KZfaq isn't that fascist. Yet.

Its from an MSM outlet that is why

@@conversandoando Yes it is. They must have just missed this one.

@@miked5106 You may have misinterpreted OP's comment.

Lol

there is such a thing as consensus and we definitely have that with climate change

@@sharehard And that means you don't understand. Scientific consensus means more or less this: "currently, to the best of our current researches, measurements, and so on, that's a X% probability that the things are like this" (to keep it simple, I don't put into the formula politics and economy and lobbying and corporate interests funding certain researches worldwide, because it'd be hard to make a general picture in a comment; anyway, they are there to make the "consensus" very much less certain and granted.) This is light-years far away from saying "the science is settled". If you say this, you are stepping out of the science. And if you don't realize that because "well, but there's a consensus!" is the same to you, then you damage scientific research and advancement, and I suggest you the reading of books on the history of science, scientific errors in modern age, and of course epistemology essays.

@@konverzaktion2393 thanks for your recommendations. I have studied philosophy of science and the history of science. What is understood and where there is no contraversy among experts is that CO2 is causing an increase in global tempurature and the current increase in tempurature is largely anthropogenic. What the future will look like, impacts, how various systems of climate work... all of this is being refined and is full of uncertainty.

@@sharehard Perfect. Then, controversy or not apart, I really don't understand what your point on the citation was. But I suppose it doesn't matter as long as we agree on the key points, right?

@@konverzaktion2393 perhaps I was assuming you were coming from a relativistic or overly skeptical perspective. I hear many people say that nothing is settled in science therefore we don't have to take climate change seriously as an issue.

Science has determined that the earth is round. Propaganda?

If you question an established science, you should have facts and numbers more solid than your opponents. It's not the case here.

@@munyansebastien7127 Says who? An "expert"?

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 What a profound argument. Comparing a round Earth to the religion to control people calle "climate change". Drink some more Koolaid. It's good for you.

gonna bring this one up next time anyone tells me to stop telling chldren that theres never any risks from jumping off cliffs and its actually extremely safe a nd fun, the water will protect them no matter how shallow or far down

He won't make headlines because reality has debunked him. Bogota is rationing water, Hawaii is in a water crisis, permafrost is melting, Kazakhstan is flooding, the East Coast is being pounded by storm after storm - and the hurricane season is just starting. Pay attention to the news, not to one scientist who said something you agree with *10 years ago.* When the 99% of climatologists agree in something, that's not called propaganda, but scientific consensus, and you pay attention to it.

This line is bullshit.

No. Just lies You obviously aren't aware that MIT has told him he is wrong.

@@boffeycn when and where please?

@@thewhisper417 Why is it that dejiers of the reality of AGW & ACC seem incapable of doing things for themselves and just unquestioningly follow the denier dogma?

If so they've certainly taken their sweet time getting rid of a 9 year old video.

Obama just spent $15 million for a beach house.

this should be made into a documentary or least broadcast on the news... even better, go talk to Rogan for 3 hours.

Yeah but...trust the science right?

How many? More than likely every university multiple times since the beginning of time. 👌👌👌🤟

That's fucked, wow...

Well, you need to make that public, otherwise they will keep on doing what they're doing unchallenged.

Yes he has

Why wouldn't he?

When a scientist "holds his ground" he is not a scientist. His arguments have been proven to be wrong, climate change is real and human made.

@@CodingWithUnity it's 12 years, and as you know, the last 2 counted as 10, so it is actually 22.

These days, he wouldn't get 15 seconds into his talk without some purple-haired fruitcake having a meltdown.

And then there’s “gravity”

"I'd rather my words were not taken out of context by some rando in the future." - Every Famous Guy Ever

@@richsackett3423 Ahh, so you disagree. No dissent. No questions. No peer reviews. Just shut the front door and take your medicine right?

Well, Feynman knew WTF he was talking about, unlike the climate change denier dummies.

@@mikeFolco Feynman was humble enough to understand that neither he nor we have all the answers and never will. It shows he also understood the big danger lies in not being able to question what are claimed to be absolute unassailable truths. Not least because of the motivations that may lie behind them....

Totally wrong. Head up butt.

Good point. We are actually headed back into an Ice Age. the last one covered New York in 2 MILES THICK ICE. Should be here in the next 1000 years or so. How will we adapt to that?

@@MichaelFurniss Are you saying the projections, in the 1970s, were wrong? The late 1970s had those headlines. Who had their head up a butt Michael Furniss?

Leonard Nimoy said it, so why hasn't come true?

Dave Turner: In the early seventies, cars still had carburetors and came with 8-track tape players. Research has moved on.

and mention of his funds from Peabody Energy was probably included in this interview but edited out

@The Wandering M you’re invalidating their entire professional existence and more strikingly their very integrity as human beings. And rightly so...

@The Wandering M Same. The wife of a friend of mine is a Professor in Climate Politics. Getting paid very handsomely, far better than any other academics at the same University. I would like to know where the money is ultimately coming from.

