The “Hot Mess” of the PBS video about global warming

They seem to think CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for millennia. They seem to forget how much our biosphere likes CO2. They also seem to forget that if they say the problem will be around for millennia, it’s likely the [current] set of humans view the video will shrug their shoulders and say “Eh, there’ nothing I can do about it.”.

Here’s the lead-in and discussion which has been making the rounds on Facebook. Discuss.

Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. And instead of killing each other over this technology, we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society. This wonderous source would power our homes, industries, cars and planes, and humanity’s annual rate of carbon pollution would almost instantly fall to zero. So if we kicked our carbon addiction tomorrow, what would that mean for global warming?


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 2, 2018 1:01 am

Concern troll – “Lowering CO2 emissions means more children spared the hardship of migrating to cooler climates”

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 2, 2018 6:39 am

“Hi, I’m Joe. ” That is all you need to know about me in order to take everything I say as unequivocal FACT. You will now listen and learn and believe all I tell you.

DJ Meredith
Reply to  Greg
September 2, 2018 7:45 am

.. But you will have to admit that the very same presentation by the Hunchback of Notre Dame would be slightly less effective. I’d have enjoyed it more with Ann Coulter doing a running narrative… Love to watch her giggle… (too bad she isn’t a climate specialist)

michael hart
Reply to  DJ Meredith
September 2, 2018 8:25 pm

I loved the version starring Gina Lollobrigida.

Reply to  michael hart
September 3, 2018 8:54 am

Perhaps Naked News could do a report on climate change.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 2, 2018 8:29 am

I guess that means more hardships for older people moving to warmer climates, right?

September 2, 2018 1:02 am

”Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. And instead of killing each other over this technology, we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society.

Oh brother. Will Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny be delivering the aliens?

Oh, and psssst! Come close because I have to whisper this:

We already have “a clean limitless energy source”. It’s called Nuclear Power.

Reply to  Lokki
September 2, 2018 1:27 am

And what happened was that every other energy source saw it as a threat and conspired to stop it using ‘green’ arguments.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 3, 2018 2:36 am

Well Leo, that’s close, but no cigar.

The attacks on nuclear power were and are primarily by the watermelons and have always been mounted because it could be a solution to the various contrived “problems” that we supposedly need to resolve through more socialism.

(Stop burning fossil fuels, we need more socialism!)

Could there have been a coal or oil interest who disingenuously glommed onto the “green” campaign against nuclear power to protect their own narrow interests from time to time? Of course, but that would not negate the fact that most of the agitation came and comes from the green on the outside, red on the inside watermelons.

France provides the evidence that nuclear power could be a major source of reliable, cheap, and safe energy that would irrelevantly also be free of CO2 emissions. If the rest of the developed world had spent a fraction of the money that has been squandered on wind and solar on building even-safer, next-generation nuclear power plants, dependence on fossil fuels would already have been greatly reduced, instead of spending trillions on intermittent grid-destabilizing non-solutions to the non-problem du jour.

(not that there is any real need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels).

Reply to  Lokki
September 2, 2018 2:27 am

If we did go nuke I wonder what gifts the aliens will give instead

R. Shearer
Reply to  Crakar24
September 2, 2018 6:27 am

perhaps the perfect cup of coffee

T. Schmitz
Reply to  R. Shearer
September 2, 2018 8:24 am

“Fetid!” – Thanks R.Shearer for the Ziltoid the Omniscient reference! It made my day and it’s not even 10:30 am yet!

tom s
Reply to  T. Schmitz
September 2, 2018 11:36 am

Heavy Devy!! Great to know I am in good company!

Reply to  T. Schmitz
September 2, 2018 3:14 pm

Or perhaps an ever-sharp razor blade?

D. Anderson
Reply to  Crakar24
September 2, 2018 7:26 am

The first time an alien spoke to us he promised”You shall be as gods”.
(Hey, It’s Sunday)

Beware of aliens bearing gifts.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Crakar24
September 2, 2018 7:33 am

A nice bottle of Chablis is always welcome.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 2, 2018 7:38 am

Chablis for sure! Nectar of the Gods.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 2, 2018 7:56 am

While wishing why not just a small case of single malt?

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 2, 2018 1:24 pm

For those of us who cannot afford Chablis will a nice Gisborne chardonnay suffice?

Reply to  Crakar24
September 3, 2018 11:13 am

If we did go nuke I wonder what gifts the aliens will give instead

If they name themselves the Kanamit & give us a book named “To Serve Man”, be afraid. Be very afraid.

John in Oz
September 2, 2018 1:02 am

00:45 – “go back to the cooler, calmer atmosphere humans lived under before the industrial revolution”

From Wiki: The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840.

A quick web search found:
– Dramatic climate instability in east Africa, starting around 360,000 years ago,

– The written, archaeological and natural-scientific proxy evidence independently but consistently shows that during the period of the Roman Empire’s maximum expansion and final crisis, the climate underwent changes.[3] The Empire’s greatest extent under Trajan coincided with the Roman climatic optimum.[4] The climate change occurred at different rates, from apparent near stasis during the early Empire to rapid fluctuations during the late Empire.

– A research team led by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found the fingerprint of a massive flood of fresh water in the western Arctic, thought to be the cause of an ancient cold snap that began around 13,000 years ago.
“This abrupt climate change — known as the Younger Dryas — ended more than 1,000 years of warming,” explains Lloyd Keigwin, an oceanographer at WHOI and lead author of the paper published online July 9, 2018, in the journal Nature Geocscience.

Why waste time listening to any more as the announcer obviously believes in unicorns?

Reply to  John in Oz
September 2, 2018 6:15 am

Okay, so does he want to live this way?
No indoor plumbing. You either use an outhouse, or dig a hole and cover your sewage, and all water is pumped by hand, (IF you have a hand pump available) not tested for potability, not filtered or cleaned, but possibly contaminated with bacteria from your outhouse.
No electricity. Period. You use oil lamps and/or tallow candles, and man, those things stink to high heaven in a closed environment like a house.
No refrigeration. You may have an icebox or not, but no frozen foods, no way to store stuff that spoils easily, and canned goods are questionable in their safety factor, but hey! It’s all for the ‘green’ greater good, isn’t it?
This is my favorite: no modern stoves for cooking. You cook in the fireplace. Period. If you’re lucky, it’s the kind that has the Rumford fire chamber and chimney. If not, tough bananas.
NO CENTRAL HEATING! Period. Not negotiable. A fireplace is the only thing that will heat the room you’re in, and if you don’t have that, or parlor stoves, you do without heat.

I would truly enjoy watching these people crumble under the burden of reality that is a loss of modern conveniences, which they all take for granted.

Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2018 6:24 am

Not a problem. We simply go back to hunting whales for their oil to burn in the oil lamps. And no more nasty petroleum products.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 2, 2018 9:41 am

Until we wipe them out. These faux science Green Weenies have never heard of unintended consequences. Let us not forget the problems with deforestation caused by all those wood burning stoves and starved of needed CO2 the forests will become depleted much faster than the population dies off from their sell imposed living hardships. What these propagandists leave out of their indoctrination photos that the world governments will need to round up the majority of the great unwashed and turn them into soylent green.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 2, 2018 12:35 pm

Not necessarily Whale Oil but a combination of Corn Oil and Ethanol so no more corn as a food crop

Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2018 2:01 pm

Nope, nope, nope.
Tallow candles, made from rendered animal fats, came WAYY ahead of whale oil.
There’s also torches coated in pitch (pine tar) and turpentine (also comes from pines) but really, my favorite is those little clay lamps that look like an old Aladdin’s lamp, which a hole for the wick in the spout, and an opening for oil – usually olive oil – in the middle. Really bright, useful light source!!!

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2018 9:51 pm

But doesn’t the act of combusting those pine tar torches and tallow candles still produce the VILE CO2?
CO2 is EVIL, VILE, and reprehensible when produced by humans from any source

John the Econ
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2018 8:01 am

The upside would be that the skill-less social justice warrior types would go extinct almost immediately.

Reply to  John the Econ
September 2, 2018 2:01 pm

Hey, don’t toy with me, John the Econ!

Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2018 10:09 am

” all water is pumped by hand,” I strongly suggest any person that likes pumping water by hand go to a park or other area that has a hand pump and pump enough water to take a bath.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  John in Oz
September 2, 2018 9:10 am

“go back to the cooler, calmer atmosphere humans lived under before the industrial revolution”

Like the glaciation that ended a mere 12,000 years ago (a blink of the eye in geological terms), when the place I am sitting as I write this was covered by more than a kilometer of ice?

Read Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century” It is about one of those calm times when climate induced crop failures caused massive famines and the Black Death killed half of the people in Europe.

Or, Read “The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire” by Kyle Harper about how the end of the Roman Warm period and a massive cooling trend in the 6th Century put the final nail into the coffin of the Roman Empire by triggering, you guessed it, famines and plagues.

Only the massive ignorance created by the failed American school system could allow anyone to publish stuff like this with out being laughed out the public square.

Steve Lohr
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 2, 2018 9:31 am

It is true. It is a testament to failed education that a person can be a babbling ignoramus and an audience of likewise ignorant character nod in agreement without one scrap of introspection or question. Neither having the ability to repair the damage done to themselves and the society they believe they are “improving”.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Steve Lohr
September 2, 2018 11:48 am

Sanctimonious BS. The discussion DOES demonstrate that similar to Ike, skepticism is still alive in the common people.

Lewis P Buckingham
September 2, 2018 1:05 am

I suppose all PBS has to do now is prove all its assertions.
In the meanwhile Watts Up With That could consider producing another piece of ‘teaching material’, and promote it in numerous languages.

James Loux
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
September 2, 2018 4:33 am

This is the most blatantly false video that I have seen on the subject of AGW. Based on watching the video, it is apparent that the promoters of the AGW scam have been driven out into the open where they are now just making things up. Joe, the host in the video, makes false statements continuously and at such a rate that it is hard to keep track of them.
For example, in just the first minute and a half of Joe talking he makes the following false assertions: CO2 has caused earth’s normal cool, stable climate of the past to become hot and unstable (never stable, Earth’s climate has been both cooler and warmer than it is now); no matter what, temperatures will remain high for many, many centuries (it would appear that Joe never learned about Earth’s glaciation cycles); slashing GHG is the key to tackling Climate Change (the climate has changed and continues to change without regard to CO2); over the last 50 years, 90% of “the warming” has gone into the oceans, which means that CO2 has actually heated the globe 10 times more than calculations indicate that it could; CO2 causes 80% of “the warming” (water vapor is the overriding GHG); 40% of the CO2 produced today will still be in the atmosphere 1000 years from now (Joe obviously never learned about the carbon cycle). And that is just in the beginning of the five minute long video.
What was the subject of Joe’s PHD? If it was a science related area, then he looks to be horrifically dishonest. If it is not in science, then he is just a con man. Joe’s clear intent is to make these assertions in a manner that causes the listener to conclude that he must be correct. Certainly Joe wouldn’t make all of these impressive sounding statements if they weren’t true? Instead, almost everything that he states in that convincing manner is actually factually untrue. This video is blatantly false and misleading propaganda that was produced to lower the level of knowledge in the general population.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  James Loux
September 2, 2018 5:51 am

He is surely auditioning to become a high priest in the Church of the New Truth.

Reply to  James Loux
September 2, 2018 6:17 am

BS = Bull manure. MS = more manure. PhD. = Piled Hip Deep.

Gilbert K. Arnold
Reply to  Sara
September 3, 2018 9:09 am

Or the alternate version; BS = Boy’s shove. MS = Man’s shovel. PhD = Post hole Digger.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  James Loux
September 2, 2018 8:01 am

“What was the subject of Joe’s PHD?” That one’s easy… ‘Climate Science’!

Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 2, 2018 2:04 pm

More likely, he got it in analyzing dust bunnies for mites.

Reply to  James Loux
September 2, 2018 9:11 am

I thought it was a fairy tale–just a piece of fiction

Bill Powers
Reply to  JVC
September 2, 2018 9:55 am

His PHD must be in Creative Writing.

September 2, 2018 1:36 am

Carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth, and if it is reduced agriculture will become less productive. This will lead to food shortages, and those will lead to war.

Reply to  Damon
September 2, 2018 3:46 am

There will not be food shortages.
Not als long as annually 1.3 billion tons of food worldwide (and counting) end up in the trash.

william Johnston
Reply to  petermue
September 2, 2018 6:16 am

And don’t forget the “food” exiting automobile tailpipes.

Melvyn Dackombe
Reply to  william Johnston
September 2, 2018 6:48 am

That is carbon monoxide – not something you want to breath.

Reply to  Melvyn Dackombe
September 2, 2018 7:09 am

Only a tiny, tiny, trace amount is co1 from modern, properly, maintained ICE anymore. Full combustion produces co2 and dihydromonoxide.

Bryan A
Reply to  KT66
September 2, 2018 9:39 am

Fuel combustion in the modern IC engine produces far less CO2 per mile driven than Human Respiration would walking that same distance

David Dirkse
Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2018 9:56 am

No Bryan, you are wrong. Consider this. A car that gets 30 MPG, will burn 1 gallon of gas to go 30 miles. The gallon of gas weighs about 7.5 lbs. Now, a human being burns glucose to walk, and when a human being walks 30 miles, they do not lose 7.5 lbs of weight. This is even not considering the fact that glucose has a lower energy density than gasoline. At 100 calories per mile walking, 3000 calories is less than 400 grams of body fat needed to fuel the walk.

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 2, 2018 11:44 am

When discussing fuel mileage, you must properly use the units of lb*miles/gallon (kg m /km), not merely mpg. You would get 20 mpg too, if you weighed a (literal) ton.

Reply to  Paul
September 2, 2018 11:48 am

Mileage is measured in MPG not your units.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 2, 2018 11:49 am

PS, riding a bicycle improves the efficiency over walking.

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 2, 2018 12:26 pm

However a car weighs about 3400 lbs and can travel at velocities far greater than a human walking speed of 2 mph while still maintaining that efficiency while transporting a sizable load. A human weighs 200 lbs and can carry about 50 lbs over that distance.
Have you ever walked 30 miles or more in one go? I have, and I guarantee you I’ve perspired and transpired far more than 7.5 lbs of water. and i was only transporting 50 lbs in my pack.

Perhaps Bryan’s, statement was a bit under explained. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Perhaps a better measure would be worked performed per CO2 emitted.

Reply to  rocketscientist
September 2, 2018 12:30 pm

The 7.5 lbs of water you per/transspired did not end up in the atmosphere as CO2, because it was not fuel.

Reply to  rocketscientist
September 2, 2018 5:16 pm

Saw an elegant 20 mule team borax wagon being “turned” from a main (paved) road onto a simple 90 degree side road. That one turn took more than 8 minutes of video – and they had only made less than 1/2 mile at a walking pace.
Didn’t take many resources? 20 Mules, 6x people as “wlkers” beside the mules, the driver and brakeman, the borax wagon, the water wagon behind it and the supply wagon for the many days and nights they were on the road leaving the valley with ONE load of borax.
Today, one Teamster driving a single tractor trailer carries 5x the weight at 70 mph, delivering a far greater load with one person in greater safety in much better comfort and sanitary conditions (no mule poop from 20 mules falling on the ground) several times a day many hundred miles more every trip.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Dirkse
September 2, 2018 12:59 pm

I was off by a factor of about 16

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 2, 2018 5:29 pm

That human can carry 30-40 lbs, (less than 20-25 kg) IF they are strong-willed and strong-backed, walking on prepared roadbed in good weather.
That human can 60-80 lbs (30-40 kg) a short distance, if they’re physically able. Few today can carry 30-40 kg more than a few hundred feet.
That human needs all day to go 30 miles, then HAS TO rest in an inn or house overnight, with meals ready and water and shelter. Or lose more of his 20-30 kg payload carrying food, water and shelter and clothes with him.
The next day that human can carry his 20-30 kg payload another 30 miles.
Then he needs another rest stop overnight, more food, more water …

So, on the third my 20-30 kg load has gone less than 100 miles, and needed three rest stops and food, water, shelter, heating, clothes, etc.

Or I can drive 100 miles in two hours, delivering 5000 to 15,000 to 40,000 pounds of cargo immediately, then returning to pickup and delivery another load the first day.

Bryan A
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 2, 2018 9:55 pm

Sounds a lot like traveling long distances in a current plug in EV.
Drive 60 – 100 miles…
Stop for 12 hours to recharge…
Drive 60 – 100 miles…
Stop for 12 hours to recharge…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Bryan A
September 3, 2018 3:13 am

To be fair, the first recharge might be a fast charge, but you’re right that after that, the charger will probably force a slow charge to protect against overheating.

Of course it’s immoral to drive such long distances. All that freedom is offensive!

Reply to  David Dirkse
September 2, 2018 5:38 pm

If a person walked 30 miles they would take 2 days, eat at least 5 meals and have to use accomodation whereas a car could carry 5 people plus luggage and do the return trip in 1 hour.

Reply to  Melvyn Dackombe
September 2, 2018 7:41 am

He’s speaking of ethanol made from corn and sugarcane. But perhaps you knew that and are being intentionally obtuse. Also, what KT66 said. So double fail.

Reply to  Melvyn Dackombe
September 2, 2018 8:21 am

That is ethanol.

Keith R Jurena
Reply to  Melvyn Dackombe
September 2, 2018 12:35 pm

Very little carbon monoxide in exhaust gas thanks to closed loop fuel injection control systems with three way catalyst oxidizing HC and CO after reducing NOx.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Melvyn Dackombe
September 3, 2018 2:55 am

Unless you run your car for an extended time in an enclosed space, you can’t deplete oxygen sufficiently to generate CO in significant quantities.

Real pollution from automobile emissions have been almost eradicated.

Reply to  petermue
September 2, 2018 8:20 am

There are many reasons food ends up in the trash and nearly all in the USA are due to lawsuits and litigation. Recalls dump millions of tons of food every year. What people waste at home is a tiny drop in the overall scheme. Don’t forget expiration dates, too. Perfectly good food thrown out because of a date on a package.

You’re right that we have plenty of food—we just regulate and terrify people into throwing it into the trash.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Sheri
September 2, 2018 6:35 pm

Most food loss suffered by underdeveloped countries (India a great example) comes from rot or insect/rat contamination even before it gets to market.

“Getting to market” is problematic due to infrastructure issues.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Damon
September 2, 2018 3:52 am

That these illiterate hillbillies even talk about a carbon free economy or anything says it all.

Greg Woods
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
September 2, 2018 3:58 am

I doubt that these are ‘illiterate hillbillies’. More likely we are talking about illiterate ‘intellectuals’…

Reply to  Greg Woods
September 2, 2018 6:25 am

I think they can read. Just innumerate and illogical.

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 2, 2018 9:55 am

IyI intelligent -yet idiot

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  JVC
September 2, 2018 11:04 am

Or as my friend used to say:”book smart, but can’t open a pickle jar.”

Reply to  JVC
September 2, 2018 12:28 pm

Morosoph: n a learned fool. Type of: fool, muggins, sap, saphead, tomfool. a person who lacks good judgment.

Reply to  rocketscientist
September 2, 2018 6:01 pm

Morosoph, brilliant, I am going to use that one.

Reply to  Greg Woods
September 2, 2018 2:06 pm

Yes, I have never met a hillbilly that was that utterly dumb.

Gary Wescom
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
September 2, 2018 6:37 am

Why are you insulting us illiterate hillbillies? We don’t believe in that AGW BS. Temperature goes up, it goes down, and no two years are exactly the same. And we don’t like the cold.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
September 2, 2018 7:24 am

Komrade K, don’t be insulting us hillbillies.

Reply to  Sam C Cogar
September 2, 2018 8:45 am

You’ll find more illiterate people in Chicago alone then in all of Appalachia.


Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
September 2, 2018 7:52 am

Yeah, when their “educational” video starts with ‘imagine aliens came down from the sky and gave us magic energy’ you know it’s going to be a good laugh.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
September 2, 2018 8:06 am

It wasn’t us illiterate hillbillies that voted any true believers into office. It was the smart intelligent city folk, and now they’re living with those results..

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 2, 2018 8:51 am

“It wasn’t us illiterate hillbillies that voted any true believers into office.”

Hmm, most southern states are blue. There are hillbillies in cities too. But I agree that the generalization is unwarranted.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 2, 2018 10:23 am

Only 3 Southern states were blue in 2016, DE, MD, and VA. The other 12 are red.

Reply to  Thomas Englert
September 2, 2018 1:37 pm

Delaware is southern?
Regardless, MD and VA are only blue because the Federal blob has swollen out and taken them over.

Reply to  MarkW
September 3, 2018 8:29 am

Yes, Delaware is southern. The Mason-Dixon line is Delaware’s northern border. The Mason-Dixon line is the border surveyed between NJ and DE plus the one between PA and MD. Yes, Maryland is also a southern state. Both states used to be slave states, too; as well as most of the old northern ones. Later on, the border was extended along the Ohio river, so KY is a southern state, too. MO is an interesting case.
These days, repressing their true history, these states call themselves something else, typically border state. So what were they the border between? The old South and the old North.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 4, 2018 9:43 am

Jeff, please don’t assume that all Southerners are hillbillies, or all hillbillies are southern. That attitude sounds more like something Ms Clinton would come up with.

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
September 2, 2018 1:35 pm

Illiterate does not mean stupid.

September 2, 2018 1:46 am

Made my contribution on YouTube. What a crock of …. that was. So many fallacies.

Another liberal fake video. Less than half-way in I found so many lies. Someone needs to tell the folks at PBS that:
1) Aliens did not land to gift us “clean, limitless energy source“.
2) But if they did, environmentalists and their supporters – the non-taxpaying billion dollar foundations – would object to it because, according to green dogma, energy allows people to dominate the environment; especially ‘limitless’ energy. Greens support renewables because it is strictly limited and unreliable. Ref: Are Environmentalists Bad for the Planet? [BBC Radio, 2010]
3) Carbon dioxide is not ‘pollution‘. It is an essential live-giving atmospheric gas, responsible for all plant growth. So indirectly responsible for living animals too.
4) We are not addicted to carbon.
5) Carbon dioxide makes little contribution to global warming. And temperatures have not been rising (much) lately.
6) If we stopped burning carbon (which is impossible), the climate would not change much.
7) Temperatures are not ‘high’. They are lower today than in Roman times. We know this from the position of shorelines. E.g. Many locations are miles from the sea today, which were once shorelines in Roman times.
8) Joe is basically saying that climate stopped changing. That it will remain warm for hundreds of years. He’s denying ‘climate change’.
9) Joe says it takes decades for oceans to heat up. No, it takes centuries for oceans to heat up.
10) CO2 does not ‘cause more than 80% of the warming‘. Water vapour causes 95% of the greenhouse gas effect (GHGE). The small CO2 effect tails off dramatically (logarithmically). Each time one must double CO2 to get the same GHGE again.
11) The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is nowhere near 100 years. It is less than 10 years.
12) That CO2 residence time claim comes from IPCC reports which are unreliable and 30% sourced from grey literature (written by NGOs, E-NGOs and only ever ‘peer-reviewed’ by dogmatic enviros). After each scientific report is written it is retrospectively edited by politicos to agree to whatever the politicos decided in their policy-making.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
September 2, 2018 7:16 am

Reference #7. A lot of shoreline movement around some areas are due to silt washing down rivers and filling in deltas. The record appears to support a slow increase in the ocean levels over time. On the other hand, isotope analysis does support the Roman warming period as well as the Minoan warming period as does contemporary historical writings during the Roman one.

