Any chance you could have people on that know what they are talking about rather than Fossil Fuel ie Koch employees like Ben? But maybe free speech and truth aren't your thing.
@@dll7658 You know it's bad when you have to have a club just for free speech. But these college marxists want to pretend like everyone else is the Nazi.
@@KandiKlover or it doesn't do free speech but their speech but pretends it does. Like having someone funded by the FF industry lying about AGW for example.
unlike many of these videos it actually showed a reasonable person asking a reasonable question and a reasonable person providing a reasonable response. This is what intellectual discourse should be.
Dustin Hecker I agree. The guy who asked the question was a total gentlemen and seemed to sincerely want to hear Ben’s answer. It’s hard to tell if he agrees or disagrees with Ben. Either way he was thankful and super respectful to Ben for answering his question.
But he is wrong implying climate change will only cause "water levels to increase a rather predictable number of inches". Nobody is saying the day after tomorrow is going to happen, but is certainly more complex than water levels rising a few inches.
@@CM-ky5go so nature doesn't affect climate change at all? Thats what you're saying? So volcanos, changes on the earth's orbit or the orientation axis of rotation, tectonic plates, the Sun, the CO2 content in the oceans, the current on the oceans, meteorite impacts, etc... none of those affect the climate change? And climate only has changed dramatically with man kind? Or you only read the Bs for dummies they what you to read?
The person who asked the question was very polite and patient. I really appreciate that. He didn’t think he knew more than Ben Shapiro and he didn’t argue so thank you.
So you're happy that no one question what Shapiro had to say and that there wasn't an actual discourse but just accept it whatever he had to say on face value. Ben Shapiro is a climate change denier that's not something that you should just take lightly. Ben Shapiro is also literally there to have a debate, more like dominate his opponent to make himself look better but technically by name at a debate. And Ben Shapiro already functions from the place that he knows more than everyone so that part doesn't even make sense but I guess yay for civility even though Shapiro is rarely civil himself and he's built a career on owning and dominating people he disagrees with and never admitting when he's wrong in which he is quite often.
@@meinemudda3095 here, we can see an example of a snowflake leftist who cant handle the truth because their emotions are more important than reason😫😫😴😴
@@meinemudda3095 when accepting whether climate change is real or not, it is now a political thing, when it should really be a science topic. Politics should only come into play when discussing the POLICIES that can curb carbon emmisions (more gov intervention or not, raise taxes or not etc)
The amount of respect the kid showed inasking Ben that question ....frankly was beautiful. He never put a word in Ben's mouth. He wanted to let him speak for himself.
I like that he doesn't simply dismiss scientific evidence as some other unfortunately would. Nevertheless, he used false information at least three times. 1) Hurricanes are becoming more intense due to climate change, not just more destructive. The science is very clear on that. Just look at the source from NASA below. Plus, the probability is high that the intensification of hurricanes has already been happening over the years. 2) William Nordhaus, the economist who won the Nobel price for his work on climate change, argues that it would be cheaper to mitigate emissions in the future, but this does not mean that - as Shapiro said - "intervention would be counterproductive." Rather, Nordhaus' paper suggests to pursue economic efficiency with the timing of your mitigation options. 3) Shapiro said "The Paris Accords were completely useless" in 3:10. Well, it is only one agreement, not several accords. But no, thats not the false information of course, as I agree it could be mispronunciation. However, he uses polarizing and politicizing language. I could now list numerous IR scholars, economist and political scientists who would argue the contrary. However, I will not engage with Shapiro's overly bold and simplistic statement. So, overall, it unfortunately seems to me that Shapiro is similar to most other deniers, with the slight difference that he dismisses evidence in a more sophisticated way. In any case, I believe his contribution to an intellectual debate is very limited. Sources: 1) earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/ClimateStorms/page2.php 2) web.archive.org/web/20150917214704/www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/web%20rice%20summary%20102599.htm 3) In case you were wondering about one of the arguments how the Paris Agreement has achieved something: Liliana B. Andonova, Thomas N. Hale, Charles B. Rogeror (2018) found how the Paris Agreement has contributed positively to Global Climate Governance processes by creating a hybrid architecture through Transnational Climate Governance. Here is their book: www.routledge.com/The-Comparative-Politics-of-Transnational-Climate-Governance-1st-Edition/Andonova-Hale-Roger/p/book/9780815353782
Thanks for writing this! I generally find myself agreeing with Ben Shapiro when watching him but I've found he does tend to misuse or distort evidence to suit his positions. Tbh things like this might be harmful to our future and the future of our children. As we've hopefully seen with coronavirus, for large scale events like climate change or pandemics we should all stand back and trust the scientists. I hope for the sake of humanity in 100 years we can look back and say "we overreacted" on climate change because if we did, it means we acted correctly.
@BullseyeBullsclaw The way we currently treat god's creation is one of exploitation that brings death and demise not only to us human beings, but also to "every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth." "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" Genesis 1:28 If you look into theological text (for example Laodato si'), you will come to realize that dominion clearly means stewardship, not exploitation and destruction.
@BullseyeBullsclaw I know you havent said that, and I apologize if it irritated you. The reason why I wrote it is because I believe that if one exploits and destroys knowingly, it could be argued that he or she wilfully causes death.
BullseyeBullsclaw we shouldnt allow both to happen. The environment is important to protect as well as murder. Whether or not we should prioritize one over the other is not so wise to do. We don’t prioritize whether or not we deal with either murder or robbery. We just deal with both problems. We shouldn’t prioritize problems over another
@rebecca stefan Ben S. I am sure would destroy almost any climatologist with respect to any topic except possibly climatology. Ben SHAPIRO is not a one trick pony where he gets to just focus on one topic day in and day out.
Bens a very smart man don’t get me wrong but there’s a difference in excelling and being efficient in many different topics as opposed to going against a climatologist who’s whole life’s work is focused on climate change Ben would get destroyed
@@randyokungu1222 Bens argument seems that although he believes in climate change and recognizes the globe is warming up, what is there for us to do in this situation? That little girl(i forget her name) who said we basically need to shut down all transportation just to get emissions down is the equivalent of dropping a massive ice cube into the ocean. Climate change is an extremely complex topic that affects the entire world and there hasnt been a single time in the history of humans where we collectively came together as a race to change 1 thing. What makes you think we'll do it for climate change? In a perfect world we wouldnt have this issue, or many other issues, but thats not the case. Ben Shapiros argument is always reasonable and he uses statistics from actualy professionals to look at not just 1 issue, but the issues that can arise from fixing 1 issue and if its worth it.
@@erickim1739 yeah it’s pretty unrealistic to have all humans come together to try and slow down climate change its inevitable none the less hopefully we can come up with alternate things that we do which contribute to climate change so we can at least slow it down one day
Read Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. He cuts through all of the alarmist bs and lays out a realistic plan to deal with this overly emotional topic. It does require an open mind. Fair warning.
@@codylovell2344 You mean alternativefacts or lies. His very first point, his very first lie. Modelling has been pretty spot on and actual temp falls in the middle of model runs and way way more accurate than denier altscientists. ruclips.net/video/tPSIvu0gQ90/видео.html So after decades of denying warming and "accidentally" putting -ves in their code to "find" cooling at least now they admit they were wrong. BUT some even still deny warming so 2 points, 2 lies. Then he asks a "serious" question, so "serious" he never looks for answers. ruclips.net/video/VNgqv4yVyDw/видео.html ruclips.net/video/17aE91SBMoY/видео.html But he says it's simple case of packing your bags and moving... and ignores the costs.And of flood mitigation because the $trillions in real estate will not just be abandoned. Perhaps Aquaman can by those houses. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm Loses to GDP have also been estimated at $30 trillion+. And the stats don't back up FF employees feelings about the stats. And no "intensity" does not mean "building more stuff" it means intensity. www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/extreme-heat-and-heat-waves www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse Then he again feels addressing AGW means cutting back the economy when the opposite is the case ie doing nothing will decrease GDP. www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-change-could-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/ web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php As for Lomborg's error ridden BS piece, he also forgets to include the costs of causing AGW. The costs of intervening we already pay. We currently pay the FF industry $5.3 trillion a year in taxpayer funded billionaire welfare "subsidies" to cause AGW. The cost of addressing AGW according to Bloomberg would require a $12.1 trillion INVESTMENT not handouts, over 25 years. Or 10% of the FF subsidies. The current price of intervention we pay. Poor countries have far less emissions per person thus much less scope to cut emissions and are also the most effected by AGW. Also are reducing emissions as only 2 countries didn't sign up to Paris, one at war the other the US. So the Us pulled out of a meaningless agreement which deniers demand the US pull out of!!! LOL. So how is paying less for cheaper cleaner RE, no more wars for oil, cleaner air and water, creating jobs and lower taxes "killing capitalism"? Oh forgot, he gets paid by the Kochs to lie and say that. www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#3735872b2800 How is subsidizing the FF industry 10X more each year than the RE net worth a free market capitalist system? Oh Ben's feelings don't care about facts when he get's paid for his feelings.
M Pietje naaah.. he didn’t bring up the fact that for example biological diversity is taking damage from climate change, only rising sea level which is only one of many consequences
I have been following Ben for a couple of years now, watch all his lectures and podcasts and the thing that's happened is that I've become so accustomed to his voice that now if I listen to those with slower speech - and especially with those who 'um' and 'ah' a lot, I tend to lose interest. His thought process is incredible!!
Curious how he responds to ecological concerns - in isolation, humans can bear the increase in temperature, but many other plants and animals can’t, and that may have quite an effect on humans
I'm not a fan of Shapiro but I loved the fact that the first words out of his mouth while answering the guy's question about climate was : First of all I'm not a climatologist. That's something that very few people say when talking adamantly about this subject. I respect that a lot.
That isn’t a smart thing to say, rather it is a strategic choice. Ben says this to shield himself from genuine criticism. He peddles these completely unfounded ideas that aren’t supported by the majority of scientists. Ben is funded by rich people, and is a rich person himself, so he has a vested interest in denying climate change because he knows where the money to calm climate change will come from. The rich.
Ironically it’s the white guy whose forefathers have the highest contribution towards climate change who is denying it. There is nothing ironic about that actually. It’s makes sense. First plunder the whole world of its culture and resources through colonialism and then export the I’ll effect of capitalism to global south. Just look at per capita consumption numbers and you will see it for yourself. Yes America won’t get effected much - they will probably have to deal with more bites from flies. But the other world with a per capita consumption of way less will get ruined in the process. Don’t be animals - atleast acknowledge what you have done. First steps towards fixing it.
Not a big fan of liberal cunts here but Ben does make a very facile argument here. Just because it's gonna cost us more to actively counter climate change in the short run, we can't sit back and just cope with the ramifications of climate change because it's not dangerous enough as yet and that it's 'cost effective' that way. Big fan of Ben but I don't agree with his extremely stunted and rudimentary arguments on this issue.
@@JK.308 He didn't state that directly. But if you read between the lines you'd know that's what he meant. At 2:18 he quotes a Nobel laureate and talks about his research. If you club that along with what he says in these 4 minutes, you'd arrive at the same conclusion I reached.
@@cyrhow5096 We'll only be be accelerating the inevitable. If we don't start acting now, the eventuality would be that the whole world would be submerged in water due to extreme rise of water levels. The only debate is when.
ben talked about how now its just more expensive stuff in the path of hurricanes. I live in India, where close to half a billion people are dependent on agriculture for income and the rest half billion for food(meaning that rain is very important). For thousands of years, the climate has been steady, monsoons have come at the same time every year at the right time to produce the max amount of food. But recently, monsoons have become very unpredictable in terms of amount of water and pattern. Millions of farms have failed thanks to lack of rain or too much rain. If u ask families that have been farming for many many generations, they tell us that something is actually wrong. From the pattern of insects that act as pollinators to spread seeds naturally to rain required. There are too many pests and natural anti-pests have decreased so they have to use a lot of chemicals that might cause poisoning. Climate change does have actual ramifications across the world right now. Its just starting. and its gonna get much worse. Its a chain process where acid rain might kill small insects on the ground which reduces the number of natural pollinators so trees become less and less. therefore herbivores become less. food for carnivores and top of the food chain becomes less and including destroying of their natural habitat is upsetting the entire system that was stable for millions of years. We dont see it. phytoplankton produce half of earths oxygen. they are very small and live in the ocean. Now we all wear synthetic fibres. there micro-plastics when washed end up in the ocean and kill our major source of oxygen and we dont even know about it. Coral reefs are like the major cities and are the economic hub of the oceans. 80% of them are all dead. The entire ocean ecosystem is changing. If Our climate increases by even 1degree Celsius, ocean patterns change and result in change of climate, fish mating patters leading to a huge drop in fish. Millions of fishermen and the economies of a lot of small countries collapse first then the big countries will come
The earth easily has enough resources for everybody if they used efficiently. Also there isn't really a solution to overpopulation except maybe education and healthcare but that's a big challenge. Waddya gonna do, cull people?
@@conkrcstf6405 lmao of course not. Education will help a lot and motivate families to only have 1 child. But you could say the US has high educated population but still number of kids per family is 2.5 in the US. Overpopulation is the biggest problem we have but at least we're trying to diversify and move to a different planet. It'll take maybe a decade more for a proper colony on Mars but at least our grandkids wont have to fight for land or food. But I feel sustainable development will never be a big thing because there will always be people who misinterpret and say, "Oh thats communism!! If I wanna burn down a forest, I got my rights!! If I wanna buy new everything, I can."
"Its fine, people will migrate because of climate change, we have done this since forever!" * African and middleeastern people migrating because of climate change "no, not like that!"
@@kodaminclyde327 if the only concern of these immigrants was to escape rising sea levels (which I'm saying it is not) then there would be no need to move to Europe, simply further inland wherever you are, unless of course the entire continent of Africa was sinking. Ok but I understand now that rising ocean levels is not the only consequence of climate change driving people to leave, there is also changing weather patterns which cause drought, and under this circumstance it makes more sense.
@@JorgenJorgensenSonofJorgen You are intentionally missing the point, its not only about sea levels. We will also see significant increases in extreme weather temperatures, specifically in Africa we will se draughts, crop death, storms, sand blazes etc.
The idea that we are building more things in the path of hurricanes is very true. I graduated from a Florida high school. When I started High school no one was building anything on the Gulf side of the beach only the bay side. It is now many years since High school and you can not walk on the beach because people that built on the beach think their property line goes from the back of their house out into the water. Rich folks.
In climatology, destruction of property is not the measure of intensity and frequency of hurricanes. It seems logical that a rich guy, likely with a beach house, would look at the world like this, but scientists don’t. To say that climatologists are being misled by such a simple data point like ‘more buildings on the beach’, is laughable and totally dishonest.
@@markoshun No but the climate alarmism that is gripping the world is because the alarmists point to the increasing destructive effect of climate catastrophes as 'evidence' that we are in a crisis, whereas in fact it's just that the property destruction is more visible, as there's more property affected.
@@sajjie8121 If by alarmists you mean non scientist celebrities who use irrelevant but related inflammatory talking points to make emotional arguments, then Shapiro is an alarmist. We need to look at the actual data and make rational decisions rather than spread misinformation to ‘win’ an argument. More buildings in the path of hurricanes is irrelevant to the question of storm intensity. Shapiro knows this but uses it anyway because people will think, ‘yes, that’s true’, and assume scientists are making the same mistake.
