HomeРазвлеченияRelated VideosMore From: The Dave Cullen Show

The Truth About An Inconvenient Truth (Film Review)

2419 ratings | 50252 views
Support my work on Patreon: http://ow.ly/3ymWFu PayPal Donations Welcome. Click here: http://goo.gl/NSdOvK SUBSCRIBE TO THIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDVb4m_5QHhZElT47E1oODg KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter : http://twitter.com/davecullenCF Minds: https://www.minds.com/DaveCullen Gab: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (914)
Kenneth Higdon (15 hours ago)
Still a better love story than Twilight
Kathy Sharp (5 days ago)
CO2 increased from 0.028% to a "whopping" 0.040%. Wow. Poor trees, how do they even manage to live off such meagre concentrations? I bet they are VERY happy to have a bit more now.
VeryEvilPettingZoo (7 days ago)
Vague and misinformed. Climate science is working just fine. The problem is real. The notion that this is some grand taxation/control scheme by the powerful is idiotic conspiracy theory nonsense.
Andrew E (7 days ago)
Hi, 2018 calling, EVERYTHING IS ON FIRE.
Tony Magliano (8 days ago)
There’s no climate change there’s only lies corruption and agenda, all lies and deception to manipulate and control people minds, you evil minded bastards, God!, like it or not will punish you very severely
VeryEvilPettingZoo (7 days ago)
I sure hope you're attempting a parody of the kinds of things stupid people say.
Gamer Max (20 days ago)
it's the whole 100 years of warming I don't buy. Temps were colder in the 1960's, that just doesn't stick.
garith21 (14 days ago)
Huh? Most of the scientific debate focuses around the last half-century. The temperatures weren't even expected to rise out of what could be dismissed as background variance till the 90's which is around when it did. You should also examine why temperatures rise or fall. For example when it comes to cooling the largest culprits in the short term tend to be more aerosol production and reduced solar activity. As one example it was predicted that the erruption of a large volcano like Mt. Pinatubo would result in lowered average temperatures because the aerosol production would reflect more sunlight into space till the particulate matter fell from the atmosphere which it did. In the extreme short term like year to year ENSO is also has a very large effect on land surface temperatures.
Niall Quinn (22 days ago)
Exxon Mobil? Who has power? Oil companies or scientists and environmental groups?
garith21 (21 days ago)
shhh, you'll shatter the delusion that only environmentalists think climate change will be bad, don't mention the scientists at Exxon Mobil
DavesWorld (30 days ago)
You always do a great job presenting a balanced view while exposing the corruption and fraud of the elite.
garith21 (29 days ago)
Eh, except he displays a great lack of understanding on the topic and relies on outdated sources that were admitted to be wrong nearly a year before the production of this video. The science is pretty basic and pretty robust when you actually look at it and it's passed many tests that are unique to the mechanism of CO2 based warming.
paul (30 days ago)
dave i'm late to the show on this one. i follow all your videos and enjoy them. why one earth - if you are on the political right of the spectrum - do you have wear your badge of honour and become a climate change denier? that is what you really are. look in the mirror please. you say the times have been accelerated - you are not i repeat not a scientist. now - why all this dose of skepticism about climate change - because the american right is at economic war with china. check out the videos (i'm too lazy to put links here) - they want looser environmental controls and are in the hands of the carbon industry. i actually have problems with an inconvenient truth - but at least the fella did something.
Alaskan_battleship (1 month ago)
Fuck you you piece of shit...I live in the Pacific and my people are already having to move...you fuck...
Roman Dovhan (1 month ago)
Did you fail your leaving cert, the hottest and the coldest years in history, mega storms, drought in fucking Ireland, Forest fires caused by drought, in Africa there is a city running out of water. The weather is getting more extreme that is why it is not global warming but climate change now a more appropriate name for this phenomenon. As for whether or not this is caused by humans simple isotope test show clearly that most co2 is man made and not respiratory. As far as I can see we are fucked the chain reaction has started and humanity will have to get creative to reduce the damage, build mirrors or lens between earth and sun for example.
Fuzzy Peaches (1 month ago)
The science isn't even close to being settled because nature is not a constant.
garith21 (1 month ago)
> foolish thinker when in the earth history has the temperature been stagnant ? I dunno, they were pretty good for most of the last 4000 years, not very much variation. Took about 1.2k years to change .4C without large events and even with large geological events it took around 600 years to decrease .6C due to large aerosol production. If you look at long-term temperatures barring large events it usually takes thousands to tens of thousands of years to see a .9C temperature change which we've seen in the last hundred or so years. > fact just a few watts more from the sun and the earth gets a temperature. You are aware that's how CO2 based warming works right? It just keeps a few more percent of the sun's energy in the atmosphere longer delaying heat dissipation. > Answer this question why are airport temperature histories still used to gauge warming when a child can tell you that it's a lousy control for any science . Oh man, it's not like scientists only used it for a relative change for the region and calibrate it with nearby regions that aren't affected by the urban heat island effect or anything. If you thought the urban heat island effect was one of the major factors with regards to climate change then why do we see so much of the warming where there aren't people? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89469/global-temperature-record-broken-for-third-consecutive-year All those airports and cities in the arctic and oceans must really mess up those temperature readings huh? Oh that's right, calibration to you is just an evil word.
Fuzzy Peaches (1 month ago)
VeryEvilPettingZoo foolish thinker when in the earth history has the temperature been stagnant ?it is always going up or down fact just a few watts more from the sun and the earth gets a temperature.Answer this question why are airport temperature histories still used to gauge warming when a child can tell you that it's a lousy control for any science . Airports were once in the country in most cases and now they are inside a heat bubble that did not exist before.The comparisons should be taken outside of the bubble where temps will not have climed and records will not have been broken .your science is junk find a new way to fleas the public.
garith21 (1 month ago)
> Greenland was once green during man's time on earth and I'm sure your junk science blames its weather on man Would you like to examine what the rest of the world was like outside of Greenland and Europe or do you think that Greenland temperatures are the same as world temperatures? All the same I'm pretty sure orbital factors tend to be the most accepted cause because of the marker of the warming primarily in the northern hemisphere. > Me if our sun gives us lemons I'm making lemonade the sun's output a few ways in any direction and man is simply along for the ride . But the sun's activity has been cooling for pretty much the last 20 years yet we're still seeing record temperatures
Fuzzy Peaches (1 month ago)
garith21 Greenland was once green during man's time on earth and I'm sure your junk science blames its weather on man . spend your religions money save the earth be the hero like the fictional comic book caricatures you idolize . Me if our sun gives us lemons I'm making lemonade the sun's output a few ways in any direction and man is simply along for the ride . Kick back enjoy the ride and have a cold glass of lemonade.
garith21 (1 month ago)
All the same none of this addresses the main responses to your argument. Whether the facts indicate the cause is separate from how we address the issue. If the concern is "it's always someone else's money" well it'll be your kids and grandkids money if you're wrong so you should at least be concerned enough to verify that your opinion is at least well informed rather than just rejecting it because you don't understand it well enough. Or is it really just a simple case of "I don't care as long as it's someone else's money"?
