it more than a few weeks.
The climate has been warming gradually for at least 6 decades of my life.
@@Whiskey.T.Foxtrotwell we are at the end of an ice age. It makes sense that the earth is getting warmer
@@Joe-nz5ql Well that's just oostrich thinking. Humans have managed to burn , and therefore release, millions of years of accumulated carbon in just one century.
At this point only a complete bithering, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing troglodyte would claim this is a natural thing
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
COULD BE THE BEST LECTURE I HAVE HEARD ON THE NET!! THANKS FOR CARING ABOUT THE TRUTH, PEOPLE, AND REAL SCIENCE!! I WILL PASS THIS VID ON TO MY FRIENDS....BUT THE ENLIGHTENED LIBS WILL NOT WATCH IT ANYWAY.....YOU ARE THE MAN!! FANTASTIC...
BRIAN ROGERS ALL CAPS EH? Brainwashed all caps typing imbecile can't see a lying shill when it's right in front of you. It's not hard to do your own research into the ACTUAL facts and see that this is all lies. It's sad that idiots like this guy are muddying the data and making it more difficult for our species to take the necessary precautions to avoid a climate disaster. Instead of saying " I told you so" I will say "fuck you traitor to humanity!"
@@blackestjake look in a mirror
Michael Pryor: Yes, very correct and super easy to follow. Only the mentally deranged would argue.
I don't think your friends will care much about your scientific opinions when you can't figure how to use the caps lock.
Thank you Mr. J. Christy the year now is 2023 June 25
why the fuck do you think then you still are able to watch this crap?
Yes, and the real scientists are predicting this year will be the hottest so far on record. Let's see if they're right, shall we?
Models do NOT produce "data". They produce conclusions. IF the model is designed to support a particular conclusion.....you get it
Hence we conclude things like:
"All computers will fail in the year 2000."
"Life assembled itself from primordial soup."
"Fossils are made over millions of years."
"Covid-19 will kill 2 million people in the first wave."
"Biden, most popular president in history."
"Dinosaur bones are millions of years old."
"Carbon dioxide is a pollutant that will end the world."
"Oil spills and consumer plastic will end all ocean life."
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU FROM FRANCE
Yes! A model is nothing more than another format to present a theory, or a prediction to a theory. Sadly, they are misused and presented as crystal balls...and people therefore see them as such. People are weird
Imo depends on how you define "data". If you put numbers into a random algorithm, you get numbers out, and those numbers definitely constitute "data", even if it's completely useless and doesn't predict anything.
If you only narrowly define data as "useful data that correctly predicts reality", then of course models don't produce data.
@@michaelsorensen7567 GIG O the algorithms within a model are based onthe assumptions of the people who coded the model. One might call the output "data" but those data are the conclusion of running the model. Useless data that don't reflect data are of course, by definition, useless.
People leading media massively lack the minimum capabilities to understand the simplest of the graphs. No hope for them to realize how deep and simple are professor John Christy explanations. I have a sad feeling on that.
"Simple" is correct. Or more like "simpleton." He speaks science and math HORSESHIT continuously.
"global temperatures change more than that day by day" THAT is called "weather" Dr. Christy, that is HORSESHIT "science" Weather is not CLIMATE you lying moron.
You CAN detect and "attribute" 3 / 100s change over "100 years" it is called the fucking SCIENCE of the MATH of fucking AVERAGING you lying moron. This is the global AVERAGE temperature CHANGING over long time scale you LIAR.
ANYONE who listens and takes Dr. Christy seriously is an ignorant human being barely able to know where to take a dump in the proper place.
Dr. John Christy is a HORSESHIT LIAR.
Hey Google! Take your "context" and do something positive with it for a change. Throw it in the trash...
I don't trust the UN to be none political.
As your fossil fuel paid-for Congressmen go right on keeping the oil and gas and coal coming in.
Wake UP.
Dont trust christy either.
Considering the UN comprises all countries on the planet, it's likely to be more objective than any single government.
I have done much work in Kenya, developing groundwater resources for villages in the Rift Valley and other areas well outside of the major cities of Nairobi, Mombasa, and Eldoret. I realized very quickly during my first long-term period of work in the Rift Valley that the lack of access to energy resources we take for granted in the West is THE major factor that affects the quality of life for a most Kenyans. The average Kenyan would love nothing more than to have half the energy-driven conveniences that we enjoy. Life in the Kenyan bush is harsh. Kenyans who live there would laugh in the face of any westerner who preaches the Green New Deal gospel peddled by clueless American environmentalists and politicians.
John Christy deals with reality. He uses graphs and numbers to support his points...What can we take away from this lecture to think about tomorrow? The most important thing is that the governments of countries that have huge numbers of poverty stricken people will do what they have to do to help their people. They want access to continuous, economical and reliable energy and wind mills and solar panels do not meet that definition. As Christy says, economical energy saves lives. Wasting huge money on wind and solar energy will ultimately cost lives.