I have found PBS to be a source of rubbish more and more over time. People who know nothing making up alarmist stuff from other people who know nothing.

September 2, 2018 2:16 am

“Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. And instead of killing each other over this technology, we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society. This wonderous source would power our homes, industries, cars and planes, and humanity’s annual rate of carbon pollution would almost instantly fall to zero. So if we kicked our carbon addiction tomorrow, what would that mean for global warming?”

Nothing, nuclear energy has been villified by the greens long time ago, so they prefer burning wood.

Ian Magness
September 2, 2018 2:16 am

Please forgive the ignorance of a Brit, but what does PBS actually stand for?
Outrageous and utterly fake answers only please…..

Mike Borgelt
Reply to  Ian Magness
September 2, 2018 3:36 am

progressive BS

JP Kalishek
Reply to  Ian Magness
September 2, 2018 3:57 am

Public Broadcast Service
Our Gov’t funded radio and television that has become a home to entrenched bureaucracy. Think the BBC with less funding (we ain’t got silly Telly Taxes here) and is home to many a Beeb program.
Mike Borgelt’s reply works well by the by.

Reply to  Ian Magness
September 2, 2018 6:27 am

Our public broadcasting is only partly supported by the government and they have fund raising drives every year to get people to donate. Which they do since there is programming not found on other networks.

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 2, 2018 8:16 am

So why then does PBS throw kitten fits every time it’s suggested they don’t need the government funding? Obviously, it’s bigger than they let on, or the angst wouldn’t be there.

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 2, 2018 9:00 am

Almost every ‘science’ program on PBS has a blurb before or after it that tells who helped pay for it. It ends with “and viewers like you”.

It STARTS with a list of Leftist NGO’s and groups, like the Rockefeller Foundation, Gates, Tides, and various Gang Green entities.


Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 2, 2018 9:26 am

Actually, they fund-raise during many of their daily programs, whether on science, music or health, making viewing of some occasionally interesting programs (compared to the junk available elsewhere) tedious in the extreme.

Reply to  Bill_W_1984
September 2, 2018 1:39 pm

They need fundraisers because they don’t have normal commercials.

DJ Meredith
Reply to  Ian Magness
September 2, 2018 7:48 am

Please Be Stupid

DJ Meredith
Reply to  DJ Meredith
September 2, 2018 7:49 am

(sorry…. Please Be Stupid is neither outrageous or utterly fake…)

Mike Bryant
Reply to  Ian Magness
September 2, 2018 8:03 am

Pure Bollocks Spouted

September 2, 2018 2:20 am

Here is what would happen if co2 emissions were to stop today, orange as in line with observations, blue as according to the IPCC Bern model.

Reply to  Hans Erren
September 2, 2018 5:54 am

Your graph is labeled differently than your description, i.e., is blue the Bern model or constant change?

Reply to  Bsl
September 2, 2018 7:38 am

Yes you are right! Blue is the constant range, orange is the Bern model.

Bengt Abelsson
September 2, 2018 2:22 am

Send us more money!
We will save you from …….. whatever ails you.

September 2, 2018 2:24 am

What would Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Russia export?

Reply to  simple-touriste
September 2, 2018 7:16 am

Sand, sand, and vodka.

Bryan A
Reply to  beng135
September 2, 2018 9:45 am

Funny…I was thinking
Sand, Sand, and Propaganda

Reply to  beng135
September 2, 2018 1:41 pm

Most of the vodka produced, gets drunk before it can reach the borders to be exported.

September 2, 2018 2:43 am

“Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source.”

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

Reply to  Javier
September 2, 2018 5:25 am

Very apt!
My opinion is that CAGW is a Marxist Trojan horse. Objective is to undermine the economy of western democracies by crippling their energy sector.

September 2, 2018 2:53 am

Typo, the word “current” is “ucrrent”

kent beuchert
September 2, 2018 2:55 am

I have yet to hear anything from the greenies about the next generation of nuclear power (molten salt): cheapest means of making electricity, inherently safe, highly proliferation resistant, small footprint, no need for body of water for cooling, will be built in factories, assembled on site after minimal preparation. Can be located ANYWHERE (in cities, close to end consumers). Based on past experience, I’m certain the greenies will find something objectionable – simply the name “nuclear” is plenty of evidence for these energy-morons to strongly object to the technology. They are such children.

Eric Stevens
Reply to  kent beuchert
September 2, 2018 3:19 am

Unless there is direct conversion to electricity there will always be a heat engine with a need to reject waste heat. Unless they are of very small size there be a need for cooling water from on source or another.

Reply to  Eric Stevens
September 2, 2018 7:18 am

True, but w/closed cooling systems, the amount of make-up water needed is not very much.

September 2, 2018 2:56 am

I assume that video was intended to be SATIRICAL MOCKERY of the AGW meme !!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Fred250
September 2, 2018 5:53 am

The problem with is that the current “if it’s on the internet it must be true” generation cannot tell the difference.

Reply to  Fred250
September 2, 2018 5:57 am

Satirical mockery from PBS on climate change propaganda?
I think they are as serious as they are ignorant.

richard verney
September 2, 2018 3:21 am

Meanwhile back in the real world, the August UAH data is in, and it shows that despite all the media hype, the temperatures fell in August, and the anomaly is sitting at the 0.19 degC mark. One can see from the below plot that we are heading back towards 2002/3 territory.

comment image?zoom=2

One cannot see anything particularly alarming in the UAH data set, just short term variation to natural ENSO and volcanic events. Certainly, there is no correlation with CO2 in that set.

Reply to  richard verney
September 2, 2018 5:59 am

Thanks for posting this graph.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bsl
September 2, 2018 9:48 am

Short term variation and an average (benign) 0.1C per decade warming trend over 40 years

Reply to  richard verney
September 2, 2018 6:10 am

The only “alarming” thing is we are at +0.19C. According to the AGW computer models shouldn’t we be somewhere around +1.5C by now? Now if I were an Al Gore oe Michael Mann, I would be pretty darned alarmed right now.

R. Shearer
Reply to  richard verney
September 2, 2018 6:38 am

Thank goodness. I worried that it might have been 0.01 degC higher than that.

Bryan A
Reply to  R. Shearer
September 2, 2018 9:50 am

Your Snark is good,
you get an “A”
You may post Snark
again today

Reply to  richard verney
September 2, 2018 7:07 am

It seems just weeks ago the headlines were stating the world is on fire! Evidence of CAGW.
One again the data departs from the headlines.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  richard verney
September 2, 2018 7:41 am

The only temperature data set that both sides trust . Now that the alarmists cant argue on atmospheric temperature anymore, they are hanging their desperate hopes on the missing heat is in the oceans. However consider this.


Evapotranspiration from water cycle gives 486000 km^3/year. WIKI gives 503000 and Babkin in a Russian study gave 577000

1 km^3 = 10^12 kg
Latent heat of fusion of water to water vapour at 20C = 2450000 Joules/kg
Number of seconds in a year = 3.1536 x 10^7
1 watt = 1 Joule /second
Surface area of earth = 5.1x 10^14 m^2

NASA graph gives evapotranspiration = 86.4W/m^2 Check their Earth’s energy budget graph on their website

The task is to convert the latent heat that is represented inside the water molecule from the water cycle upon evaporation to a W/m^2 equivalent of NASA’s figure of 86.4 W/m^2. I want to see if NASA’s figure has any basis in reality.

Solution 1: Using the 486000
figure we have Total evapotranspiration = 486000 km^3/year * 10^12kg = 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
Total number of Joules = 2,450,000 Joules/kg * 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
= 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year
Number of Joules/second = 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year divided by 3.1536 x 10^7 sec/year

= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Joules /sec
= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts

W/m^2 from surface = (3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts) divided by 5.1x 10^14 m^2
= ~ 74 W/m^2

Solution 2: Using the Wiki figure of 503000

we have ~76 W/m^2

Solution 3: Using the Babkin figure of 577000 we have
~ 87.8 W/m^2

So the difference between NASA and these solutions can also be because of taking a different temperature of evaporation other than 20C.

So why do I start with this analysis? It is because at least I am starting my topic with analysis which no one can question. Evaporation which exists and which exists on the scale I have enumerated is beyond question. Evaporation is the opposite of heat transferred to the ocean from the atmosphere. Evaporation is HEAT TRANSFERRED FROM THE OCEAN TO THE ATMOSPHERE. Heat transfer does not go the other way. Approximately 48-50 % of the total solar input (before reflection) actually makes it to the surface of the earth. Since the surface is ~ 70% oceans, this is the critical battleground of where is Trenberth’s missing heat? The alarmists like to say that the missing heat from the so called energy imbalance which doesnt show up in the atmophere is actually hiding in the oceans. The reason they say that the heat has gone to the oceans is that all measurements of outgoing LWIR at the top of atmosphere still show no deficit from incoming solar. So the alarmists manufacture a supposed heat trapping mechanism whereby the incoming solar is partially absorbed by CO2 and then transferred to the oceans. However , mathematically; that still doesnt add up because the 70 % of incoming solar that isnt reflected eventually balances because of measurements of top of atmosphere outgoing radiation which has not decreased over time. However even disregarding this mathematical flaw, the heat cant go to the oceans from the atmosphere because evaporation happens all the time and everywhere except deserts and Antarctica. Evaporation takes the solar input to the oceans and turns it into latent heat which then by convection gets lifted higher into the troposphere and when the atmosphere condenses most of that latent heat ( a tiny amount is contained within the water molecule) is then lost to the atmosphere as outgoing heat flux to the top of the atmosphere. Since CO2 has nothing to do with evaporation, that released latent heat doesnt make its way back to the surface or we would have had runaway global warming 4 billion years ago when the oceans formed on earth.

Up until 2003, ocean SST were notorious for being inaccurate because there was too much human input with collecting data by water buckets and . It was also open to data tampering. However by 2003 a comprehensive network of automated ARGO buoys was installed in the open oceans.

They took temperatures at many depths all the way down to 2000 metres. For the 1st 10 years this new system worked well and more buoys were added. However after it became increasingly obvious that the data did not show any increase in temperatures, the alarmists argued that the heat burrowed deeper into the oceans. Now they have instituted 2 ways to fake the data; tamper with the chart data and combine the land surface data with the SST data. We all know the fallacy of doing the 2nd adjustment but I would like to point out the former adjustment.

NCAR have on their site, a graph showing SST from ARGO buoys from 2005 to 2010.

Where the last 8 years are, I don’t know. The UK Met office once had a graph showing the ARGO buoy temperatures from 2003 to 2012, almost the same period. That graph did not show any warming. However, they have now taken that graph down and replaced it with the old bucket data graphs. If you compare the old UK Met office data with the NCAR graph (10 metre- 1500 metre depth, you will see that the NCAR data graph has been massively tampered with. At least the UK office dont present a fake graph.

