The climate hoax is designed for one purpose: create fear of an imaginary threat & use it as an excuse to control virtually all of society under the guise of "protecting" humanity from a "catastrophe". The sham is sick and evil!
The panelists seem a bit cavalier in their answers, considering the impact of their policy suggestions and complete lack of awareness on this topic...one in which that they falsely claim a degree of expertise.
As an expert in my field, if i could be humiliated this way at work I would never be able to work in my field ever again. These fools need to be vetted before they ever get an audience with leaders who might take advice from them.
I never believed that human made co2 effected the earth until I heard that it’s only 0.4% of the total atmosphere. We could EASILY effect that number, it would be much harder to effect it if it was 5-7% He proved 2 things, those people are dumb and man made climate change is real.
"The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%). This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century. "
They didn’t know that one figure because it’s not what they’re concerned with. The idiot asking the question is trying to pretend that CO2 emissions aren’t causing any harm, which is completely false. Any scientist would say that his point is not valid
They're not climate experts. Case in point, that dude at the start of the clip is Dwayne Boyd, the president of CRH Americas which is a company that produces asphalt. He's there on behalf of The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. These people are INFRASTRUCTURE experts, giving testimony about building fuckin roads man, not climate experts. Before so eagerly swallowing low effort propaganda like this, maybe practice a little media literacy.
@@GerblerM how about you practice minding your fuckin business ?!!!... Analyze someone else comments... SMH 🙄🙄... If you knew so much you wouldn't have time to be in CZcams.
@@2beinteresting Government crooks should be dealt with. There is more than enough evidence over the years of who these "people" are. EPA's sordid history is a perfect start if you want to read up. Especially their work on "traversable waterways". I'll wait for you to not be a coward now.
@@2beinteresting these are climate “experts”. That was a basic question. Not single one got the answer correct. Anyways that ladies condescending look should tell you enough.
@@Nippless247 These people aren't "climate experts". They are mainly working for an asphalt company. Get your facts straight before you start thinking, greetings.
No, he didn't "roast" them, but displayed his own ignorance by asking the wrong question. The better question is how much atmospheric warming will happen with the current amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
@trinitiZion Why would you ask them that? They have proven that they have no idea. All of their predictions, like polar ice caps disappearing by 2013, have been wrong. So, no, you shouldn't ask them about something they dont know.
I want energy transition from having to buy fuel and energy from corporate intrests, to providing my own energy and selling my surplus . without poisoning the planet.
@atticuswalker So, you make your own solar panels and batteries to enable that? Do you have your own grid to distribute your excess power? How do you mine the raw materials to make your solar panels and batteries without poisoning the planet? Or are you relying on corporations to make all of that for you?
A percenage is nothing more than a percentage. 0,01% poison in the body mass can be deadly and a rise of the CO2-level from 0.03% to 0.05% can raise earth tempertur by 5 degrees centigrade and sealevel by 10-20 meters. Then New York is flooded.
Classic example of dumb people stuck in their one track minds. It might be 0.4% or what the fuck ever. But the real problem is if that 0.04% or whatever doubles or triples that will show What kind of effects and problems we could face. It be real problematic for people to fathom with mindsets like that
Should someone tell him how much co2 has been in the atmosphere in the past? Or should we just have some fun and keep letting him freak out? Maybe we should let him know that the Eyjafjallajökull eruption put more co2 into the atmosphere in one month than the entirety of humanity since the industrial revolution? Na.... We'll just let him keep being a proper pawn of the state.
The real question is what impact this change has on the Earth's temperature relative to the average temperature of the Sun, orbital changes, volcanic activity, and a myriad of other factors.
You missed the most important point in this just because you want people to think you know more. the point is, we are at the lowest co2 level to be safe. any lower and the planet you claim to care about starts to die. Educate yourself and learn how to be wrong. there is nothing wrong with being convinced of proven lies.
@@immrnoidall no, you have that 180 degrees wrong, as an excess of CO2 will kill off plants as well. They breathe oxygen at night and when it's cloudy and exhale CO2. But, increase it, it's plant food and will turn earth into the garden spot that Venus is.
Ok, go watch Carl Sagan adressing congress in the 1980s. It doesn't matter how many idiots come forward after him. He proved it and explained the way the different elements react to each other then.
Nobody wants to talk about how the poles are moving and going SIX TIME FASTER since only 2001. In 2001 it was about 5 miles now its almost 36 miles of annual movement.. By 2016 the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE called for an emergency congressional committee hearing to expedite funding to recalibrate the GPS systems because their predictive models thought they'd do it in 2020 but it's accelerated so quickly that the DOD couldn't predict it accurately!! That should give an academic CHILLS when they think about how in geological terms its BLISTERINGLY fast... As the North pole moved out into open waters, that ocean water with all its currents is a poor insulator and all the northern ice started melting... but guess what? NASA will tell you right now that Antarctica is forming ice FASTER than it's melting.. why? Because the southern pole is still moving over a land mass that is a good insulator to store that lack of thermal energy. Now toss your tin foil hats on. Guess who announced their desire to colonize Mars a few weeks later to quote, "ensure the survival of humanity." Let that sink in; and I implore you to google image "north pole movement map" and suddenly you understand why Greenland started melting, why the planet is warming, and why your compass will point to Siberia within your lifetime. We will "probably" be fine, but I pray for those who deal with this in 100-200 years.
@@tyqwer4570 CO2 always increases AS A RESULT of global warming, not as a cause, according to studies of ice core samples from glaciers. It lags the temperature increases. What is the primary greenhouse gas? They teach you that at your indoctrination camp/ university? It's water vapor. I think we need to ban water, don't you? For the last 5000 years, it is clear that our climate has greatly varied, and most of the data point to solar energy as the cause of it. It sure wasn't your mom's SUV that caused the glaciers to receed from Albany.
If 0.03% has gone up to 0.04% that's a 33% INCREASE. It's not what the percentage IS. If that's the norm, and the rate of change is this high, Mr Smug-ass just proved how fucked we are.
@@chrisshulick2580 I think if we get above .06% we're fucked (going off of memory here and I'm not an expert). But at that point or maybe its a little higher methane in ice caps gets released at a rate that even if we stopped CO2 emissions the greenhouse effect would continue on and make it worse. Our planet would eventually turn into Saturn.
Did you not hear what he said, if co2 drops below the 0.03, 0.02, plants begin to die. Where will you get your oxygen? You're as clueless as the idiots who want to ban farming BECAUSE CONTRARY TO YOUR UTOPIA BELIEFS, YOU WILL HAVE NO FOOD IN STORES. You fools place your trust in "fairies and leprechauns to fill the shelves
Correct but the senators assertion is no less problematic. His choice in units to point out his "numbers" is telling. 0.01 percent of our atmosphere is an insanely huge ammount of gas.
@ngcastronerd4791 he also acknowledged that dropping. 0.01% will kill plant life but disagrees that raising by the same amount has any catastrophic effect 😂😂😂😂
@@meyou3353 Exactly, and this moron has been arguing with me over that very logical and obvious point of error from the Senator's part in the posts for the past hour. Morons on both sides! None of those people should have been in that room to discuss this matter.
Even if it were as high as 5%, the fact that they all guessed says everything you need to know about these experts. Edit* Just to clarify, I never believed the atmosphere contained 5% CO2 (0.2% gives you a headache. I'm no expert but feel like 5% would equal death), nor did I believe this panel contained experts. I quoted the panel on 5% and called them experts because the title did.
To go from 0.03% to 0.02% starts imposing an existential threat to plant life on earth. But to go from 0.03% to 0.04% (a 33% increase which is still rapidly increasing) is a "tiny change" that we can all safely ignore and has absolutely no impacts on any life or ecosystems whatsoever. Nothing to worry about. I'm sure if we just collectively ignore it entirely, the problem will go away by itself. Like how if we go to 0.02% and plants start dying we can just ignore it and magically the plants aren't dying anymore. Makes sense, right? It's just those annoying WOKE liberals who want to point out all the problems which we are happily ignoring.
@@sockpastarock7082causes a massive blooming of plants which reduces the CO2 and converts it to oxygen and more coal and oil (eventually) …everything has a way of balancing itself
@@sockpastarock7082ummm no. Ur wrong. To raise the planet's temp by ONE percent u need need to TRIPPLE co2 each time. So .06 for 1 .12 for 2.why u would just make ish up is crazy to me. What I just said was said by the world's top and leading CLIMATE scientist that spoke at the UN to tell everyone that it's all a lie.
@@iReelyFish wow that's fascinating. Is that because plants breathe CO2 and so more CO2 means more plants? Wow that's incredible how the fertility and health of plants depends on absolutely nothing except for CO2. More CO2 good. Less CO2 bad. It's kind of like how if I wear an oxygen mask and just breathe 100% oxygen I will become extremely healthy and strong and have many children. Absolutely nothing bad will happen to my body if I do that. You should definitely try it. Just breathe pure 100% oxygen directly. It's very safe and good for you.
