Video

Fkn rtard convention in the comments.

97% Climate Consensus Fraud czcams.com/video/ewJ6TI8ccAw/video.html

Is Climate Change real? Bill Whittle czcams.com/video/v_RuverrEZ4/video.html

All of their predictions have been WRONG. I don’t see that changing.

"nobody in their right mind would suggest abandoning fossil fuels" - i guess the entire democrat party is nuts.

Man made CO2 causing "climate change" is the biggest hoax/scam/shakedown of all time. $350B this year alone from Biden being spent to loyals that then give donations for the next dole.

Remember that the "pause" was discussed in 2014 (based on 2013 temps). Pause? What happened since then? Obviously temps went up, and that is clear to everyone including the science aliterates. But now we get to hear about a pause since 2016, another cherry picked starting point. In other words, stop talking about cherry picked pauses, start looking at the simple fact that earth is warming. There will always be "pauses" but there will always be warming as we add CO2 (the primary forcing) to our atmosphere.

At 20:20, Kerry Emanuel says, "This warming that we've seen in the last 40 years, I would say with 95% confidence, and 95% of my colleagues agree, has been caused by greenhouse gases going up." And at 21:16, he says, "Can I prove absolutely in a court of law [that the warming we are seeing now is caused by greenhouse gases going up]? Probably not. But to the satisfaction of 97% of my colleagues? Yes." But these are lies. There is no survey of Emanuel's colleagues that shows that 95% or 97% of his colleagues endorse the claim he's making. In fact, the survey by Cook et al. from 2013, which Emanuel implicitly cites with the 97% figure, doesn't show anything like that -- in the abstract and introduction section of Cook et al., they say very explicit that 2/3 of the 12,000 climate change paper abstracts they examined didn't even take a position on whether recent global warming is primarily caused by human activity or not, and they say that 1/3 of the 12% of authors they surveyed directly also say that their papers don't take a position one way or the other. If Emanuel had even read the abstract of Cook et al., he would know this, and it's hard to believe that he didn't. Moreover, direct surveys of members of the American Meteorological Society sharply contradict his claims: one survey from 2016, where a little over half of AMS members responded, found that only 2/3 endorsed Emanuel's claim; another survey from 2014, where 26% of AMS members responded, found that only 1/2 endorsed Emanuel's claim. Granted, the latter survey could have been done after this debate happened, but it still indicates considerable disagreement and uncertainty within the AMS over the causes of recent global warming. Disagreement and uncertainty that it's hard to believe Emanuel wasn't aware of at the time of this debate (he's also a member of the AMS and was at the time).

36:19 Fear p0rn attempt number 101 Still no scientific proof

35:50 As this guy said we dont know much about climate but hes so sure that if we filthy humans didnt go industrializing we would go colder !? Find the mistake ! Unfortunately normal ppl dont understand its just AN OPINION! That might be extremely stpd of him, he might be right but we will never know

28:00 In every single turn he spoke he used a peasants provoking arguments "What if it gets dangerous?!" "Do u let ur toddler go in street!?" "Moral question if do we want to put our grand childeren in danger?!" Sir pls prove there is a danger U had 30-40yrs time to prove All ur theories (models) based on co2 CAUSATION failed , temprature changed like no reaction to what we did in atmosphere Now not only u dont wanna learn to acknowledge co2 cant cause it but u use fear p0rn to prove ur point and get ppl to choose ur side.. Embarressing !

24:17 "We have enough compelling evidences" I begged u for 25min to show those "COMPELLING EVIDENCES" but u only scaped answering and refered to "my colleagues are sure" or "we have compelling evidences" 😂🤦‍♂️

23:56 So because of one factor came true , should we ignore all the other failed factors !? If i say 100 predictions that happen next year, if 1 of my predictions come true Does it mean i know future !? Does it mean im a time traveller !? Such a cheap reasoning for a scientist ! Those failed models were based on co2 ! That probably proves co2 is not a factor ! As many scientist screamed it for ages but are ignored completely !

This is so funny They claimed theres a crysis on the way They produced models based on co2 to prove it All of them failed and the temprature progressed the same it was progressing before industrialisation which proved naturality of the temprature moderate rise Now are we gonna still debate about ur failed theory ?! Really !? "Before 1990s we only had pencile and paper, but then we had computers , its a big progress!" Wtf !?

