Comments by "Michael RCH" (@michaelrch) on "Stossel: Why climate change alarmists get it wrong" video.

  1. It's weird. John Stosser is putting forward a really inconsistent argument and Tucker is helping him along. He accepts man-made climate change though for reasons he does not give, he will not accept the degree that climate scientists have stated (and that's where he starts going wrong). But his conclusion that whatever we do will make no difference is patently stupid I'm afraid. If humans burning fossil fuels is warming the climate (which he DOES accept) then how does it follow that we should keep on doing that and it won't make any further difference? The answer is that clearly we shouldn't and he is actually misrepresenting what has been said by climate scientists. They have said that even if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere then some further warming would still continue until existing CO2 was absorbed out of the atmosphere again. But that does not mean we should just say "fuck it", throw up our hands and carry on doing it! That's like putting petrol on your burning house! More CO2 means more warming so it's kinda obvious that we should emit as little CO2 into the atmosphere as we can to limit the damage we are doing. To his point about making energy more expensive for the poor, that is a real issue, but again, he is deliberately jumping to the wrong conclusion. Two things need to be said here. First, it's mainly the poor who are suffering from climate change (and will continue to do so). They typically rely on the land much more than richer nations and are therefore disproportionately hit when the environment on which they rely gets damaged (by floods, storms, sea level rise, desertification, etc). Those costs to the poor dwarf the short term costs of energy prices. Secondly, in many places, renewable energy is practically cost competitive with fossil fuels already, and much less hazardous. Given recent steep price drops for solar cells for example, it's cheaper to create a small solar energy system in a poor rural area than it is to put that place on a national power grid or even to run generators on costly fuels like diesel. So renewables are actually a great way to empower billions of people with cost effective, clean energy in even remote locations.
    5
  2. heterodyne1 there is quite a lot more recent science on this that is s lot more relevant than anything you learned about what happened in the Fertile Crescent 1000s of years ago. You can't base your understanding of this topic in high school history. What you need is a quick primer in atmospheric physics and the history of the Earth's climate. I strongly recommend you start here http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
    4
  3. magentawave, hey who are you calling a religious fanatic? If you are getting your information from Tucker here, then you are the one taking things on faith. Where is your evidence for this giant hoax, or you evidence that there is no warming, or that purely natural factors have caused it? Have you checked those sources?
    2
  4. Dotard J Chump, indeed, that’s a really important cause to this rush to judgement by people who are entirely unqualified to make one. It’s infuriating. I was criticised as an “armchair scientist” by a denier unhappy that I kept point them at journal papers and articles or videos that cite journal papers over and over as evidence, when he was telling me stuff about this cycle or that cooling period in his comments without citing and papers at all. I think that the first thing people need to learn is which sources to believe. The truth is that most people don’t want to wade through actual published papers as they don’t understand them, can’t be bothered or just find a conspiracy narrative far more exciting and the fact that they are fine to not deal with climate change in their own life far more appealing. It’s interesting but disturbing when you see free democracies and open information exchange fail in this way. We still have Paris but it’s not enough on its own. People must under this stuff. Have you come across Potholer54? I recommend his videos at every opportunity as they are the most watchable and credible debunking resources I have come across so far.
    2
  5. magentawave, I can see that the massive preponderance of scientific evidence supports the theory of man made climate change. And it has already happened. If you want to know (part of) why I think what I think just watch this short video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo All backed with references to peer reviewed papers and genuinely verified science. If you care to watch it then feel free to come back to me to let me know where it is flawed and invalidated. I would like to know.
    2
  6. Hi Randy. You raise a lot of questions there about how and why temperature and climate changed before man made CO2 started to have an impact. If you want answers to those questions, I can point you at some great videos that explain exactly what does drive the climate to do what it does and also why scientists are very confident that the temperature is currently rising and that we are the cause. If you actually want answers just say and I will come back with a couple of links that I hope you will find interesting.
