'What Percent Of Our Atmosphere Is CO2?': Doug LaMalfa Stumps Entire Panel With Climate Questions
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 04. 2023
- Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) questioned witnesses at a House Transportation Committee about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act late last month.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
Remarkable how ignorant these people are that push these green initiatives. I’m glad they got exposed.
Help me understand what you mean. Is it that .04% is inconsequential?
Here is an interesting Mythbusters clip on the idea. Their experiment also uses methane levels measured in parts per billion
czcams.com/video/pPRd5GT0v0I/video.html
What is CONSEQUENTIAL is that fact that all this green social engineering is being driven by woke politicians who get their information from “experts” that don’t even know the basics, like the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thank you for showing that you have such a woke bias that you missed that most salient point.
@@gossumx we have had much higher levels and the planet had far more life on it
@@gossumx One of them claimed transportation is 49% of CO2...
Completely absurd.
The voters are all still parroting these lies. So they continue to vote for the corruption thats pocketing the money. To be fair, it's not all bad. EPA/CARB has done some good but at what cost? It was all band-aid fixes. Now California roads are garbage, money spent elsewhere. Electrical Infrastructure is approaching 60 years behind upgrades. Now we need electric cars? California can not handle the ones we got. Locally a transformer blew up last week. Age? Life-cycle acceleration? Demand? Young voters are voting for this.
How embarrassing and disgraceful it is that people who are in charge literally know nothing about the things they are forcing onto the general public, despicable.
At best it makes them easily manipulatable.
So global warming is a myth? Does the knowledge of Congress change the facts? You're scared, so you're dissembling.
Remember their chant "Follow the science!" Pretty sure science could bite them on the @$$ and they wouldn't recognize it.
That's what happens when Congress is only the first step to the big money with lobbyists and govt/private partnership. Follow the money.
Politics as usual
OMG what a incompetence. And those people are making decisions? We are moving to "Idiocracy".
Moving? We are well past that stage.
Can you explain to me the significance of being able to come up with this number? Can you tell me what percentage of radon in the air is considered hazardous by the EPA?
@stargazer7644 The significance is these people claim to be experts. Yet they do not understand something as basic as that number. As for radon that's more EPA. Out doors normal background. Is roughly .4 pCi/L. Once that gets between 1 and 2 it's a concern. 4 is the EPA action level. How do I know thus? I Looked it up. The same as these so called experts should have.
@@stargazer7644 the significance is children learn that at school. If they were unable to learn something specific for their job from school they aren’t even incompetent, they are just ignorant.
@@Mythhammer These are politicians. They do not claim to be experts. They consult experts, and they make laws. You didn't answer the question I asked. What percent of radon in air is 4 pCi/L? What is the significance of that number? Why is it 4 and not 2, or 400? You're demonstrating my point. The fact that you were able to pull 4 out of the internet doesn't tell you anything about the significance of that number. Even if one of the reps had uttered 400 parts per million, that wouldn't mean they know any more than you do why 4 pCi/L is significant, or have any idea how that relates to a percentage of radon in air.
All he really needed to ask was "Who finances your research" that will tell you everything about what that panel are up to. Embarrassing they didn't know the answer to his first question
Yes. Good point!
97% of scientists discover what they are paid to discover!
@@wheelsofafricathat's how the cigarette industry used to operate and the fossil fuel industry still does.
He will never ask that because most of his campaign donations come from the oil industry.
yup! Follow the cash. I remember Obama saying, "No one should own more than one house". He owns four the last I heard. All beach front mansions. This is after he was president. that should tell you all you need to know about most politicians. They go in pour, and come out rich. so the question is, where is the money coming from and why do you love it, more than your own people (country)?
My physics textbook from 1970 states CO2 is 0.04%. Now more than 50 years later the answer still is.....0.04%.
(Edit: Now it is a year later and I have been inundated with replies (several hundreds). Some are polite and some are nasty and arrogant. I worked in a qualitative/quantitative/thermal analysis laboratory for 34 years at a large university. Please do not insist that atmospheric CO2 is never reported as a percent. That is incorrect. I had a state of the art Gas Chromatograph, and reports were always generated as percentages in scientific notation which makes sense because you cannot report "contents" in different units when the normalized total is 100%. Lastly, the original comment was a simple factoid which for some odd reason offends many people. I am 71, and if I said that "55 years ago I saw something unusual or interesting", why would you countermand it? It was a very simple statement that (at the time) I had no reason to disbelieve or believe; my life has not revolved around this textbook. My basic point is: why is everyone quibbling over 40 to 45 ppm of CO2? Please accept that IMO it is not harmful. If you have a different opinion that is fine with me. IMO, stating that CO2 has risen by a third in the last century means nothing to me. Stating it has risen by 45 PPM in the last 60 years is at least objective. Please refrain from posting comments that are not objective. Thank you.
It's always been a big lie ! 😪
@@rkeith4442 It's all about power and control, and money.
Gods pretty good at taking care of planets :)
but some day it might go up to 0.0401%. and we're going to pretend that's a bad thing.
@@guillermoelnino, it'll be a good thing, because it's good for vegetation, actually.
The ignorance of those who would presume to regulate our lives is staggering.
It's not ignorance it's greed.
Who is attempting to regulate our lives? Seems like anyone with power is on the fast track.
The greenhouse effect was demonstrated around 1850. Oil and gas has known of global warming from burning fossil fuels since the 1950's.
The issue started going public in the 1980's.
Coincidentally the tobacco knew about addiction to nicotine and extreme health risks due to smoking in the 1950's but kept it out of the public discourse for decades. I graduated high school 1965. Despite their knowledge of health risks and probably because of the knowledge of addiction cigarette companies where handing out smokes at blue collar work places and marketing the hell out their product.
Self interest over the good of all.
That is who is attempting to regulate or avoid regulation that would change the flow of cash.
Why are so many Americans ignorant of the whole picture? People commenting on this video seem, for the most part, to cling to and repeat only the stuff that suits their biases.
