Is Carbon Dioxide Endangering the Planet? Craig Idso vs. Jeffrey Bennett. A Debate
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 05. 2019
- Resolution: There is little or no rigorous evidence that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming and threatening life on the planet.
For the affirmative:
Craig Idso is the founder, former president, and currently chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The Center was founded in 1998 as a non-profit public charity dedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment on climate and the biosphere. Dr. Idso’s research has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, and is the author or coauthor of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2Enrichment (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2011), CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs (Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, 2009). Dr. Idso also serves as an adjunct scholar for the Cato Institute and as a policy advisor for the CO2Coalition, the Heartland Institute and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.
For the negative:
Jeffrey Bennett is an astrophysicist and educator. He has focused his career on math and science literacy. He is the lead author of bestselling college textbooks in astronomy, astrobiology, mathematics, and statistics, and of critically acclaimed books for the general public on topics including Einstein’s theory of relativity, the search for extraterrestrial life, and the importance of math to our everyday lives. Other career highlights include serving two years as a Visiting Senior Scientist at NASA Headquarters, proposing and helping to develop the Voyage Scale Model Solar System that resides on the National Mall in Washington, DC, and creating the freeTotality app that has helped tens of thousands of people learn how to view a total solar eclipse. His book A Global Warming Primeris posted freely online at www.globalwarmingprimer.com.
Jeffrey Bennett fails to mention that while Venus has approx 95% atmospheric CO2 and is extremely hot, Mars also has around 95% CO2 and is extremely cold. The difference is air pressure. Venus has a very high air pressure, Mars has very low air pressure. Alarmists continually ignore this.
I mean, Venus is half as far from the sun as Mars is, too..
You are 100% correct.
It is the extreme pressure difference that is the main culprit that the climate doomists conveniently ignore.
Temperature measured on Venus at the same pressure at increased altitude is only mildly warmer than it is here , allowing for the increased proximity to the sun.
If high co2 was the main driver as propagandered ,then Mars would be warmer than Earth ,but isn't because of its low atmospheric pressure.
Even on planet Earth...as you descend ,temperature increases as air pressure increases,and temperature decreases as you increase in altitude
as air pressure decreases.
It's that simple.
This climate propagandist is quoting rubbish from many junk sites.
World socialism by the the environmental back door.
@@egorone0408 Thanks Egor, you wouldn't believe how many times I've said that in other places and been told air pressure has nothing to do with it and I'm talking cobblers, usually by people who have done no research themselves, and who accept what the IPCC and media tell them as gospel truth.
An AGW skeptic says you are wrong. www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
I noticed that too
A mousetrap sitting on the floor is dangerous, but dangerous does not mean that it will kill you, nor does it require you to bankrupt yourself to defend against it.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."
the above is a quote by H.L. Mencken, Famous Columnist
The problem with your statement is that "practical politics" is actually doing exactly the opposite of what you claim. The leading politicians are mostly anti-science and deny climate change. So there goes your stupid ignorant conspiracy theory.
EXACTLY ! Having great difficulty to control myself from starting to laughing 😳🙊🐒business .
I would like any climate alarmist to debate me on the properties of CO2, cause anyone who thinks a gas with 1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms has the ability to "trap or hold heat" has never picked up a book on Thermodynamics, 1st no gas has any ability to "trap or hold heat", all heat flows to cooler, the gasses transfer heat instantly, there is no correlation between CO2 and Temps, the earth's atmosphere has been changing since the day the earth was formed, there is no "normal" temperature, the climate has never remained steady, it's never repeated itself, and 1936 was one of the hottest on record, not many airplanes, Diesel powered vehicles, jet engine powered planes, not many SUVs, remember the Dustbowl? That was created by poor farming practices, of plowing large areas that exposed to much soil to wind, and it blew the soil away.....
@@ChiefCabioch You have spouted such a large number of lies and irrelevant facts that I don't know where to begin. First, most politicians are ignoring or denying climate change so your original post makes no sense. Second, you clearly know nothing about physics. Why don't you pick up a book on the infrared spectrum of CO2, if you want to actually know anything about why CO2 can indeed absorb infrared radiation and heat up the atmosphere and the ground. The vibrational and rotational spectrum of CO2 with its three atoms, indeed can do what all the scientists say it can do. And completely contrary to your ignorant claim about gases, there are MANY gases that can trap the heat, such as H2O vapor, CH4 and N2O. These all contribute to the greenhouse effect. The one thing you are right about is that the climate can change greatly. And that is why we humans need to be very alarmed about the risk of human caused climate change. Lastly, the very fact that you use the term "climate alarmist" shows your bias, and your lies.
From Craig, I learned the real science that relates to an 'alleged crisis'. From Jeff, I learned about 2 planets that have O to do with earth's climate.
Also, he implies that the difference in distance from the sun, of venus and earth isnt, significant. Venus receives about twice the sunlight as earth does
clearly poor Jeff did not do a very good job of stating his case then.
@@russmarkham2197 I think he'd make a good used car salesman. Selling a product he knows is flawed with a smile on his face.
@@terryboyer1342 Actually, he was selling a product he knows is good but doesn't have the background to explain why. Slightly different.
@@russmarkham2197 I'm saying the "climate crisis" and the "science" he uses is flawed hooey. His product is crap. You seem to think it's sound and valid and buy it. Huge difference!
A perfect example of facts, science, and logic vs no obfuscation, personal attack, and emotional hype.
Not a single reference in this long debate to the suffering and death that deprivation of access to fossil fuels is causing in the third world.
You’re right! If only the truth be told about how inexpensive fossil fuels turned third world countries to second or first world.. along with that comes significantly reduction in pollution and greater care for the planet. The only realistic alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear and even that doesn’t solve everything.
"Not a single reference in this long debate to the suffering and death that deprivation of access to fossil fuels is causing in the third world."
If we continue burning fossil fuels, Earth's ecosystems will collapse and that will cause our food supply, economies, civilization, and populations to collapse. So, let's keep our eye on the big picture and face facts: Whatever their short-term benefits for our standard of living, continuing to burn fossil fuels is flatly incompatible with keeping the Earth livable for humans and other species.
@@karlwheatley1244 First, is is not "our", it is the underdeveloped world where, for example, women go blind cooking over open fires because they have no electricity (rural Africa).
Second, are you sincere? How many rooms are in your house? Do you own a vehicle? Have you brought children into the world? Do you support immigration to first-world countries? Do you ever fly on aircraft? Do you eat meat? Do you have air-conditoning? Before you suggest inflicting huge sufferings on the impverished peoples of the world in the name of reducing global warming, it is surely fair that you first desist from any unncessary activity that contributes to global warming. We should share the burden equally, no? The fact that so few people do, tells me that they don't really believe what they claim to believe.
@@karlwheatley1244 this is not true
@@scottd7222 Sorry Scott, but I'm a researcher, I've spent more than a decade researching and drafting a book about why the health of society and ecosystems are unraveling and what we must do to save them. If humans want to avoid profound ecological collapse and the corresponding collapse of our economies, civilization, and population, we must leave most known reserves of fossil fuels in the ground and dramatically reduce our footprints (~30 billion acres of habitable land on Earth/~8 billion people = ~ 3.5 acres worth of resources/biocapacity services per year per person). If we go over our Earth budget, ecosystems will keep collapsing (they are already in the early stages of degradation/collapse now). If we get under 3.5 acres/person/year and stop burning fossil fuels, we can save the planet for lots and lots of future generations of humans.
Those are just the laws of nature.
Take care.
All Jeffrey did was convince me to not move to Venus…
Craig, on the other hand, destroyed climate alarmism more concisely than I’ve ever witnessed.
Yes, well put.
You are on the spot. 👍
It is irritating that when the models don't work the fall back is always so small factor causes an increase..therefore..it's a still a huge problem! We have so many other fish to fry and they want our attention on this stupid minute change!
speaking of that , notice he said venus has 200,000 times the co2 as earth. I kind of wonder if he can visualize the simple concept that "zero times 2 is still zero",
Simply an attempt to impress gullible, frantic people with huge numbers. The dude is just a snake oil salesman trying to impress upon the rubes that 'do nothing and we will becoming just like venus"
Our grandchildren will be steeped in poverty if the alarmists have their way.
Seriously? You don't think it's time to move on from dirty fossil fuels and dependence on the Middle east?
When you have no basis to attack the argument you attack the one arguing
Attacking the messenger is a typical.
climate 1
Composition of air
According to NASA*. gases in Earth's atmosphere include:
Nitrogen - 78 %
Oxygen - 21 %
Argon - 0.93 %
Carbon dioxide (C02)- 0.04 % = 400ppm
Of o.o4 % Co2
-95% comes from nature (volcanoes/oceans/vegetation/animals etc...)
-5% from human activity
Human C02 in the air = 0.0016% !!
and that 0.0016% is the C02 percentage
they want to reduce to ....zero !!
to save the climate on earth !
how crazy can it get !!!
'climate change issues' are marketeerd on us .....it is a business construct
CO2 is a building block of nature ...as is water ....plants need water, CO2, sunshine etc
*Earth's Atmosphere: Compositioon, Climate & Weather | Space
www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html#:~:text=Composition%20of%20air,Argon%20%E2%80%94%200.93%20percent
scroll to the bottom ..
bonus:
'Climate change study on coral reef fish was '100 per cent wrong''
CZcams
czcams.com/video/xZ1WnNXY1To/video.html
If climate change started with the crowning of climate Pope... al gore the first.....DID THE CLIMATE, before his climate heighness' illuminating and very lucrative reign, NOT CHANGE ??
Was the climate of the days, months, decenniums and centuries...all the same ??
Or did al gore got himself the gold metal of gaslichting stupidy... for the ages to come !!
One thing is certain .....he got a lot of money from this climate BS :
Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa - WORLD PROPERTY JOURNAL Global News Center
www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/celebrity-homes-column-al-gore-tipper-gore-oprah-winfrey-michael-douglas-christopher-lloyd-fred-couples
...and doesn't seems to care about his own inconvienent truth tellings concerning cathastrophic floodings !!
Climate BS overview:
1970
Climate cooling - ice age coming (Al Gore)
1990
Climate warming - pole ice would completly be gone by 2013-2014 (Al Gore) rising of the oceans
2000
Climate change (Al Gore)
soon many cities under water
inconvenient truth
2010
Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa
2020
Obama Buys $14 Million Ocean-view Villa
Other climate change nutsos owning million dollar ocean estates:
john kerry, gates
Lol
If you could play on the stock exchange -just betting on change ( up and down on the same time)- you would always win ☺
@@robrechtsaski7458 could you cite natures production of co2 cant find anything anywheres thanks in advance bro
@@robrechtsaski7458 nice.
@@robrechtsaski7458 you do not seem to grasp the issues. All you posted is little more than an argument from incredulity and finger pointing at the behaviours of others.
It is hardly persuasive.
Notice how the alarmist attacks the integrity of the denier rather than attack the argument, and constantly refers to the "000's of scientists all agree". This behaviour is a constant on the part of alarmists in these debates and/or addresses (there's too few real debates like this one).
ad hominem argument on their behalf - they should be disqualified from debate instantly
@@freightliner_86 Not necessarily.
