Climate Scientist Debates Global Warming Skeptics and Climate Change Deniers

If you appreciate this channel and what it represents please support me and buy my book
https://goo.gl/xVCdaW
Subscribe to my second channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClJp4gyWfqoB6NjAk1eihog/videos

Michio Kaku on global warming

39 thoughts on “Climate Scientist Debates Global Warming Skeptics and Climate Change Deniers”

  1. the dr is pretty stupid.. it adds very little.. but it is cumulative so in the end it gets big.. I mean hes a dr, shouldnt he know basic math?

    Reply
  2. that jerk at 14 minutes literally does not understand how it accumulates over time. it did not all increase in one year. no wonder there are skeptics. so many stupid people even that seem to be intelligent.

    Reply
  3. At 21:00 in – the woman literally lies about the speaker. He specifically said "anti-acidic" when referring to the ph of the ocean. He said it dropped by .1  She then says he is alarmist and the ocean is alkaline and dropped from 8.2 to 8.1  This is EXACTLY what the man said.

    Reply
  4. I believe illegal immigration is causing 95% of the warming. Now, if we can prove that, liberals heads will explode trying to fathom the solution. Problem solved.

    Reply
  5. Warmer and wetter is nicer and better. Co2 is good for you, and the rest of the living things on the planet, as is tropical warmth. If you deny any of this about climate, you are the weakest link. That is all.

    Reply
  6. How do climate skeptics explain the melting of the polar caps, and the rising of the worlds oceans? And the drought that we see everywhere in the world?

    Reply
  7. 2 in 3 Australians will get skin cancer by age 70. If you can't tell the sun is hotter now than it was in the 70's by just going outside, you are being obtuse.

    Reply
  8. Climate change is likely exacerbated by man, there's no evidence for god, evolution is real and the earth is round.

    Reply
  9. Remember when they used to say it isn't happening at all?
    Now they say yes but it's not man made.
    Moving the goal post isn't going to stop it from being true.

    Reply
  10. The sun not CO2 governs climate In1971 NASA scientists said ''there is no danger of a run away greenhouse effect from extra CO2,Because the absorption spectra of CO2 is already almost fully saturated already

    Reply
  11. Schneider was a great spokesperson in our field (I am a postdoc studying climate and planetary atmospheres)– of course, he gives correct and very good explanations here. We need more forums like this that actually answer questions rather than regurgitate talking points about 'consensus' and the like. Of course, climate skepticism has little to do with scientific skepticism, but political hesitation to the notion of government solutions (naturally, conservatives are reserved on anything regarding involving regulations). So it's not obvious that fact-by-fact lists as a response to laundry lists of talking points actually works, but it's useful to talk to well-intentioned people. Some of these people are clearly not coming in with good faith, but some likely have just heard the soundbytes from wingnut sources.

    Reply
  12. The problem is that these so called scientist DO NOT look at all the evidence .. This particular scientist if full of crap.

    Climate models cannot be considered realistic unless they include all effects from Geoengineering. To date Geoengineering has been ignored in all published models. It is clear all that these models are based on fiction, not science.

    Real scientist will look at ALL the data not just the political / unUN agenda.

    Reply
  13. Climate scientists and the bureaucrats that support the CAGW scheme exhibit horrible judgment in just about every way possible. They insist on holding their 12 day taxpayer funded conferences in some of the most remote, and, incidentally, some of the most beautiful places on Earth. Bali, Rio, Buenos Aires, Cancun, Lima, Marrakesh, Etc. Occasionally they hold their conferences in beautiful European cities- Paris, Copenhagen, etc. To get to these bucket-list worthy places, they have to burn many tons of fuel, and when they get to their destinations, they in their thousands then rent every limo available- as in Copenhagen. And then they burn more fossil fuels. Didn't any of these fuel -burning fools ever hear about teleconferencing or videoconferencing? They have the biggest carbon footprints of anyone on the planet, Saskwatch-sized, along with their celebrity idiot cohorts. If they sincerely believed the barge load of offal that is the CAGW narrative, how could they dare do this? Pure hubris. And this same hubris and associated lack of judgment infests what is laughingly their work.