One thing I would ask is just how much change to affect production of fossil fuels or change to an economy that is more sustainable have we seen and how much has it cost?
By 1990 the US had spent $10 T on the nuclear portion of the cold war ($20 T in 2020 dollars). None of that benefited the ordinary American.
@@wallyhunt I agree, it’s flooring to see such ignorance en masse.
@Wallace Hunt looks like you also are just clinging to what people you agree with are saying.
@@wallyhunt The cold war effort benefitted none? Are you a moron? Seems like you are.
The birth of electronics industry that puts millions of people to work around the world stems from cold war.
Inventions that stems from the space effort that originates from that same cold war puts another few millions of people around the globe to work.
From chemicals industry to textiles to plastics. Even the chemical that turns your ordinary frying pan to nonstick ones came from that cold war.
Clearly you can't see any of these since your IQ point is the same value as the CO2 in the atmosphere
Can these people please resign immediately?
If this committee worked for me, they'd be gone the very next minute. You're all fired! Done, get out. Next.
I would propose them to breathe 5% CO2 air for half an hour. Just as an experiment.
It’s a total humiliation that those panelists can’t answer such a simple question while wanting to impose $multi-billion laws.
Frankly they should all resign.
Man, what a con job. The panelists not being able to answer that simple question masked the fact that rep LaMalfa's premise was total nonsense.
Every politician around the world will be out of a job very soon.
The Perfect Government is coming soon 😇
I believe one was BOYD of Boyd Trucking, answering a Diesel question too.
It would appear as though our government is sabotaging its own country and they're doing it with useful idiots
be executed you mean...
If you rephrase "Ban CO2" as "Ban plant food", you see how ridiculous this whole agenda is.
Me and my friends concur!
Just because co2 is necessary, it doesnt mean that more is good. The balance is important. If there were more fractionally more oxygen then fire wouldn't be extinguished and we'd all burn.
So writing off climate change as bogus isnt a good idea either.
Idiocracy
With that sentence you just make yourself ridiculous because you show that you dont understand the topic.
Bevore humans started burning fossile coal and gas plants already grew and the co2 concentration in the air was constant. So if we stop buring stuff plants will still grow.
Like talking to a 4 year old kid...
BINGO! But "Pant Food" sounds silly especially if Christopher Monckton of Brenchley says it. But "Essential component of photosynthesis" is too much of a mouth full. I dunno there really needs to be some really good bumper sticker/sound bite to get the point across.
On thing is for sure LaMalfa's got common sense. We just love our farmers!
Common sense is often quite silly. This is a great example. 0.04% sounds like nothing, but that just means human contributions make a bigger difference. He’s making the exact opposite point of what he thinks.
Thank you Mr. LaMalfa!
We need more people like you!
Dumb people in Congress? No, we already have more than enough.
Rep. Doug LaMalfa exposed that Ship of Fools.
these are people making equipment not policy wonks, so they are not to blame
@@samthing4thetrack806 Yet, they promote the fallacy, take the subsidies, and don't question it.. yeah, totally unrelated, its not their fault..🙄
Someone needs to take out all the Biden’s now. We need to stop f ing around and do it
@@samthing4thetrack806 They are part of the policy process and yet they know nothing.
regardes their bank accounts by merican system of ''values'' they aint so morons as they are in reality.
If the people on the panel have any authority then America is stuffed.
Dear sir , you got some optimistic expectation about that ??
@@shaneanderson7757 it real doesn’t work that way. Some of it is that way but not even close to all. It’s a perfect storm of the greedy, ideological, and psychotic. We have bureaucrats with power you couldn’t imagine and they answer to no one.
@Alexander Everhart the government exists to infringe on your God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Kind of explains everything that's going on in the US. Crime, the economy and it's getting worse.
Creating and solving non existing problems for political gain is a recipe for disaster.
As too Here in Australia!
Sad thing we lives in times where people who makes sense with truth are not listened to
I am so glad that CZcams provides context notes for this. Man I would just be lost if they didn’t tell me how to think.
They want to set the rules, and claim to be the experts, but they don't understand the basics of the topic. What else is new?
They’re just executives passing on what their employees told them😂
Proof that a college education is worthless and ppl need to walk away from their indoctrination camps called “educational institutions.”
They spout what the WEF tells them to.
@@tiberianexcalibur Coincidentally, .04% is the exact amount of brain function the climate nutters have.
Human induced climate change is an established fact; they don't need to go back to the fundamentals of it when discussing legislation.
If you went to order carpet from a store would you expect the salesperson to ask if you knew how many square inches are in a square foot? Not relevant to the conversation.
How unfortunate that non-technical people are making technical decisions with no idea about what they are doing.
They are wrong only by 20000%, so there is still a very small chance they are not going to deliver well planned disaster 😂🤬
For "non-technical" read "uneducated"...
@@tedthesailor172you can change uneducated to dastardly an that one one because reports on such numbers are hidden greatly from public view and access in order to push a warrantless agenda, like the man said, at 0.002% plant life becomes unsustainable, we're barely double that.
Welcome to politics haha
When have you ever known our government to know what they're doing?
If that isn't an eye opener then what is?? 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Nice work by LaMalfa, I've been impressed with him and happy he represents my district.
We can't have these people make decisions for us anymore.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
The first book of/on science is the Bible and it’s reliable.
@@MrJohnL21 Only when this country self destructs and/or is destroyed by external forces. It appears to be terminal.
Representatives instead of leaders.
You realize these panelists are industry folks, not politicians or scientists, right? Mr. Boyd, for example, was there representing the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. Mr. Dreher was representing Associated Builders and Contractors. Y'all making fun of industry execs representing their respective business interests, who for the most part agree with you.
Crazy how y'all will jump on anybody that looks like they might be "woke" without doing any actual thinking.
A classic example of politicians introducing laws for things they totally don’t understand
It's the problem when decisions are made based on emotions rather than facts.
Mulvayny comes running down
@alanrace4156 - Most of our lawmakers are 'Jack of all trades, but masters of none'.