So, why don’t YOU attack his arguments ?
@@KristianIvarsson Firstly, he doesn't make any arguments beyond attacking the so-called 'denier', and secondly, the proof about whether CO2 is endangering the planet is encapsulated in an analysis of similar levels of CO2 in earth's history which can't be argued in the 100 word max 'sound bites' in a CZcams commentary, but it nevertheless exists in this media if you would care to search for it.
In other words, the science to say that carbon dioxide is endangering the planet does not exist. If it did, you would be citing it yourself!
@@GypzyJack Nevertheless, you could attack his arguments and his arguments was that his opponent falsified some stuff and you should instead prove that they weren’t falsified or so
It is quite easy to find references to peer reviewed scientific papers here www.ipcc.ch/reports/
Before asking the scientists at colleges about where and how they get their data, ask them who they get their funding from.
Craig sounds like a scientist, Jeffrey sounds like a salesman.
Like a salesman with a large stockpile of poor quality goods and a huge mortgage to pay of.
Precisely. Rhetoric vs evidence.
That's because he is no longer scientific,so he is a salesman.
100% of government funded research says give government more money ... The $cience is clear, humans can be bought!
Harry, Jeffry is an astronomer, not a salesman, but you seem to treat him as a salesman because he knows too much and is too convincing
27:40 “the correlation that Craig disputes, but it’s real” Excuse me: Craig did not dispute the correlation, he disputed the imputed causation.
Precisely.
The change in temperature and the change in CO2 are not correlated for the temperature hiatus period therefore there is no causal link.
@@lucygardner5666 what is the difference between this geological event and the previous ones?
@@ianb9028 the co2 was actually high and currently corporations and "progress" are poisoning out planet.
Wow that's sneaky. I was watching for rhetorical tricks and Jeff repeatedly saying that he has no evidence but "thousands of scientists agree" is an appeal to authority, not an argument. Also attacking Craig's character by trying to say that people disagree with his interpretations of studies without providing examples is ad hoc. So he's a poor rhetoritician.
But I didn't notice this slight of hand. That Craig said a and b rose, but that's not causation due to lags and even inverted correlations at points. Then Jeff says that the correlation is a fact. OF COURSE IT IS for those data points but that doesn't prove causation. He even focused specifically on the word correlation. I'm not denyiny that there is a 1 degree global temperature change, but there are other factors and causes. And then Jeff would just rebut with "but the temperature is rising, it's real." And then all you can say is, "did you even hear my argument?" He's really just saying a truism that there being a connection is true because there is a connection.
Is it just me or does Jeffrey Bennett's speech patterns change , increase in tempo and intensity as he starts to tell out and out lies regarding weather events near the end of his talk.
His speech pattern increases due to the increase of CO2 levels in the room ... ha ha ha
it's just you and your confirmation bias and projection - maybe some childhood trauma rolled in...
I’m certainly no climatologist and climate change may very well be a serious threat, but I do find it peculiar that the majority who argue for it never seem to alter their lifestyles to combat the problem.
Fair point but doesn't refute CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Their lifestyles generally improve, as the money rolls in.
Thousands of scientists say so... An argument from authority vs actual data that the astronomer didn't want to see
Craig's argument, that A before B means "A causes B" is not a scientific one. And how do we know what caused the SLOW climate changes in the past, where no humans were around to burn coal, oil and gas
It's ok to argue to authority if the authority cited has expertise in the area under debate, but "thousands of scientists" is more of a vague appeal to the masses.
I mean, thousands of doctors overprescribe prescribe Seroquel, but you only need to speak to few top medical experts to know that the thousands probably shouldn't be doing that.
Thousands of scientists are irrelevant. Science is not a democratic process. Craig should know and point out that there IS NO global temp data going back even 100 years and that US data shows COOLING since the 1930s.
If B comes before A, A cannot cause B. It's just logic. Science is based on logic@@tonygoodchild1730
Cite your sources, @GG3000UK
Bennett's closing remarks and debate tactics were despicable.
How do they compare with Alarmist tactics?
Higher CO2 concentrations are beneficial to ALL plants incl oxygen giving trees. This needs to be taught in schools to every child. That loudmouth sitting on the left is a know nothing type. Empty vessels make the most noise.
@@geoffphillips5872 lmao holy shit that was good.
1:13:26 Bennett forgets to tell us thanks to all the limestone, coral, clam shells, whale skeletons & lava flow, (alkaline buffer to sea & ground water acidity) it servers as nature's pH balance!
I am reminded that science is not a consensus. Thousands in agreement does not excite me. So The guy on the left is not an expert on earth science. How bizarre, we know the earth’s orbit wobbles and the temperature goes up and down accordingly, but Venus, which is much closer to the sun, is only hotter because of their CO2
"Makes the ocean more acidic".
The ocean is not acidic, it cannot become more acidic until it becomes acidic. It cannot become acidic because rocks are an earth size buffer against that.
aha!
Mr. Craig Ditso, you definitely are the winner of a disgruntled conversation with a man who came to sabotage a real scientific conversation. My respects for you.
Did you read the comments above about personal attacks? No? Well, your petulant reply is typical for someone who claims to want a "real scientific conversation", but gets their feelings crushed when the their "science" is bunk.
@angela... Your comment seems a bit circular. Is "Ditso" a typo, or, intentional?
@@williamwangard295xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx!:!":! V!!ccçcccccccxxçcçcçxxxxxxxxcxzxzxzxzzxxxxxxxxxfxzxxxxxcccccccccccccczczccccczccgc chchzccchcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccçfccczcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc çc
The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth is about 3 times the current level of carbon dioxide.
...he says with no verifiable evidence nor credible documentation.
Typical hubristic colonialist supremacist PoV which views Humans as the very pinnacle of
creation and natural systems as crude non-optimal, in need of interference
(you know, like introducing rabbits into the "rabbit-famine" in Oz, etc...)
Greenhouse experiments create artificial super-optimized conditions in which ALL
growth parameters: light, temperature, humidity, nutrients, minerals, pH, plant varieties,
cycling are all hyper-optimized in which case atmospheric CO2 concentration becomes
the limiting factor. Once CO2 concentration "deficit" is remediated then optimized growth rate
is unleashed.
To extrapolate that to all plants growing under all conditions in the ecosystem
and use that as an excuse/rationalization for high CO2 concentrations is disingenuous -> duplicitous.
There is also evidence that high CO2 concentration in "natural" growing conditions (may) lead to
"junk-food-ification" of plants which will stuff the easy calories to the detriment of their normal absorption
of nutrients and minerals. Of course such a consideration would be secondary to the values of those
who eagerly boast "we boosted production quantity".
Ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration has remained in the 250-350ppm range for the last million years through multiple glaciations during which plant development/evolution/adaptation has occurred
(and possibly the hand-tweaked re-creation of plant species by the Hand of God-Himself - for those so inclined
why is it that God Himself has not cranked up ambient CO2 to 1333ppm ?)
Here we are, on the precipice of existential predicament and MetaCrisis having breached 6 of 9 global survivability thresholds due to supremacist manipulation of the ecosphere... you are going to seriously argue for more eff-ery?
Don’t they always pull the old “thousands of scientists” or “the science is settled” , every time I hear that crap my eyes instantly roll .
nope he said clearly they never have said the science is settled because we "keep studying it" - yeah like that's a good defense of EVERY damn activist scientists and politician saying TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES "the science is settled". lmao
Most recently is “11,000 scientists agree we’re in a climate crisis.” Which amounts to less than 1% of the global scientific community
thousands of doctors say chemo treats cancer.
but i guess chemo is fake.
@@chomps163 counterpoint: I can find thousands of doctors out of the millions in existence who are willing to claim that vaccines cause autism. This is the problem with using raw numbers. We live on a planet with billions of people, for any given major subject there are likely at least a few million people who are well-studied on it, and of those taking the opinion of not even 0.1% of them as an example to claim that's even a popular viewpoint, much less the mainstream one, is like a bad joke.
Actual surveys of climate scientists, meteorologists, physicists say ~50% think the majority of warming is human-caused. Maybe ~60-70% if they publish regularly depending on how you frame the question. Majority? Sure, but science isn't a democracy, and only someone with their brain leaking out their ears would call that a consensus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that can convince any reasonable person. As is they can barely even convince people that we ARE causing the warming, much less that we're about to turn into Venus-level temps as argued by the most prominent alarmists.
That's because you're a fool though
The reason insurance companies are having to pay more for hurricane damages is not because of Hurricanes getting stronger. It is because the property being destroyed has become more expensive. People like to cite that hurricanes are becoming significantly stronger due to causing X dollars of property damage, but they fail to realize that there is simply more property to be damaged as time goes on and cities expand.
The flip side of insurance payouts is the cost of premiums. Are they going up? If an insurance company is still in business their business model is working, and their income is greater than their overhead costs and loses. If they are a listed company, how is their share price doing? I would say if they are still operating, their share price is trending upward or at least holding steady year on year.
Exactly. The expanding bullseye effect accounts for all of "increasing damage of hurricanes, etc." Frequency and intensity has not changed. Oh and even with the expanding bullseye effect, it's becoming a lower percentage of global gdp aka more manageable, not less.
And these massive Californian and Australian forest fires are primarily due to poor forest management. Out of fear of destroying animal habitats, deadfall is not burned and it is allowed to accumulate into massive forrest fires. It's not due to temperature or anything else.
In fact, the scientific evidence is clear that man-made global warming has made hurricanes stronger, they are intensifying faster, they are moving more slowly, the break down more slowly once they hit landfall, and they are dumping more rain--because air that is 1 degree C warmer holds ~7% more moisture.
If insurers and banks/investors were buying into that climate change hysteria they wouldn't be underwriting my beach house 30y mortgage.
@@USGrant21st Hmm, it looks like my reply didn't post. "If insurers and banks/investors were buying into that climate change hysteria they wouldn't be underwriting my beach house 30y mortgage." That's simply not true. 1) Sea level rise poses an almost unimaginable LONG-TERM threat to civilization (what do you do if we let coastal cities and ports see 20-25 feet of eventual sea level rise), but at the moment, it is only 3.6 mm rise per year on average. Thus, most beachfront property is not in imminent danger. 2) The federal government has been bailing out people in flood zones, reducing the risk. 3) despite all that, banks HAVE already started to back away from 30 year mortgages on properties on the water in some places.
You go Craig, a man who has studied and has some common sense on how things work
Craig and Jeffery both fail to mention the most important cause of climate change. That is the 3 physical changes in the earth. The tilt, and 2 other factors I dont recall but are almost universally agreed. These are the dominant factors overriding contributions by carbon. But that wont always be the case. Greenhouse affect is a major secondary factor.
The temperature record has been inappropriately adjusted down for the 1930s and 1940s. Temperatures were higher then than now.
Each year its reported that temperatures are continuing to rise. This is because of CO2 which is a poisonous gas that needs to be eliminated in order to save all life on earth.
didn't take long for Bennett to start with character attacks
The renowned method used by alarmists to refute a debate an argument. Desperation really.