ChocoD (1 month ago)
What I've heard is that the Earth has been going through this cycle of warming up and cooling down for billions of years, our impact has only sped things up by a few years. So will everyone shut the fuck up it was going to happen anyway and no amount of wind turbines, solar panels or hippies is going to change that.
VeryEvilPettingZoo (1 month ago)
Your "I've heard" doesn't count for squat. What "you've heard" is denier bullshit. How about you listen to the world's scientists instead of Fox "News" or whatever similar comedy source you get your "information" from.
garith21 (1 month ago)
Well, natural markers indicate we should have been cooling since the turn of the century due to the decreasing solar activity and we're due for another ice age in the next 14k-16k years. Since CO2 was relatively consistent through for quite a while temperatures tended to move with solar activity and aerosol production. That stopped being the case nearly 20 years ago now. If you think that CO2 isn't the cause for this then what is since the sun has been decreasing in activity for quite a while to the point that both conservative politicians and conservative news sources have been saying we're in a new ice age for over 6 years yet the instrumental record indicates we're hitting new record temperatures in spite of a less active sun.
Computer Addic (1 month ago)
And all you do is posing pictures of polluting factories,with thick smoke.While the CO 2 thats the so called cause of the climate Change isnt visible at all coming out off the chimey.You cant see it,you cant snif it and surtenly cant kill you.Because the humans emits a lot of it themselves!Hold your breath for a few minutes and when you exhale your breath is with 1700 ppm CO 2!The same amount when there were dinos roaming the Earth!And they didnt die from it,they shrived!Lots and lots off plantfood to eat!The plant werent starving from CO 2 then!The same amount plant growers put in there greenhouses to promoot plant growth and the workers work in that kind off atmosphere,they dont die!Not so long ago they almost were starving from CO 2 when the amount of CO 2 was reaching the point of 180 ppm,when every plant dies..So,dont listen to the propaganda of the IPCC,they are lies from people who only want world domination!And want your money!
garith21 (1 month ago)
> and surtenly cant kill you. technically it can, but that's not really what people are concerned about. > Not so long ago they almost were starving from CO 2 when the amount of CO 2 was reaching the point of 180 ppm,when every plant dies. CO2 concentrations were under 300 ppm for over 400k years > The same amount plant growers put in there greenhouses to promoot plant growth You can control the environment in green houses, you don't have to worry about pests, lacking other resources like nitrogen in the soil, drought or flooding in a green house. All of which are factors that contribute to issues of plant growth outside of a green house. For example pests that used to die of winter chills no longer die of winter chills because it's no longer cold enough to kill them in some regions, droughts become more severe in dry areas and flooding becomes more severe in wet areas if you think this has no effect on plant growth I don't know what to tell you. >.So,dont listen to the propaganda of the IPCC,they are lies from people who only want world domination!And want your money! Uh, the IPCC doesn't really have that large a budget. The purse strings of science organizations in the US are controlled by the house and the senate which have cut science funding for organizations that endorse climate change, using your reasoning shouldn't they have been saying "okay okay it's all a lie, just give us funding". Exxon scientists during the 70's-80's came to the same conclusion as scientists today and made predictions that are remarkably close to todays conditions despite having relatively primitive models, methods and computers. The BEST project originally endorsed by Anthony Watts and partially funded by the Koch Brothers run by a skeptic came to similar conclusions as all the other national science foundations.
Koatam (1 month ago)
Humans actually produce a small portion of the world's CO2 gas. 14% comes from the natural decay of organic matter. 83% bellows out from the world's active volcanos. The rest, about 3% comes from humans. This is not to say we aren't having an impact on the carbon cycle, that is objectively untrue. It's important to have a proper reference.
David Hay (1 month ago)
Love your show, but I do want to point out how you showed how all the evidence points against global worming. But you still think that Co2 (plant food) is changing the climate?? Not very scientific is it?
David Hay (1 month ago)
Dude stop grasping, you are a moron your lost on the last thread and all you got is limp personal attacks. walk on libtard. And I did give lots of evidence, unlike you, but you just hate people who actually work in real science. You also refused to answer any of my questions. You are a joke and a troll. Now walk on little fake troll.
garith21 (1 month ago)
Hmm, interesting you'll reply to yourself so I won't get the notification. Are you really so insecure about your position that you won't actually ever discuss or defend anything of relevance? It's cute that you'll claim that my posts are copy/pasted but my response was directly in response to your actions. I wasn't aware that people like you would have a handbook that you'd follow so stringently I should have a copy/paste ready for such occasions. As a note this supports my stance of "You'll do anything you can to avoid the discussion of mechanisms and testing them with observations." apparently even replying to yourself which is just very sad.
David Hay (1 month ago)
Okay Garth enough of your trolling and pasting bs then hiding it. No one is impressed and you like all trolls are now gone.
Jonathan (1 month ago)
I believe the climate is always changing. I believe Al Gore and the movement are full of it. I believe humans can affect the planet. I believe the planet is stronger than we let on. I believe environmentalists should not worry because the planet has been through worse. I believe creationists won't worry because God will destroy the world, not man.
garith21 (1 month ago)
1) The important question would then be to ask "why" or "what is the mechanism" 2) The planet will be fine, I think it's us that we should be worried about. I mean there was a time when sea levels were 50 meters higher, despite a much cooler sun, the planet was still fine, diversification of species was shot, but planet was just fine. Not sure that'd be a good situation for us.
Jim F (1 month ago)
You don't mention the outright fraud perpetuated by the global warmists, as evidenced by the East Anglia e-mails.
Jim F (1 month ago)
Why is an increase in carbon dioxide, or temperature, considered a "bad" thing?