Of course all of this fake stuff has been reported on before in other contexts and other data sets of other variables. My point here is to go further. The claimed heat imbalance that is supposed to go from the atmosphere to the oceans cant go via conduction since the ne conduction is the other way which NASA and every other energy budget graph makes clear. It is on the order of 18 W/m^2 from surface to atmosphere. That includes both land and surface. So the only other way that the heat/energy could get from the atmosphere to the oceans is by DW back IR. Never mind that the oceans are poor absorbers of IR, but there is very little IR going up from the oceans to the atmosphere in the 1st place in order to be trapped and sent back down . Here are the numbers. NASA gives 163.3 W/m^2 of solar reaching the surface. Of that 70% oceans is 114W/m^2. Now 86.4 leaves by evapotranspiration and evaporation but we have to take 90 % of that because that is the evaporation %. therefore 77.76 is by evaporation alone. Another 18.4 leaves by conduction/convection and we will take 70 % of that for the oceans so we have 12.88. Another 40 is by the atmospheric window straight to space Take 70 % of that and we have 28. Therefore we have 114-77.76-12.8 – 28 = -4.56 So as you can see the numbers don’t add up. There is no IR left for the oceans to emit. We know the evaporation number is more or less correct from my initial calculations above so either the conduction figure is too high or the atmospheric window number is too high. Either way there just isnt any IR left for the oceans to emit to the atmosphere. In any case with so much evaporation going on how would the IR ever get past all the water vapour that is in the air immediately above the sea? So there is no IR going from the oceans to the atmosphere . The little IR from the land to the atmosphere is the only IR that is getting trapped by greenhouse gases. Perhaps some of that then gets radiated downward and sent laterally by the winds to the oceans, but that would be very small except near the coasts. THERE IS NO HEAT TRANSFER FROM THE ATMOSPHERE TO THE OCEANS AND THE GLOBAL ALARMISTS HAVE NOT SHOWN A PHYSICAL MECHANISM BY WHICH THAT OCCURS. So on both counts; the math of imbalances doesnt add up and the math of IR ocean emissions doesnt add up. GLOBAL WARMING MATH IS ALICE IN WONDERLAND STUFF.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 2, 2018 8:52 am

Nothing in AGW adds up… no one guessing could get as much stuff wrong as AGW….

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 2, 2018 1:44 pm

Warmer air doesn’t transfer heat to the oceans.
Instead it slows down how quickly the heat being put into the ocean by the sun, escapes.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2018 1:54 pm

Agreed but the alarmists are arguing that the missing heat is being transferred to the oceans. They have as yet to provide a physical mechanism whereby this can occur.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 2, 2018 6:24 pm

First we have to find some warmer air.

Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2018 7:18 pm

First we have to find some warmer air.

Rather, I would ask:
1) If the global average air temperature goes up by 0.21 degrees – and remains steady at that higher temperature for the entire year, how much does the surface water of all of the oceans go up by at the end of that year?
2) If the oceans average more than 3600 meters deep (and they do), how long (at 0.21 degree rise in global average air temperatures in 40 years over 514 Mkm^2 earth surface at 70% ocean), does it take to force a 0.5 degree increase in average ocean temperatures?
3) Can we even detect a 0.001 degree rise in average ocean temperatures in ten years?

Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2018 1:57 pm

MarkW is now asking us to believe that heat does not flow from a warm (air) object to a cool object (oceans.)
MarkW’s new heat transfer law:
Heat always flows from a warmer to a cooler object, unless the two objects in question are the air and the oceans.

Lots of text books will need revision.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 2, 2018 6:23 pm

Keith, you really should learn the law of holes. When you are in one, stop digging.

The real world is a lot more complicated than the world inside your head.
In the real world you have to consider conduction, radiation and the impact of evaporation.

I’ll give you time to find a dictionary in order to look up the big words.

Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2018 6:32 pm

WRONG MarkW, all of the things you mention do not impact the fact that heat flows from warm to cold. If the air is warmer than the ocean water, then heat will flow from the air to the ocean. Please give me an example of when the opposite happens.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 3, 2018 5:42 am

MarkW is correct.

The only marine near surface air temperature data is the Hadley data. If you look at the charts you will see that they fudged the data just like they have done with SST and land temperature data. However since the near surface SST temperature data shows extremely small increases and the marine air temperature data also shows extremely small increases, if the alarmists are arguing that the atmosphere is warming the top of the oceans, it will take 600 years to warm the top of the oceans at those small increases. Hurricanes get their heat from the water. Sure, there are areas in higher latitudes where the air temperature above the oceans is warmer than the water temperature. In that case there is some conduction happening. However all the energy budget graphs including NASA have a net transfer of heat by conduction from the earth surface to the atmosphere. The fraudulent back radiation that NASA shows is not conduction heat anyway. My above post showed that there is no heat flux left for any IR to be trapped in the atmosphere over the oceans. Therefore there can’t be any back radiation over the oceans. Since there is no back radiation over the oceans and there is a net upward transfer by conduction and evaporation, the heat fluxes between the ocean and the atmosphere are mainly one way; UPWARD. Because of evaporation and convection being transporters of heat upward and conduction being a net upward transport of heat as well; there is no net heat transfer to the oceans from the atmosphere. Alarmists have yet to provide a physics explanation as to how that is possible, given the above. THERE IS NO NET AMOUNT OF HEAT BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE OCEANS BY THE ATMOSPHERE.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 4, 2018 12:49 pm

Moving the goal posts does not help you Tomalty. Using “net” is not what we’re talking about. Warm air will heat the ocean, if the temp of the surface of the ocean is lower than that of the air. Now, show me a case where heat flows from a colder object (say the ocean) into a warmer object (say the air).

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 4, 2018 12:41 pm

Keith, Here’s a puzzle for you. If cold air is over a warmer ocean and it rains, which way does the heat flow? Heat transfer isn’t always so simple and cut and dry. Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection, radiation, chemical change, phase change, etc. In the case of rain, heat transfer is given an assist by gravity. BTW – Cloud cover does interfere with heat transfer from earth to outer space.

Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
September 4, 2018 12:53 pm

Actually, it remains simple. The heat flows from hot to cold. You now have three objects with three temperatures. Line them up, left to right with the warmest on the left. Heat flows from the left most object to the middle object and heat flows from the middle object to the rightmost object. I will leave it up to you to place the air, ocean and rain in their proper positions in this example

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 4, 2018 1:01 pm

simplistic middle school level example.
If the air temperature varies hour-by-hour, yet has 1/1000 the energy of the sea water yet is cooler than the rain water, where [do] the three materials rank two seconds after the rain falls? Two minutes after the rain falls? Two hours after the rain falls?
Where did the energy go?
12 hours later, when the air temperature is less than the land temperature and water temperature, do do you rank the (missing) rain, the evaporated water vapor, the radiating sea surface, the land surface, the land 6 inch soil temperature, and the night air?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 4, 2018 1:41 pm

Two seconds after the rain falls, the heat flows from what is warmer to what is colder. If after the rain falls, the air is warmer than the ocean, then heat flows from the air to the ocean. Adding in a time varying parameter does not change the direction of heat flow. You can try to make the problem complex, but the physics of it doesn’t change. The original statement by MarkW was: “Warmer air doesn’t transfer heat to the oceans.” That statement is clearly FALSE when the air is warmer than the ocean water.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 4, 2018 1:21 pm

It is simple if you only consider conduction.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 2, 2018 2:08 pm

Of course the Earth energy budget is always expressed as averages and forgets the diurnal nature of day and night. So there is double the amount of solar getting to the ocean surface, that means we have 228-77.76-12.8 – 28 = 137 W/m^2 during the day as potential IR to the atmosphere. However the IR from the oceans during the day has to fight its way past the water vapour evaporation. Over the open ocean the density of the water vapour immediately above it is palpable, which every sailor knows.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 2, 2018 4:41 pm

Upon further thinking , the potential IR emission from the oceans to the atmosphere would not be affected by the diurnal nature of the solar input. After the solar hits the ocean ,we are are talking about a steady stream of averages anyway, so MOD PLEASE DELETE THE 1ST 2 SENTENCES IN MY ABOVE REPLY POST.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 2, 2018 2:19 pm

Alan Tomalty, you ought to know by now that you can NOT throw such facts at Those People.
They will only cover their eyes and ears and refuse to acknowledge the reality that you present.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 2, 2018 4:47 pm

Question – Why does CO2-genic heat hide only in the oceans?
Answer – Because there is nowhere to hide in ponds, swimming pools and lakes.
Reductio ad Absurdum

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  richard verney
September 2, 2018 8:56 am

Arbitrary anomaly. Completely meaningless, as is presenting a single line as “global temperature”.

Reply to  richard verney
September 2, 2018 2:15 pm

Yes, it is true. Temperatures DID fall in August, starting around August 3rd. Still having a few days of warmish weather, but punctuated by chilly nights.
Trees shedding leaves early means they are more sensitive to solar influence than we realize. Rained like Noah’s flood last night, too, and more is predicted.

September 2, 2018 3:25 am


The video was well visualized, but had still pretty amateurish mistakes.

Of course, the committed warming is not because the ocean has a difficult to measure small increase in its temperature.

In any case, this was one of those good meaning scientific popularizations which are, unfortunately, written by people who only think they understood what the science says.

For my part, I think the concept of ‘committed warming’ is invented to lure us to give away money and power quick without thinking because we ‘need to act now’ and ‘time is running out’.

Despite of this I believe warmism will die when India follows China in per capita emissions.

Reply to  Hugs
September 2, 2018 3:34 am

Oh Christ, I cannot watch this till its end. There is a limit on non sequitur a person can take. Sorry.

Reply to  Hugs
September 2, 2018 7:53 am

If you deal with the warmists enough, your tolerance increases. It’s like if you hit yourself over the head with a hammer, over time you build up a tolerance to that too. 🙂

Reply to  Hugs
September 2, 2018 6:49 am

“we ‘need to act now’ and ‘time is running out’.”
I’m old enough to remember that we needed ‘A wartime effort’! some 30 years ago.
(And every year since it’s been ‘worse than we thought’)

Reply to  Hugs
September 2, 2018 2:22 pm

Well, you did hit the nail on the head. The only reason a video like this is presented to the public is to separate the gullible and naive who watch it from their cash.
If that is too cynical – well, it’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

David Dibbell
September 2, 2018 3:39 am

To Joe the video guy: Open your door, take a drive to the country, and look at all the green things. Do you not see the clean, limitless energy system that nature exhibits? It’s based on carbon. Maybe we should learn something from watching it happen. By the way, smog has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

Reply to  David Dibbell
September 2, 2018 5:29 am

The guy mixed up fossil energy with particulates from all sources, and clean energy with renewables. I like it particularly when a cooling tower is artfully placed in the scenery behind a grim picture of slum roofs. Good grief, it is not carbon dioxide causing poverty. If something, it is lack of affordable energy.

Edward Hanley
September 2, 2018 4:04 am

From the perspective of a guy who has to do real science for a living, the Earth barely has enough CO2 to sustain plant life. The stuff everything eats to stay alive. That the addition of two extra CO2 molecules per thousand is responsible for 80% of planetary warming is so amazingly impossible that one wonders what looney bin actually believes such nonsense. And since planetary warming – glacial melting – started thousands of years before the industrial revolution, how are man-made (oh, excuse me. man-and-woman-made) carbon emissions even possibly a cause? Here’s the funny part: under the current spotless sun, the subsequent bombardment of cosmic rays and consequent increase of the earth’s albedo, reflection of sunlight energy, and ultimate cooling to a little ice age, will make everyone wish that what this fellow said about the ocean giving off all that heat was true. But, shivering, they’ll discover too late it’s hogwash. So in a desperate attempt to warm the earth and melt the incipient glaciers in the streets of the world’s greatest cities, they’ll start burning, and burning, and burning carbon fuels. And. It. Won’t. Help. At. All.

Reply to  Edward Hanley
September 2, 2018 5:49 am

addition of two extra CO2 molecules per thousand is responsible for 80% of planetary warming

The IPCC report (that I do actually value a lot) said ‘extremely likely’ more than half since 1950, Schmidt said probably 110%. I think 80% is too low a number for an alarmist. So something was wrong in his message. The 80% sounds like Judith Curry, the troublemaker, has been talking. Though she would add a large uncertainty range.

