'I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert at reading the studies, but...' Tells you just about all you need to know about this guy's scientific qualifications...
@@Apokalupsis88 lol, the illusive ellipses. I'll finish for him. "... which is he has no scientific qualifications and in turn should listen to the actual scientists around the globe that all indicate that global warming is a serious issue that threatens humanity and try to help create actual solutions that can help on a large scale."
@@zrobgood the actual scientists have good debates about the correlation between carbon emissions and climate change. The fake, bought scientists who's opinions are paid for might have 100% consensus but in the real world there is not a very good argument for humans being a driving force of climate change. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Notice how he says "I believe in climate change' but never gives you his reasons he believes. But he always gives you reasons to doubt it. But those reasons are never actually directly related but just tangentially related like 'well it would cost a lot of money to combat it' or 'only rich people with beach property would be effected'. Both arguments mind you are super simplistic and very false in some cases (not all but some). With Ben there is no room for nuance. He'll say he believes in climate change just so he's not labeled an idiot but then spends the entire time rattling of stupid arguments without once ever really looking at the research in depth.
Oh sure, every once in a while he will look at research papers but will then use the doomsday predictions of Al Gore as a strawman, then say 'these actual predictions arn't as dire as Al Gore and the liberals want you to think, therefore no worries guys'
@Ashley Lehmann 1) Don't expect to be taken seriously when citing a conservative and libertarian think tank - heartland institute. Not when a first look into and you can see diamonds like *assesses the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels (principally coal, oil, and natural gas) by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models (IAMs). It is the fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series and, like the preceding volumes, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).* If the fact of who creates this website isn't enough, then what sort of agenda they spread should tell you enough. Fossil fuel apologists, big businessmen, and in environement like this it's hard to expect any other conclusions than any range of climate denialism. 2) What people like Shapiro do isn't skepticism, because there already is a mountain of evidence, in other words the debate about climate change took place and conservatives were more interested in shitting on carpet, maening that they didn't participate. When you just try to deny claim in face of evidence you aren't a skeptic, you are a denier. A climate change denier to be more precise. climate.nasa.gov/ Here you have an example of a source that is worth anything. I belive you've heard about NASA.
Part 2 of 2: He references the “Global Cooling” theory of the 1970’s which was sensationalised on the cover of Time magazine without mentioning that, even in that decade, the scientific papers predicting “Global Warming” outnumbered the “Cooling” papers by 6 to 1. For the past 20 years the science HAS been well and truly settled. Any non-scientist who thinks they know more than the world’s climatologists or refuses to acknowledge the consensus can only do so through a breathtaking feat of wilful ignorance and richly deserves the title of “denier”. He theorises that the third world will never stop polluting no matter what we do. They will certainly never do so if we are hypocritical enough to cause the majority of the damage but are unwilling to commit to even the most timid sacrifice of our comforts. He disputes that humans cause the majority of Global Warming but isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 has established this beyond doubt. He seems to think that a solution to the greenhouse effect would kill off “millions of human beings”, without acknowledging that doing nothing might kill billions. He incessantly alludes to a grim future where a lack of fossil fuels has turned the clock back to the mid nineteenth century. A period that may ultimately prove easier to survive than the post-apocalyptic hellscape Shapiro is inviting us to slide into through complacency and inaction. A return to 1850’s life expectancies will be the result of continued, unrestricted fossil fuel exploitation, not the widespread adoption of green energy. He insists that any government regulation of the energy industry would irredeemably corrupt the infallibility of the invisible hand of the market. A complete absence of regulation or carbon taxes would be a huge financial gift to the world’s worst polluters. Anyone can make money if they have a license to dump unlimited pollution anywhere they want. Here are a few things you need to learn Mr Shapiro. Bernie Sanders is not evil. Bill Gates is far more intelligent and rational than you but still not a socialist. Environmentalism is not a fad for pampered elites but a survival strategy for realists across all classes and nationalities who respect science and evidence. Moving to a fossil fuel free future will not uninvent all the technological advances of the 20th century. We will still have MRIs, antibiotics, vaccines, GPS the internet and CZcams channels for self-aggrandising free-market ideologues like yourself.
