13 Misconceptions About Global Warming

Friday, March 31, 2017

Common misconceptions about climate change.
Check out Audible: http://bit.ly/AudibleVe
References below:

For CO2, sea levels, Arctic sea ice, Antarctic and Greenland land ice:
http://climate.nasa.gov

Satellite data shows that ground-based stations underestimate recent warming: Cowtan and Way, 2014
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/full

For papers published on climate change during the 1970’s, see Peterson, 2008
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

For solar and temperature data see NASA GISS,
PMOD: http://www.acrim.com/tsi%20monitoring.htm
Krivova et al. 2007:
http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html

CO2 ratio of Carbon-13:Carbon-12 decreasing. IPCC AR4:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

CO2 emitted by volcanoes vs by humans: Gerlach, 2011
www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011eo240001.pdf Gerlach

Mauna Loa CO2 data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Rising atmospheric water vapour: Santer, 2007
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf

A doubling of CO2 will likely lead to a 3C increase in global temperatures according to many independent pieces of evidence:
Knutti & Hegerl, 2008
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

Great resource on Milankovitch cycles:
http://www.sciencecourseware.org/eec/GlobalWarming/Tutorials/Milankovitch/

CO2 lags temperature rise in the southern hemisphere but leads the global average temperature rise, Shakun et al. 2012
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/abs/nature10915.html

Music by Kevin McLeod, http://incompetech.com Songs: Hidden Agenda, Sneaky Snitch, Harlequin
Video Rating: / 5

On Monday 14th January 2013, David Friedman gave a talk on “Global Warming, Population, and the Problem with Externality Arguments” to the Libertarian Alliance in London.

http://www.DavidDFriedman.com/
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/
Video Rating: / 5

39 Comments

  1. JurisKankalis says:

    cool vid. if you watch di caprio's movie, thereof emerges the notion that the human race is somewhat on the brink now. if we continue warming, the changes might lead to irreversable degradation of the planet's overall situation – and what is meant by irreversible is… even god and aliens won't help. so it's up tp people like you, and Musk.. mostly Musk, though – to do something. bear that in mind, however "nice" the overall youtube party might be. and of course, "like" for the nice acting.

  2. George Ketzler says:

    I was wearing shorts this past February, I live in Michigan, the earth is warming

  3. ac bc says:

    This comment section is full of climate change denying morons.

  4. Michael Hansen says:

    One of the best explanations of the arguments for Global Warming. Global warming/climate change/whatever is still a con. Any chance you could do updates to this video periodically?

  5. Voidbit says:

    Rush Limbaugh says that if climate change were true, then there'd be a 100% consensus among scientists. We're only at a 97% consensus though, therefore climate change can't be true! Check mate!

  6. AndreyGaming says:

    If people didn't care about emissions and climate change cars could continue to be massive and stylish and have big engines. Cars didn't have to change shape and get smaller if no one cared.

  7. Eammon Siocain says:

    Clearly, the earth has gone through climate changes throughout its history.
    However, our emissions HAVE increased the level of Green House Gasses significantly.
    We know this, because we have taken core samples from the polar regions and have measured the atmospheric composition dating back millions of years.
    In none of these samples has the level of carbon been as high as it is now.
    While the earth (quite naturally) warms, it makes no sense to aide in that process.

  8. I kinda work for the government. says:

    The world is run by globalist lizard elites who made up global warming and the earth is flat.

  9. AnatoleH1 says:

    Beautiful trend line :p

  10. MrMollytov says:

    if trump watched this instead of fox it wouldn't make a difference

  11. HaroWorld1 says:

    Most of the people that disagree with global warming now are old retired people who are going to die far before global warming affects them, has already lived across long life and doesn't care, or doesn't want to admit that they are leaving a shitty world for the next generation…

  12. Mike D says:

    what can we do I'm scarred

  13. Rick McGuffey says:

    Video well-done… especially for such a short and concise explanation.  I'm an AGW skeptic…. I'm not convinced that humanity is THE factor driving the warming trends.  I can think of many reasons that aren't conspiracy theories for why it's popular to blame humanity right now.  However, this video does present well.I do so sincerely wonder why the great warriors of AGW don't put their money where their mouths are?  Why don't they sell their big mansions and gas guzzling private jets and reduce their own carbon footprint?  it's a sincere question.  I promise you if I was as convinced as they are that we are killing our planet, I would do all I could to reduce my footprint.On another note, I believe in being good stewards as a matter of course.  I don't need some big government tax on me to reduce the amount of fuel I use, or the type of car I drive.  I happen to like Earth and want to see her continue on until the Lord's done with her… 🙂

  14. Brandon says:

    Not a bad upload but it's just a big straw man argument

  15. Baji K-orvisamo says:

    This 2 sided technique you used in this episode you utilized gives more perspective on the 2 sides of the argument. It would be great to see more of it.

