Support the Center for Industrial Progress: https://industrialprogress.com/accelerate-5/
Purchase The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels on Amazon: https://amzn.to/2SOOHPo
Speaking and media inquiries: http://industrialprogress.com/speaking/
Subscribe to the podcast: https://apple.co/2twmMET
HT/Joe B
Neil Oliver (GB News) got it bang on
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5U2UoR-oB1M
Usually does. Expect him to be cancelled, like Dr David Bellamy.
I saw Bellamy’s name being trashed again this week in the press
They’ll never forgive him
Cancel the poppycock, as Dr. David called it. Support and circulate the UK parliamentary petition to “Hold a referendum on whether to keep the 2050 net zero target”…_
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
Signed
Ditto
Ditto, ages ago.
Funny you mention Dr. Bellamy, this was on his twitter feed Yesterday
https://twitter.com/DavidBellamyUK/status/1456688634598510605/photo/1
“The % of CO2 in the atmophere should be 0%. This is the future we owe our children”
The guy has chemisty Ph.D. too, maybe he should be famous for this quote!
The EcoBlahBlahs are losing the plot 🦄…..0% CO2 means no plant life, as in the end of life on this planet as we know it⚰️…_
At what point do we conclude that deaths on a massive scale is not an unintended consequence but the actual goal of these people?
There is no such thing as alternative energy. There are only alternatives to energy like walking and freezing to death in the dark.
The botanist, climate skeptic and great science communicator, David Bellamy,died in 2019…the guy Lurker refers to is a different man with warmist views…not the same man at all!
Please check your facts.
Funny thing is, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere today IS 0% (well, 0,044 to be exact).
Mission accomplished…?
400/1000000 I think is 0.0004.
Yes, which is 0,04%.
The eco-bunnies & their ruling intellectual elitist manipulators & controllers of dubious parentage, love big numbers, they look great to the technically ignorant (eco-bunnies), CO2 is measured in parts per million of the atmosphere, but CH4 (methane) is measured in parts per billion, it’s that tiny!!! The left always love big numbers, it looks/sounds so impressive to the illiterate & innumerate, millions & billions sound so impressive to them all!!! Of course the equally illiterate & innumerate politicos also like big numbers for the same reason, they believe or at least hope the prols will be impressed with such big numbers vocalised by the politicos, good old fashioned Agenda 21, dumb down the education systems of the world so that only the ruling elites have “knowledge”, those lovely useful idiots will do as they are ordered/told!!! I recall back in the day when the Blairite Intellectual Socialist guvment back in 2008 voted for the Climate Change Bill/Act, it was snowing during the vote, an event not seen for 70 years plus, the irony was beyond the intelligence of the inmates of the Houses of Parliament, the biggest asylum on Planet Earth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then again, they get paid pretty well despite the fact they are now demanding MORE taxpayers money to go into their bank accounts!!!! No wonder the UK guvment back in the early 1920s introduced draconian gun laws in fear of bloody revolution after WW1/Russia 1917, now we Brits have little left to resist totalitarian bullying by our allegedly democratic guvment!!!!! America stand firm & strong, the left are coming for you guys, slowly but surely!!! The BBC are bed-wetting themselves with outpourings of armagedon & globul disaster, I am now going to refuse to pay my tv licence, a pol-tax on everyone!!!
Times 100 for a percentage
I guess that can work – on the moon
In that Dr Bellamy link , Epstein say that he likes to ask the green loonies , ” What is the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere “.
A more telling question would be , What is the percent of human produced CO2 in the atmosphere .
A lot of people know that CO2 is 413 parts per million . But the human produced part of that is only about 3% .
Then , if you take the UKs 1% of world CO2 emissions , you finish up with just
1 part in ten Million parts of atmosphere .
But you will never gets the greens , or the media , to admit the truth .
UK’s 1% plus all the allowed, non-counted CO2 such as Drax, the largest single CO2 source in the UK. One also should not ignore the still much larger CO2 creation from all the outsourced heavy industry such as making all those wind turbines and solar stuff.
They’re not very good with numbers. Makes them break out in hives.
NAME him!!!
Using proper significant figures, it is 0%.
0.0 if you want to be a stickler about it.
It ought to be sarcasm (but other than the utter absurdity of the comment, there’s no evidence of it).
The dweeb is a post-doc chemist and had a job as a high school science teacher. Can we really be so far gone? God help us!
https://caulton.lab.indiana.edu/person/dr-skye-fortier/
See my reply above to Lurker Pete. This is not the same David Bellamy.
And I wasn’t ever talking about David Bellamy.
At first I found it hard to believe a Chemistry PhD would be insane enough to advocate 0% But then….
“Skye Fortier
Currently Working As: Assistant Professor, University of Texas at El Paso
What do you love about your job?
As an academic and researcher, I have the license to dive into unexplored chemical territories and forge new pathways in fundamental science.