+Trevor r If the free market can help solve the problem so much the better but with or without the market this environmental crisis MUST be solved. The market is good at various things, like finding the right price for goods and services through the equilibrium of supply and demand. But this only works if there are no hidden externalities, like the freedom to pollute for free. The environmental damage of greenhouse gas pollution MUST be rendered unprofitable. Any greenhouse gas generating activity MUST be taxed by the amount of pollution they produce. This will take regulation, legislation and an enormous amount of political will to instigate. But it simply HAS to happen. The consequences of inaction on this issue will be absolutely dire for everyone on this planet, as well as the narrow segment of society that actually profits from unrestricted fossil fuel exploitation. The market, with its current regulatory framework will not address the crisis. It will have to be governed by regulation for the survival of ALL of us. Then maybe the market will produce the efficiencies, economies and innovations necessary to pull our collective fat from the fire. For more detail see my reply to Andrew Bravo’s comment to Part 1 of 2 above.
@@FranklyFlabbergasted nothing you say is going to happen. And by the way, third world countries arent going to stop emissions based on how the first world acts. It's just not going to happen. Stress less you will live longer
+Jame Jameson I’m not the one making these grim predictions. It’s the most experienced and best qualified people who have spent decades of their lives researching the problem and put their best forecasts in peer-reviewed scientific papers who are telling us we’re in trouble. So don’t bother telling me nothing’s going to happen. Just convince the scientists and they’ll convince me. It’s that easy. Claiming that it’s not happening because the third world won’t do anything is not a cogent argument. It’s a fatalistic copout. And why should they do anything anyhow? We’re the ones who have been building our wealth and prosperity for almost two centuries by using the global atmosphere as our personal carbon dumping ground. When the fossil fuels were running low we’re the ones who sucked them out from under the third world for our exclusive use. Once again we kept the profits and shared the pollution. We’re the ones with access to the most accurate and sophisticated science for predicting the environmental consequences of Greenhouse Gas pollution. And yet, Trump called the Paris accord “draconian” because it required the worst polluters to shoulder more of the burden. We have the power and influence to compel the third world to pollute less if we can convince them it is for their long term benefit. But why would they believe us if we don’t lift a finger to save ourselves? We need to behave more like responsible custodians of the Earth and less like squealing infants who have had their sugar taken away. As for stressing less to live longer, this is one of those problems that won’t be solved without work and sacrifice AND stress. Let’s face it, you and I are both going to die regardless. Wouldn’t you rather die knowing you had left future generations with a fighting chance to survive and prosper? They’re what’s important now, not us.
@Ashley Lehmann have you looked into the scientific articles on the subject? Like actual scientific primary sources and not just other people giving their opinions? Also have you looked into who funds that website you keep linking? I find the best way to have an informed opinion is by actively trying to disprove it. It's hard to do. I've had to change my stance on several occasions, but isn't that what learning and growing is about?
This video is old. Ben has a slightly updated opinion on the climate change issue. Edit: Im not saying what he said in the video is right or wrong, i just wanted people to be aware of that.
Iceland Iceland generates the most clean electricity per person on earth, with almost 100% of its energy coming from renewable sources that make the most of its unique landscape. It now derives all of its energy for electricity and home heating from geothermal and hydroelectric power plants. Its renewable power plants like the geothermal plant at Blue Lagoon even draw significant amounts of tourists every year! Sweden Sweden has always had pretty good environmental credentials and in 2015, they threw down the gauntlet with an ambitious goal: eliminating fossil fuel usage within its borders. They also challenged the rest of the world to a race to become 100% renewable. They’ve increased their own investment in solar power, wind power, energy storage, smart grids, and clean transport. Costa Rica Because of its small size (just 4.9 million people) and unique geography (67 volcanoes), Costa Rica is able to meet a large part of its energy needs from hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and wind sources. The country aims to be completely carbon-neutral by the year 2021 and has already achieved some impressive results, running on 100% renewable energy for more than two months twice in the last two years. Nicaragua Nicaragua is another Central American country where renewable energy is growing in importance. Like Costa Rica, they have a number of volcanoes, making geothermal energy production viable and thanks to government investment in wind, solar, and geothermal energy, their aim of being 90% renewables-powered by the year 2020 appears to be an achievable goal. United Kingdom The UK is a windy place and wind power is growing in importance. Using a combination of grid-connected wind farms and standalone turbines, the United Kingdom now generates more electricity from wind farms than from coal power plants. Some days, Scotland is able to produce enough wind power to supply over 100% of Scottish households. Neighbouring Ireland also continues to set new records, with enough energy to power more than 1.26 million homes being created on just one windy day in 2015.