I think he is mistaken. If he is referig to nordhaus who just won the nobel prize he recommends action now (via carbon tax international agreements etc) for an optimal outcome. He does think these changes should ramp up, but the current price of carbon does not adequately capture the negative xternality created by climate change
I love freedom of speech because then I can call this shit out. I love how Ben Shapiro claims that "conservativitism" is about "personal responsibility", yet when it comes to climate change "it's not economically feasible until it hits 3.5 degrees", like that's the only reason for stopping climate change. If you were about personal responsibillity, you would be about making the personally responsible decision for your future self, your children and others. His version of libertarianism and neo-classical economics is about "lets get wealthy cos it's fun, and maybe we'll use put the toys towards something useful in the future, but only when it's absolutely necessary". He refuses to move past neoclassical economics, which has been debunked relentlessly due to it's assumptions that a) people are rational beings and will spend money in our own best interests and b) that we will be able to "wealth" our way out of every problem. People are not rational human beings. We smoke, drink, fuck our neighbours wives. And why? Because we are selfish and it feels good, not because we know that smoking will cause us lung cancer in the next 30 years. If we go by the mentality of "oh, we'll build our way out of it" and "it's not economically feasible now" we are essentially no better than a 13 year old boy procrastinating doing his maths homework. Sure it would be a better investment in the future to do his homework now, but right now, it's a better investment to go and make friends because his priorities are on being cool. Similarly, the carbon emitting companys' priority is on money and power, and all the joys of life that come from that. Why should we give a fuck about climate change? Well because of food. Agricultural yields are incredibly temperature sensitive. If we want to make sure the price of food stays down, we need to reduce our emissions. If you don't want to be paying an extra $2 dollars for every loaf of bread you buy, then you need to start investing in energy that comes from renewable farms. The more demand for that goes up, the more supply will and it will drive the price down.
@@TheGreatSkull123 Yeah Axial Procession is another typical blame avoidance tactic. It's NOT scientifically wrong, but the implication there is "oh well, it's natural, we can't change it so we moses well just keep doing what we're doing", which is once agian, the opposite of what conservativism espouses. It actually makes me ashamed to be a conservative when I see our people use it in such a way. It happens, BUT we are helping it do it's job, way earlier than it is supposed to and therefore engineering a future planet that will be way less inhabitable than it is now. Imagine everyone having to sit inside and crank their aircon all day every day because it's uninhabitably hot outside. Nah bud, I'm afraid you're wrong on that one. Covid-19 is terrifying. Government's are justified in fear mongering on that one haha. As someone who lives in an acommodation that's taken up largely by medicine students, from their research it is dangerous. It spreads much faster than the flu (and I believe the cold?) and has the ability to mutate way easier than most other diseases. On top of that, the severe symptoms are scary as fuck: not being able to breathe properly, not being able to think properly etc. If you speak to anyone that has actually had the disease in it's full force, they will tell you it's basically like the worst flu you've ever had.
Economics is the least of our concerns when it comes to climate change, ecology is the biggest issue that is suffering a lot more damage the the economy.
Jonathan Vickers This is exactly the problem. You talk about doing it but nobody I know who says “oh the world is dying we must all make green choices and contribute to the future” doesn’t actually do anything about it. And if we’re talking about creating new technology and distributing it, it becomes part of the economy.
Even if you don't believe in man made global warming, pollution is still bad. We breath it in in the form of fumes, drink it in our water etc. Any way to lessen pollution of any kind has to be a good thing.
They will sell them to the Obamas...they recently bought oceanfront property in Martha Vineyard...I guess the threat of melting glaciers and sea level rise of several feet is not a concern to them...
@@marktett5966 do you think this proves anthropogenic global warming is a myth, or that rich people can buy things without worrying too much about losing money? I'm not sure how you would prove the former.
@@drummingtildeath I think that wealthy people are wealthy/stay wealthy for a reason. They're smart with their money. They're not going to buy multi-million$ properties that would plummet like a rock if climate change/sea level rise were really going to happen. ESPECIALLY not the big banks who provide multi-decade, multi-billion dollar mortgages on these hundreds of beachfront developments. Don't kid yourself. Dan Peña is is correct about this. That's great that these young people want something good to fight for and be Reas n for change, but it really is all horseshit, and we're all being hoodwinked for further taxation/control.
@@securityquip3170 rich people do not waste money on mortgages when they have cash. A mortgage often adds a third onto the cost of a property. They can save that money by paying cash and spend it fixing things up - add drainage, retaining walls etc. I actually work for banks valuing properties. This is what I do every day. After a certain amount of wealth people can be cavalier with their cash. They can buy a property to enjoy for twenty years without stressing that their kids' inheritance will be lost, because the property does not represent their entire inheritance. And they can afford to add in features that will protect their properties from rising water levels. The fact that the Obamas bought a property on the sea front is simply not proof that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. It is the weakest argument I have encountered.
@@drummingtildeath They gonna protect their properties from 10+ feet sea level rise huh? And I said the BANKS' mortgages. Banks don't back properties that are going to be worthless taking on water. Yet hundreds of such properties are still provided loans for. Nor is threat of climate change sea level rise even mentioned in their prospectus.
Non sensical , utter bullshit . He also made claims that hurricanes are the same ..we are just building more pricey things in the path of that .. that means humans should not live by coasts . Second, number of hurricanes in 2017-18 were 50-60 . Whilst in 18-19 it has increased to 72 . With more no of cat 5 hurricanes forming .. someone tell this "right " assholes how climate works . Just because speaking fast and mentioning some shallow facts doesn't make you right .
@@Lazydaisy646 yes ..this asshole and his lame logic ..the way he is casually making jokes about hurricanes and people dying and thousands of houses being destroyed . And saying the things about global warming that , what will happen ? Only sea level will rise in next 100 years by inches .are u kidding me ? He doesn't even have a clue about it .and yet speaking like a meteorologist .in USA , he got famous for explaining a commen sense about gender equality . But hes iq is so apperent to talk about scientific things . So he should keep his mouth shut
The free speech club ? What a joke. They filter out the comments that don't go along with their narrative. Warm water is a recipe for hurricanes. The warmer the water, the more likelihood of a hurricane . Inacurrate predictions aren't what matters. 140 years of data matter. It isn't just a couple inches of water. It's more hurricanes, more flooding , more droughts, melting glaciers and less drinking water, etc. Ben brings nothing to the table here.
Thats not true the earth has been relatively stable for the las 9,000 years maintaining average temperatures and climate conditions for the most part withing 1 degree celsius. Prior to climate change
@@seth8647 the best way to sum it up for the naysayers is this. Sure the climate is forever changing and we can't control that but, the change should be so gradual that we shouldn't be seeing changes in one lifetime but we are.
@@johngawrylash7732 biggest hurricane to hit the US North East Coast was about 60 years ago, most all the temp highs happened from 50 to 150 years ago. 2019 not one hurricane hit the US coast. if we've been stable for 700 or 9000 years , what's is the problem, other than wanting to seem dramatic, make something from NOTHING. It takes longer for Kids to grow up, than for temperatures to change, waiting. We cleaned the Hudson River along with all the other rivers over 30 years ago. Las Vegas goes from 200,000 people to over 2,000,000 in 20 years, air condition alone should account for temp increase, so shut down all movie theaters, hotels , hospitals, housing and cars. do not close your churches, we need them to pray for you.
From 0:33 - 0:41, Shapiro says climate modelling always over-estimated climate change. That's false; climate models have done quite well in predicting global warming, for example. Shapiro also cites the IPCC while discussing this topic. Yet even the IPCC disagrees with him on this; the IPCC, and others, note that the IPCC's model-based forecasts often *under-estimated* climate change: "Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections" "Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change" "It is now nearly three decades since the first assessment report of the IPCC, and over that time evidence and confidence in observed and projected ocean and cryosphere changes have grown (very high confidence [...]). Confidence in climate warming and its anthropogenic [a.k.a. human-made] causes has increased across assessment cycles; robust detection was not yet possible in 1990, but has been characterised as unequivocal since AR4 in 2007. *Projections of near-term warming rates in early reports have been realised over the subsequent decades, while projections have tended to err on the side of caution for sea level rise and ocean heat uptake that have developed faster than predicted* [...] [page 1-13 in section 1.4]." report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf page 86 of: "Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction" "Reexamining climate change debates: Scientific disagreement or scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs)?" "Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?" "Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge" "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011" "Comparison of dryland climate change in observations and CMIP5 simulations" "Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change" "The Copenhagen diagnosis: updating the world on the latest climate science" So Shapiro position is rebutted by an overwhelming about of scientific evidence on confirmed model-based predictions on climate change. That makes Shapiro a denialist. Maybe people think that's impolite to say, or find it offensive. But that's irrelevant since how impolite one finds something has no bearing on whether it's true or supported by evidence. After all: *facts don't care about your feelings.* "A person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier." www.lexico.com/en/definition/denialist "Sceptics are willing to change their minds when confronted with new evidence; deniers are not." www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.full
Greenland's and Antarctic's ice sheets cover TROPICAL plants. that means there was an era when there were NO frozen polar caps thus the earth's climate was much hotter. We also know the atmosphere had roughly 20 times higher carbon! THE WORLD DIDN'T END! so take a Valium and calm the fk down.
@@bademoxy Yeah, you know who wasn't around during that time? Human beings. Of course the world is not going "to end" in the sense that the planet will just explode, but there will be, and there already are, far-reaching consequences that directly impact the quality of life of every human being on earth.
When you talk about the effects of climate change just as it gets a bit warmer and the sea gets a bit deeper it doesn’t sound that bad. There are loads of other effects you’re ignoring though such as the acidification and warming of the oceans which will kill the microorganisms at the bottom of the oceans’ food chains. I question Shapiro’s assertion that storms aren’t getting more severe and that we’re just putting more expensive things in their paths. When scientists discuss storm severity it’s in terms of wind strength, size and duration, usually not damage for the exact reason he states. The other big effect of climate change is the loss of biodiversity; all of nature is intertwined and so are we in how we farm our food, fish the oceans and produce materials for clothing. This relies on fertile soil and predictable weather patterns, which only comes from the planet’s diverse plant and animal populations. We completely take for granted that we go in a supermarket and there’s food there but before the end of this century this will become something that we can rely on less and less
This is an interesting read. www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ "In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming. Some possible human influences on tropical cyclones are summarized above. "
@@meltedmarshdaddy What that's saying is they predict there will be an increase in storms, there has been an increase but it's too early to say if those increases are definitely due to anthropogenic forcings. But you can never really say anything for definite when modelling such complex systems
We’ve had long documented climate cycles since the Roman Warm Period 250BC-400AD Then a cooling off during the Dark Ages 400-800 Followed by the Medieval Warm Period 800-1300 Then another cooling cycle during the Little Ice Age 1300-1850 We’ll still be warming for the next few hundred years.
Give credit to the man who asked the question; always give respect to someone who may respectfully disagree, and kindly ask for their answer. GGs all around
Here they only talked about climate change whereas the bigger issue right now is the rapidly decreasing supply of non renewable resources... id be interested to know what ben thinks about that as that seems to me like less of a debate and more of just a fact
The argument against climate activists should be; WHY, over 20,000 years we were in the midst of an Ice Age, which lasted for 10,000 years. What human activity caused the Ice Age? THEN global warming began, no industrial capitalism, i.e. no cars, no airplanes, no cows farting, no fossil fuel emissions, etc. What human activity caused this global warming? When these "climate activists" can answer and explain this Ice Age and global warming phenomenon, ONlY THEN will I listen to them. Do they not realize that the Northern half of the U.S. cities and farm land would not even exist if it was not for Global Warming?
@@pesii1452 bruh "green" lets forget about the nuclear waste that is going to be poisonos as longs as humanity excists. Its basically an energy source for the next 200 years because our uran will not last for much longer and will be a problem as long as humanity excists..... An excelent tradeof I agree.
I love how Ben says people will just migrate and sell their property. Sell to who? Whole Micronesian countries will inevitably be no longer. Yes we should not be alarmists, there has been too much overestimation. The science is clear though, and we should also not be naive.
He said people will migrate like they've done in the past. He did not say that people would sell their homes. I had to rewind the video to make sure what he said.
There’s a difference btw the damage oceans can inflict in certain environments from rising a few inches compared to a few ft. That difference of height can be devastating to some. This future problem can be avoidable or fixed if we start working now. As for hurricanes being more or less destructive due to climate change he’s probably right. But honestly hurricanes or storms are not a major concern when we talk about the consequences of accelerated climate change. “what level of climate change requires what level of cut backs to the global economy” if we remain to burn carbon, than the numbers Ben pulls up are probably true and it would be better for the economy if we just made minimal cut backs and just cope with the rest. However, the cost could be None if the world Switched over to solar energy. Easier said than done but it’s possible. It will actually create more jobs in the long run. Everything else Ben says starting from 2:52 to the end of the video is spot on.
Solar?! Do you realize the amount of mining and materials required in making solar panels. And this is predominantly being made in China where the environmental degradation is extreme. Nuclear is the answer.
solar panels are made of sand so no problem there ,they take them to the wharf on a rickshaw no problem there , they transport them all around the world on sailing ships no problem there , they take them to the distributer on a horse and cart no problem there , the salesman rides a bicycle when he comes to your house to measure up , you don't understand anything
Check out Tony Heller. The entire climate change hypothesis is wrong. CO2 is not a driving force of climate, and rising CO2 levels are actually benefiting crop yields and greening arid areas like has not been seen in human history.
C02 comprises .004% of the atmosphere..... any idiot that believes an element of 4 one hundredth of 1% can have an effect on this Giant Earth.... needs to be institutionalized.
@@canconservative8976 this logic isn't really fair or straight, seeing some poison or toxins like cyanide or chlorine gas can kill even with far less fraction than co2 to kill one and many. And tgeir rise by even one per million, is never desirable.
Yes, Co2 may not culprit alone but methane is huge bad guy on climate in conjunction with co2, methane increase is almost 100% due to human activity,. secondly remember butterfly effect is a fairly recent theory explaining how very small changes in a system can have huge consequences .
@@andsoon..9190 ...confirmation bias... you ignore so many other factors that are magnitudes higher in ability to modify the climate....all in the name of blaming Humans so they can be TAXED. The Oceans being the largest multiplier in this whole climate equation, along with the Sun, then the Earths Orbit, the Earths Core.. THEN MAYBE MAN WITH HIS MICROSCOPIC OUTPUT... This isn't rocket science, use some common sense.
"United states is the number one in reduction of carbon footprint" *people clap* Ignoring the fact that it is also the biggest polluter and had highest carbon footprint for centuries. That's how it is developed..developing nations already have very low carbon footprint because most of the waste is organic there.
Yeah Dude. He also ignored the CBDR principle that states that developed countries have polluted the environment due to industrialization and now it is their responsibility to mitigate climate change. On the other hand developing countries are not "forced" to invest in preventing climate change as it is understandable that they haven't contributed that much.