Still, 80% of 0.8C is very little. Their message is ‘repent’, since the sin of ‘committed warming’ will catch our children. The alarmists are working hard to both dehumanize and smear anyone suggesting a sensitivity smaller than 1.5, and publicize any research claiming possibility of sensitivity higher than 4.5K/CO2-doubling.

And since planetary warming – glacial melting – started thousands of years before the industrial revolution, how are man-made (oh, excuse me. man-and-woman-made) carbon emissions even possibly a cause?

For alarmists, it is enough to show some mass loss is appearing. The attribution is just modelling games, anything may come out of that.

ere’s the funny part: under the current spotless sun, the subsequent bombardment of cosmic rays and consequent increase of the earth’s albedo, reflection of sunlight energy, and ultimate cooling to a little ice age, will make everyone wish that what this fellow said about the ocean giving off all that heat was true. But, shivering, they’ll discover too late it’s hogwash.

Let’s return to that theory when UAH has returned back to 1979, which is, I guess, something like 0.4C below the August numbers. I’d bet for some money it won’t happen. Not for a very large number though, I’m not an idiot.

Reply to  Hugs
September 2, 2018 6:16 am

“>>> Still, 80% of 0.8C is very little. <<<"

It is, in fact, much less. According to the latest detailed analysis of how CO2 molecules interact with the outgoing radiation, and upon the elimination of errors made commonly by the so called "climate scientists" in their estimates, the total human contribution due to burning of fossil fuels to the observed warming of 0.8C (according to NASA) since 1880 has been a puny 0.02C [1], which is 2.5%.


R. Shearer
Reply to  Gus
September 2, 2018 6:59 am

This is the last sentence from the conclusion. “As a result, one can evaluate an additional radiative flux to the Earth’s surface due to a change of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and the corresponding analysis convinces us that contemporary injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”

I find it strange that the author refers to himself as “we” and “us” but otherwise the paper appears logical and is difficult to refute on a theoretical basis. The concluding result is quite significant.

Reply to  R. Shearer
September 2, 2018 11:51 am

“We” and “us” is standard practice for scientific papers. Even if there’s only one author.

Reply to  Hugs
September 2, 2018 8:24 am

Isn’t it only two extra molecules of CO2 per ten thousand?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Sagi
September 2, 2018 12:32 pm

The increase is actually 5 out of a 1000, 50 out of 10000 or 0.5% per year

Reply to  Hugs
September 2, 2018 11:07 am

Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures.

Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric temperatures.

Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors. Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. In fact, it is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.

The slightly higher sensitivity values for Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 vs UAH LT.

Practically speaking, however, these sensitivity estimates are similar, and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.

Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have little or no credibility and there is no real global warming crisis.

Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.

The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any politician who contradicts this statement is a scoundrel or an imbecile and is destructive to the well-being of society. It IS that simple.

September 2, 2018 11:31 am

Edit of above:

It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.

Reply to  Edward Hanley
September 2, 2018 5:51 am


Reply to  Edward Hanley
September 2, 2018 6:01 am
John Shotsky
Reply to  Edward Hanley
September 2, 2018 7:10 am

What is amazingly impossible is the assertion that the 5% of Co2 that is human contributed is responsible for ALL GLOBAL WARMING. Not the 95% that is natural, it is ONLY the manmade Co2 that is blamed for ALL the warming. (Not that it’s actually warming anyway.)

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Edward Hanley
September 2, 2018 7:30 am

“That the addition of two extra CO2 molecules per thousand is responsible for 80% of planetary warming is so amazingly impossible that one wonders what looney bin actually believes such nonsense. ”

Only to people who do not know of the Beer-Lambert relation is it thought “nonsense”.
I’ll leave you to Google. But it boils down the path length of the LWIR photon. It would hit one hell of a lot of those extra 2 per 1000 molecules on it’s exit to space.

It has also been observed in 2 dry locations over a period of 10years via use of surface spectroscopic analysis using a program designed and used by the military to estimate radiative forcing……

DJ Meredith
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 2, 2018 9:18 am

From the link offered, it notes that the CO2 is 1/10 the effect as water vapor or clouds, which is curious, as neither water vapor nor cloud’s effects on the atmosphere are accurately quantified. I may well be wrong, but without stating the relative value of those two factors along with the CO2’s it’s merely an interesting study.

Reply to  Edward Hanley
September 2, 2018 7:40 am

From the perspective of a guy who has to do real science for a living, the Earth barely has enough CO2 to sustain plant life.

Quite so. The next mass-extinction might be CO2 starvation as volcanic activity (which is the ultimate CO2 source) has been winding down. The world may be left with only C4 photosynthetic plants.

Reply to  Edward Hanley
September 2, 2018 9:13 am

(oh, excuse me. man-and-woman-made)

You forgot the other 55 genders, you cis-normitive terrorist, you.


Reply to  Schitzree
September 2, 2018 12:09 pm

By last count, there were actually 57 varieties of gender (the Heinz factor), increasing hourly – and each gender insists on its own descriptive pronoun – zis, zer, xis, xir, etc. etc. etc.

This does not count those individuals who claim multiple genders, depending on time-of-the-day, or time-of-the-month.

Certain administrations are now dictating that teachers etc. must use the correct pronoun when referring to their students. This requires that the teacher must know the student’s gender-of-the-moment, and remember the suitable 57^n pronouns and use them appropriately. I wish this paragraph was satire – regrettably, it is not.

Apparently the new attention-getting device on Facebook is to announce a new gender – and the animals are getting nervous.

Recognizing the practical impossibility of it all, it is clear that the Marxist-Leninist Party of Social Justice Warriors (Gender) have again overstepped their reach.

A simpler solution is required – a suggestion follows:
1. Return to the Victorian model where one’s sexual preferences were a private matter, not other people’s business. As long as you don’t touch children or small animals, gender warriors, knock yourselves out!
2. Regarding personal pronouns, let “him”, “her” or “you” be considered gender-neutral, the plural also being “you”, except in Bronx-ese where it is “youse”, or in the South where it is “y’all”.

There! Another pressing social challenge has been solved – and Social Justice Warriors everywhere will have to find something else to obsess about. How about slavery, malaria, war and hunger – you see, SJW’s, there are REAL victims out there.

September 2, 2018 4:38 am

“The earth has warmed by 0.8C SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.”
Another way to say this is
“The earth has warmed by 0.8C SINCE THE LITTLE ICE AGE.

The role of CO2 in either the 0.8C cooling into the LIA or the 0.8C warming out of the LIA, is an unsettled issue if you look at the observational data.

But the problem is that once something like this gets rolling, it takes on a life of its own and the details are just annoying little nit picky details that don’t really matter any more.

Bob boder
Reply to  Chaamjamal
September 2, 2018 5:04 am

In fact no one has come up with any explanation for for the LIA

Reply to  Bob boder
September 2, 2018 6:04 am

I think I have! They say ‘it didn’t happen’, and that it was local. The same as with the Vikings. They were killed because they had problems with veganism and gender equality, not because the climate was colder – and it was just local.

Now, for the climate change we know it is global, since it was freaking cold last winter and pretty liveable in July.

Reply to  Bob boder
September 2, 2018 6:21 am

“>>> no one has come up with any explanation for for the LIA <<<"

LIA is convincingly explained by Maunder and Dalton Minima (of solar activity) and Svensmark's effect.

Coeur de Lion
September 2, 2018 4:42 am

Anyone who says carbon instead of CO2 is a liar.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 2, 2018 5:21 am

According to Encyclopeda Britannica:

“Carbon (C), nonmetallic chemical element in Group 14 (IVa) of the periodic table. Although widely distributed in nature, carbon is not particularly plentiful—it makes up only about 0.025 percent of Earth’s crust—yet it forms more compounds than all the other elements combined.“

As a Chemical Engineer, I cringe every time someone uses “carbon” when referring to CO2. It’s like using “hydrogen” when referring to water or using “sodium” when referring to table salt.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 2, 2018 5:37 am

While carbon and carbon dioxide are often incorrectly used interchangeably, neither gaoline/diesel, nor coal contain CO2… And when natural gas contains CO2, it has to be removed prior to being put into a sales line. CO2 doesn’t burn very well. It’s commonly used in fire extinguishers.

It is the *carbon* cycle. Carbon-free energy is the correct term… Even if it is a dumb idea. Fossil fuels all contain carbon.

Oil and natural gas are “hydrocarbons”… Molecular rings of varying complexity, featuring hydrogen-carbon bonds. Methane is the simplest hydrocarbon. When you oxidize (burn) CH4, you get CO2, H2O and energy.

comment image

Gasoline (octane) combustion:

C8H18 +12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Coal, in its purest form is carbon. Coal combustion:

C + O2 → CO2

or, depending on O2 availability…

2 C + O2 → 2 CO

R. Shearer
Reply to  David Middleton
September 2, 2018 7:27 am

Yes, the concentration of CO2 in gasoline, jet and diesel is so low that we should call these “CO2 free” fuels. And since “carbon” and “CO2” are arguably used interchangeably, it is logical that we can refer to these as “carbon free” (a sophist could argue that in fact the fossil fuel elemental carbon content is extremely low also).

In any case, describing and referring to the “carbon cycle” can be perfectly valid, but then referring to CO2 as carbon is often done dubiously.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 2, 2018 7:28 am

“Carbon-free energy is the correct term… Even if it is a dumb idea. Fossil fuels all contain carbon.” Actually, the real threat is fuel that is used as a combustible. All compounds containing carbon combust to make CO2 (or most—I can’t think of any off-hand that don’t). So biofuel, burning dung, burning garbage, burning anything organic increases CO2 in the atmosphere. The only carbon free energy comes from hydro, wind and solar, after the plant is built. The “fuel” is carbon free. Fossil fuels are vilified bacause they make life better and allow capitalism to thrive. Burning dung and garbage keep us premitive so are more or less overlooked. There is also the argument about how long CO2 has been sequestered as to how much it matters in the “carbon cycle”—the longer the sequestration, the worse the CO2 release is presumed to be.

The “carbon cycle” as damaging to the planet according to AGW really only counts if you burn the carbon containing materials. I suppose labeling the cycle from origin to finish kind of makes sense, but in reality, it’s marketing, not science, that calls it the “carbon cycle”, plus flatout lazy reporters, etc. It really is just about combustion of carbon containing materials being added to the the atmosphere at a higher rate than “nature” adds them.

Reply to  Sheri
September 2, 2018 8:05 am

The only difference is that the combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of geologic sequestration and puts it into the active carbon cycle, mostly in the form of CO2.

Biofuels just move carbon around in the active cycle.

It’s a difference without much distinction, from a climate perspective, bur it is a difference.

Reply to  David Middleton
September 2, 2018 8:34 am

I alluded to that with “the longer the sequestration, the worse the CO2 release is presumed to be.” Guess I needed to be more specific.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Sheri
September 3, 2018 9:26 am

Sheri, you posted “All compounds containing carbon combust to make CO2 (or most—I can’t think of any off-hand that don’t).”

Well, what about CO2 and halon FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? They contain carbon compounds, yet do not combust, obviously!

“Halon, chemical compound formerly used in firefighting. A halon may be any of a group of organohalogen compounds containing bromine and fluorine and one or two carbons. The effectiveness of halons in extinguishing fires arises from their action in interrupting chain reactions that propagate the combustion process.” — source

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 2, 2018 7:05 am

“>>> Anyone who says carbon instead of CO2 is a liar. <<<"

Most of those "climate change" propagandists are people who lack adequate science background and generally prattle nonsense about matters they know nothing about, merely repeating phrases coined by other propagandists and, sadly, some academic charlatans.