@@MPUlberg Yeah, it was pretty sad that he ripped into Craig mercilessly to try to make him look dishonest.
That is funny cause i started to think the same thing and had just gone down to comments and bingo. This climate change thing is losing steam.
Bennett apparently is a student of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' the Leftest playbook to attack and discredit anyone along with other subversive tactics. The thing is, why can't Bennett use science to prove his point instead of making his argument persnal.
I can’t believe that this left-wing lunatic Bennett is considered a scientist what a joke. He didn’t present one single argument except it it’s hot on Venus so must be hot on earth. We are entering a new dark Age made more ominous by the lights of perverted science.
Why am I left with the feeling that Jeff Bennett is actually a used-car salesman.
because his overall deportment is exactly that.... good call
He sounds so corpo
More like snake oil.
Some here are getting distracted by the presentation. I guess they needed James Earl Jones or Scarlett Johansen to do the debate.
I wrote this initially: "That is because you are a moron. Craig is the one that repeatedly refers to consensus for his argument."
I now realize I had them mixed up. Jeff is the one that repeatedly refers to consensus as his argument. My apologies to Andrew.
BTW, I am an atmospheric physicist. So, I know. Climatology is BS.
Excellent debate. Climate alarmists did not prove his case.
they never do. They make show, not some pfff science
I am a Historian...I KNOW from the historical record that every few centuries our planet goes through serious climate change cycles... and few died or were seriously effected by the change...when the sea level rose 20 feet, they just moved!!!
From about 900AD uintil 1340AD there was a huge global warming event flooding coastal areas so people moved from Holland to England for example...the vikings said Newfoundland had a warm climate seldom even had frost in the winter time... the Norse could sail the North Atlantic in open boats with no problem!!! Coastal Greenland was actually GREEN!!! The English grew better wine grapes than the French! Global Temps were several degrees warmer than today!!! The between 1340-1350 global temps plunged into an Ice Age, London's Thames river froze a couple feet thick ice for months in winter... it was not until the late 19th century that temps warmed up...
This global warming hype is %95 POLITICAL so the crazy people can run our lives... Nothing bad happened during the last global warming and the same will happen this time!
Ancient Egypt all of North Africa, the Sinai, Israel, was watered fertile and had large forests 2000 years ago! That is what the historians say!!!
Craig Idso is way more neutral, analytic and descent. He doesn't attack his opponent
Bennet's presentation reminds me of a magician's show, or an evangelist's pitch.
No magic - pure preaching, maybe he believes, but he doesn't sell his belief well then...
@@CONEHEADDK That’s what I thought too. He sounds like a self righteous preacher. It’s almost like a religion.
@@xtronkillmaster2517 He's used to preach for the saved, and they don't care about the weakness of "the arguments" - it's all about tribalistic beliefs for them.
Nothing is more dangerous for the planet than evangelist
Carol Minnich
The Holy Church of Climatology.
Or maybe a Snake-oil salesman..
He's smalmy, smug & self-satisfied.
It's very rare to see a climate alarmist debate an alarmist skeptic. This video demonstrates why.
Would be nice to have this debate again with a climate scientist instead of an astrologist. The world needs a blood and sand, knock down, dragout fight over this. All there's been is censorship.
exactly. Why did they choose a poor astronomer. This debate stinks.
One of the scientists I listened to said 'peer reviewed' studies are now 'pal reviewed'.
As I remember, Piers Corbyn said 'pal review'. And they don't repeat the experiments or measurements, they just browse it through. It's OK if it looks nice (see Peter Ridd).
You’re right, there is no bad argument to refute science. Science is not useful and should be banned. Let’s go back to living in caves and having life expectancies in 20 years.
@@peterstill3760 Anybody with a fully functioning prefrontal cortex can see 'climate science' has been politicized beyond measure and is infested by far left-wing ideology. Peer review in this field of science is little more than a circle jerk where questioning of the narrative is forbidden. You can't blame people for treating those who are telling us the world is ending with the same skepticism they reserve for flat-earthers or creation scientists.
Peer review started as a good idea. Then it became the buddy system so that now it lacks basis. Since I worked in healthcare I saw practices changed based on "evidence-based practice". That's great yet I worked long enough to see the practice completely disproven. A friend of mine says "Today's evidence-based practice is tomorrow's malpractice. "
Would draw your (and your viewers) attention to the fact that CZcams has now attached the wiki on Climate Change to every video about climate change. There is so much to say about this 'intervention' that I am posting here and elsewhere in the hope that commentators like yourself may pick up the issue and produce some content on the point.
Firstly, let's start with the fact that Wikipedia is not a recognised academic authority and students at the most basic level of learning are warned against using Wikipedia as an academic source. Anyone who has had any involvement with Wikipedia will tell you that whilst the concept is audible and the service provided quite wonderful on many levels, as with all human activities it suffers from personal bias, personal politics and can be riven in certain issues with agenda politics.
Then let us look about what the position of the Climate Change Wikipedia is (as of Feb 2021) on scientific consensus:
"The consensus has grown to 100% among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming as of 2019.[300] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.[301]"
Apparently, there is absolutely no research scientist in the world who disagrees with the proposition that global warming is human-made. If you follow the links to the original research you will find that over 11,000 peer-reviewed publications have been analysed to provide this statement of 100% support for one idea of science.
There can be probably no doubt whatsoever that this mythology is accurate.
However, if we are going to apply some critical thinking, a facility no longer fashionable in our universities, then we need to look beyond a Wikipedia headline and think about the process which leads to a conclusion where 100% of research arrives at the same conclusion! OK, so we may say that a 100% agreement about an environmental condition is entirely possible, for example, 100% of scientists can agree that water does not flow uphill and that when released from grasp a weight will fall. 100% agreement is always achievable at simple levels but the simplicity of thought behind believing that such an agreement can be found when investigating the most complex dynamic system on planet Earth requires either idiocy or gullibility.
Therefore the real question is how exactly is it possible to produce a 100% consensus about such a complex issue?
The answer is actually quite simple and yet is unlikely to attract 100% acknowledgement, especially from University-based academics (even though most of them know it is true), and it is that any critical analysis of Universities in 2021 reveals that the standards of education have been lowered disastrously, the marking of everything from Bachelors to PhD is utterly compromised by the needs of the University's business model (in the UK the awarding of first-class marks has gone as high as 60% in one institution [oxymoronic]), tutors, readers and department heads live in fear of retaining their employment and thus research, its time allocation and funding, is ever more dictated by politics and the profit and loss account.
Within this environment, the propensity for Professors and PhD supervisors to prefer and advantage candidates they like socially, personally and politically has increased over the last 20 years (it was a structure always present in the system, the need to gain funding has conditioned not just the focus of a PhD but heavily influenced selection of research proposals as needing to be in line with the aims of funding award bodies. All of this has created one of the worst possible academic nightmares; where research works towards pre-conceived conclusions in order to prove their veracity.
The situation as just described is a disaster for the success of the human future but bear in mind that it is a critique of universities not of the climate change discourse. When we then focus in on the specific area of climate change the problems highlighted concerning our universities then acquire an intensification of logarithmic dimensions. In this debate, added to the stress imposed by the universities abject surrender to rule by the balance sheet, there is heaped onto the press the global political debate, the global media focus, a popular resistance movement manned by highly uneducated masses and a youth awareness based on indoctrination rather than critical thinking. This is the influx of intellectual pollution flowing into the universities.
I would like to make this very, very clear; I am not advocating for or against anthropogenic caused global warming. I am not in any way saying or commenting on the global warming debate as a matter of science. I am not qualified to do so. What I am saying and where my critique lies is that when we find a 100% consensus in science then we have to conclude that science and the process of science represented by such a claim is actually not science at all. What a 100% consensus represents is a failure, a critical failure, in the method of producing scientific research.
When we then see that a Wikipedia entry is appended to every CZcams video on climate change, a partial, biased, unreliable and unqualified analysis, then what we are looking at should be deeply worrying to anyone who thinks that a first-class degree, of any level, should require so much more than it actually does now.
At least Wikipedia is what it is but surely we can rely on peer-reviewed journals? Well, when they are staffed by the same people who run the university departments the problem remains the same. In recent years, very recent, I have heard of an article being rejected because the journal editor '... would not permit criticism of the work of valued colleagues and friends to be presented in his journal...'. This was concerning a world-renowned academic journal of the first order but please, consider what I say here as hearsay and unverified opinion because if I had to disclose detailed information then the corrupt system would visit consequences on the academic concerned for sharing such a rebuttal.
The article concerned was published, in a respectable journal, so I say with as much authority as a Wikipedia page, and found little contention. However, if the university process is so corrupt as to print off first-class degrees to students who should really struggle to get a 2.2, if Masters Degrees are now required because Batchelor's are worthless and then these certificates are similarly denigrated by the same process, then is it any wonder that over the last twenty years low-resolution thinking has become the benchmark of our intellectual capacity within society.
The problem with the climate crisis discourse should not be seen as an isolated issue but as a massive free-floating iceberg in the oceans of thinking capable of sinking any ship of fools whilst being symptomatic of a thawing of intellectual power across the academic planet.
We need to stand up for critical thinking and challenge any position which claims 100% authority. Such claims are the foundation of fascism.
100% agree well said, we watching this are typically adults and are capable of making decisions based upon information presented and do not require external prompting to assume one more honest or accurate over another, this is like campaigning outside voting booths.
I would not trust Wiki (an open to public editing website) to tell me the time. Let alone advise me about a such a socially contentious subject.
Have either of you tried to make an edit in Wikipedia? I didn't think so.
Oh yes as well as crt,and January 6
"Peer Review" seems increasingly function to patrol and enforce the accepted narrative rather than enforcing correct academic and scientific standards.
@SeattlePioneer I think the mistake is to accept the "man in a white coat" mythology. That is to say, the mythology traditionally played out in films and advertising that the 'professor' is somehow an intellectual purist who rises above social politics in the search for an academic truth. The reality is that academic departments are filled with social politics and operated by hierarchies of self-interest. Promotion and the achievement of tenure are governed by non-intellectual behaviours which favour 'friends', subordinately loyal individuals and those who support the established thinking within any department. 'Peer Review' itself is presented as a space neutral of bias and prejudice but the history of human behaviour, especially in academia is filled to the brim with bias against critical thinking and challenging ideas. When Einstein first published his work on relativity one hundred German scientific academics signed a petition deriding the work as nonsense. The man in the white coat is very jealous of his status, position and intellect so he jealously guards that position against all who would challenge it. Peer Review has limited applications in a form where the identity of the author is known by the reviewers. Changing that one aspect would start to make a difference.
What's relevant here is the climate's sensitivity to CO2, not whether global warming occurs or its consequences. There's also a selection bias where positive hypotheses get published and negative hypotheses don't get submitted or published.
Scientists figured out the climate's sensitivity to CO2 decades ago--that's why there are 14 different climate models, some dating back to the 1970s and 1980s--that accurately predicted warming based on our emissions.