Ben's point on humans migrating as they've always done doesn't really apply in this day in age. Sure families can sell their homes and drive across states or even move to different countries, but what about relocating an entire city with an existing infrastructure that took hundreds of years to make? We aren't nomads anymore.
Yeah, and if a city as large as New Orleans has to relocate that would be a HUGE problem. It's not easy to get millions of people to move and resettle, just look at all the problems we've had with resettling the millions of Syrian Refugees. And if people need to movie because of Climate Change, their numbers would be even greater than war refugees.
Good point, besides the fact that millions of people who would be affected are *poor* and will face all sorts of serious conflict in trying to move. Borders will be tested and all sorts of political conflicts and quagmires will result.
The world in general has no idea why the weather we are experiencing is what it is now. They reject the true knowledge of who it is that really controls the weather. Lev 26:3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Lev 26:4 Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. Lev 26:19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits. We are under a curse from on High because of DISOBEDIENCE! Things will only get worse!
The fact that he is able to articulate his thoughts so well and the fact that he is speaking fast among other communication skills he has is what really wins him the argument or debate. I would bet that no matter which side or an argument he sided with, he would still be able to give a comprehensive debate and possibly win. This just shows that the facts and figures really don't matter as much in a debate as many would think and what is more important is to be able to put ideas into words so that others can see your opinion from your point of view more easily. No one is stupid or dumb or wrong for having any one opinion because if articulated correctly, any opinion would become as justified as any other.
@@Pyasa.shaitan I don't know what Shapiro's net worth is but he's Hebrew - which means that his ancestors were from the Middle East, not northern Europe.
@@xaviercockerton6989 logic is right! & it's only logical to take a look outside, do a little research & then , my gut feeling is, there is no problem...its man that is extremely arrogant in thinking they can control mother earth... & to ur comment 🤔 gee, I'm not sure either...I mean like, poor fish, they gonna drown!😱
I mean right now as we speak, 25 species will die out & become extinct all on there lonesome...plus if evolution is right (hint....its not) then what's the problem...have we stopped evolving?? if so well I guess every life on land is screwed...lol...& I reckon the animals & plant life that lives submerged under agua will grow legs & arms & develop gills so we can live both on land or under water...🤔 which has always made me wonder, why dont humans have gills as well. Seeing that the earth is 2/3rds agua, one would think that would be total upper advantage so no one would drown & be able to survive the Titanic & all the deaths by drowning...lol, I mean the "nothingness" that "created" or evolved from nothing, yea, that "what" , still a guess or theory...absolute zero evidence, nor witnessed, thru the "billions" of years earth has been "evolving" & 150 yrs of "all the carbon footprint" man is making around the "flat" earth, & the massive scale & sheer size of this blue marble we call home, again, surrounded by 2/3rds water, therefore not much land to live on to produce enough "toxic" vapors to make a hole in the ozone layer, which reminds me of some biblical texts that explain that earth is a big greenhouse & recycles on it's own as God made it to do, not to mention all the volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, wildfires, asteroids, meteors and God knows what else it falls from space, 🤔 oh! & let us not forget cow farts!! there it is, it's the cows fault...which makes it Trumps fault naturally........but yea, man is the problem 🥵🥶🤭🐮💨🤑🤥🙈🙉🙊👣🥀🌎🌋🌀🌪⚡❄☄🔥💧🌊🌡☀️🌬📲💸📈📉🧬🧪🚽🚬⚰🚭🚯🚷📵☣♻️🆘️🆒️🆙️🏴☠️🇺🇸 but hey, logic...
The damages of climate change go beyond that (e.g species extinction, marine health, decrease in snow cover, more deaths caused by respiratory illnesses from bad air quality, human health, hotter summers/colder winters, etc.) and the occurrence of these consequences are happening at accelerating rates all while average temperatures and variance increases
Jacob Laurain funny how that’s the biggest concern of climate change but he never mentions it at all. I agree with Ben on a lot but this is some of the issues I completely disagree with
Lycan Steel Most politicians unfortunately don’t mention it. This is why we need some people in office who aren’t arrogant to conservation, resource management, etc.
Over 50% of warming is due to human activity? where is your data? I have one sentence that destroys that claim: the warming starts long before industrial revolution, and the warming doesn't increased after industrial revolution. We are at the end of a ice age, the temperature can only go up. CO2 is trace gas, there is no evidence that CO2 plays a role in global temperature in the past hundreds of million years of earth history.
@@seanleith5312 I don't know from where you popped up, but you need to do some more research. Then you can see that the temperature of earth has increased by 1°C in last 60 years. This is when industries grew and humans started seeking for comfort and privilege. Before that, the temperature had been increasing by 1°C every 900 years. ruclips.net/video/R7FAAfK78_M/видео.html Give some time to watch this.
This what known as a fighting retreat. First deny the reality of climate change. When this becomes untenable ,deny human causation. Again when forced to abandon this position , retreat into “ Yes, but action is too expensive” Shapiro then presents his prepared position by trotting out a Nobel winner and paraphrasing the nameless worthy. Case proven! That’s if you want to be persuaded . Reality , is that climate change is vastly expensive Action is cheaper. Resorting to past rates of climate change as a predictor of future rates of change is particularly asinine , something only a slick , scheister lawyer would find compelling
"if water rises just move" is basically the message I got. As a Californian resident who has been personally affected by wildfires, it is incredibly disheartening to see people not take climate change as seriously as it is. Every year the fires get worse, devastating homes and lives, and the news does a yearly coverage on it and the world moves on. But we don't. It takes years to recover from even one of our fire seasons, and having them occur yearly and getting worse and worse is devastating. I really wish people could start acting as if their homes are on fire too, because ours certainly are, and no one cares and nothing gets done. That being said, at least he doesn't deny climate change (the standard with our political leaders really is that low!)
I laugh at the right wing deniers, as many are war mongers and almost right wingers demand a strong military, and yet by being climate change deniers they ignore the fact that much military infrastructure is at high risk of being flooded by the rising ocean. Some already suffers high tide flooding! It is very possible that by 2045 all coastal military bases in the US may become unusable. Some, much sooner! Consider also, similar will occur in many civilian sea ports, and some major airports.
Perhaps if your governor took the fires more seriously and allowed backfires to remove the flammable material you wouldn’t have that problem! Same goes for the governor of Hawaii!
If you look at the ancient ice records you will see we have a rise and fall of temperatures every 15,000 years or so with no input from man’s emissions into the atmosphere. No one talks about this.
Yes they do but if you listen to this clown you will never know as he does not believe in man made climate change. The ice records don't predict what we have done to the climate
I remember watching Neil deGrasse Tyson teaching a science course on the slowing spin of the earth over time. Turns out that as the earth slows the earth will heat up and is the biggest cause of climate change. Is there anything we can do to speed the earth back up?
Thank you for wearing a Poppy Mr. Shapiro. You’re a class act. I’m Canadian and have been a big fan of yours for a few years. Please keep doing what you do.
Look what happens to don cherry,I'm very pissed about that,btw I'm korean Canadian and loved Nato saving us korean war. I wear poppy too. I'm a huge leafs fans but not anymore. Didnt watch leafs games since don cherry firing
Almost 2% of the people that watched this video, has liked the content... Only 0.09% disliked it. Considering that even once all the people that would want to disagree or "cancel" this man has tried and then could only drum up 0.09% of dislikes, i for one would say that the proof is in sticking to rational facts over emotional driven "personal truths".
I was asked what caused warming before the industrial revolution,the answer is,of course the same as now,the Sun but the quantity of concrete doesn’t help and neither does having nearly all weather stations in the Northern Hemisphere and close to cities which are natural heat sinks.
@@MrHonigkuchenpferd People have a choice between saving money and dying. They’ll migrate, and scrap the buildings over time and sell the parts. It will obviously have large economic damage, but not nearly the same amount as it would if people just stood there and took it, which they won’t.
What do you get when you give up your car, and you loose your business or production job and you no longer use air travel and you get rid of hobby vehicles, sell your land and get rid of your oil furnace and your country home. Give up eating meat and having pets and offensive religious or traditional celebrations. Then when taxes rise because of computer climate predictions and the cost of implementing renewables, and interest on savings turns negative and pensions disappear and and and This is how you end up with nothing unless the state provides you with your allotted share. But the problem with socialism is, that eventually we will run out of other peoples money. Capitalism and fossil fuel are the only way for us to lift the world out of poverty, educate our children so they will develope ways to keep improving technology for cleaner energy in the future.
A lot of things happen.... first you go live under a bridge or in a tent, then people from Asia will arrive and buy all the homes and businesses because they are making millions in their supercharged economies.... and all the while the politicians with their gold plated pensions work to have you removed off the road so they can travel freely.... but of course they'll throw you a stipend to buy bread and water once per week.... WELCOME TO DEMOCRAT'S VISION OF AMERICA (actually it's globalism)
There are ways to be responsible and make changes without giving all that shit up. Ignoring the fact there is an issue like the right does is just as dangerous as the left screaming the world's going to end.
This is the problem with bipartisanship - it's possible to be capitalist with cleaner energy sources, just as you can have socialist countries burning fossil fuels like China. It's fear mongering to say that limiting emissions means ending religious holidays.
There are 2 key points that Are really At the heart of this debate: 1. There can be no denying That human activity Is having some effect on the climate. It only stands to reason That with more human activity there is going to be greater output. 2. The elephant in the room Is the growing global population. With more people there is going to be greater output And increasing diminishing global resources
no but seriously Ben is right. We need progress first in order for everyone to actually choose the best economic-friendly options. If your poor your going to have to cut trees to make fire, if you cant pay for weekly garbage trucks you'll have to find other ways to get rid of your trash, if you dont have a trash bag you'll choose to throw your trashes on the street or on the sea. We need to fucos on lifting people from poverty.
Ironically it’s the white guy whose forefathers have the highest contribution towards climate change who is denying it. There is nothing ironic about that actually. It’s makes sense. First plunder the whole world of its culture and resources through colonialism and then export the I’ll effect of capitalism to global south. Just look at per capita consumption numbers and you will see it for yourself. Yes America won’t get effected much - they will probably have to deal with more bites from flies. But the other world with a per capita consumption of way less will get ruined in the process. Don’t be animals - atleast acknowledge what you have done. First steps towards fixing it.
@@timmcgrath3995 If you lack expertise in any field of science or engineering, you are incapable of drawing conclusions regarding most complex topics in that field. Thinking that you know better than the experts is a recipe for disaster.
Just because it's gonna cost us more to actively counter climate change in the short run, we can't sit back and just cope with the ramifications of climate change because it's not dangerous enough as yet and that it's 'cost effective' that way. Big fan of Ben but I don't agree with his extremely stunted and rudimentary arguments on this issue.
@Crow KillerIf I'm virtue signalling like you claim, I have zero upside because nobody knows me here on RUclips. I'm as imperfect as most people, I'm not patronising anybody. Just trying to do my bit towards sustainable development.
@Crow Killer Yes it does make me feel better. Everybody walking on this planet is virtue signalling everybody else as per your supreme logic, because we all do or say things that deep down makes us happy. Pretty asinine logic you came up with, but if that's what makes you happy then go ahead and virtue signal a random person on RUclips by unsolicitedly replying to a comment on the comments section. But I guess you already did that! My bad.
@Crow Killer You're virtual signalling again as per your own definition of what it means lol. Btw residential carbon emission footprint is way low compared to the industries. I'm not saying we have to reduce the emissions to zero, but we can do all that is possible to reduce it. So stop with your trolling and move on because I'm not engaging in a conversation with you. I'm out.
honestly, if anyone is still here watching this video, feel free to respond; I think Ben kinda swerved the idea of human devastation by discussing the effects climate change has on the global economy. He insists that it will cost less MONEY to allow climate change to rampage the planet's lands but misses the point that climate change will devastate our livelihoods. Also, I would really like to see these predictions for a climate change - inflicted global economy, I think contemporary times might have altered any predicted patterns.
@@boli4203 live on the eastern seaboard? enjoy eating vegetables at all, especially greens? like hunting? like skiing? like swimming in the lake? enjoy the presence of mosquitos? like having available groundwater for consumption and human use?
It's a disclaimer. He could get in trouble for making blatantly false statements in public. He presents his claims as an opinion, so he could bullshit his way out of anything. It's just meaningless drivel. He straight up said that "50% of that warming is attributable to human activity". What's the other 50% percent? The answer is: it's an opinion, it doesn't matter. ;-)
Like Donald demented trump, Shapiro considers himself a genius. But he is too arrogant and ignorant that he is only a genius in the amount of crap coming from the use of his mouth. Same as trump!
I disagree with him assuming that humans only caused about 50% percent of climate change. There are numerous different studies showing that we are responsible for almost all of it, the easiest one to understand being the relative concentrations of specific carbon isotopes unique to burning fossil fuels. I also disagree with his views that the only reasons why storms are more damaging is because we are building more expensive buildings where storms hit. Any climatologist will tell you that storms are becoming more frequent and energetic. There are more metrics to measuring the strength of storms than just how much damage they do. There are clear and understandable reasons why this is happening. The water temperature is higher, and so more water evaporates making more and bigger storms. There is also a higher difference in temperature also making the storms more powerful. I wish someone could argue with him on this. For someone who says facts don’t care about your feelings, he seems to have a lot of bias in the facts he looks at.
If you want the best available information about mental health you talk to a psychiatrist, not a heart surgeon. If you want the best available information about climate change, you talk to a climatologist, not a lawyer.
Every single prediction form the last 40 years tfrom experts that support climate change HAS BEEN WRONG. EVERY FUKIN SINGLE ONE. So we take their next predictions seriously ? HOW ABOUT YOU GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU FUCKIN IGNORANT PIECE OF UNINTELLIGENT SHIT.
@Jonny Bravo picturepainter is just thinking for themself. Thats something we could all do. You trying to poke holes in that logic is very uninformed. You assume, first of all, from a username what picturepainter is, then you assume that they arent right because of it. I really fail to see how you read that comment and somehow thought it wasnt wise
Hypocritical term ... conservatives typically are catastrophists in regards to most things (literally are fear mongering in their politics afraid of something as simple as change). But when it comes to money and change their love for money and keeping systems the same rules over obvious needs to take action. Shapiros reason for not wanting to commit to influencing climate change being oh its not that bad so lets do nothing because if we do something poor capitalism and capitalist incentives will take a negative hit ... is almost synonymous to lets say since the dawn of time humans were born with a deficiency that screwed their oxygen levels (hypothetically) to where now they cant live past the age of 25 due to low oxygen levels and the bodies natural incapability to harnest oxygen ... even if this is fiscally damning or is capable of disrupting certain systems in place why would we not take action in finding a solution beyond possible expense to follow through and increase longevity in life expectancy beyond what has always existed in human biology with regard to theoretically accepting that an oxygen deficiency has always been a part of our biology ... imagine you only had 25 years to live or if you were born into an era where you will be dead due to a mass extinction event. Whats crazy is my theoretical statement has no easily definitive way we can control and mitigate the affects to my awareness ... but with climate change there are a lot of KNOWN affects we can have in mitigating global warming its fact. The idea is that to call one group catastrophist based off one thing doesnt make sense because there will be issues where someone who is advocating we do something for climate change might not feel like its the end of the world for example an abortion is not the end of the world for some where some other abortion "catastrophist" take abortion to the extreme. It all depends on the issue and you are partially right to make that claim. But not entirely. Everyone in their own right is a catastrophist depending on the issue which i believe to be hilarious. But with that said i felt there was a lot of hypocrisy in that statement just wanted to clarify. Especially coming from a person of a party that breeds people to fear everything and anything that constitutes change ... which is literally all the elements that constitute living. Everything has a rate of change not a single part of life is stagnant to our current knowledge. Although you never know there might be the one thing that we discover in the future but who knows.