@@zlmdragon. guy deleted his comment. He was saying if a small decrease causes an existential threat to all plant life then a small increase should be equally worrying
@@pauls4483it's not 33% of nothing. That 0,03 or 0,04% already has a huge greenhouse effect. Think of the moon which is just about the same distance from the sun but is much much colder because it lacks an atmosphere. So it is basically 33% of a lot of greenhouse effect
Sorry, in what world are you living? in 33% and 1% are TOTALLY different. It's 1% because all other gases than nutrogen and oxygen come under 1%@@pauls4483
First it's *their if you are gonna insult someone try to do it without making yourself look even dumber than them. Second. They are not experts and don't say they are they just listen to the experts.
@Kekuahiwi being a Grammer nazi is also ridiculous but thank you for ignoring the key issue of the trick post. I gather that is all you can talk about since the subject is on miss leading the public with regards to how much gasses are in the atmosphere.
None of them are climate experts. Easy to find through a Google search that they are experts on highway construction. They were testifying on the build back better implementation. You’ve been had.
No, not really. 0.02% is simply a minimum value. If water is at 32 degree F and goes down a degree, freezing and solidification starts to occur. If the water goes up a degree, virtually nothing happens. Same concept. Only difference is that plant is able flourish even more.
@@darren871you cant think of it as water because sure a 33% increase on 1⁰C is only about 1.33% but if the water is 100⁰C then it would increase to 133⁰C which is a significqnt change. CO2 has increased by 33% according to his percentages of 0.03-0.04 atmopsphere presence. That is an incredibly high amount when we are talking about large numbers such as molecules in the atmosphere.
@@darren871an increase of 0.01% from 0.03% is 33% increase. A 33% increase in temperature from 0°C would put you around 93°C, which is near boiling point.
Still doesn't change the fact that the Earth was at a far lower CO2 level then it has ever been at the start of our burning fossil fuels. CO2 is literally 4 times lower today then just when the dinosaurs roamed the earth even after a century of burning fuel.
Should they not be fired directly? I mean if you are climate change experts, then this should be BASIC knowledge. If you already fail with BASIC knowledge then you are NOT a expert.
They’re not “climate change experts”. You’ve fallen for this amateurish propaganda. Notice how the video is altered to obscure their names, making it slightly more difficult to look up. They are industry reps for highway construction. One is Secretary of Transportation for the state of Texas.
Did any of you check the facts? Or just assume the information in this video is accurate? I'm guessing you just listened to what you heard and went with that, like a fucking idiot
The man you are praising is not representing the facts correctly, he's no better than the politicians. If minus .01% is bad as he stated, then +.01% isn't good either, as the atmosphere has an idea balance.
@@999benhondaexcept for the fact that you're completely wrong. CO2 has been far higher, for the majority of Earth's history, even during the last glacial period. We're still IN an ice age, but nearing the end, so CO2 is going to continue to rise, NATURALLY. Transportation, contrary to the opinion of the "expert", has resulted in almost zero change to atmospheric CO2 levels. A single volcanic eruption, or an ocean "fart", has the potential to release more CO2 than all the human activity during our entire existence. There is more CO2 trapped in permafrost, than every single bipedal mammal to ever exist has produced, and it is currently melting, naturally, as the planet ends its current ice age. The average global temperature between ice ages is 72°F. We are currently at 60°F. Plant and animal life is far more diverse between ice ages, so no, temperature increases are not a bad thing.
Isn't that a point? 0.02% plants are dying, we got from 0.03% to 0.04%. I may bring drastic results, but because of clowns from both sides we can't really have public discussion about this
Weeel, at the same time: going from 0,03 to 0,04 is a "tiny change", but if we get from 0,03 to 0,02, plant life starts to die. Seems like 0,01 is a massive amount.
@@OfficialGhostUkyeah it does plus we don’t know you gotta go by the science saying because the astomphere would be .000003 percent if it increases and cause a massive changes that is what should be considered.
50 million years ago the earth was greener than ever and the CO2 levels were around 0.3-0.4 and humans can tolerate that without too many issues. so we have a 0.02 minimum and a 0.4 maximum and we're almost at the bottom of that range. Looking at the human population, it's going to top out at about 9 billion in a few years and then start going down very rapidly according to current birth rates. We are at ZERO risk of anything.
Yall really are considering things in 2 dimensions instead of how it really is, 3 dimensions. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more plants grow and absorb it more also. As it's produced, it's consumed... there's a big azz circle of gasses and organic and inorganic processes at work that keep it circulating. CO2 produced 35 years ago when I was a lad, isn't in the atmosphere any longer... it's in a tree, trapped in some snow or ice, or dissolved into the ocean or rain, and into the soil and combining with other organic compounds. As CO2 increases, we get acid rain and stuff too... that's. Cleansing of CO2 if only part of it. There's people developing freestanding CO2 atmosphere filtering plants that will soon be removing CO2 by the physical ton, also adding to the 'it's REALLY not the emergency they are making it out to be' sensation going on in your brain.
@@Notfiveo0 🙄 ACTUALLY YOU DO 🤦 WHY do you think there are LEGAL LIMITS? 🤭 YOU AREN'T VERY BRIGHT ARE YOU? 😂 NO WONDER YOU FELL FOR " CLIMATE CHANGE" AND " SAFE AND EFFECTIVE" 🤦🫵😂😂😂
@@Notfiveo0 but the solution to the problem can’t be worse than the problem. It takes 7 years of ownership of an ev to break even with a combustion engine when you include the environmental impact of building the damn thing. Majority of people don’t even keep their cars longer than 8-8.5 years. So there is practically zero gain when the full apples comparison washes out. This doesn’t include the fact that EVs are wildly inconvenient due to range constraints and their inability to work during inclement weather or their constant desire to burn your house down. Also the fact that if the government didn’t still subsidize EVs to the tune of 7500$ which is nearly 17.5% of the most popular tesla. I get it we need to eventually make the move from combustion engines to a cleaner alternative but the technology has be sustainable on its own and not foist upon the public through activism, and coercion.
I feel like these climate experts were playing the price is right. We got five we got seven I'll say 8%. I'm a maintenance technician and even I know the answer to this. Your job is literally climate science and you don't know this. That's the problem with colleges. They teach you the talking points but don't teach you any facts.
It is obvious that these are not climate 'experts', they are clueless politicians. The point is even the guy showing them up for their ignorance states that reducing the amount by 75% will kill most plants. We also know doubling the amount will alter our world beyond repair.
@@josephmartin5483 Technically it does, since other lands like dubai and china build Islands, for military purposes and/or resorts. So the more Sand you fill in the ocean, the more volume it increases.
@@cliffhanger906 your such a simple minded person. Think about how the water cycle works, the oceans evaporate and the water is deposited in places like antArctica and the north pole. The fact is no one is monitoring the water deposits in antArctica. I assure you that sea level has not risen in the slightest in the last 30 years.
@@josephmartin5483 well....yeah. Its just ice....That doesnt change the Mass at all. Its like having a pool with some ice cubes, you can move it from 1 spot to another spot. That wont change the mass at all....lol.
The most interesting part here is, that the man asking the question shows, how tight our window is. As he said before 1850 we had a relatively stable CO2 part of 0.03% in air. I dont know if his other sentence is true but lets assume it is: Plants would die below 0.02%. So 0.01% is literally the line between life and death here. Now human never caused CO2 to drop significantly on a global scale, we INCREASED it by 0.01%… and were still increasing higher. So we’re increasing multiple times the „line between life and death“… climate change is real
they are not climate experts. the youtube short is lying. the guy asking questions is the activist for oil companies. sad you literally believe whatever you read on the internet.
"The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%). This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity."
The sad thing is the people asking the questions and the people answering the questions don't have to be accountable for anything they say. There are never any consequences for deliberately misleading people, oh except for us it is labeled fraud and we get fined or we are imprisoned.
They didn’t know that one figure because it’s not what they’re concerned with. The idiot asking the question is trying to pretend that CO2 emissions aren’t causing any harm, which is completely false. Any scientist would say that his point is not valid
The guy questioning them literally acknowledges how determental such a small change in CO2 causes while also trying to claim that it's not a big deal He also doesn't understand that just because 0.03 seems like a small number thats not how environmental science works, if the air your breathing is 0.03 percent fentanyl then your gonna die it doesnt matter if the number looks small that's not how science works sorry for being rude but your a dumbass if you cant understand this concept he literally admits that co2 has increased 25% over the last couple decades thats scary dude, Greenhouse gasses like co2 and methane are extremely effective at trapping energy from the sun it doesn't take much to notice a change in the effects, do you know why we use greenhouses to plant food in cold climates, its because we know they fucking work at trapping energy from the sun due to the build up of greenhouse gasses in them I used the fentanyl analogy to show it doesn't take much of something to have a big effect a grain of salt worth of fentanyl will kill you just like a 0.01(a 25%) change in CO2 will cause noticeable change Il medical science and environmental science isnt the same this is just and analogy I use for idiots that cant understand basic concepts in science
My words, imagine the Money, and Time they spend for NOTHING!!! We could have used this Money in Schools, to feed the Homless or Give the Money to a Foundation for Kids... so so sad!!
