I missed some questions about the elephant in the room: the capitalist system. Worse yet, these people seem to rely on this particular system for a remedy. Except maybe for Lawrence himself. You rock, Lawrence! :-)
@wotwot6868
7 жыл бұрын
I'd like to hear what is their opinion on capital and it's inevitable behavior to undo all the band-aid solutions. There needs to be a coordinated world revolution to stop capitalism and bring the means of production to the hands of the people via worker-cooperatives.
@stephentrueman4843
5 жыл бұрын
completely agree with you guys. why the hell are they talking about how much money it will cost to remove co2 from the atmosphere? just pretend we are at war where money doesn't matter; it's about survival
@johnweaver3600
9 жыл бұрын
We, the global North, are addicted to easy fossil fuels....but we either jump out and take a "risk" on huge innovation and more pain at the pump, changes in lifestyle etc....or we will see how correct the WORST predictions really are. And yes, the amount of Arctic methane that can pop up into the atmosphere as a result of the Arctic warming is a game over scenario. It's already farther along than should have ever been allowed. Thanks, Exxon....but then, we liked our damn cheap electricity too much.
@meilstrup1
11 жыл бұрын
Only 5000 people saw this!!! hmmm kind of show the interrest on the subject!
@Smaug84
11 жыл бұрын
Who?
@judomagyar
11 жыл бұрын
don't be sad, it is not that bad! see "the global warming swindle" it will cheer you up
@StevenKHarrison
10 жыл бұрын
I get so tired of hearing phrases like, "let the market decide" how to solve this problem. The "market", defined by fiat currencies and determined by souless corporations, is the cause of our problems and the greatest hinderance in finding and carrying out solutions. A resource based economy, as outlined by The Venus Project, offers a viable alternative and would clear the way for doing all of what needs to be done to reduce the predicted and horrendous consequences of global climate change.
@StevenKHarrison
7 жыл бұрын
I have read "Das Kapital" (in the original German). I listen to Prof. Wolff every month. I live in a socialist country. I am well aware of the many advantages. There is only one problem with communism/socialism: money. They both rely on money. Money is a lie. They also imply an hierarchical system within a political structure. The TVP promotes what is called a Resource Based Economy. Have you seen or read any of the material pertaining to this concept? The ideas "poached to stitch their science fiction story" are good ideas but do not go far enough. Ideas like the RBE are an evolution of Marx's ideas from over 100 years ago. You may not be ready to evolve, but others are.
@rapauli
10 жыл бұрын
From 2013. These two lectures are so well produced, high production values. Both videos deserve widespread attention... overlooked. Some great scientists and great thinkers. Still worth viewing.
@atanacioluna292
9 жыл бұрын
Yes, it is so refreshing to have such a wealth of knowledge rationally shared. Wonderful. Is it not the mirror opposite of people who think that they are above reason with silly phrases like "fiat currency", as if such a high concept does not have to abide by reason. All currency is has arbitrary value weather it is shells or gold, fiat currency is just as valid as gold if that is how it accepted. Fanatical fatalism, like the Venus Project, is irritating to me. But the level of discussion offered here is a nice balm for the mind.
@grindupBaker
10 жыл бұрын
Solar radiation means cutting down sunlight to heat-compensate for increased "heat lamp" long wave radiation. That means a change in the nature of sunlight perhaps for centuries or millenia. Flora & fauna will not react the same to this new mix of light as they do to the current light, so it's not that simple to fix by dirtying the air or deploying space mirrors.
@valhala56
9 жыл бұрын
Jim Hansen has been beating this dead horse for 35 years and has gotten nowhere except appearing on panels and getting arrested in some protests. I have realized this is a lost cause, as Guy McPherson said we have already tripped over 30 self reinforcing feedback loops such as methane outgassing which wasn't even mentioned in this discussion. Hansen keeps saying the stupid thing that has not changed anything. If you told your alcholic Uncle to quit drinking for 35 years and he hasn't what makes you think if you keep telling him to quite drinking that he will?