They Kill
If you want cheap energy - note that wind and solar are now the cheapest energy sources.
@@drkstrongWith the huge amount of them needed, and the reticulation costs, together with intermittency and low energy density, you just can't be serious.
@@geoffreyparker926 With the huge amount of coal needed to be mined, transported, processed, burned and the ashes disposed of, you cant be serious.
Check the figures, they are readily available,
@@drkstrong It's cheap, and they are all failing in Wind and Solar, a fools quest when you need reliable base load power for a civilisation. Check it out.
My brother worked for Deutsche Aerospace back in 1993, and the engineers there with him pronounced Wind and Solar a failure in Germany right back then. You are forgetting the huge government subsidies for W & S, and the huge penalties for Coal and Gas, and that is what makes them look cost effective. The infrastructure is huge, copper wire costs a fortune, and the maintenance costs are huge, when compared with a coal fired power station, which will last for fifty years, with a much simplified grid for load balancing. I respectfully disagree. There are good reasons why wind power was abandoned for ships, and solar power has never been a serious option. The energy density of both is far too low, and a limiting factor on both. And battery technology for 100% wind and solar is a pipe dream: you'll never power a big city on that as backup. How come no country has found they can't provide cheap electricity using coal, as it's been done for 100 years with electricity costing 8c per kilowatt hour in Australia back when I was a kid, and cleaning up ash and mining coal was never an issue to push up those costs back in the 1950s and 1960s. Germans are now unable to afford their electricity, and people in Europe are cutting up trees and buying coal to heat their homes. Check out the situation there. AGW Climate Change is the biggest politically motivated fraud ever played out on the Human Race in our increasingly dysfunctional Western World. There will be a reckoning for Science in allowing this fiasco to occur, without scientists calling it out for the nonsense it is. Trillions have been wasted on a Quixotic, muddle-headed quest against a mistaken danger. I took a bet against two of my scientist friends that they were wrong in telling me back on January 12 2015, that all life on Earth would be extinguished by 2025. I thought they were joking, but they were serious! They will be sharing the cost of a five course meal for me at the restaurant of my choice on 12 January 2025, getting closer by the day. I have not noticed any discernible change in the climate over these past years, and I plan to order a very expensive meal to teach them a lesson!
Absolutely amazing and eye-opening! Thank you so much
It only confirms how corrupt governments are just what my gut was telling me,when I doubt trust your gut,covid,climate change,transgender,wars etc.&more, there will be more crap you can count on it.
Thank heaven for honest people with the courage to speak out.
Some courage when you're on the FF payroll
His brilliant.
Science is organized knowledge, wisdom organize life.
Mr Christy has it all,I would certainly like to forward him the article on climatic changes written in the early 80's,certain he would be able to analyze.
What paper's that?
It is so refreshing to hear the truth from someone who has the credentials to speak truth.
Interesting how the students or younger scientists predominantly try to question his science and how he confidently / calmly answers their questions.
Dr. John Christy believes God gave us the oil so there is no way our use of it can do any harm.
Fundamentalist Nutjob.
]
I am an Engineer who has lived and worked in most of the places Prof. Christy speaks about. He is Impeccable in his evaluations. He obviously paid attention to his experience.
Obviously not impeccable going by this
Life survived all throughout the climate history of this earth, this is true.
Modern human civilization will not survive the chaos of the climate we are creating, this is also true.
UAH is a great school, proud of the client work they have completed.
Yeah, regular Ivy League LMAO
It is about money and political control..
🎯👈
This guy gets funded by Exxon
Proof?
@@mustbtrouble
👏 sharing this AGAIN with the crazy, global warming alarmist friends of mine!
Viel Spaß mit den kommenden klimatischen Veränderungen. Ihr habt es euch redlich verdient!
What was great here was that all the students were actually interested in the questions and responses.
Yes, students tend to be young and highly impressionable
God bless Professor Christy.
Love how he had to backtrack all of his claims on a non-warming earth once he got his math correct.
@@scottekoontz LIAR!
@@scottekoontz Oops! You are making a claim based on lies. Dr. Christy never claimed Earth wasn't warming. And if you had actually watched the video, you would know this; his data shows a very slight degree of warming. His data with Dr. Roy Spencer (on Spencer's website) shows a warming trend continuing right through to today. Backtrack? You are the one who needs to backtrack!
God doesn't exist
Share this video with everyone who believes in climate change.
It will make them laugh.
@@drkstrong yeah, they're pretty thick.
@@nedwalport4426 No, well educated.
Excellent video. This should be shared in schools.
Dr. John has some good judgement and experience-well worth listening to👍
Not in climate science he doesn't
its a shame this only has 8900 views
NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN what does the data show?
NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN The data has been wrong. Reported on many credible sources including NYT, BBC.
wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/claim-data-does-not-prove-that-climate-models-are-wrong/
I know scientists who works at Australia's CSIRO - they know that this ACGW is an utter hoax - but they can't say anything because they will lose their position and/or lose their government funding. Sad. It's actually getting cooler.