@The Wandering M People get upset when you catch them in a lie

@@Viator19 China and Russia are two primary sources of climate malarky; it serves to offset the US's great advantage in energy resources/production.

Temperature has risen in these 10 years but 10 years is tiny. If our activity causes most manmal life on the planet to end in 1500 years, then it still warrants action.

@@user-km3hv8qo9p If my mother had testikels I wouldn't have been born. If doesn't count. I'm not willing to give up my freedom for someone else their IF.

@@keerpuntbelgiekapitalisto5014 I understand you and have the same viewpoint as I’m also indoctrinated with our western values. But I’m trying to learn from other cultures anthropologically and finding this extreme freedom approach may reach limits, as it assumes an open system rather than closed or limited resource system. In any case I have been been raised as everyone man out for himself, compete and take the maximum we can from everyone and from anywhere that the law csn permit. If things go really really badly 500 years away - then at least I’ll not be here, so we should take the maximum we can whilst we can get away with it I say.

@user-km3hv8qo9p I don't think we have the same viewpoints. As a consultant I traveled the world, worked 2 years in Turkey, Malta, Poland and in my 50 years on this planet I only see that things better. The more people the better the technology, we less and less poverty and more and more prosperity. We cultivate more food per M2 as technology proceeds. What a do sometimes encounter is people that think there is a limit and I always wonder if people think this way what are they willing to give up themselves. Unfortunately most of these kind of people don't want to give up anything yet expect others to drive less cars, eat less meat or travel less. In 500 years if we proceed to grow we will have people living on the moon, maybe even Mars, robots will be harvesting the asteroid belt for other resources and maybe we will discover other things in the universe that will progress humanity. I don't live for myself, I live for the people I work with and hope they become also prosperous and have a good life. I don't deny that we have challenges in front of us. Bud this climate communists mentality has to go. So, I don't think we are on the same level.

@@keerpuntbelgiekapitalisto5014 Thank you for your insightful answer. Our work experiences might also overlap a little as I work as an international consultant; originally based on Australia but in Monaco the last 8 years and frequently doing business in Warsaw also. I also don’t want to given up anything and change how I pollute the planet, and I never asked anyone else to change. In this sense I’m consistent and in some sense innocent, as you are. Yet the systemic effect of everyone living this way is aparantly going to cause a mass extinction. Life is getting better - I agree emphatically. When I wrote taking without constraint, I meant this not in a greedy sense but just as a matter of fact - living without limits and doing what makes us feel good - including of course our relations. But I meant we should live without restriction on our freedom so even if that destroys the planet (which seems likely) we shouldn’t put attention on that, as there is a chance things will be okay, and we should enjoy life whilst the environment is stable for the next couple of generations. The generations after that - I think it is their job to do deal with catastrophe, and if they need limits on freedom that is their problem - but until we see it happening, we should go on living without restraint. That is calitalism and freedom as I’m taught. As for living on the moon, it will need to be space stations as we can adjust the gravity to suit us. We would just become inpossibly ill on the moon or on Mars, but creating comfortable space stations is possible and long term even necessary.

You can question climate change if you provide sound arguments.

@@AdrienBurg CO2/plant food is only a problem in corrupt, fraudulent computer models.

Well, here is an answer that cannot be questioned… the whole climate scam is a lie.. pollution in the air actually helps to make it rain.. that’s why Europe and US are now suffering from droughts… The only time it rains in these countries is when the atmosphere is filled with volcanic ash or sand particles from the Sahara… other wise the air is too clean for moisture to form into raindrops..😏

" There are plenty of reasons for failure, but no excuses" R E Leahey. Circa 1979

@@Kgio-2112 Are you saying we shouldn't fail when it comes to the CO2/plant food scare? The CO2/plant food scare is about income redistribution/socialism, nothing more. Former IPCC chair Ottmar Edenhofer said as much.

😆😆😆

Lolololol😂

In 2018 she said we have 5 years left. She had to take down post this year

A lot of people commenting here would be really mad if they weren't too dumb to understand this comment

The battles that causes in our household 🙄

Told my wife, you can answer the door in a sweater or I can answer it in my boxers. 😂

@@ricksmith1673 just a joke mate.

When the American bread basket migrates north to Canada, coastal towns are flooding, and we're dealing with mass climate migration... Maybe you and your wife will have figured it out

@@Thaco69 we'll have a billion years to sort it out then. I'm from Scotland by the way. I welcome climate change.

Thank you for this.

And all in the name of profit.

To say "the temperature of the earth is always changing" says nothing about the certain reality of rapid global warming and is nothing more than an obtuse dodge.