280 ppm was too low. Best thing humans have done so far is put CO2 back in the air where it belongs. It needs to go up to 1000 ppm where life can go back to normal
Not even the IPCC says that storms are increasing.
Bennet is such a liar.
@@erastvandoren I would say that rather than a liar, he is under-prepared as a debater. Perhaps an actual climate scientist would have been a better choice than an astronomer. (Not a slam against his intellect, but his data pile wasn't optimal for this debate.)
@@geraldfrost4710 A climate scientist will never debate this topic. The is too much real data to disprove their theories. I heard a Nobel laureate (physicist) say "a scientist will spend 98% life being proven wrong". Apparently, today, scientists are that good, they are never wrong. It's a shame what's happened to this profession.
@@geraldfrost4710 Your comment made me chuckle. IPCC scientists absolutely REFUSE to debate ANYONE. They do not even release all of their data and they do not release their formulas that they use to come to their conclusions. They give various excuses for this. For example, they say only climate scientists can possibly understand the research, so there is no point in releasing them to the public, as they fear the public will misinterpret their data/formulas and use it against them. Remember in the middle ages, when the priests were in charge because, "only we know how to read and interpret the Bible, and therefore you must do as we say". The priests prohibited the commoners from reading the Bible, and exerted power over them, just as the IPCC prohibits us from reading their formulas, or debating, and then exerting power over our energy sectors. Whenever someone says, "the debate is settled", just remember there never even was a debate to begin with.
"Increases in tropical cyclone winds and rainfall are exacerbating extreme sea level events and coastal hazards. Hazards will be further be intensified by an increase in the average intensity, magnitude of storm surge and precipitation rates of tropical cyclones, especially if greenhouse gas emissions remain high." ~IPCC
“We need more research”= keep giving me a pay check I will tell you what you want to hear.
If the science is settled... what are they researching?
@@johngibson6787 the bit which is not settled... what is causing climate change:)
@@johngibson6787 It's like chemistry. Right-wingers think we stop doing any research because water is H2O, and... we're done! Of course many science aliterates just learned that water is H2O.
Let's put it this way the atmosphere of venus is about 960,000 parts per million carbon dioxide! On earth it's about 400 parts per million. But even that's not a real comparison because venus has a much thicker atmosphere. On the surface of venus atmospheric pressure is just over 1300 psi. On earth atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14. 7 psi. It's really difficult to understand how one could make any comparison related to climate unless they didn't understand the science or were trying to deceive.
@@johngibson6787 "If the science is settled... what are they researching?" The scientists already know humans are warming the planet and can predict it accurately based on our emissions, but have moved onto the harder but important matters of predicting regional impacts and understanding some of the feedback loops involved.
Idso: provides concrete data about correlation vs causation
Bennett: skips data part and goes straight to pics of wildfires
This is so easy to discern.
As a conservationist I must say there is so much more we can do to stop pollution. The reality is we are a consumer based economy, at one time we, the U.S. consumed 70% of the worlds resources. We buy goods that Need to be shipped half way around the world, and then ship recycled goods back and do this over and over again. We have what is called “planned obsolescence” one cannot get parts for repairs, just through away and buy new. We have a long way to go if people are really serious about conserving the worlds resources.
Correct. Each macro Region should be responsible to manufacture goods locally and also to ensure longest time possibile of life for Each product. Also advertising should be banned alltogether
I found Dr. Bennett's positions on things to be of an elementary school level. He appealed to dogma and consensus rather than presenting hard data. I also found his demeanor to be condescending and conceitful. He providing nothing that that was compelling or convincing. Why is an astronomer involved in a debate about climate science anyway?
I totally agree but his work background does not matter. You can still make valid arguments or criticisms that stand alone notwithstanding who made them. Even the sceptic noted with his evidence, that you don't need to be a climate expert to understand and make some of his arguments, the data speaks for itself, and correllation does not equal cause and effect, any stats student knows this.
@@shanef8495 Your statement regarding correlation and causation it true for "statistics", because statistics can be manipulated,
and when they are, or when they are incomplete....then correlation may not indicate causation.....Judea Pearl, has taken this
into a new area, using Bayes Theorem in reverse......
that's how these debates always go. An armada of facts vs anecdotes, sophistry, straw men, and appeal to emotion. Anyone who knows how to score a debate knows that no alarm wins 100/0
@@rustyscrapper Only among the "ignorant". If this were a debate about "science" and "data".....the it would be about the "science" and "data".......and it would not require with holding your evidence for the Q & A.
This was a joke......and it's on you, because you have no data or explanation for the data that exists.....
you're surprised?
Tens of thousands of scientists...tens of thousands of scientists...there are not tens of thousands of climate scientists.
Wrong. We all know it rained yesterday because we're 97% climate scientists.
I think what happened there was, he talked about the 50,000 papers published, then about the thousands of scientists, but then it kinda got mixed up. So he probably went "Tens of thousands sounds more impressive, so let's go with that"
No wonder our children don’t even want to have children themselves. Given the alarmists agenda, I won’t have grandchildren to read my letter. The catastrophising is irresponsible.
Craig: look at the data. Jeffrey: look at the models. Craig wins.
Craig: look at the data. Jeffrey: look at the politics...
Cherry picked data
Craig "look at the data" At 51 min Jeffrey appears caught out by a graph showing decrease in global wildfire burned area. This is classic denier technic, namely not fully explaining the data so leading the audience to a miss impression. It's a shame that Jeffrey didn't know the reason of the cuff. Craig would then have been shown as the con man that he is . Its because 70% of the global burned area is savannah in Africa. The area of savannah is rapidly decreasing do to land use change. This masks the increasing wildfire risk in other parts of the world.
@petewright4640 climate change caused by humans is not real sorry little man
Jeremiahhundley6629 who?
As Mr. Bennett suggested, I looked up the raw facts. Forest fires in N. America, down. Tropical cyclones N. Hemisphere, no change. Australia fires, 1970's saw almost twice as much burned as 2019. Droughts: we have yet to see anything near the Dust Bowl of the 30s. Snow coverage N. Hemisphere: flat except for huge increase in last 3 years.
Funny, in Europe the temps are hotter than ever before...
Same for Brasil.
@@catspeakegrooveregional data not relevent
@@Libertariunregional data not relevent
@@paulbadics3500 my comment was to say that Brasil forest fires not as frequent as they were in the past, NOT that it’s hotter here. It isn’t. Colder if anything.
When someone calls you a consperacy theorist it usually means they can't dispute your facts.
Temperature follows the sun, c02 follows temperature. These are the facts.
Except that CO2 is not following temperature, it is leading it. Also, there are isotopes of
carbon that are present in CO2, and those that originate from fossil fuels can be identified
and calculated, and are less beneficial to plants. ( and new studies also indicate that
increased temps and CO2, are not beneficial...while carbon sinks such as the Amazon,
have now become carbon emitters. ) All of this is available and easily found...so don't
expect a response if you ask for sources... simply take the statements above and
ask a question in ANY search engine to find them.
@@jgalt308 the amazon being a producer of CO2 is correct but misleading. It is being burned faster than it takes in carbon to grow.
@@JoshAQ Not sure how the amazon got involved but yes it is now a CO2 emitter rather
than a sink...and the oceans are slowly losing the capacity to absorb it also as they warm.
@@jgalt308 when I read your comment above that the amazon was a net embittered of co2 I was shocked and when I read more I realized it was due to trees being burned. This may just be me but given your comments before hand about different carbon isotopes not being as beneficial I thought there was an issue with the Amazon forest not converting carbon as efficiently. I was trying to point out for future readers something that I misinterpreted from your comment. As to the oceans warming and not able absorb more carbon I will have to look into that. It would be interesting to get specifics about the numbers.
@@JoshAQ There are a lot of things involved regarding this subject, and these
"so called" debates aren't really helpful since people tend to hear what they want
and are generally ignorant latching on to one specific point that they believe is
somehow the deciding factor and the basis for their comment.
The scientific process ( and it's difficult to discern who is actually doing science )
involves seeking evidence that confirms or refutes whatever theory or hypothesis
one is exploring...while experiments that test these theories must be reproducible.
Most people can't be bothered doing any of that...and when debates like this occur
it becomes a game of sorts...when the participants are ill matched or the conditions
are rigged.
i.e. William Lane Craig arranged a debate on the existence of "god" with the condition
that to win, proof of non-existence was required. Since you can't prove a negative, whether
its god, celestial teapots or pink unicorns such exercises are pointless...as was the mismatch
here.
Unfortunately becoming familiar with a topic like this requires effort and it must be approached
without preconceptions...and you are on the right track...check everything out...and since the planet
is 70% water which reacts to changes in temperature at slower rates and also has circulating
currents which absorb CO2 at the poles and release it in the tropics, as well as convect heat,
while also being affected by fresh water mixing...it is a critical component of both weather
and climate.
Also, as mentioned in my initial comment, I am not aware of any instance where increased CO2 was
a leading indicator of warming...the warming occurs first, and causes the increase in CO2,
which feedbacks to create more warming...which continues until the initial cause of
the warming abates and the process reverses. ( this is essentially solar driven, combined
with orbital variances and axial tilt ) At the moment none of these can be cited to account for the increased
levels of CO2 or the resultant warming caused by it.
And there are other factors and GHG's that are far more potent being added to the mix.
As for the effects of climate change, they will make themselves known soon enough...
although I expect debates like this will continue through it all without pause.
I'm pretty sure that moving to Florida is not a good idea unless you are 90+ and
you should probably have a boat handy just in case.
30 years ago, I noticed that the trees along the superhighway easily dry out during the dry season in our area. The trees are stunted and looks sickly. Today, those trees look healthier and greener. They don't even turn brown in the dry season. I may be wrong but studies showing higher CO2 makes trees more drought resistant may be the reason.
That's because higher CO2 means plants, and most certainly trees, are more water-efficient. They use and store water better than if they lack CO2. Remember, CO2 is plant food.
A point I remember brought up elsewhere is that people have thought that talking to house plants made them healthier, when it's the fact that human breath contains 40,000 ppm of carbon dioxide when we exhale. That's why plants in homes look healthier and greener, not to mention the water vapor contained in our exhaled breath.
Thus, if our breath can make house plants greener with increased CO2 and water vapor, then it follows the same would happen globally if the same conditions occurred. Not saying we would have to sustain a 40,000 ppm environment, but an increase above our current 420 ppm level certainly couldn't hurt.
@@isaiahwelch8066 Thanks for giving that Good info that needs to be more widely known.
Increased atmospheric CO2 would be a boon to all life on earth. It will increase the life carrying capacity of the earth. If all the carbon sequestered [locked up] in fossil fuels could be responsibly and steadily returned to the biosphere and incorporated into the carbon cycle, then vegetation all over the planet would flourish. More vegetation means more food for animals and fish. Northern latitudes such as Canada, and in Russia are important producers of wheat, what could happen if those vast tracts of cold northern climes warmed a few degrees and had higher CO2? Also it is not generally appreciated, that most deserts are more likely the the result of cooling of the earth's seas and oceans, and not as a result of warming. So increased CO2 might well cause change of climate over Sahara, Gobi and other desert regions, that they might green up and return to woodlands, forests or savannah ... Certainly increased CO2 helps vegetation withstand hot arid conditions [increased CO2 decreases moisture loss (transpiration) via stomata from the leaves], and this is a major reason behind greening of the Sahel region in recent decades.