Susan Webster. It is far more likely you are a liar than it is "actually getting cooler". The arctic ice anomaly this winter has ominous signs of extinction for humans n 9 years, but we don't care about that. What we want is civilization we have known for a couple hundred years. You are more likely a person who can't handle the situation & will deny it as if your life depended on it.
Very interesting, the crap he talks....
This guy's whole point is if all of your experiments and models don't line up with clear observable data, your experiments and models are either lacking data or are populated with erroneous data. What should drive this point home for people is something he pointed out. All of the predictions are higher than the observable data. None are lower. This indicates either there are unseen forces keeping the temps down or the effects of some variable are exaggerated. Either way, no conclusions are possible, other than, they got it wrong.
If the models can't predict the outcome then they are no good! The scaremongering scientists should learn more before they put any faith in these models (which give no value to water vapor - the biggest greenhouse gas of them all and a huge factor in determining the albedo of the atmosphere). But, of course, these "hockey stick" believers really aren't interested in the truth. They have an ugly political agenda to drive forward and, unfortunately, they have won that battle to date. As a freedom-loving taxpayer I seeth with anger when I think about the thievery of "carbon" taxes we have to now pay. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is NOT a pollutant and is completely necessary for all plant life (including plankton in the ocean) to survive on our planet. Shame all you alarmist bastards!
Christy is carefully choosing the data to compare the models to, namely upper atmosphere and satellite data, not on-the ground temperatures. If you consider the latter, then your will find that the climate models do a reasonable job of prediction. Whether you believe climate models or not, the observed trends are undeniable: global average land temperatures are increasing; ocean temperature is increasing. glaciers are collapsing; ice sheets are metling--e.g. Greenland is losing hundreds of gigatons of ice every year; the thickness of the polar ice cap has declined 40%; permafrost is melting; heat waves are more common; extreme cold is less common; the list goes on and on.
The linkage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and Earth's temperature was not well-understood 20 years ago. It is now. Carbon dioxide has exerted a powerful influence on climate in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
Christy is right to point out that the burning of fossil fuels has led to the improvement of our standard of living in the West, and is doing so now in India and China and elsewhere. No one disputes that. This country was built on the backs of coal miners. But the unfortunate side-effect is that burning fossil fuels releases CO2, which is wreaking havoc with the Earth's energy balance. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels also causes a host of respiratory illnesses, occupational deaths (think coal mining accidents, for example), environmental disasters (e.g. oil spills, strip mining, etc.) and cancer deaths. These are facts that Christy ignores. Solar and wind and other renewable energy sources offer a way out of this mess. Why does he dismiss them? Contrary to his claims, Germany and other EU countries (Denmark, the U.K, Netherlands) have embraced renewable energy and are doing very nicely.
@@donaldhughes6310, bullshit!
Total garbage. The climate is not sensitive enough to Co2 to explain atmospheric changes. If it was there would have been impossibly high (for life) average temps and runaway climate get change. The fact is you’re arguing that 0.018% extra Co2 is changing the climate. It’s preposterous.
er so: The obvious factor in the modeling over predicting is the human. It is not just the Ouiji factor, it is undisciplined bias.
A great book to read by an honest gentleman trying to understand the climate narrative as presented today is Alan Longhurst's book, "Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science." Alan is an author of over 80 papers and an Oceanographer. He is the former head of the Bedford Institute on Oceanography. He wrote the book 10 years ago with an update in 2023. Remarkably, Alan is 98 years old in 2023. The title of his book comes from a book written in 1953 with almost the same name. Alan added the word "Climate" in his title. He points out many aspects of using consensus science to establish a fortress of opinion. He resents the lack of natural skeptical science needed to create a debate worthy of Science itself. Furthermore, Alan also expresses real doubt about peer-reviewed papers. This book is a must-read for those who have an interest in science and how it should be carried out. A somewhat difficult read but can be managed by someone with little knowledge. Longhurst presents his opinions based on years of knowledge.
If you don't get papers peer-reviewed, they don't have any validity. The whole point of peer-reviewing is to assess validity - it's the whole basis of modern science. He probably resents peer review because his own papers were ripped apart academically.
So very well explained Sir. Thank you. Excellent presentation.
John is such a top quality guy.
HORSESHIT. And a HORSESHIT LIAR. And as well he believes God gave man the oil so it's OK to use it. HORSESHIT = Dr. John Christy.
Oh I like this man already Numbers are beautiful. We can depend on numbers. A calculation is the same 2000 years ago, and will be the same in 2000 years time. Numbers negate the reasoning of opinion, other than considered opinion gathered from experimentation.