#6

@@michaelmckinney7240 Wrong. Global temperatures were dropping in the 60s and 70s (An Ice Age is Coming! We're all going to die! I actually LEARNED THIS lie in 6th grade science!). Then there was slight increase for a few years (The Planet is Overheating! We're all going to die!). Then there was a long pause of about 20 years (well passed the 2006. The DEADline Al Gore have for when the planet would be irretrievably in its death spiral). Now they've settled on telling us that the climate changing AT ALL its going to kill us all! Ten years later, the National Review wrote an article celebrating our survival! www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again/ Here it is, sixteen years after our prophesied demise and YOU'RE STILL HERE! That's the only song enviromaniacs know how to play. Everything is about to end all life on this planet. SOON! Forty-two times in the past 60 years, environmentalists have predicted world-decimating disasters and NONE OF THEM have come to pass! Not ONE had happened. You all are 0-42! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. But no way are you going to lie to me 42 times and get away with it.

And that the IPCC knows even less ... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7tmlNN6mJemfaM.html

But you can be reasonably sure, which you have to be to do anything (why do you eat, if you don't know for sure you're going to starve?)... Also, if the stakes are really high you should calculate more on safety's side... Kinda like pascal's wager, but real

Same here lmao find it really interesting that now this is resurfacing. Almost like someone's trying to calm us down even though all the evidence is pointing that alarmism is something that's warranted

The guy is working for Chevron. The huxter says that the government drives the science while getting a payoff from The Koch Foundation.@@rileyboyer3582

Mad respect to Boston Globe

Me too!

Cant agree with you about "many" historians. DEFINITELY agree with you about a time in history when it wasnt against the "law" to be masculine. The language of your posts last sentence was BRILLIANT.

It isn't "Green Progressives" doing what you say. Rather, thousands of reputable scientists have been studying this for a long time, and their collective assessment is that man-made climate change is real. Your comment about Green-Progressives moving to control every aspect of our lives makes me think you are into conspiracy theories.

andyiswonderful Ok then,...so the government isn't messing with the weather patterns?...ever ? Whew!😰...that's totally some good news!

andyiswonderful he's not the only one, go back through history, scare mongering by govts has been around for sooo long!!

andyiswonderful PS Many, many real scientists, whi aren't govt funded to produce the 'right' results for them, would disagree that any global weather change is man made!!!!

Yeh co2 is actually pretty low right now, 400ppm isn’t much

We actually need to double that. And reduce methane. @@RE4L72

@@RE4L72 Thats fine if we are ready to move the population from areas that become to wet or too dry but most people dont want mass migration. 350ppm might be a better fit for what we want but we are already at 423ppm now.

Right temperature for who? Humans? Penguins? Trout? Inuit? Alligators? There is no one-size fits all temperature. The right one for humans would be one that didn't melt icecaps, raise sea levels, intensify hurricanes and increase drought, extreme precipitation events and wildfires.

you grouped Inuit with trout and alligators. @@swiftlytiltingplanet8481

The one we had before industrialization please.

The "right" temperature is one where life can continue unimpeded. The rate of change of the temperature is the problem due to humans burning fossil fuels, because life can't adapt quickly enough, and many things die out/degrade/etc.

A good example of faulty consensus---Billions of people believe that God created the Universe in seven days. I rest my case!

Miami will be first. Boston next. Louisiana is already pretty fkd.

Don't forget New York and California I'd love to see those fukers underwater

Communism is worlds apart from democratic socialism, dickhead.

@@biggav7434 No it isn't fuckstick. You are all a bunch of thieves that think it's OK to steal from your fellow citizens to get your "free stuff."

@John Everlast I'm happy that many of them stay where they are rather than moving to sane states. But unfortunately, many of your ilk do move and they bring their communist ideology with them. Leftists like you are a blight on humanity.

The aquifer your well draws from was probably sucked dry by a Las Vegas desert golf course. What could be "more natural"?

The problem is that politicians take, "was probably", turn it into dogma for their militant base and sycophantic media, and pass laws that give gov goons the legal authority to assault peaceable ppl.

He denies the changes are more rapid than we have ever experienced

@@libearl828 that doesn’t mean they were manmade.

@@goldwingdwarrior No, and nor does it mean they aren't manmade.

Skip Rocker Exactly right!!!

Just the thought of burning fossil fuels scared the ice into melting.

Buffalo farts....

Skodaman2 Funny!!

I'll bet it was the Russians. Or perhaps White Privilege.

Gore's wife got the beachfront property after she caught him cheating on her and divorced him. Gore is such a drut and full of horse manure.

You can't blame Gore, if he lived inland, too many neighbors would complain about the sulfur stench!

@John Franklin Gore made million$ selling his phony carbon offsets, many of those payments made to his own companiies. He flew his nearly-empty private jet to a climate conference in Switzerland! He should be in prision for theft and fraud.

@John Franklin Exactly right!!

His property is 150 feet above sea level.

and Being Humane instead of Personally Identified. (::)

And yet you don't question the science advanced by people who are allergic to debate, to whom like this gentleman said, the science is settled.🤔 To the church in Galileo's time, the Earth was flat, that wasn't to be challenged, not because the church cared if it was flat or not, but because it was a menace to their power structure, wake up!

