I wonder what would happen if you cut the samples in 2 and give them to 2 different labs, one official ( payd by the gov. ) and one to a real lab. The difference will be ammazing. Grtz from Belgium

Zoom into the graph, vertical lines show CO2 increase follows temp rise

Why is a fraction of this video devoted to the results and so much to the scientist. Ok he has a great job and is very smart - but I want to see more about the data!!!

🤔 Observe minute 5:58 graphs of CO2 and Temperature: Our most recent sharp CO2 spike raises a profound question: “Why did temperature decouple and decrease slightly as a counter-trend to the large spike in CO2 concentration.?” Previously there was a close relationship between CO2 and Temperature trends for eight hundred thousands years. 🤔 Is it possible that the CO2, O2, and precipitation records are being effected more by the quantity and rate of plant and animal activity, and perhaps in the corresponding changes of carbon sequestration, as a function of the changes in atmospheric and the oceanic Temperature? Remember that the ocean holds far more CO2 directly than the atmosphere and that biological activity is the primary source of carbon sequestration in the forms of the living biosphere, petroleum crude, coal, peat, methyl gas hydrates, NG, coral reefs, and sedimentary rock (principally limestone, dolomite, and shale). 🤔 Consider that the biosphere’s activity greatly dampens the daily and seasonal swings of temperature compared to the lifeless “dead” planets (a longer discussion for another time). 👏 Kudos for Dr Wolff’s statement: “Why do we go in and out of ice ages roughly every 100,000 years, for until we know that, we can’t really really understand todays climate.” I observe that the ice age cycles preceded anthropogenic causation of major climate change merely because until recently we weren’t there to cause the change. 🤔A corollary is that if the anthropogenic effects were not (or are not) a major cause of the climatic cycles, then politically: “Have we not been “barking up the wrong tree?”” 🤔 Therefore: “Have not the politicians and special interests essentially been functioning as alarmist “Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling?” 🤔 Should science “follow the evidence” or should science “seek the evidence” to validate a predetermined theory? Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway brilliantly stated: “Show me who funds a grant and I will predict the outcome.” 🤔 If politicians seek justification for environmental regulation and a study finds no causation, will those researchers ever receive a future funding grant? Perhaps if we gained the realization that we actually CAN’T drive “Climate Change” in a significant way (compared to nature), then we could turn our attention to the more pressing matters of solving “anthropogenic pollution, monocultural mismanagement of food crops, and the management and conservation of water resources. It is encouraging to observe that with proper understanding of ecology, there are numerous examples of successful greening of desert environments which were previously experiencing “desertification” due to human activity. The Dutch have proven that while they cannot change the mean sea level of the entire ocean, they can control how much of that ocean encroaches upon their land and to additionally become one of the largest worldwide exporters of food from their tiny geographical area. A philosophy of adaptation to climate change rather that maintaining a hubristic belief that we can control a planet which is far more powerful than we would serve us well. 😎

Thank god for Co2

At about 6 minutes Wolff shows graphs of the temperature and carbon dioxide records. He says they look remarkably similar and therefore it shows how carbon dioxide and temperature interact with each other. This is the standard of science from a Cambridge professor! What hope is there when he does not know that a visual assumption of correlation is not any indication of causation? He is looking at the truth and fails to see it. In recent years his graph shows higher levels of CO2 than at any time over the 800,000 years of the graph but he is blind to the fact that there hasn't been any corresponding increase in the temperatures. CO2 does not drive temperature increases. How can a professor not know that that the temperature of a system can only increase by the addition of heat or work (ignoring chemical reactions). The earth's temperature is determined by the energy from the sun and gravity which compresses the atmosphere and the gas laws explain how the temperature behaves when compressed. Even MIT get it wrong. I have just been looking at their Open Course material and when talking about the greenhouse effect they refer to the earth's energy balance - energy in equals energy out. The units of this energy are Watts. There is no law of physics that says the power is conserves. The IPCC is just a bad. It used energy density, which also in not conserved. Goodness knows what is being taught in schools but it certainly is not established physics. Even an elementary knowledge is sufficient to work out that the entire output of so called climate scientists is utter drivel.

So there it is the climate fluctuates !!warm then cold ,but what comes first heat or Co 2??answer follow the money!!!!!!!

He's only ever so slightly weird and eccentric, which is how I like my scientists/reserachers to be.

We can blame cavemen for inventing the wheel and causing climate change

50 ppm to 400 ppm is not a large range.

Unscientific to tack instrumental data with proxy data. Apples and oranges.

B.S.

data going back much further show a CO2 level of 6,000 PPM. right as the earth went into an ice age.......