The switch from "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming," which is neither catastrophic, nor anthropogenic, nor global, nor even warming in excess of natural variability, to "Climate Change," is a particularly pernicious step, because the very expression is a meaningless tautology. For starters, climate is a poorly defined notion. However it is understood, it changes naturally on various time scales, reflecting the natural variability of the weather, which is in constant flux.

And it is here that the buried dog lies. This brain-washing term has been coined on purpose so as to give the propagandists an option to attribute every weather variation, every weather event to human industrial activities, and by doing so turn people away, such is the intention of this monumental fraud, from their support for the industrial civilization to which we owe our affluence, health, longevity, security, and which feeds us every day.

Of course, for people to yield to this surreptitious assault on our democracy, freedom, even sovereignty would be suicidal. Let's hope they'll wise up and reject it wholesale.

Reply to  Gus
September 2, 2018 7:33 am

Agree, with both of your comment areas. Most non-technical people dismiss the benefits of higher CO2 to the ecosystems. Earth time scales are of course very long and many of the analysis on one side of the argument ignore that the Earth is in a CO2 starvation period still at 400ppm levels. This all has been said many times before as this subject keeps rolling along over time. Interesting watch how the narrative has morphed over the past few decades in pursuit of corrupting the actual science in pursuit of political objectives.

paul courtney
September 2, 2018 4:47 am

Do they mean the same aliens who came in the sixties and gifted us free, unlimited public radio? I’m sayin’ no thanks.

Bruce Cobb
September 2, 2018 4:49 am

See, my space alien scenario is a bit different. In mine, the space aliens give us the gift of knowledge, in the form of chastisement, much the same as a parent might do. They first ask “Why are you all fighting and arguing about the life-giving gas, carbon dioxide? We’ve been watching this for some time now, and it’s ridiculous! Honestly, we thought you humans were smarter than that, but I guess we were wrong. We have watched your planet grow greener because of it, at the same time that your sun and oceans have warmed you up slightly, which brings up another question: Why do you fear life-giving warmth? Do you really prefer the ice? What’s the matter with you? Shape up, for God’s sake!”

September 2, 2018 5:01 am

Stop all C02 emissions and earth continues to warm for 2,000 years and take 100,000 years to reduce to ~1880 year levels? You would have to slap me silly before I believe that line of BS.

I would rather my kids see even the worst porn before this video. It’s the worst kind of porn.

Reply to  eyesonu
September 2, 2018 7:01 am

Porn is definately more honest.

John Bell
September 2, 2018 5:01 am

HOT MESS: they have a whole series of those, they are standard boilerplate. Most every day I go to you tube and search “climate change” and then filter by latest first, OMG there are lots of CC videos posted every day, many very amateur, childish, naive, but it is fun to monitor all the hypocrisy from the LEFT. In that video they have the gall to tell us that each additional degree of warming reduces crop yields by “as much as 10%” and I bet that was based on an IPCC model.

Peta of Newark
September 2, 2018 5:07 am

And what about this one….

She, openly gay, wants the heating turned up for her debate with whatsisname.

Can it get any more confused- aren’t boys=gay and girls=lesbian so, what is a gay girl?
Feminism gone even further off the rails – why do these women hate men so much yet want to be equal. Is that so that they have an excuse to hate all their sisters?
What went wrong?

And where do we guess ‘she’ stands on the subject of Global Warming Change?

The parallels with Rome are ominous…
… long supply lines to get basic stuff
…huge army
…rampant homosexuality (Hadrian, who built the wall past my (old) farm in Cumbria, wanted his lover elevated to become a God) Mr Trump’s wall????? Is that pretty woman following him around ‘just a front’? (You hate me now doncha)
…hugely bloated government bureaucracy & attendant cronies
…corruption of civic leaders by them being given free food, housing etc (they get free $$$ now)
…population kept in the dark & stupefied (alcohol in both cases, circuses then; trash TV & media now plus legalised cannabis, Prozac and Opium)
…use of slaves to grow food (Rome had Greek slaves, we now have tractors)
…ports, harbours and rivers filling with silt, often through Flash Flooding (just *how much stuff* does the Corps of Engineers move every year just to keep the Mississippi flowing where it is imagined it should flow?)

any more you’d care to add…….

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 2, 2018 6:15 am

ampant homosexuality (Hadrian, who built the wall past my (old) farm in Cumbria, wanted his lover elevated to become a God) Mr Trump’s wall????? Is that pretty woman following him around ‘just a front’? (You hate me now doncha)

No, I think that was just dim. I thought Trump was called a misogyne, now you educate he’s a gay as well. Gay bought by Putin? That’s nice, makes him a good peer to Hillary Rodham.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 2, 2018 7:00 am

(You hate me now doncha) No, I pity you for such a lack of thought processes.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sheri
September 2, 2018 9:52 am

“(You hate me now doncha) No, I pity you for such a lack of thought processes.”

Brought on by lack of sugar.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 2, 2018 7:31 am

Even Bill Clinton would disagree that “front hole” = “back hole.” In fact, I think he would say, “they are close but no cigar.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 2, 2018 7:50 am


You asked, “Is that pretty woman following him around ‘just a front’?” No, she is a ‘participation trophy’ who used to earn money catering to the likes of her current husband, which is how she probably hooked him. However, lest we forget, such was the behavior of the wealthy and aristocracy of Europe before WWI. That was how Mata Hari survived in a difficult world.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 2, 2018 8:34 am

Peta, good reply. To add to that — “Bread and Circuses” to deflect attention. Rampant in the lame-stream media, sports hero-worship, and the culture in general.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 2, 2018 1:49 pm

“what is a gay girl?”

One that laughs a lot?

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 2, 2018 1:52 pm

Compare modern armies to the size most countries had 70 years ago, they are much, much smaller.
The use of slaves is no different from the use of tractors?

You do know that we aren’t laughing with you?

September 2, 2018 5:23 am

comment image

Reply to  gnomish
September 2, 2018 8:08 am

Among thousands of other good reasons.

Tom Halla
September 2, 2018 5:32 am

Whatever person wrote that video has very little contact with reality. Or, if they do, they have contempt for their intended audience, as most of the “science” is misstated, exaggerated, and of course, totally not referenced to anywhere.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2018 6:00 am

You misunderstand modern teaching techniques. It is not what is real that counts, it is what you want to be real that matters. No one should be corrected for wrong knowledge, it is their right to believe anything they want.

Tom in Florida
September 2, 2018 5:48 am

There are not any aliens coming now or ever, that includes any kind of messiah. So get over it.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 2, 2018 6:55 am

One would think that if the aliens brought us clean energy, they would also bring us a CO2 vacuum cleaner, right?

Of course, if you asked the aliens for the CO2 vacuum, they probably take the energy generator back and put out a warning buoy that this planet is a terrifying primitive place and stay away.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sheri
September 2, 2018 9:05 am

“Of course, if you asked the aliens for the CO2 vacuum, they probably take the energy generator back and put out a warning buoy that this planet is a terrifying primitive place and stay away.”

That and because most of the inhabitants believe in magical sky daddies.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 2, 2018 1:54 pm

It really is sad how much hatred you have for your fellow men.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 2, 2018 3:45 pm

Aliens may believe in such things, too. Want to insult them if they show up?

Reply to  Sheri
September 3, 2018 6:42 pm

We could just tell a few alien jokes and see if they have a sense of humor. If they don’t then we just insult the sh*t out of them till they leave.

September 2, 2018 6:04 am

Glad I read the comments before deciding whether or not to watch the video.

Quackery, quackery, quackery. I am glad I have not yet returned to watching television, and if I do get one, it will be for the sole purpose of getting the Weather Channel’s radar return if/when there is a severe storm warning, and/or the Food Channel and having a chance to run movies from my increasingly large movies library. I may start collecting some of those old 1930s-1940s B&W movies. “Key Largo” was really quite good, as was ‘The Public Enemy”.

Considering everything, including the dormant cycle the sun is experiencing now and the fact that the magnetic poles are slowly swapping ends, the ignorance that abounds in the CAGWers’ part of the “climate spectrum” is appalling. They aren’t doing Real Science. They are trying to create a new religious order. While I wish sincerely that they might find themselves stranded on ice floes with no way to summon help, I also know that it is VERY necessary to know what they are up to and be as aware of it as possible.

Only when you know what the opposition is up to, and how utterly foolish it is, can you stop it. And these people are as public about what they want as you can get.

Joe Wagner
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2018 8:14 am

>and if I do get one, it will be for the sole purpose of getting the Weather Channel’s radar return if/when there is a severe storm warning

Don’t bother- you can find Doppler radar composites that show the radar pretty much world-wide now; so you can watch what you want without all that annoying commentary.

Although I admit its always fun to watch where they send Jim Cantore…

The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2018 8:33 am

Quick note, Sara:

Since you obviously have some type of internet or wi-fi, you can use (www) (dot) weather (dot) gov; type in your zip code (or any other identifier), and scroll down the screen. On the right side, you eventually come to a screen w/ your current radar presentation; click on it, and you can zoom in, and then choose to animate, or have it remain stationary.

I haven’t watched the Wx Channel in about four years now. Once their forecasts became worthless, I sought alternatives, and now the NWS site is a permanent bookmark for me. I can get weather updates and current radar, any time I choose.

Hope that helps,

Best Regards,


Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2018 2:32 pm

Thank you, gentlemen. I do get the Doppler return on my desktop, but in my kitchen, I did have a small screen TV for those days when the weather was dicey and I was not at my desk. When that died, along with the bigger TV, I just let it go for the time being. There is so little worth looking at on TV now, anyway, that unless it’s fantasy stuff like Game of Thrones – something like that – it’s almost not worth the bother or the expense.

September 2, 2018 6:11 am

Even this vid admits that temps have only risen 0.8-degrees C since the start of the industrial revolution, (02:12). 0.8 C? That’s ALL??? That’s NOTHING. That’s not runaway-global-warming, its very gentle warming since the early 1800s, well within the context of climate stability!

“Even if we cut all CO2 tomorrow we’re guaranteed some amount of climate change and warmer temperatures.”

PBS believes that there would be NO climate change if all CO2 emissions were eliminated tomorrow. They why did the Medieval Warming send world temps higher than today? Did the Vikings engage in lots of industry that emitted vast amounts of CO2 to warm up the world?

They believe that CO2 CAUSES warming, but that’s just fashionable thinking as there is no scientific evidence to back this up. Not only does rising CO2 not cause GW warmng is not even correlated with rising tempratures. After all, there was a serious spate of cooling from at least 1940 to 1975 while CO2 rose steadily. And to have causation there must be correlation.

“Each degree of additional warming IS ALSO THOUGHT TO reduce crop yields BY AS MUCH AS 10%” (4:13)

Watch those phrases that admit doubts on the part of the claimant. “…is also thought…”? Ok, but WHO thinks that way? Is that morsel of dreamlike thought quantified by research that was published and something we can actually read? Probably not. It ‘s probably some clown in an NGO who thinks that it may be so, and does so for advancing a political agenda. And then there’s that well-used phrase “as much as”. That’s a phrase that allows anyone to truthfully make any claim, no matter how absurd. Truth is that I COULD make AS MUCH AS ten million dollars a year. It’s true. But I instead make a trifling amount. But I MIGHT make as much as that, some day, hopefully, maybe, could be.

Anyway, if each degree of GW reduces crop yields as much as 10% then why oh why do farmers grow crops in hothouses? Don’t they know that 7 degrees more heat that is captured by their hothouses COULD reduce their yields by AS MUCH AS SEVENTY PERCENT? Why doesn’t someone tell them that they’re doing it all wrong???? /sarc

Reply to  Rabelad
September 2, 2018 6:46 am

PBS believes that there would be NO climate change if all CO2 emissions were eliminated tomorrow.