@@matthewcuriel991 There are catastrophists in every political group, sure. But that whataboutism doesn't rebut the fact that many prominent forecasts from climate change activists and scientists have been wrong, so it's reasonable to be skeptical, especially because predicting the future with models is also not as straightforward as testing chemicals in a lab, for example.
@@izdatbOi let me know precisely what im ignoring id like to know ... ignorance implies im ignoring something so feel free to let me know. I personally make strides to ensure the things i say are fully considerate so give me feed back thats why i put things out there to build perspective. Please and thanks
@@thinkngskeptic i even mentioned understanding the case where climate change projections may be over-projections of what may happen in my last comment though. Where the affects may not be as drastic. But i make my point to say that isnt good reasoning to do nothing and continue things as usual because you dont know for a 100 percent FACT that a projection of an event *that hasnt happened yet* is false as you say till we go however many years to the day things are projected to happen and yes it might not be 100 percent but anything over 50 percent accuracy is fucked and vonsidering how i know these things are conducted i trust above 50 percent is possible and probable... til the event happens you wont know whether the projections arent right or were not close to right so your skepticism is pointless. The closest we will ever be to knowing what MAY happen is through these projections that you dont want to be right because it will alledgedly .... dundundun DESTROY CAPITALISM. Like who gives a fuck i assume no one would let that just happen anyway because its quite evident capitalism is . part of the deeply rooted fabric of US institutions and conservatives wouldnt allow that to easily happen anyway ... amd you act like every liberal person doesnt support capitalism or doesnt see its benefits enough to know the importance of not just destroying the system there are some who think socialism is better but its not a majority thats why a lot of democratic socialist proposals arent complete reenvisionments of failed socialist systems. The same way we will work to mitigate climate change we can work to maintain our capitalism if thats the issue. Most these projections come from modeling differential equations where they take different factors to what contributes to global warming as possible to get a clearer and more concise picture of what the rate of change in the climate will be. So you are right considering things naturally change and more factors can come out the blue or some factors conducted can have mitigated impact on the outlook .... its not easy to be 100 percent right about these types of projections because different factors may introduce themselves to change the projections over the years... this is a similar concept to weather mapping or hurricane tracking. There have been many instances where these things arent 100 percent but most times they fit the general cycle because these maps are well conducted and considerate of as many factors as possible for more precision. But what since hurricane maps are not 100 percent correct does that mean you are not going to put up hurricane shutters. If so have fou when the shit hits. And if it doesnt you got lucky. Its easy to be skeptical and because things arent 100 percent evident you rather neglect it completely. But it shouldnt take for the event to happen for you to be right or wrong for the good old "i told you so" syndrome to kick in while we all die of mass extinction lol. I dont get why people do that to begin with but in general i dont see why corporate greed and capitalist incentives get in the way of us putting in an ACTUAL effort to control and maintain the environment for our future as a whole. No matter how bad the affects are or will be why not try. Thats where my problem will always be is people choose to not try because of this irrational fear they will waste time or capitalism will die or whatever the fear is. Let your fears drive you to want to fix the problems instead of hold you in place and dwell on worst case scenario because to me thats all it seems like people with your mindset do. And to be honest in some regard i need to take my own advice because with some things in my life i let fear keep me in place but its for more things that can be super life altering that i have no game plan for to tackle not because im not willing to try things i just dont know what im going to try and im not willing to risk doing stupid shit that will have negative impact. So you are right it isnt as straight forward as testing chemicals in a lab because at least in a lab all yout variables are there in front of you while predicting furgre events not everything is in front of you to know precisesly, but that doesnt mean we dont try, thats the issue ... because trust me no body wants to waste their time conducting even remotely false projections (no body wants to know the possible fate of the world hurdling towards a mass extinction) or go around fear mongering with projections just to do it and to manipulate a mass amount of people with misinformation and propoganda which to me is a conservative tactic that ive witnessed whether it be democrat or republican ... people get told simplified semi truths or outright lies and because it comes from their news source thats all they care to listen to but hey you might see the same thing in the opposite direction and i cant say other wise because thats your perspective. But some people genuinely want whats best for the over all out look of society. Not just gimmicks to how to mainttain things and hold survival incentives for personal gain which is basically what conservatives do. Their agenda involves exploiting keeping things the same fear monger propogating and repeating. I say conservatives because this happems with both democrats and republicans that have conservative incentives. Sometimes just allowing people who are willing to put the effort in and give a damn is way better than shutting them down and taking their credibility away. Imagine when you were being raised by your parents you felt like what they were saying was stupid and you tried to force them to do nothing because you thought they were stupid and not because they actually were but because they ciuldnt ensure what they were doing would 100 percent be good for you. But in reality the thing they were doing or proposing for you was in your best interest beyond your understanding to accept and with good intentions to your overall outlook. But because you dont want to believe what they are saying is even remotely possible due to a self proclaimed lack of evidence that what was being said definitely ensured a better future, because of your complex you miss out on something you could have benefitted from and maintained a healthy relationship with your parents. Instead you have opted toxicity and complacency. Thats how I see it. One thing to know in the absence of knowledge/information that opens a gateway of possibility ... endless possibility. Logic backs what im saying. So for example if someone says they dont have evidence but the sun might explode on this day just due to self conducted projection... lack of evidence doesnt just imply the sun will never explode and that thats the only possible outcome. Its equally possible that the sun can explode or it wont explode or some other outcome ... thats the logical way to look at it and at that point when you weigh the possibilities you can say which is more probable due to subjective belief and or factors that may logically shift probability one way but until the event happens you dont know only one to be true as people like to make things seem. But people live in delusion and think they are fortune tellers i swear. And this is not a party specific notion i notice this in a vast majority of people and its dumb. If the main question of why not even try gets answered ill have more to consider but until then i hold my case
The problem is so complex and the solutions they suggest are not achievable. We can't destroy our economy and spend trillions of dollars when there is no way to measure if anything that we do is working because their models and predictions are always wrong. Scaring little children and using hysterical lanquage is sick and wrong. The best we can do is to prepare for the changes and adapt
The effect human activity has on the climate is not accurately quantifiable.The idea that politicians could or even would do anything to affect the climate if we gave them more power and more tax dollars is utterly preposterous. All they would do is ask for more power and higher taxes because we didn’t give them enough to fix the problem in the first place.
@Simon Bolduc I believe we are fowling our nest. If the Gullible warming crowd has just said; hey, we need to clean up our act, they would have found me there, waiting impatiently for them to catch up. But, the 'never let a crisis go to waste' crowd, Al Gore and the left, had to claim to be able to control the climate. The arrogance and hubris involved in that boondoggle snake oil sales pitch is epic and dangerous.
@Simon Bolduc That statement starts with the false conclusions that A) that there is climate change and B) that mankind is responsible for an unprovable claim. There is NO PROOF of Anthropogenic Global Warming. To have scientific proof you would need the scientific method, which requires a control. In this case it would mean having an identical planet Earth in an identical orbit from which you could remove humans, study it for a couple of hundred years and reach a conclusion. And you would need to be able to repeat that experiment over and over. You would also have to remove fossil fuels and study it for a couple of hundred years and reach a conclusion. And you would need to be able to repeat that experiment over and over. That’s not possible. All some scientists have is anecdotal observations and disputed computer projections. If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. That is not proof.
@Simon Bolduc e-ro-sion [ih-roh-zhuh n] Spell Syllables noun 1.the act or state of eroding; state of being eroded. 2.the process by which the surface of the earth is worn away by the action of water, glaciers, winds, waves, etc. Learn it know it, it's been happening since there has been liquid water on the surface of the earth.
@Simon Bolduc And besides that, where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
@Simon Bolduc Polar bears are thriving. Glaciers have come and gone multiple times in earth's geologic history. North America used to be covered with them down to what is currently St Louis. and started receding about 11,000 years ago. Faster, because of man? tThat's again not accurately quantifiable. Try this. Take a bottle, fill it full with ice and then water. Put a cap on it tightly. Mark the level . Let all the ice melt. Then undo the cap. Now check the level again. What happens to the level of the liquid?
Yep, in the end if we collective don't fix this (and we CAN) that will be the "adaption" = people dying. Thanks a lot for your fucking insight Ben. Straight from the LA Lawyer, Ben "I Don't Know Shit About Science" Shapiro.
While I appreciate the reasonable response, there are effects that we can measure that shows the effects of climate change. For example, flooding is increasing in many parts of the world, and some islands can be completely underwater.
We have a number of new events coming up with these amazing speakers. Please subscribe to our channel and hit the bell button to stay up to date!
Looking forward to that! But really I subbed cause of your name.
Any chance you could have people on that know what they are talking about rather than Fossil Fuel ie Koch employees like Ben? But maybe free speech and truth aren't your thing.
James Pyke 😂🤪😢
@@dll7658 You know it's bad when you have to have a club just for free speech. But these college marxists want to pretend like everyone else is the Nazi.
@@KandiKlover or it doesn't do free speech but their speech but pretends it does. Like having someone funded by the FF industry lying about AGW for example.
unlike many of these videos it actually showed a reasonable person asking a reasonable question and a reasonable person providing a reasonable response. This is what intellectual discourse should be.
Dustin Hecker I agree. The guy who asked the question was a total gentlemen and seemed to sincerely want to hear Ben’s answer. It’s hard to tell if he agrees or disagrees with Ben. Either way he was thankful and super respectful to Ben for answering his question.
But he is wrong implying climate change will only cause "water levels to increase a rather predictable number of inches". Nobody is saying the day after tomorrow is going to happen, but is certainly more complex than water levels rising a few inches.
@@CM-ky5go He didn't say humans are only 50% responsible for GHG emissions.
@@raul-cayo Based on your knowledge what would be your best estimate as to what other effects it will have and when?
@@CM-ky5go so nature doesn't affect climate change at all? Thats what you're saying? So volcanos, changes on the earth's orbit or the orientation axis of rotation, tectonic plates, the Sun, the CO2 content in the oceans, the current on the oceans, meteorite impacts, etc... none of those affect the climate change? And climate only has changed dramatically with man kind? Or you only read the Bs for dummies they what you to read?
The person who asked the question was very polite and patient. I really appreciate that. He didn’t think he knew more than Ben Shapiro and he didn’t argue so thank you.
Lipzi Michel
he is an educated sikh ( religion from north part of india ie punjab)
John Deegan apparently a lot of people care.
interesting videos still not smarter than Ben
@Fadi Ebrhem For allowing Ben to spread his FF funded lies unchecked like Ben is paid to do I guess.
So you're happy that no one question what Shapiro had to say and that there wasn't an actual discourse but just accept it whatever he had to say on face value. Ben Shapiro is a climate change denier that's not something that you should just take lightly. Ben Shapiro is also literally there to have a debate, more like dominate his opponent to make himself look better but technically by name at a debate. And Ben Shapiro already functions from the place that he knows more than everyone so that part doesn't even make sense but I guess yay for civility even though Shapiro is rarely civil himself and he's built a career on owning and dominating people he disagrees with and never admitting when he's wrong in which he is quite often.
There needs to be a Ben Shapiro app where during an argument, you can just pull up the topic and it plays a video of Ben debating the issue.
Scott Fisher LOL. I wouldn’t mind paying for this app 😳
@@jonathanvickers6379 you're not related to Josh Vickers are you?
@@meinemudda3095 here, we can see an example of a snowflake leftist who cant handle the truth because their emotions are more important than reason😫😫😴😴
@@meinemudda3095 when accepting whether climate change is real or not, it is now a political thing, when it should really be a science topic. Politics should only come into play when discussing the POLICIES that can curb carbon emmisions (more gov intervention or not, raise taxes or not etc)
Yes
The amount of respect the kid showed inasking Ben that question ....frankly was beautiful. He never put a word in Ben's mouth. He wanted to let him speak for himself.
The dude who asked the question said "thank you" at the end. That guy isn't a liberal.
Gopal Krishna yep, a liberal would of said “ hey c0cksuckr! “
@@jukebox1138 He would've said "But...But
Moron
I say thank you and I'm a liberal......
@@maybethisismarq than you are en error in the conservativ Matrix ;)
Climate change himself shows up to debate Ben Shapiro
The Dinkster This is such a dumb comment, I love it!
Did you just assume the gender of climate change?!
Mark's P.H he assumed the Color of climate change.
Pinkaugust naw that’s just what the thumbnail looks like
what?
I like that he doesn't simply dismiss scientific evidence as some other unfortunately would.
Nevertheless, he used false information at least three times. 1) Hurricanes are becoming more intense due to climate change, not just more destructive. The science is very clear on that. Just look at the source from NASA below. Plus, the probability is high that the intensification of hurricanes has already been happening over the years. 2) William Nordhaus, the economist who won the Nobel price for his work on climate change, argues that it would be cheaper to mitigate emissions in the future, but this does not mean that - as Shapiro said - "intervention would be counterproductive." Rather, Nordhaus' paper suggests to pursue economic efficiency with the timing of your mitigation options. 3) Shapiro said "The Paris Accords were completely useless" in 3:10. Well, it is only one agreement, not several accords. But no, thats not the false information of course, as I agree it could be mispronunciation. However, he uses polarizing and politicizing language. I could now list numerous IR scholars, economist and political scientists who would argue the contrary. However, I will not engage with Shapiro's overly bold and simplistic statement.
So, overall, it unfortunately seems to me that Shapiro is similar to most other deniers, with the slight difference that he dismisses evidence in a more sophisticated way. In any case, I believe his contribution to an intellectual debate is very limited.
Sources:
1) earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/ClimateStorms/page2.php
2) web.archive.org/web/20150917214704/www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/web%20rice%20summary%20102599.htm
3) In case you were wondering about one of the arguments how the Paris Agreement has achieved something: Liliana B. Andonova, Thomas N. Hale, Charles B. Rogeror (2018) found how the Paris Agreement has contributed positively to Global Climate Governance processes by creating a hybrid architecture through Transnational Climate Governance. Here is their book: www.routledge.com/The-Comparative-Politics-of-Transnational-Climate-Governance-1st-Edition/Andonova-Hale-Roger/p/book/9780815353782
@BullseyeBullsclaw like what?
Thanks for writing this! I generally find myself agreeing with Ben Shapiro when watching him but I've found he does tend to misuse or distort evidence to suit his positions. Tbh things like this might be harmful to our future and the future of our children. As we've hopefully seen with coronavirus, for large scale events like climate change or pandemics we should all stand back and trust the scientists. I hope for the sake of humanity in 100 years we can look back and say "we overreacted" on climate change because if we did, it means we acted correctly.
@BullseyeBullsclaw The way we currently treat god's creation is one of exploitation that brings death and demise not only to us human beings, but also to "every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth."