Richard Lindzen

Back in the 80's they said the Westside highway would be underwater by 2008. I guess that makes my car a submarine.

And Fiji would not exist. It must have been a ghost country we visited last summer

Link?

@@jordanwolff5243 Here you go... www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june

So New York was not underwater by now-Houston was. Hey genius, why are these Gulf storms getting more numerous and stronger every year? Can't be that the oceans are getting warmer and holding more energy-hell no.

People live and die by the lies of absolute fools looking for money and power which is why they are politicians. They don’t care about us

Thats lunacy and comes from somebody who very clearly is spending far more time hanging around politicians than scientists. Thats so crazy its amazing he said it. Politicians come and go all the time. If you are talkiing about FUNDING thats something different,but elected politicians are almost never on funding boards.

True that!

Yeah. So 1700 Scientists around the globe say otherwise? This is just one opinion. Glad you found one you agree with.

Here is an update of what the science has actually said. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a5h7f6qiqbmlmqM.html

Perfectly said. tyvm

This is the very essence of the climate change religion. You must believe! Yet how many ex politicians have huge houses right on the ocean?

@@search4truth104 Truth!

Spoken like a true flat-Earther.

@@grahamyates2490 Being an "Oblate spheroid," Earth is anything but flat. Unfortunately, the "science" backing up climate change is almost non-existent! It's mostly computer projection modeling. There's certainly not nearly enough "real science" to predict ANY outcome, since we've only been keeping climate records for around 150 years---a mere blip in geological time. So, please save the whining and crying about how it's "Settled Science!"

Alternatively, the experts who are in agreement that it IS real have a good reason to say so. We don't assume they're wrong just because we wish it were the case, we follow evidence and draw observations from that evidence. If we operated under your method humanity would still assume that miasmas caused disease and illness. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pseWZdN72ce8iXk.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mZeUoc95teDMgXU.html

You'd apply this to the Law of Gravity?

@@92belisarius Thank you for the question mark at least. No, of course not. The specific, incredibly complex science in question is CLIMATE science. That's what he's referring to with "THE science". We know a lot, but not near everything. Tens of thousands of variables, many of which we don't perfectly understand, many of which we can't possibly predict (such as solar activity), and a countless number of which are unknown ("countless" by definition). If your disingenuous question is the best response you've got, well, I don't know what to tell you. You obviously have no sense of the complexity and chaos of reality. "We know A, therefore B, therefore C"... and all the way through to Z. That's what you guys do, with no intuitive sense of how much complexity and unpredictability is added with each "therefore". Absolutely no sense of how totally in over your heads you are at C, let alone Z... It's ridiculous. But I'm a realist, and I know this won't get through to you. I know the only thing that will convince you people of the folly of your doomsday alarmism is time. So I'm willing to wait. That's all I can do. Sit back and wait, while rolling my eyes. (But please, don't let me poop your panic party. Proceed...)

@@laseronion The people you are responding arent worth what you wrote. They are imbeciles and can not step out of the box to view different variables that disprove or meet half way with global warming.

@@DonkeyLipsDA3rd I assume they're pretty young, and that their over-simple way of viewing reality is something they have a good chance of growing out of. I remember buying into the scientifically "guaranteed" doomsday predictions of my youth. Time taught me, time will teach them (unless they get into careers that benefit from pushing the scariest narrative, i.e. politics, media, academia, etc; when money is at stake, it's tough to be objective).

Therefore wrong? Specious conclusion.

That explains everything. Hope the payoff was high for betraying humanity.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he would remain until his retirement in 2013. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism".

Love that people with almost any opinion can agree with this one 😁

www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU

Jack Gray I was first told about climate change by one of my primary school teachers in the 60’s, he MUST have been a part of the early Ecology Movement to be that aware back then. He said scientists didn’t know if the pollution would trap the heat and cause a greenhouse effect, or the opposite and stop the Suns heat from passing into our atmosphere, thereby causing an Ice Age instead. Back then in the 60’s it wasn’t obvious which way it would go, as we was still getting regular heavy Snowfalls in winter in London. But since the 80’s it has become obvious that CO2 and other ghg gasses are trapping the heat and have caused a warming effect.

So yeah, let's find out if the world burns by letting the world burn. So the few remaining survivors can stand over the ashes and say "ha, the burning Earthers were right!". Why the terrible fear of doing something? We have to change eventually since fossil fuels are a finite resource. The reason is just different. Instead of waiting until the last coal is dug out and the last drop of petroleum is sucked out we'll change because of the risk of climate change.

Lenard Segnitz Actually I don’t think they will run out of Oil before the whole earth is polluted, as more Oil is being found all the time, the idea that we have to change before it runs out is ludicrous. We are already on a mass extinction path and they still have decades of known Oil ‘reserves’.

Tax on the poor and the stupid!

Pardon me? If we are talking about big money, what we have to talk about are the big fossil fuel companies, who fund climate change denial.

yes, the bankers and kin always working to get more money. they are now going to become fools.. too many are waking up to their lameness. may they all drown.