What has been the most exciting part of your career so far?
Training the next generation of scientists and seeing my students mature into independent researchers has been a rewarding experience”.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/acs-scholars/scholars-profiles/11141071.html
A chemistry professor claiming we need 0% CO2 should not be teaching anyone anything.
NB The Dr David Bellamy we are referring to died in 2019
Liberal-Progressivism causes brain rot, proven correlation.
That’s weird because the David Bellamy I believe Fretslider was refering to died in 2019.
A different one. In his bio, he admits “My botanist namesake died in 2019“
That Mr. Oliver!
Great calling out of the hypocrisy of our glorious leaders.
Unfortunately, the interviewer appears to be an Eco-Loon Idiot. Alex Epstein does his best to deal with the situation and expose the truth. The interviewer shows no interest in facts. Calling the interviewer ‘ignorant’ is a polite understatement.
Well done Alex!
The presenter was awful, great that the producer muted him and allowed Alex to speak, which is what journalism should be. Sad to see GB News going the way of the “green” consensus.
So-called consensus.
I generally watch GB News though ti has a long way to go still to give a balanced view, but how com4e this COP21 interviewer did not know about reduction in pollution of India and China?
Not in the COP26 reading list. I pointed out that:
Roger Harrabin interviewed Phil Jones of the Climategate fiasco. Phil Jones was asked by Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
Phil Jones admitted that there was no statistical difference in the rates of warming for these three time periods, only one of which was related to an increase in CO2.
Therefore Harrabin and the BBC knew in 2010 that the warming 1975-1998 was not exceptional and the previous warming periods were completely unrelated to the atmospheric concentration of CO2. They must be challenged on this biased promulgation of one side of the debate.
I suggested GBNews should give a regular slot to an authoritative scientist to present alternative, validated science.
Signed get this nonsense stopped.
Well done Alex and great podcasts too!
I would challenge the assertion that California with its strict environmental controls is a raging economic success. CA has had a net out migration for many years now with most of those Californicated refugees fleeing to red states like Texas, Arizona, Utah, Idaho etc. that are growing at far faster rates than California.
“I would challenge the assertion that California with its strict environmental controls is a raging economic success. “
Don’t California my…….
Ahh. But just think about all those new, illegal immigrant millionaires about to become big spenders in CA – courtesy of FJB!
C’mon man! That’s garbage!
Oh wait, the voices are saying I’m completely comfortable with it.
Let’s Go Brandon!
Commiefornia has the highest rate of poverty in the entire US. And the most homeless as well. I wouldn’t call that a “raging economic success” (sic) Last poll I saw of San Franciscans had 40% hoping to move out of the state in the next few years. And that’s after all of the folks who have already moved.
The long-prophesied climate refugees finally appear — former Californians fleeing to the better climates of other states.
That was Game, Set & Match to Alex.
I’ve followed Mr. Epstein for eight years, and although I’d always thought his perspective was great I had worried that his oral delivery tended to be labored and tedious.
No more. He hit this one out of the park.
“He hit this one out of the park.”
+1000
By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar radiation the albedo, which could not exist w/o the atmosphere or GreenHouse Gases, renders the Earth cooler than it would be without that atmosphere much like that reflective panel propped up on the dash cools the car. Remove the atmosphere or GHGs and there would be no more water vapor or clouds, no ice and snow, no vegetation, no oceans and no more 30% albedo. The Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock orb with a 10% albedo receiving 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree.
For the GHGs to warm per the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory requires “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating long wave infrared energy as an ideal black body. Refer to annotated Figure 1 of (TFK_bams09.pdf (ucar.edu)) attached.
This theoretical scenario is impossible because of the non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules and as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science. The experiment can be accessed at this link:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
The RGHE theory is as erroneous as caloric, phlogiston and luminiferous ether.
Mankind’s GHGs are not responsible for the alleged global mean surface temperature anomaly increase of 1.2 C over 140 years. (See attached graphic) This barely detectable change is noise in the data, instrumentation drift, urban heat island effect, natural variation, i.e. insignificant let alone some kind of dangerous trend.
Not entirely correct,
The Earth’s gravity is 6 times stronger than moon’s. Additionally, the moon has no magnetic field to provide a shield from solar wind, which in combination with the weak gravity is blowing it’s atmosphere away, which even currently is created due to gases created by sporadic meteorites’ impacts.
Mars has negligible magnetic field (it has small areas of magnetized crust), its gravity is less than 40% of the Earth’s and it still manages to retain some atmosphere.
Clouds provide not only albedo, but a warmth retaining blanket, balance between two is at root of climate change in inter-glacial periods. At the time of low solar activity the GCRs impact increases cloud cover hence we often experience slight global warming at the sunspot minima, which is contrary to the expectation.
