Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐ข๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฃ๐๐๐ค๐๐ โ ๐๐ซ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฆ ๐๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐ซ, ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐จ๐ง When professors talk climate in private, itโs science. When politicians & media talk climate, itโs propaganda. Billions in funding flow only to research that screams โemergencyโ & demands more government control. Dissent means no grants,... show more
40,144 views โข 11 months ago โขvia X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![โThereโs a doomsday view of climate change,โ said Bill Gates on Tuesday. โFortunately for all of us, this view is wrongโฆ.People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.โ In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the worldโs most influential climate scientists. โThe weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,โ says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. โIt isnโt really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Whereโs the danger here?โ Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasnโt done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that โthe modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. Weโve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing COโ contributing to that? Yes.โ The fact that warming has been beneficial โdoesnโt mean that we should ignore the problemโ she stresses and โdoesnโt mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curryโs qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. โIโm the one whoโs done more climate dynamics research,โ she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, โI would say I wouldnโt go much more than 50%.โ Curry says, โWeโve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.โ As a result, she said, โWe cannot control the climate. Thereโs a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.โ Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. โThere are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,โ said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. โThey say, โOh, itโs not just COโ, itโs also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,โโ she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. โโArenโt you telling us thatโs also caused by COโ?โ So I donโt get what the gripe is. Weโre gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.โ As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. โGlobal greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,โ she notes. โThey donโt talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. Itโs part of the rules โ weโre only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.โ But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1984003595080241338/amplify_video_thumb/1984001965953839110/img/XbIlSgE2iW3ADFmk.jpg)