Money and emotion seem the rule. 🤔
All they understand is money and how much this new bill can make for them
I’m live in Michigan and suffered through the Gov Granholm era here. I worked in public utility regulation for 30 years. Granholm tried to impose a 90% reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. When my agency and utility private sector experts informed her that the equipment to measure that level of emissions did not exist her response was “if we impose the regulation then the industry will invent the necessary instruments.”
They still cannot measure mercury emissions that small.
So of course Biden made her Secretary of DOE. She is an attorney with zero technical knowledge of energy.
After following the climate change narrative for decades, and knowing human history, I am far more concerned for the freedom and rights of my children and grandchildren being taken from them in the name of climate change, than the actual effects of climate change.
You are more worried about people driving electric cars than parts of the planet being uninhabitable?
It is a narrative. Last time I checked plants need cO2 to produce oxygen.
@@mdog6726 ...but the grains that provide the bulk of our food rapidly lose their ability to do that above 90 degrees F. You need to check more of the story.
@@jjhpor are you still following the government food pyramid? Grains are causing most of our health issues.
The planet has been hotter, and colder.
People did fine.
Climate cultusts tend to ignore that we are in a warm period and doing very well.
When it is cold, humans civilization does not do well.
Saying a rise in CO2 will make the planet uninhabitable, proves you have zero knowledge of the past temperatures we know of.
My cousin has a bumper sticker that says "Climate Change - The Religion of the Stupid".
Priceless!
Your cousin should be careful because he/she might have their car vandalized by an unhinged, rabid, violent, intolerant socialist/leftist cultist. Greetings from Australia.
they gonna arest him .
He insults the stupid.
Way this planet is going they will be able to cover the vehicle completely in stickers
The ignorance of the so called experts is absolutely overwhelming.
Overwhelming, but far from surprising. The "climate cult" is called such for a reason. These people are literally insane.
the best one I've heard is during a house committee investigation , an oil CEO asking the head of the Environment Protection Agency
"how come there is crude oil in the Arctic "...the guy shrugged and answered it must have migrated there " ......the oil man smiled and said nothing ,
he knew the oil was formed some millions years ago when the north pole was ice free and full of vegetation
@@sparkyfromel Are we talking the formation of crude oil or coal?
@@man_at_the_end_of_time oil and gas
@@sparkyfromel Ok that was a bit rhetorical of a question on my part.
Oil and gas per the biogenic theory of origin comes from marine organisms not land plants. And how productive each region of ocean is for sediments resulting in kerogen once it is free of ice cover may not vary too wildly. As to global warming, there is a factor most ignore and that is the weakening of our planet's magnetic field.
It maybe a much stronger factor than CO2.
It is said by some most of the green house effect comes within the first couple of hundred ppm of CO2 such current increases in CO2 have negligible effects.
Currently, I've not formed a strong opinion except that those who push the CO2 heating theory are a best poorly informed and at worst are pushing a false narrative for profit and even malice. Could the elites be correct? Maybe somewhat but even their solutions may be worse than the problem.
I am more focused on WW3 (end times), economic crash, increasing of totalitarian controls, the Covid and Vaxx crimes being pushed by Facebook, the UN, the WHO, the UK,. the USA, China, etc, etc.
glad they thought it was funny ... gives us all a lot of confidence
Thank you
This is crazy! How on earth is this level of ignorance acceptable from people who claims to know how we should live!?
✡️s
what you say is so important. Here in France same problem, our leaders are so ignorants, it is scary.
The people who would vote emotionally will accept it, or he knows the truth but he's on some external payroll
Imma get u banned👊👌
They rely on advisers that supposedly are in the know. That is how these organisations get captured by idiots or people with an agenda to drive through. No one questions the narrative because they are too ignorant of the realities of science and other "reality based" subjects to have their warning bells rung (ie recognise a scam). Too many of the populace are also scientifically ignorant and will just believe anything they are told, providing it comes from the" right sources, tugs at their emotions, and is repeated enough.
Politicians are the only people who can get away with being this absurdly incompetent at their jobs.
The job isn't about competence, it's about networking
Absolutely not! You are forgetting the media or better yet fake journalists. The incompetence starts where the "news" comes from, only after that do you take a look at the sources.
I'd like to add WeatherMen.
These politicians are not the ones considering themselves experts. That's why they have these hearings. This farmer clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about, he just found a random piece of trivia online and is parroting it. He literally says at 1:34 that .03 to .04 is a small change. Its actually 33% change if you do the math. I wouldn't expect a farmer to understand that though, nor the implications. It's probably best left to the climate experts.
@@yokotaashi wow 33% sounds like a lot when you forget it’s referencing a measurement in the ten-thousandths. Of course it’s easy to fool the public when manipulating the view of statistics, isn’t it?
...this is outrageous... none of them ever took time to check the validity of the concepts they are pushing?!! These people can be "used" by any lobbyist to do their bidding...
Fascinating
Democrats and common sense don't mix.
Democraps and stupidity are one and the same. Can't fix stupid.
Democrats and sense dont mix.
Oil and cents do
Yes cos its all done on emotion and NOT on science facts
What a group of Thicko's
Oil and water, oil and water.
This is a perfect example of the government jumping into an industry and "just doing something" to make it appear that they are more capable than industry, regardless of the "little" details.
It's a perfect example of government inventing a crisis to justify more and more controls.
This is a perfect example of a bunch of people who have no idea what you’re talking about. Trying to make a decision. Including the narrator. Oh look this is a really small number. I should be able to ignore then.
He’s just as ignorant as the people he’s calling out.
@@neilkurzman4907
Do you even know what clouds are made of bud..? Cause that's your real Global Warmer right there..
Are you gonna blow 🌬 them off planet with a really Big Fan..?
The same as gun control.
@@aowi7280 Perfect example.
Its terrifying that they still don't know the percentage 'today', but use it as a cudgel to force the continued scaremongering...