Statistics are like bikinis: what they show is suggestive, what they hide is vital
The most interestingly curious piece of all of this to me when looking at the 102 CMIP-5, the drops in temps between 1982-1987 and 1992-1997 seem rather significant. Both the predicted and observed show it so it's not something to debate really but the magnitude of the effect is rather impressive.
When you step back and look at the tiny plateau of warmth in a sea of cold called the current Ice Age, you might notice the gigantic mountains of warmth behind us -- as much as +20C warmer for millions of years, with CO2 levels as much as 4000 ppm (10x today's) and no runaway warming. Life thrived from equator to poles. And Warming Alarmists are afraid of life?
We live in an Ice Age and the UN wants to cool down the planet. The Holocene has already shown signs of shutting down 3,000 years ago. This "modern" warm period may well be the last of 10 warm periods in the Holocene before the next glacial period starts. And glacial periods are deadly. I'd rather see the Ice Age end and get on with warming all the way to the poles. Disruption? Sure! Change always disrupts, but you can't stop change. Hope for change in the right direction -- toward warmth and life (not ice and death).
yep....it's easier to fool the people that to convince them they have been fooled.
@@RodMartinJrExcellent points, Rod. When disruptions occur, man has shown the ability to adapt. If Obama's waterfront property gets flooded, he'll move to higher ground, maybe in tropical Alberta or Saskatchewan.
@@bearowen5480 I suspect it'll be a few million years before central Canada is tropical again. We may already be headed for the next glacial period of the current Ice Age. At least the cooling trend of the last 3,000 years suggests this. If CO2 were the control knob of temperature (and it isn't), it would still take thousands of years to melt all of the polar ice. Working against this is the fact that as Earth leaves its current Ice Age, warmer weather would mean more evaporation from the tropics and more snow at the poles, slowing down the melting process. I can't see Greenland melting any faster than 10,000 years, and Antarctica any sooner than 100,000 years. But, again, that's assuming the Ice Age were to start shutting down now, and I don't see any evidence of that.
Even if all the ice were to melt by next Tuesday, Obama would have to move, but Al Gore would still be about 300 feet above sea level in his West Coast mansion.
Sorry, you're talking about Milankovitch Cycles, and we're not due an ice age for another 25,000 years or so. That said, melting ice at the poles caused by global warming is now affecting the direction of the Gulf Stream. A recent report in Nature estimates this has the potential to cause an ice age in Europe in around 2050, give or take. That's within our lifetime.@@RodMartinJr
The two teachers I have spoken to about AGW, both said they judge their students based on their faith in AGW.
I know, only a sample of two, but I think it is common to be a liberal first and teacher second.
It's nothing got to do with being 'liberal'. It's about understanding the facts and the science.
@@timothyrussell4445 I cannot prove causation, but the correlation is so strong, I think it has SOMETHING to do with it.
I'm not sure what you mean by correlation, but there is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming. This was first established 150 years ago@@tnekkc
@@timothyrussell4445 Up to 25ppm, CO2 is important
Reminds me of my geology professor. The liberal kids fresh out of high school used to try to argue with him, an actual scientist with years of field work in climatology and vulcanology.
What about the 100's of climate scientists who disagree with Christy who are actual scientists with years of field work in climatology?
so the fuck what? how about the fucking CARBON YOU emit all your life numbnuts?
Yes, often people who are wrong try to hide behind their 'expertise', hence the need for peer review
The man is brilliant, a true scientist
Who's bankrolling him?
Excellent explanations ! thanks
MAGA-ON Dude!
Dr. John Christy is a PAID liar for the fossil fuel industry, just keep those revenues pumping into our back accounts Boys! (with the help of the US Congress)
Christy is a data-driven, climate scientist. Too bad there are so few of them
And now the whole world is listening to a 17 year old kid who flunks school.
Grumbling Greta, the expert on climate change. LOL@@lewisner
@leelarue1354 I had a reply on a 9/11 video from someone using her name. Seemed as dumb as the real Greta.
@@lewisner If you are talking about Greta - she passed her exams with highest grades and speaks 5 languages fluently. How do you compare?
@@drkstronglol she passed some school tests that's great.
Quick question, as the Earth warms as we are coming out of an ice age which ended around 1880, what’s the “normal” rate of change of warning as we come out of an ice age?…
The fucking ice age ended around 1880? You work for an Oil Lobby perhaps???
Just spread the mis-information = denial
All we can do is compare to the previous 5 interglacial periods of the past 500k yeats. So far, temperatures are still lower than previous...so natural warming seems possible and tirally normal.
Um, your question makes no sense.
The last ice age ended about 20,000 years ago.
On your second question.. we don't have enough specific data to know 'normal' warming rates. That requires detailed and widespread collection of temperature data.. and we just don't have that prior to about 200 years ago. So the answer to that question is impossible to determine and will be for all time (unless someone invents time travel).
@@rbarnes4076sooo...as far as we can be certain, what we are experiencing is completely normal warming....