@@flyingchariot9080 How is any of that related to global warming? NB, the big money is still in fossil fuels

@Dander Spat "a non existent problem"? What do you make of the fact that Greenland is now loosing 250 gigatonnes of ice per year, that the disappearance of Arctic glaciers impacts 1.5 billion people who depend on them? That coral bleeching has already destroyed more than half of the Great Barrier Reef? That wildfires in the Arctic have reached apocalyptic dimensions? That Arctic sea ice is down to a fraction of what it used to be some decades ago etc. These are not forecast or predictions. These things are happening right now. And this is just the beginning.

I can't even give a like , what's going on ?

That's how commies CONTROL you.

Which is exactly the same thing that's been happening for the last thousand years.

@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 understood yes of course but it's at the rate at which the levels are rising, specifically CO2. This we can see clearly (from core samples) that has everyone concerned...well at least most of the scientific community anyway or enough people that we can try and make a difference even if it is at the huge / expense / economic cost but I'd rather take that approach than sitting back and two generations from now (or less) tell us what a bunch of lame brains we were from this time period our generation (well some of us) for sitting back and saying "there's no need to fear"..... i think we can all agree mankind has had a huge effect on on the environment, its a debate as to how much it has an effect on the planet, and to what level or you willing to go to economically to cause the least amount of harmful effect, I do not want to leave a planet that's all used up, this is all we have, to big a risk to take.....respectfully

Fear is the Canadian's biggest political motivator.

ALL governments employ fear in order to control their populations in one form or another. Both mother and grandmother were teachers, mother retired in 1956 when teachers taught. They did not practice indoctrination. “If your in doubt research it yourself, that’s why we have libraries”.

Exactly! I have found many lies we were taught in school. The theory of evolution is impossible and global warming is not to be feared. Read Genesis 8:22 if you are worried about global warming.

smart mom!

@@brip557 yup, both mom and grandma were real teachers, both taught nearly 50 years each.

guessing.. now you know; Devos club, fascist, global control

Reason #1, Money plain and clear. By terrorizing the public with predictions of global warming and sea levels rising,,,,,,,, it gives our and other governments a reason to tax people. Carbon tax etc. It's all about a so called good reason to tax the general people. But,,,,,, where does the money go?????? Certainly not to any avenue for climate change.

All university science research prof are scared to speak out because of possibly being unemployed for life. In my college years we were writing papers on the upcoming ice age of 2030. Early 1970's. In mine I talked about the 40 to 50 year cycle of temperature change warmer or colder

When a volcano like Mt Helen in Washington is erupting during its peak 5 hours it emits massive amounts of carbon. During the week it was starting it emits carbon. But lets take 30 minutes of the peak. If every car in the US including all 35 of Jay Leno's garage,every old lady who rarely drives, etc were to drive 50000 mikes that year they would have emitted roughly 95 % as much carbon as that 30 minutes. It erupted 5 hours. The volcano in Hawaii erupt almost daily for 10 minutes. So yes we are a factor but by far no where near what nature provides.

@@dalehalbert5816 Glad to hear some truth.

16

Apparently this was before she learned about Climate change.

😂😂😂😂

Dusty Gadsby She’s 16 and about as “wise” as all the BULLSHIT she’s been feed all her impressionable youthful life

Dusty Gadsby exactly funny !

Also, in all likelihood, cosmic background fluctuations as well, as presented in astrophysicist Nigel Calder’s book “The Chilling Stars”.

Also carbon emissions from fossil fuel use @@michaelschramm1064

Believe it or not, we measure these things 🤯🤯. They cannot account for the kinds of temperatures that we are seeing. The only way to get models to be precise is to incorporate CO₂ emissions.

So basically you would rather believe a politician than a scientist? What if the other party had said those things, would you believe it then? How much money have those made that are promoting climate change? Even Greta Thunberg is now a millionaire (gives it all away but keeps a couple of million back for "expenses" apparently). There are many things that can be explained there that have nothing to do with global warming. Arson is known to be one of the biggest causes of wildfires, and "accidental" triggers like dropped cigarette ends. But you never hear that when they're reporting them on the news. Glaciers retreating? NASA said that the Antarctica was getting colder because the glaciers were growing. The earth is known to tilt slightly over time, that could be why temperatures change in different areas, why it's now colder in Antarctica and warmer in the North. Where I live the sea level has never changed, there are water level markers that are the same as they were when I arrived in the area 45 years ago. Maybe the sea level doesn't change where I am, who knows? Storms differ all the time, I remember the worst storm ever in the UK was in the 1950s when over 200 died. That was 70 years ago. I've seen the waves frozen as they came over the rails, that was 50 years ago. What he says makes a hell of a lot of sense, and I'll guarantee that in another 100 years nothing will have changed.