And if you don't understand how much that percentage has changed since the industrial revolution, then you're not in any position to comment
And if you don't understand how much that percentage has changed since the industrial revolution, then you're not in any position to comment
And if you don't understand how much that percentage has changed since the industrial revolution, then you're not in any position to comment
And if you don't understand how much that percentage has changed since the industrial revolution, then you're not in any position to comment
And if you don't understand how much that percentage has changed since the industrial revolution, then you're not in any position to comment
His point about how plant life starts dying at 0.02% CO² is the really critical number here, at that tipping point , the biosphere is unable to replenish carbon dioxide and plant life starts towards a death-spiral taking us with it because those plants are what produces the oxygen we breathe... 😒
We don't need plants to produce oxygen. Oxygen is too numerous that even all plants die, we will still have oxygen to breath. When some plants die, it stop eating our precious CO2, and its corpse decompose and return carbon to the cycle. The problematic are those seashell that convert co2 to carbonate and fall into the ocean floor.
How is this supposed to be a critical number? CO2 levels in the atmosphere aren't going to decrease at all in the next centuries (instead they are increasing rapidly) and are definitly not going to crash far beneath pre industrial levels...
@@jakob321123 it can be a critical number in a rather longer time span. Something like millions of years. First life exist 3 billons years ago. So, millions of years is a relatively short period of time. It is not impossible because sea creature convert co2 in to carbonate and permanently sink into the ocean. And the effect is catastrophic to all lifeform on earth.
P.s. not due to oxygen. But food source. No plant = no animal = no food for human
@@jakob321123 It's all about balance. With world population looking more and more likely to fall in the next decade, all emissions will fall as well. Coupled with technologies to lower emissions already and Carbon Capture technology becoming more and more efficient and viable, we could over do it in the next century; pulling too much CO2 out of the atmosphere. The fact that Atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 50% in the past 200 years means that we can vary the amount quickly. The fact that we are still close to the minimum needed means we could just as easily in the near future go too far that way as well.
@@davidtherwhanger6795 This is completly unrealistic. Carbon capture technology is in its infancy and will likely never reach a large enough scale. Just think about the insane mass of gas, coal and oil beeing extracted and put into the atmosphere as CO2 each year. More than that would have to be recaptured und stored annualy which would be prohibitively expensive and extreamly inefficient and the chemistry behind that wont change in the future. It is a "wonder technology" promoted by certain polititians to have an excuse to not lower CO2 emissions because this technology will save us all. Current models don't predict CO2 levels to decrease to pre-industrial levels in the next 100s to 1000s of years which most definitly isn't the "near future". Furthermore, how would anyone in the future be stupid enough to pay ridiculous amounts of money to lower CO2 levels to dangerously low levels?
My high school level of chemistry allowed me two decades later to guess “less than .1 percent”.
It’s baffling that people who make their living out of it not only don’t know the actual number but actually missed it by a factor of 100-200 times…
Its an actual conspiracy led by clueless idiots who laugh and guess.
Insane
Same
@ashes-7425 from Britanica:
"at the elevation of the planet’s mean radius it is about 95 bars, or 95 times the atmospheric pressure at Earth’s surface. This is the same pressure found at a depth of about 1 km (0.6 mile) in Earth’s oceans."
Did you ever stop to think that using extraplanatary examples may not win you any arguments? You are right that it's mostly CO2, but it's a dumb thing to mention if you're going to pretend it's the same thing at all.
The point is, stop repeating things you hear from these people, because they will always twist facts in their favor.
@@ashes-7425 apologies. I thought you were saying that greenhouse gasses will certainly kill us because look at Venus.
Being hyperbolic, of course, but no need to rehash it.
Rodolfo that is exactly what I was thinking, the basic high school education.......I'm thinking even earlier than high school........78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen. I would not expect them to say 0.04 percent, but I would at least expect them to say 1% takes in everything else that's not nitrogen and oxygen. Any tiny less than 1% number, I could understand not having the exact number on the tip of their tongue, but five percent? Seven percent? Disgraceful.
All you have to do if you are wondering why America is falling hard...watch videos like these.
I watch videos about female penis, or listen to our president talk to get that effect.
America is falling hard because the republican's live off of an anger addiction. They have a long list of anger issues, gays, Mexicans, CRT (which doesn't exist in any K-12 school) grooming by teachers (also made up), Mini Mouse, M&M's, replacement theory, vaccinations, immigration, its one anger issue after another with those people. Yet, republicans know nothing about the science that is rapidly changing our economy and leading us to self-driving cars, artificial intelligence, robotics, modern medicines that work at a molecular scale.
We need more immigrants to build more homes and reduce home prices, pick more food and reduce food prices, fill the 6 million open jobs in restaurants, hotels, farms and construction and PAY for millions of baby boomers on retirement. Republicans are addicted to anger about things that have ZERO effect on their lives. ZERO EFFECT ON THEIR LIVES. Republican are addicted to opioids and anger.
Think yourselves lucky you don’t live in Europe.
It’s not just America. It’s the west
Indeed - and they still think we went to the moon!
❤ TRUTH is POWER ❤
If i was asked to reduce CO2 the first thing I would look at is what the current measure is, these folk are unreal. Something tells me its nothing to do with CO2
"We have put together, i think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." - Brandon
Exactly.....and brought all his brain dead zombies with him.
That clip of Creepy needs to go viral again.Subject him to the same rules they tried to apply to 45.
" I don't need your vote to get into the office I need you after I get in the office "
Joe Biden
The only truth Brandon ever told.
We will stop Northstream.
But we can’t prove it so we just repeat this until all smooth brains agree
For me growing up in The Netherlands in the 80s California was always synonymous for The American Dream but now it’s definitely The American Disaster.
Thanks to woke democrats
The dream is gone....and I, have become comfortably numb! De Amerikaanse droom stuurt ons regelrecht 'down the drain'. In potentie geweldig volk, maar compleet geconditioneerd door de deep state, aka new world order.
Leave it to the liberals....
Living and seeing the disaster every day.
@@Carlos.Rivera efine woke
Not knowing that is ridiculous
He nailedit
It's like watching five year olds fix the world's biggest problems.