At graph attached it can be seen increase in warming not only at the times of individual sunspot minima, but also the rising slope of the UAH matches perfectly declining slope of solar activity since 1980 when the madness of ‘warming catastrophe took hold among global warming, lately climate change zealots.
The CO2 gas is and has been good for the planet and the civilisation.
The earth would not “become like the moon with no atmosphere” if there were no GHG’s. There are two completely different scenarios: remove the whole atmosphere to make the Earth a large ” moon” or remove the GHG’s.
As you point out, the lit side would get hot but not that hot. The surface would heat the no-GHG atmosphere and convection would cool the surface. The atmosphere would of course have no radiative cooling mechanism save to reheat the night side, and that wouldn’t happen until the air was really hot. The atmosphere does not get colder as GHG’s tend to zero, it tends to warm.
At some point between these two extremes, there is a minimum temperature, with it rising on each side of that. When it comes to atmospheric GHG reduction, Arrhenius got the basic physics wrong. He got it wrong about the increase too – as Mach was only too pleased to point out at the time.
That young man knows his stuff.
An exemplary presentation.
Nice job from Alex…..articulate, facts and numbers and sensible approach…the interviewer on the other hand was an ignorant ass who didn’t like what he was hearing.
Alex’s latest (today) video, “The rise of Michael Shellenberger and the energy humanist movement”
He has a great podcast
I agree with everything Alex says- except- he foolishly thinks woody biomass is a bad thing- he doesn’t understand that the climate lunatics HATE woody biomass- it’s NOT part of the green movement- yet it actually is green, the only green energy- because it really is renewable, and dependable when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing- and it provides many jobs- and greatly helps the mgt. of forests. Many on this site don’t get it- because they don’t understand forestry but I do with 50 years experience as a professional forester. As always, i’ll get blasted for saying this but I don’t click on the bell to get responses- too busy to argue over the subject- busy with my new hobby- UFOs- a subject more people should tune into because UFOs are real (some of them) and when full disclosure occurs, it’ll be the biggest thing in history- far bigger than a trivial change in the climate and way bigger than Covid. Just keep in mind, back in the ’60s and ’70s, UFOs shut down ICBM missiles.
Generally speaking, the issue of burning wood for heat or electrical generation should be evaluated on whether it actually produces significantly more energy than the energy used to procure, process, and transport the wood. If not, the rational activity is to use the primary energy directly rather than put it through the lossy filter of wood burning. As it is, the driving issue seems to be the transfer of wealth from the many to the few who control and run the process, certainly not the production of necessary energy for general use.
There are more complex considerations in some, maybe many, places. If reducing CO2 was the real concern, fixing California’s forest mess would have much higher priority than many of the state‘s other projects. Burning tens of millions of trees every year for electrical generation would certainly produce CO2 but possibly less CO2 than the forest fires do now. In addition it could replace much of the money spent on wind turbines which, by a number of estimates, are not even CO2 neutral during their average lifetime.
Fantastic stuff
Mr. Epstein is such a cool voice of reason. I have read two of his books and they give you a great base to destroy the greens when they rant about the climate. We need more like him.
COP 26
Group-think… gone wild
The lemmings running off the cliff.
Ah, but none of them would ever think of running off the cliff. They want to PUSH all the little people off the cliff, while they fly in their private jets, gather together for weeks of lavish eating and drinking, while discussing how the little people need to give up their cars, stop eating meat, and shiver in their homes when the heat pumps can’t keep them warm.
Prince Charles said this week that we need to be on a war time footing to stop CC, and now he’s off to Barbados on a official visit. Trust me, he’s not going there on a sailboat.
I see what you’re saying.
The most disgraceful takeaway from this interview is that the GB News journalist is totally unaware of the extent to which fuel poverty is affecting the poorest in the society in which he resides. Yes, people do die of the cold in the UK. Frequently.
Who cares about this.
I was with him until he started talking about people here in the UK ‘literally freezing to death and having to burn library books’. Where the hell did he get that from?
It does the skeptic cause no good at all to indulge in the same sort of thetoricl exaggerations that the warmistas do.
Sorry – that should have read ‘rhetorical’.
I saw some old reporting on this, e.g. https://metro.co.uk/2010/01/05/pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth-13123/
That was most enjoyable. The interviewer looked bemused that he was getting straight answers. He must spend too long interviewing politicians.
Excellent.
Alex Epstein is the man, that other guy…..well I can’t say what he is.
Alex cites India and China as having longer life expectancy, yet the dumb interviewer ends by saying that he’s not sure many would agree that Russia is experiencing longer life expectancy. Nothing like misquoting the person you are interviewing!
I just read Alex’s book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Its one of the most profound books I have ever read.
Here is a link to a free copy.
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=95AC3FC1E1D3768A2FF58A9556284B4E
Man, he slaughtered him! Well done Epstein!
“Why are you right, when everyone ele says you are wrong” “how do you know what they think?”