Good lecture. I'm preparing to accept a much shittier future.
The slight silver lining in the short term is that i might get to witness all the deniers of the world suffer too, and they're gonna be more upset than me.
Even if the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere now is negligible, which is debatable, the point of this video is that in the very near future, it probably won't be unless we stop polluting.
Even if you don't think that people are literally causing global warming, surely we can all agree that industrial pollution is not good for the environment and should probably be addressed in a meaningful way, and soon.
I'm confused by the vitriol on this comments page.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Nobody disputes this.
As such, it is possible to calculate the amount of warming, in degrees, that one ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere creates, even if that number is very small. This is also not in dispute.
Human industrial activity creates a very large output of carbon dioxide. This is also a verifiable claim, and indeed has been verified.
Why are you surprised that AGM opponents are finally striking back after the gestapo like behavior of supporters claiming "the science is settled" when it isn't? You have never been on the receiving end of such acts. It's not climate denialism, it's an effort to have an honest discussion about the climate without the trappings of a closed discussion. Climate science is barely 50 years old, that's the equivalent of an infant in science. Would you allow an infant to spend 45 trillion dollars?
@mcamelyne You're wrong. Climate science started in the early 19th century with the discovery of the greenhouse effect. Data confirming the hypothesis that the greenhouse effect was warming the Earth has grown steadily since first being found in the 1950s. The fact that we must have ongoing discussion as to the scope of climate change in no way precludes taking action in the direction in which it has being pointing so far.
@peteface24 - I know all about the greenhouse effect. The largest greenhouse gas is water. If you look at the regional temperature chart for North America, you have your answer. Climate can be regionally affected by man through desertification and urbanization but man is nothing more than a bit player when it comes to the sun. Climate change is a natural process but unless you can change the wobble of the Earth, the globe will follow its own path regardless of man,
@mcamelyne The largest greenhouse gas is water? In what sense? Largest molecules? Seems irrelevant.
If orbits were all that mattered, Mercury (closest to sun) would be hotter than Venus (2nd from sun). But Venus is warmer, because it has an atmosphere almost entirely composed of CO2.
And citing a regional chart for North America on a worldwide trend is idiotic.
the fact our national uni anu is proud of and presumably paying a wage to this distinctly immoral, unprincipled & irrational individual i think puts additional strength behind the otherwise unrelated proposition that education should remain a private sector phenomenon in order to mitigate further misallocation of resources on individuals such as this
What a bunch of nonsense. There is NOTHING happening in the climate or weather today that is beyond normal variation of 1000, 10000, and 100000 year cycles. Nothing, not storms, not ice, not temperature. The increase average of the mean yearly temps is from cooler summers and not as cold winters. Warmer is good, CO2 is plant food.
Interesting view on the effects of climate change. Although I think that he hugely underestimates the potential that humans have to adapt. Just look at the achievement made in the last 200 years. It gives me goosebumps thinking about it.
@ All sceptics. Even if human caused carbon dioxide emissions turn out to be a negligible contribution in a natural cycle, is it really that bad too prepare for the worst? Can everyone seriously say that their current lifestyle is sustainable?
How can you say nuclear is zero emissions? You can't, but its the best we have. I bet if a guy fact checked this it would fall to bits. Would like very much for him to debate a guy like Richard Lindzen or Henrick Svensmark. Real scientists.
This guy is full of lies, unless Richard Linzens papers are wrong. I going with Richard Lindzen. What is this guy a professor in? Oh ya Public Ethics, intersting...CAN YOU SAY SCAM OF THE AGES?
This guy gets death threats I bet. News flash there is no consensus in fact there is alot of good science that refutes the whole theory, Richard Lindzen has published a paper that proves CO2 has such a small effect on temps that it is not a threat at all. Its not just about climategate, there are just too many other published papers that refute that there is a threat from small amount of CO2 we produce.
Well maybe they should stop LYING so much for this hoax, that might help with the death threats. As for the tax, I will be suprised if they don't get it through there are still so many sheeple.
