Fossil Fuels Don’t Come From Fossils? Tucker Carlson Fact Check
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Act fast, the first 200 people will get 20% off and a free trial when they go to the link: imprintapp.com...
In this video I provide context on a podcast that Tucker Carlson recently did with climate change denier Dr Willie Soon. It is mainly about the abiogenic petroleum theory, that is, the question whether the crust of planet Earth contains hydrocarbons that do not come from fossils, but I also have some comments on what Willie Soon said about the honesty of climate scientists.
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com...
The full quote from Al Jaber is here: • Cop28 president says '...
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #climatechange #tucker
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1721406679557x351993185584680300
can u do a video on the different sciences applying to the different levels of complexity of matter and with social sciences being the odd one out by not really linking up with the underlying sciences (and thus the basis of the level of matter it is observing / trying to understand)?
He was fired from Fox for criticizing big pharma and the Ukraine war
Methane is a hydrocarbon, CH4, and it's found everywhere in other planets, especially like Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, etc.
A quiz that tries to make you pay for it half way through. Very annoying.
Climate change denier reality acceptor
As an ex-petroleum reservoir engineer just wanted to clarify. Petroleum (crude) comes from breakdown of primarily marine plankton and to lesser extent algae and bacteria. Coal comes from breakdown of plants/vegetation.
If you don't mind me asking, do you know why it could be that petroleum is more liquid in some areas like Saudi Arabia and much denser in others such as in Venezuela? Sorry just got curious
How the hell does petroleum and coal accumulate in pockets then, and not more evenly distributed everywhere?
You are just stating the standard theory, there are others which may be better
methane?
@@DianamPhoenixprobably water.
The "pretty big if" you mention is the whole problem. Fossil fuel industry says IF we can capture CO2, then no problem, so fossil fuels are fine, and credulous people say yes, that makes sense, and then nobody actually does anything to capture CO2 at scale because it's expensive and complicated and ruins the economic advantage fossil fuels have in the first place. It's perfectly reasonable at this point to call out CO2 capture for what it is: nonsense. It's not scientifically impossible but it's practically infeasible and that's all that matters in the end. "Enforcing a narrative" is hogwash, it's about the proven track record of fossil fuel companies blowing hot air and doing nothing else.
Asterisk, asterisk, asterisk.
There are ways in which carbon capture (from the exhaust of industrial process, I am thinking in particular of aluminium production) may be practical and effective; there are even ways in which carbon recapture (from the atmosphere)may be practical, if not as effective.
This isn't to say that you are wrong, but ignoring the asterisks doesn't make them go away, and weakens your position.
You have a point there, but it takes energy. One problem of generating solar energy is that the best places to generate it, areas of much sunlight and empty non-farmable land, are far from the places that could use the energy - the desert vs. not desert. Transmitting the energy by electrical cables that large distance is very problematic. But, if we use the energy to suck CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into C and O2, we could reverse something that YT keeps censoring me about. Also, we wouldn't have the problem of storing the energy in batteries for use at night. We just store and ship the C.
Exactly so.
But why censor the truth then?
@@z0n3h Because the truth is complicated and people like simple things. "No more fossil fuels" is simple. "No fossil fuels except this limited exception, and that limited exception, plus in case of added technology X, assuming condition Y" is NOT simple. And scientists are people.
And so they endeavor to simplify for the benefit of the public, sometimes to the detriment of factual truth.
In fairness, the moment politics enters the field, truth takes a long vacation in a different solar system.
We tried to drill for abiogenic gas in Sweden from 1986 to 1992 based on the theories of Thomas Gold. His idea was to drill through the old impact crater Siljansringen. They found some hydrogen. Nothing nearly worth the effort.
At least someone tested the hypothesis rather than debating it on RUclips. 😉
That is not proof that there is no abiotic gas. Just that the first attempt to find it was not successful.
@@mickimicki5576 There is no proof there is no pink unicorn too
@@nicejungle actualy there is plenty of pink unicorn but u might be deceived
@@mickimicki5576 Seems like you don't know that it's often functionally impossible to prove a negative, as in this case.
It is bizarre to challenge the fossil nature of fossil fuels. Decades ago, I participated in a geologist led tour of a coal mine in Pennsylvania. This was strip mined, so we did not need to go underground. We saw the fossil ferns in many pieces of coal.
well that is certainly 100% incontrovertible proof that all mined hydrocarbons comes from fossil ferns. I'm glad your personal single observation of an artifact settled the origin proof question
All you prove is that most "fossil fuels" are highly processed biomass.
@@davidj9977 I think he was giving an example to counter the argument that coal did not come from fossils at all because fossils are mineralized animals.
Sabine, the issue is not that Al Jabers Statement was wrong, it's just entirely unhelpful until that "big if" is taken care of. It's like someone saying "The issue is not me throwing punches in the direction of peoples faces, the issue is that the punches then connect with the face". Technically true I guess, but instead of focusing our effort on creating face-blocking technology, how about that person just stops punching until we've figured it out? This is just another tactic of oil corporations to muddy the water and shift responsibility from the people creating/consuming fossil fuels over to scientists for not figuring out how to capture CO2 wherever it's created.
Yup, or like saying overfishing isn't the problem, all we need to do is replace the fish we catch with fish fry.
We need to radically reduce demand for fossil fuels. Nobody should take any pushback against this fact seriously.
Yes there will be other technologies. Yes there will still be some fossil fuel use in any conceivable future. But that changes nothing.
@@mynewcolouryou sound like an extremist candfuffed in pipes sitting on the freeway
Exactly, well said. My problem with this channel and why I stopped subscribing is much of her content is (imo) esoteric and knowingly gives talking points to deniers, which is evident in the comments and completely counterproductive to the climate movement. She should be addressing her points directly to climate scientists, not the general public.
Nah, I rather stick to keeping the science impartial and without pushing a narrative.
Climate change is without a doubt an existential threat to humanity that needs to be addressed, but by using rhetorical devices to get action, we risk losing credibility in the long run for our cause, which can create even more deniërs and public disinterest at large.
I'm pretty sure the climate scientists don't like people saying "we don't need to stop burning fossil fuels we just need to stop dumping the carbon in the atmosphere" because there is no practical way to stop dumping the carbon in the atmosphere when you're burning it for power.
on top of that it supports the carbon sequestration crowd and, to date, there's no real world confirmation that we have the technology to do that, or that we will ever have.
The planet already sequesters carbon in various places in the ocean and elsewhere. Of course mankind could never generate the amount of power it would take to duplicate the processes used by nature to do such things. 😀😀
We have the technology but it currently costs too much in terms of the energy required and therefore lowers the overall efficiency of producing the energy. Again it comes down to money!
@@leighedwards I think you might be misinformed. Yes - companies take money for selling the technology (developed for greenwashing lies).
But when someone really needs a working one it fails. Example is e.g. failed Haru-Oni E-Fuel plant where carbon dioxid capture should have been used to get the CO2 needed for the E-Fuels.
But the technology ordered and installed did not work (nearly no carbon dioxid captured). So they had to fall back to trucks delivering it from the far away industry.
Animals have been "dumping carbon" since they first formed. Climate "scientists" and their fuel-fascist brethren love "dumping" their "carbon" ("H2O" is NOT "hydrogen" and "CO2" is not "carbon" ) far more so than the rest of us as judged by their own actions.
If "dumping carbon" is so vile, why do these fuel-fascists insist on gallivanting around the globe so sling their doomsday nonsense at their innumerable "conferences" (parties) instead of teleconferencing like our accountable "for profit" industries have been doing for decades?
There is zero "proof" that "dumping carbon" has any measurable influence over the weather: zero geological evidence and zero recorded evidence.
The only evidence available proves that "dumping carbon" has produced and continues to produce a much healthier life supporting ecosphere on planet Earth. Less CO2 means less biomass on Earth, more CO2 means more biomass on Earth.
What exactly do you think s the correct amount of biomass that should be eradicated from the Earth by reducing CO2 (the only source of energy supporting all life on Earth)?
Noise is easy to generate and most folks don't know enough to distinguish noise from signal, so this is how we get led by the stupid.
Quote of the day. Noted for my future use. Thank you.
One person's noise is another person's signal.
The noise always comes from the left and the signal from the right. Whether the topic is climate change, green energy, morality, economics, homelessness/poverty, business ethics, or any other topic. The right is always right and the left is always full of bullshit.
I'm one of those folks, honestly. I've had to default to never trusting anything fully. It's completely exhausting. 😅
It's not the stupid that are generating the noise
If only we could trust scientist who receive grants from the people they're supporting their stories
!!!!!!!!
Too much research funding comes with a set of answers. The researcher's job is then to figure out what the questions are.
It’s a confusing world out there. So many voices speaking with confidence
It's very human. The utter conviction in "I am correct in my faith and everyone else is wrong" without actually even having studied the science and facts is astounding but it keeps happening generation after generation. I think the problem fundamentally is the faith part and more specifically applying faith-based thinking to things which can be explained by science and rational thinking.
idiots tend to speak with lot of confidence
Yes, very religious.
Any no one has a brain of thier own, when they listen to it.
@@wombatillo does that mean you have no faith in science or that faith based science is irrational?
I beg to expand on something Sabine: "Groupthink" has been a problem for EVERY group in human existence... including sciences. It's philosophically intractable to have zero perspective anchors and still get things done. The harm comes when absolute conformity is a polar expectation.
JOHN CLAUSER NOBEL PRIZE FOR PHYSICS WHY GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T TRUE ON RUclips AMONG IAN PLIMER FREDRICK SEITZ STEVEN E KOONIN BILL PATZERT AND OTHERS
Sabine is part of the problem.