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" Genesis 1:28
If you look into theological text (for example Laodato si'), you will come to realize that dominion clearly means stewardship, not exploitation and destruction.
@BullseyeBullsclaw I know you havent said that, and I apologize if it irritated you. The reason why I wrote it is because I believe that if one exploits and destroys knowingly, it could be argued that he or she wilfully causes death.
BullseyeBullsclaw we shouldnt allow both to happen. The environment is important to protect as well as murder. Whether or not we should prioritize one over the other is not so wise to do. We don’t prioritize whether or not we deal with either murder or robbery. We just deal with both problems. We shouldn’t prioritize problems over another
I'd like to see Ben Shapiro debate an actual climatologist.
@rebecca stefan Ben S. I am sure would destroy almost any climatologist with respect to any topic except possibly climatology. Ben SHAPIRO is not a one trick pony where he gets to just focus on one topic day in and day out.
Bens a very smart man don’t get me wrong but there’s a difference in excelling and being efficient in many different topics as opposed to going against a climatologist who’s whole life’s work is focused on climate change Ben would get destroyed
@@randyokungu1222 Bens argument seems that although he believes in climate change and recognizes the globe is warming up, what is there for us to do in this situation? That little girl(i forget her name) who said we basically need to shut down all transportation just to get emissions down is the equivalent of dropping a massive ice cube into the ocean. Climate change is an extremely complex topic that affects the entire world and there hasnt been a single time in the history of humans where we collectively came together as a race to change 1 thing. What makes you think we'll do it for climate change?
In a perfect world we wouldnt have this issue, or many other issues, but thats not the case. Ben Shapiros argument is always reasonable and he uses statistics from actualy professionals to look at not just 1 issue, but the issues that can arise from fixing 1 issue and if its worth it.
@@erickim1739 yeah it’s pretty unrealistic to have all humans come together to try and slow down climate change its inevitable none the less hopefully we can come up with alternate things that we do which contribute to climate change so we can at least slow it down one day
Read Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. He cuts through all of the alarmist bs and lays out a realistic plan to deal with this overly emotional topic. It does require an open mind. Fair warning.
This dude talks so fast it's like Eminem went to harvard and is rapping common sense into people
🤣🤣🤣🤣
😅😅
replace "common sense" with lies ignorance and BS and you'd be right.
@@jamespyke6764 you mean facts lmao
@@codylovell2344 You mean alternativefacts or lies. His very first point, his very first lie. Modelling has been pretty spot on and actual temp falls in the middle of model runs and way way more accurate than denier altscientists.
ruclips.net/video/tPSIvu0gQ90/видео.html
So after decades of denying warming and "accidentally" putting -ves in their code to "find" cooling at least now they admit they were wrong. BUT some even still deny warming so 2 points, 2 lies. Then he asks a "serious" question, so "serious" he never looks for answers.
ruclips.net/video/VNgqv4yVyDw/видео.html ruclips.net/video/17aE91SBMoY/видео.html
But he says it's simple case of packing your bags and moving... and ignores the costs.And of flood mitigation because the $trillions in real estate will not just be abandoned. Perhaps Aquaman can by those houses.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180703190745.htm
Loses to GDP have also been estimated at $30 trillion+. And the stats don't back up FF employees feelings about the stats. And no "intensity" does not mean "building more stuff" it means intensity.
www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/extreme-heat-and-heat-waves
www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse
Then he again feels addressing AGW means cutting back the economy when the opposite is the case ie doing nothing will decrease GDP.
www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/19/climate-change-could-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/
web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php
As for Lomborg's error ridden BS piece, he also forgets to include the costs of causing AGW. The costs of intervening we already pay. We currently pay the FF industry $5.3 trillion a year in taxpayer funded billionaire welfare "subsidies" to cause AGW. The cost of addressing AGW according to Bloomberg would require a $12.1 trillion INVESTMENT not handouts, over 25 years. Or 10% of the FF subsidies. The current price of intervention we pay. Poor countries have far less emissions per person thus much less scope to cut emissions and are also the most effected by AGW. Also are reducing emissions as only 2 countries didn't sign up to Paris, one at war the other the US. So the Us pulled out of a meaningless agreement which deniers demand the US pull out of!!! LOL. So how is paying less for cheaper cleaner RE, no more wars for oil, cleaner air and water, creating jobs and lower taxes "killing capitalism"? Oh forgot, he gets paid by the Kochs to lie and say that.
www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg
www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#3735872b2800
How is subsidizing the FF industry 10X more each year than the RE net worth a free market capitalist system? Oh Ben's feelings don't care about facts when he get's paid for his feelings.
Turn down the playback speed to .75x to hear him talk like a normal person.
saurabh That’s because he’s so damn smart
M Pietje naaah.. he didn’t bring up the fact that for example biological diversity is taking damage from climate change, only rising sea level which is only one of many consequences
@@mpietje5110 talking fast ≠ being smart
that makes Tonedeff smarter than Ben Shapiro then
Lmaoo
I have been following Ben for a couple of years now, watch all his lectures and podcasts and the thing that's happened is that I've become so accustomed to his voice that now if I listen to those with slower speech - and especially with those who 'um' and 'ah' a lot, I tend to lose interest. His thought process is incredible!!
Finally a level headed person asking the question is provided a level headed response to that question.
Curious how he responds to ecological concerns - in isolation, humans can bear the increase in temperature, but many other plants and animals can’t, and that may have quite an effect on humans
Yeah he totally forgot that
What increase in temperature?
@@oatnoid climate change. Sea temprature rise and land
@@zorkija4376 Where? Got any proof?
@@oatnoid google "global average temperature graph" it really isnt that hard
I'm not a fan of Shapiro but I loved the fact that the first words out of his mouth while answering the guy's question about climate was :
First of all I'm not a climatologist. That's something that very few people say when talking adamantly about this subject.
I respect that a lot.
That isn’t a smart thing to say, rather it is a strategic choice. Ben says this to shield himself from genuine criticism. He peddles these completely unfounded ideas that aren’t supported by the majority of scientists. Ben is funded by rich people, and is a rich person himself, so he has a vested interest in denying climate change because he knows where the money to calm climate change will come from. The rich.
Ironically it’s the white guy whose forefathers have the highest contribution towards climate change who is denying it. There is nothing ironic about that actually. It’s makes sense. First plunder the whole world of its culture and resources through colonialism and then export the I’ll effect of capitalism to global south. Just look at per capita consumption numbers and you will see it for yourself. Yes America won’t get effected much - they will probably have to deal with more bites from flies. But the other world with a per capita consumption of way less will get ruined in the process. Don’t be animals - atleast acknowledge what you have done. First steps towards fixing it.
What I'd like to hear in climate change debates is "I'm a bought and paid for climatologist " I'm answering your questions as directed by my owners.
2:04
@@arpanprashanth9193That’s not true at all.
This guy has an intensity that’s so fortunately focused into clear argument that you can go along with him the whole time. It’s a helluva ride.
Not a big fan of liberal cunts here but Ben does make a very facile argument here. Just because it's gonna cost us more to actively counter climate change in the short run, we can't sit back and just cope with the ramifications of climate change because it's not dangerous enough as yet and that it's 'cost effective' that way.
Big fan of Ben but I don't agree with his extremely stunted and rudimentary arguments on this issue.
Shravan Satyanarayan where in the video did he say we should just sit back and let it happen? Oh yeah, he didn't
@@shravansatyanarayan1665 What will happen if we don't "do anything"?
@@JK.308 He didn't state that directly. But if you read between the lines you'd know that's what he meant. At 2:18 he quotes a Nobel laureate and talks about his research. If you club that along with what he says in these 4 minutes, you'd arrive at the same conclusion I reached.
@@cyrhow5096 We'll only be be accelerating the inevitable. If we don't start acting now, the eventuality would be that the whole world would be submerged in water due to extreme rise of water levels. The only debate is when.
I just wanna say :- How dare you😂
You beat me to it!!
How DARE you*
LMFAO
"DoN't MoCk A cHiLd YoU mOnStEr!"
@@izdatbOi she's 16 yrs old and brainwashed to believe the end of the world is coming
Props to the kid. He actually asked questions.
The real hero is the guy who asked the question. Props to him!
Rick O'Shea somebody lost his fat uncle in 9/11 lol
Anmol Sandhu you know what you’re doing, trying to make a comment to trigger people.
do you not understand what the word "hero" means?
His stupid hat?
@@whiteclifffl what makes his hat stupid?
ben talked about how now its just more expensive stuff in the path of hurricanes. I live in India, where close to half a billion people are dependent on agriculture for income and the rest half billion for food(meaning that rain is very important). For thousands of years, the climate has been steady, monsoons have come at the same time every year at the right time to produce the max amount of food. But recently, monsoons have become very unpredictable in terms of amount of water and pattern. Millions of farms have failed thanks to lack of rain or too much rain. If u ask families that have been farming for many many generations, they tell us that something is actually wrong. From the pattern of insects that act as pollinators to spread seeds naturally to rain required. There are too many pests and natural anti-pests have decreased so they have to use a lot of chemicals that might cause poisoning. Climate change does have actual ramifications across the world right now. Its just starting. and its gonna get much worse. Its a chain process where acid rain might kill small insects on the ground which reduces the number of natural pollinators so trees become less and less. therefore herbivores become less. food for carnivores and top of the food chain becomes less and including destroying of their natural habitat is upsetting the entire system that was stable for millions of years. We dont see it. phytoplankton produce half of earths oxygen. they are very small and live in the ocean. Now we all wear synthetic fibres. there micro-plastics when washed end up in the ocean and kill our major source of oxygen and we dont even know about it. Coral reefs are like the major cities and are the economic hub of the oceans. 80% of them are all dead. The entire ocean ecosystem is changing. If Our climate increases by even 1degree Celsius, ocean patterns change and result in change of climate, fish mating patters leading to a huge drop in fish. Millions of fishermen and the economies of a lot of small countries collapse first then the big countries will come
Thank you for an interesting post. Seems like overpopulation is really the elephant in the room?
@@magaranita that is definitely a reason. But, unfortunately it is not the only reason.
I have to agree with you. I mean humanity is not the only one living in this world right?
The earth easily has enough resources for everybody if they used efficiently. Also there isn't really a solution to overpopulation except maybe education and healthcare but that's a big challenge. Waddya gonna do, cull people?
@@conkrcstf6405 lmao of course not. Education will help a lot and motivate families to only have 1 child. But you could say the US has high educated population but still number of kids per family is 2.5 in the US. Overpopulation is the biggest problem we have but at least we're trying to diversify and move to a different planet. It'll take maybe a decade more for a proper colony on Mars but at least our grandkids wont have to fight for land or food. But I feel sustainable development will never be a big thing because there will always be people who misinterpret and say, "Oh thats communism!! If I wanna burn down a forest, I got my rights!! If I wanna buy new everything, I can."
"Its fine, people will migrate because of climate change, we have done this since forever!"
* African and middleeastern people migrating because of climate change
"no, not like that!"
Most Middle Eastern and African migrants migrate because of shit governance in their home countries, rather than climate change.
@@24killsequalMOAB like how US war killed 500 thousand citizens, or how the overthrew the Iranian government?
yeah migrate in land to escape rising ocean levels, not to another continent
@@kodaminclyde327 if the only concern of these immigrants was to escape rising sea levels (which I'm saying it is not) then there would be no need to move to Europe, simply further inland wherever you are, unless of course the entire continent of Africa was sinking. Ok but I understand now that rising ocean levels is not the only consequence of climate change driving people to leave, there is also changing weather patterns which cause drought, and under this circumstance it makes more sense.
@@JorgenJorgensenSonofJorgen You are intentionally missing the point, its not only about sea levels. We will also see significant increases in extreme weather temperatures, specifically in Africa we will se draughts, crop death, storms, sand blazes etc.
The idea that we are building more things in the path of hurricanes is very true. I graduated from a Florida high school. When I started High school no one was building anything on the Gulf side of the beach only the bay side. It is now many years since High school and you can not walk on the beach because people that built on the beach think their property line goes from the back of their house out into the water. Rich folks.
In climatology, destruction of property is not the measure of intensity and frequency of hurricanes. It seems logical that a rich guy, likely with a beach house, would look at the world like this, but scientists don’t.
To say that climatologists are being misled by such a simple data point like ‘more buildings on the beach’, is laughable and totally dishonest.
@@markoshun No but the climate alarmism that is gripping the world is because the alarmists point to the increasing destructive effect of climate catastrophes as 'evidence' that we are in a crisis, whereas in fact it's just that the property destruction is more visible, as there's more property affected.
@@sajjie8121 If by alarmists you mean non scientist celebrities who use irrelevant but related inflammatory talking points to make emotional arguments, then Shapiro is an alarmist. We need to look at the actual data and make rational decisions rather than spread misinformation to ‘win’ an argument.
More buildings in the path of hurricanes is irrelevant to the question of storm intensity. Shapiro knows this but uses it anyway because people will think, ‘yes, that’s true’, and assume scientists are making the same mistake.
A dude making millions on talking common sense.
Unfortunately, alot of "common sense" isn't backed by science
Nowadays it’s so dangerous to talk common sense publicly, I think he deserves every dollar
@@drrightwing4435 huh lol
@@drrightwing4435 Anytime I hear "common sense" or "just think" I usually assume I'm talking to a moron.
Maybe he makes millions because he uses common sense. Since when is being financially successful and having common sense mutually exclusive?
Literally got a greta commercial asking me to go vegan for the climate.
@Dwight Cook Nah I think the company are just bidding on videos of a similar theme
@Philip Arvanitidis Good one
Being vegan is not something bad too, it's a decent thing actually.
@Rick O'Shea That's the irony/hypocrisy, that most overlook.
You deserved it for being a dumbass and not using uBlock or youtube Vanced or the tweakbox version for iOS. Literally zero excuse for that these days.
Saw Ben and climate change had to watch lol
Me too.
I smell peanuts.
Popcorn and m&m and a large soda
How someone could be so wrong is funny to watch and at the same time sad.
@@jamespyke6764 He's so off on his numbers it's not even funny. Especially saying humans only account for 50 percent of climate change.
I think he is mistaken. If he is referig to nordhaus who just won the nobel prize he recommends action now (via carbon tax international agreements etc) for an optimal outcome. He does think these changes should ramp up, but the current price of carbon does not adequately capture the negative xternality created by climate change
OK. How to "capture ALL of the 'negative externality created by climate change?'" HOW?
I love freedom of speech because then I can call this shit out.
I love how Ben Shapiro claims that "conservativitism" is about "personal responsibility", yet when it comes to climate change "it's not economically feasible until it hits 3.5 degrees", like that's the only reason for stopping climate change. If you were about personal responsibillity, you would be about making the personally responsible decision for your future self, your children and others. His version of libertarianism and neo-classical economics is about "lets get wealthy cos it's fun, and maybe we'll use put the toys towards something useful in the future, but only when it's absolutely necessary".
He refuses to move past neoclassical economics, which has been debunked relentlessly due to it's assumptions that a) people are rational beings and will spend money in our own best interests and b) that we will be able to "wealth" our way out of every problem. People are not rational human beings. We smoke, drink, fuck our neighbours wives. And why? Because we are selfish and it feels good, not because we know that smoking will cause us lung cancer in the next 30 years.