@canadiannuclearman
9 жыл бұрын
nuclear is the answer plant bamboo, it grows vary much faster ten trees
@canadiannuclearman
9 жыл бұрын
sorry I meant to say then trees not ten
@IDNeon357
8 жыл бұрын
+Gary Lewis Than Trees....
@canadiannuclearman
8 жыл бұрын
LOL
@vladimirmoravek2646
5 жыл бұрын
This is entirely POLITICAL issue. Get Big C (Oil, Coal, Nat Gas) out of the White House, and Congress. We need all sources of energy, 'soft', nuclear, and oil, just in completely different proportion.
@atanacioluna292
9 жыл бұрын
Carbon sequestration is not geo-engineering, but it is gross, ugly, and only necessary if fresh water, as it is what creates what they called arable land, is plentiful. Trees and plants can capture all the carbon we need to remove. Fortunately the technology to produce such amounts of fresh water is easy, but contrary to the problem at hand, it will cool the planet too quickly. Pluvicopia will produce enough fresh water to adjust up to 20 meters of sea level, perhaps much more. So, the carbon problem is solvable from arable land is not an issue perspective. It is too bad that Pluvinergy has been so hard for people to understand, even though it is laid out with complete details in a book, experts need to have it spoon fed with simple formulas, which is too time consuming if we consider the time cost of peer review. Pluvinergy is on scale of the energy problem and so solves the bigger issue, but we will have to start the solution backwards, by first producing fresh water to remove CO2, as the panel all agreed that can be done except that water is lacking. The same technology will eventually lead to Pluvinergy acceptance but it will take an extra 20 or years or so, to get there.
@garynorthtruro
9 жыл бұрын
A market economy is slow to improve in terms of energy efficiency.
@joewood5647
5 жыл бұрын
The key to surviving the future, is by reducing the human population, and bringing it down to an acceptable level that this planet can naturally support. any think else will not work, creating floating cities will not work, building islands will not work, genetically engineering the crops will not work, even feeding on around did will not work. because the problem is you will live in a confined space and you have something just mindlessly multiply into it. that's your problem. so the solution is to start talking about depopulation, bring in the human population down to an acceptable level that this planet can naturally support. and you can do it simply by saying to you females, one woman, one child, that single action will reduce the world population.
@auail5594
10 жыл бұрын
We need to genetically create a kind super coral, throw its eggs into the ocean and hide underground with nuclears fusion, then by the time we come out after two hundred years, we will be on a new planet to start over. (Trolling)
@busanveggiefest9896
9 жыл бұрын
42:10 - It seems fairly amazing that it's taken so long to get to this so extremely crucial point...
@busanveggiefest9896
9 жыл бұрын
+Busan VeggieFest And 44:10 - Now THERE's a sign of humanity... Thank you, Dr. British Accent Guy.
@busanveggiefest9896
9 жыл бұрын
+Busan VeggieFest 45:15 - The Citizens Climate Lobby - Thank you for the reminder Dr James Hansen: all US citizens who love their younger siblings, cousins and nieces & nephews, daughters and sons and grandkids needs to sign up to the Citizens Climate Lobby... and then get all their neighbors signed up too.
@danielvazquez7482
2 жыл бұрын
Tuned in and about to watch what the title states as “debate”. My question is; is there any reasonable debate where it comes to the damage being done to the many by the few for greed?