Filippo Passeri (1 month ago)
Any significant event has positive and negative impacts. But with the recent drastic rise of CO2 levels, the change turned out to be hard on the negatives. We can start with the good old ocean acidification which destroys carbonate ions, that are vital for coral reefs and some plankton. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04095
Looniper (1 month ago)
"most predictions made by climate scientists..." "wrong" Incorrect. Only those made by supporters of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and later Climate Change have been wrong - 100% of the time by the way. There has not been a single accurate predictive model formed from these theories yet. Those who have not adopted the Political theory over their actual field, have remained fairly accurate. The theory lacks any validity, plain and simple. The core premise is that Human-contributed CO2 is driving up the heat retention of the Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere so far beyond any natural range that it risks major damage to the environment. Problems #1 - CO2 Quantity : Human-contributed CO2 is negligibly small compared to the natural sources. As example a typical volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all Human activity in any given year, and the output of supervolcanos like Vesuvius have pumped out more CO2 than the entire industrial era. #2 - CO2 vs Water Vapor : CO2 has an energy retention capacity of less than 3.6%, while water vapor has a rate of close to 80%. So if heat were the actual concern, we would be vastly more concerned with anything that produces steam than CO2. #3 - CO2 as a Thermal Capacitor at all. As I mention above, CO2 has a very low energy retention level. We use it in greenhouses because it is slightly capable as a greenhouse gas, but also serves as food for the plants and is largely harmless to any Humans who enter. In nature, it has virtually no impact on the overall greenhouse process because of its small comparative energy retention coupled with a relatively small portion of that gas (CO2 is about 3-5% of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere depending on the season, Water vapor tends above 78% and can peak well into the 90s. #4 - CO2 as a Coolant : While CO2 has very little impact on the heating of the atmosphere through greenhouse effect, it is vitally important in the Earth's capacity to prevent radiant energy reaching the surface to become heat in the first place. O3 (Ozone) is created through photonic collision with Oxygen(O2) in the stratosphere. The Earth feeds that part of our atmosphere through high speed updrafts specifically along mountain ranges adjacent to jungle environs. The presence of high concentrations of CO2 offsets the naturally high levels of Nitrogen and allows for O2 to replace it, creating the composition necessary for Ozone-production to take place. As the atmospheric CO2 decreases, the capacity of the Earth to create and maintain an effective layer of Ozone declines - and the quantity of solar/cosmic rays reaching the surface increases significantly, to a far greater degree per ppm of CO2 alteration than in the greenhouse effect. #5 - Synchronicity : Since the advent of telescopes, people have drown, painted, and later photographed and made video of - Mars. In all of that time, the polar caps of Mars have maintained a near-perfecty sync in both thaw/freeze timing and depth with the Earth. So if Human-contributed CO2 is having any impact that can be noted on Earth, who or what is doing the exact same thing on Mars? We can't exactly credit people on Earth driving SUVs for Martial Climate Change, now can we? #6 - (last but definitley not least) We've been there before : CO2 is currently pushing 400ppm (394 last I looked), and we're told this is higher than it has ever been and too much for the Earth to handle. That the polar caps will thaw, and the oceans flood, earthquakes and tsunami will wreak havoc on the world, etc. But we saw an age of trending CO2 levels of over 800ppm, and peaks lasting entire seasons over 1200ppm. There was no flooding, no cataclysm, and no mass starvation as we're told by these idiots we'll see. It was the single greatest time of abundance in Human history prior to the advent of electrical cooling. The 1100s-1200s AD, aka the Medieval Warm period (and no, it wasn't warm because of the CO2, as Al Gore's own chart showed, when you put the timelines in their correct placement that is - which he had to admit in court in the UK he had not done for the film... CO2 alterations Followed the thermal changes, a response, not a cause) So when the historical example of CO2 levels 4 times what they are now is a time of plenty, the time in which Humanity was finally able to spread to all parts of the Globe because there were simply no significant barren areas and plants (read food) was everywhere... and while the predictive capacity of models formed from the theory of Global Warming have been wrong 100% of the time... why would anyone continue to credit the theory in anyway? Flat Earth theorists literally have more evidence than Global Warming. I simply cannot understand how a theory that ignores such basics as Archimedes principle are given any validity. I know some claimed support to obtain or retain tenure or grants, I've spoken to many in that category. I find it reprehensible, but at least I can understand their reason. But the blind support by the bulk of the public? And my favorite "97% of scientists agree." - Odd, I've worked with well over a hundred other physicists, dozens of mechanical engineers, several chemists, and I couldn't reasonably recall what all else. They have ranged from fresh graduates to Freeman Dyson, Stott, Botiere, and several other high profile scientists. So far, not a single one among them has ever claimed to actually support these theories, and trust me the subject comes up far more often than you might think in those circles. One's stated position on them can often be the difference between being able to pursue your work or not.
garith21 (1 month ago)
1) This is CO2 flux. If you want an analogy, pretend you have a multi-billion dollar budget that's balanced, as natural emissions and sequestrations are about equal sequestering a bit more than naturally emitted per year. I come by and I spend 3% more of your budget and contribute little in return and do it for 50 years. Even with a billion dollar budget and no interest you'd be 1.5 billion dollars in debt from my contributions, this is analogous to what's happening with the atmosphere. This is the same method by which we got from 280 ppm for preindustrial CO2 levels to todays 406 ppm. Also, this myth comes from the global warming swindle, the truth is that humans produce over 100x as much as all the worlds volcanoes combined. Even recent large volcanic eruptions amounted to about a small country. 2) Watervapor concentrations can only change if temperatures change, otherwise it is very short lived and rains out when it hits a cooler area because of this magical process known as condensation 3) There's a reason why where it is warming the fastest indicates the mechanism that is causing the warming, it's happening quickest in places with inherently low water vapor content. 4) An interesting prediction of CO2 based warming is it will cool the upper layers of the atmosphere (which is what we observe in the instrumental record), consider that with your stated facts on the matter. 5) Except the exact same thing isn't happening on mars, it encountered a time of having dust storms reveal darker patches which slightly raised its temperature and because it doesn't have a regular tilt as it lacks a moon areas were more tilted towards the sun melting its ice. 6) "But we saw an age of trending CO2 levels of over 800ppm, and peaks lasting entire seasons over 1200ppm. There was no flooding, no cataclysm, and no mass starvation as we're told by these idiots we'll see. It was the single greatest time of abundance in Human history prior to the advent of electrical cooling. The 1100s-1200s AD, aka the Medieval Warm period" Source? last I recall 400k years before modern times it never reached above 300 ppm. "So when the historical example of CO2 levels 4 times what they are now is a time of plenty, the time in which Humanity was finally able to spread to all parts of the Globe because there were simply no significant barren areas and plants (read food) was everywhere..." Actually while northern europe region was doing pretty good the Americas weren't doing the best. "I simply cannot understand how a theory that ignores such basics as Archimedes principle are given any validity." I presume you're talking about sea ice melting and it not changing sea levels due to Archemimedes principle. Well to answer, most of the sea level rise is due to a principle known as thermal expansion. Well that and glaciers that melt that aren't already in the sea. There are direct measurements that indicate the sea level is rising afterall and there was a time when sea levels were 200 feet higher than today despite a much dimmer sun, would you like to guess the mechanism that caused the warming in that scenario? "And my favorite "97% of scientists agree." - Odd, I've worked with well over a hundred other physicists, dozens of mechanical engineers, several chemists, and I couldn't reasonably recall what all else. They have ranged from fresh graduates to Freeman Dyson, Stott, Botiere, and several other high profile scientists." This is a peculiar stance that seems unique to this topic. If you had a skin rash you'd go to a dermatologist, not a chemist, mechanical engineer, physicist, biologist etc. Science leans quite heavily on specialization because most people wont read the relevant scientific papers outside of their specialization. I wouldn't go to a climatologist to tell me how to build a bridge, so why would you go to a mechanical engineer to tell you how the long term climate will develope based on a certain amount of inputs? The 97% of scientists agree is in relation to practicing climate scientists that are actively publishing in the field. " One's stated position on them can often be the difference between being able to pursue your work or not." There are practicing climate scientists that still actively publish that claim to be skeptical about ACC. Also the people that have controlled the purse strings for scientific organizations in the USA for quite a while have been actively hostile to scientific organizations that support climate change. Using this reasoning shouldn't they have been changing their tune the moment this happened or during the years of Bush jr.? Scientists worked for Exxon during the 70's-80's that came to the same conclusions as today and are reasonably close to today's observations in spite of having relatively rudiamentary models. Even 90% of Exxon scientists agree with the consensus today in spite of working at Exxon which very clearly wouldn't benefit from possible regulation from much of its industry.