Who is this guy flappin his lips!? Intellectual Sasquatch Oi

do you know what the North Atlantic gyre is? does your common sense cover that piece of knowledge?

Last two years. Hello?

This a "DON'T LOOK UP" moment.

common sense that, ironically, none of his colleagues agree with. people suggest that climate scientists are somehow in it for the money, but it's Lindzrn that is collecting $30,000 fees for single speaking engagements and is a part of the cato institute, the people who professionally protect the oil industry by introducing doubt where none truly exists re: our role in climate change vis a vis fossil fuels. Lindzen doesn't give a fuck about anyone but himself

Lindzen has been debunked by 22 of his fellow MIT professsors and the entire 99.9% consensus of the world's climate scientists.

No, it's good enough to point at qualified people, like the IPCC or NASA or ministries of ecology all around the world

Yeah cause the banks have never acted irresponsibly or nearly collapsed the economy. Are you dumb?

And pretty much every major politician who whines about climate change and rising oceans still goes out and buys oceanfront real estate. Obama is a textbook case, and this is not his only oceanfront property. www.businessinsider.com/obamas-buy-home-on-marthas-vineyard-report-photos-2019-12?amp

1 year later. Most insurance companies are leaving Florida and policy prices are through the roof...

@@matthiasg4843 Exactly what I was about to post

I wouldn't trust back actions as a barometer for anything outside of profit for them.

They have not even come close to what they say that will happen in 10 years, even 20 years. That’s what happens when you are selective in what facts you choose and then add your own opinion as fact.

That's what I was trying to remember...

And here in Australia we have Tim Flannery who said that rainfall would be so little that the capital cities would run out of water. See how that worked out. But he still has his faithful followers.

I'm pretty sure some Democrats were saying roughly around the 2016 election that we had 7 years left. So, get your affairs in order, we have one more year.

He got south park to back peddle on man bear pig too.

It’s being used to manipulate you versus me, of course it will be politicized. Your point of you versus mine, who is right? who cares?

Write Al Gore and ask him if he will have an open discussion or a debate with a person who opposes his view on Climate Change.

@@dangremillion When Al Gore was born there were about 5,000 polar bears, today only 25,000 remain.

@@ThekiBoran I heard he dated a few in Nashville.

@@ThekiBoran Yes the population is thriving so there going to be all right.

@Zarion 11 You know you have been lied to. Yes, even about what is sane and rational, and what is insane and irrational.

Ignorance is bliss?

@@Nhoj737 You tell me...

@@rixpix2957 “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources. If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.” thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html

@@Nhoj737 While I appreciate all of that info, I would never make such a comment without having researched the very sources you've indicated here. I will gladly checkout the link you kindly left in your comment and let you know what I think of you'd like. However, I'll just make this one point before doing so: Each organization you listed here from top to bottom are all funded, staffed and are obliged to file results, which fit particular narratives(political and otherwise) of the financiers that sponsor them. That goes for government agencies as well.

Not an an equivalent rate when you take global industrialization into effect. Yes it changes and goes up and down over thousands of years, but the variables have change dramatically since the creation of our new societies. We don't have enough information to say that it's natural. Humans tend to take action only after shit has hit the fan rather than preventing it in the first place.

I know that him saying this reassures you, but he's wrong. His statements are very reductionist and don't even scratch the surface of the real scientific conclusions that are being made about climatology. See for yourself: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pseWZdN72ce8iXk.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mZeUoc95teDMgXU.html And here are rebuttals to this scientist's statements: skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

onetwothree57 fucking freezing down here on the river Mersey

​@@WyattCayer If you don't have enough information to say that it's natural, you therefore do not have enough information to say that it's man made. Basic logic. The climate is probably one of the most complex problems in science. No one really knows how it works exactly. As such, some scientists lazily just plug in CO2 to explain that which we don't fully understand. Primitive men used this same technique throughout history, except they used to gods to explain stuff that they didn't understand.

​@@HiDeguild And here is Richard Feynman's rebuttal to the pseudo-scientific claims made by the AGW hypothesis community. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qr2iZpyCntyml6M.html

yeah and what does solving it produce? Less fumes, more energy, and innovation for the masses. Such a terrible thing...

I agree with you - climate change is the symptom not the cause. That's largely due to over population.

yep, only problem now, is corrupt criminals, decided they were going to blame humans for something that occurs naturally for gazillions of years, to enable the corrupt criminals to tax everyone and control everyone with it. It's a Scam!

Crows 2332 Totally correct, only illogical brains see it differently, climate changes mainly in eleven year cycles...this is in conjunction to sun, solar activity and the earth's orbit round the sun.

@Zarion 11 climate change bullshit garbage again

@@shutthegate8232 Yes thats what it is a scam and a lie and hoax pushed by the corrupt united nations

Right, and you pay it with loss of energy.

on a debt you may not owe ;)

@@jacksnyder5526 you are absolutely right.

p mor, Many (60+) years ago my grandmother taught me a very wise lesson. She said that "Worry is Interest on a Loan that you don't Owe" and I have lived that axiom since. Stress Kills, Worry Creates Stress, simple.