I don’t think so. They believe the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~ 100 years (as IPCC say). Alarmists once claimed CO2 residence time of 1000 years! So they think warming will continue. They are wrong on CO2 residence time. It is somewhere between 5 and 10 years.

Everything said against CO2 is exaggeration according to the tried and tested alarmist formula:
1) Make a scary number up.
2) Write a model or some warped statistics to show it’s ‘science’.
3) Get it published in the academic literature with nice pal reviews.
4) It’s now official science.

Of course that is not how it actually ‘works’. It just looks that way.

Alarmists already believe their scary number. Because the world is Capitalist, they think everything, even the scientific literature is corrupted by a Capitalist worldview. So getting their studies published is just evening the score a little for a post-normal, or liberatory, science. The other side (Capitalists) play dirty. So must we!
1) They begin by suspecting their alarmist number because one must begin by looking at the worst possible scenario;
2) Next they find some sciency way to explain it to themselves: a mathematical model, bend statistics, or cherry-picked data.
3) Then they write their hypothesis in more scientific language and get it peer reviewed.
4) Then it’s official science.

Reply to  Rabelad
September 2, 2018 7:43 am

You don’t need the sarc tag. It is mostly spot on.

Reply to  KT66
September 2, 2018 8:46 am

It was thinking of adding TM tag for:
4) Then it’s The Science™

September 2, 2018 6:16 am

Who funded this crap?
They are on some kind of drug… See below.

Peril and Promise: The Challenge of Climate Change is produced by WNET 13, NYC.
Lead funding for Peril and Promise is provided by Dr. P. Roy Vagelos and Diana T. Vagelos. Major support is provided by The Marc Haas Foundation and Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III

From the Wiki puff piece:
Pindaros Roy Vagelos (born October 8, 1929 in Westfield, New Jersey), better known as P. Roy Vagelos or Roy Vagelos, is an American physician and business executive, who was president and chief executive officer (1985) and chairman (1986) of the American pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. (known as MSD outside the U.S.). He attracted research scientists who developed many major new drugs.

Since 1995, Vagelos serves as Chairman of the Board of Regeneron pharmaceuticals.

He is also the Chairman of the Prix Galien USA awards committee and a prior recipient of the Pro Bono Humanum Award.

In addition to his business accomplishments, Vagelos is the author of more than 100 scientific papers.[1] He is also on the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and has funded three of the university’s most elite undergraduate programs: The Vagelos Scholars Program in Molecular Life Sciences (MLS), The Vagelos Program in Life Sciences and Management (LSM) and The Vagelos Integrated Program in Energy Research (VIPER).

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Yirgach
September 3, 2018 9:11 am

Hmmmm . . . something about ” a fool and his money . . .”

September 2, 2018 6:31 am

It is hard to believe so much could be so wrong with such authority.

George V
September 2, 2018 6:48 am

If you think the video is depressing, don’t read the comments…… which is what I did instead of watching the video. The mind-blower was something like “What if there was a plant or a filter that could capture the CO2 and re-purpose it into something useful?
I have no need for a Youtube or Google signon, but someone needs to reply that there is a plant that does this – and it’s called “a plant”.

Reply to  George V
September 2, 2018 6:53 am

Likely the comment will just be removed. I’ll give it a run.

Reply to  George V
September 2, 2018 5:11 pm

I put several replies. So far, all are still there as far as I can tell. However, one of my replies is hidden while the believer’s reply is not (I’m sandwiched between the two comments and hidden). I don’t have time to check further currently, but ill try to check back later and report.

M__ S__
September 2, 2018 6:54 am

The arrogance of these idiots who keep making predictions with no basis . . . and zero accountability . . . is amazing. How many predictions need to turn out to be false before people stop believing them?

Reply to  M__ S__
September 2, 2018 8:51 am

Any attempt to refute even the most blatant lie is labeled denierism. So they’ll stop believing themselves. So long as Joe doesn’t have to debate anyone his audience won’t hear a counter view. That’s their idea anyhow.

September 2, 2018 7:11 am

The writer is a journalist, the narrator is a bio chemist. I thought climate scientists were the only people we should believe.
Looks like a piece of polished propaganda.

D. Anderson
September 2, 2018 7:22 am

Why do we need aliens? Every time a warmunist opens his mouth he demands we convert our energy systems to “clean renewable sources like wind and solar ®”. So I’m thinking it must already exist.

Reply to  D. Anderson
September 2, 2018 8:53 am

The cleanest, most scalable, relatively limitless energy source is called nuclear power. We’ve had it for 70 years. People like Joe have been opposing it all their life.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
September 2, 2018 9:02 am

When you say “cleanest” do you mean like Chernobyl and Fukushima?

D. Anderson
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 2, 2018 9:15 am

Both designed 60 years ago. He is speaking about modern designs.

Reply to  D. Anderson
September 2, 2018 2:02 pm

Even with older western designs, he’s still correct.

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 2, 2018 2:02 pm

You really do like to display your ignorance, don’t you.

Even with Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear is by several orders of magnitude the cleanest and safest form of energy around.
Chernobyl was a design rejected by the west because of it’s instability. It was chosen by the Soviets because it was cheap. Even so the accident only happened because most of the safeties were disabled so they could run a test to see how close they could get the reactor to the point of instability without losing control. They got too close.
Finally, had they spent a few million on a containment vessel, also standard in the west, there would never have been a problem. The debris would be inside the containment vessel, sealed away from the rest of the world.
With the exception of a few hot spots, most of the evacuated areas around Chernobyl could be re-occupied today.

Fukushima was once again an older reactor that was already scheduled for deactivation. With it, had the back up generator been kept in a water tight room, there would never have been a problem.
Regardless, the amount of radiation that leaked was small. The evacuation was caused by panicked politicians, not by any health needs. The area is clean enough that most of it could be reinhabited today.

Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2018 2:11 pm

LOL, tell me Mr. MarkW, when will the first Chinese designed reactor fail?

Reply to  Keith Sketchley
September 2, 2018 6:27 pm

You really do love diving into irrelevancies, don’t you.
Are you finally admitting that you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation?

Reply to  MarkW
September 2, 2018 6:37 pm

Yes, I’ll dive into the irrelevancy of your comment.

I’ve seen a lot of your posts here, and as far as I can tell, you’ve added noting intelligent to any conversation. As far as everyone can tell, you don’t even know how to post a link.

[No. MarkW has over 1160 comments, and has posted many over one hundred different links in different comments. .mod]

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
September 3, 2018 9:07 am

“Cleanest” only if you don’t concern yourself with the nuclear waste produced by modern nuclear reactors.

“Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years.” — source:

Clyde Spencer
September 2, 2018 7:32 am

“… we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society.” — an impossible scenario!

We would still produce cement, have methane and CO2 coming out of our landfills, produce CO2 from decaying or cremated human bodies, and the myriad underground coal fires that we don’t know how to extinguish.

For a refresher:

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 2, 2018 10:14 am

In addition to that all seven and a half billion people would need to stop breathing.
World population in 1850–about 1.3 billion
a six fold increase in exhalation since then is a lot of additional CO2

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  JVC
September 3, 2018 8:56 am

jvcstone, almost three years ago I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the quantity of CO2 generated by exhalations from the respiration of all humans on Earth versus the quantity of CO2 then being attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. The ratio was 4.2%, with a likely error band of +/- 50%.

DJ Meredith
September 2, 2018 7:41 am

Did I hear Climate Expert Joe state that CO2 is responsible for 80% of the modern warming? An increase from 0.03% to 0.04% of our atmosphere has resulted in an increase of global temp of 0.8degC is really quite amazing… But more interesting is that this presentation seems like a perfect segue towards a push for CO2 sequestration, the Magic Pill that will suck the money right out of our pockets. Of course, without the negative effects of what almost always happens with geoengineering ..

This is just more alarmist propaganda. At least I’ll agree with him about reducing pollution, just that the pollutant isn’t CO2.

Martin Mayer
September 2, 2018 7:49 am

“Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source.”

And they buried it to keep it safe. And all we have to do is dig it up and burn it.

Bruce Cobb
September 2, 2018 7:49 am

What if the Carbonistas just vanished, poof, into thin air tomorrow? What would happen?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 2, 2018 11:53 am

Perhaps a song would help:

Imagine no Carbonistas
It’s easy if you try
No more Carbon taxes
No Carbon Lies

September 2, 2018 7:54 am

What is really scary is this is the kind of crap that is being taught in schools.

September 2, 2018 7:59 am

This alien clean energy source?
Given to us “to serve man.”
…. “It’s a cook book!!!”

Bruce Cobb
September 2, 2018 8:07 am

As evidenced by this PBS video, the Warmunists have already discovered an endless supply of “clean” energy – Stupidium. We just need to learn how to harness it.

September 2, 2018 8:07 am

Apparently the new statement about “global warming is real” goes under ALL global warming videos, not just skeptical ones. I get the message on this video and most of those on the HotMess channel. I tried some other “believer” videos and they had the message too.

Bob Burban
September 2, 2018 8:18 am

Surprising how a breathing, carbon-based life-form can decry the evils of a molecule comprised of one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen.

david petchey
September 2, 2018 8:22 am

should not have read this first thing in the morning. I read Climate Psychology Handbook: Promote Renewables to Cure Debilitating Climate Angst, a day or so ago. Something about placing a bike helmet on your desk to show that you bike to work…….
I am definitely filled with angst…. think I spend the day looking at hummers to relieve mine.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  david petchey
September 2, 2018 9:04 am

Why do they hum? Don’t they know the words?

Richard Bell
September 2, 2018 9:06 am

ASTOUNDING …… How bad and misinformed the PBS groupthink Green Blob are ??? …….. Just take one part of this film which showed a third world kitchen and talked about air pollution from cooking killing many …….. Well a good solution would be to have a few cheap, well constructed COAL powered power stations to supply a thing called ELECTRICITY …….. any chance this may save some of the poor from lung problems ……. I think so.

AND WHEN HAS Co2 ever been a pollutant ……. ???

michael hart
Reply to  Richard Bell
September 2, 2018 8:53 pm

Our problem is the Supreme Court and previous administrations allowed the EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant they can regulate.

At least the “Indiana Pi Bill” never actually became law in 1897 due to the timely intervention of a University Professor. Not a few of today’s academics actually supported the legal demonization of carbon dioxide. Alas, human progress (and progressives) are not always oriented in a forward direction. We should not be entirely surprised at this result because the discipline of chemistry has itself been demonized by popular culture and hand wringing public broadcasters for many decades. In the environmental movement it occupies a level similar to that of slaughterhouses: people like the products but also appear to think that you can have one without the functions of the other.

Paul Johnson
September 2, 2018 9:18 am

The “Reefer Madness” of Climate Change

Bill Powers
September 2, 2018 9:30 am

Joe is talking to you as if you are a child which is his target audience. So teach your children well.

September 2, 2018 9:38 am

Fantastic, we have solved the Ice Age Glaciation problem. If it takes 100,000 years for the oceans to cool back down to that which existed before man started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, then we have already wiped out the next 100,000 years of glaciation of the current ice age:

Kudos to mankind and keep up the good work. With an additional 100,000 years to solve the problem permanently I’m sure we’ll be OK.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  JohnG
September 3, 2018 8:45 am


September 2, 2018 10:04 am

Does PBS realize that with CO2 at a level of 280 PPM many forms of plant life were on the verge of derishing and with lower levels would disappear? Where are the people studying the effects of COt on the environment that are determining the IDEAL level of CO2 while taking ALL consequences and benefits into consideration. Everytime i see a report that CO2 benefits some aspect of man, flora or fauna all I hear is that the author is a denier and non scientist. Spent 20 years in the Navy as a Submariner where the COT level was as high as 6,000 PPM for months at a time and am now 76 years old. Only health problems through my entire life was a broken knee from falling. Never sick otherwise.