One of the first things hes debated where I completely disagree with the majority of his points. I get that this video is old, but this really makes him seem ignorant.
I've been enjoying a lot of what and how Shapiro has been talking lately. Especially about free speech. He seemed to be intelligent and an independent thinker. The left doesn't like him, that's fine. So I came here to check it out. This was going to be the subject that lets me see his true colors........... and idiot. It's called exponential growth not hockey stick. Infant mortality in China is comparable to that in the US. Just because we can't eliminate all CO2 emissions doesn't mean you shouldn't make the effort to cut back. We can't eliminate all murders in US but shouldn't we try to scale it back? Reducing CO2 emissions will not bring us back to 1850. It is a problem that requires global cooperation, but countries like Germany and China are doing much more than the US. This is a big disappointment for me. I thought Shapiro had potential and we could use thoughtful leaders from all political sides. Too bad he's putting greater weight on following party lines than thinking for himself.
What you guys are going to say when the truth about this issue comes to light??? Are you guys aware that it doesnt matter what happens, you cant stop it. Like he said, other countries wont stop doing what they are doing???
Part 1 of 2: Ben Shapiro is the kind of self-righteous, right-wing motormouth who Gish gallops his way through a debate by regurgitating endless soundbites dripping with so much smug self confidence that the choir he’s preaching to never questions their veracity. He claims disappearing arctic ice has been debunked and the hockey-stick graph has been falsified. Two enormously sweeping statements he treats as so self evident that no shred of proof is required to support them. He claims the earth hasn’t warmed in the past 15 years or so, a common CC denier cliché that cynically uses the hottest year of the 20th century to jack up the starting point of this cherry picked period of time. He insinuates the usual denier conspiracy theories about the renewable energy industry and shadowy government plots to strip the populous of their freedom. No sane business model is advanced that would render such a machiavellian plot profitable for anyone. The fossil fuel industry, by contrast, is assumed to be above such behaviour in spite of the obscene amounts they spend on lobbying and science denial misinformation. He claims solar is a paltry 4% of US energy after “billions and billions and billions of dollars”. That infers at least 6 billion dollars which far outstrips any amount spent in the US on solar R&D. But there is almost no technology that has improved in the last 20 years faster than solar in terms of cost and efficiency. “Billions” x 3 SHOULD be spent on solar rather than squandered on exploration for hydrocarbons that we won’t be able to burn without triggering an environmental holocaust. He insists that Global Warming is good for food production. But for every gain in agriculturally productive land there will be vastly more losses through drought, weather disruption, loss of pollinating species and plagues of pest species. He is of the opinion that, since most scientists aren’t climatologists, the scientific consensus is invalid. The scientific consensus on the legitimacy of climate change is strongest amongst climatologists, particularly those who publish peer-reviewed papers. They ARE the 97%.
Peter Mathieson Bullshit by the research. The Paris accord, if implemented would have demanded 100 trillion dollars from participating member states over the next ten years, held by who and directed by who? The control of industry and government is the reason why this issue has so highly politicized anyone reporting, working or researching in this field. Few deniers believe climate is not changing. All untouched data and ice samples reveal climate to be cyclical, it always has. Warming oceans always proceed CO2 oncrease not the other way around. Climate computer models are so bogus that weather data is modified to fine tune the models, because it has been assumed CO2 or greenhouse gases are the cause. Science does not attack and ridicule debate when other informed scientists are trying to speak and this is exactly what is happening. The consensus is bogus. Deniers believe man may have played some small part, whatever that may be but weather is cyclical. For this they are included in the consensus, even though they actually disagree. It is a scientist who said this
First of all get it out of your head that anything slightly to the right of far left is right wing. Shapiro isn't a politician so he really has no obligation to address certain things, even though we both think he should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Shapiro as a person because I don't like him on a personal level but I'll defend his position and the truth of the situation. The no taxes mention I find is completely untrue although i'll concede to you the points of free market and regulation because those are factual. We don't actually know if he will deviate from his political ideology because he's never been put into that situation, so that's an assumption based on your perception which makes it a loaded statement.