@davidkeenan5642
10 жыл бұрын
judomagyar asked "why is this a climate change debate? Not one of these people is a denier!" Good question if doubt that AGW is real. My reply is that the question as to whether AGW is real has been answered to the satisfaction of 97% of experts. So the debate is about what we should do in the future to avoid a potential catastrophe. Nobody is prophesying it will happen, experts are warning that it is a real possibility, & the percentage chance of it happening increases as each year passes & governments do not implement agreed global strategies to limit, & hopefully reverse, human caused emissions of CO2 & other greenhouse gases. I've heard an expert say that currently there's about a 15% chance that it's too late. We've already passed a tipping point. And a 15% chance that nature will somehow cope & there will be no devastating impact on life on Earth. Adjust these numbers how you like. The prime questions are. Are you prepared to gamble with your children's future? Do you has a sense of global responsibility? If you're a denier, why do you mistrust scientists? If you're an accepter, what action should you take? These questions plague me. I am an accepter that AGW is real, but apart from striving to reduce my own carbon footprint, I have only one tool, the internet. I want people to to learn & understand the potential dangers our everyday actions pose to future generations. Responsible individuals should do simple things like not leaving appliances on stand-by, but we need to take collective action. Don't vote into power people who are total scientific illiterates. Don't question candidates if they believe in God, question them if they accept scientific consensuses on matters other than Evolution. I don't care if people think the world is 6.000 years old. I do care if they think the end of the world is a good thing. Ted Cruz does, Michelle Bachmann does. They desire to be living in End Times. I don't. I envisage a future for humanity beyond our planet. And it is our planet. We're the first species that has the potential to affect its future. The dinosaurs dominated in the past just as we do today. But apart from the avians they didn't avoid extinction. We have the potential to avert our self manufactured extinction. Anyway, have a good one. Remember, this is just YT. It's a tool to spread things. Don't get upset by what people say, you're allowed, & sometimes forced, to get upset by what they do & don't do.
@richardgoldfine3191
5 жыл бұрын
If we add another three and possibly four billion people, solving this problem will be impossible.
@viswaghosh1
9 жыл бұрын
Help... Seeking someone to provide insights into global temperature rise (which is a tiny element of the overall Climate Change concerns). Will human induced global temperature rise be able to offset the coming Ice Age? Again, aren't we supposed to have entered into the Ice Age part of the 22,000 year cycle?
@JonathanGleadell
9 жыл бұрын
Viswa Ghosh the current interglacial conditions are predicted to persist for much longer than previous interglacials. we might be stuck in this warm period for as much as another 50,000 years...that's 1/4 of the entire time homosapiens have been on the earth so im not sure we should pay much thought to any offsetting.
@karlcave286
3 жыл бұрын
My question to the panel would be, Why are there no politicians in state?
@roslinabachranie1014
11 жыл бұрын
I like see the great debate make me know for important about Climate Change and Hopefully USA as soon to process with Clean Energy which potential for Human Being on Planet !!
@demirparcasi
11 жыл бұрын
In the video they are talking about global warming and there is no mention about any positive feedback mechanism, arctic melting, any fact which is really inconvenient but true. This is only empty talk. I felt my self like watching cheap non-sense Hollywood happy-end movie. At the end of the debate, moderator tell to audience "hopefully not depress you". I hopelessly got depressed to see how pathetic so called top scientists of the World are.
@karinaandersen2618
9 жыл бұрын
just read about floating plants not sure where, but I like the idea stimulate moisture by recycling plastic as ground cover heat from the sun outback tucker talks about how to collect water from dew using plastic there has to be a way without much carbon imprint like our great ancestors
@aikidoka117
11 жыл бұрын
Yeah, them and the other 99% of Climatologists that agree that Climate Change is a FACT. Who are they to talk about the findings of what they do for a living...... Don't be so arrogant, LawzAngel, to think you know better about climatology than climatologists
@LawzAngel
11 жыл бұрын
This obviously is not a debate, It is more of a warmunist choir session. If any of these people have any understanding of the science involved, they should be ashamed of themselves.
@paz9iffy
11 жыл бұрын
Thanks. (All I did was read "Merchants of Doubt" which changed my life)
@stephentrueman4843
5 жыл бұрын
looks like an interesting read, thanks. Currently reading Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate by Stephen H. Schneider
@LogicalBelief
9 жыл бұрын
Money for this should come from sale of fossil fuels and carbon based energy in accordance to the amount of co2 being put into the air. E.g. it should be possible to determine the amount of co2 per litre of fuel and add the cost of removal from the atmosphere to the cost of that.