Paying interest on borrowed trouble.

Safe to say since this was from 12 years agon...

Lindzen has been debunked by virtually everyone in climate change science.

You are 1000% correct !!

One million dead from Covid in the U.S. alone. The vaccine deniers are dying in far greater numebrs than the pro-science crowd. A tragedy to end up dying from misinformation from your own political representatives.

What do you mean finally, this was 11 years ago. Consider the temperature gap between a decade ago and today.

@@Yohan-yc2bv The temp change over the 10 days is not the problem. The political change is.

Not a single contrarian climate scientist has ever been censored, cancelled or fired. If you think they have, cite them by name. This is all poppycock manufactured by the fossil fuel industry's marketing department.

Lol exactly! Miss the time when climate change was called 'weather' for God's sake

@@shelveswithstories13 Climate change is not just a new term for the weather. The fact that where I am, yesterday was cloudy and windy and today is sunny and much less windy is weather. The fact that the summers of 2018, 2019, 2020 and especially 2022 and 2023 (that's 5 summers out of the last 6) have been abnormally dry in most of Europe is a sign of climate change.

What happened in 2021? Did it temporarily change back.?

@@karenaubert8852 No, it didn't temporarily change back. As I'm sure you know, weather conditions have always varied from year to year, generally within a certain range, and with some exceptional years, like summer 1976 was abnormally hot and dry, and one year, I think 1973, London had snow in June. But when what used to be exceptional becomes the new normal, then surely we can agree that the climate is changing.

That was a fake report.

Not an ice age but a slight decrease in temperatures yes... but because of humans this is not going to happen

@@Pouly__ proof

I was taught it at school. They considered spraying the ice caps with soot to retain more heat. Having 200 foot of ice on your head was a worry

@@rip5905 APPLAUSE! Yeah, us!

You demonstrate profound ignorance here. Was that your intention?

Great, fake news and fake science belong together.

😬

He's been on numerous platforms, but the MSM has bought into the change and science is settled narrative, so they want no dissent

This a "DON'T LOOK UP" moment.

@@morenofranco9235 this is an idiot

@@morenofranco9235 THEY make movies and shows like that to mock us

and here we are. Warmest June ever

@@matthiasg4843 the point he is making is that the man made contributions are minor. the earth has been a great deal warmer before

I recall when it first began in the late 1960's. Reports of "The whole of the East Coast of Britain will be under 20 feet of water by 1980 due to the Hot House Effect." Obviously no such event took place, the sea hasn't even risen 2mm... and why just the "East Coast"? During the 1970's there was the balancing act "We're headed for a mini Ice Age". Total nonsense. I go with the real science, that recorded by nature itself over thousands of years in sediment, in rock, in etc.

Greta Dumberg was not even born then.

Truth doesn't change

HOW SO????

Hard to change what is truly unknown 🤷🏻‍♂️

We know that. Next up, try to get the Liberals on board with this.

It is wise to ask what model of ethical , economic, ecological and emotional intelligence you are using in response to the U.S. gov 13 agency warning. Can you tell me what school you went to . You should warn others they did not properly educate you in critical thinking. Then again that is the way gov control their population by not educating them. Adding giga tonnes of CO2 is not normal Didn't any one tell you that

SORRY TO USE TRUTH ..lol PS...i live by the sea..has not risen in 70 years that i have been here..dumb ass....hahaha www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.html

thanks for the thumbs up

@@Gordonz1 1. CO2 is plant food. 2. CO2 does not cause the world to magically heat up. In fact it does the exact opposite. 3. The world has actually been gradually cooling down, we are on the cusp of another Ice Age.

Is that why the Corral Reefs are dying and there is no more salmon runs in the north pacific. Dont believe me. Ask people who go up there to fish.

Seems relevant to me. Relevant today as it was in 2010. When he's right, he's right.

@@trickmuffinful He is right that the climate is always changing. But in the 10,000years since the end of the last glacial period, population centres, agriculture, cities and other infrastructure developed including on coast lines with a relatively stable CO2 concentration and temperature until humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale with the industrial revolution. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 50% higher than at the beginning of the industrial revolution, global temperature is now higher than at any time in hundreds of thousands of years and rising at the rate of 0.2 C per decade or 3 C per doubling of CO2 concentration in line with the causal theory of anthropogenic global warming. Lindzen had said the rate was 0.5 C per doubling of CO2 concentration. Ice caps and glaciers are melting, sea levels rising and ocean pH falling as predicted. Sea level is not a hard thing to measure. Global tide gauge and satellite measurements show it is rising at an accelerating rate regardless of some local variation relative to coast lines due to subsidence or uplift. What causes an ice age? Some of the changes that can influence an ice age include: Earth's orbit - Changes in the Earth's orbit (called Milankovitch cycles) change the warming of the earth by the sun. Solar energy - The amount of energy output by the Sun also changes. Low cycles of energy output can possibly help in producing an ice age. Atmospheric composition - Low levels of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide can cause the Earth to cool leading to an ice age. Ocean currents-can have a great impact on the Earth's climate. Changes in currents can cause ice sheets to build up. Volcanoes - introduce huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The lack of volcanoes can cause an ice age. Increased volcanic activity can put an end to an ice age as well. Not all climate scientists are government employees. In the 1970's Exxon's own scientists produced reports to management which agreed with the findings of other scientists. Management stamped them confidential and locked them away for decades. 'Government' scientists in countries such as the US and Australia produced climate research which the governments did not like at all.

