May 13 NEPA Hearing on Climate Change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 май 2024
- On May 13, the Committee held a hearing on a proposed guidance to federal agencies on implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Republicans on the Committee spent the hearing denying the science and risks of climate change. These are the highlights.
Наука
I was at a global warming / climate change discussion with about 50 people attending. We had a speaker who claimed that if the CO2 level went were to double, millions would die. He said that we were currently at 400ppm of CO2 and that THAT was too high. The next speaker got up, plugged some sort of device in and started speaking. He told us that the previous speaker was uninformed, uneducated, climate activist who said nothing based in fact. He told us that CO2 is NOT our enemy, and CO2 could triple with zero effect on humans and in regards to the environment, all plant life would flourish. Then we heard a beeping from that thing that he plugged in. He picked it up, and told us that it was a device that measured the levels of C02. Then he asked us what we thought the measurement reading was. The climate activists immediately started claiming that what ever it was it would just be a parlour trick to fool them. Others guessed 250ppm, 300ppm, 400ppm… nope, they were all wrong, it was 1800ppm…and guess what else didn’t happen. Nobody died. Imagine that. The previous speaker looked like a fool, and even some of the doomsday climate activists seemed to have had a realization that maybe, just maybe, they were being lied to. CO2 is not our enemy and increased levels will not kill people.
No, the govt. will kill people. They will die from cold, because they cant afford to heat their homes.
@@kitemanmusic …caused by our governments with the globalist’s agenda.
U idiot 400 ppm level is for the world average... Ofcourse a city with all that cars gonna have that much level... It's the world average that should be checked upon on
@@devanarayans5131 The world average is 419ppm, which 0.041% of our atmosphere. Man is responsible for 3% of the 0.041%. Which is insignificant. The other 97% is caused by the planet’s natural processes. By that math, I’m surprised that climate soup throwers aren’t trying to get rid of nature. Do yourself a favour, look up Judith Curry. She just did an interview with Jordan Peterson. It’s a very level headed interviewer that answers a lot of questions as to why there are 2 sides to this. There is no consensus, you’re being fooled.
@@devanarayans5131 BTW….only children and immature adults use name calling to express their opinions, which usually means that they’ve lost before they’ve started.
It's really impossible to watch this and not want to tear my hair out.
Crimes against humanity.
Arnold Ziffel More like humanity's crime against the planet. But it's just evolution -- our species puts sociopaths in power due to aberrations in how we evolved, and we evolved so quickly we bear the scars of previous phases that should have been ironed out long ago. Republican denialism is one of those scars.
The fact that this is political shows there is something wrong with the 'truth': You see what you want to see.
We need more non-political scientists and grass roots food growers making decisions instead of politicians and lobbyists running our world!
Data, data, data, data. Where are the raw data? People and their ideologies, businesses, money, funds, interests, politics is one thing. Science is about DATA not consensus or feelings!
I believe the Co2 level in a submarine is like 7000 ppm. and a spaceship is 5000 to 7000 ppm. Arguments to these numbers?
5000PPM for sub, 7000 for planes yea
It makes me sad that these guys are paid with my tax dollars.
I liked Maxx well being's comment. CO² is not our enemy and it IS good for plant growth. *The bottom line is: in order to meet fanciful CO² targets governments are prepared to cut down our lives to fit the size that green energy can provide*
As an example in the Netherlands they produce vast quantities of fruit, vegetables and fresh flowers for many EU countries, the UK and countries much further afield. _Countries around the world do the same and the following applies_
To do this they have massive greenhouses totalling 10k hectares or 25,000 acres.
Many growers heat their greenhouses with natural gas and the CO² emissions are captured and funnelled INTO their facilities which promotes rapid and healthier growth. In the case of tomatoes they gain 4 or more crops per year. More than double. Similar benefits are seen with vegetables soft fruits, and many flowers. That's great right?
Yes it is great but there is a problem.
It takes 3 billion cubic meters of natural gas to heat the 25k acres of growing space. This is not affordable because of the huge increase in gas costs. But the Netherlands started shutting down their greenhouses in 2021 - before the massive price increases - because the EU demanded they reduce emissions to meet EU targets.
What does this really mean?
Simply put there are now extreme food shortages in many European countries. Supermarket shelves are empty. Check this out on YT videos NOW.
I repeat:-
*The bottom line is: in order to meet fanciful CO² targets governments are prepared to CUT DOWN OUR LIVES to fit the size that green energy can provide*
I ask you, is this really saving humanity?"
Theory is not fact it’s a guess and usually a lie
that’s not true at all
No climate emergency Need to stop the madness like carbon taxes
Soon the issues will focus on a mandatory Sunday worship laws
Temperature are going up and down for millions of years. In 1850 we came out of a cold period. It started to warm before we cars and smoke stacks. During the Roman times it was Warmer than the present. How explain that.
@@evertkooy9619 bro, source for that roman fact ?
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
English a liberal and I absolutely don't believe the crappy science.
A lesson in climate science - Thermodynamics senate speech 7th September 2022- senator Gerard Rennick
So you believe in the political theories instead of the scientific reality. Not the models…
Only the creater of the Earth 🌎 can make it better or worse. Let God our creater take care of his Creation and all will be fine 😊
it would be better if u finished school
The Context Statement makes they’re agenda clear. No matter what science is being given. We cannot predict climate…
The dumb, it burns.