@@TeddyRumble - I've been following her vids, etc. for almost two years, and while I don't always agree with her assessment on every point, I also know that she has had to face the ugly side of science "as a business". She has pointed out a great many foibles and problems with our systems, which is what I wish more people were willing to discuss. So, as to your point - a little yes, a little no, like with all of us. 🤔🤔
@@billsybainbridge3362 Yo. This comment has calmed me down. Also Sabine at the end of the video has.
This VERY POPULAR science cult of conformity is the most alarming, disheartening and depressing things I've been forced to watch grow.
Sabine never told us where hydrocarbons come from in this video.
Only how long ago certain theories have been around, and what "most likely" is the case, with many caviats for where abiogenic hydrocarbon theories are right.
Come on. What was the point of the video other than being upset that Tucker Carlson doesn't like when unproven science is dictated as unquestioned, proven science. .
Science has its moments... the denigration of those early proponents of what we now call plate tectonics, for instance.
I prefer the term hydrocarbon to fossil fuel, because the usual meaning of fossil is the mineralization of bone. Maybe not precise, but the belief that oil comes from dead dinosaurs is pretty widespread, and mostly inaccurate.
"oil comes from dead dinosaurs"
Advanced by Sinclair in particular; little green dinosaurs at many of their filling stations. it represents an epoch of when huge quantities of biological material was laid down and a hundred million years later is now oil and coal.
I can’t define “fossil” well enough to know if this distinction has technical merit, but I do think there’s a cultural liability in displacing the terminology of climate change from the primary source of climate change.
I think that extra step of abstract association between hydrocarbons and fossil fuels blunts the effect of getting people to think about fossil fuels. Like, a chemical description of Pepsi isn’t going to make me want Pepsi as much as seeing a Pepsi bottle in an ad.
And I respectfully submit that, between acknowledging a somewhat trivial terminological technicality on the one hand, and drawing attention to an ongoing global emergency on the other, it’s prudent to prioritize the latter (though that dichotomy is obviously contingent on my branding assessment being correct, which it might not be).
I guess Exxon/Mobile didn’t know that either since they made animated TV commercials in the 1970’s depicting crude oil coming from dinosaurs.
yes but corn syrup is a hydrocarbon. burning that, in theory does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are the remains of plants and small sea creatures after time, pressure and heat. They are not petrified but i think it is safe to call them fossils. After all, coal is a mineral and whole trees have been preserved in coal seams. Petroleum is also a mineral, says so right in the name. Literally it means rock-oil and elaterite, gilsonite etc are classified as minerals in Dana's and they are petroleum too.
Coal from fossil land plants, oil from fossil sea plants algae, etc. All fossil fuels are from fossils.
Rape seed oil produced this year is a hydrocarbon as is every other vegetable oil some of which are used for fuel.
This is why I have problems with the hydrocarbon descriptor for fossil fuels.
I came across a paper from Russia several years ago. IIRC they used Marble, Iron and Water subjecting them to the temperatures and pressures found in the Mantle and did indeed produce hydrocarbons.
It's actually much simpler than that...
The Cassini probe which visited Jupiter's moon discovered more oil on Titan than is believed to exist on Earth.
Given that Titan could not ever conceivably have supported anything like we'd call life (unless Jupiter was previously a star which somehow stopped fusion reactions, anyway) the existence of non-fossil oil is demonstrated unequivocolly.
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/titans-surface-organics-surpass-oil-reserves-on-earth
What does IIRC mean?
@@mttlsa686IIRC: if I recall correctly. You could have googled that.
@@mttlsa686 if i recall correctly...
\
Do you remember the % of CO3 that was converted?
The Oxford English Dictionary notes that in the phrase "fossil fuel" the adjective "fossil" means "[o]btained by digging; found buried in the earth", which dates to at least 1652, before the English noun "fossil" came to refer primarily to long-dead organisms in the early 18th century.
very interesting, makes total sense: as a species, we have dug the earth for a much longer time than we have believed in dinosaurs.
Interesting. But I don't see how the OED can say that with authority. When the term "fossil fuel" was coined, and certainly when it became popular, the word "fossil" could be used to describe mineralized remains of organisms. So I am not sure that the OED can make that claim, unless the guy who coined the term left behind writings explaining his rationale. Certainly when the term "fossil fuel" became popular, the primary meaning of "fossil" had already shifted to be mineralized remains or imprint of a once living organism.
@@CrzyLion Well dinosaur bones have been known for long. They just were called dragons.
@@mckenziekeith7434 - In ordinary modern English, a "fossil" is a solid object that preserves in mineralized form the shape of a once-living creature. It actually makes no sense to think of "fossil fuel" as derived from that meaning, since oil and natural gas are not solid and coal does not usually preserve the shape of any organism. That being the case, I wonder why the phrase was ever coined at all.
@@richardhussong7232 sounds good, comprehensive, easy to reach the simple minds of the sheeple
I was taught fossil fuels came from dead dinosaurs when I was a kid. Can't blame most people for middle school science teachers simplifying things and never correcting the misconceptions that result.
Thank Sinclair Oil for that. They introduced a dinosaur as their corporate mascot in the 1930s. It was wildly successful and they continued to have a brontosaurus on their signs, might still have them I don't live in a state where they operate so I don't know for sure.That's where people got the idea that oil came from dinosaurs, it comes from an oil company that has a dinosaur logo.
@@joshuarosen465 They do. And big dinosaur statues out front. I love when I travel and get to see a blast from the past like a Sinclair station or an Esso sign.
If oil comes from dead dinosaurs, then the mainstream media is pure liquid gold.
This was my thought as well. I hate being treated like I'm a moron for trusting my science teacher.
@@MormonGamer2004imagine how dumb you're going to feel when you figure out they lied to you about the earth being round
The idea that carbon sequestration or direct air capture is a bad idea is more than "a narrative". There is an argument supporting this idea. Briefly, sequestration and DAC are much more expensive than substituting renewable energy, increasing efficiency, or changing lifestyles. It's not groupthink. It's a very rational argument. Calling it groupthink is ad hominem. As you pointed out, ad hominem attacks are a sign of a weak argument.
I gathered that Sabine was saying that it's not the argument that's groupthink, but the social devices used to get members of the group to self edit. ruclips.net/video/uNsGzDmSjD0/видео.html
It's a common sense! Cleaning shit after someone is much expensiver than making him using the toilette!?!
Except that you still need to do it. (And that's what the removed quote Sabine referred to was getting at.) Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for a long time. Also billions of people on the planet are continuing to increase their carbon dioxide emissions, including whole parts of the planet that can't care less about EV related and other energy regulations in the EU or the English speaking world. So the planet will continue to warm, and more and more rapidly than it has. You need to remove greenhouse gases at a global scale and also produce energy without greenhouse emissions at global scale. You need both. We're currently nowhere near even considering how both could happen, so they won't happen, so we're screwed.
@@sciros you need carbon in the atmosphere, It's not a pollutant. More carbon -> more plant growth, greening arid areas etc.
we were in a carbon drought just a few hundred years ago. and cold is worse than warm. to keep it simple
@@brettpid6416We were in a volcanic winter. Plus, food produced under high C0² levels is way less nutritious.
Hes right
...not entirely
Willie Soon is one of the two authors of a study on climate that was so incredibly bad, that a scientific journal that published it ended up having to shut down.
And I thought he just gets kicked out of journals because doesn't toe the line.
@@le13579 That's what she would say.I mean he, ermmm.
that's creating confidence😂 doesn't it
Dr. Soon has been on the denier circuit for years. He's a hack.
That in itself says very little, it may just be the orthodoxy enforcing orthodox views on climate. Having said that, the argument whether what we call "fossil fuels" are appropriately titled is clearly irrelevant for climate change.
Wait. Banana seats on bicycles aren't made from bananas?!!!
😱😱😱😱😱
the green ones are hard the black ones make a mess
And what about banana plugs?
This such a poor analogy.
Simple and humorous, but completely misses.
I feel silly explaining it but looks like I need to, here goes.
Fuels are much more complicated to understand than seats.
People know what seats are, so giving them a name like "banana seat" people clearly understand uts in reference to the shape, not that the seat is made from bananas.
Hydrocarbon fuels are not quite so self evident to common people, so giving them a name like fossil fuel will lead people to believe fossils are involved, and it's not like the fuel is in the shape of fossils, so people will naturally be lead to believe they are made from fossils, since, again, people understand what seats are more than they understand the generation of hydrocarbon fuels.
Let's not be too silly.
Not qualified to say. I'll let Sabine field this question.
I'm no climate scientist but I would point out that the statement by the president of COP while scientifically accurate is also a logical fallacy. While technically one method is to stop fossil fuels from dumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you can't do that the way we use fossil fuels today. He knows this. He knows that changing this would be far more expensive and take far longer than transitioning the world vehicle fleet to electric. Therefore it's logical to say that the quickest way to mitigate (not fix - mitigate) climate change is to stop burning stuff. We already have the technology to do that. It's economical and viable. And lets not forget the President of COP bought his position with oil money and influence - how is that not a political statement?
Except, that is extremely expensive and does not produce any practical results. The CO2 emissions are still going up
Think about the consequences of "stopping burning stuff ", and see if that still sounds like the logical thing to do. Progress has a cost. We're much more resilient to climate disasters than ever in the entire human history. We must address this problem, but it has to be done strategically and without destroying what took centuries to build.
@@travis5732 When you say "We're much more resilient", who's "we"? Because the countries most threatened by climate change are typically not rich or developed enough to really stop i.e. extreme heatwaves, droughts or floods.