20:57 Sir we are talking about if that street exist !? The toddler is walking in a safe park. Prove its a street, stop the fear p0rn Use some science The burden of proof is on u, out of nowhere u came and claimed theres a dangerous street infront of toddlers. Show us then !? All the predictions was wrong, the progress in climate changes were normal , no extreme signs like a safe park for toddlers

20:45 As always the FEAR/RISK tactic WHAT IF .. WHAT IF... Scientists dont use this "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" amoung themselves bcuz they know its not science, they use this "logical" method only when they talk amoung the normal peasants who dont research and get sure theres no crysis here

20:25 All i hear from climate narrative is OPINIONS , "I AND 94% OF OUR COLLEAGUES ARE CONFIDENT WE CAUSED THIS CLIMATE CHANGE" just like the chruch scientists who 94% of them were confident the earth is flat !? 20min in the convo , only CLAIMS/OPINIONS , no scientific data to convince anything !

18:00 How is the death example related to climate !? In 1540 we had a big warming, thousands of ppl died, a very extreme drought happened Did our co2 traveled to 1540 ? Or did they have cars, industries and etc back then !? How can we call this science !? With that so goddamn much uncertainty that has to scape answering by such stpd "death" example !? Theres time with more co2 with lower temprature in history , Is nature racist and react only to our filthy co2 !?

16:00 All he said is that we dont know much but we are sure we are fking the earth up !? Indeed the whole climate change is based on such unknown territory ! How WERE DOING IT!? I DONT KNOW ! How are u so sure when u dont know enough about it !? I DONT KNOW !

Don't feel bad ma'am. I just found this video looking for the answer as well 🤣🤣🤣

in 2018 the IPCC said that the climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and it cannot be accurately predicted....the hundreds of numerical models are 100% wrong and always run too hot. they cannot predict or mimic the known and therefore are useless

Hey Colby! We loved our wedding video!

cliff jones lesson to be learned google

30:00 The rise in temps in the past 15 years is NOT flat, but that is because I'm writing in 2019 with the knowledge that the best thing Earth has going are some flat spots, and unfortunately bursts of extreme warming. The pause is long over. We are warming, and even Christy admits that today.

25:00 Yes, Christy is correct, that at the time this was produced in 2014 the Antarctic sea ice was slowly increasing. The models predicted melting. Fast forward to today, July 2019, and we see that the models did, sadly, EXTREMELY well. DAMN!!! We are losing so much ice on both poles, glaciers, Greenland, etc. Decreasing FASTER than the Arctic now. OK then, Christy must eb worried that he may get a call regarding this discussion. www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/world/antarctica-sea-ice-melting-climate-intl/index.html

19:00 Magnitudes matter. Yes, and Christy learned that lesson recently when his satellite data showed the same trend as ground stations. How Christy's team managed to have so many simple math errors in their calculations while thumping their chest about their differing results. 97% is not a canard. Do humans contribute? Yes, and thank you Christy for admitting that simple truth. We need the public to know that scientists are in the 97%, and denier organizations cover the 3%. 22:00 Christy needs a new model. His model (whatever it is) is over predicting, so why is he throwing that straw man out there? Forcing agents are both pos and neg. If it weren't for CO2, the climate would probably be cooling. It's the sun, stupid, and we should be cooling. 23:50 YES!!! Arctic sea ice and now Antarctic sea ice is diminishing FASTER than predicted. Faster, not slower. So they were wrong, and deniers are somehow happy about this? We all should be frightened when the projections are too conservative.

Quality of Models Great history from Emanuel. There is so much you can gain from models that cannot be entirely solved, like the projection that each successive decade will be warmer no matter what solar irradiation does. It gets harder when you consider feedbacks, but we do know that CO2 will increase temps enough that sea ice will melt (it is) and albedo will change (it is). 13:00 Christy talks about measuring using satellites. GREAT! Thank you Christy for proving that the ground stations are doing well. They match! 14:00 The data is robust. In a similar fashion, you can arbitrarily take 50 temp sites in the US and arrive at the same temp graph. Use only rural stations, same. Use only 15:00 Models have not over predicted. In fact, they have done extremely well. Christy refuses to look at them, but talks as though he did. I like that Emanuel is talking like a scientist and admitting what we don't know, but Christy is pretending that he knows better. Sure sign of an issue. 17:00 Climate is changing, and we're doing it. Bravo. News flash: temps have NOT been falling, each decade is warmer. Christy thinks it may someday fall... good luck to us. And no, the models did NOT overproduce, especially for the last few years 2016, 2017, 2018, and of course we are going to have another warm year in 2019.

For me so far the best discussion with both sides involved that I have seen so far.

Hey Colby! This is your old delorean pal Mike. Really enjoyed the video and hope you and yours are doing well these days.