Lord Zarfax (1 month ago)
Reviste this one
Richard Small (1 month ago)
Look at Pripyat and Chernobyl. Devastating release of radiation. Pollution. Mutatation. But if you watch videos from zoologists and botanists, the environment has adapted in only 40 years. They have black mold growing inside the reactor that eats radiation. They have catfish that are huge. They have earthworms as big as garter snakes. I think that no matter what humanity throws at nature, so long as it's not outright disintegration of all organic matter, nature will find a way. Yes we need solar, hydroelectric, thorium, and kinetic power research to build better cleaner sources of energy. But the infrastructure must also exist to produce said research in mass quantity. Otherwise it's a pipe dream.
nativepangea (1 month ago)
The good news is all those world leaders, climate alarmists and scientist have all tossed aside all of their carbon burning machines. Crisis averted well done!
Dzonemp (1 month ago)
Has it ever occurred to anybody that the greenhouse gases we produce might be keeping the world from going into another ice age???
garith21 (1 month ago)
The one that's due 14k-16k years from now? No never crossed my mind.
klinger klinger (1 month ago)
Did Al Gore ever kill Man-Bear-Pig???
t4705mb6 (1 month ago)
Plants love carbon. Gore didn't "misrepresent". Stop trying to be politically correct. It's okay to call a liar a liar. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/01/26/alternative-facts-and-other-helpful-terms-for-political-lies/yd3URC8mGSi7cAtUEs8BbN/story.html Global warming is about already extremely wealthy people stealing a LOT money globally and a back door way of keeping colonialism going in the "3rd world". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSpUokqXvWA&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk60CUkf3Kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySefPIZaYT0
Shadow Man (1 month ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA1978 The Scientists all thought an ICE AGE was on it's way!!!!!!!!!!!!!
garith21 (1 month ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M If by "the scientists" you mean 7 papers....sure? But there were far more that predicted warming.
Jesus Nice (1 month ago)
Mate, whatever Al Gore says, ice is malting for sure. Peeps are ready for the Nothern passage over Canada to open up.
garith21 (20 days ago)
was in reference to global sea ice, and I honestly don't remember this comment because my reply would be in response to someone claiming that ice coverage is up because antarctic ice volume is increasing. All the same if you'd like to assume the Northern passage over Canada is going to be the only consequence of climate change that would be a no.
Jesus Nice (20 days ago)
No dude, I do not know what "world sea ice" is, sorry. I don't know what you are refering to, or what your sentence is trying to say. What is "world sea ice" please?
garith21 (1 month ago)
naw dude, didn't you know, antarctic sea ice = world sea ice apparently.
What about Dan wigington. It seems we have 10 years left to live
What about Dan wigington. It seems we have 10 years left to live
medexamtoolsdotcom (1 month ago)
Indeed the alarmists have been too ambitious with their predictions. But if you look up the chart of the carbon dioxide percentage in the air, it quickly becomes obvious that the human race is FUCKED. It was .03% when I was a kid 40 years ago and now it's .038%, and industry is GROWING. Just figure out a LOWER bound for 100 years from now and you start to see percentages like .07% or .1%. And remember folks, .03% is what it is SUPPOSED to be, and Earth would be an ICE WORLD if it was 0, and the absolute temperature scale doesn't start at 0 fahrenheit or celcius, it starts at -460 fahrenheit and -273 celcius. The difference between 0 and .03% is the difference between -20 degrees celcius and +30. Or on an absolute scale, 250 kelvin and 300. What can you expect if the CO2 is at .10%? .20%? I'm thinking that will raise it from like 300 to more like 400. Which in celcius is 130. Which in fahrenheit is 260. And it doesn't matter if it takes 200 years instead of 100 for that to happen, if you actually have LIFE existing on EARTH in 1000 years as a GOAL. It doesn't matter if things haven't happened as fast as the alarmists predicted. And when it reaches a certain point, which hasn't even begun yet, because it's an all-or-nothing event, is that the methane hydrate at the bottom of the eoceans will revert to methane gas, making global warming 5x worse overnight. FYI, the bottom of the ocean is covered in methane hydrate. Under huge pressure and in the presence of water AND at low temperatures, methane gas crystallizes with liquid water to form an unstable solid called methane hydrate. It is only stable up to like 40 or 45 degrees fahrenheit. And there's basically 200 million years worth of fish farts at the bottom of the ocean in this solid form. And get this, this is the best part.... methane is 10x more opaque to infrared than CO2. It is 10x as effective a greenhouse gas. 1 gram of methane in the atmosphere does the same thing as 10 grams of CO2. There's only one thing that can be done to prevent this. It isn't using more efficient cars, or solar power. It's taking the CO2 out of the air that's already in it. No one's gonna do that. Certainly not anyone's favorite liberal politician.
garith21 (1 month ago)
Well, there's this issue and the issue of melting permafrost for the same sort of issue as melted permafrost has material that would resume decomposition and release methane deposits. This starts to happen as early as 1.5C increase from preindustrial temperatures. When this becomes a runaway effect out of our hands becomes a statistical game after that.
I R (1 month ago)
People dont care about the planet only their self interests, whatever we could possibly do to it, it would recover, and carry on until the sun eats it in 5 billion years or so.
downtourth (2 months ago)
The inconvenient sleuth
Czerwona Pigułka (2 months ago)
greenhouse effect is a positive thing. CO2 for the plants is like oxygen for us and it was near depletion levels - it was almost lowest in Earth's history, just before the industrial revolution. (and lowest during last ice age) CO2 had been mostly depleted from the planet's atmosphere and humans are just restoring it to it's proper place, by process of burning fossil fuels. It doesn't mean we don't need to care about pollution, but as with many things (slavery is freedom, debt is money, etc) we got it all backwards when it comes to "Greenhouse effect" in "global warming". Burn more fossil fuels and stop whining.
garith21 (1 month ago)
* It hit levels that low before several times in the last 400k years, in fact for the last 400k years it didn't hit 300ppm till we started burning fossil fuels. * Plants need other resources like nitrogen in the soil, a good source of regular water and preferably not have it flood. * It took the earth hundreds of millions of years to sequester those carbon deposits out of the carbon cycle.
Filippo Passeri (1 month ago)
What is the optimal CO2 ppm then? In your expert opinion?
Harold (2 months ago)
Nuke the Whales!