Most developed nations have been fine with the more minor effects, but for poorer nations, not so much.
Also, we may be more resilient than ever before, but that doesn't automatically mean we'll be resilient enough.
I beg to differ. EVs are not viable in climate extremes which require either heating or cooling the passenger compartments. There is also concerns on the materials and their sourcing and processing for electric generation. Take hydroelectric, the dams inhibit the migration of fish back to the exact spot they hatched from. They are unable to spawn and just die. This reduces adult fish populations in the oceans, which affects predator fish/mammals like Orcas.
@@user-my5vo ok, so to save the poor we have to make energy and wares as expensive as possible. sacrificing real poor people now to save the hypothetical poor of the future.
It's just poor madness, there are 1000's of ways to effectively help developing countries become more resilient and none of them have to do with making energy more expensive.
It's anti human nature worship.
Also look at the actual IPCC data, the (probably very unreliable) models predict a slight rise OR decline of temperature. Extreme weather might become more extreme OR less.
It's not magic.
Where fossil fuels come from is a non-sense discussion.
Sabine, much respect, and no, I don’t think you’re a paid shill and you’re one of my favorite educators. That said, I don’t understand the last half of this video. It sounds like “Fossil fuels aren’t the real problem because we have a sci-fi solution that doesn’t exist yet and isn’t practical for addressing the problem in the present.” Carbon capture and removal being a practical solution to climate change is sci-fi at this point, is it not? Migrating from fossil fuels to alternatives asap seems to be the most practical solution, yes?
Practical and renewables shouldn't be in the same sentence. Energy density matters. Energy dense fuels are practical.
@@le13579I assume you are implying that fossil fuels are "practical". Not so if you include the damage to our environment from extraction, refinement, and combustion. Then it is far too costly to use fossil fuels , particularly when you have developed alternative energy sources without those serious disadvantages.
@@bjb7587 wind requires a massive amount of petrochemicals and concrete. Solar requires a massive amount of energy, resources and produces toxic byproducts. Nuclear really is the best option. If you compare watt per watt they actually require less resources over wind and solar and the waste is so dense that it doesnt take much area to store it. They also could recycle a lot of the waste and keep reusing it which lowers its half life for radiation. Right now I believe they only use about 10% of the energy potential from the uranium. The one issue with oil is even if we electrify everything we will still need a massive amount of oil for everything else. Its a cheap feedstock for products. Maybe there are other solutions but there are massive trade offs. The biggest being that we would increase the cost of goods. Not just by a little bit either. We would basically create a massive depression and only the people wealthy enough to afford stuff would survive.
@@pin65371 really now, you sound like a shill for the oil and nuke industries. I find your statements about renewables dubious at best.
You also ignore the dangerous byproducts and risks of nuclear energy, the high costs and long construction times to build nuke plants, and the *massive* amount of concrete required for these plants.
Your post is not credible.
@@bjb7587 watt per watt a nuclear power plant uses less concrete than a wind turbine when you go into grid scale. The concrete structure for a nuclear power plant will also last 80-100 years. Wind would also require that you build enough turbines to power the grid along with supplying power for storage when you arent producing power. There are nuclear power plants that had 1000 days of running straight with no outage. The only reason they needed to shut down the reactor was for an inspection of a certain part. With the refurbishments they are doing now after 40+ years of service they have made a change so that inspection can be done in service. And yes I am a shill for nuclear. I understand physics. When you understand how a grid works and the the energy density of nuclear power along with the understanding of how waste is stored its impossible to not be a shill for nuclear. Bruce Power in Ontario puts out over 6.5 GW of power in a 2200 acre site. It can do that all day every day if they require it. They are now looking at expanding that site to add another 4.8 GW of output. It also produces medical isotopes for cancer treatments along with other isotopes that are used to sanitize medical equipment in hospitals. Maybe one day you'll catch up with the rest of us and turn into a nuclear shill as well.
Maybe he's confusing fossil fuels with dead Dinosaurs.
Why always real scientists who deny models that violate basic physics
Don't they have some sort of problem with dinosaurs conflicting with the account given in the Bible? 🤷🏻♀
@@katrinabryce It's easy enough to rationalize their way through funky beliefs that don't line up... just say, "oh that part of the scripture uses metaphor" and you're golden. It won't hold up to debate, but debate with irrational people is a mind-boggling pastime.
@@katrinabryce I thought that since Bush Jr and Pope John Paul II popularized "intelligent design" no Christian had any problem accepting evolution.
Cave men will do that!
I understood that the assumption was it might be ok to make use of fossil fuels as long as we just take the CO2 quickly away and simply store it elsewhere, which is a weird concept. We are nowhere this kind of magic disposal which makes the entire argument completely useless and statements like these not only a waste of time but also contributing to the confusion of a lot of folks.
I guess that is where the noise comes from.
Yeah I would like to see her address the impracticality of carbon capture/removal at this point. It is sci-fi still. Meanwhile alternatives and battery tech are coming into their own in front of our eyes and seem far more practical and a much safer bet.
Not to mention that even if we would be able to capture the CO2, burning fossil fuels still releases a crap ton of particulates and air pollution.
That’s correct and that is why he took down that quote. It’s true but not achievable.
sorry photosynthesis does this with solar power.
@@johndill7290 exactly. And here lies the problem in our current world: people can and will just remove the second part. It's bitter and sad that we have created an enormous network of information, just to find out that leaving out certain parts of information is still an effective way of manipulating people.
Thank you for clarifying your stance. I've watched many of your videos because you articulate the case so well, (and the occasional humor is great as well.) Please keep up the good work!
It’s not food that makes me fat, it’s calories…
Seed oils
It's not the voltage, it's the current 🤣
@@tritile It's not the heat, it's the humidity.
It's not the taste, it's the texture.
It's not the meat, it's the motion.
You just summed up the trillions of argumentive comments on RUclips. lol
That's actually true though, you can eat food your entire life and not get fat.
If you have excess energy (calories) you will gain fat.
I love when people try be smart and fail.
" Fossil Fuels" is just a habitual term literally. The underground resources were named as fossil fuels in the past.
yes because that's where the word fossil comes from
It is just the fossil industry trying to spread some good old FUD, so they can keep on pretending that business as usual is okay.
@@oliverwilson11 not really. there is no conclusive proof on where those really come from. it's all theories at this stage.
@joedoe2407
I said where the WORD "fossil" comes from. We do know that, it comes from Latin "fossilis" meaning something which has been dug up.
For what it's worth we also do know where the chemicals themselves came from.
That's because they literally came from fossils
"I don't give a shit what they think." 👏
Everything that you say about Tucker is true , plus more that you have left unsaid by him .
@@richardduke6930 Trucker's the best. Trump 2024!
There is shit coming out of your mouth.
@@realismatitsfinest1 hi bot
@@sunnymountainhoneyfountain Hi ftard!!
My grandfather was a farmer. Where he lived it was cold half the year and you had to burn fuel for heat. This was before natural gas or even having gas delivered. But he had fields of brush and lots of leftover plant stuff. He had a large furnace with a drum inside that he filled with whatever plant material he had at the time and made char out of it then he had a giant press that he used to crush it into a block of coal. When he baked the drum he got crude oil that drained out the bottom. That what happens when you take organic material and heat it without oxygen. We use this process to make the charcoal for your grill. Its not a mystery. So if you had a mountain lake surrounded with trees that for 1000 years had been dieing and falling into the lake. But being a mountain lake its cold and it preserves the wood. Then say a Glacier comes along and pushes tons of rock into the lake and seals it in then the natural composting that happens causes heat combined with the heat from the pressure and it cooks the wood into char, and the pressure crushes it into coal, like and old farmer. The tar that left gets squeezed and filtered through rock like spring water filtered through a mountain. It seems like its possible for coal and oil to form high the the mountains without sea life or millions of years. I can't show you an example but you can't tell me that mountain lakes filled with wood, or glaciers, or compost fires, or charcoal, or any of the other processes i mentioned dont exist. Why couldn't they happen together.
Great theory. Can you estimate how many mountain lakes surrounded with trees and glaciers coming along you may need to produce oil that has been extracted already.
@@vladimirriley5611 did I say it was all made that way. I thought I said it could be made that way but maybe I was wrong. Let me clarify for you. Oil and coal can be made by me, with primitive tools. It can be made in a Isolated location in the mountains or at the bottom of an ocean. It doesn't "require" sea life or millions of years. That doesn't mean it couldn't also be made by sea life alive millions of years ago. It can be made many ways and is being made right now. Also also it's not really necessary as fuel seeing that the diesel engine was invented specifically to run on the alcohol that other farmers were making to heat their homes. I think farmers are smarter than most city people these days.
@@williamallen2777my problem isn't that you can make oil from plants. It is the sheer volume that would be needed.
The world uses 100 million barrels daily. Barrels not gallons.
You turned a field into one barrel
You would need 100 million fields, daily
@@woodboat3G it has been being made since plants existed, all over the world. That's exactly why this is the only thing that makes sense to me. If it was only made during one point in time before bacteria supposedly existed so that it couldn't rot doesn't explain the volume that we are finding. But it being made all over the world by plant matter getting buried by time. It could be eath quakes or volcanoes or glaciers or whatever causes the layers to get piled on layers of earth. My point is that the process isn't complicated. It happens in nature all the time. The only people that are really going to affected if we can't dig it up anymore are the rich people that exploit it to get free money. We can always make alcohol to use as fuel. It cleaner burning anyway and you can make it yourself much cheaper. We just have to go back to using materials that don't break down in alcohol, like Rudolf diesel used in the original diesel engine. The only reason we don't use that is because some rich dude had a lot of land that was considered useless because it had oil leaking out of the ground everywhere. Once he found it could be used as a fuel and he realized he had millions of gallons of it laws started changing. If our government was really worried about our health then sugar, cars and cigarettes would be illegal. They kill far more people than alcohol or Marijuana. But Marijuana was a threat to the paper and oil companies and alcohol was the main fuel used and gasoline was a terrible fuel. It stunk, it and a short shelf life and it could really only be used as fuel. But alcohol was a cleaner, and food, a preservative, a fuel, you could burn it indoors without fear of carbon monoxide. It had to go if gasoline was going to take over.