Probably because someone is watering them ?. The increased levels of CO2 will ultimately kill those trees and all life on earth. We are in a climate crisis which is being driven by poisonous CO2 gas in the atmosphere. We need to eliminate CO2 or face the consequences.
This is amazing high level debate. This situation can be full of stress. One must know "everything" from biology to atmospheric or oceanic science to geology to biology to economy and whatever more. Luckily the same arguments always come back so one can prepare. They both could show their materials which is also rare.
Yes, Economics is one science that should be incorporated into any discussion about the possible response to either mitigating climate warming by preparing for the most likely occurrences that might cause harm to ourselves and the rest of nature or by attempting to halt the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere by greatly reducing our standard of living and our quality of life by eventually eliminating the use of fossil fuels utilized for energy. Make no mistake that is the ultimate goal of so called Net Zero.
Unfortunately our government has seized on the theory of global warming and rewrote it’s “ label “ from Global Warming to Climate Crisis and perhaps it may go so far as to declare a CLIMATE EMERGENCY which would give the government unprecedented Executive Controls.
That is the true goal of the entire Climate Crisis crowd ,that relies exclusively on the acceptance of Global Warming theory, is a loss of certain civil liberties that is inevitable when a central authority begins to eliminate choices to achieve their goals.
The way all of the Climate Crisis advocates always conjure up “ 99 % of all scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic and is leading to Armeggedon. This anonymous entity is treated like the Oracle of Delphi , you must not doubt what the Oracle ( 99 % of all scientists agree) or be branded a DENIER. This word was chosen as anyone branded as such automatically carries the stigma previously used to describe someone who denies the Holocaust happened, that it is a hoax.
The true goal of the most fanatic Climate Crisis advocates view this as an opportunity to fundamentally change the U.S. economy and by doing that crosses our Mixed Economy of Capitalism and Socialism towards the Socialist aspect of our economy. In other words they view the Climate Crisis as a means to end Capitalism in favor of a centrally controlled Socialist State with cradle to grave government.
Of course as with all Collectivist programs each of us individually will be called upon to sacrifice for the “ greater good “. The Greens want us to sacrifice our standard of living, our ability to make choices we take for granted today, like flipping the switch to turn on a light anytime you please. Today in Ca there are hundreds of thousands of families that know they may not have access to electricity during certain times of the year for up to several MONTHS.
They want everyone to drive electric cars and trucks because they chose these for us as a way to reduce CO2 emissions apparently without regard for the amount of CO2 emitted during the mining of rare minerals for the battery., emissions from purifying the minerals and making them useable for batteries, the emissions from the production of the vehicle. The fact that much of this is manufactured in China utilizing coal burning electric plants. Solar/Wind were also chosen by government as a replacement for fossil fuels to create electricity. The effect of making small changes from FF ( Fossil Fuels ) to Solar/Wind has effectively DOUBLED the cost of electricity for everyone on a grid where Solar/Wind has replaced FF to a small degree.
The EMERGENCY is not a Climate Emergency or a Climate Crisis etc the real emergency is that we have reached a tipping point with a government initially designed to protect our individual rights from “ all foes foreign and domestic “ that has moved from protecting us to protecting itself and constantly increasing the scope of government power at every opportunity ( “ don’t ever let a catastrophic event go to waste. “
The bill of rights was designed to protect the individual citizen from the government. The whole structure of our system is designed to prevent the government from establishing too much power, too much influence and too much ability to control us. That’s why they created a system of “ checks and balances “. Unfortunately our government today is apparently incapable of understanding this or the Constitution or the ideas and philosophies which brought about the birth of the greatest nation in the history of the world. I submit if those in power in our government today and those who wish to be in the next administration tomorrow don’t understand the concept of Individual Rights upon which every good thing depends on for it’s existence.
What they have in mind for the future of the American people is a horrific return to pre-industrial life with despotic rulers constantly searching for more things to regulate, to replace with other things, how many hours of electricity you can consume in any given period of time from the number of hours daily to the number of hours weekly,monthly and even yearly. Go over your allocation and they simply turn off your electricity.
@@bigbillbigbill8472 OK, so they want control. But to be honest, I think we are all under control already. Even governments are, since they are bound by supranational treaties from EU or NATO level etc .The globalized economy doesn't allow much either wiggle room either.
If they take away our car, many can't reach far job places. Yes, they would be "under control" at home but what good is that for "them"?? They prefer us to work of course. If they make heating energy too expensive, the not wealthy people will come on the street. Will they lock us all up in jail? And about the "global warming theory" or "narrative", it's possible that American/European scientists would be into a silent agreement to hide the truth but we have also the scientists from all the other remaining countries.
Love the closing “letter to you grandchildren “
Typical play on emotions to manipulate!
People are sincerely addressing the emotional side of the issue because the evidence shows the path we are on leads to mass die-offs/extinctions of most human and planetary life. But in case you haven't heard how we know AGW is real, here's the story in a nutshell: How do we know human activity is the main cause of recent warming? If the theory of man-made global warming is true, science should be able to verify that several things happen:
1) Burning fossil fuels should increase the levels of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere and oceans.
2) If the additional CO2 in the atmosphere was mostly due to human activity, the relative proportion of carbon 12/carbon 13 isotopes should gradually shift towards the ratio produced by burning fossil fuels.
3) After human activity has markedly increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the lower atmosphere and the oceans should get warmer than before.
4) After human activity has markedly increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the upper atmosphere should get cooler.
5) After human activity has markedly increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, there should be an increase in the lower atmosphere of the specific wavelengths of thermal energy that specific greenhouses gases absorb and re-radiate.
6) After human activity has markedly increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, there should be a decrease in the upper atmosphere of the specific wavelengths of thermal energy that specific greenhouses gases absorb and re-radiate.
7) Models of the relationship between levels of greenhouse gases and average global temperatures should predict global warming with reasonable accuracy.
8) Research that takes into consideration the effects of multiple natural factors (sun’s activity, earth’s orbit, etc.) and anthropogenic (man-made) factors on global temperatures should find that the addition of greenhouse gases due to burning fossil fuels contributed to a substantial degree to the amount of warming that has been observed.
ALL eight of those predictions of climate science (plus others) have been confirmed by research.
The fingerprints of AGW are all over the thermal content and CO2 volume and composition of the lower and upper atmosphere.
Try all three levels, but especially see Figure 4 in the advanced level.
skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Also see
www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99
And if we stay on the path we are on, that leads towards mass die-offs and extinctions of most human and planetary life. Happily, there are hundreds of strategies for healing and restoring a healthy balance, but we will need to switch to lifestyles and an economic model that actually obey the limits and laws of nature.
Take care.
@@karlwheatley1244
"People are sincerely addressing the emotional side of the issue because..."
Let me guess why...
Because they have no scientific evidence?
@@vladimirgurevich8415 Thanks for your reply.
Apparently you didn't read my reply. The evidence is overwhelming that we are causing global warming and that this threatens the future of human and planetary life. People are understandably scared, and an emotional appeal is an honest way of dealing with an existential threat.
Perhaps you personally don't know the science very well, so if that's true and you are also a skeptic, then an emotional appeal might understandably seem out of place to you. But if you know the science, and especially if you have children and/or grandchildren, it's can be pretty terrifying.
Take care.
@@karlwheatley1244
Qute:
"The evidence is overwhelming that we are causing global warming"
This a blatantly false statement.
AKA a lie.
If you provide one solid scientific proof of your position I'll reconsider my view of AGW.
Will you?
;-)
@@vladimirgurevich8415 Thanks for your reply.
I already provided it in my previous post.
If you understand the science, you understand that this chain of evidence represents opportunity, motive, murder weapon, fingerprints on the murder weapon, and the climactic equivalent of a videotape of the murder.
Take care.
96.5% of Venus' atmosphere is CO2. The Earth's is 0.04%
Just bizarre to consider them on the same magnitude in terms of atmospheric composition.
Venus is actually really hot because its atmosphere is INCREDIBLY dense and thick. If a person stood on the surface he or she would be a pancake instantly. This basically makes an out of control warming event.
Mars is nearly 100% CO2. What really makes the difference is atmospheric pressure. At one atmosphere of earth pressure at sea level on Venus; Venus has near earth temperatures.
climate 1
Composition of air
According to NASA*. gases in Earth's atmosphere include:
Nitrogen - 78 %
Oxygen - 21 %
Argon - 0.93 %
Carbon dioxide (C02)- 0.04 % = 400ppm
Of o.o4 % Co2
-95% comes from nature (volcanoes/oceans/vegetation/animals etc...)
-5% from human activity
Human C02 in the air = 0.0016% !!
and that 0.0016% is the C02 percentage
they want to reduce to ....zero !!
to save the climate on earth !
how crazy can it get !!!
'climate change issues' are marketeerd on us .....it is a business construct
CO2 is a building block of nature ...as is water ....plants need water, CO2, sunshine etc
*Earth's Atmosphere: Compositioon, Climate & Weather | Space
www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html#:~:text=Composition%20of%20air,Argon%20%E2%80%94%200.93%20percent
scroll to the bottom ..
bonus:
'Climate change study on coral reef fish was '100 per cent wrong''
CZcams
czcams.com/video/xZ1WnNXY1To/video.html
If climate change started with the crowning of climate Pope... al gore the first.....DID THE CLIMATE, before his climate heighness' illuminating and very lucrative reign, NOT CHANGE ??
Was the climate of the days, months, decenniums and centuries...all the same ??
Or did al gore got himself the gold metal of gaslichting stupidy... for the ages to come !!
One thing is certain .....he got a lot of money from this climate BS :
Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa - WORLD PROPERTY JOURNAL Global News Center
www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/celebrity-homes-column-al-gore-tipper-gore-oprah-winfrey-michael-douglas-christopher-lloyd-fred-couples
...and doesn't seems to care about his own inconvienent truth tellings concerning cathastrophic floodings !!
Climate BS overview:
1970
Climate cooling - ice age coming (Al Gore)
1990
Climate warming - pole ice would completly be gone by 2013-2014 (Al Gore) rising of the oceans
2000
Climate change (Al Gore)
soon many cities under water
inconvenient truth
2010
Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa
2020
Obama Buys $14 Million Ocean-view Villa
Other climate change nutsos owning million dollar ocean estates:
john kerry, gates
Lol
If you could play on the stock exchange -just betting on change (either up or down)- you would always win ☺
@@Flamamacue
climate 1
Composition of air
According to NASA*. gases in Earth's atmosphere include:
Nitrogen - 78 %
Oxygen - 21 %
Argon - 0.93 %
Carbon dioxide (C02)- 0.04 % = 400ppm
Of o.o4 % Co2
-95% comes from nature (volcanoes/oceans/vegetation/animals etc...)
-5% from human activity
Human C02 in the air = 0.0016% !!
and that 0.0016% is the C02 percentage
they want to reduce to ....zero !!
to save the climate on earth !
how crazy can it get !!!