If we go by the mentality of "oh, we'll build our way out of it" and "it's not economically feasible now" we are essentially no better than a 13 year old boy procrastinating doing his maths homework. Sure it would be a better investment in the future to do his homework now, but right now, it's a better investment to go and make friends because his priorities are on being cool. Similarly, the carbon emitting companys' priority is on money and power, and all the joys of life that come from that.
Why should we give a fuck about climate change? Well because of food. Agricultural yields are incredibly temperature sensitive. If we want to make sure the price of food stays down, we need to reduce our emissions. If you don't want to be paying an extra $2 dollars for every loaf of bread you buy, then you need to start investing in energy that comes from renewable farms. The more demand for that goes up, the more supply will and it will drive the price down.
@@TheGreatSkull123 Yeah Axial Procession is another typical blame avoidance tactic. It's NOT scientifically wrong, but the implication there is "oh well, it's natural, we can't change it so we moses well just keep doing what we're doing", which is once agian, the opposite of what conservativism espouses. It actually makes me ashamed to be a conservative when I see our people use it in such a way. It happens, BUT we are helping it do it's job, way earlier than it is supposed to and therefore engineering a future planet that will be way less inhabitable than it is now. Imagine everyone having to sit inside and crank their aircon all day every day because it's uninhabitably hot outside.
Nah bud, I'm afraid you're wrong on that one. Covid-19 is terrifying. Government's are justified in fear mongering on that one haha. As someone who lives in an acommodation that's taken up largely by medicine students, from their research it is dangerous. It spreads much faster than the flu (and I believe the cold?) and has the ability to mutate way easier than most other diseases. On top of that, the severe symptoms are scary as fuck: not being able to breathe properly, not being able to think properly etc. If you speak to anyone that has actually had the disease in it's full force, they will tell you it's basically like the worst flu you've ever had.
Bro nobody reading all that bullshit
Economics is the least of our concerns when it comes to climate change, ecology is the biggest issue that is suffering a lot more damage the the economy.
Lycan Steel Society is built around the economy
Jonathan Vickers This is exactly the problem. You talk about doing it but nobody I know who says “oh the world is dying we must all make green choices and contribute to the future” doesn’t actually do anything about it. And if we’re talking about creating new technology and distributing it, it becomes part of the economy.
No climate change will wreck economies across the world. Mass migration never seen before
Lots of fun and very interesting listening to someone who can express themselves so well.
Even if you don't believe in man made global warming, pollution is still bad. We breath it in in the form of fumes, drink it in our water etc. Any way to lessen pollution of any kind has to be a good thing.
who else checked if the speed of that video was on 1.25x?
Whenever I find people that talk this fast I play it at 0.5. It’s just fun.
Lmao I watch Ben Shapiro at 2x
Pranav Sreeram
Bit when you do it at half speed it become normal human speed but wit a slur and he sounds drunk.
Lmfaooo I asked my dad about him once and he was like that dude sounds like he’s on adderall! All hopped up.
Wtf he doesn't even talk that fast he speaks at average speed
"if the houses are underwater, people will sell their houses"
-Ben Shapiro
"To who Ben, Aquaman?"
-i forgot his name
They will sell them to the Obamas...they recently bought oceanfront property in Martha Vineyard...I guess the threat of melting glaciers and sea level rise of several feet is not a concern to them...
@@marktett5966 do you think this proves anthropogenic global warming is a myth, or that rich people can buy things without worrying too much about losing money?
I'm not sure how you would prove the former.
@@drummingtildeath I think that wealthy people are wealthy/stay wealthy for a reason. They're smart with their money. They're not going to buy multi-million$ properties that would plummet like a rock if climate change/sea level rise were really going to happen. ESPECIALLY not the big banks who provide multi-decade, multi-billion dollar mortgages on these hundreds of beachfront developments. Don't kid yourself.
Dan Peña is is correct about this.
That's great that these young people want something good to fight for and be Reas n for change, but it really is all horseshit, and we're all being hoodwinked for further taxation/control.
@@securityquip3170 rich people do not waste money on mortgages when they have cash. A mortgage often adds a third onto the cost of a property. They can save that money by paying cash and spend it fixing things up - add drainage, retaining walls etc.
I actually work for banks valuing properties. This is what I do every day.
After a certain amount of wealth people can be cavalier with their cash. They can buy a property to enjoy for twenty years without stressing that their kids' inheritance will be lost, because the property does not represent their entire inheritance. And they can afford to add in features that will protect their properties from rising water levels.
The fact that the Obamas bought a property on the sea front is simply not proof that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. It is the weakest argument I have encountered.
@@drummingtildeath They gonna protect their properties from 10+ feet sea level rise huh?
And I said the BANKS' mortgages. Banks don't back properties that are going to be worthless taking on water. Yet hundreds of such properties are still provided loans for.
Nor is threat of climate change sea level rise even mentioned in their prospectus.
*Sea levels rising*
Ben Shapiro: Just sell your house and move
Edit: Maybe you could sell it to Aquaman
Non sensical , utter bullshit . He also made claims that hurricanes are the same ..we are just building more pricey things in the path of that .. that means humans should not live by coasts . Second, number of hurricanes in 2017-18 were 50-60 . Whilst in 18-19 it has increased to 72 . With more no of cat 5 hurricanes forming .. someone tell this "right " assholes how climate works . Just because speaking fast and mentioning some shallow facts doesn't make you right .
@@windsurfer3314 did someone upset you?
@@Lazydaisy646 yes ..this asshole and his lame logic ..the way he is casually making jokes about hurricanes and people dying and thousands of houses being destroyed . And saying the things about global warming that , what will happen ? Only sea level will rise in next 100 years by inches .are u kidding me ? He doesn't even have a clue about it .and yet speaking like a meteorologist .in USA , he got famous for explaining a commen sense about gender equality . But hes iq is so apperent to talk about scientific things . So he should keep his mouth shut
Ben is right though, Climate change cannot be stopped no matter what we do.
@@windsurfer3314 , you are using emotions over logic
The Climate never stopped changing
yep...been warming for 700 years. the sun, water vapor will happen.
The free speech club ? What a joke. They filter out the comments that don't go along with their narrative. Warm water is a recipe for hurricanes. The warmer the water, the more likelihood of a hurricane . Inacurrate predictions aren't what matters. 140 years of data matter. It isn't just a couple inches of water. It's more hurricanes, more flooding , more droughts, melting glaciers and less drinking water, etc. Ben brings nothing to the table here.
Thats not true the earth has been relatively stable for the las 9,000 years maintaining average temperatures and climate conditions for the most part withing 1 degree celsius. Prior to climate change
@@seth8647 the best way to sum it up for the naysayers is this. Sure the climate is forever changing and we can't control that but, the change should be so gradual that we shouldn't be seeing changes in one lifetime but we are.
@@johngawrylash7732 biggest hurricane to hit the US North East Coast was about 60 years ago, most all the temp highs happened from 50 to 150 years ago. 2019 not one hurricane hit the US coast. if we've been stable for 700 or 9000 years , what's is the problem, other than wanting to seem dramatic, make something from NOTHING. It takes longer for Kids to grow up, than for temperatures to change, waiting.
We cleaned the Hudson River along with all the other rivers over 30 years ago. Las Vegas goes from 200,000 people to over 2,000,000 in 20 years, air condition alone should account for temp increase, so shut down all movie theaters, hotels , hospitals, housing and cars. do not close your churches, we need them to pray for you.
From 0:33 - 0:41, Shapiro says climate modelling always over-estimated climate change. That's false; climate models have done quite well in predicting global warming, for example. Shapiro also cites the IPCC while discussing this topic. Yet even the IPCC disagrees with him on this; the IPCC, and others, note that the IPCC's model-based forecasts often *under-estimated* climate change:
"Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections"
"Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change"
"It is now nearly three decades since the first assessment report of the IPCC, and over that time evidence and confidence in observed and projected ocean and cryosphere changes have grown (very high confidence [...]). Confidence in climate warming and its anthropogenic [a.k.a. human-made] causes has increased across assessment cycles; robust detection was not yet possible in 1990, but has been characterised as unequivocal since AR4 in 2007. *Projections of near-term warming rates in early reports have been realised over the subsequent decades, while projections have tended to err on the side of caution for sea level rise and ocean heat uptake that have developed faster than predicted* [...] [page 1-13 in section 1.4]."
report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf
page 86 of: "Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction"
"Reexamining climate change debates: Scientific disagreement or scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs)?"
"Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?"
"Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge"
"Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011"
"Comparison of dryland climate change in observations and CMIP5 simulations"
"Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change"
"The Copenhagen diagnosis: updating the world on the latest climate science"
So Shapiro position is rebutted by an overwhelming about of scientific evidence on confirmed model-based predictions on climate change. That makes Shapiro a denialist. Maybe people think that's impolite to say, or find it offensive. But that's irrelevant since how impolite one finds something has no bearing on whether it's true or supported by evidence. After all: *facts don't care about your feelings.*
"A person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier."
www.lexico.com/en/definition/denialist
"Sceptics are willing to change their minds when confronted with new evidence; deniers are not."
www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.full
Greenland's and Antarctic's ice sheets cover TROPICAL plants. that means there was an era when there were NO frozen polar caps thus the earth's climate was much hotter. We also know the atmosphere had roughly 20 times higher carbon! THE WORLD DIDN'T END! so take a Valium and calm the fk down.
wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/25/state-of-the-climate-10-years-after-al-gore-declared-a-planetary-emergency-top-10-reasons-gore-was-wrong/
@@bademoxy Yeah, you know who wasn't around during that time? Human beings. Of course the world is not going "to end" in the sense that the planet will just explode, but there will be, and there already are, far-reaching consequences that directly impact the quality of life of every human being on earth.
@@Howitchewstofeel5gum i thought all metrics show life getting better for humans
@@bademoxy Where was mankind during this nice period ?
When you talk about the effects of climate change just as it gets a bit warmer and the sea gets a bit deeper it doesn’t sound that bad. There are loads of other effects you’re ignoring though such as the acidification and warming of the oceans which will kill the microorganisms at the bottom of the oceans’ food chains. I question Shapiro’s assertion that storms aren’t getting more severe and that we’re just putting more expensive things in their paths. When scientists discuss storm severity it’s in terms of wind strength, size and duration, usually not damage for the exact reason he states. The other big effect of climate change is the loss of biodiversity; all of nature is intertwined and so are we in how we farm our food, fish the oceans and produce materials for clothing. This relies on fertile soil and predictable weather patterns, which only comes from the planet’s diverse plant and animal populations. We completely take for granted that we go in a supermarket and there’s food there but before the end of this century this will become something that we can rely on less and less
This is an interesting read.
www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
"In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity, although increasing greenhouse gases are strongly linked to global warming. Some possible human influences on tropical cyclones are summarized above. "
@Ethereal Oh shit, my bad. I guess you're right
@@meltedmarshdaddy What that's saying is they predict there will be an increase in storms, there has been an increase but it's too early to say if those increases are definitely due to anthropogenic forcings. But you can never really say anything for definite when modelling such complex systems
We’ve had long documented climate cycles since the Roman Warm Period 250BC-400AD
Then a cooling off during the Dark Ages 400-800
Followed by the Medieval Warm Period 800-1300
Then another cooling cycle during the Little Ice Age 1300-1850
We’ll still be warming for the next few hundred years.
Give credit to the man who asked the question; always give respect to someone who may respectfully disagree, and kindly ask for their answer. GGs all around
I agree but when did he say that he disagreed with Ben?
Thats because he is a Sikh. A hindu(indian) not some western SJW
Smart intelligent answer. Shame our politicians can't think at the same level.
Here they only talked about climate change whereas the bigger issue right now is the rapidly decreasing supply of non renewable resources... id be interested to know what ben thinks about that as that seems to me like less of a debate and more of just a fact
The argument against climate activists should be; WHY, over 20,000 years we were in the midst of an Ice Age, which lasted for 10,000 years. What human activity caused the Ice Age? THEN global warming began, no industrial capitalism, i.e. no cars, no airplanes, no cows farting, no fossil fuel emissions, etc. What human activity caused this global warming?
When these "climate activists" can answer and explain this Ice Age and global warming phenomenon, ONlY THEN will I listen to them. Do they not realize that the Northern half of the U.S. cities and farm land would not even exist if it was not for Global Warming?
The climate can obviously change naturally, nobody is denying that, but human activity speeds up the progress
Also because global warming in the past helped agriculture it doesn't mean that the climate can just change without us being affected
Wearing a poppy, honouring all the soldiers lost. Fair play Ben.
3:21
The solution is technical advancement. 100% true, especially with products like electric cars.
And how is the electricity generated?
@@davidfranklin7018 they will generate it through nuclear power plants and coal driven power plants .
@@MrNyathi1 actually nuclear power is greener and cheaper than solar and wind
@@pesii1452 bruh "green" lets forget about the nuclear waste that is going to be poisonos as longs as humanity excists. Its basically an energy source for the next 200 years because our uran will not last for much longer and will be a problem as long as humanity excists..... An excelent tradeof I agree.
@@myfairlady343 a ball of uranium the size of a fist can run an aircraft carrier for 20 years, I don’t think you know what your talking about.
I love how Ben says people will just migrate and sell their property. Sell to who? Whole Micronesian countries will inevitably be no longer. Yes we should not be alarmists, there has been too much overestimation. The science is clear though, and we should also not be naive.
He said people will migrate like they've done in the past. He did not say that people would sell their homes. I had to rewind the video to make sure what he said.
@@Bman-1970 im sure there's a better solution than to just run away from our problems, though.
@@sun-ny it worked so far lol
@@hush7359 not really
@@Bman-1970 exactly what he said 👍
I wonder if he knows every type of natural disaster has an intensity level and none of them are based off how much damage in money it causes
There’s a difference btw the damage oceans can inflict in certain environments from rising a few inches compared to a few ft. That difference of height can be devastating to some. This future problem can be avoidable or fixed if we start working now. As for hurricanes being more or less destructive due to climate change he’s probably right. But honestly hurricanes or storms are not a major concern when we talk about the consequences of accelerated climate change. “what level of climate change requires what level of cut backs to the global economy” if we remain to burn carbon, than the numbers Ben pulls up are probably true and it would be better for the economy if we just made minimal cut backs and just cope with the rest. However, the cost could be None if the world Switched over to solar energy. Easier said than done but it’s possible. It will actually create more jobs in the long run. Everything else Ben says starting from 2:52 to the end of the video is spot on.
Switch to nuclear power. Use the pebble bed reactor: its design makes it the safest.
Solar?! Do you realize the amount of mining and materials required in making solar panels. And this is predominantly being made in China where the environmental degradation is extreme. Nuclear is the answer.
solar panels are made of sand so no problem there ,they take them to the wharf on a rickshaw no problem there , they transport them all around the world on sailing ships no problem there , they take them to the distributer on a horse and cart no problem there , the salesman rides a bicycle when he comes to your house to measure up , you don't understand anything
1:09 Jake Gyllenhaal trying to avoid the freeze lmao
Check out Tony Heller. The entire climate change hypothesis is wrong. CO2 is not a driving force of climate, and rising CO2 levels are actually benefiting crop yields and greening arid areas like has not been seen in human history.