The most significant outcome of this video (which is otherwise a very dry debate) is that Dr Emanuel admits time and time again how much is unknown and uncertain. And this is what they call “settled science”?!

Emanuel commits at one point that the models are not particular accurate with respect to global warming/temperature. But then, to make them better, he says that the models have been so good in the way that they underestimated the melting rate of north polar ice. Again a stupid "trick" to manipulate the thinking of people. Fact is, the models have been WRONG in BOTH, global temperature and melting rate of north polar ice, which means they are DAMN WRONG!

Far less binary debate than the calamitists like to argue. And far less emphatic that we are heading for crisis than what the politicians and greenies of the world would have us believe.

Millions of Americans have convinced themselves that all these warnings must be part of a massive conspiracy scheme run by ‘globalists’ and money-hungry scientists. It has become quite fashionable to believe such things among certain segments of this population. It also brings joy to them to join with like-minded believers. These folks choose to source most of their information from sites specifically set up to reenforce their deeply entrenched worldview and political leanings. They have become convinced that all the countering information is subversive and therefore not worth examining. This is a bit like some cult leaders telling their followers that outside influences will ruin their happiness. These folks are typically short term thinkers with little to no formal academic backgrounds in the physical and biological sciences. They often resent egg-heads that make them look ignorant in comparison. Their primary focus is on issues such as taxation, tyranny, terrorism, immigration and federal government over-regulation. That leaves them blind to the trashed environment our offspring will be inheriting. Such people can be presented with mountains of evidence, provided by a broad spectrum of scientists studying Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) effects, and will still reject it all off-hand as corrupted. They often do this with great pride, fully convinced this is the right approach. The more opposition they get the more they are convinced that they are right. This is the approach they typically take with the following information. The climate science denialists, who post here, will feel an obligation to either ignore or reject all the following information. Climate change: How do we know climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php What’s Really Warming the World? www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ The three-minute story of 800,000 years of climate change with a sting in the tail theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368 The Crazy Scale of Human Carbon Emission blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/the-crazy-scale-of-human-carbon-emission/?wt.mc=SA_Facebook-Share There's No Science Behind Denying Climate Change www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/02/theres-no-science-behind-denying-climate-change/#7b42cac4ff71 Earth sets heat record in 2016 - for the third year in a row www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-hottest-year-2016-20170118-story.html This Graphic Puts Global Warming in Full Perspective www.climatecentral.org/news/628-months-since-the-world-had-cool-month-21365 This Animation Lets You Watch Global Warming Heat Up Over 166 Years www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/05/09/climate_scientist_s_animation_helps_visualize_global_warming.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top New study confirms the oceans are warming rapidly www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly Climate models have underestimated Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 changes, study finds news.yale.edu/2016/04/07/climate-models-have-underestimated-earth-s-sensitivity-co2-changes-study-finds From pole to pole, twin sea ice records have scientists stunned www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/06/from-pole-to-pole-twin-sea-ice-records-have-scientists-stunned/?.a6b76e020906 Watch 26 Years of Arctic Ice Disappear in Seconds czcams.com/video/fo1Boie7mtI/video.html&sns=fb Melting Permafrost Is Turbocharging Climate Change europe.newsweek.com/permafrost-greenhouse-gases-global-warming-465585?rm=eu How the Earth will pay us back for our carbon emissions with … more carbon emissions www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/03/there-are-our-carbon-emissions-and-then-there-are-the-ones-the-earth-will-punish-us-with/?.f0505fede5e6 America’s TV meteorologists: Symptoms of climate change are rampant, undeniable www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/18/americas-tv-meteorologists-symptoms-of-climate-change-are-rampant-undeniable/#comments Climate: What did We Know and When Did We Know it? czcams.com/video/ox5hbkg34Ow/video.html How Reliable are Satellite Temperatures? (Director's Cut) czcams.com/video/Bo_7q-w06B4/video.html Surveilling the Scientists czcams.com/video/4QK5Kp2uM1E/video.html AP FACT CHECK: On climate science, most GOP candidates fail news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-climate-science-most-gop-candidates-080125499--election.html Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return' New study rewrites two decades of research and author says we are 'beyond point of no return' www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-climate-change-policy-global-warming-expert-thomas-crowther-a7450236.html New research may resolve a climate ‘conundrum’ across the history of human civilization www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/14/new-research-may-resolve-a-climate-conundrum-across-the-history-of-human-civilization?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience Steven Chu Shares Some Sobering Climate Change Math climateone.org/video/steven-chu-shares-some-sobering-climate-change-math Scientists “too frightened” to tell truth on climate impacts www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/26/scientists-too-frightened-to-tell-truth-on-climate-impacts/ The Earth Itself Is Now Accelerating The Demise Of The Human Species www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/7/1608385/-The-Earth-Itself-Is-Now-Accelerating-The-Demise-Of-The-Human-Species Climate change could plunge tens of millions of city dwellers into poverty by 2031 www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-could-plunge-tens-of-millions-into-poverty-by-2031-2016-10 A Horrifying New Study Found that the Ocean is on its Way to Suffocating by 2030 www.theinertia.com/environment/a-horrifying-new-study-found-that-the-ocean-is-on-its-way-to-suffocating-by-2030/ March against madness - denial has pushed scientists out into the streets www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/apr/25/march-against-madness-denial-has-pushed-scientists-out-to-the-streets The Threat of Global Warming causing Near-Term Human Extinction Temperature, carbon dioxide and methane arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/threat.html CO2 Concentration - Last 800,000 years scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png CO2 Concentration during the last 316-years arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/01/greenhouse-gas-levels-and-temperatures-keep-rising.html Atmospheric CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday - A Level not Seen in 15 Million Years robertscribbler.com/2016/02/05/co2-rockets-to-405-6-ppm-a-level-not-seen-in-15-million-years/ World on track to lose two-thirds of wild animals by 2020, major report warns www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/27/world-on-track-to-lose-two-thirds-of-wild-animals-by-2020-major-report-warns Humanity driving 'unprecedented' marine extinction www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/14/humanity-driving-unprecedented-marine-extinction