It's what the English call peat or a type of charcoal
When most people hear the word “fossils” they think of a dinosaur skeleton at the Natural History Museum. That’s not what is being turned into “fossil fuels”. Nobody is grinding up dino bones to power their SUV.
And don't get me started on the 'God' particle.
come on man, i've just dug up my daily triceratops dose and was going to brew in a nice green gasoline,and now u tell me this..
The term is a misnomer created years ago. It simply means old. Old plants and carbon that breaks down into oil over millions of years. It's like calling anything old a fossil like old people. And we do get some energy from geological processes. Coal is created by pressure not organic matter breaking down like oil. She gets a lot wrong.
It should be called “carbon fuel”. Because all of it is a form of hydrocarbon.
I don’t think most people think of dinosaurs when they hear the word fossil. That’s more accurately a petrified skeleton which is a form of fossil. But most people think if fossil’s as the impression left on rocks & shale etc by biological life be it plants or animals especially small prehistoric reptiles & bugs & insects & invertebrates.
Yeah dinosaur bones are fossils, because they are old, dug out, from prehistoric times, that is what fossil means. But why would you think only of Dinos in term of oil. It's old prehistoric biomass, condensed to oil or coal and then dug out. There might be a dinosaur in it or two, but why would you make that connection?
Hi Sabine, it's not always physicists. I spoke with Geraint Lewis at our astronomy club monthly meeting last month, here in Sydney, and asked him how much time he spent in his public astronomy outreach just plain debunking mythology. His answer was "Far too much time. And most of the originators are retired engineers with wacky ideas." So it's not just your tribe - at least in Australia.
It was engineers who believed they would get 50 virgins for blowing up the two towers;-) Nonetheless, because of their traditional low vocabulary scores on the SATs,
they are less swayed by complicated verbal nonsense like the 52 versions of gender just sayin
@@tonybarry5101 One could interpret that as debunking. One could interpret that as friction between disciplines. Friction between disciplines is all part and parcel in how scientific progress gets made.
'Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.' - Lord William Thomson Kelvin
Hi Tony.
@@gilian2587 People are allowed to be wrong. Kelvin didn't anticipate the growrth in power:weight ratio of ICE
@@martinjones3764 My point was that the esteemed scientists of the world were proven incorrect on their assumptions of flight by a pair of very clever bicycle repairmen who were missing some teeth. It's a fairly common occurrence that the scientific consensus of a time period is just plain wrong.
also it makes more sense that super wealthy energy companies are paying people to harass those that disagree with their bottom line
Its all about the money
It also makes sense that multi-million dollar activist groups are paying people to harass those that disagree with _their_ ideas, since they don't actually sell a product beyond various forms of harassment.
Not really. Global warming kills everyone - destroys industrial civilization for everyone.
That Dr. Soon being interviewed has received multiple muillion dollar grants from the fossil fuel industy.
@@kelliepatrick519 This line of reasoning assumes that there is no bias in the way other institutions allocate funds for climate science. I wonder how many grants are awarded to scientists skeptical of AGW?
"Fossil fuels" come from biomass.
But isn't it more realistic short term to use energy sources that don't emit co2 instead of hoping that the fossil fuel industry comes up with a way to capture all the released emissions? That technology isn't exactly ready for large scale use after all and afaik uses quite a bit of energy of its own.
Not to mention the cost of this technology (CCS), exceeding the (tremendous) profits of big oil and it times more expensive than all alternative energy sources we know today. Economics are very clear. Than it comes to economics the pretty big if (CCS is the solution) is not an if anymore it is a clear no.
It seems like that point was glossed over pretty quickly. Sure it’s *technically* correct that the problem isn’t fossil fuels, it’s CO2 emissions, but only if there is a foreseeable way to stop the CO2 emissions. If that’s not happening then the problem is inherently the fossil fuels.
Yes. And the only non-CO2 emitting source that is IS ready for large scale use and can meet our needs is nuclear. Public sentiment and bureaucracy have stifled nuclear projects for decades, but I am hopeful in some of the smaller reactor projects that have sprung up recently
No. Because so called green energy is not green. It's actually worse for the environment and geopolitically. And science does evolve and solve problems. And green energy is fragile and unreliable. Hard to scale. Can't be stored. Etc. etc. It's also more expensive.
@@nedhill1242 “it’s actually worse for the environment” when talking about renewables is a *bold* statement.
Source?
Fossil fuels have 2 problems, not just CO2. They also create pollution when used/burnt. There are good alternatives, with neither of these problems, to the use of fossil fuels for transport and electricity generation. I was taught as a manager that "simple is best". These alternatives are also inherently simple. You acknowledge that fossil fuel use has not got a good way of dealing with the CO2. I may add that it also does not have a good way of dealing with the pollution their use entails. In light of this, and in my view, it is simply a sophistry to try to make the point that the problem is not fossil fuels.
There is a strong correlation between the politicalization of science, censorship, and conspiracy theories. Mind boggling that in the age of easy access to information that this is happening.
If you are referring to the propaganda campaigns of oil companies you are correct.
Information is not easily accessed. Algorithms are in place to make it difficult for us to find what bis out there.
on the contrary, the age of easy access to information is causing this
@@Americanson24bonus: things are so complex that a lot of people just don't understand the information. Problem is: they won't admit this to themselves or they just don't realize it.
Read about the Dead Internet Theory and Imperva security firm findings. Half what you have access on the net is generated by bots and especially in social medias.
I'm so grateful for any vlog that presents logical thinking and citable sources.
We do have a problem with the current "fossil fuels come from fossils" theory though and that is all the previous scientific estimates regarding to the amount of fossil fuels that should exist have been blown past years ago. We should be decades past peak oil when the quantity of fossil fuels extracted per year was supposed to be overtaken by demand. It hasn't happened, in fact supply has increased faster than demand. We should be decades away from the complete exhaustion of most oil reserves and not only are we not even close there are new reserves being discovered every year.
Something isn't right, either science has underestimated the total amount of organic sediment produced by life on earth by several orders of magnitude or the theory is "incomplete".
A. yes they found oil where they didn't thought it can be, also some reserves that were too costly to develop in the 1960s became profitable when the oil price went up. but
b. in the end we still have many carbonate resources in the earth and also around us in space. And we don't know, if we maybe even find oil on Mars, when the theories are true, that there was a time when Mars was green
It was just recently, in early 2000th that it was all about oil reserves to be exhausted in 10 years ....
Nuclear is the best option, but you are right.
Don't let Sabine hear you, though.
There's been a huge shift from oil to gas, and vastly increased use of different extraction methods, like fracking. So yes, whee, production has exceeded earlier estimate. But that's entirely besides the point that a) yes, fossil fuels come very largely from organic matter -- you seem surprised that the biomass of life on earth for hundreds of millions of years is rather considerable -- and b) this tells us nothing about the wisdom of ever-more emissions in the context of climate change.
@@AlexFerguson-z8f The problem is not that biomass from hundreds of millions of years is rather considerable but that it seems to be rather considerably more than any previous estimates from reputable scientists. And by considerably more I mean multiple times more if not an order of magnitude+ more. That is a bit disconcerting since science has more than enough data to roughly estimate the total amounts of hydrocarbons that should be deposited in the earth's crust. A miss that large suggests a flaw in the theory. I am not saying God made oil or it comes from rocks or some stupid shit like that. I'm saying the current theories are incomplete and we should not make world changing assumptions based on them just yet.
We are so smart we are debating how smart we are. Thanks internet.
and here i am thinking the internet is breeding a culture of some of the most backwards thinking and vocally perpetually persecuted truthers who will stand at nothing until the idiocratic comes to fruition, while the smart circles are oblivious of the spiraling distrust of all things science that the proletariat is ushering in.
"Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But, there they are."
-- Firesign Theatre
Ever since the sun took LSD, it's been a fundamentally better sun. More pink, and green, and electric blue. Let's hope it comes up again today!
@@i18nGuy "I say live it, or live with it."
@@noseyparker8130 I Think We’re All Bozos on This Bus
@@i18nGuy And of course, "Everything you know is wrong"
Sabine you probably won't see this video. You are channel has become by far one of my favorite channel. Your insight into many of these topics is always so refreshing. Btw I am also a physicist !!! (almost a physicist)
There are also very real, practical limits to how deep we can drill. If we're talking about something, perhaps near the bottom of earth's crust, well we can forget about it.
Like she says, go geothermal if you can drill that far.
well the soviet drill hole produces tons of hydrogen... what say you to a hydrogen economy respectfully Prof YUKNA
Oh I promise, if it was entirely necessary to drill near the bottom of the crust - people would find a way. I think I recall someone saying that one issue is that rocks become more like plastic than stone. I'm sure if enough people worked on it, they would find a way to solve that problem. Although I can't disagree that such a depth would be very challenging. With a certain depth breaching into magma and similar unpleasantness.