'climate change issues' are marketeerd on us .....it is a business construct
CO2 is a building block of nature ...as is water ....plants need water, CO2, sunshine etc
*Earth's Atmosphere: Compositioon, Climate & Weather | Space
www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html#:~:text=Composition%20of%20air,Argon%20%E2%80%94%200.93%20percent
scroll to the bottom ..
bonus:
'Climate change study on coral reef fish was '100 per cent wrong''
CZcams
czcams.com/video/xZ1WnNXY1To/video.html
If climate change started with the crowning of climate Pope... al gore the first.....DID THE CLIMATE, before his climate heighness' illuminating and very lucrative reign, NOT CHANGE ??
Was the climate of the days, months, decenniums and centuries...all the same ??
Or did al gore got himself the gold metal of gaslichting stupidy... for the ages to come !!
One thing is certain .....he got a lot of money from this climate BS :
Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa - WORLD PROPERTY JOURNAL Global News Center
www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/celebrity-homes-column-al-gore-tipper-gore-oprah-winfrey-michael-douglas-christopher-lloyd-fred-couples
...and doesn't seems to care about his own inconvienent truth tellings concerning cathastrophic floodings !!
Climate BS overview:
1970
Climate cooling - ice age coming (Al Gore)
1990
Climate warming - pole ice would completly be gone by 2013-2014 (Al Gore) rising of the oceans
2000
Climate change (Al Gore)
soon many cities under water
inconvenient truth
2010
Al Gore Buys $8.9 Million Ocean-view Villa
2020
Obama Buys $14 Million Ocean-view Villa
Other climate change nutsos owning million dollar ocean estates:
john kerry, gates
Lol
If you could play on the stock exchange -just betting on change (either up or down)- you would always win ☺
This debate didn’t sound like a scientific debate due to Bennett’s sales peach style. He was just there to give Craig a hard time, like peaching for the globalists. He lowered the standard and the bar for Craig, but we the public can see through. Craig is so much above this person.
When Bennet said, that higher temperatures drives the weather catastrophes he was wrong.
Its the temperature differences between the poles and the equator,
and his own animation shows that the warming concentrates on the poles, so the temperature differences declines,
and so the hurricanes and other extreme weather events will loose power.
Your comment makes zero sense and, in fact, is counterintuitive.
@@jimmyf9545 Temperatur differences are, what the weather drive. And even the corrupt IPCC agrees, that it's the polar regions that warme up the most, so the differences decline. What's wrong with the IPCC?
@@thomasbentele2468 you are so completely wrong. "Weather" is just our name for the patterns of flow in the atmosphere, and in fluids like the ocean and atmosphere, PRESSURE gradient forces drive flow, NOT temperature. Temperature is the measure of the average internal energy of the constituent particles of the fluid medium, including kinetic energy. When that energy cannot be radiated into space because the extra C02, CH4, and other greenhouse gas molecules we have put into the atmosphere over the last 100 years absorb and re-emit the infrared radiation like a extra blanket on your bed, the increased energy is expressed most obviously as higher surface temperatures, and when fluids increase in temperature, they expand, creating sharper pressure gradients in the atmosphere, making the weather MORE extreme. You should refrain from speaking with such confident ignorance.
@@karlerikpaulsson88 Thank you for your answer,
but in short I think you are completely wrong.
In your words, the low pressing Arctic will warm up more and press more against the high pressing Tropics, what leads to lower speed and smaller parts of the Atmosphere that's needed to achieve the equilibrium.
By the way I think it can't be true, that warmer surface air presses horizonally. Most of the warmer air goes up, where is unlimited space to expand.
I dont buy the CO2 religion at all,
so I wish you from my heart a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
@@thomasbentele2468 I am not wrong, and you have no ground to stand on to claim I am. There is no such thing as a "CO2 religion", that phrase proves that you have been subject to malicious propaganda. Let me be clear: this is not a debate between two people of equal standing, this is my field of expertise and your response is nonsensical, incoherent gibberish, so I am acting as your instructor and educating you. The atmosphere is trapped against the surface of the planet by gravity, so there is not an "unlimited space" in which it will expand. Pressure results from the mass of fluid above a location within a gravity field and momentum of the fluids motion, the gradients in the pressure field because the atmosphere is a compressible fluid and in constant motion. Keep in mind, the basics of this is much more simple than fluid dynamics: the Earth receives energy from the sun, and when the atmosphere is not being altered, there is an equal amount of energy being radiated back into space creating a thermodynamic equilibrium, ie stable temperature. However, since we ARE altering the composition of the atmosphere which is indisputable, less energy is being radiated into space than we get from the Sun because specific molecules (greenhouse gases) absorb it, hence the observed average temperature increase of the entire planet. I wish you would accept the fact you don't know what you are talking about, and be humble, curious and willing to learn. Anyways, merry Christmas and happy new year to you as well.
As a physicist myself I am utterly embarrassed by this bad, despicable behaviour of this Bennett person.
When someone uses ad hominem attacks and focuses on the popularity argument...he is utterly failing.
So true. It takes a trained person to dissect ad hominem and other demagogies from rational arguments, however. People usually fall when you use the right words to incite certain emotions.
Sure, but Craig (19:53) provided theories and speculations but no solid evidence for CO2 being the reason behind global warming. For example, he suggestively claimed to know about the weather of other planets. But we aren't even sure about the weather of our planet.
Fact; plant life needs CO2 to thrive and make oxygen and we need the oxygen the plants produce to thrive. And Vice Versa. We all learned this in grade school 🙄🙄🙄🙄
@@kickDustPedestrian To be fair other planets 17:30 i.e. Venus, have much simpler atmospheres than Earth. ~96.5% is CO2 the main problem with this argument there is no evidence earth is at risk of reaching 10% CO2 let alone ~96.5%. Earth CO2 is 0.03-0.04% depending on various sources. I don't even know if there's evidence it will reach 1%.
All that arguments potentially is proving is that CO2 helps the planet retain heat, which as far as I'm aware no one contests.
Bennet is disingenuous and dishonest in his arguments.
Jeffrey's arguments: "99% of scientists", "vast majority of scientists", "most of the scientists"...
That's called, authority argument...
And ending with "Think of the children." yeah, we've heard that before, and it's not a science based argument.
when scientists are "afraid" to say anything against this is reason to think something isn't right.....
No, it is called the scientific process.
99%, just like North-Korean election...
Thousands of dung beetle cant be wrong ...
I really liked that. There would never be anything like that here in Germany. Anyone who speaks out against the so-called climate crisis is equated with right-wing extremists or Nazis.
Argument from authority and appeal to emotion (along with snarky attitude) versus "let's look at the data." I know which way I'm voting.
Also always like how the anti-fossil-fuel folks speak only of the costs and not at all of the benefits, and rarely of how those benefits would be realized in any other practical way.
He talks about nuclear energy, and they both like it.
Margaret Thatcher: ‘Global Warming Provides A Marvelous Excuse For Global Socialism’
Exactly ...motives revealed
Ironic as she was the first world leader to promote funding of climate research focussing on AGW.
@@alchemy3264 Thatcher was a rare politician - she was willing to admit when she was wrong and change her point of view when confronted by the evidence. She took the same stance on Europe, at first an ardent supporter but, when the EU adgenda was finally exposed, she became a vehement critic.
@@Mark_Lacey what sort of a response was that?
Thatcher did what was expected of her by the establishment who she served. Like they all did. Why do you think monetarism was a global change? What a blind and naive response. The suffering caused by those policies and shift in national inequality says a lot about her and her supporters. I don't want to hear anymore from you. Yours is an hypocrisy too much.
@@alchemy3264 Thatcher didn't serve, she lead. Lead the UK out of the tyranny of the trade unions, the aggression of Argentina. The greatest post-war PM there ever was. Michael Foot, Jeremy Corbyn anyone? At least she loved her country. Yeah, before Thatcher the UK was much more equal. LOL. What did you think of Tony Blair?
One guy: makes a great point.
Other guy: are you disagreeing with thousands of scientists. 🤦♂️
If you don't watch this and clearly see that Jeffrey speaks from a place of emotion and "belief" and not science, you're blind. He didn't refute any of his points and, really, only says "Venus has more CO2 than Earth and 50,000 people have said this is a big dea." He then spends all his rebuttal on personal attacks. He only made me more skeptical
Of all the climate debates I have watched this one is the most compelling.
"We've got 1,000s of scientists"
That's the appeal to popularity fallacy.
no it's not.
No, if they had said people it would be appeal to popularity. Since they emphasized that it's scientists, it's actually an appeal to authority.
Most scientists these days are too afraid to express climate skepticism for fear of their jobs. I am a physicist myself and among my peers the majority have grave doubts about the whole issue. The scepticism is highest among those who studied solid, core science subjects like physics and chemistry.
Sirius Magus - Yes, heard about Mann’s hockey stick defeat from Mark Steyn, who was also sued by him. If you can’t trust the historical weather data upon which all this based the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
This unqualified moron's major argument for *man* induced climate change, opens with the weather on Venus. Really!! The fake, fallacious news that the earth is similar to Venus to justify climate change, is typical of the absurd alarmism proselytized by these politically motivated, left wing socialists and climate evangelists.Apart from their similar size and mass, the earth is not a giant rock but covered 2/3 by water. What would you expect the temperature to be on a planet that has a day 243 times longer than earth ? Of *What would the temp' be on a planet that has virtually no water and no humidity and an atmosphere thickly clouded over by sulfuric acid mist.
Then there's the blatant omission by this fool that Venus has a *dense atmosphere which is some 100 times thicker than the earth's.* Yet we hear Venus is proof by association, that minuscule changes in earth's CO2 is causing or about to result in catastrophic global warming! These claims are fanciful conjecture without any real scientific data to justify them. We know that the earth's atmosphere contains 0.04% CO2 but has been up to 10 times this concentration in the past which our ancestors not only lived through, but thrive in. Apparently these alarmists have no idea CO2 is NOT a pollutant but along with water and Heat, is the food for all life. FACT: not ONE of the speculative or computer generated doomsday predictions from these left wing loonies has ever come true, not one!
Anyway, why should we ever expect climate not to change as it has done for millions of years, thru several ice ages? What makes theses crusaders think fossil fuels meager contribution of 3% to atmospheric CO2 is controlling global temperature rather than the other 97% that comes from natural plant respiration, undersea volcanoes, earthquakes, deforestation, solar flares, ocean dipole effects etc etc? Of course, I could go on to articulate the other lies regarding the "97% consensus" or the much asserted sea level rise.
We all know why, dont we? Its all about left wing politics, power, ego, the redistribution of wealth, greed and the re-distribution of wealth along the lines of yes - Marxist socialism! *Just create a problem, along with the hysteria surrounding it, propose a possible cause and a solution and seek funding to study it.*
Even NASA had to admit, via satellite imaging, that the earth is greening the past 20 years.
NASA also admitted that there was no warming from 1998-2012. It's right there on its website.
@@darylfoster7944 Nope.