This is funny NOAA rigged climate data to hide the fact that temperatures have been cooling for the last 12 years ......many Nobel prize winners have declared this a HOAX Ivar Giaever is a good example ! And yes! Just like in computer security you can not take all the risk out of any situation because it's too expensive....that's the elephant in the room here .... the MIT guy is not convincing ....his view is about 100 Data for any of my 6 or 7 IOS apps will any data from either wide and full of ifs....while the other guy is rooted in the facts ...I think we know ......

It must have been very frustrating for the eminently sane and honest John Christy to deal with Kerry Emanuel's constant lying.

Never mind the models. Dump the models. Where's the evidence? There is none!

Amazing job as always!

Am I the only one who thinks the Host is not giving fairly the qual amount of time to speak for John Christy? I've been hearing more voices coming out from this Emmanuel guy's mouth

I like the way they did not include any CO2 advocates! Those that believe that the CO2 concentration is low! ...that the ecology of the planet would be improved by the the increase of CO2 to 1100ppm. Horticulturists increase the CO2 content of their greenhouses to 1100ppm to create faster growing plants that need less water. This would be significant in the production of food! Allowing the temperature to rise slightly would extend growing seasons. The increase in CO2 would allow the "greening" of arid terrains and potentially turn deserts into gardens! The redistribution of moisture over landmasses could reduce flooding and erosion. Cloud cover could actually (in the case of higher altitude clouds) have a cooling effect on the planet. This is not pseudoscience but a potential return to the average CO2 concentrations that have been present during much of the earth's production of Life upon this planet! Much of the earth's history has CO2 levels in the range of 1000-2000ppm. The result has been more plant growth and higher O2 production. If you want to be a friend to plants, then it's time we stop starving them of one of their primary nutrients for existence!

ABSOLUTE HISTORICAL FACT:-The Permian Mass Extinction happened 252 million years ago when Co2 levels reached 400ppm. 96% of ALL LIFE on Earth died. Gone forever. This was because along with Co2 rise came Atmospheric Water Vapour Rise, Ocean Acidification, Permafrost Methane Release (tundra methane, initially, then Methane Hydrate, raising Co2 levels to 2000ppm), Desertification, Inland Drought, Phytoplankton Die Off, Ocean Crustation Die Off, Forest Fires, Forest Die Off, causing a 5'c GAT (Global Average Temperature) rise. This along with other self reinforcing feedbacks caused large Methane Hydrate release causing another 6'c GAT rise. The GAT was 23'c. The Oceans were acid based ((No life or oxygen producing life forms) only noxious cyano bacteria)). THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY, WILL SURLEY REPEAT HISTORY! THIS IS NOT THE END, BUT IT IS THE VERY BEGGINING OF THE END.