There's a reason they made a 14 year old Swedish girl throwing a temper tantrum so she didn't have to go to school the face of the whole ridiculous movement.
I think even a five year old could do a better job than these idiots. These people are either horribly corrupt or ideologues hellbent on proving their case and enforcing their agenda no matter what they have to do.
hey, don't insult the worlds 5 year olds against these donkeys!!!😁
World's biggest problems?
If it was a real problem, they'd be dodging, ducking, and weaving.
The best part is the so called climate change is not even a real problem to begin with.
There is a rock on the shore in Plymouth that marks the level of the highest tide and every time the tide is at its highest point it's never covered this rock completely.
The reason I mention it is because it has a date carved on it. The date is 1620... So much for rising sea levels and global warming sinking 20% of the islands of the Pacific!
Global warming is a fallacy created by the Democrat party to Garner power and money
The thing that seems odd to me about the global warming/melting icecaps sthick is if anything the ocean level would stay roughly the same or drop.
Water has the peculiar function of occupying a greater volume when it turns solid. Meaning when said icecaps melt either the lost displacement would cause the water level to drop (because less overall volume occupied) or it would stay about the same because there'd be a greater quantity of liquid H20 in said oceans to offset said volume shift.
@@aguyontheinternet9095 Devils advocate here but what about the ice that is above sea level?
@@aguyontheinternet9095 - Your point is correct for the ice cap at the North Pole because that ice is floating in the water. However, melting ice sitting on land, like Greenland and Antarctica, will produce higher ocean levels (to the extent that the melted ice exceeds new snow fall on top of the ice cap).
@@aguyontheinternet9095 Liquid water expands as the temperature rises - everywhere.
That's right, some in Ca know and care, good on ya Brother!
This speaks volumes for exposing the scientifically derelict minds of politicians
Rep. LaMalfa, you're one of the few remaining hopes in government we have left in CA. Thank you.
L S, We're lucky up here in his district. Northern California.
It's to late goodbye Commiefornia
Stop living in California and move to a solid red state. You're contributing to CA's 54 electoral votes just by living there. Get out, and starve the blue states of their power.
@@larryzach7880
Yeah the whole of the US is screwed.
don't worry give it some time , they are probably starting a smear campaign on him as we speak and will make him out to be a pedo, homophibic racist that tortures puppies
As an ex maths teacher (only for 10 years) I`m aware of the maths concepts that many pupils learned by rote for exams and never really understood. Percentages was one of them. Consequently the fact that CO2 at 0.04% is only 1 part in 2,500 of the earths atmosphere is completely missed.
And by an extraordinary coincidence, 0.04% also happens to be the collective IQ of this panel.
man.. IQ is not measured in %, but I agree with the sentiment. One has to be special stupid to go on a panel on green initiative and not know % CO2 in atmosphere..
IQ of room temperature.
I think you are being generous
You are overestimating!
No, thats not possible actually
Knowledge is more accessible than ever, yet we seem to know less and less as time goes by...
A ship of fools.
The ignorance of those who are causing so much damage to the economy, society and life on the planet is astounding!
Exactly 💯 watch the documentary The Dimming
It's planned destrution, they don't care about the numbers because they already know it's not the problem
@@lisacarden1309
It is astounding that despite the evidence people ate still reluctant to believe we have been sprayed like roaches for decades through Stratospheric Aerøsol Injectıøn Campaıgns with heavy funding from uncle Bill and his geøengineering boyfriends.
You're the only one I have seen in years recommending that documentary. I have it on my play list and point people to it often.
Well done 👍 😎 👍
They're executives from transportation industries like railroad and trucking. It's not their job to know. Usually when you want to know something about the climate, you ask a climate scientist, not a 70 year old transportation executive.
They play dumb but they know it's a scam.
Great question!
Wow, that seems so unlikely, but this is the world we are in.
Asking that question in a social situation is a good way to kill any further social contact with that person. I've done it few times and it's "deer in the headlights" time. One guy went right to "oh, you are a denier". I've never been able to ask my next question - what does ECS mean and what is the value? Trick question, of course, I wouldn't expect any reasonable answer as there isn't one really.
This should be shown to the world. They're advocating for someone they don't even understand.
This whole comment section is people who don’t understand. CO2 is measured in PPM not %. Bunch of science illiterate folks crying hurrr durrr 0.4% is such a small number why does it matter? Well how about drink a cup of water with only 0.4% plutonium in it. I beg you please drink it
The man did his homework, good job Rep.
I do like an unstated guy. The subject though is too important to allow these drongoes to get away with goofing about like school kids that failed to study for the test. This video needs to go everywhere to expose their failings.
@@BelloBudo007 Atmospheric carbon dioxide is very effective at trapping heat. The amount of CO2 has *_increased 50%_* over the past 100 years (from 280 to 420 ppm). That is catastrophic. Period.
@@paulrousseau9144 please explain how increasing CO2 levels traps more heat
@@sergeikhoudiakov1914 It's high school level physics, I'm sure you could dig it up somewhere pretty easily.
But in so doing also be sure to remember that 0.00006% of the atmosphere is responsible to blocking 99% of cosmic radiation.
And also remember we are currently in a solar minimum (sun is colder) since 2019, which logically should result in atmospheric cooling... which isn't happening in our layer, only in the layers above the 0.00006% I mentioned earlier. Considering that that 0.00006% layer is currently growing, and that that growing should also cause cooling in our layer, it is clear that something is causing warming.
@@GeoRyukaiser Nice of you not to explain. But since you seem to be an Ozone expert I'll re-phrase my question for you: Will doubling Ozon concentration block proportionally more cosmic radiation? How about x10?
The ignorance of these peoples is astounding ! !
This guy is awesome!
When I was a child ( a long time ago) we were told that in under 50 years we would run out of oil and coal and then given all of the scary things that this would create. We were given lists of animals that would be extinct in 20 years, including tigers and elephants. We were told that sea levels would rise and London would be flooded, we were told we were heading for a new ice age and would all freeze to death, we were told that the ozone layer would be depleted within 100 years and we would all fry to death.