Carolyn Leshock (2 months ago)
The documentary to watch (and it's here on Youtube) is The Great Global Warming Swindle. It really puts things into perspective and shows how global governments have strong armed scientists into pushing their agendas.
garith21 (1 month ago)
> The earth heats up, the earth cools down. Do we really need scientists to tell us this? It still happens for reasons, or do you think it happens by magic? These still happen by physical processes and this statement is basically the bill 'o rilley equivalent of "tide goes up, tide goes down, you can't explain that" > it is extremely arrogant to think we (man) impact that great a change to the actual weather or global temperature. Oh, today I learned that things can't happen because it might be seen as arrogant, it's not like we haven't created giant cities or made islands of garbage or anything. We also changed the CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in a geological blip, it's been under 300 ppm for well over 400k years. We've also been burning fossil fuel deposits which took the earth millions of years to sequester in a couple hundred years. When it comes to climate change it basically just retains more energy in the atmosphere, the sun just does its thing, when we add more ghgs to the atmosphere it simply retains more of that energy which effects the climate. Heck even our contrails from our planes results in some form of climate change, surface temperatures changed markedly for the period of time when planes were grounded for 9/11. We most certainly have an effect.
Filippo Passeri (1 month ago)
You do realize we singlehandedly increased CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 411 ppm that's a 46% increase in only 200 years, a mere blip on the geological scale of the earth. Humanity fucky yeah.
Carolyn Leshock (1 month ago)
The earth heats up, the earth cools down. Do we really need scientists to tell us this? While I wholeheartedly support taking care of our planet, it is extremely arrogant to think we (man) impact that great a change to the actual weather or global temperature.
garith21 (1 month ago)
Actually, it's great to determine how gullible you can be as the vast majority of the data in it is false and you can actually debunk a lot of it with even a little scrutiny. There are quite a few direct interviews with durkin on his first edition of the "documentary" which led to later editions, but usually the only one you can find online is the first edition. As a note not that people seem to notice in the US for a little while since congress controls the purse strings and is controlled by people actively hostile towards organizations that support climate change and those organizatons have had their funding cut. Seems like the stick has been in the other direction for a while yet they still support it on scientific grounds.
SYSTEM_EDITOR.1995 (2 months ago)
The temperature graph had something interesting I noticed, there are large long lasting spikes that seem to closely correspond to the solar sunspot cycle, which happens approximately every 11 years. The mini ice age we had may have seen the least amount of sunspots. Although that data had to be reconstructed to find that out. At this moment we're at a minimum.
garith21 (1 month ago)
Well....as a note the mini ice age started before the maunder minimum (assuming that's what you're referring to). Yes we're currently at a minimum with many talks about likely going into another maunder minimum, yet we're still experiencing record global temepratures. Interesting don't you think?
ThumperE23 (2 months ago)
I've had many of these same questions, and also believe that we should invest in "clean" energy for the future for future sake.
Andrew Paint (3 months ago)
It's still not clear whether the climate change is brought on by human activity, or it's just a periodic thing. As a matter of fact, Earth usually warmer than we want to believe. We are living in a period of time called "Little Ice Age", and the average temperature of the earth is lower than normal. Well, normal for the earth, not us. The real inconvenient truth is, Gore is a major contributor of the inconvenient truth he's talking about.
garith21 (1 month ago)
"It's still not clear whether the climate change is brought on by human activity..." It's actually pretty robust. "Well, normal for the earth, not us." Yeah, frankly that's more the issue, we probably want a normal for us.
The_Blazer (3 months ago)
"I'm not a climate change skeptic or denier" 5 minutes later: "There actually hasn't been any significant temperature increases since the late nineties" The only thing worse than a science denier is a science denier who lies through their teeth within the span of 5 minutes. Shame on you.
Buttslammer Bob (3 months ago)
Holy shit the amount of misinformation and ignorance in these comments. We are polluting the absolute fuck out of the planet. Specifics aside, this is a bad thing. Bad things are happening because of it and the quality of life in the coming decades is only gonna lessen because of it.
Peter F-Model (3 months ago)
Very good summary. Climate change/warming is occurring but claims to imminent disaster has damaged the cause of making the world do what is required to stop this warming rather than help solve the problem. A major cause of climate change is population growth, which is rarely raised. The other is nuclear power. Carbon an issue - quick solution is to build nuclear power plants and problem is cut by at least 33%. Again, silence. Facts and hypocrisy are the natural enemy of dogma and ideology.
Mad Cinder (3 months ago)
Humanity's effect on global climate change is due to the actions or inactions of very few countries, of which India and China are the most responsible.
A Team (3 months ago)
Dave it comes from the fact that plants breath CO2
garith21 (1 month ago)
So a gas can't have multiple properties? This is like saying you can't breath oxygen because you can burn it or it's produced by plants.
A Team (3 months ago)
3rd grade science class debunks global warming
Ekstij Amezie (3 months ago)
An interesting case study for the course, "Propaganda 101".
Tim Decker (3 months ago)
I just want to point out a couple "Inconvenient Truths" myself: First off, according to the USGS, naturally occurring greenhouse gasses released from volcanic eruptions both above ground, and from the ocean floor, still rival human production. Second, if governments are truly concerned about global warming, then why have these same left-leaning groups responsible for the removal of sulfur from diesel fuel, when releasing sulfer into the atmosphere actually REFLECTS sunlight, which is why global temperatures go down, following large volcanic eruptions? The inconvenient truth is that the Left has pushed for changes that are counter-intuitive to slowing climate change, because they make a ton of money doing so. -A Chevy Volt has a lifetime carbon footprint equivalent to 5 Chevy Silverado pickup trucks. -Wind farms and solar farms cost so much, and produce so little electricity, that it takes 20 to 30 years just to recoup the cost. At the same time, a nuclear power plant could take up 1/200th the space, create 450x more power, for a fraction of the cost... Of course, Leftist politicians are the biggest stockholders of wind and solar power corporations, so.... Let's also keep in mind that no one scientific group can agree with another on the man-made effects of global warming. NASA has gone back and forth between solar cycles and man-made theories. The NOAA was caught taking seawater temperatures in large ship wakes (to intentionally get higher temperatures), the USGS says we're in a geological cycle, which they can read in the rocks, etc... Lastly, Al Gore is the son of a coal magnate. His family made billions in the coal industry. He, himself, has multiple mansions and private jets. His own carbon output rivals entire communities, yet he, like his Leftist pals, likes to preach to us about how WE are the problem. Hypocrisy is fun that way. Did I also fail to mention that Al Gore stands to make billions more from selling "carbon tax credits"? Yeah. He invented the internet AND a tax on AIR! How about that?