@@NobleUnclean drill to the bottom of the crust? Not with present or near-future technology. The Soviets abandoned their mole hole project because strangely the temperature rose far more rapidly than expected. Personally, I suspect Geomagnetically induced currents heat our planet a lot more than we can measure en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetically_induced_current just sayin' Prof CGY
@@chrisyukna8007 I think you misread my comment. In normal everyday circumstance I definitely agree with you. But I'm not talking about everyday stuff here. I specifically use the word 'necessary' - meaning: If we don't do this, we all die.
It is in this that my confidence rests, and it is what my comment meant. So imagine the entire planet working for a single goal. Now, whether or not such cooperation is impossible is certainly another story.
Fossil fuels are ancient concentrated Sun shine. This means, if you are driving an ICE car, on a sunny winter day, the heat coming out of the in-cabin heater using circulating glycol from the engine, is the Sun's energy from millions of years ago, but the heat coming in the window from the Sun, is only 8 minutes old.
Pardon me but that is a red herring logic argument. It's like saying eating a carrot is eating sun energy. Energy is transformed by all organisms. The element CO2 is transformed by plants. The heat coming out of the heater is created by burning the gas. Burning creates heat. That expansion moves the pistons and thus via gear the car. That's the key. It creates a waste coming out of the tailpipe. Carbon monoxide which can kill you, particulates that can make you sick and kill you and CO2 that is going into the atmosphere. The volume of that from the volume of FF burned is unbalancing the carbon and heating the lower atmosphere.
Technically, ALL energy on Earth is solar energy. It's only a matter of how old it is, and how many steps it has gone through.
Except somewhat geothermal energy. Some of that comes from the friction when heavy stuff sink to the core of the Earth, while lighter stuff rises up.
@@Tjalve70 Yes.
@@Tjalve70 Nuclear fission is a major heat source in he core of he Earth.
@@rogerphelps9939 um, nuclear fission in the core of the earth? Is that for real? I thought the Earth's core was supposed to be molten iron, which as far as i know is stable.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function”. ~ Professor Albert Allen Bartlett (why climate change isn't our only big problem)
Definitely stupidity and dumbness is growing exponentially, also among scientists and clirmate hysterics
Climate change isn't our only big problem... but it's a really big problem.
Yes this - we have linear thinking in an exponential geometric logarithmic world :) Why there is Benford's law, why credit card and national debts spiral out of control faster than you think.
@@lrvogt1257 its a long term problem, thats the problem
It's only a "problem" because we see it in the context of a culture that values stability and growth above all else. Nature handles exponential functions easily by resetting things when the numbers get too large. But we simply cannot accept periodic economic collapses or extinction events, so it seems like the most horrible thing in the world.
Keep it real Sabine! I love your thought process and lack filter
I think Sabine's comments on the standing of fossil fuels with respect to carbon emissions in the atmosphere are disingenuous. Lay people do get the technical point she makes - if carbon emissions from fossil fuels could be abated then we could just keep going about our business without undue concern about fossil fuels. The thing is that point is practically irrelevant because there is no feasible way to achieve that end. Fossil fuels produce energy when burnt - that is the way energy is derived from these fuels - and emissions are part of the deal. Abatement after the fact isn't working today and isn't likely to work no matter the cost. Also, the fossil fuel industry has made this clear - they won't be paying for it. So, Sabine is just engaging in a quibble without consequence.
Perversely, she is broadly in agreement with opponents of fossil fuels (although not today) only she is claiming a higher scientific justification for her opposition which is presumably better that that ideological stuff we get from greenies. What utter nonsense.
Sabine goes into intellectual battle on this occasion armed with a counterfactual argument (if only we abated...) that resembles splitting hairs because we don't abate at a meaningful scale and attempts along those lines have been extremely disappointing. That counterfactual is properly utopian stuff but it serves as a launchpad for a complaint, a pure assertion free of argument and evidence: I am being cancelled by the thought police. Nice try Sabine but that is just below you.
That is exactly right. What Sabine completely fails to address is that there is no possible way of actually capturing and sequestering the CO2 being released by burning of fossil fuels (and virtually all hydrocarbons, as Sabine points out, ARE fossil fuels, but that is a non sequitur). The level of effort and cost of capture and sequestration on a level commensurate with CO2 production is grossly prohibitive--switching to any other energy source, no matter how expensive, would be cheaper. The demonstration projects to date sequester only a minute fraction of production. Sabine, people listen to you and cite you--please get your facts straight. Our only option is decreasing CO2 generation, and climate scientists understand that.
She does actually say that. She says the it's unlikely the industry will find a solution.
CO2 capture is a solution period. The second point is can we make it cost effective. Cost is also a variable that changes over time. Is expensive now because nobody does it. Electric car was also expensive and impractical before Tesla came along. We just need another Tesla type company to make CO2 capture on a massive scale. Cost will come down.
@@benmlee Hmm, there was nothing you just claimed that I see any evidence for. The evidence indicates tiny amounts of CO2 released can be sequestered and stored at very high cost.
@@Rik77 That's the problem. Sabine says the same thing that all informed parties are saying. She wants to claim special originality when she says it though because when she says it she adds a conditional clause ... "if carbon capture doesn't/ can't be made to work". Others typically don't add the conditional clause knowing full well that a) carbon capture hasn't been shown to work at scale and b) even if it could be made to work it would be woefully expensive making it inferior to the alternatives. So, her viewpoint isn't novel - it is just an exercise in trivial shadow boxing.
While in Russia, TC was astonished to discover that while with a shopping cart on moving stairs the cart did not roll away. Punctuated with that inimitable laugh. The Russians are onto something amazing, he opined....
They are also in the airport at Zurich and have been for 30+ years.
@@charleshash4919And the Swiss also developed Phage treatments.
@@charleshash4919 : If the world was limited to Tuckers knowledge, a lot of things would seem new and fascinating.
I see thing is make Tucker look dumb these days, The Truth is that the phase fossil fuels has been used for decades as a tool to made it seem well scare a lot of people dont' know where oil comes from I heard an oil worker say it comes from a lot of diff. places . and is plentiful. There a a few people that don;t care for him.
Tucker Carlson is major player of the scientific incompetent MAGA community. This is quite known here in Germany and the thought their leader will be US President again is another step back. We might have mammoth around at some point
It warms my heart that you refer to it as 'carbon dioxide' and not 'carbon'. This is my litmus test for whether the author knows science or not. Thanks and keep doing it.
Carbon soot is also a major contributor to climate change.
In Russia it's petra-oleum, oil from stone. They prove it by temporarily abandoning a well after it drops below x amount of pressure. The well fills back up after a few years, and they can pump again.
I remember hearing this stuff on Art Bell back in the 90s
Remember so climate change predictions
@@osmosisjones4912How old are you? I am 38 and Virginia was not this hot, when I was a child.
You are just scared.
Art bell 🛎️ on the AM. Classic OG alex jones
@@PapaVikingCodes Much better than Alex! Come on, at least he maintained a healthy skepticism.
@PapaVikingCodes yea, it definitely hits me differently than it did back when, but I still have a bit of nostalgia for it and put on an episode every now and then while falling asleep
I am struggling to understand why any meaningful conversation would center on the views of Tucker Carlson. His winning argument in the lawsuit against him was that no one should take him seriously.
No, not exactly. Rachel Maddow's case ended the same way. "No reasonable person would accept their statements as fact", meaning reasonable people corroborate with other sources.
Struggle no more.
Hydrocarbons if they come from fossils then how does the moon Titan have lakes of methane?
how do we know it's methane by looking through a telescope
@@2blazedinfl Absorption spectrum of the light it reflects. It's like a fingerprint for molecules you can see in the light that reflects off of it. All molecules absorb very specific wavelengths of light unique to them. If you see the characteristic light bands missing, it is undeniable proof that molecule caused it.
@@wally7856 thank you. i have tried google (pre AI) and i was not interested enough to dig for the answer
Listen again from 2:16 (TLDR: nobody said ONLY from fossils).
@@2blazedinfl high-resolution spectrometry via infrared telescope and earlier by passing sunlight reflected from Titan through an optical spectrometer to find the spectral signature and composition of stellar atmosphere.
Oil didnt come from dead dinosaur. That part is correct
Quire true. Oil comes from the living dinosaurs who own the industry.
I am still trying to figure out what the problem is. No one has adequately explained how the alleged mass extinction event is going to occur. The vast majority of earth's history had a much higher atmospheric CO2 level than present and plants, phytoplankton, crustaceans, mollusks, and various land animals did just fine. It is only in the last 1-2 million years that earth has experienced this extraordinarily low atmospheric CO2 content.
If the climate alarmists would be right, they wouldn't have to lie constantly. Yet what we see is constant twisting of statistics, false predictions and call for more taxes. It's only about the money in reality.
You partly gave your own answer.
You are introducing changes which normally takes geologic timescales in human timescales.
The entire human civilization has never been subject to such rapid changes.
The problem has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
The problem is the flow of money.
If you publicly state you are going to stop the russia ukraine war when you take office you better duck, thats a massive change in money flow.
If you say that energy is now coming from this source primarily then you better shut up because that isnt the narrative that is being pushed.
The reality is that there under the ocean floor never been fossils, but the presence of billions tones of Oil is telling that its origin is different - The name - Hydro-Carbon is revealing - The Water and Limestone under pressure and heat is turning into Oil CaCo3 + H2O = (Catbohydrate) + Co2. That's why the volcanoes emitting such quantity of CO2. Regards
@@TTT-qk1cs Actually, rapid changes happen naturally all the time. Where I live, the temperature changes 20-40 degrees Fahreinheit from morning to afternoon, but then I hear someone crying about how the temperature is going to increase by two degrees over the next decade and I scratch my head wondering what the problem is. The funny part is when they claim "it is not the change, it is the rate of change." Well, the rate of change that happens daily here is orders of magnitude greater than their climate change predictions which are probably wrong anyway.