  16. Michael Bishop says:

    Well, importing millions of fast-breeding low-carbon footprint folk from Africa into high-carbon-footprint societies will fix it!
    No wait…
    I guess the only thing we can do is take money from high-carbon footprint people and give it to low carbon footprint people so they can get a higher carbon footprint!
    No wait…

    Of course, allowing the distillation of alcohol for fuel, allowing people to put little motors on bicycles, allowing folk to use woodstoves or go off the grid is out of the question…
    The global warming thing is demonstrably a farce because the proposed solutions are also a farce, whether or not the temperature is increasing.

  17. MarksmenTM says:

    This video is for trolls.

    A vast majority of people supporting this video in these comments can't even confirm how we know the levels of carbon dioxide before recorded history. You are taking a re-utterance of what may be a scientists word on faith, and that is why you are always wrong. There is no reason to trust scientists without critical examination. You should be doubly skeptical of the dolt parroting of information into digestible format to sway opinion.

  18. ParallaX says:

    You realize your arguing with yourself…

    And vsause 1, 2 and 3…

    And every channel on YouTube…

  19. arnoldhau1 says:

    I think we also have to consider that even if the warming may not be a huge deal in some places (it propably will, but just assuming), cities and countries are not situated where it is habitable under current climatic conditions, and very often at the cost or in places that are just habitalbe under current conditions. Alone a massive change in that would cause huge global turmoil, refugiee crises and vast costs to societies.

  20. Darth nataS says:

    For whatever reason, early in his career I found this man not as likable as his father. I must admit, he is growing on me. I tend to lean towards a natural-rights view of libertarianism, however, I greatly appreciate his intellectual honesty. I'm not sure the left has anyone honest left. Bravo Dr. Friedman.

    The question at 1:14:45 is a very good one. I agree very much with the questioner. Stalin could NOT produce a pencil, not in the long run. His system failed. The argument is not that the market is perfect. Of course there are externalities. But what else have you got? What other choice is there? A system of force, or a system of freedom; those are the choices. The free market so overwhelming obliterates the other choices out there in every way, that this constant nitpick about externalities gets old.

  21. Grero.com says:

    Peter Mogensen is very triggered.

  22. elipto says:

    after hearing 1:23:26 minutes of nonsense, i had to read the comments. i was glad to see that almost each comment pointed out some of the incredible ignorance (or stupidity) that came out of this guy's mouth.

  23. Pen Cil says:

    such an annoying voice

  24. Jim O'Neil says:

    It's been warmer. It's been colder.

  25. Peter Mogensen says:

    50:00
    … and now pure science denial starts… He even refers to WUWT… I have no patience for that. Skipping the rest. Waste of time.

    Wrt. terms.
    "Global warming" is the phenomenon. (increased green house effect).
    "Climate change" is the effect.

  26. Peter Mogensen says:

    46:26
    … Now you are loosing every scientific credibility David.

    First of all… glacial periods are relatively well understood. And we know that we are not close to another glacial period.
    There is NO scientific reason to believe there would be a new glaciation within the first 16.000 years.
    We would have had PLENTY of time to prevent that with controlled green house gas emission.

    You are not being an economist now, David Friedman, – you are simply just an ideological biased layperson making unqualified guesses and preaching nonsense.

  27. Peter Mogensen says:

    34:55
    WHAT??? … "a very small change" ???

    We are not talking about weather. We are talking about mean global climate change. This will have profound effects on every ecosystem world wide.

    Sigh… the rest of this lecture seems to be based on pure speculation and biased guessing about scientific results – even though he started saying he was not a climate scientist and had to assume their results.

    Land "freed" due to warming won't just magically turn into farmland in the same rate as farmland near equator is destroyed and even though the arctic gets warmer you still will have NIGHT almost half of the year.

    Sorry David Friedman… but you are simply pulling these guess out of a place where the sun doesn't shine.