+Nick momo Shapiro is pretty overt in his contempt for all thing ‘leftist’ or ‘feminist’. I am convinced he doesn’t believe in using taxes to change consumer behaviour. It’s all part of the whole free market ideology. “Don’t do anything to influence the invisible hand of the market and everything will find its right price.” But that doesn’t take hidden externalities into account. These are factors that can skew the market in favour of unethical behaviour. Some examples are: slavery, pollution, letting workers’ conditions become unsafe or unhealthy, unethically or illegally sourcing raw materials, fraud, corruption, industrial espionage, copyright/patent infringements, maintaining unjustifiable barriers to new market competitors and trusts/monopolies. Those with a free market, libertarian bent are ideologically opposed to any government interference in the form of regulation. But such regulations protect us all from the open slather, free market excesses listed above. A balance must be struck. I disagree with virtually everything Ben Shapiro has to say on every subject. I regard him as a detestable human being. But I heard him saying that we should remove all the tax breaks and hidden subsidies that make the fossil fuel industry so artificially profitable. I found myself agreeing with him. It was a weird and disturbing experience.
'I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert at reading the studies, but...'
Tells you just about all you need to know about this guy's scientific qualifications...
so dont pretend....study what you see....oh....you're young.....so....only in your lifetime counts.....read old alminacs.
And? Go on. Seemed like you were wanting to make a point then forgot what it was.
@@Apokalupsis88 lol, the illusive ellipses. I'll finish for him. "... which is he has no scientific qualifications and in turn should listen to the actual scientists around the globe that all indicate that global warming is a serious issue that threatens humanity and try to help create actual solutions that can help on a large scale."
What scientific qualifications does the majority of the population have? Your argument is absurd.
@@zrobgood the actual scientists have good debates about the correlation between carbon emissions and climate change. The fake, bought scientists who's opinions are paid for might have 100% consensus but in the real world there is not a very good argument for humans being a driving force of climate change. Sorry to burst your bubble.
At what timestamp is he saying that when the sea levels rise the people on the shores are going to sell their homes?
5:52
@@Tombizarfeels weird without h. Bomberguy cutting into frame.
Notice how he says "I believe in climate change' but never gives you his reasons he believes. But he always gives you reasons to doubt it. But those reasons are never actually directly related but just tangentially related like 'well it would cost a lot of money to combat it' or 'only rich people with beach property would be effected'. Both arguments mind you are super simplistic and very false in some cases (not all but some).
With Ben there is no room for nuance. He'll say he believes in climate change just so he's not labeled an idiot but then spends the entire time rattling of stupid arguments without once ever really looking at the research in depth.
Oh sure, every once in a while he will look at research papers but will then use the doomsday predictions of Al Gore as a strawman, then say 'these actual predictions arn't as dire as Al Gore and the liberals want you to think, therefore no worries guys'
@Ashley Lehmann 1) Don't expect to be taken seriously when citing a conservative and libertarian think tank - heartland institute. Not when a first look into and you can see diamonds like *assesses the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels (principally coal, oil, and natural gas) by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models (IAMs). It is the fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series and, like the preceding volumes, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).*
If the fact of who creates this website isn't enough, then what sort of agenda they spread should tell you enough. Fossil fuel apologists, big businessmen, and in environement like this it's hard to expect any other conclusions than any range of climate denialism.
2) What people like Shapiro do isn't skepticism, because there already is a mountain of evidence, in other words the debate about climate change took place and conservatives were more interested in shitting on carpet, maening that they didn't participate. When you just try to deny claim in face of evidence you aren't a skeptic, you are a denier. A climate change denier to be more precise.
climate.nasa.gov/
Here you have an example of a source that is worth anything. I belive you've heard about NASA.
Part 2 of 2: He references the “Global Cooling” theory of the 1970’s which was sensationalised on the cover of Time magazine without mentioning that, even in that decade, the scientific papers predicting “Global Warming” outnumbered the “Cooling” papers by 6 to 1. For the past 20 years the science HAS been well and truly settled. Any non-scientist who thinks they know more than the world’s climatologists or refuses to acknowledge the consensus can only do so through a breathtaking feat of wilful ignorance and richly deserves the title of “denier”.