Meint ihr Republikaner denn ernsthaft, dass ihr Verstand habt. CO² ist ein Spurengas in der Atmosphäre. Die genannte Menge von 0,04% sorgt für den Temperaturanstieg. Nur geht so etwas nicht in Eure Schädel. Ihr seid nicht besser als die afd.
These people should be fired! Inept calculations, inept recommendation, joke of their profession and disgrace for absurd and a derelict response. Why is any inadequate allowed to voice an ubtuse statement?!
Embarrassing that they didn't know, but let's not pretend that a 33% increase is insignificant. It's pretty well understood in physics that CO2 absorbs infrared light that would otherwise be lost to space. CO2 heats the Earth up a little, and we get more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas...
The answer is, "I dont know, but i can google it in 3 seconds." It was 0.034% in 1984, 0.040% in 2014, 0.042% now. It was below 0.028% before the Industrial Revolution, and it stayed below 0.030% for 800,000 year before that. We know that because of ice core samples and stalagmite formation. Edit: methane is much more of a problem.
From 280 PPM to 420 PPM it would mean it increased by 50% in a couple of centuries. Republicans should probably pay attention in math and stop believing that they're smarter than fifth graders. If you want to oppose climate policies, you should do so; as there are plenty of reasons to. But stop thinking you understand everything about science; it's embarrassing. And this goes doubly for Evolution.
@@takkatfleeceThe thing is, we’re going to kill the planet from war and industrialization way before CO2 changes matter. So to think not making it a big deal is what idiots do is just ignorant.
CO2 is not the problem. I’ve studied what’s necessary to make plant life grow, and it is the Abundance of CO2. If the plants don’t have an adequate amount of CO2, they die. If they have more than they need, they just grow more and produce more oxygen. Our issue is deforestation and urban concrete. However most of our oxygen is produced by the conifer trees around the North Pole.
Did any of you check the facts? Or just assume the information in this video is accurate? I'm guessing you just listened to what you heard and went with that, like a fucking idiot
@@shaunclemtigerright 😂 But he did demonstrate perfectly how ignorant political representatives truly are. 5% CO2? A fucking middleschooler would know this shit. Imagine instead of being completely ignoramuses, these clowns could have said that a small change in CO2 DOES have a potentially dramatic effect. Like for instance, if the CO2 level rises from 400ppm to 1000ppm, every mammal On the planet would develop a chronic headache, and would suffer from reduced Cognitive function.
@@shaunclemtigeryea the man said tiny change when the change is 50-100%. Then says oh well if it changes by 50-10% all life could die LMFAOOO. These idiots will believe anything as long as it feeds their conspiracy brained minds.
In the past 150 years, CO2 went from 280PPM to 370PPM. Yall might rhink it's "just" that. It's about 3000 Gigatons of CO2. A Gigaton is 1 000 000 000 000 000 Grams. We are indeed making a HUGE difference.
Because you are misunderstanding what there job is. They are not paid to actually understand the climate and how or why it changes over time. They are just propogandists.
Everyone here criticizing the "activits" needs to learn to question these very short and out of context videos. They are not climate scientists. A climate scientist would immediately know the answer without fail. Stop believing in crap just because it feeds into your agenda and ACTUALLY think. The data is there, you just need to look at it.
They might not know, but it doesn't prove his point. He himself admits its .04%, it's gone up from .03%. a small change, but if it had gone down by that small change instead of up then plants will start dying. Another tiny increase and we are going to have other problems. He is manipulating you.
Thinking that 0.04% (400ppm) is insignificant is also wrong. If earth had 0 CO2 the Earth's average temperature would be -18°C (0°F). So yeah that change from 0.03% to 0.04% is heuge. This is what happens when we let politicians run science...
None of them are climate experts. They are highway construction experts. LaMalfa did this to look epic. And you fell for it. transportation.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=406231
They are panelists. Looks like CEOs or business experts to me. Especially with this 'we in transportation are working to get our emissions down" part. No climate expert would say' we' when referring to the transportation sector. And the question asker is clearly giving a little collage about how little CO2 can be the difference between a frozen or boiling planet. . We need to be at 350 parts per million, but exceeded the 400 ppm mark. This is basic knowledge that every voter should know and every lobbyist is paid not to know.
@mdainko You're jumping to conclusions. They are not climate experts. That's just what the person who posted this said to provoke you to say that. It's a lie. Their expertise is in transportation. Do some research before you believe what random people say on the internet.
@@maan100283 basic knowledge?! Hilarious. More like basic propaganda. More CO2 = a healthier planet. The planet has been turning more green the last 40 years precisely because we have more CO2 in the atmosphere. Even NASA admits that. We have also been significantly warmer and had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, and the world thrived. More people die from the cold every year, than heat. A lot more. And deaths attributed to the climate have dropped massively in the last century. The crusade against CO2 is among the dumbest, most foolish endeavors the world has ever embarked on. Actually, it is the dumbest and most foolish of all.
Atmospheric CO2 is generally measured by Parts Per Million (PPM) and shown in the Keeling Curve, the question was intentionally misleading for a ‘gotcha moment’ which is rather disingenuous.
@@johnrhodes101875 not the fact itself but the way it’s presented. I’ll give you an example. I could quote your age in microseconds. The number would be so large no one would have any idea how old that age is in years, but technically what I stated would be correct. Climate scientists use the PPM measurement for CO2 so again a misleading question.
He schooled them but then also made the mistake of using absolute numbers to claim something is insignificant. 0.03 to 0.04 is a 33% change. That’s significant. He said it himself, 0.04 to 0.02 would kill plants. What do you think 0.05 will do to us? Please think objectively and for yourself.
Did any of you check the facts? Or just assume the information in this video is accurate? I'm guessing you just listened to what you heard and went with that, like a fucking idiot
CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled from 0.2% to 0.4% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The man made doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere and the continuing increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is having a detrimental effect on our planet. Burning finite fossil fuels is bad for our health and we need to switch to cleaner renewable, sustainable, alternatives.
Bret Weinstein warns about relying on experts. We know experts are hired and paid for. Out of college I had to make some important decisions. I chose not to be "owned" my the wealthy who invest in agendas rather than truth. The average person cannot handle the truth.
Bro tried to be slick but it's not the percentage of the atmosphere of Co2 that matters, it's the total amount of CO2. The more CO2, the more Greenhouse Effect. We should send all politicians back to school.
@@jurgenfrohwonne acting like we're gonna end the planet to control people, convince people to block traffic of everyday people around the world and make money. I think capitalism isn't the right comparison. The people convincing climate activists are all private jet flying hypocrites.
maybe that was not the correct question, or the "experts" didn't get the exact reason why global temperatures are rising so quickly. is it CO2? or just CO2?
CO2 isn’t typically measured in % of the atmosphere, it’s measure in parts per million (ppm). If you look at change in CO2 concentrations in that resolution, then you will begin to see the issue.
yes and no. So heres the problem its called acidification. Check the c02 levels of the ocean link below. So the ocean is pretty much a giant filter which is why the atmosphere isnt getting that much stronger. but the ocean water is getting more and more acidic. This is killing algea which produced 90% of the earths oxygen and may be extinct in the next 50-100 years and kill most of the ocean life as we know it. Which will chain into other things as our eco system heavily relies on the ocean. But no politician on either side has any remote interest in real climate change issues. This wont kill the earth just current life untill it has enough time to revert back. www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification
Mind blowing that these politicians don't have a clue what is in the air we breathe. And yet these people are allowed to spread lies with no accountability
This is the most common tactic control through fear, those who don’t fear get ostracized by society “carbon footprints” are just an excuse to bend taxpayers over for more money because they have unchecked spending and all they know is that, it’s an excuse to tax us more, because the thousands they take from the hardworking middle class isn’t enough so you get global warming what funny is the earth naturally goes through climate fluctuations but they’re merely relying on those who blindly trust them or don’t have the time or intelligence levels to actually look into and understand what these people say that the same reason why they put yes=no and no=yes on ballots worst of all we’re all too busy hating each other over who someone voted for instead of uniting and holding These people accountable
I know I'm late to the party here. But here's some more knowledge to add to the party. The oxygen and nitrogen (that 99%) in our atmosphere do NOT absorb any of the heat produced by the Sun OR the infrared radiation (heat) that the Earth produces as it warms up on the surface. So we have 1% to work with so we all don't essentially burn to a crisp. Now I did the math in terms of degrees for you guys, and every .001% of CO2 raises global average temperatures by about 2ish degrees Celcius/4ish degrees Fahreheit. And this is not going to stay a 1 to 1 value. Shit will go down. It already slowly is. Like the small child pulling cookies from a cookie jar when no one is looking.