@rbarnes4076 we are in an inter-glacial. Still polar ice pack. Even so, climate has been warmer and colder (than it is now) over the past 12,000 years.
How fortunate are these small group of students to have a prestigious climate scientist address them with an open and intimate time limit..
Dr. John Christy is NOT a "climate scientist" and his hosts of conspiracy deniers is drying up. Ask Dr. John Christy to post his last 20 years of income tax returns and then FOLLOW the fucking MONEY straight from the fossil fuel industry.
Wake UP and try to get a fucking CLUE.
The group is small for a reason
¡Bravo! Magnífico video. ¡Lástima que haya tardado siete años en descubrirlo! Nunca es tarde si la dicha es buena. Thanks Dr Cristy! Well done!
HORSESHIT. LIAR. He puts up charts that SHOW the Earth is warming and then says "don't worry." It's a test of our stupidity (and YOURS)
Have the data used in this talk been updated for the past 6 years? It would be good to see.
Still no catastrophic rise in temperature. Maybe even a slight decrease as the present solar minimum kicks in.
Have a look at Tony Heller on RUclips. He has lots of information confirming what is said here.
I'm sure they've been updated, not sure where to find it
Yes, it's been proven completely wrong
@@timothyrussell4445 we have a believer
whenever you have the issue of people repeating things that they hear without doing thier own research to verify those claims--which is what happens in politics--youre going to have people putting thier own bs spin on things they think they have the gist; when in reality, they have no clue about whats going on. Politicians and politics are a problem in a great many things. Why would this be any different?
Jbs1983: Not sure what you are saying................................................................................................................
@@HaroldBrice
The point is simple. Once a subject becomes the focus of politics, bad information is guaranteed to be provided. It is the nature of politics to use lies to create a desire in the citizens to 'fix the issue' (trying to create a need for a given politician to be re-elected to help 'fix the issue'), even if from an expert's point of view there is no known solution.
Undisputable data great presentation about time governments took notice.
They might take notice if the data was coming from a reliable source and not some charlatan quack.
Dr. Christy's presentation and the data reinforces my belief and scientific logic. I know there are other climate and environmental experts all agree with this. However, it is difficult to ignore the 'political correctness' entirely unless you are Trump. We need to enlighten each other with the truth, evidence, and science with critical thinking and deemphasizing political correctness.
Political correctness isn't hard to ignore at all.
If you need to append a word you immediately change its definition. So appending the word correct with anything means that it's not correct.
Shove the politics and stick to what's real. It's really not that hard
And protect your children, or there will be no one worth having a future for.
The ladies first question was related to Climate before Satelite Measurements first went online in 1976. But during that time, (early 60s at least to the Mid 1970s), the Earth's Climate was cooling. And the so-called Climate Scientists were fear mongering us about Global Cooling, -the coming Ice Age. And the fear that all of our crops would freeze (food insecurity was a major issue).
Ya! I remember when I was a kid. The a new ice age and killer bees were coming. LOL
We all died in the year 2000, didn't we? which in the 1970s was the time at which the "the science is settled" experts were telling us we would all be frozen to death unless we paid higher taxes.
@@Qkano - We all died in the year 2000 literally and figuratively and people simply don't know it or understand why that's true. That was the year the Globalist Usury International Central Bankers initiated World War III on humanity in most countries (Western Nations) without a shot being fired. Many things were done in 2000 (and the late 1990s) which were hugely detrimental to mankind (not going to elucidate all of them).
Then they literally executed 9/11 and the wars in the Middle East. When Bill Clinton left Office (due to Reagan and not because Clinton was a "good" President) we had a National Surplus. After these Wars were over and also due to their Engineered Great Recessions and Plandemics, merely 20 years later, our National Debt was $30+ Trillion (and total debt and unfunded liabilities somewhere closer to $140+ Trillion with every household responsible for close to $1,000,000 of it).
'
So it could definitely and reasonably be argued that the main reason for 9/11 and the wars was to indebt our nation and citizens to the Zionist International Central Bankers, and to Destroy the Middle Class, Working Class, and poor, cause the death of around 12 Million people in total in their Eugenicist ways, and usher in a system (almost exclusively under authoritarian Democrat/ Leftist/ Liberal rule) presumably justified by the completely unscientific farce of AGW, Climate Change, and the therefore presumably necessitated "U.N. Agenda 21/ 2030 and so-called un "Sustainable Development" in order to Create Artificial Scarcity, Under the Guise of Environmental Necessity.
This war and attack on humanity has only ramped up exponentially during this time, and especially in the last 2 to 5 years. We are being attacked from a 1000 different angles/ ways and the vast majority of people don't even know it -- and believe it's just "market forces" of a supposedly failed system of Free Enterprise called "Capitalism". Nothing could be further from the truth though and they are brainwashed into believing this propaganda, because we haven't had anything remotely near Free Market Capitalism for several generations.
yes, Al Gore assured us we were doomed by 2010. It is now 2023 and we are still here.@@Qkano
@@leelarue1354
According to the offical Democratic party policy, we will all be dead in under 6 years from n ow. The "Green New Deal" they affirmed 100% was for 12 years time "unless we stopped using fossil fuels now" and in fact work fossil fuel usage has continued to rise.