Emanuel is cracked. 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor; not CO2. It's the water vapor that has kept Earth from freezing over. CO2 helps, but it's the "cabin boy" to the great ship Climate. But a worse part of this entire debate is the notion that Global Warming in an Ice Age is bad. That's just plain stupid, especially when the current interglacial is overdue to end and has already shown signs of shutting down. Ice Age glacial periods are brutal. If you don't want warmth, go live in Antarctica until some sense comes to your feeble brain. Global Warming will *_not_* scorch the Earth. In fact, every zone will improve from Global Warming, giving life more room to thrive. Don't believe it? Check out the paleoclimatic and paleontological record. Life thrives in warmth and dies in the cold. You only need look at the population gradient from poles to equator to see this. And CO2 levels are in starvation mode. In fact, 15,000 BC, CO2 levels came within 30 ppm of Lovelock's "Red Line" of extinction (Ref: "Red Line - Carbon Dioxide").

Many warmists cite Tyndall's 1861 experiment as "proof" of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, but in fact the experiment demonstrated only that CO2 and H2O are IR-active molecules capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation, nothing more. Of course, CO2 does indeed absorb and emit very low-energy ~15 micron infrared radiation, equivalent to a "partial blackbody" at a temperature of 193K (-80C) by Wien's Law. However, radiation from a true or "partial" blackbody cannot warm the much warmer atmosphere (with an "average" temperature of 255K (-18C), equivalent to the equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun), nor the even warmer Earth surface at 288K (15C). Yet the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory falsely assumes that "backradiation" from the 193K CO2 "partial blackbody" can warm the Earth surface temperature from the 255K equilibrium temperature with the Sun by 33K up to 288K. This would require a continuous and dominating heat transfer from cold to hot, thus requiring an impossible decrease of entropy, and therefore a gross violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which requires entropy to increase from any transfer of heat). In contrast, the alternative 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse theory of Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Carnot, Clausius, Feynman, US Standard Atmosphere, International Standard Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation, et al instead fully explains the 33C 'greenhouse effect' on Earth, as well as on all 7 additional planets for which we have adequate data. Unlike the actual 100km Earth atmosphere, Tyndall's apparatus does not allow any vertical convective cooling as is found in the real Earth atmosphere. In fact, increased greenhouse gases accelerate convective cooling in the troposphere. Tyndall's apparatus artificially prevents this convective cooling, just like a sealed greenhouse does, but which does not happen in the real atmosphere. Furthermore the probability of CO2 transferring quanta of energy in the troposphere via collisions instead of emitting a photon is one billion times more likely. This transfer of energy via collisions to the remaining 99.06% of the atmosphere causes acceleration of convective cooling by increasing the adiabatic expansion, rising, and cooling of air parcels. Convection dominates radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere by a factor of ~8 times and thus cancels any possible warming effect of the low-energy CO2 backradiation upon the surface. Further, the presence of IR-active gases in the atmosphere only delays the ultimate passage of IR photons from the surface to space by a few seconds, and is easily reversed and erased during each 12 hour night, and explains why 'greenhouse gases' don't 'trap heat' in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, right out of the gate, Emanuel, during his initial remarks (6:45 and 7:20), makes the false assertion that 4/10,000ths of our atmosphere is what makes the Earth habitable, essentially. He claims "this is not in dispute" yet it is a completely false statement of what the IPCC has ALWAYS claimed and indeed even the supposedly "settled science" admits otherwise: CO2 is not the major, dominant yet misnamed "greenhouse" gas claimed - the bulk of the misnamed "greenhouse" effect comes from water vapor, not CO2. Water vapor is what keeps our temperature between the limits that allow life to continue to thrive. Not CO2. The effects of CO2, and of a change in the amount of CO2 such as we've observed, are negligible. Also at the later point he states that carbon dioxide makes up 4/10000 BY MASS but that is incorrect - it is 4/10,000 BY VOLUME, not mass. This sort of mistake may seem trivial but you see a number of mistakes, trivial or not, throughout the statements, writings and beliefs of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism. It is no surprise they are so wrong, so often, and indeed get so many things exactly backwards.

I really appreciate the university putting this together. I loved the objectivity and professionalism of both speakers. It's nice to be educated instead of being told what to believe in.

funny no replies on such a debated subject. Great conversation from both sides. I liked the down to earth, objective and sincere demeanour of both sides. Thanks for the video!

This is marvelous!

I was there!

...whoops! He 4got 2 credit another woman who ALSO contributed to the writing of this song = co-writer Alissa Moreno.... :( = thanks for this song go to JS, Sarah Buxton AND Alissa Moreno! We women may be mostly 'just' muses for MOST successful songs - but in THIS case, two women made concrete contributions to this song's creation = credit where due, please!