The fact that people who don't believe in climate change despite the evidence are deciding our future is fuckin scary. Most of this comment section makes it even worse
And what's so crazy is it would have taken one read-through of some notes before going up in public for him to be somewhat knowledgeable. They either don't care to prepare like that, or they're too stupid to consider getting their facts together BEFORE getting grilled. Not sure which is worse
The average naivety level of people who will believe anything they’re told in a video, without any attempt to verify whether said video is genuine, displayed in broad daylight.
@@user-ft8kd2vg7t I made no naive assumption, chief; I made evidenced based assumptions. You made a sweeping condemnation without bothering to verify that this video is what it’s purported to be. Your claims about self-confidence, by the way, are pitifully childish and irrelevant.
If plants start dying by lowering CO2 concentration by as much as we've increased it that should be enough to tell us how insanely huge an increase it actually is. Just because both numbers are small doesn't mean the difference doesn't matter.
They're not "experts". They're activists.
They're morons, too.
They're not even activists. They're just useful puppets for the powers that be.
This
The climate hoax is designed for one purpose: create fear of an imaginary threat & use it as an excuse to control virtually all of society under the guise of "protecting" humanity from a "catastrophe". The sham is sick and evil!
BINGO! TELL THESE CLOWNS WHAT THEY WON 😂!
A BIG FAT ZERO AND NO PARTICIPATION TROPHIES FOR Y'ALL EITHER 😩😩😩! 😁
I know 78% is nitrogen and 21% oxygen and in 1% all other gas comes. They don't have basic science knowledge also.
That crazy woman needs to be unemployed
Honestly didn’t know that
Yup I remember this very vividly in my 4th grade science class in Uganda
That one percent represents a few different gasses
@@angeldaroseli3031lol yeah that’s what was said!
The panelists seem a bit cavalier in their answers, considering the impact of their policy suggestions and complete lack of awareness on this topic...one in which that they falsely claim a degree of expertise.
They should all be fired for utter incompetency.
They probably aren't experts, the videos most likely clickbait
But these are the scientific experts, they are the team in charge of fearing us with lies;)...
their job only requires them to be down with the climate and woke agendas.
And jailed for criminal negligence
As an expert in my field, if i could be humiliated this way at work I would never be able to work in my field ever again. These fools need to be vetted before they ever get an audience with leaders who might take advice from them.
They need to be arrested for fucking treason
These are all plants bro get with the program
Potential leaders need to be tested before they obtain audiences. Scams are rampant today.
@@lucidairity7927no we need to arrest you for terrorism
I totally agree. Every damn one of them should be sacked.
They were all clearly just guessing and had no shame in doing so.
Yours is the most important comment I have seen. They do NOT care. Lies, truth, it's all the same to them because it's all about Money and Power
@@LoosMoosesimply put, they are puppets of the scum who are funding them.
I never believed that human made co2 effected the earth until I heard that it’s only 0.4% of the total atmosphere. We could EASILY effect that number, it would be much harder to effect it if it was 5-7%
He proved 2 things, those people are dumb and man made climate change is real.
"The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%). This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century. "
@@LoosMoose and you think the guy asking the questions wasn't corrupt?
And they are climate experts????.... A waste of taxpayers dollars paying them
They didn’t know that one figure because it’s not what they’re concerned with. The idiot asking the question is trying to pretend that CO2 emissions aren’t causing any harm, which is completely false. Any scientist would say that his point is not valid
They're not climate experts. Case in point, that dude at the start of the clip is Dwayne Boyd, the president of CRH Americas which is a company that produces asphalt. He's there on behalf of The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.
These people are INFRASTRUCTURE experts, giving testimony about building fuckin roads man, not climate experts. Before so eagerly swallowing low effort propaganda like this, maybe practice a little media literacy.
@@GerblerM how about you practice minding your fuckin business ?!!!... Analyze someone else comments... SMH 🙄🙄... If you knew so much you wouldn't have time to be in CZcams.
@@GerblerMread the caption brah. Rather their media literacy is good or not, the caption says what it says. Low effort propaganda swallowing lol 😂💀
@@josiahmccormack7502 You wanna take a crack at that sentence again chief? Lol what in the world are you saying?
These people are liars and they should be dealt with
So, if there comes a time that you're confronted with a question and you don't have the right answer ready to go, you "should be dealt with" too?
@@2beinteresting Government crooks should be dealt with. There is more than enough evidence over the years of who these "people" are. EPA's sordid history is a perfect start if you want to read up. Especially their work on "traversable waterways". I'll wait for you to not be a coward now.
@@2beinteresting these are climate “experts”. That was a basic question. Not single one got the answer correct.
Anyways that ladies condescending look should tell you enough.
@@Nippless247 These people aren't "climate experts". They are mainly working for an asphalt company. Get your facts straight before you start thinking, greetings.
She told us exactly what they want... "Energy transition" He roasted them all with facts.
No, he didn't "roast" them, but displayed his own ignorance by asking the wrong question. The better question is how much atmospheric warming will happen with the current amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
@trinitiZion Why would you ask them that? They have proven that they have no idea. All of their predictions, like polar ice caps disappearing by 2013, have been wrong. So, no, you shouldn't ask them about something they dont know.
He might as well have asked him what he had for lunch yesterday because they have no idea what they're talking about
I want energy transition from having to buy fuel and energy from corporate intrests, to providing my own energy and selling my surplus . without poisoning the planet.
@atticuswalker So, you make your own solar panels and batteries to enable that? Do you have your own grid to distribute your excess power? How do you mine the raw materials to make your solar panels and batteries without poisoning the planet? Or are you relying on corporations to make all of that for you?
So no one knows 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, which leaves 1% for other gases. So the answer is less than 1%. This is taught in school.
A percenage is nothing more than a percentage. 0,01% poison in the body mass can be deadly and a rise of the CO2-level from 0.03% to 0.05% can raise earth tempertur by 5 degrees centigrade and sealevel by 10-20 meters. Then New York is flooded.
Classic example of dumb people stuck in their one track minds. It might be 0.4% or what the fuck ever. But the real problem is if that 0.04% or whatever doubles or triples that will show What kind of effects and problems we could face. It be real problematic for people to fathom with mindsets like that
Not any more
Was looking for this comment.
@@cdadam22must've been taught in their time, those are some old timers.
A couple decades ago it was 0.03% and now is 0.04% and that's a tiny change?
THAT IS A MASSIVE CHANGE, IN FACT A 33% INCREASE. How stupid are we?
The amount in total is fucking nothing 0.04 lol
Should someone tell him how much co2 has been in the atmosphere in the past? Or should we just have some fun and keep letting him freak out?
Maybe we should let him know that the Eyjafjallajökull eruption put more co2 into the atmosphere in one month than the entirety of humanity since the industrial revolution?
Na.... We'll just let him keep being a proper pawn of the state.
💯!!! Nice Work!!!
The real question is what impact this change has on the Earth's temperature relative to the average temperature of the Sun, orbital changes, volcanic activity, and a myriad of other factors.
It is good to plants which all our lives depend on. How stupid are you?
How does nobody notice that the increase is rather significant? 0.03 to 0.04 is a 33 % increase.
Prices are increasing a lot more, and yet the economy isn't dying any time soon.
@@durere Let's see how long your comment can stand the test of time, shall we?
You missed the most important point in this just because you want people to think you know more.
the point is, we are at the lowest co2 level to be safe. any lower and the planet you claim to care about starts to die.
Educate yourself and learn how to be wrong. there is nothing wrong with being convinced of proven lies.
@@immrnoidall no, you have that 180 degrees wrong, as an excess of CO2 will kill off plants as well.
They breathe oxygen at night and when it's cloudy and exhale CO2.
But, increase it, it's plant food and will turn earth into the garden spot that Venus is.
Means more plants.
"I'll bite" like they're sitting around a fucking poker table... THIEVES
😂😂😂 seriously bro they're fucking con men
Exactly
Fuckin right
I thought she was going to say "I see their 5..." and raise you 10. Lol
Yes! Laughing away our time and money...
They have no idea. They just started calling themselves experts last year.
EXACTLY THIS.
If they have a college degree I'd like to find out which ones they have, because they are completely worthless degrees.
Or, like Bill Gates, they read a book one time so they are experts and Bill is a scientist.
Are they even calling themselves experts or is the video just misleading? Because 400 ppm being a recent threshold for CO2 is fairly common knowledge
we all working on BS to push the cost higher and fit their agenda 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
This guy has no idea what he's talking about
@@gidds617🤡
I have no formal training, but I’m an old lady with a lot of plants and I figured this out as soon as they started the climate BS.
Wake up people.. If you or I were this utterly incompetent in our jobs, we would not be gainfully employed.
Ok, go watch Carl Sagan adressing congress in the 1980s.
It doesn't matter how many idiots come forward after him.
He proved it and explained the way the different elements react to each other then.
@@bghost3636😅
Get rid of all CO2 and no more vegetation..
@@michaelnolan7713 Who is trying to get rid of all the CO2. Do you think it all comes from humans and that life did not exist before us?