C02 comprises .004% of the atmosphere..... any idiot that believes an element of 4 one hundredth of 1% can have an effect on this Giant Earth.... needs to be institutionalized.
@@canconservative8976 this logic isn't really fair or straight, seeing some poison or toxins like cyanide or chlorine gas can kill even with far less fraction than co2 to kill one and many. And tgeir rise by even one per million, is never desirable.
Yes, Co2 may not culprit alone but methane is huge bad guy on climate in conjunction with co2, methane increase is almost 100% due to human activity,. secondly remember butterfly effect is a fairly recent theory explaining how very small changes in a system can have huge consequences .
Pollution is bad for the ocean, lakes, and the land though and it effects food webs that we depend on.
@@andsoon..9190 ...confirmation bias... you ignore so many other factors that are magnitudes higher in ability to modify the climate....all in the name of blaming Humans so they can be TAXED. The Oceans being the largest multiplier in this whole climate equation, along with the Sun, then the Earths Orbit, the Earths Core.. THEN MAYBE MAN WITH HIS MICROSCOPIC OUTPUT...
This isn't rocket science, use some common sense.
"United states is the number one in reduction of carbon footprint"
*people clap*
Ignoring the fact that it is also the biggest polluter and had highest carbon footprint for centuries.
That's how it is developed..developing nations already have very low carbon footprint because most of the waste is organic there.
Yeah Dude. He also ignored the CBDR principle that states that developed countries have polluted the environment due to industrialization and now it is their responsibility to mitigate climate change. On the other hand developing countries are not "forced" to invest in preventing climate change as it is understandable that they haven't contributed that much.
The captions are no match for Ben
Ben's point on humans migrating as they've always done doesn't really apply in this day in age. Sure families can sell their homes and drive across states or even move to different countries, but what about relocating an entire city with an existing infrastructure that took hundreds of years to make? We aren't nomads anymore.
I believe it would be a slow natural trend, it does not happen overnight
An entire city would know decades beforehand and have more than enough time to relocate people and recycle the infrastructure
Yeah, and if a city as large as New Orleans has to relocate that would be a HUGE problem. It's not easy to get millions of people to move and resettle, just look at all the problems we've had with resettling the millions of Syrian Refugees. And if people need to movie because of Climate Change, their numbers would be even greater than war refugees.
How much money would you pay on a house that will be under water? 0 right? So those people have no chances of migrating.
Good point, besides the fact that millions of people who would be affected are *poor* and will face all sorts of serious conflict in trying to move. Borders will be tested and all sorts of political conflicts and quagmires will result.
Short, concise, well argued. Guaranteed never to be shown on CNN, MSNBC etc...
The world in general has no idea why the weather we are experiencing is what it is now. They reject the true knowledge of who it is that really controls the weather.
Lev 26:3 If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
Lev 26:4 Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.
Lev 26:19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.
We are under a curse from on High because of DISOBEDIENCE! Things will only get worse!
Am I the only one who thinks the weather is a cycle and that are planet heats up and cools all the time?
starsaber supreme 1001 You are the Smart one !
Actually, most sane people with an IQ over that of a bowl of soup thinks that.
The fact that he is able to articulate his thoughts so well and the fact that he is speaking fast among other communication skills he has is what really wins him the argument or debate. I would bet that no matter which side or an argument he sided with, he would still be able to give a comprehensive debate and possibly win. This just shows that the facts and figures really don't matter as much in a debate as many would think and what is more important is to be able to put ideas into words so that others can see your opinion from your point of view more easily. No one is stupid or dumb or wrong for having any one opinion because if articulated correctly, any opinion would become as justified as any other.
born rich white
@@Pyasa.shaitan I don't know what Shapiro's net worth is but he's Hebrew - which means that his ancestors were from the Middle East, not northern Europe.
Ps. This involves no talk of the effect of this damage to plant and animal life.
Aaaand that's why it's a hoax...cuz peta & the media say nothing about animals or earth itself...
James Pruitt
L O G I C
I dunno I wonder what happens to animal and plant life if where they live is submerged by water?
@@xaviercockerton6989 logic is right! & it's only logical to take a look outside, do a little research & then , my gut feeling is, there is no problem...its man that is extremely arrogant in thinking they can control mother earth... & to ur comment 🤔 gee, I'm not sure either...I mean like, poor fish, they gonna drown!😱
I mean right now as we speak, 25 species will die out & become extinct all on there lonesome...plus if evolution is right (hint....its not) then what's the problem...have we stopped evolving?? if so well I guess every life on land is screwed...lol...& I reckon the animals & plant life that lives submerged under agua will grow legs & arms & develop gills so we can live both on land or under water...🤔 which has always made me wonder, why dont humans have gills as well. Seeing that the earth is 2/3rds agua, one would think that would be total upper advantage so no one would drown & be able to survive the Titanic & all the deaths by drowning...lol, I mean the "nothingness" that "created" or evolved from nothing, yea, that "what" , still a guess or theory...absolute zero evidence, nor witnessed, thru the "billions" of years earth has been "evolving" & 150 yrs of "all the carbon footprint" man is making around the "flat" earth, & the massive scale & sheer size of this blue marble we call home, again, surrounded by 2/3rds water, therefore not much land to live on to produce enough "toxic" vapors to make a hole in the ozone layer, which reminds me of some biblical texts that explain that earth is a big greenhouse & recycles on it's own as God made it to do, not to mention all the volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, wildfires, asteroids, meteors and God knows what else it falls from space, 🤔 oh! & let us not forget cow farts!! there it is, it's the cows fault...which makes it Trumps fault naturally........but yea, man is the problem 🥵🥶🤭🐮💨🤑🤥🙈🙉🙊👣🥀🌎🌋🌀🌪⚡❄☄🔥💧🌊🌡☀️🌬📲💸📈📉🧬🧪🚽🚬⚰🚭🚯🚷📵☣♻️🆘️🆒️🆙️🏴☠️🇺🇸 but hey, logic...
You do know that there are only two natural drivers of the global climate, right?
The damages of climate change go beyond that (e.g species extinction, marine health, decrease in snow cover, more deaths caused by respiratory illnesses from bad air quality, human health, hotter summers/colder winters, etc.) and the occurrence of these consequences are happening at accelerating rates all while average temperatures and variance increases
Ben acts like the media he hates
So he talks about the social threat of climate change but, how about ecological?
Jacob Laurain funny how that’s the biggest concern of climate change but he never mentions it at all. I agree with Ben on a lot but this is some of the issues I completely disagree with
Lycan Steel Most politicians unfortunately don’t mention it. This is why we need some people in office who aren’t arrogant to conservation, resource management, etc.
Ignorant *
@@jacoblaurain8911 The notion that infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet should be self-evident, yet we just don't get it.
@@davidfranklin7018 Tragedy of the Commons
"So if I remember correctly, you said..."-Every question asker about to get shut down by Ben Shapiro.
Unrelated to the topic but i ABSOLUTELY love the asker's voice. Its so soothing and kind, i like it!!
Over 50% of warming is due to human activity? where is your data? I have one sentence that destroys that claim: the warming starts long before industrial revolution, and the warming doesn't increased after industrial revolution. We are at the end of a ice age, the temperature can only go up. CO2 is trace gas, there is no evidence that CO2 plays a role in global temperature in the past hundreds of million years of earth history.
@@seanleith5312 tf you talkin abt i just said i liked the asker's voice 😭 dude are u ok
I agree. But part of the reason may also be because Ben's voice is so irritating.
@@seanleith5312 I don't know from where you popped up, but you need to do some more research. Then you can see that the temperature of earth has increased by 1°C in last 60 years. This is when industries grew and humans started seeking for comfort and privilege. Before that, the temperature had been increasing by 1°C every 900 years.
ruclips.net/video/R7FAAfK78_M/видео.html
Give some time to watch this.
@@manikmaharjan9258 Where did you get this garbage?
What caused climate change before human industrial activity?
This what known as a fighting retreat. First deny the reality of climate change. When this becomes untenable ,deny human causation. Again when forced to abandon this position , retreat into “ Yes, but action is too expensive” Shapiro then presents his prepared position by trotting out a Nobel winner and paraphrasing the nameless worthy. Case proven! That’s if you want to be persuaded .
Reality , is that climate change is vastly expensive Action is cheaper. Resorting to past rates of climate change as a predictor of future rates of change is particularly asinine , something only a slick , scheister lawyer would find compelling
"if water rises just move" is basically the message I got. As a Californian resident who has been personally affected by wildfires, it is incredibly disheartening to see people not take climate change as seriously as it is. Every year the fires get worse, devastating homes and lives, and the news does a yearly coverage on it and the world moves on. But we don't. It takes years to recover from even one of our fire seasons, and having them occur yearly and getting worse and worse is devastating. I really wish people could start acting as if their homes are on fire too, because ours certainly are, and no one cares and nothing gets done. That being said, at least he doesn't deny climate change (the standard with our political leaders really is that low!)
I laugh at the right wing deniers, as many are war mongers and almost right wingers demand a strong military, and yet by being climate change deniers they ignore the fact that much military infrastructure is at high risk of being flooded by the rising ocean. Some already suffers high tide flooding! It is very possible that by 2045 all coastal military bases in the US may become unusable. Some, much sooner! Consider also, similar will occur in many civilian sea ports, and some major airports.
Perhaps if your governor took the fires more seriously and allowed backfires to remove the flammable material you wouldn’t have that problem! Same goes for the governor of Hawaii!
0:00-0:025 "Man, asks Question'
Ben's computer brain:
>Stance on Climate Change<
.........
........
If you look at the ancient ice records you will see we have a rise and fall of temperatures every 15,000 years or so with no input from man’s emissions into the atmosphere. No one talks about this.
It's how faster the rise has been in the last 100 years 🤦🏽♂️
Yes they do but if you listen to this clown you will never know as he does not believe in man made climate change. The ice records don't predict what we have done to the climate
I remember watching Neil deGrasse Tyson teaching a science course on the slowing spin of the earth over time. Turns out that as the earth slows the earth will heat up and is the biggest cause of climate change. Is there anything we can do to speed the earth back up?
ruclips.net/video/Jm_YoL9ykC4/видео.htmlsi=sUAURbviTfJWtfVo
No
Thank you for wearing a Poppy Mr. Shapiro. You’re a class act. I’m Canadian and have been a big fan of yours for a few years. Please keep doing what you do.
Look what happens to don cherry,I'm very pissed about that,btw I'm korean Canadian and loved Nato saving us korean war. I wear poppy too. I'm a huge leafs fans but not anymore. Didnt watch leafs games since don cherry firing
I love Ben but I would also love waking up overnight to 10 feet of water covering all of Cali 😆
Almost 2% of the people that watched this video, has liked the content... Only 0.09% disliked it. Considering that even once all the people that would want to disagree or "cancel" this man has tried and then could only drum up 0.09% of dislikes, i for one would say that the proof is in sticking to rational facts over emotional driven "personal truths".
I was asked what caused warming before the industrial revolution,the answer is,of course the same as now,the Sun but the quantity of concrete doesn’t help and neither does having nearly all weather stations in the Northern Hemisphere and close to cities which are natural heat sinks.
I low key believe the questioner just asked this so Ben Shapiro would humiliate himself publicly.
And then he didn't. Disappointed?
@@boli4203 1:10 what do you think about this point he is making
@@MrHonigkuchenpferd
People have a choice between saving money and dying.
They’ll migrate, and scrap the buildings over time and sell the parts. It will obviously have large economic damage, but not nearly the same amount as it would if people just stood there and took it, which they won’t.
What do you get when you give up your car, and you loose your business or production job and you no longer use air travel and you get rid of hobby vehicles, sell your land and get rid of your oil furnace and your country home. Give up eating meat and having pets and offensive religious or traditional celebrations.
Then when taxes rise because of computer climate predictions and the cost of implementing renewables, and interest on savings turns negative and pensions disappear and and and
This is how you end up with nothing unless the state provides you with your allotted share. But the problem with socialism is, that eventually we will run out of other peoples money.
Capitalism and fossil fuel are the only way for us to lift the world out of poverty, educate our children so they will develope ways to keep improving technology for cleaner energy in the future.
A lot of things happen.... first you go live under a bridge or in a tent, then people from Asia will arrive and buy all the homes and businesses because they are making millions in their supercharged economies.... and all the while the politicians with their gold plated pensions work to have you removed off the road so they can travel freely.... but of course they'll throw you a stipend to buy bread and water once per week.... WELCOME TO DEMOCRAT'S VISION OF AMERICA (actually it's globalism)
There are ways to be responsible and make changes without giving all that shit up. Ignoring the fact there is an issue like the right does is just as dangerous as the left screaming the world's going to end.
Correct...if the citizens of our country are broke and without jobs, I'm not certain they'd be complaining about climate change...
This is the problem with bipartisanship - it's possible to be capitalist with cleaner energy sources, just as you can have socialist countries burning fossil fuels like China.
It's fear mongering to say that limiting emissions means ending religious holidays.
broeklien Well son, who do you think pays for police, roads, public schools, Fire department n all? All of that is socialism.
There are 2 key points that Are really At the heart of this debate: 1. There can be no denying That human activity Is having some effect on the climate. It only stands to reason That with more human activity there is going to be greater output. 2. The elephant in the room Is the growing global population. With more people there is going to be greater output And increasing diminishing global resources
>>. There can be no denying That human activity Is having some effect on the climate
"Humans will migrate."
Just one problem, Ben. We call that population displacement
We need people like you here in Canada. Canadian conservative leaders are just lite version of liberals.
... and the ability to accurately measure the strength of storms has increased!!
no but seriously Ben is right. We need progress first in order for everyone to actually choose the best economic-friendly options. If your poor your going to have to cut trees to make fire, if you cant pay for weekly garbage trucks you'll have to find other ways to get rid of your trash, if you dont have a trash bag you'll choose to throw your trashes on the street or on the sea. We need to fucos on lifting people from poverty.
And only energy can produce a modern society.
This us what a proper 👌debate and or discussion should be. About time we had this. We need more of this.
Ironically it’s the white guy whose forefathers have the highest contribution towards climate change who is denying it. There is nothing ironic about that actually. It’s makes sense. First plunder the whole world of its culture and resources through colonialism and then export the I’ll effect of capitalism to global south. Just look at per capita consumption numbers and you will see it for yourself. Yes America won’t get effected much - they will probably have to deal with more bites from flies. But the other world with a per capita consumption of way less will get ruined in the process. Don’t be animals - atleast acknowledge what you have done. First steps towards fixing it.
I’m actually surprised Ben believes in AGW. He basically just said that he accepts an argument based on authority
Not really. He's accepting arguments based on credible expertise. An expert in a specific field is not necessarily authoritative
Svenny It’s the same thing
@@timmcgrath3995 If you lack expertise in any field of science or engineering, you are incapable of drawing conclusions regarding most complex topics in that field. Thinking that you know better than the experts is a recipe for disaster.
obtsfan ...that’s not a statement that Ben has a record of agreeing with. That’s my point.
Tim McGrath gotcha
Put it on 2x speed if you wanna hear him speak while on Lsd.
"Let's say the Earth is warming, and we're causing it."