So I'm guessing everything will stay the same till the day before then the world will be engulfed in a ball of flame.
Either that or they were lying bullcrappers.
Eye opening thank you!
Conceptually you could argue that increasing CO2 means you'll trap more of the heat in the planet, but I have a counter to that. If you increase CO2 then you also increase plants capacity to grow and put off more O2. The ozone is made out of O2 and this blocks a number of the rays from the sun. If you increase the capacity to trap heat on the planet with CO2, you end up also increasing the capacity to repel incoming heat from the sun by having a higher concentration of O2 from the plants being improved. In other words, the temperature will not change in a manner not conducive with life.
OOh charts! I like charts! I especially like Al Gore's hockey stick. It makes it all so official. "What science is' is not a murky issue. People like Al Gore make it murky. right off the bat. It's a search for verifiable facts. Theories supported by provable facts and repeatable experiments. Not murky at all.
So you're saying there are NO "provable facts and repeatable experiments?" None??
@@mrunning10 No, I'm saying I haven't seen any. Because you know, (I think you know) the scientific method requires it. Otherwise you just have data and a consensus of opinions. And if its consensus it isn't science yet. Please, point to some. I've been looking for decades.
Nice and clear presentation Mr Christy
HORSESHIT. Christy was told by God to present these LIES. HORSESHIT science, HORSESHIT graphs comparing apples and oranges and knowing people never look at the sources and never question him
A LIAR.
Pity most of it was untrue (see my earlier comment)
Yes, clearly misleading
What is the effect of planned obsolescence on CO2 production? Since durable consumer trash eventually falls apart what happens to the depreciation? Ask an economist?
1142 the graph shows an increase of 0C to 1.2C. This is 273.2Kelvin to 274.4K, 0.4%. If the graph were shown in true scale, the increase would not be visible.
Perfect presentation. Fantastic
Nevermind about 2014 having set the all-time record for sea ice coverage. I saw a photo of a polar bear hugging a tiny ice berg. QED. 😂
Now they are trying to attack Antarctica (my hemisphere) as proof of their BS because the North Pole just won't play ball.
Oh yes, and everyone knows that those poor bears can't swim. Heh heh
2014 was about average in sea ice coverage - 19th highest out 35 years.
@drkstrong "Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Levels" if you want to believe this report from NASA, September 2014
@@johndodson8464 A report written in 2014 does not contain information about 2023. Look at the current figures, not ones that are 9 years out of date.
Flooding around major rivers accross the country is due to the lack of dredging brought about by EPA mandates.
This is particularly true in the case of New Orleans, most of which is below the level of the Mississippi.
I lved in CA for 24 years. The cycle of drought and flooding is predictably based on sun spot cycles.
But CA and Federal Environmental agencies put a moritorium on dredging the Sacramento River which has resulted in flooding that gets wirse every 10 to11 years
Well. We always need MORE evidence of bad things happening which can be blamed on climate change, even if they have to be manufactured by government neglect.
I lived in California too, and its droughts and floods have zero to do with sunspot cycles or solar activity (I happen to be a solar physicist).
Heh, heh!
Droughts and floods used to promote hate and fear are about POLITICAL cycles, not sunspot cycles!
So worldwide flooding events are all caused by the EPA then?
But according to those in power, the science is settled, so there is no use in discussing it further. Accept what they tell you without question. Where has this video been? It's amazing how we are being lied to , and we go along with it.
But the “science is settled”, but keep giving us more research money to study what we already know for sure.
Good point!
Our models are far from perfect because climate and weather are chaotic systems. What we can predict is the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and the relentless increase in global temperatures. The better our understanding, the more effective our planning can be, and the more measures we can put in place to prevent or delay catastrophe. The more people listen to nonsense like this, the harder politically this endeavour becomes.
@@timothyrussell4445 there have been fewer extreme weather events than early 20th century not more. I understand that weather modeling is difficult, inaccurate and chaotic which is my point. Until they are accurate, we should not put much weight into them, nor be dishing out massive amounts of money for inaccurate predictions.
"there is carbon everywhere" All life on Earth is carbon based. Carbon is by no means a bad thing....
Carbon is not CO2
I agree with Dr. Christy, I'd also like to make a deeper dive into it. Can anyone find the court transcript, docket number or case number? I've looked but I can't find anything to do with SessionsIII and AB 1493....
Stop being a fucking moron. HERE: Firmament: The Hidden Science of Weather, Climate Change and the Air That Surrounds Us (-) Paperback - May 9, 2023
READ science NOT politics. Dr. Christy puts up charts that SHOW the Earth is warming and then says "don't worry." It's a test of our stupidity (and YOURS)
If we do NOTHING we may DIE.