Nobody wants to talk about how the poles are moving and going SIX TIME FASTER since only 2001. In 2001 it was about 5 miles now its almost 36 miles of annual movement.. By 2016 the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE called for an emergency congressional committee hearing to expedite funding to recalibrate the GPS systems because their predictive models thought they'd do it in 2020 but it's accelerated so quickly that the DOD couldn't predict it accurately!! That should give an academic CHILLS when they think about how in geological terms its BLISTERINGLY fast... As the North pole moved out into open waters, that ocean water with all its currents is a poor insulator and all the northern ice started melting... but guess what? NASA will tell you right now that Antarctica is forming ice FASTER than it's melting.. why? Because the southern pole is still moving over a land mass that is a good insulator to store that lack of thermal energy.
Now toss your tin foil hats on. Guess who announced their desire to colonize Mars a few weeks later to quote, "ensure the survival of humanity." Let that sink in; and I implore you to google image "north pole movement map" and suddenly you understand why Greenland started melting, why the planet is warming, and why your compass will point to Siberia within your lifetime. We will "probably" be fine, but I pray for those who deal with this in 100-200 years.
They have no clue what they're talking about. She says, "They are all working on." What a bunch of clowns.
Maybe if she was working on it she might know the #.
Just guessing that maybe you should know the facts of your job
The only thing they're working on is control of the population and enriching themselves.
That's why China sent the Ballon, for the clown show.
Neither does he if he thinks a 33% increase is a 'tiny change'
@@tyqwer4570 CO2 always increases AS A RESULT of global warming, not as a cause, according to studies of ice core samples from glaciers. It lags the temperature increases. What is the primary greenhouse gas? They teach you that at your indoctrination camp/ university? It's water vapor. I think we need to ban water, don't you? For the last 5000 years, it is clear that our climate has greatly varied, and most of the data point to solar energy as the cause of it. It sure wasn't your mom's SUV that caused the glaciers to receed from Albany.
They don't know what they are righteously fighting for.
If 0.03% has gone up to 0.04% that's a 33% INCREASE. It's not what the percentage IS. If that's the norm, and the rate of change is this high, Mr Smug-ass just proved how fucked we are.
How can you say that when it’s gone up 0.01 in 3 decades
Well Said!!👏👏👏👍💪 FINALLY
@@chrisshulick2580 I think if we get above .06% we're fucked (going off of memory here and I'm not an expert). But at that point or maybe its a little higher methane in ice caps gets released at a rate that even if we stopped CO2 emissions the greenhouse effect would continue on and make it worse. Our planet would eventually turn into Saturn.
Did you not hear what he said, if co2 drops below the 0.03, 0.02, plants begin to die. Where will you get your oxygen?
You're as clueless as the idiots who want to ban farming BECAUSE CONTRARY TO YOUR UTOPIA BELIEFS, YOU WILL HAVE NO FOOD IN STORES.
You fools place your trust in "fairies and leprechauns to fill the shelves
It is not the norm. Co2 and temperature change constantly and regularly and cyclically in history. Don't you know?
This hurts to watch. Air is basically: 78% nitrogen. 21% oxygen. Everything else combined is basically 1%.
Maybe we should send them all on a free diving course and expedition!!
Correct but the senators assertion is no less problematic.
His choice in units to point out his "numbers" is telling. 0.01 percent of our atmosphere is an insanely huge ammount of gas.
@@ngcastronerd4791you do know we would all die if there was no carbon right
@ngcastronerd4791 he also acknowledged that dropping. 0.01% will kill plant life but disagrees that raising by the same amount has any catastrophic effect 😂😂😂😂
@@meyou3353 Exactly, and this moron has been arguing with me over that very logical and obvious point of error from the Senator's part in the posts for the past hour.
Morons on both sides! None of those people should have been in that room to discuss this matter.
Even if it were as high as 5%, the fact that they all guessed says everything you need to know about these experts.
Edit*
Just to clarify, I never believed the atmosphere contained 5% CO2 (0.2% gives you a headache. I'm no expert but feel like 5% would equal death), nor did I believe this panel contained experts. I quoted the panel on 5% and called them experts because the title did.
To go from 0.03% to 0.02% starts imposing an existential threat to plant life on earth. But to go from 0.03% to 0.04% (a 33% increase which is still rapidly increasing) is a "tiny change" that we can all safely ignore and has absolutely no impacts on any life or ecosystems whatsoever. Nothing to worry about.
I'm sure if we just collectively ignore it entirely, the problem will go away by itself. Like how if we go to 0.02% and plants start dying we can just ignore it and magically the plants aren't dying anymore. Makes sense, right? It's just those annoying WOKE liberals who want to point out all the problems which we are happily ignoring.
@@sockpastarock7082causes a massive blooming of plants which reduces the CO2 and converts it to oxygen and more coal and oil (eventually) …everything has a way of balancing itself
@@sockpastarock7082ummm no. Ur wrong. To raise the planet's temp by ONE percent u need need to TRIPPLE co2 each time. So .06 for 1 .12 for 2.why u would just make ish up is crazy to me. What I just said was said by the world's top and leading CLIMATE scientist that spoke at the UN to tell everyone that it's all a lie.
@@iReelyFish wow that's fascinating. Is that because plants breathe CO2 and so more CO2 means more plants? Wow that's incredible how the fertility and health of plants depends on absolutely nothing except for CO2. More CO2 good. Less CO2 bad.
It's kind of like how if I wear an oxygen mask and just breathe 100% oxygen I will become extremely healthy and strong and have many children. Absolutely nothing bad will happen to my body if I do that. You should definitely try it. Just breathe pure 100% oxygen directly. It's very safe and good for you.
@@zlmdragon. guy deleted his comment. He was saying if a small decrease causes an existential threat to all plant life then a small increase should be equally worrying
0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere is a common sense! Taught in primary school! Wtf?
Ok but going from 0.03% to 0.04% is still a 33% increase, assuming all other gasses haven't increased or decreased, no?
In practice for small percentages like this yes. But in theory you have to adjust for the fact that you're also changing the total (new denominator)
all other gases in the atmosphere other than Oxygen and Nitrogen come only in the 1%!
33% of nothing is still nothing.
@@pauls4483it's not 33% of nothing. That 0,03 or 0,04% already has a huge greenhouse effect. Think of the moon which is just about the same distance from the sun but is much much colder because it lacks an atmosphere. So it is basically 33% of a lot of greenhouse effect
Sorry, in what world are you living? in
33% and 1% are TOTALLY different. It's 1% because all other gases than nutrogen and oxygen come under 1%@@pauls4483
Appearing before Congress and not knowing they're facts Is ridiculous
First it's *their if you are gonna insult someone try to do it without making yourself look even dumber than them.
Second. They are not experts and don't say they are they just listen to the experts.
Not knowing it's 'their' is ridiculous.
Why. The congressmen does not know his facts.
not knowing the difference between their, they're, and there is ridiculous
@Kekuahiwi being a Grammer nazi is also ridiculous but thank you for ignoring the key issue of the trick post. I gather that is all you can talk about since the subject is on miss leading the public with regards to how much gasses are in the atmosphere.
The fact they thought it was fun to guess.....speaks volumes.
It’s crazy that people who don’t know anything other than what they’re told can be elevated to such powers.
100%
Seriously, my initial thought.
Do you think that's real? They're talking like they are just hanging out and coming up with noise
None of them are climate experts. Easy to find through a Google search that they are experts on highway construction. They were testifying on the build back better implementation. You’ve been had.
I like how the man maintained his composure and kept it serious. This is not a game.
If a change of 0.01% decrease is that catastrophic for plant life, a change of 0.01% increase is something to take seriously.
This is the part guys like this "expert" don't take into account. Every .01% increases temperature by a few degrees.
No, not really. 0.02% is simply a minimum value. If water is at 32 degree F and goes down a degree, freezing and solidification starts to occur. If the water goes up a degree, virtually nothing happens. Same concept. Only difference is that plant is able flourish even more.
@@darren871you cant think of it as water because sure a 33% increase on 1⁰C is only about 1.33% but if the water is 100⁰C then it would increase to 133⁰C which is a significqnt change.
CO2 has increased by 33% according to his percentages of 0.03-0.04 atmopsphere presence. That is an incredibly high amount when we are talking about large numbers such as molecules in the atmosphere.
@@darren871 hey man it's super clear that you pulled this directly out of your asshole because that's not how any of this works.
@@darren871an increase of 0.01% from 0.03% is 33% increase.
A 33% increase in temperature from 0°C would put you around 93°C, which is near boiling point.
We are the carbon they want to reduce.
We are the ones they want to tax rather
@@wakeup6002No, he's right. They want to kill us off.
You said it my friend
Not really, we are the carbon plants are farming
Hence is why there's abortion on demand!
33.33% increase in last few decades.
I hope the panelists were wise enough to put that as a counter argument.
Still doesn't change the fact that the Earth was at a far lower CO2 level then it has ever been at the start of our burning fossil fuels. CO2 is literally 4 times lower today then just when the dinosaurs roamed the earth even after a century of burning fuel.