We are in an interglacial period. This means temperatures go up, glaciers melt a bit and seas rise a bit. This is nothing new... Is man affecting the rate of this change is not the correct question to ask. How much are we affecting it, is. CO2 is plant food. Maybe if we didn't clear cut so many forest, the CO2 would be lower? Also, depending on temperature, the oceans either absorb or expell CO2.
Some people that push this, have water front properties that they go to after they give a speech about water levels rising. Guess it is not that big of a concern to them.
Up to 2,000ppm CO2 have been found in ice core samples during an iceage. We have clouds, water Vapor and that big yellow light bulb in the sky that affect climate WAY more then CO2. If CO2 is really a major contributor of temperatures climbing, why do we still use carbonated drinks?
We are so worried about our earth, there is plastic bottles all over the place. Water has an expiration date in bottled water. This is not because water goes bad, no, it's because the plastic bottles start leaching bad stuff into the water.
We need wind and solar power! Meanwhile, the earth is destroyed to get the rare earth metals to build solar panels and wind mills.
The U.S. is cracking down on emissions. The emissions that they put on diesels, kills the engine. China and India don't have to follow these emissions because they are still developing. WTF?!? Sounds like they are not that worried about this global warming "issue"
I digress, everyone have a wonderful day breathing out CO2 that feeds the plants that give us oxygen. Let it bring you joy knowing that you are helping make a greener world.
That was quite the breathing out of random climate-denier talking points, to no rational purpose.
"... the problem is climate change...": Were you at the meeting when they swerved from "global warming" to "climate change"? Who was running that meeting and who was their publicist?
No such meetings. You are misconstruing the terminology.
@@darryldouglas6004 you believe that the change came organically from everybody all of a sudden? Come on now. It's like when an event happens and you see these video montages of the exact same wording being used from every different network.
@@jasondashney No.
@@darryldouglas6004Nobody is misconstruing terminology. The propagandists invent new words to suit their agenda. For example… we no longer have any homeless… they are now the “unhoused”. Similarly… we no longer have any illegal aliens. They are now “asylum seekers” or “undocumented migrants”. But the word “migrant” has negative connotations now, so the propagandists prefer to go with the term “asylum seekers”.
She's not updated anyway, it is "Climate Boiling"® now 🤫
Surprised is the default setting for Tucker...
It does not matter whether they came from fossil. If you dig carbon out of the ground and put them in the atmosphere, the atmosphere will have more carbon.
I lost it at “ewwww, brother ewwww” 😂
I'm dead here. The rest of the video is fantastic but the opening had me fucking rolling lmao
As a petroleum geologist the abiotic petroleum debate is interesting to watch from the outside.
The amount of very good science that goes into what we do is one reason it is very expensive to develop petroleum reserves.
No evidence that the crude oil and natural gas we are developing is resulting from processes deep in the earth.
Please do not inject knowledge and experience into these comments. 😝
Explain how Titan has methane lakes. Plankton?
@@TeddyRumble cow farts are methane. Do cows have plankton in their bellies or something? Explain cow farts..
@@SineEyed must be dinosaurs in the belly.
I hate when that happens.
@@TeddyRumble you said plankton, now it's dinosaurs? Shift goalposts much?..
Sabine really getting handy with that editing function 😂
The problem is politics, and some policies are based on scientific evidence and others are not.
Separating politics from science is like saying politics exists outside of laws of nature.
I don't really agree with your last statement. There's politics and there's policy. We shouldn't separate the latter from science, but we should definitely separate the former.
@@skaruts But that's not how it works. Politics are both a prerequisite, and are required for future justifications of policy. They're inexorably linked because of how humans operate. Pretending otherwise is at best naive, and often just a form of political machination itself.
@@that_heretic politics don't inform or enact policy.
This right here is the problem. I am a science fanatic, I have a PhD in chemical biology; I can safely say I am scientifically literate. But whilst the statement 'burning fossil fuels is not the direct cause of climate change' is scientifically correct (the CO2 is the direct cause, and the direct cause of that CO2 is burning fossil fuels); it is also almost entirely meaningless in the real world. Direct causes are no more important than root causes if there is no way to break the causal chain (i.e. burning fossil fuels IS causing climate change, because currently there is no way to burn them without releasing the CO2), and until there IS a way to break the causal chain (e.g. direct CO2 capture at every fuel-burning instance), addressing the root cause will have to do.
You can think about things logically all you want, but humans are not inherently logical, and societies are built out of humans. And refusing to accept this fact helps no one; it just adds more confusion to the mix, reducing the chance of anything actually being done. Most people are not scientifically literate to the degree needed to separate burning fossil fuels from increasing temperatures, and expecting them to be just leaves gaps for soul-less grifting hacks like Carlson to slip into; and he has more charisma and is a better manipulator than any scientist.
In the most respectful way possible, Sabine needs to suck it the fuck up and accept that simplifying a message to layman's terms is a requirement in politics, because we (as scientists) cannot afford to get accidentally or intentionally misunderstood. I do not know if Sabine is neurodivergent, and I am not going to try to diagnose here with anything, but I know I AM neurodivergent, and it took me years to understand that being correct is less important than being understood.
I'm of the opinion that politics corrupts everything it touches by it's very nature.
Yeah. I was raised on science, and I went into a field of study based on science (archaeology) and I’m afraid that when I see something like “98% of scientists agree that…” alarm bells go off in my head. Scientists aren’t supposed to agree. They’re supposed to cross-check and challenge conclusions and debate. When all scientists are saying the same thing they’re missing something.
The very fact that they do cross-check and challenge conclusions and, yet, "agree" is exactly the basis for which we can affirm the accuracy of the hypothesis. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that most scientists should disagree with Einstein's theory of relativity for it to be considered plausible
@@thomasmiller9788 no, that’s not what I’m saying at all. And Einstein’s theory of relativity is questioned and challenged on a regular basis, and it has been modified to some extent. But it holds up under the scrutiny, so it is still a major foundation of science. The problem is when a tenet becomes gospel and no one is allowed to question it.
@@anna9072 I agree with that. I think that's the point Sabine was making. But the point still stands that scientific consensus based on evidence is an important principle and when we say that "98 % of scientists agree" that is just short hand for saying that the consensus, based on the evidence, is that anthropogenic induced climate change is an extremely likely (almost certain) hypothesis.
@@anna9072 People have been questioning climate change science for decades, the reasons why are overwhelmingly to do with vested interests, very little to do with whether the science is valid or not, do YOU have credible evidence to refute the science behind man made climate change ?
"Raised on" and "based on", but have understood absolutely nothing about.
Does the fact that almost all physicists "agree" with general relativity and quantum mechanics cause your "alarm bells" to go off and start agreeing with the cranks? Or are you just desperate to cling to your political confirmation biases what it happens to suit you?
Tucker Carlson Is A Complete Joke 🙄
Are you keeping up with your vaccines?
He is a whore for $ and doesn't care what he says. He has lots of bills for his big houses. He does try to stay consistent though so he can't be accused of flip flopping. He caters to all the conspiracy theories. FOX had enough of him.
Excellently explained Sabine. I'm not a very smart person, and I don't trust these people when they spout their ideas. You have clarified what they say. Thank you.
Thank you Sabine, keep up the good work you are doing.
i thought that "under pressure" was a glitch on youtube with an ad about to play but it bugged out lolol
Geothermal energy requires lots of contact area to be useful, while gas and oil can be produced. We could always nip to Uranus for - presumably abiogenic - methane.
If it comes out of Uranus, that sounds like it's very biological in nature.
The energy cost of getting itt would be many orders of magnitude greater than the energy it embodies.
Perhaps the dinosaurs emigrated from there.
Titan is closer, and they have vast quantities of it. I guess Sabine would claim dinosaurs lived on Titan.
@@rogerphelps9939 It seems the fact that my satirical comment was to point out that most methane is abiogenic in the solar system was too subtle for some people.
If you had people like Tucker in the early 1900s maybe millions of innocent people would still be alive.
The carbon in abiogenic hydrocarbons comes from carbonate rocks which are produced by life and subducted into the mantle. Therefore, the same ratios of isotopes would be expected.
I saw one documentary-style segment with Tucker Carlson in the US while he'd been with fox still and while I wouldn't reject all of his findings and reporting (for instance, why are windmills around Martha's Vineyard banned despite being allowed [and erected] everywhere else in this region), cynics would surly be quick to point out that one of his key takeaways was that renewables also need fusil fuels because the lubrication of windmills is based on that. (however, he did point out that they can leak and apparently found oil residue spread around in the vicinity of some; occasionally up until residential areas.)
--
I think the main mistake everyone will make who's also attacking Sabine is that, "Tucker didn't say this sentence correctly, therefore we can conclude, everything he ever said most be wrong." this is misleading, of course.
The point about Tucker Carlson is that he will lie whenever it suits him without shame.
@@Ollies2CentsWardill Plus if the truth and a lie will each serve as well, Tucker will usually choose the lie.
You must understand Sabine exists on clickbait. Not a reliable source.
As an American I would like to apologize for Tucker Carlson, we do not claim him and he is an embarrassment to this country every time he opens his mouth.
Sometimes I lament the fact that USA cannot deport natural citizens.
Same can be said about you and your comments
Thanks for the great vid!
I'm a climate scientist, and I believe as a scientist in general, our job is to give facts, not judgments or opinions.
I don't think we should even say "climate change is bad for society and the environment", even if it is obvious, it simply isn't the job.