He theorises that the third world will never stop polluting no matter what we do. They will certainly never do so if we are hypocritical enough to cause the majority of the damage but are unwilling to commit to even the most timid sacrifice of our comforts.
He disputes that humans cause the majority of Global Warming but isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 has established this beyond doubt.
He seems to think that a solution to the greenhouse effect would kill off “millions of human beings”, without acknowledging that doing nothing might kill billions.
He incessantly alludes to a grim future where a lack of fossil fuels has turned the clock back to the mid nineteenth century. A period that may ultimately prove easier to survive than the post-apocalyptic hellscape Shapiro is inviting us to slide into through complacency and inaction. A return to 1850’s life expectancies will be the result of continued, unrestricted fossil fuel exploitation, not the widespread adoption of green energy.
He insists that any government regulation of the energy industry would irredeemably corrupt the infallibility of the invisible hand of the market. A complete absence of regulation or carbon taxes would be a huge financial gift to the world’s worst polluters. Anyone can make money if they have a license to dump unlimited pollution anywhere they want.
Here are a few things you need to learn Mr Shapiro. Bernie Sanders is not evil. Bill Gates is far more intelligent and rational than you but still not a socialist. Environmentalism is not a fad for pampered elites but a survival strategy for realists across all classes and nationalities who respect science and evidence. Moving to a fossil fuel free future will not uninvent all the technological advances of the 20th century. We will still have MRIs, antibiotics, vaccines, GPS the internet and CZcams channels for self-aggrandising free-market ideologues like yourself.
^ Watermelon (green on the outside, but red on the inside).
Ok then, what’s the solution? What is the viable solution that the market would want to sell?
+Trevor r If the free market can help solve the problem so much the better but with or without the market this environmental crisis MUST be solved. The market is good at various things, like finding the right price for goods and services through the equilibrium of supply and demand. But this only works if there are no hidden externalities, like the freedom to pollute for free. The environmental damage of greenhouse gas pollution MUST be rendered unprofitable. Any greenhouse gas generating activity MUST be taxed by the amount of pollution they produce. This will take regulation, legislation and an enormous amount of political will to instigate. But it simply HAS to happen. The consequences of inaction on this issue will be absolutely dire for everyone on this planet, as well as the narrow segment of society that actually profits from unrestricted fossil fuel exploitation.
The market, with its current regulatory framework will not address the crisis. It will have to be governed by regulation for the survival of ALL of us. Then maybe the market will produce the efficiencies, economies and innovations necessary to pull our collective fat from the fire. For more detail see my reply to Andrew Bravo’s comment to Part 1 of 2 above.
@@FranklyFlabbergasted nothing you say is going to happen. And by the way, third world countries arent going to stop emissions based on how the first world acts. It's just not going to happen. Stress less you will live longer
+Jame Jameson I’m not the one making these grim predictions. It’s the most experienced and best qualified people who have spent decades of their lives researching the problem and put their best forecasts in peer-reviewed scientific papers who are telling us we’re in trouble. So don’t bother telling me nothing’s going to happen. Just convince the scientists and they’ll convince me. It’s that easy.
Claiming that it’s not happening because the third world won’t do anything is not a cogent argument. It’s a fatalistic copout. And why should they do anything anyhow? We’re the ones who have been building our wealth and prosperity for almost two centuries by using the global atmosphere as our personal carbon dumping ground. When the fossil fuels were running low we’re the ones who sucked them out from under the third world for our exclusive use. Once again we kept the profits and shared the pollution. We’re the ones with access to the most accurate and sophisticated science for predicting the environmental consequences of Greenhouse Gas pollution. And yet, Trump called the Paris accord “draconian” because it required the worst polluters to shoulder more of the burden. We have the power and influence to compel the third world to pollute less if we can convince them it is for their long term benefit. But why would they believe us if we don’t lift a finger to save ourselves? We need to behave more like responsible custodians of the Earth and less like squealing infants who have had their sugar taken away.
As for stressing less to live longer, this is one of those problems that won’t be solved without work and sacrifice AND stress. Let’s face it, you and I are both going to die regardless. Wouldn’t you rather die knowing you had left future generations with a fighting chance to survive and prosper? They’re what’s important now, not us.