Becose of vulakans not humans
Did you know that apparently this increase in CO2 causes the desert to start growing plants?
@@durere ..or that the Amazon plant life has also expanded. Shut up...your messing with the narrative!
😂The whole bunch of them can’t conceal the laughter 😂 Just keep taking money from the masses tax payers
Should they not be fired directly? I mean if you are climate change experts, then this should be BASIC knowledge. If you already fail with BASIC knowledge then you are NOT a expert.
They’re not “climate change experts”. You’ve fallen for this amateurish propaganda. Notice how the video is altered to obscure their names, making it slightly more difficult to look up. They are industry reps for highway construction. One is Secretary of Transportation for the state of Texas.
That’s why they all fail together.
Another word for leftism is Failureism.
I actually have to KNOW my work. I can't just wing it and get paid. And these creeps are running my life and everyone else's life.
Did any of you check the facts? Or just assume the information in this video is accurate? I'm guessing you just listened to what you heard and went with that, like a fucking idiot
I'd like a job where when confronted I can laugh and take guesses on extremely important and relevant topics.
And they are gettin paid
The man you are praising is not representing the facts correctly, he's no better than the politicians. If minus .01% is bad as he stated, then +.01% isn't good either, as the atmosphere has an idea balance.
@@999benhondaexcept for the fact that you're completely wrong. CO2 has been far higher, for the majority of Earth's history, even during the last glacial period. We're still IN an ice age, but nearing the end, so CO2 is going to continue to rise, NATURALLY. Transportation, contrary to the opinion of the "expert", has resulted in almost zero change to atmospheric CO2 levels. A single volcanic eruption, or an ocean "fart", has the potential to release more CO2 than all the human activity during our entire existence. There is more CO2 trapped in permafrost, than every single bipedal mammal to ever exist has produced, and it is currently melting, naturally, as the planet ends its current ice age. The average global temperature between ice ages is 72°F. We are currently at 60°F. Plant and animal life is far more diverse between ice ages, so no, temperature increases are not a bad thing.
Isn't that a point? 0.02% plants are dying, we got from 0.03% to 0.04%. I may bring drastic results, but because of clowns from both sides we can't really have public discussion about this
Weeel, at the same time: going from 0,03 to 0,04 is a "tiny change", but if we get from 0,03 to 0,02, plant life starts to die. Seems like 0,01 is a massive amount.
Seems like 0.02 is the minimum and so we are just above minimum. Two perspectives here, but what he said does not suggest your outcome
@@OfficialGhostUkyeah it does plus we don’t know you gotta go by the science saying because the astomphere would be .000003 percent if it increases and cause a massive changes that is what should be considered.
@OfficialGhostUk but what is the maximum? Because some mass extinctions in the past were due to excessive amount of CO2
50 million years ago the earth was greener than ever and the CO2 levels were around 0.3-0.4 and humans can tolerate that without too many issues.
so we have a 0.02 minimum and a 0.4 maximum and we're almost at the bottom of that range. Looking at the human population, it's going to top out at about 9 billion in a few years and then start going down very rapidly according to current birth rates. We are at ZERO risk of anything.
Yall really are considering things in 2 dimensions instead of how it really is, 3 dimensions. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more plants grow and absorb it more also. As it's produced, it's consumed... there's a big azz circle of gasses and organic and inorganic processes at work that keep it circulating. CO2 produced 35 years ago when I was a lad, isn't in the atmosphere any longer... it's in a tree, trapped in some snow or ice, or dissolved into the ocean or rain, and into the soil and combining with other organic compounds.
As CO2 increases, we get acid rain and stuff too... that's. Cleansing of CO2 if only part of it.
There's people developing freestanding CO2 atmosphere filtering plants that will soon be removing CO2 by the physical ton, also adding to the 'it's REALLY not the emergency they are making it out to be' sensation going on in your brain.
Remember, activism doesn't need facts to support it, only blind adherence.
They're fanatics. Would make into the SS under Himmler.
You don’t need to know exactly how much alcohol is in a persons bloodstream to determine if it is affecting their ability to function normally.
I don't think you actually get the point ... listen to the very end. Just because someone makes a short with some agenda you already agree with
@@Notfiveo0 🙄 ACTUALLY YOU DO 🤦 WHY do you think there are LEGAL LIMITS? 🤭 YOU AREN'T VERY BRIGHT ARE YOU? 😂 NO WONDER YOU FELL FOR " CLIMATE CHANGE" AND " SAFE AND EFFECTIVE" 🤦🫵😂😂😂
@@Notfiveo0 but the solution to the problem can’t be worse than the problem. It takes 7 years of ownership of an ev to break even with a combustion engine when you include the environmental impact of building the damn thing. Majority of people don’t even keep their cars longer than 8-8.5 years. So there is practically zero gain when the full apples comparison washes out.
This doesn’t include the fact that EVs are wildly inconvenient due to range constraints and their inability to work during inclement weather or their constant desire to burn your house down. Also the fact that if the government didn’t still subsidize EVs to the tune of 7500$ which is nearly 17.5% of the most popular tesla.
I get it we need to eventually make the move from combustion engines to a cleaner alternative but the technology has be sustainable on its own and not foist upon the public through activism, and coercion.
What percent of these "experts" salaries are wasted tax dollars? 100%
I feel like these climate experts were playing the price is right. We got five we got seven I'll say 8%. I'm a maintenance technician and even I know the answer to this. Your job is literally climate science and you don't know this. That's the problem with colleges. They teach you the talking points but don't teach you any facts.
It is obvious that these are not climate 'experts', they are clueless politicians. The point is even the guy showing them up for their ignorance states that reducing the amount by 75% will kill most plants. We also know doubling the amount will alter our world beyond repair.
They never knew and don't care. Their careers are based on this lie.
Completely true. The oceans have not risen one inch.
@@josephmartin5483 Technically it does, since other lands like dubai and china build Islands, for military purposes and/or resorts. So the more Sand you fill in the ocean, the more volume it increases.
@@cliffhanger906 your such a simple minded person. Think about how the water cycle works, the oceans evaporate and the water is deposited in places like antArctica and the north pole. The fact is no one is monitoring the water deposits in antArctica. I assure you that sea level has not risen in the slightest in the last 30 years.
@@josephmartin5483 well....yeah. Its just ice....That doesnt change the Mass at all.
Its like having a pool with some ice cubes, you can move it from 1 spot to another spot. That wont change the mass at all....lol.
Yes. They love the lie and they love the Father of the Lie.
Most people "in charge" shouldn't have and couldn't justify their high salaries
The most interesting part here is, that the man asking the question shows, how tight our window is. As he said before 1850 we had a relatively stable CO2 part of 0.03% in air. I dont know if his other sentence is true but lets assume it is: Plants would die below 0.02%. So 0.01% is literally the line between life and death here. Now human never caused CO2 to drop significantly on a global scale, we INCREASED it by 0.01%… and were still increasing higher. So we’re increasing multiple times the „line between life and death“… climate change is real
These people dont know, yet they're in charge of the regulations for it? Cmon
They're literally off by a factor of 200
If I'm off by 1%, I'll most likely be looking for a new job
they are not climate experts. the youtube short is lying. the guy asking questions is the activist for oil companies. sad you literally believe whatever you read on the internet.
"The current global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%). This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity."
@@tommybull5788
Quote the source.
Love the name btw
@@tommybull5788 plant life eats CO2,
That change has made the plants around the world greener and more full of life. Giving us more oxygen as well.
The sad thing is the people asking the questions and the people answering the questions don't have to be accountable for anything they say. There are never any consequences for deliberately misleading people, oh except for us it is labeled fraud and we get fined or we are imprisoned.
That is very true 🙌👌
Clearly, activists need jobs too.
How could they not know such things that they are invested in ? Shows the danger of trusting these experts.
“Experts”
So called experts
Ex = has been.
Spurt = drip under pressure.
Specialists study more and more about less and less. One day they know everything about nothing.
They are not experts. They are paid political activists.
They are grifters. Fire them all. Making guesses? Ffs!
“I’ll take the high end lol”
It's a waste of time to ask in the first place, on top of that he admitted a small change would be a disaster. Yes, he absolutely should be fired.
You can't fire people from being activists. That isn't a job.
They don't know, and they don't care.
And yet we’re ALL still succumbing to their agenda
Stop the madness
They didn’t know that one figure because it’s not what they’re concerned with. The idiot asking the question is trying to pretend that CO2 emissions aren’t causing any harm, which is completely false. Any scientist would say that his point is not valid
Their answers match their IQ's.
You win the internet for the day.