There is such a misconception in the public about this. People always think my job is to tell them to limit their emissions, or that "we're all going to die".
Not at all. 0%. My job is to understand the Earth climate system, to make calculations according to some scenarios, and give the information, period.
If some climate scientist go beyond this, they do it as people, not as scientist. Science is Science, just knowledge, understanding, facts. No judgements, no opinion.
Hey, I've invested in Green Tech too so I can speak to the science as well. Just like Michael Mann and the rest of my Green Investment gurus!
don't buy this. your job as a scientist is absolutely to understand some physical system. your job as a human, and as a particular expert on that system, is to advocate for humanity's wellbeing (or, in this case, possibly its existence). you're not doing science in a vacuum, and I get why you want to make it feel like you are. I mean, or are you saying you want to be able to understand a physical system, and then necessarily not care at all about the implications of the knowledge? because you won't be either way. so I don't know what point you're making.,
Right. "I know millions of people are going to die, and millions more are going to be negatively impacted, but who am I to say that's a bad thing?"
"Why should I say that one person not starving to death is BETTER than them not starving to death"?
The perfect example of a Post-Modernist - the greatest tool (and ally) of the modern Right-Wing.
Thanks a lot for your contribution and """"sticking to the facts"""". Great job.
I've never seen a better post to exemplify why Post-Modernism is a total and complete cancer to society. It's indescribably bad. You should be in jail, unironically.
They are the perfect friend - and tool - of the modern Neo-Fascist movement (which, among other things, wants to worsen climate change).
@@gackerman99 The point he's making is that "people living" and "people dying" is the exact same thing.
Literally. This is not an exaggeration. I really wish it were, but it isn't.
And somehow, he got 6 upvotes (and guess the political affiliations of the people who upvoted?)
Warmth = bad?
I still haven't found a convincing argument for this.
I always thought that coal came from the first wooden plants.
And it took a few million years before bacteria and fungi where able to break this down.
The deposits from these plants became coal.
Since now we have wood eating fungi there be no more new coal.
Moss and bog plants produce peat which is a precursor to coal.
@@maartenvanderzwan8281 water and pressure are other contributing factors but there must be a lot more.
It hardly matters as today's trees will take quite a while before they produce coal or oil etc.
me too, and that was a great idea when first proposed to explain the many coal beds in the carboniferous but I think we should update a lot of science. Microbes can now digest modern plastics and that did not take millions of years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous
@@chrisyukna8007 True but these microbes had a lot of help from humans.
I really appreciate your commentaries.
The desire for human power in the powerful is very dangerous for everyone else.
This is semantics. Oil extracted from the ground, for example, does not fit the traditional definition of fossilization. The organic material is not preserved in any tangible meaning of the word preserved, and it is not mineralized.
Oil is considered a fossil fuel because it’s made through similar external conditions but the end result is not the same as fossilization.
So really, at best, it’s overloading the term fossilization. I’d say it’s a misuse by whoever decided to use it for convenience to vaguely convey the process which leads to the creation of oil and coal.
She herself kept repeating that fossil fuels come "from fossils." I'm astounded that she was saying that. Three minutes in and she's said that at least four times.
@@delavan9141 these talking head science content creators assume they know as much about everything as they do their field of science.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the most obnoxious of them.
@@JohnSmith-op7lsI mean they know a lot more about this stuff than the average person lol
I know this is an attempt to throw shade at her but I’m sorry it REALLY makes you look bad here 😁
@@TempleboroughO damn i didn’t know this
that’s interresting
@@BossAwesomeSauce Yeah, no, doesn’t make me look bad to point out that knowing one thing doesn’t magically mean you know everything else. Makes you look bad for believing that nonsense. And what’s the “average person” exactly? You implying that being a physicist puts you on a pedestal and everyone else is tossed into the average category?
The people you’re putting into that category have actual experience in domains these science content creators love to delve into after a modicum of research.
Dr. Willie Soon Is a very important voice in the climate debate. He has raised very valid questions about the corruption of IPCC data. His exposure of data regarding the urban heat Dome effect, and the blending of rural and intermediate stations is almost without question. He is well respected, and you will find very few scientist that will tangle with him even in the largest Of debate forums
Winning debates does not indicate you are factually correct. It merely shows one is good at debating.
Soon is a tool for interests who want to avoid dealing with unpleasant issues.
@@urdsama42,
So, a couple of illiterate uni students should be able to argue him into the dirt ... maybe.
It’s not always the physicists. Perhaps ask a chemical engineer to explain it all to you. The only discipline (perhaps including petroleum and nuclear engineering) that must be competent not only in physics, chemistry and math but also in each of the three primary transport processes.
Climate denier say whaaaaaaaaaa'...
Willie Soon is funded by the fossil fuel industry to produce bad science - nothing he publishes has changed the science behind climate science.
Wood contains hydrocarbons and is not fossilized.
Wood becomes petrified which I guess is a slightly different process . Being the rock- hound that I found an actual petrified forest and have a chunk of it somewhere on a shelf .
"Why is it always physicists?" You know why...
Because climate science is a place for bright young environmentalists to go get busy saving the world. Physics is a place where curious people try to figure out what's true.
@@miramichi30 Thank you!
In this case, physicists are wrong!
@@fernandoflores3161physics is false?
@johnsalamito6212 Of course not, but their interpretation of the data is wrong for this particular topic.
did you know that water vapor is usually a trace element in the atmosphere at 4% or below while Co2 is .04
So?
The amount of global warming from the water in the atmosphere today is estimated at around 10~15ºC (or K, if that suits better). What we're expecting from a 200~300 ppm *rise* of CO2 is another 4~5 (possibly 6, or even 7)ºC(K) rise on top of that.
You do realise that without the global warming form the present atmospheric concentrations of H2O and (minor) CO2, the Earth's surface would be hovering around freezing point, on average. Indeed, in the recent past (620~750 million years ago we did have a cold spell, and most of the oceans froze, even down to near the equator. In consequence the level of global warming form the water vapour content went right down, and we were locked into that glaciation for around twice the period of time since the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. The current "cold snap" of the last 2 million years was as nothing.
Then, the accumulation of volcanic CO2 without much plant life (zero ashore ; little in the equatorial ice-free seas to remove it was what allowed out present temperate climate to re-establish.
"Snowball Earth" is your search key. As they say in the bitcoin spams, do your own research.
They lie on purpose. When the court rules on the verdict, it assesses the social harm. How is it possible that those liars do giant social harm and receive no penalty?
When you lie on purpose it's not freedom of speech.
LOL why Politicians are not put in jail when they are proven criminals, like Irak war criminal Mr. Bush, Powell, Mrs Clinton... or Ms Lagarde in Europe or vdLeyen ? Please tell me.
Its a huge money machine imo, and all started with the invention of new goods, Emission certificates for CO2. Invented by Al Gore who was vice President during the Clinton presidency. A bid for Presidency failed in 2000 as Bush got elected. I guess he got filthy rich with that.
Leftists should know. They lie every day to forward their worldview. You can never be honest when your very perception of reality is a lie.
Interesting you don't consider all the conveniences petroproducts provide us as societal harms. Cafeteria communist much?
I would like to ask the main stream media that question. They all lie. It’s pure propaganda all over on all sides.
They do not lie at all. Look up the AOC rant on cows. But then there are so many similarities between that particular source of natural gas and the proponents of CC
Fossil fuel or not, Burning Hydrocarbons still yields Carbon Dioxide!
Dear Sabine, thank you for the video. I'll bring up one more (and, I think, definitive) argument. It is based on the fact that organic chemicals in biology are right-handed chiral molecules! And large/big molecules of the "fossil" fuel are also right-handed chiral molecules. If the abiogenic petroleum theory is correct, there must be a similar number of left- and right-handed spinned molecules, which is not the case.
Few years ago I saw a fox interview with a ceo of a big petrol group (I don't remember his name and the group name) saying petroleum is not produced by "dinosaurs soup", that it's basically produced by the earth itself via other abundant organisms/process and he said we're far to have a petroleum shortage. I watched this interview from a twitter link, saving it on the favorites.
The next day that link content was gone and I couldn't find a single trace of that interview anywhere.
Probably because he was lying and Twitter at one time had a policy of not sharing misinformation
@@dogtown1013 twitter what? 🤣
JOE STALIN SEND HIS BOYS LOOKING AND THEY REURENDED WITH OIL IS FROM CENNTER OF EARTH AND BEST PLACES TO FIND IT IS ON TH FLLUATS LINES .... STRANGLE MOST ARE THERE
The petroleum industry has been funding disinformation on this subject for decades, making people doubt the science because they're greedy and only care about profits. Exxon has known for 50 years that their product creates global warming. If anyone says it doesn't, find out who's funding them. Learn critical thinking skills. Skeptics are paid by the oil companies to spout their skepticism.
@@dogtown1013 Twitter had a policy of not sharing misinformation? When was that ever enforced? The number of accounts that have been shut down for citing empirically accurate information is incredible. Look at Covid as an example. If you said you could still get or transmit Covid even if you were vaccinated got your account suspended or canceled. There are countless examples like that. Twitter was garbage before. At least now people are allowed to speak freely.
My theory of temperature warming is that it is not from CO2 or Methane. It is from the expansion of urban areas and farms, asphalt roofs, driveways, roads and parking lots along with plowed fields in the spring absorbing the sunlight.
Add CO2 and methane back into your equation, trust me, the black top definitely doesn't help, they have found adding trees to urban areas provides a cooling effect. Albedo is definitely a factor. So without a doubt plowing the snow in the spring will allow the soil to far more rapidly heat. What about the fact that we have all these oil burning vehicles cooling their 250 degree metals in the air around you 😂. Making the CO2 is also releasing heat
Climate scientists are not stupid. They know about such things.