garith21 (1 month ago)
> First off, according to the USGS, naturally occurring greenhouse gasses released from volcanic eruptions both above ground, and from the ocean floor, still rival human production. According to the USGS it takes us about 2.7 days to produce as much CO2 as all the volcanoes in the world combined produce in a year. In other ways of saying it we produce over 130 times the amount of CO2 as all the worlds volcanoes combined. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html > The inconvenient truth is that the Left has pushed for changes that are counter-intuitive to slowing climate change, because they make a ton of money doing so. Just because people are stupid about politics doesn't invalidate the science. > A Chevy Volt has a lifetime carbon footprint equivalent to 5 Chevy Silverado pickup trucks. Cite your source, the last time I read such a claim it made a lot of assumptions about the hybrid that really weren't born out in reality, particularly look at long term production. > Wind farms and solar farms cost so much, and produce so little electricity, that it takes 20 to 30 years just to recoup the cost. At the same time, a nuclear power plant could take up 1/200th the space, create 450x more power, for a fraction of the cost... Of course, Leftist politicians are the biggest stockholders of wind and solar power corporations, so. Eh, even residential PV which is pretty mediocre in returns in a bad case is about 10 years ROI, in great cases 5. It's hard to believe that commercial cases are that much worse when they can do cases like concentrated solar which are far more efficient. I do agree with nuclear though, I still think that it'll be an important base load power supply assuming we want to address CO2 emissions, an easy case example is France vs Germany's philosphy and results on the topic. > Lastly, Al Gore is the son of a coal magnate. His family made billions in the coal industry. He, himself, has multiple mansions and private jets. His own carbon output rivals entire communities, yet he, like his Leftist pals, likes to preach to us about how WE are the problem. Hypocrisy is fun that way. Al Gore is a politician not a scientist and his actions don't invalidate the science any more than republican representatives and think tanks saying "we're due for another ice age in 10 years....20 years ago" invalidates all skeptics. Considering how bad you got the first "fact" when it's so easily debunked I shudder to think at how bad your fact checking skills are on anything else and what miserable blog you must have gotten your information from.
Brian Bellia (3 months ago)
I disagree with you on this one, Dave. Of course, the climate changes - that goes without saying. It always has. And yes, man is probably having an effect on climate, however, I believe that effect is minimal. In fact, a little warming may actually be beneficial, not that the mainstream media will *ever* concede this point. So what is the effect of all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere? A greening planet and record crop production, for starters ... both of these things, incidentally, are precisely the opposite of what was predicted. See the links provided below. Also worth noting is that air and water quality in every Australian state is cleaner than it's been in decades, as it is in every other major Western city around the world. Greening earth link here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-04-26/global-snapshot-shows-how-humans-are-greening-the-earth/7346382 Record global food production link here: https://youtu.be/bO7mCeUL_Eg And here: https://principia-scientific.org/2017-is-record-year-for-global-food-production/
edc2879 (4 months ago)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41859288
edc2879 (4 months ago)
RIP coral reefs
Mladen Radakovic (4 months ago)
Polar bear population rise is a lie. They are not thriving. They are losing their habitat and often dying of hunger, swimming for hundreds of miles to find hunting grounds - and simply failing due to climate change. Old data, that was used to place this myth of thriving polar bears is bogus. Fact is - global polar bear population (GPBP) is hard to track even now. This myth is based on comparing current guesstimate of GPBP with decades-old guess of GPBP. Do more research please.
damon-st (4 months ago)
4:46 there is a king in there, a great leader that has a long term plan for his country, a plan that his son is supposed to take over.
SanctifiedN7 (4 months ago)
Fear mongering. For the cattle.
memBrain (4 months ago)
Mankind pollutes. There is no dispute that this has an impact on not just our climate, but also our ecology. However, there is insufficient evidence to indicate precisely ho much effect humanity has on climate change versus natural sources, which invariably has much greater impact.
garith21 (1 month ago)
The evidence is actually pretty robust. The physical properties of CO2, how it warms and how that compares with the observations tells us what the primary cause is. Not to mention that natural sources indicate we should have been cooling since the late 90's yet we're still hitting record global temperatures. We can tell the primary cause is CO2 based because of how it's warming and where its warming the fastest and in some cases where it's cooling. like the upper atmosphere. The sun has been much less active over the years to the point of it possibly being a new grand solar minimum yet we're still getting hottest years on record in spite of that.
Reed Rasmussen (4 months ago)
Your facts are completely wrong
bobmonk388 (4 months ago)
Ice age , little ice age, medieval warm period the tip of the iceberg we should be more worried about a cataclysmic coalition . You say 1 or 2 degrees warming is bad lol its great and we need more and more co2 so keep keeping on folks.
TheKyfe (4 months ago)
In the current age, more people die from the cold than from heat. Saying that we're affecting the climate negatively with a raised temperature (a world temperature average that hasn't moved in 15 years, btw) is incorrect. If the world were slightly warmer all year (and this is what would and is happening), then you would actually see LESS human death and more plant growth. Those are positives. We are far, FAR from being in the danger zone. The hysteria comes from the models (unproven, and as of today WAY off course from predictions) that show an exponential growth in temperature. This is not going to happen. As someone else said, the scientific theory is using empirical data to hypothesize. Empirical data thus far shows that temperature increase is so miniscule as to be non-existent over the last 15 years, and in a wider time-scale, EXTREMELY gradual, nowhere near the exponential growth being warned about. What Climate Change Hysterics use are the models of the future to push their doom and gloom, which is the opposite of empirical data. Also, even if they're right, their solutions do nothing to change the outcome, but impede current living standards and would cripple the economy and technological advancement, and tech advancement has been the number one contributor to less pollution by about a million times (that's an exaggeration, obviously). Even on their own terms, what they want is worse.
Jeb Atman (4 months ago)
Actually, we're doing very little to contribute to Climate Change. It's part of the natural cycle of Earth and it's not warming...it's cooling we need to prepare for. More and more scientists back this up and so do the numbers.
garith21 (1 month ago)
* We're the primary cause * The natural cycle says we should have been cooling since the late 90's yet we're still warming * If you're referring to the GSM was already predicted that if such an event is the case it would result in no more than a .3C drop in temperatures over the next century if it was the only factor at play.
Riga Fraction (4 months ago)
it's not about taxation, it's about alleged scientists pissing in our ears and telling us it's raining. They're outright lying to us and far too many are buying their snake oil
J V (4 months ago)
I live in lower Manhattan - according to 2006 al gore I’m supposed to be underwater - overblown? That’s an understatement to say the least
garith21 (1 month ago)
I'll never understand why "skeptics" seem to love Al Gore so much. I'm a proponent of AGW and I think Al Gore is just a politician, but "skeptics" just love him so much they can't stop mentioning him.
yollam (4 months ago)
I’m kind of middle of the road on global warming, but Gore’s film takes massive liberties with the science. Totally agree with your review.
joshua garner (4 months ago)
I'm so worried about global warming I'm only buying 2 ford f350s
joshua garner (4 months ago)
You misspoke, we are having an impact yes, but negative???? Maybe maybe not
CthulhuChow (4 months ago)
well, i can fix global warming. ppl give off co2 so we just kill off anyone one ANY form of taxpayer goodies. if you cant feed, then it should die. this goes for countries as well. gods chosen cucks need my "murican taxmoney cut them off and let their imaginary friend save them. retards in afreeka cant support themselves? tough shit, hell has plenty of room. shaneequa cant feed it's 9 kids by 9 diff sperm donors? then the afterlife will see it through. crack/methheads need rehab? 12 gauge slug to the back of the head works just fine. when thinking of the leeches that infest the planet, let's look to the words of Captain James T. Kirk as Spock tell him of the Klingon Empire forthcoming demise, "LET THEM DIE". less leeches, less co2, less global warming.