You would think that they would have at least got one nearly right - unfortunatley due to simple entropy there are some animals that will die off, there will be various changes in climate and the natural world but killing off human beings through poverty and famine to try and stop it is clearly not the answer.
I'm still waiting for the flying cars we were promised in the year 2000!!!
Many of us have seen these radicals make dire predictions for decades that never came to fruition. We know by experience that they're frauds, but the younger generations are true believers!
Well Steve....democrats were lying then too!
This ng scientist never believed it was getting colder 50 years ago, that was entirely the media looking at one scientific report suggesting climate change could make some places colder and running with it claiming the next ice age was coming, a lot of what you hear was never said by or believed by scientists but regardless their credibility was lowered by the media and people like you went along with it.
Actually we use much less oil and gas back then. Also the ozone was definitely true to some degree.
I learned the proportions of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and CO2 in 7th grade earth science. Not sure what’s worse….the fact that no one on the panel knows this, or the fact that these panelists have never been curious enough to find out. Or the fact that obviously these panelists have never had anyone ask this question to them before. Sad on all sides.
Exactly.. I do not understand american school grades [i am in the uk] but any reasonably bright school kid would know the atmosphere is more or less 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and yet these so called educated politicians do not!!! Seriously stupid..
I bet they dont know that it was much higher before modern man started walking.
All they are interested in is passing laws and taxing co2
@@caerleon87 Reasonably bright school kid? So two to three students every school. So very very few people.
Get a mike and go out asking people on what our atmosphere is contained from and you will be shocked on how few know.
Yeah no ones gonna remember it. Thats stuff you'll probably forget by the end of the year.
C02 is heavily than air. I'd like to see them explain to the world how it all gets up there in the first olace when its heavier than air?
Pretty simple : density of air and carbon dioxide depends of pressure and temperature. You should know that.
Im in southern oregon and have the paperwork to deliver water to the forest fire fighters, but we cant get the paperwork to deliver to northern california because our truck is not new enough and may put off too much pollution. They dont know if it does, but at that age, they believe it will. Now im pretty sure fires will put out smoke longer and kill more wildlife if theres no water to fight them.
When they said 5%, I actually felt upset. It upset me to think that they could even think that.
Fun fact: a concentration of 0.5% C02 is the US occupational safety limit for an 8 hour period. 1.5% is known to cause light symptoms in some people, at 3% more severe symptoms can present, and at 7% - 10%, there’s a significant chance of a human falling unconscious and suffocating to death. 5% wasn’t just a bad answer, it’s an answer that shows such a fundamental lack of knowledge on one of the core elements of what their panel is meant to assess, that it’s impossible for me to feel comfortable with these people dealing with anything emissions related.
I that would've been a great response, telling them that at 5% it becomes a legitimate medical problem, and that at 7% like she suggested, it can be fatal.
👏👏👏👌
Cheers for that.
They are industry panelists, not politicians or scientists, who were there advocating for less regulation on behalf of construction associations. Y'all crucifying your own people because all you can see is "woke".
Stop electing morons and start voting for scientists then
Geothermal is the biggest win in my opinion, we are sitting on a giant fusion reactor with virtually unlimited energy
According to Park Maitland’s website, the school is run by Spring Education Group.
Spring Education Group itself is owned by a Chinese-based investment group, Primavera Capital Group.
The ignorance of policy makers is unbelieveable. If they don't even know that, how can they even begin to understand all the other absurd, hopeless and corrupt proposals thrown at them?
You'd be surprised, but this is in everything. The decision makers in this world don't ever understand what it is that they are making decisions on.
There’s no ignorance. They know exactly what they’re doing.
They don't.
Ignorance is a requirement for the current global cabal , sell your soul , but dont worry we'll promote you
You realize the guy just said it went from .03% to .04% in the last few decades right? You don't see any reason for concern about the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere increasing by 33% in the last few decades on a planet that's billions of years old?
What’s even more concerning is they don’t know, but want to overhaul an entire industry. 🙄
Oh they know.
Their plan is to have us stop any form of industry and instead rely on china for it.
Bingo patriot ,see you in the trenches just like Ukraine
WITH OUR MONEY!
It's worse than that, they are going to use it to enslave you!
@@MichaelSmith-jj3pz
And our livestock, our lands, our supply chains, our vehicles, and our properties, and our freedom, etc.
The question is a red herring and the actual percentage of CO2 is kind of irrelevant for our purposes. A lot of people find this out and think that since it's "only 0.04%" it's nothing to worry about. Notice that he also says that "it's gone up from .03 over the last couple decades". THAT is the statement that should be riling people up in the comments! That is a 33.33% increase "over the last couple decades". That is the only relevant fact here, and the politicians being questioned are right to want to reduce it, even if they don't know the current level.
So they just guessing at it?😂 Get out of office!
Frightening to see how ignorant these officials are.
That's the problem with paying attention... once you see this, you can't unsee it... and realize it's very much the norm.
Whenever someone pretends to not hear a clearly worded question, you know they’re in trouble.
And asks for it to be repeated...🔥
Or that they know it’s a stupid question, but one that has a politically loaded misunderstanding behind it that you need to be accurate in answering……
@@jgreen9361
Nope, no ambiguity in these questions.
And it's a question that clearly, they had not expected.
And therefore, had not pondered.😂
PARENT: "Who tracked mud into the house."
KID (stalling): "What?........Who tracked what in the house?"
The smartest people in the room "Experts" So sick of the establishment!! #DefundDC
Always the same! Those in power know best.....One wonders why we have 'experts in their field of knowledge' when politicians make policies they know little about.
Common sense spoken aloud is always such a breath of fresh air. Look at how calm and collected he is, in contrast to the stunned people being questioned.
Pretending that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is in any way relevant or a number ur supposed to know if u claim to be an expert on the topic is not common sense. It is showing that you are staggeringly ignorant on the theory.