Your "theory" is just a standard denier talking point. It's as unoriginal as it is unevidenced.
@@AlexFerguson-z8f well, tbh you are very wrong. Albedo is a huge factor.
@@TheSkubna No, I'm clearly correct in my description of the OP's comment. Why you're coming back at me with "albedo" i can only guess, but a strong whiff of the same energy. Unless your own theory is that albedo and any other "but whatabout--!" effects you might care to similarly bang on about dominate over the effects of anthropogenic emissions, have been systematically wrong modelled by the "lamestream" scienntists, and -- this is the good bit -- *have stronger evidence* for that than the alternative, you're merely recreationally fooling yourself.
After the past 4 years we should have learned to always “trust the science.”
"Trust the $ci€nce"®
I am not a climate change denier, I say, right here that if humanity continues down its present path we are going to make life on earth difficult and reduced in scope. However to lay the blame entirely on CO² is dangerous, the biggest, immediate threat is deforestation.
The weather systems and heat distribution of the planet rely on the equatorial rainforests creating vast areas of moist warm air, these then irrigate the regions to the north and south, and help distribute the heat from the equatorial zone.
I'm not explaining it very well, but water vapor in the atmosphere acts as an insulator (no frosts on cloudy nights), reflects IR back into space, and a convector of heat.
The incredible importance of this, as well as the effects of when it fails (such as what happened when prehistoric settlers in Australia destroyed the vast fertile forests of it's Outback 30,000 years ago) are described in an article in the 2nd November 2019 New Scientist magazine called "Rivers in the Sky" which collated information from Gerard Moss, Douglas Sheil, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Dominick Spracklen, Gifford Miller and others.
"The loss of moisture from deforestation is a bigger threat than global warming"
Their words, not mine.
We can cope with 1.5°C of extra heat. But we can only do it if we have water. And deforestation is destroying the biotic pumps that ensure moist air can move inland, and irrigate the bread baskets of the world.
Very well explained! This is to me also the first and utmost premier cause of the whole climate change, too! The CO`2 stuff is misleading, if there is enough moisture and good agricultural activity this CO2 is absorbed and turn into greening the world and offering bigger yields in grains and produce etc. The 'green' revolution in parts of the world are due to that bigger offer of CO2 in the air. But without water it's all in vain. The forests and the main cycle of water is most important and that is in peril by deforestation! That is to me the bigger problem and any savings of CO2 will not have any or just a tiny effect of curing anything.
Lost in the narrative is the fact that it really doesn't matter all that much where the hydrocarbons came from within the earth, burning them produces CO2, a greenhouse gas. Alternatively, burning wood is carbon neutral, as the tree absorbed the carbon from the air and burning it releases that same carbon back into the air. In theory, the same is true of cow methane (farts), as the cow ate the grass which captured the carbon from the air, and the cow is releasing it back into the air. Carbon capture is best done by plants, whether on the ground or in the water. Cutting down rainforests reduces how many plants are available to do that. So, not only do we have to contend with greenhouse effects from fossil fuels, but deforestation also exacerbates the issue. Regenerative Agriculture reverses the process and securely captures the carbon and buries it.
There is a difference between cow carbon emissions (primarily through burps, by the way) and the grass they eat: grass removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and cows (well, their gut bacteria) produce methane, and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas.
@@throw_away_account4514 - (Eric here, alternate label) Methane being a more potent green house gas than just carbon dioxide given equal carbon content... Thanks for the clarification. So cows do contribute to global warming, thus the move to reduce the consumption of beef is well founded.
What about bison? Does their gut also produce methane?
Far more CO2 is captured by oceanic algal blooms than by every plant on Earth combined. It’s been calculated that if we flooded the Sahara desert the resulting carbon capture would remove the excess amount of man-made carbon
@@Sirrus-Adam Pretty sure all ruminants are "burpers", but no doubt the amounts per kg of meat vary significantly between species. And there's work being done to try to offset it in domestic cattle, too.
The details are pretty complex, but the different greenhouse gasses have both different intensities for amount of forcing, and different "dwell times". Methane will get converted to other things, and more quickly on average than a CO2 molecule, but it's having a profound effect in the meantime. Likewise with use of wood as a fuel, yes it's carbon-neutral -- but not if you're harvesting more than you're planting.
@@AlexFerguson-z8f - Thanks for the clarification and update.
I admit I'm excited about regenerative agriculture as both a means to sustainable crops and for carbon capture. Mushrooms also seem to be an important piece of the puzzle with their mycelium network. Plowing apparently is bad as it disrupts this important component. How we produce food in the next 10 or 20 years could well be pretty exciting!
There is now over two million square kilometers more green leaf area compared to the beginning of the 2000s. That is an increase of five percent.
Mostly due to tree planting projects in China and increased intensive agriculture.
and less food produced. Also those greener leafs are less efficient at converting co2 to oxygen. So bad overall..
Source?
since trees hardly contribute to co2 capture, and 2 million square kilometres not being alot to begin with, thats meaningless. On top of that, forest get destroyed much faster than projects replenish them, so i doubt there is more green space. Creating 2 million km² is not the same as increasing by 2mil km². If we create 2mil km² and destroy 4, we still lost 2. I would check your source again and see what specifically was stated there, and where that info comes from
I feel like you are trying to make a point but i don't see what it is?
She quickly discounts solar activity as not impacting climate. I’m skeptical that it has no impact.
The sun is literally the no 1 variable in relation to the earth's temperature.
@@lordsoros627 yep. There a lot of fake science out there.
One important fact you missed, and could investigate is, the Energy return on energy invested for oil.
It started with 100:1, now has plummeted to about 25:1.
At about 5:1, we will slip down the so called energy cliff.
Having to scale up our energy extraction increasingly fast, to even stay on the spot..
From 5:1, society will barrily be able to sustain important parts, because the energy sector has to create an appropriate surplus. From which it will have to reuse growing parts to sustain it selve.
Not true. America is the only country to meet and exceed Kyoto Protocol carbon reduction mandates and we did it with the free market by converting coal plants to natural gas which is cleaner, more efficient, and more energy dense. Energy production die to technology is more efficient today than in the past.
@@nedhill1242 Well america also is the only nation with one what? 20th? of the world population, still using up a quater of literaly everything on this planet.. having created a technical society, only half as efficient as in europe. So you have!! to get better (of course nearly all other s have to do this too).
So what s this about converting coal plants to natural gas ? Do i understand right? you abandoned coal plants, and instead now use fracking gas, to use gas Plants? thats an improvement sure..
But the big problem i think is, that as far as i know it from geology, fracking oil is expected to peak in the next few years, while cruide oil is flat or falling. Other than this , i dont know exactly the situation for gas.
and as nice as this gas plants as an improvement are, they are only on half step to getting climate neutral. we have to get to emissions net sero soon. So only if improvments go on, this is a first step. And also this can not be reproduced anywhere else in the world in any comparable amout.. so no solution for the world.
But i think still we talk about different topics. Getting down on CO2 emissions is one topic.
What i talked about was a different as important topic. An energy source is only an energy source, when it delivers a netto surplus. you always have to invest first energy, if you want to earn it. Thats what nearly allways people who think of Energy ressources only in therms of money and investment , forget.. Its about physics in the first place and not money.
and the ratio of energy surplus is falling and falling and falling, and this even while free markets and technical improvments where in place. You allways harvest the simple to get stuff first, and be left with the bad stuff.
And if OIl fails.. which will come, also all other parts of our energy system will suffer... you cant get coal ot of the mining facilty, without heavy oil using technic..
Thats what i was talking about... and at least the Energy agencys, if you realy ad up the data and look in detail, claimed 20% of oil as stuff, 15 years ago wouldnt have been thought of as oil in any way... some of this stuff cant even be acounted as stuff for your car to drive.. now..
And ! the energy contend of this 20 % compared to old good oil is 20% less.. also something no one looks at if only acounting for markets and money..
so this has to be a big big topic. and ist mosten overseen.
Sabine, I like how you have added your own brand of levity to your videos in ah...the last 2 years. It keeps everything interesting.
I find it rather forced.
Buying carbon credits fixes everything.
Except the customers ends up paying
Tucker Carlson has made a career out of looking puzzled.
Never forget 97% of "scientists" agree.... Sorry that is a lie from Barca!
The funniest part of that lie is that some of the actual scientists named in that document have publicly come out, and said they were misconstrued. When I point that out environmentalists lose it on me as if I'm incorrect. The accurate statement is that 97% of scientists don't wanna lose their funding.
Thank you for making me aware of the Tucker Carlson video. I just watched it. It was very informative. I plan to read the book after I finish the three I am reading right now. 👍
Good man. Keep reading. After that, I suggest you read some actual, proper, scientific papers on climate change and human impact on climate :)
@@B3RyL And he should probably keep reading after that. I would suggest The End of The Megamachine, by Fabian Scheidler.
Higher CO2 is a blessing, it greens the planet.
CO2 level was to low for optimal plant growth.
Its still low, but its getting better.
You spout the same BS that has been debunked THOUSANDS of times.
By your dumb logic, a great flood that kills thousands of people would be a blessing, too, because H2O is very important for all living organisms.
@@CD-kg9by Debunked THOUSANDS of times? People, look, the climate change troll is here!
And because you are a plant, you like it.
@@ickebins6948 I'm a farmer.
Love to see crops growing well.
@@jedadruled984 Crops grew well the last 3000 years...
No worries.