@@trickmuffinful The last 10 years were the hottest years on record.

And now we will get lot of other climate denial videos proposed by KZfaq robots

The KZfaq algorithm doesn't give a fig about the science one way or another. It's tuned to keep people clicking on videos. It turns out that generating outrage is the best way keep people interested.

jason winklbauer It shows they are afraid of the truth.

Just like their COVID and Biden disclaimers.

Just ignore it.

This guy is paid by oil companies

@@chrisashe9277 really?

@@TheHorsebox2 the company we know for sure to have paid him is a coal company, peabody energy. but that might be the tip of the iceberg. we only know that peabody paid him because peabody filed for bankruptcy protection and had to show how it was using its funds. normally these companies are able to fund people like lindzen secretly.

Watch "Climate Changers" by Cilmateviewers

Oh it definitely is a major concern! But Co2 is not a pollutant! But the manufacture and disposal of wind turbine,Solar panels and EVs is the most polluting they that has ever been on earth?

Then why on earth are we using catalytic converters to change harmless compounds into chain molicuals that the enviroment can not break down?

@@terenceiutzi4003 also the earth is much more greener now as a result of more Co2 , more vegetation , better crops , according to Professor Freeman Dyson

how would you prefer that science was funded?

@@sonifer7692 Thank you for your post, Sonifer. In my view, the purpose of government is to transfer wealth and power from the many to the few. Governments are everywhere the most powerful special interest group in any given geographical area. That being the case, any science funded by the state will inevitably advance that agenda. The track record of modern “science” has amply confirmed that view. Thus, my choice for science funding is laissez faire capitalism.* _*Laissez-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic interventionism deriving from special interest groups._

Eisenhower warned us of this in his speech before he left the Presidency. Sadly, many of the predictions in that speech have come to pass. Two of the most important, from my perspective, have been the rise of the military industrial complex and the transformation of science into a religion.

@@lobuxracer Well said, lobuxracer. Thank you for doing so.

@@IsaacNussbaum yep.

100% wrong**

Yeah, once you sell your soul to the NSF and mention "Climate Change" in your unrelated research proposal. Yes, you are!

The question is : who is founding your research ?

Yeah, they are all employees. So what? So accepting money for work renders everything anyone says suspect? Is it remotely possible that scientists are going to where the evidence leads?... like all proper science is done.

@THE BassBus, Except, Richard Lindzen has been thoroughly rebuked by his MIT Colleagues, pointing out his contrarian views do not represent MIT nor his own department. Somewhat ironically from the Real Boston Globe! www3.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/08/mit-professors-denounce-their-colleague-letter-trump-for-denying-evidence-climate-change/86K8ur31YIUbMO4SAI7U2N/story.html?arc404=true

And out of these, those who deny climate change also get their paychecks from big oil companies. What a coincidence huh?

There's nothing you can do

Nah we're fine. 4 years ago they said we have 18 months left lmao.

Yet unlike Galileo, he has been proven wrong. His prediction was that increased cloud cover would have a cooling effect, yet since the video was published, almost a decade ago, his prediction has been falsified. The temperature curve he predicted was way lower than what we actually see. Because water vapour is also a potent greenhouse gas.

@@dasGagaTier So what if water vapor is a fuckn made up bullshit green house gas the es rths vlimate is changeing all the time natually theres ancient citys down in the bottom of the ocean it used to be dry land once apon a time and ancent like creatures fossile bones found in deserts

dad, clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is a gas. Clouds are not gas. Things that are not gas are not greenhouse gas. Predicting cloud cover is not a well developed science. Neither is predicting climate change. That's kind of the point...

Gy Bx even though he is not alt right saying climate change is fake he is denying the 99.9% of peer reviewed articles that say climate change is real and man made so he is still denying climate change, but in denial of denying climate change

@Adam Defibaugh I know that that i worked in irrigation farming for 56 years im now retired its just all the bulldhit these other idiots are going on with about human caused climate change if you said to them its white thed say its black the dum cunts it was hotter and more carbon in the atmosphere back in 1931 on wards to 1960 than there is now and tge earth has cooled

At least he’s not shouting about the earth ending.

@@tanimation7289 that's only a good thing if it's not ending.

I'm an exception. I'm employed by the Koch brothers (not a joke as he is from the Cato Institute)