If we FIX this we live.
Why the fuck would anyone, but ignoramuses and lunatics, pick the first??
Could John Christy please extend this presentation up to the present time?
Nope, he's been caught lying. Gee, ever THINK (try it!) WHY we still see this vid?
@@mrunning10amazing. And yet, I can find zero evidence to support your claim. I bet you're a manmade catastrophic climate change acolyte, too.
Used to baseless claims, aren't you.
top lecture
If green house gases raise temperature then the dinosaurs must have really liked the heat. The CO2 levals were 10 times higher back then. Also I would guess that humans fart more methane than cows.
Depends on the diets of each, I'm sure
It was hotter then and our society could not have existed as we now know it.
And factually humans do not fart more methane than cows.
Get a refund on your education.
@@Moleena 1. How would I know what? That our society would be ruined by every coastal area being inundated and the desertification of inland areas? We’d be limited to a small coastal range which would be grossly inadequate for the food needs. We know this because this was how the world was at the time mentioned.
2. Why on earth do you think I want humanity extinct? What a bizarre claim.
When CO2 was 10 time higher, most life was simple animals that lived at the bottom of the sea well away from the CO2.
@@drkstrongno lol. Estimates are that co2 levels during the dinosaur age were actually around 20 times higher than today. That’s why plant life was ginormous during that age.
Dr. Christy is listed as a "Roundtable Speaker" for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank [Source: DeSmogBlog]...
Ok, so you agree with him that climate policy is a political issue. Thanks for proving his point.
I second that remark. John is one of the better spokesmen on this issue.
Love this video
You work for the Koch Brothers perhaps? You even KNOW who the fuck Dr. John Christy is? Wake the fuck UP.
Carbon emissions per country: China: 29.18%, USA: 14.02%, Inda: 7.09%, Japan: 3.47%...
Science is numbers.
You can see the date of this post. He's still spot on.
Additional CO2 is pumped into greenhouses op to 3X atmospheric, to increase production.
And cutting atmospheric CO2 in half is bordering on mass plant suffocation
In a greenhouse the farmer controls the CO2 level, the temperature, the light, the soil moisture level .... hat does not happen in th ewild.
@@drkstrong point remains that plants grow better with more co2
@@michaelsorensen7567 Even that is not true, after a certain point increasing CO2 makes no difference. Also over time plants adapt and take in less CO2 so they return to their original size because that's what Nature designed them to be so they can support their own weight against winds and heavy rain.
See ruclips.net/video/Ve-lDmw9V4g/видео.html - lots of myths busted there.
@@drkstrong The earth has added 15 - 20% more green and crop yields (food) are increasing thanks to CO2 emissions. This has held ambient CO2 at 420 ppm for the last 15 years.
The most disheartening thing from this presentation is the abundance of brainwashed kids in the audience. They are really ignorant yet convinced they know what's going on on a scientific matter that is perhaps the most complex we have in our hands. I even noticed some of them leaving the Q&A right after they expressed their disbelief towards Dr. Christy (ok, perhaps they had other reasons to leave but still, makes me wonder if they had any).
C_R_O_M: Ah, yes. Youth is wasted on the young. Better they experience this presentation than not.
I noticed the same things. They are so emotionally brain washed that despite their obvious intellect, they struggle to accept the facts presented. One even called it “the problem we have caused” after he just showed statistically no real increase in rate of change commensurate with increase in CO2 production.
Does current temperature data continue to support the use of fossil fuels? This lecture is very convincing, but it needs to be updated to include the 7 years that have passed.
YOU got to be kidding right? Or, you a "bot" from an oil lobby?
If only John could give this lecture to the Oxford Union (UK).
Follow the money…. Climate Change is 90% political, 10% science
The "money" would be on side of denying climate change. not creating a mass movement away from established energy markets and consumer habits.
@@mustbtrouble What is the alternative to the established energy market?. It appears energy corporations are becoming more profitable, not less.
@@jamemswright3044 they are because they're raising prices. Shifting away from that established energy Market would mean massive investments in new technologies and buying up the current smaller companies which make up green energy producers. Oil companies have already sort of started to do this but as long as there is no cap on carbon emissions or attempt to regulate oil consumption they will milk fossil fuel for every last dime until it's gone from the Earth. The informed public would be the greatest enemies because that would generate concern and action to address climate change now ,rather than the do nothing approach in the face of skepticism from so many people
Follow the money to EXON's front door.
phenomenal talk. and some question are a nice display of stereotypes.
He's a stereotypical climate change denier
There is a simple solution to the political and economic questions.
If you want action on climate change, you pay for it!
If we could solve the issue at Zero cost, no 0ne would oppose action. It is the fact that the cost is significant that causes dispute.
This contention can be removed by the proponents picking up the bill. Their reluctance to do this shows their real motivations - to farm the incomes of others.
Brilliant.....