Mmm think he should stick to debating things he has a little knowledge in.
@Ashley Lehmann have you looked into the scientific articles on the subject? Like actual scientific primary sources and not just other people giving their opinions? Also have you looked into who funds that website you keep linking? I find the best way to have an informed opinion is by actively trying to disprove it. It's hard to do. I've had to change my stance on several occasions, but isn't that what learning and growing is about?
Yeah, like gloating over 15 second-long debate victories over kids who aren't old enough to drink.
This video is old. Ben has a slightly updated opinion on the climate change issue.
Edit: Im not saying what he said in the video is right or wrong, i just wanted people to be aware of that.
Do u have a link to his updated view I can see? I'd appreciate the fuck out of it, can't find anything
czcams.com/video/ZvI2NH9-0aM/video.html
This is the most recent that I found where he states his view on climate change.
He has had to tow the party line or suffer in the current purge....comrad.
Iceland
Iceland generates the most clean electricity per person on earth, with almost 100% of its energy coming from renewable sources that make the most of its unique landscape. It now derives all of its energy for electricity and home heating from geothermal and hydroelectric power plants. Its renewable power plants like the geothermal plant at Blue Lagoon even draw significant amounts of tourists every year!
Sweden
Sweden has always had pretty good environmental credentials and in 2015, they threw down the gauntlet with an ambitious goal: eliminating fossil fuel usage within its borders. They also challenged the rest of the world to a race to become 100% renewable. They’ve increased their own investment in solar power, wind power, energy storage, smart grids, and clean transport.
Costa Rica
Because of its small size (just 4.9 million people) and unique geography (67 volcanoes), Costa Rica is able to meet a large part of its energy needs from hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and wind sources. The country aims to be completely carbon-neutral by the year 2021 and has already achieved some impressive results, running on 100% renewable energy for more than two months twice in the last two years.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua is another Central American country where renewable energy is growing in importance. Like Costa Rica, they have a number of volcanoes, making geothermal energy production viable and thanks to government investment in wind, solar, and geothermal energy, their aim of being 90% renewables-powered by the year 2020 appears to be an achievable goal.
United Kingdom
The UK is a windy place and wind power is growing in importance. Using a combination of grid-connected wind farms and standalone turbines, the United Kingdom now generates more electricity from wind farms than from coal power plants. Some days, Scotland is able to produce enough wind power to supply over 100% of Scottish households. Neighbouring Ireland also continues to set new records, with enough energy to power more than 1.26 million homes being created on just one windy day in 2015.
Thank you I needed this for better debating material in my Ecology class.
Why don't you actually learn the issue out of actual interest instead of memorizing half truths and whole lies to OWN YOUR LIBTARD TEACHER
LOL "the lefty scientists want to send us back into the 1850s by making coal obsolete" do you even hear yourself hahahahahaha
Not me...i think paris scam is just that.
One of the first things hes debated where I completely disagree with the majority of his points. I get that this video is old, but this really makes him seem ignorant.
I've been enjoying a lot of what and how Shapiro has been talking lately. Especially about free speech. He seemed to be intelligent and an independent thinker. The left doesn't like him, that's fine. So I came here to check it out. This was going to be the subject that lets me see his true colors........... and idiot. It's called exponential growth not hockey stick. Infant mortality in China is comparable to that in the US. Just because we can't eliminate all CO2 emissions doesn't mean you shouldn't make the effort to cut back. We can't eliminate all murders in US but shouldn't we try to scale it back? Reducing CO2 emissions will not bring us back to 1850. It is a problem that requires global cooperation, but countries like Germany and China are doing much more than the US. This is a big disappointment for me. I thought Shapiro had potential and we could use thoughtful leaders from all political sides. Too bad he's putting greater weight on following party lines than thinking for himself.
Why delude yourself....carbon is heutral.....stop thinking you run nature.
Go back to your safe space libtard.
Don’t steal wabash college’s footage
Why ?...because you'll tell BIG SISTER youtube....just enjoy, theirs is overflowing with race hate.
What you guys are going to say when the truth about this issue comes to light??? Are you guys aware that it doesnt matter what happens, you cant stop it. Like he said, other countries wont stop doing what they are doing???