How about a hearing on how to use the planet changing heat energy properties of CO2 for beneficial effects.
Energy poverty is one thing. Frostbite is no joke.
Perhaps the most delusional thing said on the internet this year. Congratulations!
@@mrunning10
You mean a “sheet of paper” that increases planetary heat is useless in real life ???
That’s delusional.
We aren’t talking about moving a line on a graph. Or changing numbers in a mathematical model. We are talking about megatons of atmosphere or surface being forced into higher temperature from parts per million difference.
@@glenndavis4452 That is correct! Kudos!! Now, show the heat transfer math, like those "fake" climate modelers do, showing the fuck WHY a relatively "tiny" amount of co2 CAN'T DO THIS (that's YOUR "theory" right?) and then absorbs and then transfers its heat gain to water vapor in the atmosphere.
That is fucking SCIENCE, show YOUR math please (I say this of course knowing you can't), show your MATH that says this is not the physical process of the atmosphere of this planet.
Let's please discuss, we CAN "adjust" the co2 in the atmosphere to give us, that is HUMANITY, the MOST arable land to grow the fucking food we need to feed the ever growing population. Any other "beneficial" effect is HORSESHIT.
It's called carbon capture.
If the climate was to get any worse will dentist would be able to save the world? or if the natural disaster is in action will the politicians be able to save the world, can they just change the weather with money or pocket it.
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.)
From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc ?
8:10
Epic win.
fuzzyboy50 A win perpetuating a myth is no win. Most scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that more CO2 in our atmosphere (with all other things being equal) will contribute some warming. What most scientists don't agree on is "how much" warming, that humans are the main cause, and that a little warming is a net negative. What these consensus studies do is a logical fallacy of conflating trivial agreement with total agreement. So is there some warming expected from additional CO2? Yes. Is it going to cause catastrophe to the point that we must act now to stop it and have a carbon tax because humans are the cause? No. We humans can't control the weather on a global scale.
Travis
Ahh good sir: I applaud you for bringing up a reasonable comment compared to most denialists!
You are exactly correct. What is being debated in the scientific community is exactly how much warming do we expect. However one thing is clear: even the most conservative scenario still results in some very unfavorable conditions for most of the world.
Scientists actually do have a very good understanding of what effect co2 levels have on temperature. This can be shown from multiple sources such as tree ring density and Antarctic ice cores (show co2 and temperature for the time)
It is clear that co2 levels have never risen this fast in the millions of years of data they have. And the times that have risen in similar fashion resulted in mass extinctions.
I highly suggest watching the RUclips series UQx denial101x. Very informative, scientific, evidence-based resourcre
The effect of a doubling of CO2 concentrations is expected to bring about 1 C of warming. That will not be a problem and will take us to about 2080.
In the ice cores CO2 trails temperature rise by about 800 years.
Travis
Well, good sir, I will have to respectively disagree and say that is not a good enough reason to do nothing. Once again, I highly suggest you research into the positive climate feedback loop. These are things that happen as the globe warms that also add to warming. In other words...once the ball starts rolling, it is harder and harder to stop.
So I think we've reached the reality of the base of most denialists. They know its happening but they honestly don't care what the results are because its not in their lifetime.
Personally I think the benefits of transitioning from fossil fuels go well beyond mitigating climate change. Creating a whole new smart, clean energy sector creating tons of jobs.
Anyway. Good talking. I will be enjoying my nonexistent electric bill and car fuel costs in the future. Isn't being conservative great? ;)
Thanks for your reply. An electric car is an indication you support coal power.
Feedback loops are wild speculation and don't exist in the real world because temperature drives CO2 and not the other way around.
Isn't being a coal power supporter great?
suggest you look into the recent paper that supports the Iris theory and also the stadium wave theory. Good luck with your non-existent electric bill. The two countries that have mostly bought into this theory are struggling to keep the lights on (Germany and England).
❤️❤️❤️
Sheesh. What a bunch of plonkers.
Climate change is good and self correcting.
And Democrats in Congress, you are not blameless in this. You are not doing your jobs. In defending our environment, our Constitution, and our reproductive rights, you have failed across the board. You need to go, too.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Good pre-emptive move by the climate alarmists!!!!
You’d think that the Democrats would be happy that the world isn’t going to implode!!
Mr. Gohmert, do you ever feel like a smart man? Even when the overwhelming amount of science is against you?
J Jensen The problem is yes, he actually thinks he's a smart man!
You are just politically motivated.... you can't even substantiate your pointless question with fact. You should ask yourself the same question!
Pier review anymore means you got your buddies to check your spelling and punctuation! Then, at the next conference you buy a round of drinks and everybody is happy!
The only overwhelming amount of science I've seen and read says there's no climate emergency at all. Congratulations on joining the so called 97% of radical left paranoid scientist Gods in your religion.
God is in control
ALL fake!
"Social Cost" of fixing manmade climate change? Better than the ultimate end result. Paid-for Congressmen. MONEY dictates their RESPONSE.