What these guys fail to mention is that there are billions of dollars of new taxes that hinge on the world buying into this lie. If the data wasn't altered, handled in a manner that were believable and especially if Al Gore wasn't profiting from this, I would be apt to believe it. What a lie!
Being lectured in global warming by a professor in Public Ethics. Great!
How about some ethics in the upper echelons of the climate community?
Hiding and fudging temperature data, bullying and blocking anyone who don’t buy in to their agenda and want to publish research in peer review literature which is based on evidence and objective science.
Please anyone! Look for evidence yourself for global warming, the melting ice cover and sea level rise increase from reliable satellite data. It is just a few clicks away on the Internet!
Where are the warming, the sea level rise increase and the melting ice sheets? I can’t find it. And where is the evidence for a strong positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor, which is a prerequisite for dangerous human caused global warming?
The description of cognitive dissonance is spot on for describing the CAGW crowd loony beliefs in the climate apocalypse.
Why is it, that companies like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, which have adopted financial fraud as part of their business strategies and is now wrecking the world economy, also is investing and lobbying heavily in the coming multi trillion carbon trading market? Can it be so that they easily can rob money out of thin air from ordinary people, while pretending the save the planet?
Good lecture. I'm preparing to accept a much shittier future.
The slight silver lining in the short term is that i might get to witness all the deniers of the world suffer too, and they're gonna be more upset than me.
670Kiester 9 months ago
Nutter
tjhull1 10 months ago
where i live its just getting colder i wish the planet was warming up im tired of cryogenic winters and chilly summers
ST0N3R420X420 1 year ago
@ST0N3R420X420 That's called weather, not climate.
peteface24 8 months ago
Even if the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere now is negligible, which is debatable, the point of this video is that in the very near future, it probably won't be unless we stop polluting.
Even if you don't think that people are literally causing global warming, surely we can all agree that industrial pollution is not good for the environment and should probably be addressed in a meaningful way, and soon.
stinkles1112 1 year ago 6
I'm confused by the vitriol on this comments page.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Nobody disputes this.
As such, it is possible to calculate the amount of warming, in degrees, that one ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere creates, even if that number is very small. This is also not in dispute.
Human industrial activity creates a very large output of carbon dioxide. This is also a verifiable claim, and indeed has been verified.
So, why exactly is AGW such a ridiculous claim?
stinkles1112 1 year ago 5
Why do the wingnuts hate their grandchildren?
SuzettePleshette 1 year ago
Why dothe wingnuts hate their children and grandchildrean?
SuzettePleshette 1 year ago
Why are you surprised that AGM opponents are finally striking back after the gestapo like behavior of supporters claiming "the science is settled" when it isn't? You have never been on the receiving end of such acts. It's not climate denialism, it's an effort to have an honest discussion about the climate without the trappings of a closed discussion. Climate science is barely 50 years old, that's the equivalent of an infant in science. Would you allow an infant to spend 45 trillion dollars?
mcamelyne 1 year ago
@mcamelyne Haha whats this psychobabble horseshit you're spouting?
numnunums 1 year ago
@mcamelyne You're wrong. Climate science started in the early 19th century with the discovery of the greenhouse effect. Data confirming the hypothesis that the greenhouse effect was warming the Earth has grown steadily since first being found in the 1950s. The fact that we must have ongoing discussion as to the scope of climate change in no way precludes taking action in the direction in which it has being pointing so far.
peteface24 8 months ago
@peteface24 - I know all about the greenhouse effect. The largest greenhouse gas is water. If you look at the regional temperature chart for North America, you have your answer. Climate can be regionally affected by man through desertification and urbanization but man is nothing more than a bit player when it comes to the sun. Climate change is a natural process but unless you can change the wobble of the Earth, the globe will follow its own path regardless of man,
mcamelyne 8 months ago
@mcamelyne The largest greenhouse gas is water? In what sense? Largest molecules? Seems irrelevant.