@@beertje6394 yes, the ones complaining about CO2 not knowing the % of CO2 is not relevant at all...
Who’s staggeringly ignorant again?
@@360lootgoon3 Even though it would seem that CO2 levels are very low since they make up 0.04% of our atmosphere, that represents an increase of 43% since the industrial revolution began. Not only that, but with CO2, even a miniscule change from 0.04% to 0.05% can have devastating effects on the planet. I'm not sure what percent of CO2 would have to be in the atmosphere before you would start to care, but it doesn't take much to change drastically. And either way, Fossil Fuels are a finite resource. We will run out and that is a fact. Why not invest in tech that can give us renewable energy from the sun, wind, and water. Or invest in nuclear. You really think pumping millions of tons of CO2, a proven greenhouse gas and nonbreathable gas is fine for either people or the planet?
@@360lootgoon3 Correct the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely irrelevant to climate change. It is about the increase in CO2 in ppm and how this inhibits the earth from regulating its temperature.
@@beertje6394 Are you two communists or just trying to destroy humans on your own?
The woman claims "... we know that transportation causes 49% of CO2..." which is also completely wrong. According to the EPA , "greenhouse gas emissions from transportation account for about 27% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions". It is embarrassing how ignorant those so-called "experts" are.
I’m fairly certain if memory serves correct that 97% of the atmospheric CO2 comes from natural sources
I was confused about this too, like it makes sense that transportation people wouldn't know co2 concentration cause they just would never be dealing with that, but it seemed crazy that she somehow got that statistic wrong, but I looked it up and I guess she was just talking about California specifically lol
@@jojo-beans her number is so far off, it’s dystopian
Greenhouse gas emissions are not the same as Carbon emissions. Transport has had considerable efforts put into reducing greenhouse gasses.
But she certainly sounded confident in her stupidity, so there's that.
Finally someone questions the idiotic idea that "climate change" is an emergency. Finally. Call their bluff.
“Maybe you’ll bring generators…” I’m laughing so hard
Luckily, they don't produce C02 emissions, generators run on unicorn farts!
@@stapleman007 ; You see , I did not know that , think of what you could accomplish without a Democrat ?
Thank you yes Generators #
Hey maybe set up wind turbines there? Remote area, open field, sounds like a good spot.
@@HoChiHoChiPlays We have plenty of those, they don't produce 1/10 of what nuclear plants could produce on less than half the land used for turbines.
So I used to be a commercial diver. Gas mixtures, pressures, and how your body reacts to different breathing mediums under different pressures was nailed into our heads. We were taught the atmosphere contains roughly 21% oxygen and roughly 75% nitrogen. That leaves 4-5% left for "other gasses." And these people think CO2 makes up 5-8% of our atmosphere. Incredible.
The "other gases" is actually closer to 1%, further reinforcing your point. It's criminal how uneducated these policy makers are upon examination.
@T yeah I couldn't remember exactly how much nitrogen but I knew I was in the ballpark
So why do greenhouse add co2 to make the plants grow faster and larger.
@@warrenpuckett4203 Are you asking why plants can thrive off of more CO2 while humans can't?
21% Oxygen 78% Nitrogen which actually leaves 1% of which they must claim that Carbon Dioxide makes up 0.4% of….
How much does it matter if the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is a big or small number?...
How much arsenic are you going to take? Even though the quantity is very small, that does not mean it is not lethal.
I understand the man's disagreement, but it makes no sense that his argument is based on the fact that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere is small.
True perspective on CO2 and the electric vehicle myths.
Germany has done the same thing- their diesel fleet was already the cleanest in Europe (possibly the world), but additional regulations forced the removal of vehicles that were already the cleanest in Europe to be replaced with new “greener” vehicles. Worse yet, those vehicles that were replaced were rendered inoperable so they could not be exported to other countries with old, less efficient fleets of diesel cars/trucks. No BS, I personally witnessed it.
How's the battery and battery by product recycling over in germany? just curious how e-waste is being handled by my betters
@@Hector-ig8th can’t speak to that.
I thought Germany just fudged their emission reports to look good ;)
The committee is clueless! WTF 😖😖😖
just like the vast majority of americans
CLOWNS ON DISPLAY
Absolutely shocking!!!! How can these people be so ignorant?????😢😢😢
I used to live in San Francisco and I'd ask that question to every vapid Climate Alarmist I met. Not once did they know the answer is 0.03-0.04%.
And below .02 plants die.
Exactly right.
the next question after that is now much does man contribute to CO2 levels, hint, it's insignificant.
Research is hard for the fear mongers.
It is now above 0.04% so you expected the wrong answer from them. We are at 429 PPM according to numbers I could find. BTW: In 1998 it was about 330PPM.
Putting this in perspective: Imagine asking the executive team at Ford how many cylinders there are in a V8 and they don't know.
Anytime you try to explain it to some rando tho they say but we have so many cars how can we not be effecting it....
@@firebush1343 well to be fair you do have an over reliance on cars there in the US, a problem that won't be solved with EVs either (at least not with electric cars).
I'd say it's 5?!
Not really a good example since you could anyone even with zero knowledge of what an engines is and chances are they would get that question correct
Lol. He could have just asked, "What's a V8?" They'd probably say, "It's a vegetable drink." lol.
Its not a surprise that they either dont know or are wrong.
Unfreekin’ believable! And these are people WORKING in trying to effect a change. Scary ignorance!
Science lesson:
If carbon dioxide is currently roughly estimated at 400 PPM.
Then it would be .04% of the troposheric content.
CO2 only holds about 40% of the infrared radiation striking the Earth's surface.
Even that eventually makes it out of our atmosphere back into space.
It's like a blanket that self regulates, or like a thermostat that maintains a comfortable surface temperature.
There are a lot of misnomers about the greenhouse effect.
If the greenhouse effect could so easily run away and heat the surface of the Earth to an unlivable Venus like temperature, then it would have occurred many times in the past, and none of us would be here.
Earth has experienced what are referred to as greenhouse periods in geologic history.