    2
  7. G. H. Ok, please don't cite the Daily Mail as a source. It's so full of crap it's not even funny. They have a lot of form on misreporting climate science. Here are a couple of examples. https://youtu.be/kQph_5eZsGs https://youtu.be/17mKIKGEF5E In the article you refer to, they state that the IPCC says that temperature increase between 1997 and 2012 was just 0.05 degrees per decade. The IPCC makes no such statement in the actual report. In fact if you just go and look at the actual temperature data for that time period you see a rate of 0.36 degrees per decade. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ This is lower than it might otherwise be because 1997 coincides with an El Niño event (short term higher temp due to warm ocean water at surface in the southern Pacific) and 2012 with a La Niña event (short term lower temp due to cold waters in the southern Pacific causing temporary cooling). Had they gone to the next El Niño then the warming would have been about 0.54 per decade depending on exactly which year you take as the end of the series. So basically, it's badly sourced bullshit as is par for the course with the Mail and Telegraph. PS before you start calling people morons, maybe consider that other people here might have better reasons for their positions than you give them credit for, and indeed better reasons than you have for yours.
    1
  8. Whiteknight Ofhope, the science is not based on correlation alone, that would indeed be moronically inept. The science behind AGW is based on predictions of the action of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (first postulated in the 19th century and based on know behaviour in the lab) and the subsequent measurement and testing, and conclusion that GHGs do exactly what you expect them to do. There of course have been countless periods of higher, indeed much higher CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, and they all caused warming. They arent the only factor historically and no science says they are, but they are a very important one. The science of current warming is well understood. That is why climate deniers can’t point to any substantial published papers in well reputed peer reviewed journals to make their case. There aren’t any. The theory, models, predictions and observations all validate AGW. If it was a conspiracy, why would all countries in the world except the US be signed up to the Paris Accord? If it was the scale of conspiracy that die hard deniers claim then the beans would have been spilled ages ago.
    1
  9. Generic Narrator sadly true but recent measurements confirm it’s in the mend at least. 🙂
    1
  10. Ronald Rasch because nothing has been tested or proven. It expensive and dangerous and we aren’t that desperate, yet. Co2 scrubbers do exist but they are very inefficient and expensive. Young trees do a better job and the are Cheaper and prettier!
    1
  11. Ok so you start with a pet hypothesis and then go on to rant for a while. Can we talk about your hypothesis about how plants should absorb all the extra CO2 rather than the rant for now. In fact it would have a grain of truth to it if we weren't actually chopping down the rainforests much faster than anything can grow back. The world is net losing millions of tonnes of plant biomass every year as a result. Also, if you are going to refute the scientific consensus, then you will need some actual scientific evidence. Do you have any evidence that backs your hypothesis that plants can absorb the additional 32 Billion tonnes of carbon that we are adding to the atmosphere each year?
    1
  12. winger j, where is your evidence for this cooling you mention? Here is an up to date global temperature graph that shows clear warming as measured by three different agencies. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
    1
  13. Tarun Guhanand thanks I was going to highly recommend this playlist, which is very informative, has tons of direct references to papers, easy-to-follow explanations of the science and refutations of the most common denier myths. And it’s quite witty. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
    1
  14. Dotard J Chump indeed. It would have been even better if the admiral knew then what we know now - that the RSS was totally flawed due to satellites drifts and diurnal factors. They admitted this only in 2016 after their data was disputed in 2015. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1 Staggeringly, deniers reported this, the fact that all measurements now agreed, as just another sign that the whole this is fixed. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/rss-find-their-missing-warming/ “I’ve no doubt Roy Spencer or John Christy will soon weigh in with their technical assessment of this, but it gets clearer everyday that most official climate information has become untrustworthy and essentially worthless.” What the fuck is it with these shit-heads? Heads we win, tails you lose? What a bunch of pricks.
    1
  15. Dotard J Chump btw, did you check out the potholer54 channel. It kicks some serious ass IMO http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
    1