Isaac Asimov on the Greenhouse Effect: 1989

This video is part of a longer presentation at the Humanist Institute in New York in 1989, and it demonstrates yet again that the broad outlines of the climate change story have been understood for decades by, well, intelligent men who are guided by science.
It's been a recurring theme in this series - that the science was essentially complete long before Al Gore, long before the IPCC, long before the Hockey Stick.

Whole talk here:
http://www.ubcome.com/Savethebiospher...
Isaac Asimov Radio Interview on the Greenhouse Effect: 1977
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz1g55...

• Category

  Science & Technology

[greenman3610]

because there is a massive, well coordinated campaign to distort, dissemble and deny the science, modeled on the very successful efforts of tobacco companies.

Tobacco managed to kill millions.

Climate deniers are going for billions.

[GoldenVulpes]

its seems like common sense i don't know why people think its a big controversy.

[greenman3610]

so you're only 114 years behind the mainstream science. We'll watch your progress.

[tnekkc]

I took honors physics in 1975 under professor Brown at the Univ of Wash.

He was a flaming liberal.

He resented that Newtonian physics problems often involved a "gun".

He spent 3 hours presenting his derivation of oscillatory motion, and all I remember now is his assumption that for small x, sinx = x.

The greenhouse effect for man made CO2 was described by Nils Ekholm in 1899. It was thought to be a good idea, until 1900 when Knut Ångström published that CO2 has almost no effect.

[chookbuffy]

Dude, you need a holiday or something. I am speaking about science here, Take a break and listen to some physics lectures (just enough so you can start to figure things out yourself). It will be good if you could understand the greenhouse effect. It is a fascinating aspect of science, the fac thta tthe vibration of a trace molecule can adsorb heat, redistributing it around the atmosphere. Please I'm not here for politics. Stick to the science.

[tnekkc]

I am serious. We have an unsustainable liberal problem.

We can't go on letting liberals pollute the media with their debasement of science.

Liberals live in a fantasy land.

We are on a CO2 starved planet.

Obama is a disaster.

He said, "The time for debate is over."

That is a global warming attack on science.

Stalin did the same thing with "teaching" wheat.

[chookbuffy]

how do you keep your motivation up for this?

I've been following your videos for a few years now. They have been pretty inspiring. However, I try and fight, with rationaiist comments, but am almost sick to death of all the denialism. I am really pessimistic about actual action to address these issues if we are still doing this.

[chookbuffy]

are you serious?

The world is bigger than your personal grudge against the present American President.

Fortunately, the law of physics are independent of nations making it possible for the rest of us to understand the workings of the atmosphere, and, the human input to it.

There is no facts. There is physical evidence.

[tnekkc]

Someone must resist the back door collectivism in global warming hoaxing and feminist hoaxing and environmental hoaxing and race baiting hoaxing.

We not just going to roll over for Obama.

[greenman3610]

right. commies. thanks for playing

[tnekkc]

There is no issue other than commies have used women's liberation and environmentalism to increase collectivism.

Big gov is the danger.

They will use global warming as an excuse to increase the size and power of gov.

You are not a good person unless you are doing something to stop the increase in gov.

[jackie castle]

then you don't understand the severe drought of the past 3 years and that we've been flooding where it's not all dried up. at least the liberals will admit the issue,

though they've yet to accomplish a thing regarding it i approve of, like ending subsidies for fossil fuels.

yeah um your wrong if you think us getting warmer is good for us.

find one place on the planet that has had a net benefit from our carbon output.

j