  28. Peter Mogensen says:

    32:00
    That argument doesn't fly because it's a strawman.
    The actual argument is the one at 32:38

  29. Peter Mogensen says:

    31:16
    This is nonsense…
    Sure… Homo Sapiens have existed in ~200.000 years. We've seen climate change.
    But our modern civilization has evolved within the relative stable climate of Holocene, – which we are now leaving due to our own actions.
    It's not about the biological creature "humans" – it's about our civilization.

  30. Peter Mogensen says:

    29:30
    3 degrees C and 1-2 feet sea level rise is HUGELY understating what the actual worries of the climatologists are.
    We are talking at least 4-6 degrees and sea level rise in meters in a century.

    So the whole premise for the further discussion is wrong.

  31. Peter Mogensen says:

    29:00
    It's not correct. IPCC predictions…. (which is not really predictions made for the intent of actually making predictions, but rather model-runs to learn more about the climate system), has in fact NOT been overestimating the warming.

    The models have not been able to predict the last 15 years of internal variability in detail, but now that the pendulum is swinging back wrt. internal variability and 2014/2015/2106 are sky-rocketing temperatures it clearly shows that the IPCC models actually got the overall picture right.

  32. Peter Mogensen says:

    The good David Friedman goes wrong at 16:00.
    His argument is sound for the theoretical case, but wrt. global warming we DON'T need an estimate.
    The reason being that we know for certain (from physics) that if we don't effectively STOP (totally) by raising the CO2 level, there's a intolerable risk of civilization threatening catastrophe. Worst case is something like the Perm/Trias extinction event.

    So it's not a matter of finding a optimal economic balance. It's a matter of a complete STOP for CO2 emissions ASAP.

  33. Susan St. James says:

    Oh I believed the global warming stuff. Now I can weigh what is preached.

  34. LordF says:

    On Global Warming – Here is the big fallacy (31:15 onwards): He talks about the optimum climate as a direct and static effect of temperature, comparing future warming with past periods of warming. However, the rate of warming we face is much more rapid than equivalent warming in the past, which happened over hundreds of thousands of years vs warming over a few decades today.

    This is the difference between ecosystems being able to adapt overtime, and massive extinctions. Humans are not going to become extinct, but the loss of natural ecosystems and traditional sources of food and water have a huge economic impact. This goes much beyond "having to change crops".

  35. Aanthanur DC says:

    cold events are not evidence agains Global Warming, and the one that pushed in the US for using Climate Change in the media and politics instead of Global warming was Frank Luntz, he advised bush and other deniers.
    officially, climate change was always in use. that is why the IPCC is called IPCC and not IPGW.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiTVL9iT1w

  36. Aanthanur DC says:

    he lost me at 45:56 we do know how lcose we are to the end of the interglacial. the cooling started some 6000 years ago in agreement with the milankovitch cycles , which are the cause of the glaical / interglacial, we do know that contrary to his claim. and with the current Co2 concentration , experts expect that we skip not only the next glacial period, but even the one after the next.

    and the risk involved is the survival of our species…. he does not seem to take that into consideration at all. just like his dady he views the world so his ideology fits best. yet that is not how reality looked like.

  37. Aanthanur DC says:

    there is no scientific basis to assume a net benefit from global warming. yes we don0t know the exact cost, and yes some regions will get new land, and some regions lose land. yet the new land is not a net benefit per se. it also means more GHGs from the melting permafrost etc.

    but that is out of his expertise anyway, so he should just take the expert's consensus position on that, a net negative effect.

  38. SovereignJoe says:

    Beware – Agenda 21! Current highest truth in Law, article 61 of 1215 Magna Carta invoked in March 2001 http://www.lawfulrebellion.info

  39. grindupBaker says:

    Gigantic gap in his knowledge at 28:45. The "climate sensitivity" (essentially net feedbacks resolution) is not determined by climate models. There are more than a dozen paleoclimate analyses that show equilibrium climate sensitivity 0.6x to 0.12x the basic forcings at those times (not only CO2, whatever forcings were determined by science from paleoclimate proxies). So that 3.69 x 0.6 = 2.2 degrees and 3.69 x 1.2 = 4.4 degrees, the median 3.3 degrees, no simulation models. The simulation models simply approximately confirm that and their real intent is to become expert to the point that they can project significant regional changes along the time line (not at that quality yet obviously). On the socio-political babbling that doesn't interest me, as long as he keeps his pudgy fingers away from telling me what's best for Canada and keeps his little pie pokers inside the fucking U.S. of America then I'll likely not cuss him for this particular video, perhaps Inuit will browse past.

Leave a Reply