Thank you for admitting it!!!👏👏👏
And... your solution...?
That Q was posed as a hypothetical, you numbnut.
Just because it's gonna cost us more to actively counter climate change in the short run, we can't sit back and just cope with the ramifications of climate change because it's not dangerous enough as yet and that it's 'cost effective' that way.
Big fan of Ben but I don't agree with his extremely stunted and rudimentary arguments on this issue.
@Crow KillerIf I'm virtue signalling like you claim, I have zero upside because nobody knows me here on RUclips. I'm as imperfect as most people, I'm not patronising anybody. Just trying to do my bit towards sustainable development.
@Crow Killer Yes it does make me feel better. Everybody walking on this planet is virtue signalling everybody else as per your supreme logic, because we all do or say things that deep down makes us happy.
Pretty asinine logic you came up with, but if that's what makes you happy then go ahead and virtue signal a random person on RUclips by unsolicitedly replying to a comment on the comments section. But I guess you already did that! My bad.
@Crow Killer You're virtual signalling again as per your own definition of what it means lol.
Btw residential carbon emission footprint is way low compared to the industries. I'm not saying we have to reduce the emissions to zero, but we can do all that is possible to reduce it. So stop with your trolling and move on because I'm not engaging in a conversation with you. I'm out.
honestly, if anyone is still here watching this video, feel free to respond; I think Ben kinda swerved the idea of human devastation by discussing the effects climate change has on the global economy. He insists that it will cost less MONEY to allow climate change to rampage the planet's lands but misses the point that climate change will devastate our livelihoods. Also, I would really like to see these predictions for a climate change - inflicted global economy, I think contemporary times might have altered any predicted patterns.
It's not going to "devastate our livelihoods". Quit making shit up.
@@boli4203 live on the eastern seaboard? enjoy eating vegetables at all, especially greens? like hunting? like skiing? like swimming in the lake? enjoy the presence of mosquitos? like having available groundwater for consumption and human use?
A very concise and logical understanding of Climate Change,
Testing nukes caused climate change. Duaaa.😂😂
"The amount of hurricanes hasn't changed," I think there's 3 new ones, the hell?
The number of occurrences of hurricanes annually..... 😑
@@Twitch_Moderator its a trol for stupid people, lol
Refreshing to hear a voice of reason on this subject
Right so first Ben says he's not a "climatologist", then he says if you read the IPCC report the modelling is all wrong. How does that make sense lol?
It's a disclaimer. He could get in trouble for making blatantly false statements in public. He presents his claims as an opinion, so he could bullshit his way out of anything. It's just meaningless drivel.
He straight up said that "50% of that warming is attributable to human activity". What's the other 50% percent? The answer is: it's an opinion, it doesn't matter. ;-)
Like Donald demented trump, Shapiro considers himself a genius. But he is too arrogant and ignorant that he is only a genius in the amount of crap coming from the use of his mouth. Same as trump!
I disagree with him assuming that humans only caused about 50% percent of climate change. There are numerous different studies showing that we are responsible for almost all of it, the easiest one to understand being the relative concentrations of specific carbon isotopes unique to burning fossil fuels.
I also disagree with his views that the only reasons why storms are more damaging is because we are building more expensive buildings where storms hit. Any climatologist will tell you that storms are becoming more frequent and energetic. There are more metrics to measuring the strength of storms than just how much damage they do. There are clear and understandable reasons why this is happening. The water temperature is higher, and so more water evaporates making more and bigger storms. There is also a higher difference in temperature also making the storms more powerful.
I wish someone could argue with him on this. For someone who says facts don’t care about your feelings, he seems to have a lot of bias in the facts he looks at.
If you want the best available information about mental health you talk to a psychiatrist, not a heart surgeon. If you want the best available information about climate change, you talk to a climatologist, not a lawyer.
My first comment IS common sense. But to you it SOUNDED philosophical. That's hardly my fault.
Every single prediction form the last 40 years tfrom experts that support climate change HAS BEEN WRONG.
EVERY FUKIN SINGLE ONE.
So we take their next predictions seriously ? HOW ABOUT YOU GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU FUCKIN IGNORANT PIECE OF UNINTELLIGENT SHIT.
kostasz7z Thank you for showing that anger isn't a part of RUclips discourse. You've done Ben Shapiro proud.
Jonny Bravo LOL.
@Jonny Bravo picturepainter is just thinking for themself. Thats something we could all do. You trying to poke holes in that logic is very uninformed. You assume, first of all, from a username what picturepainter is, then you assume that they arent right because of it. I really fail to see how you read that comment and somehow thought it wasnt wise
Lol, I accidentally turned CC on and it took up the whole screen. Love ya Ben!
"Catastrophists....." Appropriate term.
Hypocritical term ... conservatives typically are catastrophists in regards to most things (literally are fear mongering in their politics afraid of something as simple as change). But when it comes to money and change their love for money and keeping systems the same rules over obvious needs to take action.
Shapiros reason for not wanting to commit to influencing climate change being oh its not that bad so lets do nothing because if we do something poor capitalism and capitalist incentives will take a negative hit ... is almost synonymous to lets say since the dawn of time humans were born with a deficiency that screwed their oxygen levels (hypothetically) to where now they cant live past the age of 25 due to low oxygen levels and the bodies natural incapability to harnest oxygen ... even if this is fiscally damning or is capable of disrupting certain systems in place why would we not take action in finding a solution beyond possible expense to follow through and increase longevity in life expectancy beyond what has always existed in human biology with regard to theoretically accepting that an oxygen deficiency has always been a part of our biology ... imagine you only had 25 years to live or if you were born into an era where you will be dead due to a mass extinction event. Whats crazy is my theoretical statement has no easily definitive way we can control and mitigate the affects to my awareness ... but with climate change there are a lot of KNOWN affects we can have in mitigating global warming its fact.
The idea is that to call one group catastrophist based off one thing doesnt make sense because there will be issues where someone who is advocating we do something for climate change might not feel like its the end of the world for example an abortion is not the end of the world for some where some other abortion "catastrophist" take abortion to the extreme. It all depends on the issue and you are partially right to make that claim. But not entirely.
Everyone in their own right is a catastrophist depending on the issue which i believe to be hilarious. But with that said i felt there was a lot of hypocrisy in that statement just wanted to clarify. Especially coming from a person of a party that breeds people to fear everything and anything that constitutes change ... which is literally all the elements that constitute living. Everything has a rate of change not a single part of life is stagnant to our current knowledge. Although you never know there might be the one thing that we discover in the future but who knows.
@@matthewcuriel991 There are catastrophists in every political group, sure. But that whataboutism doesn't rebut the fact that many prominent forecasts from climate change activists and scientists have been wrong, so it's reasonable to be skeptical, especially because predicting the future with models is also not as straightforward as testing chemicals in a lab, for example.
@@matthewcuriel991 You're sharing your ignorance everywhere. It's great 😂
@@izdatbOi let me know precisely what im ignoring id like to know ... ignorance implies im ignoring something so feel free to let me know. I personally make strides to ensure the things i say are fully considerate so give me feed back thats why i put things out there to build perspective.
Please and thanks
@@thinkngskeptic i even mentioned understanding the case where climate change projections may be over-projections of what may happen in my last comment though.
Where the affects may not be as drastic. But i make my point to say that isnt good reasoning to do nothing and continue things as usual because you dont know for a 100 percent FACT that a projection of an event *that hasnt happened yet* is false as you say till we go however many years to the day things are projected to happen and yes it might not be 100 percent but anything over 50 percent accuracy is fucked and vonsidering how i know these things are conducted i trust above 50 percent is possible and probable... til the event happens you wont know whether the projections arent right or were not close to right so your skepticism is pointless. The closest we will ever be to knowing what MAY happen is through these projections that you dont want to be right because it will alledgedly .... dundundun DESTROY CAPITALISM. Like who gives a fuck i assume no one would let that just happen anyway because its quite evident capitalism is . part of the deeply rooted fabric of US institutions and conservatives wouldnt allow that to easily happen anyway ... amd you act like every liberal person doesnt support capitalism or doesnt see its benefits enough to know the importance of not just destroying the system there are some who think socialism is better but its not a majority thats why a lot of democratic socialist proposals arent complete reenvisionments of failed socialist systems. The same way we will work to mitigate climate change we can work to maintain our capitalism if thats the issue.
Most these projections come from modeling differential equations where they take different factors to what contributes to global warming as possible to get a clearer and more concise picture of what the rate of change in the climate will be. So you are right considering things naturally change and more factors can come out the blue or some factors conducted can have mitigated impact on the outlook .... its not easy to be 100 percent right about these types of projections because different factors may introduce themselves to change the projections over the years... this is a similar concept to weather mapping or hurricane tracking. There have been many instances where these things arent 100 percent but most times they fit the general cycle because these maps are well conducted and considerate of as many factors as possible for more precision. But what since hurricane maps are not 100 percent correct does that mean you are not going to put up hurricane shutters. If so have fou when the shit hits. And if it doesnt you got lucky.
Its easy to be skeptical and because things arent 100 percent evident you rather neglect it completely. But it shouldnt take for the event to happen for you to be right or wrong for the good old "i told you so" syndrome to kick in while we all die of mass extinction lol. I dont get why people do that to begin with but in general i dont see why corporate greed and capitalist incentives get in the way of us putting in an ACTUAL effort to control and maintain the environment for our future as a whole. No matter how bad the affects are or will be why not try.
Thats where my problem will always be is people choose to not try because of this irrational fear they will waste time or capitalism will die or whatever the fear is. Let your fears drive you to want to fix the problems instead of hold you in place and dwell on worst case scenario because to me thats all it seems like people with your mindset do. And to be honest in some regard i need to take my own advice because with some things in my life i let fear keep me in place but its for more things that can be super life altering that i have no game plan for to tackle not because im not willing to try things i just dont know what im going to try and im not willing to risk doing stupid shit that will have negative impact.
So you are right it isnt as straight forward as testing chemicals in a lab because at least in a lab all yout variables are there in front of you while predicting furgre events not everything is in front of you to know precisesly, but that doesnt mean we dont try, thats the issue ... because trust me no body wants to waste their time conducting even remotely false projections (no body wants to know the possible fate of the world hurdling towards a mass extinction) or go around fear mongering with projections just to do it and to manipulate a mass amount of people with misinformation and propoganda which to me is a conservative tactic that ive witnessed whether it be democrat or republican ... people get told simplified semi truths or outright lies and because it comes from their news source thats all they care to listen to but hey you might see the same thing in the opposite direction and i cant say other wise because thats your perspective. But some people genuinely want whats best for the over all out look of society. Not just gimmicks to how to mainttain things and hold survival incentives for personal gain which is basically what conservatives do. Their agenda involves exploiting keeping things the same fear monger propogating and repeating. I say conservatives because this happems with both democrats and republicans that have conservative incentives.
Sometimes just allowing people who are willing to put the effort in and give a damn is way better than shutting them down and taking their credibility away. Imagine when you were being raised by your parents you felt like what they were saying was stupid and you tried to force them to do nothing because you thought they were stupid and not because they actually were but because they ciuldnt ensure what they were doing would 100 percent be good for you. But in reality the thing they were doing or proposing for you was in your best interest beyond your understanding to accept and with good intentions to your overall outlook. But because you dont want to believe what they are saying is even remotely possible due to a self proclaimed lack of evidence that what was being said definitely ensured a better future, because of your complex you miss out on something you could have benefitted from and maintained a healthy relationship with your parents. Instead you have opted toxicity and complacency. Thats how I see it.
One thing to know in the absence of knowledge/information that opens a gateway of possibility ... endless possibility. Logic backs what im saying. So for example if someone says they dont have evidence but the sun might explode on this day just due to self conducted projection... lack of evidence doesnt just imply the sun will never explode and that thats the only possible outcome.
Its equally possible that the sun can explode or it wont explode or some other outcome ... thats the logical way to look at it and at that point when you weigh the possibilities you can say which is more probable due to subjective belief and or factors that may logically shift probability one way but until the event happens you dont know only one to be true as people like to make things seem.
But people live in delusion and think they are fortune tellers i swear. And this is not a party specific notion i notice this in a vast majority of people and its dumb.
If the main question of why not even try gets answered ill have more to consider but until then i hold my case
The problem is so complex and the solutions they suggest are not achievable. We can't destroy our economy and spend trillions of dollars when there is no way to measure if anything that we do is working because their models and predictions are always wrong. Scaring little children and using hysterical lanquage is sick and wrong. The best we can do is to prepare for the changes and adapt
Thanks for respecting our war dead with the poppy Ben. Classy as always
Hey..he reminds me of Sheldon Cooper.
The effect human activity has on the climate is not accurately quantifiable.The idea that politicians could or even would do anything to affect the climate if we gave them more power and more tax dollars is utterly preposterous. All they would do is ask for more power and higher taxes because we didn’t give them enough to fix the problem in the first place.
@Simon Bolduc I believe we are fowling our nest. If the Gullible warming crowd has just said; hey, we need to clean up our act, they would have found me there, waiting impatiently for them to catch up. But, the 'never let a crisis go to waste' crowd, Al Gore and the left, had to claim to be able to control the climate.
The arrogance and hubris involved in that boondoggle snake oil sales pitch is epic and dangerous.
@Simon Bolduc That statement starts with the false conclusions that A) that there is climate change and B) that mankind is responsible for an unprovable claim. There is NO PROOF of Anthropogenic Global Warming. To have scientific proof you would need the scientific method, which requires a control. In this case it would mean having an identical planet Earth in an identical orbit from which you could remove humans, study it for a couple of hundred years and reach a conclusion. And you would need to be able to repeat that experiment over and over. You would also have to remove fossil fuels and study it for a couple of hundred years and reach a conclusion. And you would need to be able to repeat that experiment over and over.
That’s not possible. All some scientists have is anecdotal observations and disputed computer projections. If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. That is not proof.
@Simon Bolduc e-ro-sion [ih-roh-zhuh n] Spell Syllables
noun
1.the act or state of eroding; state of being eroded.
2.the process by which the surface of the earth is worn away by the action of water, glaciers, winds, waves, etc.
Learn it know it, it's been happening since there has been liquid water on the surface of the earth.
@Simon Bolduc And besides that, where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
@Simon Bolduc Polar bears are thriving. Glaciers have come and gone multiple times in earth's geologic history. North America used to be covered with them down to what is currently St Louis. and started receding about 11,000 years ago. Faster, because of man? tThat's again not accurately quantifiable.
Try this. Take a bottle, fill it full with ice and then water. Put a cap on it tightly. Mark the level . Let all the ice melt. Then undo the cap. Now check the level again. What happens to the level of the liquid?
Yep, in the end if we collective don't fix this (and we CAN) that will be the "adaption" = people dying. Thanks a lot for your fucking insight Ben.
Straight from the LA Lawyer, Ben "I Don't Know Shit About Science" Shapiro.
While I appreciate the reasonable response, there are effects that we can measure that shows the effects of climate change. For example, flooding is increasing in many parts of the world, and some islands can be completely underwater.
Salute to you, Free Speech Club! Thank you very much for what you do.
The title is very misleading. Change it please!
Climates will always change. So maybe buying a coastal property, although beautiful, might not be the best idea.