If orbits were all that mattered, Mercury (closest to sun) would be hotter than Venus (2nd from sun). But Venus is warmer, because it has an atmosphere almost entirely composed of CO2.
And citing a regional chart for North America on a worldwide trend is idiotic.
Impulse725 6 months ago
Dear Clive Hamilton
Social costs are too high and agree with jrwakefield 1 month ago.
So this you-tube is to devide and rule us poor, and make poor countries fail further.
Please encourage people to check the science for themselves.
wscparks 1 year ago
the fact our national uni anu is proud of and presumably paying a wage to this distinctly immoral, unprincipled & irrational individual i think puts additional strength behind the otherwise unrelated proposition that education should remain a private sector phenomenon in order to mitigate further misallocation of resources on individuals such as this
CliveYouBeauty 1 year ago
What a bunch of nonsense. There is NOTHING happening in the climate or weather today that is beyond normal variation of 1000, 10000, and 100000 year cycles. Nothing, not storms, not ice, not temperature. The increase average of the mean yearly temps is from cooler summers and not as cold winters. Warmer is good, CO2 is plant food.
jrwakefield 1 year ago
Interesting view on the effects of climate change. Although I think that he hugely underestimates the potential that humans have to adapt. Just look at the achievement made in the last 200 years. It gives me goosebumps thinking about it.
@ All sceptics. Even if human caused carbon dioxide emissions turn out to be a negligible contribution in a natural cycle, is it really that bad too prepare for the worst? Can everyone seriously say that their current lifestyle is sustainable?
Frankreif 1 year ago
How can you say nuclear is zero emissions? You can't, but its the best we have. I bet if a guy fact checked this it would fall to bits. Would like very much for him to debate a guy like Richard Lindzen or Henrick Svensmark. Real scientists.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
This guy is full of lies, unless Richard Linzens papers are wrong. I going with Richard Lindzen. What is this guy a professor in? Oh ya Public Ethics, intersting...CAN YOU SAY SCAM OF THE AGES?
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Henrick Svensmark too, check out his theory on here.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
This guy gets death threats I bet. News flash there is no consensus in fact there is alot of good science that refutes the whole theory, Richard Lindzen has published a paper that proves CO2 has such a small effect on temps that it is not a threat at all. Its not just about climategate, there are just too many other published papers that refute that there is a threat from small amount of CO2 we produce.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Well maybe they should stop LYING so much for this hoax, that might help with the death threats. As for the tax, I will be suprised if they don't get it through there are still so many sheeple.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
What these guys fail to mention is that there are billions of dollars of new taxes that hinge on the world buying into this lie. If the data wasn't altered, handled in a manner that were believable and especially if Al Gore wasn't profiting from this, I would be apt to believe it. What a lie!
tripperwood 1 year ago
Being lectured in global warming by a professor in Public Ethics. Great!
How about some ethics in the upper echelons of the climate community?
Hiding and fudging temperature data, bullying and blocking anyone who don’t buy in to their agenda and want to publish research in peer review literature which is based on evidence and objective science.
PerStrand 1 year ago
Please anyone! Look for evidence yourself for global warming, the melting ice cover and sea level rise increase from reliable satellite data. It is just a few clicks away on the Internet!
PerStrand 1 year ago
Where are the warming, the sea level rise increase and the melting ice sheets? I can’t find it. And where is the evidence for a strong positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor, which is a prerequisite for dangerous human caused global warming?
The description of cognitive dissonance is spot on for describing the CAGW crowd loony beliefs in the climate apocalypse.
PerStrand 1 year ago
@PerStrand
well I found it - try google as a starting point
cthulhu11111111 1 year ago 2
Why is it, that companies like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, which have adopted financial fraud as part of their business strategies and is now wrecking the world economy, also is investing and lobbying heavily in the coming multi trillion carbon trading market? Can it be so that they easily can rob money out of thin air from ordinary people, while pretending the save the planet?
PerStrand 1 year ago
no description and no proper title. way to go.
telanis9 1 year ago