Gordon Dressler
September 2, 2018 10:05 am

Well, the video blog title (Hot Mess) is appropriate with the obviously unspoken “BS” at the end of the phrase. It has been a long time since I’ve seen such a sophomoric presentation of a scientific subject.
I need only point out this glaring omission as to the assertion that a “magic, carbon-free energy source” would enable humanity to transition to a no-CO2-emission living standard:
“A single industry accounts for around 5 percent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It produces a material so ubiquitous it is nearly invisible: cement. It is the primary ingredient in concrete, which in turn forms the foundations and structures of the buildings we live and work in, and the roads and bridges we drive on. Concrete is the second most consumed substance on Earth after water. On average, each year, three tons of concrete are consumed by every person on the planet.
“Concrete is used globally to build buildings, bridges, roads, runways, sidewalks, and dams. Cement is indispensable for construction activity, so it is tightly linked to the global economy. Its production is growing by 2.5 percent annually, and is expected to rise from 2.55 billion tons in 2006 to 3.7-4.4 billion tons by 2050.” — source

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
September 2, 2018 10:26 am

Concrete, in copious amounts, is also used to build bases for wind turbines.

al in kansas
September 2, 2018 10:05 am

“limitless energy source” We already have one, fast spectrum chloride salt thorium. No graphite moderator, burns thorium, uranium or plutonium to 100%, and transuranic nuclear waste. Can be done with current technology no development needed. We already have enough reactor and bomb waste to last 2000 years.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  al in kansas
September 4, 2018 7:58 am

“We already have one, fast spectrum chloride salt thorium.”

Well, not quite . . . we only have the paper designs for molten thorium salt reactors of typical industrial power plant size. Today, most theoretical designs prefer to use fluoride salts instead of chloride salts (see ). And there are a host of disadvantages ( details 22 separate ones) associated with molten fluoride salt thorium reactors . . . most of these are very challenging and largely unresolved.

Gordon Dressler
September 2, 2018 10:16 am

BTW, the narrator (or whoever wrote his script) has no concept whatsoever of the scientific term “waste heat”. Having an “unlimited energy source”—even one that would be carbon-free— does not necessarily mean the Earth would cool down from humanity’s use of such.
Limit case condition, hypothetically, yes the aliens gave humanity an unlimited energy source, but it was only 10% efficient . . . that is it emitted 90 kWh of low grade waste heat for every 10 kwh of useable power (e.g., electricity or equivalent mechanical horsepower) that it provided.
And why would cooling the Earth from it’s present temperatures (if it could ever be done) be a good thing anyway?

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
September 3, 2018 8:37 am

In my above post, I mistakenly used the phrase “useable power” when referring to kWh of ENERGY, which of course is power integrated over time. Not only that, but I used the far-less-common spelling for “usable”. Finally, the last sentence should have been a separate paragraph.

Your honor, in my defense I offer that when I posted I had just finishing watching all of the incredibly moronic, PBS-sponsored, YouTube video “What if Carbon Emissions Stopped Tomorrow?”. I rest my case.

Peter Plail
September 2, 2018 10:24 am

I love the way he deliberately conflates co2 and all other forms of pollution. As I understand it, most of the 3rd world health issues stem from wood and dung burning, not from fossil fuels.

September 2, 2018 10:36 am

“Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. ”

How about aliens say they will beam light to to any solar collector which has say 100 square meters or larger area which is pointed in direction of the sun. So if have 10 meter by 10 meter square of solar collectors or larger area, then they will beam light to it and will send the type of light which the collector gets the most efficiency of the wavelength it collects. Or solar panel has efficiency of 10 to 20% because absorbs only certain wavelengths of sunlight best- so they will beam this wavelength of light to the solar panels.
So when the sun is out it doubles the the output of a solar panel’s electrical energy and at night provides same amount energy as a solar panel would get if sun was at zenith.
And roughly be sending about 300 watts per square meter of this light in form of a laser beam, and if there are clouds will increase the amount of energy so it always receives as much energy as it would if sun was at zenith and the day was clear.

So if have more the 100 square meter of solar panel at some location, they will generate about 5 times more electrical power and always be generating electrical power as if, the sun was at zenith.

So instead getting at most about 6 hours of 24 hours a day of sunlight, you get 24 hours of the equivalent sunlight plus the amount of energy you normally get without aliens beaming power to it. Or then solar energy would actually then be a viable source of energy- and don’t need to store the electrical power. And if elevate panels and enclose the area, one doesn’t get much night time light pollution.

It’s not really magical technology, but one can assume that the aliens have the advantage of having cheap access to space. Or we roughly have the technology, but lack cheap access to space.

Nor do aliens need to land anywhere on Earth to provide this magic.

tom s
September 2, 2018 11:33 am

What are “CARBON EMISSIONS?” Oh that’s right, the lying bastard MSM’s way of continuing the hype. Idiots all.

September 2, 2018 11:35 am

“Addiction”? You mean to food, warm houses, and being able travel more than a mile from home?

Reply to  Paul
September 2, 2018 5:08 pm

Which undoubtedly these “planet saviors” are indulging in to the max with no concern whatsoever.

September 2, 2018 1:00 pm

So lets start with the coal fired power plants.

Reply to  Sid Abma
September 2, 2018 1:04 pm

And just WHY should “we” spend (er, waste) all this unneeded time, money, energy, resources, effort and manpower sequestering the CO2 released from coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, cement plants, pulp and paper mills, and steel mills?

Gary Pearse
September 2, 2018 1:58 pm

The aliens, assuming they are intelligent and pragmatic, would bring us …ta da…. wall to wall nuclear.

September 2, 2018 2:48 pm

Our local liberal radio station sometimes has programs that present a pretty balanced view on a problem. PBS shows rarely present facts. Every scenario “Joe” presented was an opinion, not fact. Hard to take seriously when the only justification is “everybody is saying so”.

Mark Green
September 2, 2018 2:53 pm

OMFG……I think I want to smash my brains out by repeatedly beating my head against a rock…..
Any brains that remain in my head would still be a greater amount then that in the heads of the pointless drones who might mindlessly listen to this utterly pointless drivel 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

John M. Ware
September 2, 2018 3:25 pm

Mercy! I watched the whole thing. I kept waiting to hear a true statement–but if there was one, I missed it. How is it possible to get away with such fraudery and not be laughed out of town? Very sad.

Reply to  John M. Ware
September 2, 2018 5:07 pm

Very uneducated public is how.

michael hart
Reply to  John M. Ware
September 2, 2018 9:37 pm

In the UK it is done by the BBC who are threatened by neither ridicule nor bankruptcy and who know that they can completely ignore their legal charter-requirements in many areas. Governments repeatedly won’t bring them to heel, which encourages them further until they might be quietly encouraged to button their lip. But as far as I am aware, this has only happened to any significant extent on their coverage of events relating to Israel. On global warming they effectively have a free hand. The BBC should be privatized.

It seems that similar problems of public service broadcasting capture occur in other English-speaking nations. Which one will be first to grasp the nettle and acknowledge that these organizations were the product of different times with different ‘public needs’, different political realities, and different technologies?

If they intend to remain in the business of facilitating the dissemination of allegedly truthful and helpful news/information for public benefit, then Governments should focus on ensuring non-monopolistic practices by large tech firms in IT. Certainly, as we now see Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter etc regularly colluding in political censorship, the only thing the UK government and the EU demonstrate is a profound ignorance and lack of understanding of the issues by both elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats/judges. This more than sad, it is worrying.

Ronald Ginzler
September 2, 2018 6:23 pm

Our addiction to carbon? It’s 18.5% of the human body. We are a carbon-based life form, as is all life on Earth. Hence, organic chemistry. And do you think solar panels and wind turbines can be made without burning fossil fuels? The very basis of Man’s ascent from the animals, fire, consists of converting C and O2 into CO2. Or is that too much truth for you?

September 2, 2018 7:24 pm

I’m impressed at how many of you lasted longer than a minute or so of this egregious garbage.

I failed THAT level of stamina for bullshit after a minute. 😀

September 2, 2018 9:08 pm

I have not heard such a compact series of lies in just five minutes.
Idiots regurgitating what other one sided idiots say without looking at data.
Problem is that no one thinks anymore, just believe what is told.

The world is flat, sun revolves around earth, burn the witches, take the BS for gospel.
Little pissed my tax dollars pay for that tripe. Worse that people will believe.

September 2, 2018 10:20 pm

PBS doing the usually lazy SF- vague new magic tech Clean only for Co2. Limit less but unreliable and expensive. Possibly uncontrollable. Anything from uselesss solar to portal to the sun. Portal destroys Earth. very clean

September 3, 2018 1:46 am

Why do men who make $50,000 repairing elevators have to subsidize PBS? Seems inequitable. They could make better use of their money than TV producers.

Roscoe Pilsner
September 3, 2018 2:16 am

“Carbon-free society” huh? I guess that means no diamonds, too? Maybe they could start by tightening up their language. Or do they really mean “Carbon dioxide-free society”? But that can’t possibly be a good thing, either. What would plants breathe?

It’s all so sloppy.

September 3, 2018 2:33 am

New study…
Lowering Co2 will lead to tastier burgers, wetter water, drier towels, redder apples, stickier glue, bigger diamonds, less venomous snakes, shinier table tops, faster computers, furrier cats and funnier monkeys.
Higher Co2 will lead to the opposite of course.
There’s just no argument.

Geoff Sherrington
September 3, 2018 5:03 am

That horrible video is just so wrong on so many points* that it cries out for a challenge. The problem is, how do you mount a challenge?
Well, the video is naked advertising. There are advertising standards and for some instances there are punishments for violation of standards.
I am not familiar with the USA situation, so can someone genuinely familiar with the topic be so kind as to comment on the false advertising redress that might be possible?

Thanks Geoff.
*For example, it is wrong to claim that CO2 would hang around in the air for thousands of years after a sudden stop to inputs. The atom bomb tests showed a very short half life, a few years, for radioactive carbon plausibly mostly in CO2 form. Some warmists claim that reactions of CO2 with silicate rocks are very slow and that they can take thousands of years to be complete. However, there are ways to take CO2 from the air that are very quick, like vegetation uptake. Nature will chjoose the quick route for the heavy lifting. Yes, the slow route via silicate rocks can still go on, but by comparison the weight of CO2 at a given time is so tiny that it is a rounding error.

September 3, 2018 10:05 am

Joe is one of those hapless humans who would acquiesce to the demands of the Aliens from The Twilight Zone episode titled , “To Serve Mankind”.

Greg Strebel
September 3, 2018 3:43 pm

01:40 into this video: “And while(?) all this extra heat mixes slowly in the deep oceans, the oceans will continue to expand, raising sea levels for centuries.” So Mr. PhD Joe Hanson thinks that, after the cessation of burning of fossil fuels, hot surface waters will mix with deep waters and overall there will be expansion and sea level rise.
Hmmm. So the hot surface water (which has been where “90% if the extra heat of the last 50 years has gone”, according to him) is somehow not itself less dense and does not become more dense in giving up its heat which is expanding the deep waters, exactly countering this projected sea level rise?

September 4, 2018 7:06 am

“If we ended all human emissions of CO2, which only accounts for about 5 percent of the total CO2 emissions each year, absolutely nothing would happen to the climate…but we should sign our lives over to One World Government and let them dictate to us how to live our lives anyway, because if we don’t we’ll all die”.

Or something.