Wow, this has got to be a record for logical fallacies per minute.
Yes, make this compulsory viewing material in a critical thinking class so students can learn to spot logical fallacies, rhetorical tricks, and disinformation carefully designed to convince people that something they desperately want to believe is valid. So many learning opportunities to unpack here, I lost count 2 minutes in.
Thanks for providing so many specific examples to back up your claims.
Believe nothing he says, he believes God gave Man the Oil so it's OK to use it and nothing bad can happen. That's it. In the meantime Congress and "institutes" (paid for by fossil fuel funding or indirect PACs) pay for him to give these HORSESHIT talks to convince the public to continue to VOTE for politicians that keep their insane TRILLIONS in revenues flowing into their bank accounts
All clear??
Dr. John Christy = HORSESHIT
@@daveisbrill
Well said! At last some sanity in the comments section!
all in all not a bad lecture at all
The Earth's climate is in equilibrium, for every system in equilibrium having an input must generate an output. Climate scientists love telling us how much CO2 is going into the system but conveniently omit telling us how much is absorbed by the system to maintain the current equilibrium. Even the solutions proposed always seem to be aimed at reducing CO2 output and almost never about getting the Earth to absorb more CO2.
YOU are a climate MORON. Obviously your degree is in Hair Styling. "getting the Earth to absorb more co2" What the fuck? NO knowledge basis in chemistry or physics with your hair styling degree I guess? Why not volunteer your bedroom where you sleep? The dead air inside your head would "absorb more co2" and put the earth "back in equilibrium."
You can't even take 10 minutes out of your busy conspiracy day and check out a NOAA or NASA webpage and fucking READ can you? (oh! I understand, that's all just propaganda and lies "to get funding" right?)
MAGA-ON Dude!!
If it was in equilibrium, CO2 would not be increasing.
@@mrunning10its literally insane of you to think funding only affects those you are opposed to.
Covid has demonstrated that science can be easily bought by politicians, and it will be decades before scientists will reclaim their credibility thanks to 'i am the science' liar Fauci and all the other lying scientists out for $$$$ and power.
Can he redo it for now ?
The fucking Cock Brothers CHECK bounced this year.
This was a prescient talk given how we’ve seen govt step up various bullying tactics in the past two or three years.
And we've also seen a massive increase in disastrous weather events like flooding, wildfires and droughts, as well as global temperatures. He wasn't too prescient about that though, was he?
@@timothyrussell4445 Hop off that pipe, son. None of that is true.
Wish I had a pipe now; it might help me with the despair experienced when reading so much garbage.@@adg1017
The levelized cost of electricity at 30:23 seems wrong for solar energy.The cost comes at around 3 cents per kWh, not 40.
I believe he mentions transmission costs, not just generation costs. We can't just put solar where the fossil generation was. The infrastructure is expensive.
@@BryceLeeatgoogle Have you watched the video?There is a quite clear introduction on what levelized cost is.It is neither transmission nor generation cost, it is levelized cost which is well defined and needs no further clarification.So back to my comment.Find me a source that calculates the levelized cost of solar photovoltaic systems at 40 cents per kwh because from what I've found it is way way off.
@@stefanoskam the chart he showed was from 2010. In 2015 the cost for residential collection and storage (using a Tesla Powerwall) was much lower at $0.23). The argument for storage of an intermittently available resource is provocative, but I'm sure those costs have continued to fall since 2015 as well, but doubt battery costs are falling at the same rate as PVs
@@BryceLeeatgoogle
Levelized cost includes storage cost, so let's just say levelized cost and not mix the definitions.
The levelized cost of $0.40/kwh is terribly wrong for 2010 and I don't know where he got this from.$0.15/kwh is more accurate.
In 2015, when the video was uploaded, we are talking about less than $0.08/kwh.
Why are you referring to residential costs (which are higher) when the video is about state-wide implemedation of solar PV (utility scale systems)?You can't change categories as it suits you to play with prices.You can't use commercial and residential levelized costs when you are talking about a country's energy grid.Also what is your source for that $0.23/kwh cost for residential systems?It seems wrong too.
Battery costs are indeed falling slower and storage is a huge and probably unsolvable problem for the near future.
My original comment stands.The levelized cost he claims for solar pv is wrong.
Source: Re-considering the Economics of Photovoltaic Power
Morgan Baziliana,b, IjeomaOnyejia
, Michael Liebreichc, Ian MacGilld, Jennifer Chasec, Jigar Shahe, Dolf Gielenf, Doug Arentg, Doug Landfearh, and Shi Zhengrong
@@stefanoskam love to see your sources. Since I'm not an expert I should be easy to convince, but until then I can't see a reason to not accept his numbers, given that this is an old video and the economics are evolving. At least he is an identifiable person, with credentials.
Climatology 101: don’t conflate climate and weather.
And this was the at the time "Alabama state climatologist" ...derp
Climate causes weather