Lari Kipe (4 months ago)
Look, it's simple: Al Gore was not mistaken, he is a liar.
Brian Dean (4 months ago)
The thing is, if a catastrophe doesn't happen and we continue to do scientific research, the likelihood we will be using so much carbon based energy sources 50 years from now, is small.
tumarfa (4 months ago)
A rise in CO2 promotes plant growth, which then sequesters the CO2. This has happened before in history - long before there were any humans.
garith21 (1 month ago)
Yet we're doing it at a faster rate than in prehistorical cases barring cataclysms and even in cases of extremely slow CO2 rise it still rose in spite of the slow rate indicating that plants require other resources to sequester CO2. Like using your reason CO2 concentrations shouldn't rise, but it very clearly does and it usually takes temperature changes to allow more of it to sequester in cooler oceans before the concentrations drop and it takes a long time for the oceans to respond.
177SCmaro (4 months ago)
What do you mean by "not at all for the better"? There are any number of pros and cons to a warmer Earth, you just only ever hear about the cons. To imply that "climate change" is only for the worse is betraying a bit of a bias here. Also, the claim that X tons of carbon dioxide "has got to come back and bite us in the ass at some point." sounds just like the type of exaggerated assertions made by Gore in his movie, just with less-exaggerated language. Neither claims are scientific.
sciguyjeff (4 months ago)
Two words - Soylent Green
Leland Hetrick (5 months ago)
Thanks for toning down the alarmist's view of this. Well reasoned. These geological events are really expected to occur at a slower pace than what some humans believe.
WhatIsMisophonia (5 months ago)
I hate what Gore did because it gives less credibility to the issue of climate change in the same way calling everyone a misogynist, rape apologist, or racist gives less credibility to genuine situations of this. That being said, nice job presenting the most biased graph you could find from a climate denial website. The data doesn't go back far enough nor include the most recent years to give the most accurate view; just check out figure 5. here: http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/ "We're expected to believe that short term weather anomalies are representative of long term climate change"; "facepalm* No dude, that's how the hard right has always operated, and you're doing the same thing by presenting their doctored short term graph. 6:03 The ANTARCTIC Ice is not retreating so much anymore as per the article title, yet you say "the polar ice caps" rather than just the "south pole", as though arctic ice isn't disappearing. Over all, "the polar ice" is melting: https://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm 6:15 Again, if people look at the article title rather than just what you are saying, the scientists are stating that the "sun" seems to be cooling, which of course says nothing about our atmosphere. There is a debate as to how the cooling may offset the warming trend, and here's a more recent article on the subject: https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html
joe k (5 months ago)
The judge rule means practically nothing. He is not a scientist, he has not his own opinion based on research. Therefore he rellies upon the case presented by the experts of both parties and practically choses to be convienced by one of them. Now lets add to that the possibility of a judge playing along a political line himself for many different reasons.
earp1673 (5 months ago)
The reason the left tends towards fear/exaggeration(or, an airhorn in your ear where a tap on the shoulder would be appropriate) is the same reason they say "anthropogenic" instead of "man made", or deoxyribonucleic acid instead of just DNA. Utilize instead of use. That F**CKING annoying word "proactive". They have an intense need to feel "smarter than"/"better than" you. This is why they speak so condescendingly when "informing" the masses, especially PC videos where predominantly white straight males need to learn to act more whatevery. That's why this movie is such a joke. Gore is a stooge and a complete elitist self-important hypocrite. Man bear pig.
Leslie Wilson (5 months ago)
Please compare the amount of carbon the movie says is dumped into the atmosphere by human activity every year to minor volcanic activity of 1 active volcanic area, say the constant minor activity of just Mauna Loa on the Hawaii, the largest Island of the Hawaiian chain. Look up the average yearly injection of particulate matter into the atmosphere by known natural process. The amount of carbon particulate matter they are assigning to human activity is less than the particulate matter accruing to the Earth by falling from space. Yet, we are supposed to beggar ourselves with schemes that will have no detectable effect. I don't know what is driving this movement, especially the histrionics and hysteria. However I assess that it is are incorrect and does not produce or report reliable data or conclusions at the least.
garith21 (1 month ago)
> The amount of carbon particulate matter they are assigning to human activity is less than the particulate matter accruing to the Earth by falling from space. you're not really repeating the myth that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans are you? This assertion tends to tell me that you likely got your information from the first edition of the global warming swindle or a blog rather than from any scientific source. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html
Robert Long (5 months ago)
Only a full blown idiot will believe al gore.. Every sentence out of his mouth since childhood has been proven wrong or debunked. Its not his intellect that got him where he is but his ability to ponzi his way into fools pockets.
AvariceUntied (5 months ago)
The people who are harping on about global warming are the same people who go on holidays to the Far East by jet but they hammer in about how energy taxes should be increased to limit the "carbon footprint". These taxes affect mostly poor people who often never set foot on an airplane in their lives and hardly ever travel further than their own town. Gore is a good case in point, he has a private jet and a huge mansion. Yet he is a savior and Joe Blow who has a small car to travel 10 miles per day to his work is the villain.
Sundaydish1 (5 months ago)
Politicians want bad things to happen now so they can hold out the begging bowls. They don't want to hear the planet could be 2-3 degrees warmer in 100 years time. Scientific studies should be banned from being used as campaign talking points.
Drew Evans (5 months ago)
lol Malcom Turnbal
True Blade (5 months ago)
Thanks for tackling this issue! And yes leftist politicians are always trying to put in more regulations to strangle our economy and create the nanny-state that will turn us all into sheeple!
CJ P (5 months ago)
To fix a problem, you must target a problem and then track the fixing of that problem. Citizen health, clean water, and pollution damage can be improved within just a few years. If you want to create fear, create it around a fixable problem.
jerad doyle (5 months ago)
So many logical fallacies Dave, I'm a little disappointed in this video. They don't care about us, therefor climate change not that bad. Piss poor effort.
ERINDI GR (5 months ago)
Hasn't Greenland melted
Stan Bartsch (5 months ago)
Dave, perhaps the reason that you believe that our impact on warming is "negative" is because you have bought into the unproven argument that "warmer" is somehow "bad." The truth is, the geological record clearly demonstrates that life LIKES warmer. Look at all of the past explosions in species diversity, and you will find they took place during warmer epochs. That mankind insists on building in coastal areas that will become more susceptible to flooding means that mankind will suffer disparately over other life. However, sea levels are never static, and if the world weren't warming and making the seas rise, it would be cooling and causing sea levels to drop - which would be horrific for the shallow and tidal pool areas that are thriving at the current levels. As the old adage goes - life is FULL of little tradeoffs.