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
@@ComradeYinkai the rate of warming per decade from 1998-2012 was 0.09 F. That is effectively zero.
@@darylfoster7944 0.09 is effectively 0.09, which isn't that far off from previous decadal averages. Definitely not a pause, maybe a slowdown at most.
@@darylfoster7944 You dont even understand climate change. Spend a few hours why the AVERAGE is just that AVERAGE. czcams.com/video/UatUDnFmNTY/video.html
Two men stepped outside of their offices to take a smoke break. First man says, it sure is hot out.
Second man said, it must be global warming.
The first man said, no, it's summer.
so what?
@@russmarkham2197 they both die of lung cancer 30 years later
Difficult to have an honest debate, when one of the debaters is allowed to make patently false statements.
Still sitting on the fence and not taking a stand?
@@politicalfoolishness7491 No. Just would like Democrat leaders to pay a price for lying.
@@JohnBdog: But the science denying right and Trump are total truth tellers. /s LOL
@@JohnBdog: You mean like the claim carbon dioxide "acidifies" the ocean?
Because I don't know about you, but to my knowledge, carbon dioxide has no element of hydrogen contained within it, like HCl or NaOH (HCl = hydrochloric acid; NaOH = Sodium hydroxide). HCl is an acid, while NaOH is a base. But nowhere does carbon dioxide have a hydrogen component contained within it to make the oceans acidic.
@@politicalfoolishness7491: Actually, after everything I've learned, the whole climate alarmism is nothing more than a secular neo-Pagan religion with Gaea as its goddess, just like the pagan worship of old. Gaea was the worship of the planet itself, hence the zealotry of the climate alarmists, who have no scientific backing whatsoever for any claim they've made in the last 25 years.
I like how the alarmist states “the data shows this clearly” but doesn’t show the data... because it doesn’t
The data is in the studies and scientific journals. Go read, lazy.
So 11,000 scientists agree - Really? I'd like to know if there are even 11,000 climate/atmospheric scientists in the world anyway. Those who say this, think people specialising in something like nuclear medicine or anthropology know everything about climate or atmospheric cycles....which they do not. Once you specialise in a particular discipline you do so at the expense of all else. I know a guy with 4 diplomas - he's a head junky - and he knows nothing about how to hammer two bits of wood together.
@@paulstarr5706
Lol! I agree! But you are just ''almost'' spot on! The scam is worst...
You might like a lot this CZcams video that proves it:
''11,000 'scientists' warn about climate change? FAKE NEWS! | Ezra Levant''
Link: czcams.com/video/Vs3ZPGLPiss/video.html
@@RKDTOO
It seems that you are not as lazy as the rest of us...
Please can you give us only a few of the references in ''studies'' and ''scientific journals'' that you have read?
Thanks for answering!
Elliot
That's what I noticed also.
I also noticed that Mr. Bennett, while not showing the data, tries a lot to play on audiences emotions, even once bringing children in the picture. Finally, he was profligate in insulting Craig.
This is the modus operandi of all propagandists through history (marxistes, nazis, etc.).
Here is a professionally documented CZcams video which prove that human-caused climate change fury is a scam!
- ''HOW DARE YOU: 10 reasons not to believe climate change criers'' | by Liz Wheeler (Super relevant info in this video! - (‘’97% of climate scientists agree’’ - The ''science'' behind the ‘’human caused’’ climate change hoax is a scam emanating from a rudimentary google search made by activist ‘’scientists’’ with a hidden agenda!)
Link: czcams.com/video/i-qBOyrD0-0/video.html
Craig shows data, Bennet quotes the wall street journal
It was pretty evident that Bennet had no respect for objectivity.
Then he says they aren't scientists when they disagree with him
Not true. Craig uses compromised misinformation as Jeff pointed out. Jeff uses science as he pointed out, in case you missed that. Are you willfully ignoring that, which makes you a liar. Or are you not seeing it, which makes you something else.
@Brian Crowther how is one misinformation and the other science? Jeff used appeals to authority (thousands of scientists agree, but I'm not an expert), circular reasoning (a correlation proves there's a correlation), and ad hoc attacks (gaslighting Craig that supposed experts universally believe the opposite of Craig's interpretations without providing evidence that he has been discredited). Pretty pathetic tactics.
When Craig showef the graph about hurricanes not increasing in frequency or intensity (science), Jeff just said "The wall street journal is wrong" (misinformation). Unless you are saying the Wall Street Journal is always wrong, I find them to be somewhat reliable and journalism-focused among corporate captured media.
@@arczero1623 Jeff appeals to scientists the same way I appeal to support of Newtons laws by qualified physicists, not just an apeal to authority. Idso's data is unreliable the way Jeff described, I find the same of his types but the event is not the place to go into that, it is a trap. Wisely avoided. Do the work yourself. I've done it.
PS. Earth atmosphere is 0.03% Co2, Venus is 96.5% Co2. Atmospheric pressure on Venus surface is comparable to 3000 feet below the ocean surface.
The more CO2 the greener earth gets!
A point not made on CO2 and plants is that the raised CO"2 allows plants to grow in harsher areas i.e deserts because higher CO2 reduces transpiration (water) .
..CO2 levels in commercial greenhouses are deliberately kept at three-times natural levels..and, as you point out, plants grow a lot faster..
Stomatas on plants Closed with higher temps thanks to higher co2
@@hator2 ? How come plants thrive around oasis and irrigated lands?
@@rob-yt9didihydro oxide?
Indeed. You will be in the condition to conquer back fertile land from desert
I am embarrassed for the alarmist. As a child, he is emotional not logical.
"HOW DARE YOU!!!."
They all are. Thats their whole argument
"I'm not a climate scientist", "I can't tell you exactly what your misinterpreting"... This is scientist vs show man
I'm personally trying to get a grasp of this subject. One thing that I noticed is that Mr. Bennett minimized the proximity of Venus to the Sun vs Earth. As if being closer wasn't really something we should even consider, or that it was a minimal detail subordinate to C02 levels. Two things that are important related to Venus. 1, Venus receives nearly double the solar radiation as earth, 2,576 watts per square meter vs Earth's 1,321 watts. Secondly, C02 is 96% of the atmosphere on Venus vs .04% on Earth.
But back to the Venus energy input, it's double Earth and that is huge. If you convert 100F to Kelvin (310K) and double it, 620K results in 656F. So a place on Earth (excluding other variables) that regularly reaches 100F would reach 600F with double the solar energy from the Sun?
"Sure Venus is going to be a little closer to it (the Sun) but not enough to account for that enormous temperature difference" Completely incorrect using simple math and data available to everyone. If the Earth received the amount of solar energy that Venus does, it would be too hot to sustain life.
I don't know who is right about this but I do notice a trend with the alarmists to constantly fall back on appeal to authority and emotion which is a tendency for anyone who doesn't have the evidence on their side.
Hence bringing a child to spout their case. They are appealing to the heart..not the brain. Science should not need a child to put their case.
I dont see that at all - I see the so-called Alarmist keeping his cool and calmly delivering his argument. I noticed the other getting agitated several times. Its clear who the emotional one is here.
@@resurrectedstarships The science is all one sided. The opposition, get little opportunity to present their findings or their case. This debate was not worth having. It changes no ones mind either way. MSM and Social media are all one sided. So how can anyone get a balanced view of what is happening, when only one side gets to air their views ? As for Gretta, what does she know about the science ? All it tells me is that she, the child, is well scripted. Saying that, I don't doubt her passion.
You're right. Emotion appeal, especially fear is a very powerful tool to get people to go along with authoritarian rule.A lot of people are seriously worried the planet is ending in about 10 years. According to some politicians it should have ended 20 or 30 years ago.
Bennett uses appeal to authority as his centerpiece. Sad
I use it as well. I think the Universal law of gravitation is correct because many emminent scientists agree and are peer reviewed. On the same reasoning Jeff's use far outweighs the assertion made by the other guy, who's supporters would fit in a telephone booth. The point is, like the support of Newtons law is not a popularity contest based on authority neither are the ideas Jeff is espousing.
Jeff said a lot more than that. he tried to teach you the science but in very simple terms. That is nnot because he does not understand it, he does. He is a PHd astrophysicist and has been at that level for decades using the same science to deteremine planet and sun behaviour re temperature and gets it right, and when applied to earth and CO2 the writing is on the wall. So your assertion that authority is his main position is wrong.
Your comment is sad as it is incorrect and amounts to gas lighting the audience.
I use it as well. I think the Universal law of gravitation is correct because many emminent scientists agree and are peer reviewed. On the same reasoning Jeff's use far outweighs the assertion made by the other guy, who's supporters would fit in a telephone booth. The point is, like the support of Newtons law is not a popularity contest based on authority neither are the ideas Jeff is espousing.
Jeff said a lot more than that. he tried to teach you the science but in very simple terms. That is nnot because he does not understand it, he does. He is a PHd astrophysicist and has been at that level for decades using the same science to deteremine planet and sun behaviour re temperature and gets it right, and when applied to earth and CO2 the writing is on the wall. So your assertion that authority is his main position is wrong.
Your comment is sad as it is incorrect and amounts to gas lighting the audience.
Craig is basically calm. Jeffrey is not.
So what? Maybe poor Jeff is right and the situation for the Earth is not at all calm?
50,000 peer revue papers means they are the ones getting all the funding and they want more despite none of their predictions coming true.
Interesting how the alarmist chooses Venus as a comparator to earth. If you include Mars, you see that CO2 concentrations aren’t the smoking gun. What does seem more relevant is atmospheric pressure. If you compare the temperatures on each of the three planets at altitudes with similar atmospheric pressures, you see something very instructive.
But Mars has VERY little atmospheric pressure. Stop the science arm waving nonsense -- you make no more sense than a flat earther re such a claim.
@@rogergeyer9851 lol .. that’s the sort of response I would expect from a moron or a liar. The false Equivalency to flat earther suggests the latter... the lack of atmospheric pressure on mars is precisely the point.
👏😆...This Roger dude is completely oblivious.
Merlin for president!
and water vapor
That Bennett guy does not need arguments. He has THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of science.
Three years later and the science is up to billions!
I learned more! Thank you for the information and both views. The Earth's ecosystem is amazing, very complex!
Jeff (the second speaker) was paniced in rebuttal and resorted character and association assassination rather than scientific rebuttals of Craigs position (the first speaker) or proposals.
When you revert to name calling, you've lost the argument
This was a great debate. Thank you.
Somehow, people who believe in catastrophic climate change always appear to believe that I have an obligation to agree with them, rather than them having an obligation to convince me of their apocalyptic predictions. The three most common things I hear from people when I ask them to make the case for it are 1) they're not an expert, 2) they're not familiar with the specific data off-hand, and 3) "experts" who do exist agree with them, and therefore so should I. This seems to be the case at every level I've encountered so far. Friends and family, "skeptics" I follow on social media, intelligent members of academia, etc. And here, I hear it again multiple times in this debate from an astronomer no less.
I thought that if I kept climbing up the food chain, at some point someone would stop pointing to these other experts, and would be able to actually tell me themselves why I should believe that climate change will destroy or seriously impair our civilization (other than the obviously oxymoronic "scientific consensus"). I'm growing less confident in that by the day. It looks like it's turtles all the way down.