    Reply
  14. Climate change where you live may not be as noticeable. Where I live its been very noticeable. To think global warming is not man made, you have to be absolutely oblivious to your surroundings because that stupid device in your hand keeps you looking down. Between the damages done by corporate greed in mining, fracking, drilling, and the elite scientists have taken control of weather, and have played with it so long, our natural weather cycle is broken. Where I live if they stop chem spraying for two days, (they spray most everyday) my sky goes crystal blue, not a cloud in the sky. Horizons are always deep redish orange. Then the chem trails start, the haze begins, the crap weather starts, the crap starts falling from the sky, repeat.. This is a regular thing. You have google. Why do so many Weather Modification companies exist if its not man made. And this is fake? You don't believe it because you have not looked for it. Right over your tech induced zombie head. Con trail my ass. Jets stopped leaving con trails in the mid 80's. Google that.Then get a good lens and watch for yourself. Holy crap. Wake the fuck up you fat 12 sandwich eating thumb wrestlers before its too late…..actually….you are late. Who am I kidding. We are too late. With the combined research of real scientists, not TV puppets, all of the research tells you one thing. We, as a species have 10-12 years left. Between the methane filled skies, the radiation still spilling into the pacific years later from Fukushima, the fracking, mining, tunneling, weather destruction, our drinking water melting away, the mass species die offs around the world, the GMO crap we grew up with, the wide spread sicknesses, and the list goes on, yea, I'd say we are completely screwed. And the NEWS will not report on it because there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, and corporate owners who are responsible don't want to be lynched. 10-12 years left. What are you going to do with it?

    Reply
  15. Yes. There are best case scenarios and worst case scenarios, but those who think it won't be that bad for them, don't live in the global south……or in parts of Africa facing famine already from unprecedented droughts. By the time we have the kind of certainty many in this audience are waiting for, large parts of the earth will be unliveable.

    And those refugees pushing for Europe…those other refugees walking across the border to Canada in the middle of the winter….will prove to be just forerunners of what the 'best case scenario' folks are going to be facing. Ya right!!

    Trump and his fascist ilk will be building walls all over the place; but that kind of world is the 'worst case scenario' for anyone who prefers democracy, equity and a peacefull, well fed world.

    Reply
  16. When the earth warms it releases more Co2 and Methane as proven by the Milankovich Cycles Circa 2,000,000,000,000 tons. We humans will release 800,000,000,000 tons of Co2 by 2040. The whole so called carbon budget. That commits us to 3'c warming from our emissions and a further 3'c from natural extra release. Nature cannot adapt to 6'c of warming, our habitat cannot adapt, humans cannot adapt to a Global Average Temperature of 21'c. 6'c of warming is the Methane Hydrate Gun release temperature, this will cause 5' further warming 26'c GAT. The window of opportunity to cut our Co2 releases is closing fast. If we wait till 2040 when the proverbial turds hit the fans it will to late. We have the knowledge and technology. The Oil, Coal and Gas industries are preventing the roll out of these clean energy alternatives. They are protecting their industries and pushing all life on earth towards the next Permian Mass Extinction and an Anoxic Ocean Event.

    Reply
  17. Abrupt = Within decades or a few centuries. Natural warming and cooling cycles take 100,000 years. We are doing it 1,000 times faster than normal, and we are going faster and faster. Your children and your grand children will not enjoy the future, if they have a future at all.

    Reply
  18. When the earth warms it releases more Co2 and Methane as proven by the Milankovich Cycles Circa 2,000,000,000,000 tons. We humans will release 800,000,000,000 tons of Co2 by 2040. The whole so called carbon budget. That commits us to 3'c warming from our emissions and a further 3'c from natural extra release. Nature cannot adapt to 6'c of warming, our habitat cannot adapt, humans cannot adapt to a Global Average Temperature of 21'c. 6'c of warming is the Methane Hydrate Gun release temperature, this will cause 5' further warming 26'c GAT. The window of opportunity to cut our Co2 releases is closing fast. If we wait till 2040 when the proverbial turds hit the fans it will to late. We have the knowledge and technology. The Oil, Coal and Gas industries are preventing the roll out of these clean energy alternatives. They are protecting their industries and pushing all life on earth towards the next Permian Mass Extinction and an Anoxic Ocean Event.