Part 1 of 2: Ben Shapiro is the kind of self-righteous, right-wing motormouth who Gish gallops his way through a debate by regurgitating endless soundbites dripping with so much smug self confidence that the choir he’s preaching to never questions their veracity.
He claims disappearing arctic ice has been debunked and the hockey-stick graph has been falsified. Two enormously sweeping statements he treats as so self evident that no shred of proof is required to support them.
He claims the earth hasn’t warmed in the past 15 years or so, a common CC denier cliché that cynically uses the hottest year of the 20th century to jack up the starting point of this cherry picked period of time.
He insinuates the usual denier conspiracy theories about the renewable energy industry and shadowy government plots to strip the populous of their freedom. No sane business model is advanced that would render such a machiavellian plot profitable for anyone. The fossil fuel industry, by contrast, is assumed to be above such behaviour in spite of the obscene amounts they spend on lobbying and science denial misinformation.
He claims solar is a paltry 4% of US energy after “billions and billions and billions of dollars”. That infers at least 6 billion dollars which far outstrips any amount spent in the US on solar R&D. But there is almost no technology that has improved in the last 20 years faster than solar in terms of cost and efficiency. “Billions” x 3 SHOULD be spent on solar rather than squandered on exploration for hydrocarbons that we won’t be able to burn without triggering an environmental holocaust.
He insists that Global Warming is good for food production. But for every gain in agriculturally productive land there will be vastly more losses through drought, weather disruption, loss of pollinating species and plagues of pest species.
He is of the opinion that, since most scientists aren’t climatologists, the scientific consensus is invalid. The scientific consensus on the legitimacy of climate change is strongest amongst climatologists, particularly those who publish peer-reviewed papers. They ARE the 97%.
Peter Mathieson So then what the fuck is your solution? You're playing into his point lmao
Peter Mathieson
Bullshit by the research.
The Paris accord, if implemented would have demanded 100 trillion dollars from participating member states over the next ten years, held by who and directed by who?
The control of industry and government is the reason why this issue has so highly politicized anyone reporting, working or researching in this field.
Few deniers believe climate is not changing.
All untouched data and ice samples reveal climate to be cyclical, it always has.
Warming oceans always proceed CO2 oncrease not the other way around.
Climate computer models are so bogus that weather data is modified to fine tune the models, because it has been assumed CO2 or greenhouse gases are the cause.
Science does not attack and ridicule debate when other informed scientists are trying to speak and this is exactly what is happening.
The consensus is bogus.
Deniers believe man may have played some small part, whatever that may be but weather is cyclical.
For this they are included in the consensus, even though they actually disagree.
It is a scientist who said this
Ben Shapiro is a centrist you dipshit
First of all get it out of your head that anything slightly to the right of far left is right wing. Shapiro isn't a politician so he really has no obligation to address certain things, even though we both think he should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Shapiro as a person because I don't like him on a personal level but I'll defend his position and the truth of the situation. The no taxes mention I find is completely untrue although i'll concede to you the points of free market and regulation because those are factual. We don't actually know if he will deviate from his political ideology because he's never been put into that situation, so that's an assumption based on your perception which makes it a loaded statement.
+Nick momo Shapiro is pretty overt in his contempt for all thing ‘leftist’ or ‘feminist’. I am convinced he doesn’t believe in using taxes to change consumer behaviour. It’s all part of the whole free market ideology. “Don’t do anything to influence the invisible hand of the market and everything will find its right price.” But that doesn’t take hidden externalities into account. These are factors that can skew the market in favour of unethical behaviour. Some examples are: slavery, pollution, letting workers’ conditions become unsafe or unhealthy, unethically or illegally sourcing raw materials, fraud, corruption, industrial espionage, copyright/patent infringements, maintaining unjustifiable barriers to new market competitors and trusts/monopolies. Those with a free market, libertarian bent are ideologically opposed to any government interference in the form of regulation. But such regulations protect us all from the open slather, free market excesses listed above. A balance must be struck. I disagree with virtually everything Ben Shapiro has to say on every subject. I regard him as a detestable human being. But I heard him saying that we should remove all the tax breaks and hidden subsidies that make the fossil fuel industry so artificially profitable. I found myself agreeing with him. It was a weird and disturbing experience.