The guy questioning them literally acknowledges how determental such a small change in CO2 causes while also trying to claim that it's not a big deal
He also doesn't understand that just because 0.03 seems like a small number thats not how environmental science works, if the air your breathing is 0.03 percent fentanyl then your gonna die it doesnt matter if the number looks small that's not how science works sorry for being rude but your a dumbass if you cant understand this concept he literally admits that co2 has increased 25% over the last couple decades thats scary dude,
Greenhouse gasses like co2 and methane are extremely effective at trapping energy from the sun it doesn't take much to notice a change in the effects, do you know why we use greenhouses to plant food in cold climates, its because we know they fucking work at trapping energy from the sun due to the build up of greenhouse gasses in them
I used the fentanyl analogy to show it doesn't take much of something to have a big effect a grain of salt worth of fentanyl will kill you just like a 0.01(a 25%) change in CO2 will cause noticeable change
Il medical science and environmental science isnt the same this is just and analogy I use for idiots that cant understand basic concepts in science
So the final dudes iq is 0.03
@@franciscofranco7078that wasn't a guess/answer of his it was the factual answer
@@franciscofranco7078yours is lower than that.
What a goddam embarrassment. Fire them all. This is insane
My words, imagine the Money, and Time they spend for NOTHING!!! We could have used this Money in Schools, to feed the Homless or Give the Money to a Foundation for Kids... so so sad!!
Correction, don't you mean "THEY" are an insane ?
@@Kemodreizehnnobody in politics would do that
Meint ihr Republikaner denn ernsthaft, dass ihr Verstand habt. CO² ist ein Spurengas in der Atmosphäre. Die genannte Menge von 0,04% sorgt für den Temperaturanstieg. Nur geht so etwas nicht in Eure Schädel. Ihr seid nicht besser als die afd.
they might be an embarrassment,,, but so is he, he hadn't realised hes saying you only need 0.01% increase for co2 to rise 25%... idiot
Gosh... 78% is Nitrogen and 21% is oxygen, argon is 0.9%. This is primary school knowledge. Where did 5~8% came about?.
These people should be fired! Inept calculations, inept recommendation, joke of their profession and disgrace for absurd and a derelict response. Why is any inadequate allowed to voice an ubtuse statement?!
Embarrassing that they didn't know, but let's not pretend that a 33% increase is insignificant. It's pretty well understood in physics that CO2 absorbs infrared light that would otherwise be lost to space. CO2 heats the Earth up a little, and we get more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas...
The answer is, "I dont know, but i can google it in 3 seconds." It was 0.034% in 1984, 0.040% in 2014, 0.042% now. It was below 0.028% before the Industrial Revolution, and it stayed below 0.030% for 800,000 year before that. We know that because of ice core samples and stalagmite formation.
Edit: methane is much more of a problem.
From 280 PPM to 420 PPM it would mean it increased by 50% in a couple of centuries. Republicans should probably pay attention in math and stop believing that they're smarter than fifth graders. If you want to oppose climate policies, you should do so; as there are plenty of reasons to. But stop thinking you understand everything about science; it's embarrassing. And this goes doubly for Evolution.
Greenhouse effect model is based on the flat earth model. You a flat earth believer?
@@JOSEPHDANCE75lol what are you talking about
@@JOSEPHDANCE75 The Fuck? never heard that. I would like to see your source.
@@JOSEPHDANCE75 Yes, Carl Sagan, a famous flat earther, used to talk about this decades ago. Trust me, bro.
This is what your tax payers are paying for. This country is lost.
the tiny change is important though. it's a gotcha question that convinces idiots that scientists don't know anything.
The country is dead.
@@takkatfleecetrue
@@takkatfleeceThe thing is, we’re going to kill the planet from war and industrialization way before CO2 changes matter. So to think not making it a big deal is what idiots do is just ignorant.
Shut up
CO2 is not the problem. I’ve studied what’s necessary to make plant life grow, and it is the Abundance of CO2. If the plants don’t have an adequate amount of CO2, they die. If they have more than they need, they just grow more and produce more oxygen. Our issue is deforestation and urban concrete. However most of our oxygen is produced by the conifer trees around the North Pole.
My proposal is: Politicians should only talk when they know what they are talking about. A pity that many do not abide that proposal.
They are all laughing as if to say, “we don’t give a 💩”, we still get paid.
No, they’re laughing because the question doesn’t matter. Research the greenhouse effect and the CO2 ppm this century alone.
@@jacoboreilly4736 AND Greta has just entered the chat.
Did any of you check the facts? Or just assume the information in this video is accurate? I'm guessing you just listened to what you heard and went with that, like a fucking idiot
You’re making that up
😮😮😮
Absolute proof that the world is in the hands of fools
Anybody that thinks looking at a raw number with no context means anything at all is absolute proof they are a fool.
Idk he kinda proved his own point wrong when he said a tiny change life dies
@@shaunclemtiger True, happy i was not the only one who noticed
@@shaunclemtigerright 😂
But he did demonstrate perfectly how ignorant political representatives truly are.
5% CO2?
A fucking middleschooler would know this shit.
Imagine instead of being completely ignoramuses, these clowns could have said that a small change in CO2 DOES have a potentially dramatic effect. Like for instance, if the CO2 level rises from 400ppm to 1000ppm, every mammal On the planet would develop a chronic headache, and would suffer from reduced Cognitive function.
@@shaunclemtigeryea the man said tiny change when the change is 50-100%. Then says oh well if it changes by 50-10% all life could die LMFAOOO. These idiots will believe anything as long as it feeds their conspiracy brained minds.
In the past 150 years, CO2 went from 280PPM to 370PPM. Yall might rhink it's "just" that. It's about 3000 Gigatons of CO2.
A Gigaton is 1 000 000 000 000 000 Grams.
We are indeed making a HUGE difference.
Hey congressman, you approve over a BILLION dollars for a bomber. How many do you have?
How could you possibly appear before congress without knowing the facts? I would get tossed out of my job if I was this poorly prepared. Insane!
Yes, me too---- 😮
Because you are misunderstanding what there job is. They are not paid to actually understand the climate and how or why it changes over time. They are just propogandists.
Exactly
These people just get pay raises.
To be fair, most the congressmen don't know the facts either...
I love it when members of Congress do their research while the experts go for the guessing game.
That is not the dumbest take on this, but it's close
That has NEVER happened once in history. And this was also not one of those times.
Christ, what is it with America and their denial of reality.
They aren’t experts. They are puppets bro. The matrix is real
But you notice it's always the liberals who have no evidence of their "facts"
Everyone here criticizing the "activits" needs to learn to question these very short and out of context videos. They are not climate scientists. A climate scientist would immediately know the answer without fail. Stop believing in crap just because it feeds into your agenda and ACTUALLY think. The data is there, you just need to look at it.
Can we please stop referring to people who are not climate change scientists as climate change experts.
If you don’t have the humility to say “I don’t know” or “I was wrong”, then you don’t have the wisdom or fortitude to fix anyone else’s problems.
They might not know, but it doesn't prove his point. He himself admits its .04%, it's gone up from .03%. a small change, but if it had gone down by that small change instead of up then plants will start dying. Another tiny increase and we are going to have other problems. He is manipulating you.
Perfect opinion
thats the stupidest criteria one could come up with
are you a child to evaluate ideas by the attitude people who have them hold?
If you really want to ignore a problem, you will take seriously everything u hear against it
@@vla120699no, it's education. "Stupidest" is not a word homie ❤
These people shouldn't be advocates for something they are ignorant about
Yeah people should not advocate things they are ignorant about... yet we still have climate change deniers around...
Nobody should be advocates for something that doesn’t exist.
@@davidcasellajr9187facts
@@davidcasellajr9187 Climate change does exist though?
@@phantom5731 the climate is constantly changing back and forth. But global warming is a cash grab made up to scare people and to increase taxes
Thinking that 0.04% (400ppm) is insignificant is also wrong. If earth had 0 CO2 the Earth's average temperature would be -18°C (0°F). So yeah that change from 0.03% to 0.04% is heuge.
This is what happens when we let politicians run science...
Transportation does not make up 49% of atmospheric CO2.
The fact that they are fine with guessing and laughing about it is infuriating and embarrassing as a fellow human being.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you our Climate experts!
The guessing experts?
None of them are climate experts. They are highway construction experts. LaMalfa did this to look epic. And you fell for it. transportation.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=406231
They are panelists. Looks like CEOs or business experts to me. Especially with this 'we in transportation are working to get our emissions down" part. No climate expert would say' we' when referring to the transportation sector.
And the question asker is clearly giving a little collage about how little CO2 can be the difference between a frozen or boiling planet. . We need to be at 350 parts per million, but exceeded the 400 ppm mark. This is basic knowledge that every voter should know and every lobbyist is paid not to know.
@mdainko You're jumping to conclusions. They are not climate experts. That's just what the person who posted this said to provoke you to say that. It's a lie. Their expertise is in transportation. Do some research before you believe what random people say on the internet.
@@maan100283 basic knowledge?! Hilarious. More like basic propaganda. More CO2 = a healthier planet. The planet has been turning more green the last 40 years precisely because we have more CO2 in the atmosphere. Even NASA admits that. We have also been significantly warmer and had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, and the world thrived. More people die from the cold every year, than heat. A lot more. And deaths attributed to the climate have dropped massively in the last century.