Lookup the Diehold Foundation's proofs of cataclysm in the soil layers and in the ice core too :) ...they are as rhythmic as the galactic clock, polar reversals and the sun going nova, and another one is coming on Oct 16, 2046. You'll love the actual proofs as nothing has been left out and they are replicable; in fact, they are a training program as videos to go with the textbooks.
The same amount of scientists percentage wise that deny climate science are the same percentage that deny smoking causes cancer lmao.
The consensus is in sorry
@@dphockey131 You just made the exact same argument from popularity/authority, and I still don't have an obligation to agree with it.
Consensus isn't how science arrives at truth, and it isn't why I believe that smoking causes cancer. There is a thing called evidence.
Science isn't conducted by putting smart people in a room together and asking them what they think.
@@dphockey131 but you have people like bill nye whos an engineer in the 97%, then you have richard lindzen whos one of the leading atmospheric physicists in the world in the 3%. And no one dare debate him on tv.
@@upasakalee "Consensus isn't how science arrives at truth, and it isn't why I believe that smoking causes cancer. There is a thing called evidence." You're right, science decides what is true based on evidence, and the reason there is overwhelming consensus amongst people who actually study global climate change that humans caused recent warming is because there is overwhelming evidence proving it. FYI: All the major predictions of the theory of man-made global warming have come true and there are 14 different climate models that accurately predicted how much our additional emissions would warm the planet. Climate scientists already have the global warming part figured out and have moved onto harder problems regarding regional impacts and feedback loops.
You can't fool anyone ,when all the evidence can be viewed .i love the internet
If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that threaten the survival of plants, which require a minimum of 150 ppm to survive. If plants die all the animals, insects, and other invertebrates that depend on plants for their survival will also die.
the nuclear power plant just a few miles away from me was built in 1975. alarmists who claim no nuclear because of all the waste it produces, since 1975 the waste it produced still has not fill a room that is 9x10, when the plant was build, they built 100 rooms 60 feet under ground, liner with lead, concrete and steel. there is enough room to store waste for over 1000 years of production, now they are switching to thorium, which will generate roughly 10x less waste,,
Idso: Lets look at Earth and contradictions between Alarmist expectations and Observed measurements. Bennett: Lets talk about another planet which is utterly and totally different from Earth and conflate the two.
totally agree, how utterly absurd. Talk about snake oil sales techniques.
Venus that has different parameters one day on Venus lasts 243 Earth days. The planet orbits the Sun faster than Earth, however, so one year on Venus takes only about 225 Earth days, making a Venusian day longer than its year. So why is he using that planet making the false claim that the two planets are similar? Hilarious that he even tried that garbage.
The point is that this forum intentionally brought on someone who is an expert on climate on other planets, not on the Earth. Someone who is an expert on Earth's climate change would have easily debunked Idso's claims and framing of the issue. I suspect they didn't want that, they wanted to create the illusion of a meaningful debate. Meanwhile, the evidence is overwhelming humans have caused recent global warming, and I suspect Idso knows that.
Well, that’s why you should never let astrophysicist talk about anything, which has to do with our life, economy and our kids future… they get their degree by talking about things which can only be proven to be true by themselves… even worse sind cosmologists and string theorist. Their ideas can not be proven even by themselves.
@@1346bat The debate looks like it was rigged: Had they brought on a real expert on the Earth's climate, they could have proven quickly human activity IS warming the Earth. The evidence is overwhelming.
He assumes skeptics aren't reading the papers. We're just skeptical and you don't understand unintended consequences.
By my reading of the science, the ocean isn't rising much and I think the newer satellite data show this, the continents are sinking at the coasts and that's not caused by warming.
On the Atlantic coast of America there has been costal erosion forever. That said alarmist are saying oh see the ocean is rising. No the beach is washing away and has nothing to do with the earth's temperature.
I am with Craig. CO2 is essential to life.
Water is too, but too much of it and you drown. Damn, bunch of fucking fools and manipulators in this comment section.
Not according to Supreme Court Judge Roberts who we can thank for ruling with the leftist Judges on the Court that CO2 is a pollutant and thus subject to the EPA’s esoteric machinations. Thanks to Roberts all the Greens now have a potent weapon needed in order for them to harass, restrain, sue, manage, halt projects and utilize government bureaucracies to slow, alter and stop a myriad of beneficial entrepreneurial activities etc. In terms of individual liberty the Greens have been allowed/encouraged to obfuscate, misrepresent, misinterpret and manipulate data in order to justify the drastic alterations of the economy that they have been most obvious about.
They want America to become a Socialist state and they desperately want to end Capitalism that all religions view as evil because Capitalism is based on selfishness. Capitalists are individuals who are primarily concerned with their own life their own self interest and the overwhelming desire to strive for one’s own values and happiness. If you were drowning and so was my daughter and I wasn’t sure I had time to save you both, without a second of thought or hesitation I would save my daughter and then and only then I would do everything ,except overly risk my life , in my power to save you. Even if I knew the government would execute me for not choosing to save the stranger first because putting your personal values above the State mandate to give equal help to anyone in need which requires you to sacrifice and saving your daughter first is not a sacrifice because you’re actually saving one of your greatest values, your daughter.
Of course the last was fictional however conceptually with everything that our government reps have accepted and are accepting ideologically it’s not as far leap to that fiction as you might think.
"How do you explain severe weather events are doing down?" "Uhh ..i am not a climate scientist"
I have no scientific training at all and even I can rebut Bennett's argument,
Bennett follows the path of all alarmists, he glosses rapidly over non-facts, he appeals to "authority" for almost everything he says and then jumps on the emotion bus claiming the disasters are based on evidence. However, his argument is totally bereft of facts.
Next time, Soho Forum, please find a competent alarmist. Bennett was embarrassing.
and he always say, 'we all know that' after almost everything he says
Who would you have put forth, and what would they have done differently? I don't want to be that guy who just talks shit here, but... come on. This is CAGW we're talking about.
@@LuciusC LOL, nice....and right on!
Apparently, it is a challenge to get anyone on the alarmist side to actually debate the topic.
"competent alarmist" thats funny lol
Bennet immediately starts talking around the issue. i don't recall anyone ever disputing the greenhouse effect as a scientific concept, that was not, and is not the question at hand
The Greenhouse effect does not exist. If it did, then it could explain Venuses atmospheric temperatures, but it doesn't, it fails. Check out channel PhD 1000frolly for some more on that.
Here is an experiment that demonstrates some czcams.com/video/FgjT_665T6U/video.html
@@haliaeetus8221 Actually, it does exist. Without greenhouse effect it would be cold like Russian Hell. But it is not linear. When the 20 THz band has been blocked, blocking it again does not make it much different.
@@hartunstart Actually you admitted it does not exist.
The name itself is a misnomer.
Call it something else. And why not go see the basis to my point in the places I already referred to so you understand the point I'm trying to make.
@@haliaeetus8221 Making an experiment at wavelength of roughly 700 nm range through 10 cm of gas does not tell much, what happens at 15000 nm through 10 km of air. The effect is so small it is drowned by noise.
Funny thing, even in the real climate CO2 effect is mostly drowned by the noise by water.
What most people (including many "climate scientists") don’t seem to get is that Joseph Fourier thought he was seeing what we now call "the greenhouse effect" but in fact what he was seeing, in de Saussure’s boxes, was how greenhouses actually work. - Preventing convection.
_The GHE theory is ALL about radiation_.
But radiation is NOT the _principle_ method of heat transport in a liquid like our 71% oceans or a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere.
_Here it is convection & conduction_ (!) that carry the _Lion’s share_ of heat up out of the troposphere. Thermodynamics 101.
Convection and conduction disburse heat accumulated unevenly due to whatever cause (clouds, albedo, etc.). Even if radiative forcing were true (it's not), convection & conduction easily overpower its feeble attempts to stratify thermal energy and keep surplus heat at surface. ^Heat causes ^evaporation. This water vapour convects, bypassing the absorption layer & condenses near the tropopause, releasing latent heat which is then radiated mainly to space. The open atmosphere does NOT work as a "blanket", because it doesn't constrain convection (a major cooling mechanism). This "blanketing effect" was first proposed by Fourier in 1827 and is based on a misconception about how glass greenhouses work. It's simply wrong.
160 years is a blip in the earth timescale, in fact 160 years are exactly 2 dots in polar ice core samples. Two dots!
Data of this tiny time period is insignificantly tiny for any valid projection.
I feel sorry for Jeffrey. He didn't support his position very well. Craig has facts and there are many, many more.
Bennett (CO2 alarmist) closes with a "write a hyprocritical letter, to your hypothetical grandchildren" exercise (of course, you are required to write it from the starting assumption that he is right), purely designed to make the participant feel guilty for an outcome of his determination. That's not "debate", that's "emotional blackmail"
As a scientific lay person, but open minded to what's happening to the climate. I have to say Craig at least appears, more knowledgeable and convincing than Jeffrey, who has the demeanour closer to a salesman than a scientist.
Problem is, half the faculties & scientists are on the take ; the industry has lost its credibility.
Honestly, a lot of the criticism he's brought isn't the first time I've heard it, it's just largely been dismissed, the defense of Climate change though hasn't changed at all because of that. It's kind of insane when you think they've probably had careers on tax payer funding somehow.
Agreed.
You are so right, Jeffrey doesn’t talk like a scientist.
There is no climate crisis…. The climate has been changing since the beginning…!!!
Jeffery Bennett needs to contact the college he attended and ask for a refund.
If I close my eyes and use my imagination I can hear Copernicus arguing with his peers who lob insults at his intellect by insinuating his theory must be a conspiracy because he is ignoring the volumes of peer reviewed papers proving the earth was at the centre of the universe.
"I'm an astronomer who's looking at what the experts are saying."
That's an appeal to authority fallacy.
All he had was "you think this is a conspiracy"? Well, funny you say that because YES! Its a constant conspiracy between government and policy makers and socialists, academics and the media and so on, so YES is one giant conspiracy trying to pull the wool over a sleeping populace. Duh!
no it's not.
@@raffiliberty5722 Well either that or just plain stupidity combined with partial knowledge. The oldest example of knowledgeable fools would be priests, who could talk and make references endlessly.
Or it's those combined, some of this, some of that. For sure also personal finance bias and other kind of things that corrupt search for truth only.
He means that every single one of us have pretty much the same competence as he does... We all have some sort of degree and we all can look up on what the experts are saying... Lol...
".... there is no feedback known ..."
What do climate scientists and modelers fail at the most? It is to account for clouds. If warming at a certain point starts producing a lot of low level cumulus clouds, then it is game over for the warming. Warming -> more water vapor -> more clouds -> higher albedo -> cooling.
You can actually see this in real time everyday in the tropics. Hotter days leads to cloudy days.
it's very refreshing reading the comments and it gives me hope that average person can debunk these climate fraudsters. Imagine declaring a natural gaseous compound critical to plant life as being dangerous to it and the planet. Lowering CO2 = No plants = No human life.