    Reply
  19. But they don't tell you that Antarctic ice sheets have been expanding. There has been no global warming the last 17 years or so then suddenly 2016 is the hottest year on record? If you look at REAL science you will see that man made global warming is politicized propaganda.

    Reply
  20. You do realize this is essentially a Tax on Air itself?

    "Global Warming" is an attempt to Tax your ability to "Breathe."

    Reply
  21. The only way to regulate carbon emissions is to establish a Monstrous Dictatorial One World Government called the UN that will kill millions and millions of innocent people.

    Reply
  22. I am simply stunned that an intelligent man could spout such simplistic nonsense. Yes, Arctic ice has diminished of late but is currently entirely within normal parameters. Antarctic ice has increased. The question I always ask to those who believe in AGW is 'how old you think the planet is?'. You would be surprised as to how few people actually know the answer! They know little or nothing about ice ages, PDO, Malenkovitch cycles and all the other joys of living on a dynamic, always changing and ancient planet. I had to laugh when he stated that people might want to think twice about living close to the sea, want to guess where Al Gore's bought a new condo?

    Reply
  23. Doesn't he know that floating ice, of which almost 100% is floating, will NOT raise the water level if it all melts? Put an ice cube in a glass of water. Mark the water level on the side of the glass. Wait until the ice cube melts and check the water level. NO CHANGE!!! Now put the glass of water in the microwave and heat it in 30-second intervals. Watch the level after each 30 seconds. You will not be able to discern a rise in the level of the water. This doctor is in the pockets of the alarmists and must have received a huge grant of money from the government!

    Reply
  24. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGR_1806-20

    This is what caused "man made" global warming.
    The ionosphere took a hit, and surprisingly not mentioned in the read.. the magnetosphere was weakened, magma in the earth is effected by changes in the magnetic shielding of earth, particularly when large amounts of cosmic and solar radiation penetrates the crust.
    The actions of mankind do have miniscule effects, but the truth is we are not the cause of the abrupt changes that have been seen in recent years

    Reply
  25. Dr. Kaku seems to omit that the melting of •floating sea ice• will not add to significant sea level rise, as simplistic Archimedean principles** would prevail. This means that ice that melts in your cocktail glass will cause absolutely NO significant level increase of the now total liquid amount of booze + melted ice in your glass. The arctic ice cap is, with the comparatively small land mass of Greenland, is FLOATING sea ice. Antarctica is a land mass so its a different situation there … and one hell of a lot of already floating sea ice thats 'attached' to Antarctica that will make NO difference if it melts.

    Further, the coefficient of volumetric expansion of water ((at) ref. 20°C) is 67 X 10E-6/K at 20 °C … that's ~0.00007 (or 7/100,000ths change of volume) per 1 degree C ….. pretty damn INSIGNIFICANT when compared to the total volume of the planet's liquid seawater … and only a marginal temperature (estimated, but not validated) 20° maximum 'prognosticated' change by 'forced' models'. Global recorded temperature change has been occurring at only LESS THAN ~.7°C / 100 years !!!!!!!!

    With some suspicion, I'd counter that Dr. Kaku probably is now receiving or is impending an increase in grant money for such 'research'.
    Very very SAD.

    ** physics.weber.edu/carroll/archimedes/principle.htm

    I think I'll just sit back and take a wait and see approach. I certainly won't be investing in climate or carbon-credit/foot print hedge-funds for a while … nor in snake oil stocks.

    Reply
  26. 2017 IS THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER ALREADY!!!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!! (unless….you give your money to Al Gore and the UN and accept one world government with absolute control over your lives, and you'd better accept it quick, before the dumbos realize a mini ice age has already started. HOT! HOT! HOT!

    Reply
  27. What about  corals are they moovin' North?? if yes, that means t hey are no disapiring….

    Reply
  28. He is wrong in stating 50% loss… arctic sea ice volume in 1979 was over 15,000 km3 and now it is way less than 5,000… people just don't want to see the writing on the wall.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

3 × 4 =