Jorge Muniz (5 months ago)
While polar bears numbers are increasing, they are in fact moving more inland due to climate change. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/18/polar-bears-are-spending-more-time-on-land-where-they-can-encounter-humans/
Jorge Muniz (5 months ago)
https://www.snopes.com/does-arctic-ice-doubt-reality-climate-change/
Jorge Muniz (5 months ago)
Here is graph for the past 100yrs https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/StateoftheClimate_2016_GlobalSurfaceTemps_graph_597x336.png
Randal Eck (5 months ago)
You can't have it both ways. Suggesting that while the predications are off man is still causing problems is absurd. It used to be that humans were to blame but now cow farts are a major factor. If we were the primary problem, don't you think all resources would be brought in to solve things? You acknowledge that career politicians only deal with the situation by taxation, fees, etc. They don't care about anything but power and they work tirelessly to appear to be doing something. There have been several mass extinction events and humans were not even alive yet. Are we really to believe that in under 200 years we have begun destroying a planet that is billions of years old?
Shaul Kramer (5 months ago)
That’s one of the best balanced reviews of this movie and topic that I’ve seen. Strong work
Jules H (5 months ago)
Sorry Dave you lost a bit of street cred with me I am afraid, calling people who are skeptical of climate change deniers and with all the connotations that implies. Climate models are not simulating Earth’s climate. When presented appropriately, climate model outputs clearly show that the climate science community still cannot differentiate between human-induced and naturally occurring global warming, and since the early 1980s, surface temperature data clearly and strongly suggest that the surfaces of the global oceans warmed in response to naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes, not as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. How is it possible that “Holocaustic (seeing though we are using the term denier) run-away global warming” can be forced by 400PPM CO2 atmospheric concentrations, when this is amongst the lowest CO2 levels in the planets history? When the CO2 levels were at 8,000 PPM or higher, why did the planet not “burn up” then? Normally I like what you say.
Rod Martin, Jr. (5 months ago)
*_Wrong!_* Eminent scientists on the skeptic side show that humans are *_not_* warming up the planet. In fact, if you look at the climate record, you'll see that there is zero correlation between CO2 and global temperature on *_all_* time scales except that shown in Al Gore's film. And in Gore's film, the correlation he used actually had temperature causing CO2 increases; not the other way around (warm oceans don't hold as much CO2). The term "climate change" itself has been turned into a propaganda tool. Climate has changed for nearly 4.5 *_Billion_* years. Skepticism isn't about whether climate has changed or not, but about the cause and whether or not it's a danger. We live in an Ice Age, and history has shown time and again that cooling results in famines and societal collapses, while warming results in greater prosperity. This cannot be guaranteed for every location. Climate is more chaotic than that. But on average, you get more prosperity with more warmth. Because we're living in an Ice Age, we're close to the bottom of Earth's natural range of variation. Global warming is the solution; not the problem.
Dave Carl (5 months ago)
Agree that pollution is more dangerous than .04% of CO2 in the atmosphere.......
Pete Hague (5 months ago)
IPCC predictions have consistently been more optimistic than the actual data turned out to be. They have not been alarmist http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-predictions-then-versus-now-15340
Niall Quinn (5 months ago)
Take that Science.
KappaW (5 months ago)
6:10 also false information\ https://polarbearsinternational.org/climate-change/status?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrZH9moC-2QIVzLrACh32MQtTEAAYASAAEgKpfvD_BwE
KappaW (5 months ago)
6:06 This effect is actually CAUSED by global warming, what happens is that the ice at the south pole is melting but because of the lack of any currents to pull it away it remains around floating on the surface of the salt water since salt water is denser than cold water. Then when the next feezing cycle comes around since fresh water has a higher freezing point than salt water, it freezes easier. Causing a large thin plate of ice to grow. This is why people who don't know a fucking lick of science shouldn't be so cocky about things they clearly don't understand. Once again I repeat myself *Get Your Head Out Of Your Ass And Accept That Just because The Progressives Do Something Doesnt Mean its Wrong*
VeryEvilPettingZoo (7 days ago)
Because it hasn't melted. What's your point?
Nautical (7 days ago)
Why does Kilamanjaro still have snow?
VeryEvilPettingZoo (27 days ago)
Yes, I'm obviously much smarter than you. That's not hubris - that's just reality. Yes, your claim that "Climate change is just bullshit trying to take away the West's little Industrial Power it has left from the wars" shows that you're pretty stupid. _(Little industrial power? The physical sciences are bullshit? The physical sciences are bullshit in service of some political agenda?)_ Your initial response to KappaW's science comment with a political-economy rant also shows that you're stupid. _(Even if your rant had merit - of course it didn't (it all keeps coming back to you being stupid) - that still wouldn't do SQUAT to undermine the scientific findings - not to mention that your rant had no relevance whatsoever to the original post. Your inability to made anything close to logical connections between ideas shows that you're stupid.)_ Your prior ludicrous strawmanning of the potential means of addressing this problem - especially the exaggerated and hyper-simplistic form of your strawman (exaggeration and hyper-simplicity both being telltale symptoms of stupidity) - also shows that you're stupid. You're just stupid all over the place. Write something - anything - that isn't stupid. I dare you to try.
M Mouse (27 days ago)
VeryEvilPettingZoo what fucking Qing Dynasty Hubris is this? You are intellectually smarter than me because I think Climate change is just bullshit trying to take away the West's little Industrial Power it has left from the wars? Fuck off with the Redditor bollocks and actually respond
VeryEvilPettingZoo (27 days ago)
*Re: "You realise the only true solution and the one that is proposed by most progressivists clamour for deindustrialisation for the aforementioned reasons."* That's like saying that the only "true solution" to illegal immigration in the USA, and the one that rightwingers clamor for, is killing all illegal immigrants. In other words, that's some ridiculous *_strawman bullshit._* And please remember to never presume to assert the positions of your intellectual superiors.
KappaW (5 months ago)
5:24 legit false information, this is fucking absurd, get your head out of your ass and accept that just because progressives do something doesn't mean its guaranteed to be incorrect. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Carter Baker (5 months ago)
The big problem with all models is that it ignores water. Numbers from Nasa point out that with out water we contribute about 3% of green house gases total. If you consider water that's around 1%. The only thing this number doesn't take into consideration is increased methane from large cattle farms and plant increases from farming. The number one producer of Green House gasses is plant decay, and second it Volcanic activity.The bigger problem is instead of finding out why there was data contradicting their findings. They purposely try to suppress it instead of finding the reason for it.
Marty Howard (5 months ago)
I always thought this film and the leftists were over exaggerating about global warming.
jet flaque (5 months ago)
5.25...dave...thats not how you honestly draw a trendline through data. veritasium (OH I KNOW RIGHT! PAYDOFF LEFTWING CARREER POLITICIAN WHO OBVIOUSLY RECIEVES TONS OF MONEY FROM MERKEL AND TEH ILLUMINTATIE WOOOOOHH) Actually has a pretty objective and non-alarmist video regarding ACC (or AGW) and its misconceptions.
oldman986 (5 months ago)
Well, what can you expect from a guy who believes in government regulation of the Internet... I mean "Net Neutrality?"
Evacer (5 months ago)
1. Try living in America. 2. Try dropping acid. If you do these two things I will find it hard to believe that you will be so concerned with preserving the culture of the past so much as to bring it up constantly, and to the point that you seem that you might sacrifice good decision-making if it means you can have a whiter circle for a few more years.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.