The P.E.T.M. 56 million years ago, for example.
But it was the orbital variances and the axial tilt of Earth that were responsible.
Not carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide levels only rise when the co2 molecule is excited by heat.
Heat on the surface is caused by infrared radiation exciting molecules, which is friction, which causes heat.
Another misnomer is that methane is the most potent of all greenhouse gases.
Technically, It is. But methane can not exist for too long in the presence of oxygen because it oxidizes into water and carbon dioxide, Ending it's role in the carbon cycle.
Anthropogenic warming theory leaves out water's role as the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
Al Gore made that statement very early on in this conspiracy theory.
It's in his "fictional movie."
Water vapor is the only reason why any of us are alive today.
Water vapor contains a specific amount of carbon dioxide from winter to summer, from greenhouse period to glacial period.
Water absorbs carbon dioxide when it is cold, and it emits carbon dioxide when it is warm.
It rises and falls with the amount of infrared radiation that is striking the earth's surface.
Take the money out of the climate change conspiracy theory, and nobody will be talking about it anymore.
Nice science lesson...
Very well stated. All life on this planet is definitely under threat, but NOT from the climate!
@@lilyflower4962 The planet is not in danger,....We are.!
remember, we do not know how much CO2 is needed to raise the earths temperature. Mars a smaller planet has the same tonnage of CO2 as the earth, instead of a half a percent of their atmosphere it is 95 percent of it's atmosphere, and Mars is frigid. So CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we don't know how much it takes to make a difference, all we do know is if it gets below 300 PPM the plants start dying, and we are trying to be net zero, and we are fighting forest fires, the natural CO2 plant savers, we could kill the planet trying to save it.
What a well written explanation. Thanks. I learned quite a bit from your comment.
This needs to be televised on a loop.
you fall for it didn’t you?
The burning of fossil fuels affects the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm. We have now reached about 414 ppm, so we are on the way to doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of this century. Scientists say that if CO2 doubles, it could raise the average global temperature of the Earth between two and five degrees Celsius
@@MikeAIright and? what do you not care about the trees? why you soo adamant on suffocating the trees? you do know that tree's don't inhale oxygen, right?
@@jackasshomey and you're missing the point.
@Judess 69er you make my head hurt
We've become stupid and have no idea what we're doing
WAY TO GO --BRAVO Lamalfa
Saying these people are qualified to make laws, is like saying a McDonald's employee is qualified to build a nuclear reactor.
Or a decent burger! 😂
I have more confidence in the McDonald’s employee
Those are not law makers, they were invited for Doug LaMalfa to make a video for his website and people think its real. Its just a show for CZcams.
Notice that no names are posted you got punked.
Bureaucrats don't make laws.
My heart goes out to all those farmers. It's EVIL, what's being done to them! I pray we can help them sooner than later.
They get plenty of socialized help from the feds.
@@joshd79 Only when weather or politics get in the way.
Yea don't feel bad, they're federally subsidized to farm inefficiently. Grow avocados where avocados don't grow, that kind of thing.
@@SeraphsWitness Market forces dominate. Shipping is a big deal. Tariffs are a big deal as well. In the Western US water rights are a huge deal. So many things shape what is grown and where.
@@debi5292 I don't think I'd be so bold as to say market forces are dominating in agriculture. It's been heavily subsidized for a long time. Big Ag is one of the primary REASONS we have a water shortage out west. They're the primary consumers. Residential water consumption is only 5% of the total.
So yes, when you incentivize farmers to grow almonds, for instance, of course they're going to go to greater lengths to grow almonds even if the market forces don't incentivize it; because the government is handing out free money. And almonds are one of those crops that is insanely thirsty.
So yes there are many forces that shape the industry. But federal subsidy is easily the biggest. Look, California is the #1 producer of avocados in America by a long shot, yet we still import most of our avocados from Mexico because they're cheaper. Our market incentives are completely jacked up.
You can tell they think it is a pointless process. They are dumb. What they don't realize is this is a very important task to the livelihood of America.
No need to go electric, you can go amish.
You know back when I was a kid, they used to teach us in school. To just plant some trees to offset the CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants and plants some grass... Why do we got to spend all this money to offset CO2?
Because there's government (OUR) money to be made, and people to control and keep in a perpetual state of fear.
Duh.
When I was a kid, they told us repeatedly that the Amazon rain forest was the "lungs of the world", but that it was disappearing at the rate of 50 acres a day. Now the Amazon is gone and the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, but the environmentalists all act surprised.
i keep saying this exact same thing. You never hear about deforestation any more, or planting more trees. All you hear about is high-tech solutions that cost huge amounts of money and that cost then being passed on to every-day people. And its only western civilisation thats doing this. It seems a deliberate tactic to destabilise the west. How can we compete with the rest of the world with one hand tied behind our backs? And its our own 'leaders' that are tying our hands.
They want to over populate us to make us become desperate.
Meaning, they could care less about a real solution.
@@arklainquirk Now, perhaps. Before it was cut down, it absorbed far more CO2 and generated far more O2.
I cannot fathom - apart from plain malice - why we are governed by people who are doing everything they can to destroy life.
How is saving the planet destroying your life? The only ones trying to destroy your life are oil companies
because we don't complain enough ,all the idiots get a job in government quangos because no one else will employ them .
Evil runs the world, these leaders receive their authority from that source of evil, who's sole purpose is to steal, kill and destroy! Only one hope is the way out, The living Son of the living God! The devil's minions do what is in their nature to do......malice indeed!! But God is the ultimate power, and at the appointed time....evil will be brought to nothing! Don't lose hope, the best is yet to come!
We need more like Doug! Most, DO NOT have our best interest at heart. Electric Cars are not even possible with our grid...there are SO many logical reasons this is stupidly insane. Thanks Doug!
@@crystalcompass368 Virtually every scientist on the planet who is not on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry disagrees with you. Your "logic" needs a workover.
Dreadful...........this "Climate Panel" response should have been shown high and wide...