The crusade against CO2 is among the dumbest, most foolish endeavors the world has ever embarked on. Actually, it is the dumbest and most foolish of all.
Can you imagine going to congress and being so ignorant. Fire them all
Atmospheric CO2 is generally measured by Parts Per Million (PPM) and shown in the Keeling Curve, the question was intentionally misleading for a ‘gotcha moment’ which is rather disingenuous.
Including the Clowns running Congress
What is misleading? LOL@@ianjenkins8114
@@ianjenkins8114 lol ok facts are gotcha moments
@@johnrhodes101875 not the fact itself but the way it’s presented. I’ll give you an example. I could quote your age in microseconds. The number would be so large no one would have any idea how old that age is in years, but technically what I stated would be correct. Climate scientists use the PPM measurement for CO2 so again a misleading question.
He schooled them but then also made the mistake of using absolute numbers to claim something is insignificant. 0.03 to 0.04 is a 33% change. That’s significant. He said it himself, 0.04 to 0.02 would kill plants. What do you think 0.05 will do to us? Please think objectively and for yourself.
Plants like CO2, plants give off O2, more CO2 equals more Oxygen, take care of your plants thats it
This just illustrates it perfectly. They simply don't know what they're talking about.
That's most people everywhere. Welcome to reality.
Did any of you check the facts? Or just assume the information in this video is accurate? I'm guessing you just listened to what you heard and went with that, like a fucking idiot
So climate changing isn't real?
nah its YOU who is clueless
@@TrumpCantReadbad troll
Those weren’t experts. They are politicians.
They are experts. In fear mongering
So was the clown asking questions..
None of these people are experts. The experts don’t show up in such videos bc they are busy doing actual science, which is difficult.
CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled from 0.2% to 0.4% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The man made doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere and the continuing increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is having a detrimental effect on our planet.
Burning finite fossil fuels is bad for our health and we need to switch to cleaner renewable, sustainable, alternatives.
Bret Weinstein warns about relying on experts. We know experts are hired and paid for.
Out of college I had to make some important decisions. I chose not to be "owned" my the wealthy who invest in agendas rather than truth.
The average person cannot handle the truth.
Bro tried to be slick but it's not the percentage of the atmosphere of Co2 that matters, it's the total amount of CO2. The more CO2, the more Greenhouse Effect. We should send all politicians back to school.
Imagine thinking you can solve a problem you know nothing about
That's how communism works. Magic
They know it's not a problem. It's an act
That’s what is normal practice in capitalism. Wonder
@@jurgenfrohwonne acting like we're gonna end the planet to control people, convince people to block traffic of everyday people around the world and make money. I think capitalism isn't the right comparison. The people convincing climate activists are all private jet flying hypocrites.
@jurgenfrohwonne don't make me laugh. Capitalism incentivizes people to solve problems that people like you are too lazy or ignorant to solve.
Just insane how they don't know how do you make decisions that effects all of us and have no clue what they talking about 😡
maybe that was not the correct question, or the "experts" didn't get the exact reason why global temperatures are rising so quickly. is it CO2? or just CO2?
These people dont make decisions based on facts or knowledge. It is based on money.
to be fair 0.03 to 0.04% is an increase of 33% I’m no climate change activist just thought I’d point that out
CO2 isn’t typically measured in % of the atmosphere, it’s measure in parts per million (ppm). If you look at change in CO2 concentrations in that resolution, then you will begin to see the issue.
78% nitrogen 21% oxygen 1% other gasses. Secondary school biology.😂
They Miss THAT Day in School.....😮😢😅
So we found the idiots who play truant in school science lessons and going on to become "experts" eh?
It's physics not biology lol
@@ReelRewindRetro
It's not against the law to teach that in Biology ALSO.
Im an ex Commersial Diver. Those percentages are engrained. 1% trace gasses from the periodic table. For breathing... negligable.
Those people are a ducking joke
No you are.
Quack quack
Duck those ducking ducks.
They really are tho
0.03 to 0.04 is 33% increase. It is a huge increase. He himself said going to 0.02 means death of plant life. That 0.01 is extremely significant.
Your exhaled air has 4% CO2 while inhaled air is only 0.04%. If you have atmosphere of 5%CO2, you will die of asphyxia.
People in power need to be held responsible for their criminal activities.....
However, we are the ones who grant such individuals authority.
yes and no. So heres the problem its called acidification. Check the c02 levels of the ocean link below. So the ocean is pretty much a giant filter which is why the atmosphere isnt getting that much stronger. but the ocean water is getting more and more acidic. This is killing algea which produced 90% of the earths oxygen and may be extinct in the next 50-100 years and kill most of the ocean life as we know it. Which will chain into other things as our eco system heavily relies on the ocean. But no politician on either side has any remote interest in real climate change issues. This wont kill the earth just current life untill it has enough time to revert back.
www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification
Al Gore should be in prison for becoming a fear monger over global warming. He’s now worth over $1 billion. Shame on the idiots for believing that.
@@kaboomwinn4026democracy is a myth
The word you're looking for is "accountable"
Mind blowing that these politicians don't have a clue what is in the air we breathe. And yet these people are allowed to spread lies with no accountability
The idiot asking the question is thinks net zero is there will be no co2 in the atmosphere.
They don’t need to know because really smart scientists who know that 0.04 is a high amount of CO2 are advising them
So anyone can get a G job these days. Obviously there are zero requirements. Just a waste of tax money. WE WANT A REFUND TODAY !!!
experts of stealing money
😂 "One dollar Bob!"
They're acting like they're competing for the Showcase Showdown, not appearing before Congress. 🤦🏽♀️
That’s EXACTLY where my head went with this lol
tell that to the lava floods in icelands.
They didn't do side quest before the final boss
@@somerandomchannel382what does lava have to do with anything lmao. Pathetic.
Q. Do you think lava flows are from CO2?
And the politicians are smirking and laughing like it’s a game, they don’t even know the actual numbers of what they are trying to control what a joke
This is the most common tactic control through fear, those who don’t fear get ostracized by society “carbon footprints” are just an excuse to bend taxpayers over for more money because they have unchecked spending and all they know is that, it’s an excuse to tax us more, because the thousands they take from the hardworking middle class isn’t enough so you get global warming what funny is the earth naturally goes through climate fluctuations but they’re merely relying on those who blindly trust them or don’t have the time or intelligence levels to actually look into and understand what these people say that the same reason why they put yes=no and no=yes on ballots worst of all we’re all too busy hating each other over who someone voted for instead of uniting and holding
These people accountable
They are smirking and laughing because that is the game.
Some Humans like this panel are Filthy... Disgusting
I know I'm late to the party here. But here's some more knowledge to add to the party. The oxygen and nitrogen (that 99%) in our atmosphere do NOT absorb any of the heat produced by the Sun OR the infrared radiation (heat) that the Earth produces as it warms up on the surface. So we have 1% to work with so we all don't essentially burn to a crisp. Now I did the math in terms of degrees for you guys, and every .001% of CO2 raises global average temperatures by about 2ish degrees Celcius/4ish degrees Fahreheit. And this is not going to stay a 1 to 1 value. Shit will go down. It already slowly is. Like the small child pulling cookies from a cookie jar when no one is looking.
The fact that people who don't believe in climate change despite the evidence are deciding our future is fuckin scary. Most of this comment section makes it even worse
Quit being such a scared coward and grow up
The average knowledge level of people who make decisions for our society displayed in broad daylight!
Climate change is the next big scam coming
And what's so crazy is it would have taken one read-through of some notes before going up in public for him to be somewhat knowledgeable.
They either don't care to prepare like that, or they're too stupid to consider getting their facts together BEFORE getting grilled.
Not sure which is worse
The average naivety level of people who will believe anything they’re told in a video, without any attempt to verify whether said video is genuine, displayed in broad daylight.
@@Mark-Stone Making naive assumptions to pump ones self confidence level ... is yours really so low?
@@user-ft8kd2vg7t I made no naive assumption, chief; I made evidenced based assumptions. You made a sweeping condemnation without bothering to verify that this video is what it’s purported to be.
Your claims about self-confidence, by the way, are pitifully childish and irrelevant.
They're to busy trying to figure out how it's Trump's fault.
Exactly
Only ones saying that are you 2.
😂
They figure how to blame Trump while their sheep figure out how to gaslight you for noticing
Trump lost btw
To be honest, you even writing this comment means you are obsessed about this.
If plants start dying by lowering CO2 concentration by as much as we've increased it that should be enough to tell us how insanely huge an increase it actually is. Just because both numbers are small doesn't mean the difference doesn't matter.
Ask that to the actual scientists who work on that, not them.
Thank you for exposing our supposed expert class.
These are not experts
@@BrandonSorenson-fb3gg op said that
As experts they should know the correct answer. Being called up for this hearing they should know this question would be asked.
They should know that it's a right wing talking point I'll give you that...but the answer to this question is not relevant to the case at hand