@karlcave286
3 жыл бұрын
Why isn't Elon Musk involved here?
@ozzytesfatz9506
11 жыл бұрын
Why is this debate has only 2000 viewers ? This shows where peoples's priority is. Very sad
@ShirleyFilms
11 жыл бұрын
Sorry about that. Technical issues. See the description for the new link to part one.
@rebnvodkaxx
10 жыл бұрын
The thing that upsets me most is that these are all brilliant people, yet they are all quiet when it comes to politics and the change that goes with that.
@judomagyar
11 жыл бұрын
why is this a climate change debate? Not one of these people is a denier!
@judomagyar
11 жыл бұрын
wow! Hansen is talking about identifying BS... how about your BS Jim?
@leeler71
11 жыл бұрын
Do we have a distiny similar to the frog thats placed in the pot of cold water,then the flame is slowly turned up?
@JohnKater1971
11 жыл бұрын
There is no 'one-side' of the argument. It's well and truly over gringo!
@karinaandersen2618
9 жыл бұрын
photosynthesis CAN work WILL work
@TechnocraticBushman
9 жыл бұрын
karina andersen you forget to mention DOES :D However, you can only plant so many trees. Most of co2 filtering happens in the oceans. I think above 70% but I might be talking out of my ass. We might need to reproduce the system artificially or create an analogous. I'm thinking solar panels + huge wind pipe or something similar.
@250txc
3 жыл бұрын
Why is the Milankovitch Cycle ~never mentioned when climate is the topic?
@markyoung8613
7 жыл бұрын
Look at the 800,000 year ice core records. The highest Co2 level on these graphs is 300ppm. The temperature was 5'c higher................. Never in human history has Co2 been at 400ppm. So we can calculate 400ppm = (5 + 33% of 5) = 6.66'c.....500ppm = (5 + 66% of 5) = 8.3'c........600ppm = (5 + 100% of 5) = 10'c.............
@johnatthelake1
7 жыл бұрын
Debate?? I missed the other side for the "debate". They didn't show up? Oh..... You say they weren't invited? Ohhhh, I see, it wasn't actually a DEBATE, it was just propaganda dressed up to be a debate. Typical of the misinformation propagated by those who tap dance when questioned: why would carbon dioxide as a GreenHouse Gas drive the climate when it is less than 5% of total GHG? Answer: People don't appreciably affect the other 95% (mostly water vapor) so you can't place controls over them, but you can concentrate on the 5% to force (control) people to change their lives in drastic ways which will not change the climate.
@VJScope
6 жыл бұрын
"why would carbon dioxide as a GreenHouse Gas drive the climate when it is less than 5% of total GHG?" 1. It's contribution is more like 20-26% (when 400ppm). (web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf) 2. Because before we started dumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere, the system was more or less balanced. In other words: We are putting extra energy into the system, which causes warming. "People don't appreciably affect the other 95% (mostly water vapor)" Water vapor absorbs different wavelength radiation than CO2 (rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qj.49706729105). There is a limit to what effect water vapor can have. If you add more water vapor into the atmosphere, it doesn't stay there very long until it comes back down as a rain. The only way to get atmosphere to hold more water vapor is to warm it up. CO2, on the other hand, accumulates. So, more CO2 -> warmer atmosphere -> more water vapor -> even warmer atmosphere -> more CO2 is released -> more warming -> etc. This is what is called the positive feedback. So, the real question is: Why are people like you, 'the other side', ignoring half a century old established physics in order to promote your 'side' of the issue? Maybe that is why 'the other side' didn't get the invitation? It is no longer realistically possible to base your doubt of AGW in science. Now the debate is where it should be: What are we going to do about it? Should we do anything about it?
Пікірлер: 84