Are We Doomed

Summary

The script discusses the climate change debate, focusing on the alarmist perspective warning of catastrophe versus skeptical scientists who argue the threat is overblown. It notes the lack of open debate between these sides despite attempts to foster discussion. The narrator then outlines and challenges four key claims made by climate alarmists: irreversible tipping points in 12 years, worsening storms, useless mitigation efforts, and CO2 as purely harmful pollution. Skeptics argue these are exaggerated, temperatures are rising slowly, adaptation is possible, CO2 boosts plant growth. The narrator suggests governments exploit climate fears for greater control, and wishes for genuine debate on these complex issues.

Takeaways

• 😕 The script discusses the climate change debate, focusing on criticisms of climate alarmists
• 😳 It claims climate alarmists make exaggerated claims like 'we have 12 years before climate effects are irreversible'
• 🤔 It argues alarmists refuse to debate skeptics to defend their position
• 🧐 It cites scientists who dispute connections between warming and extreme weather
• 😠 It alleges climate policy would have little impact yet harm economies
• 🌱 It contends CO2 boosts plant growth and crop yields, offsetting harm
• 🤨 It implies climate scientists and UN boards have political motivations
• 😮 It says alarmist climate claims are confusing and deserve more debate
• 😬 It portrays public concern over climate as driven by fear-mongering
• 💡 Overall, it aims to highlight uncertainties and downplay risks of climate change

Q & A

Why won't climate change alarmists debate the Heartland Institute?

The transcript says alarmists declined Heartland's invitation to debate, with no clear reason given. It speculates alarmists may not want to debate facts and respond to those who disagree.

What evidence does the Heartland Institute provide against climate change alarmism?

They argue hurricanes are not getting worse, temperature rises are modest and adaptable as in Holland, CO2 helps plants grow, and Obama policies would have little effect on warming.

What is the basis for the claim that we only have 12 years before climate change effects are irreversible?

The transcript does not provide a clear basis for this claim. It simply states it's 'absurd' to think another 0.5 degree Celsius rise in global temperature would crash the entire system.

How might governments benefit from climate change alarmism according to the Heartland Institute?

They argue governments use CO2 as an excuse to control people's lives and expand their power. More climate alarmism gives them more control.

What evidence shows hurricanes are not getting worse?

The Heartland Institute panel says global hurricane activity since 1970 shows no significant increase in power when measured and added up.

How might Holland adapt to climate change?

The transcript says Holland adapted to being a 'low-line country' by building dikes and pumps. This suggests adapting infrastructure.

How does CO2 help feed the world?

The Heartland Institute says higher CO2 levels accelerate plant growth and make plants more water efficient.

Why does the IPCC go along with climate change exaggerations?

The Heartland panel speculates it's because governments want more control and power over people's lives.

What temperature rise has occurred since 1900?

The transcript states there has been around a 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature since 1900.

What evidence suggests people are not taking climate change seriously?

The panel mocks the idea that people in Miami would just 'sit there and drown' as sea levels rise, instead of adapting.

Outlines

00:00

😕 Conflicting Views on Climate Change Threats

The first paragraph presents conflicting perspectives on the threat of climate change. It mentions various past environmental scares that didn't materialize as warned. It then acknowledges rising temperatures and extinction worries, but questions if the alarmist rhetoric and calls for urgent action are justified.

05:01

😠 Accusations of Climate Alarmism and Control

The second paragraph accuses climate activists and organizations like the IPCC of alarmism and exaggeration to further an agenda of government control and power. It wishes there was an open debate to address confusion on the facts.

Keywords

💡climate change

Climate change refers to the long-term shifts in global weather patterns and average temperatures. It is a major theme throughout the video, with one side arguing it is an impending catastrophe while the other argues it is exaggerated. Examples from the script include the claims that we have 12 years before climate change effects are irreversible and that climate change threatens ecosystems and could cause mass extinction.

💡global warming

Global warming refers to the gradual heating of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. It is presented in the video as a key effect of climate change, with the script mentioning the UN prediction of a 2 to 5 degree Celsius temperature rise. Those skeptical of climate change impacts argue this level of warming is manageable.

💡alarmism

Alarmism refers to the tendency to exaggerate threats in order to raise alarm. Those skeptical of catastrophic climate change accuse climate activists of alarmism for making exaggerated claims not supported by evidence, such as the 12 year deadline. The video host also notes climate alarmists refuse to debate the science.

💡mass extinction

Mass extinction refers to a widespread, rapid decrease in the number of species in a relatively short time. The video mentions claims that we are at the beginning of a climate change-induced mass extinction, but this is not elaborated on further.

💡adaptation

Adaptation refers to human adjustments made to moderate climate change impacts. Climate skeptics in the video argue that even significant warming can be adapted to, using examples like the Dutch adapting to rising seas by building dikes and pumps.

💡carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas emitted from burning fossil fuels that traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. But skeptics note carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth and helps feed the world, so emitting some carbon dioxide brings benefits too.

💡hurricanes

Hurricanes are severe tropical storms that climate activists claim are getting worse due to climate change. But climate skeptics in the video argue there is no evidence hurricanes are increasing in frequency or intensity when studying global satellite data since 1970.

💡control

The issue of control refers to government interventions and regulations aimed at addressing climate change. Skeptics argue climate change is being used as an excuse for governments to expand control over people's lives.

💡debate

The video host and climate skeptics repeatedly call for public debate between the two sides of the climate change argument. But climate activists refuse to debate them, relying only on emotional appeals and proclaiming catastrophic scenarios.

💡science

Science refers to the research, data, and evidence behind arguments over climate change causes and impacts. Each side claims to have science on their side, but skeptics argue that climate alarmists ignore science that contradicts their beliefs.

Highlights

The climate alarmists who were invited didn't show up to debate

The UN predicts the temperature will rise another 2 to 5 degrees Celsius

The claim that the entire system will crash if the temperature rises another half degree is absurd

Even if the planet warms 5 degrees, humans can adapt like the Dutch did by building infrastructure

There is no significant increase in hurricane power when measured globally since 1970

The 12 year deadline and claims of worsening hurricanes are myths according to the panel

Government action today would have little effect on global warming according to Obama administration models

CO2 helps feed the world and makes plants more water efficient

Many people pretend to study climate change just to scare people into supporting their agenda

Governments tend to want more control over time, CO2 provides a means for control

It's confusing when serious people seem so worried, but won't debate the other side

If the alarmist claims aren't true, why does the IPCC go along with the exaggerations?

The IPCC name stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

CO2 allows governments to control people's lives and efforts

There should be an open debate between both sides on climate change

Transcripts

this environmental catastrophe bearing

down on us I keep hearing that we're

killing the Earth how dare

you you have stolen my dreams in my

childhood but wait I've been a consumer

reporter for years I've covered so many

scares plague famine and Perpetual war

will kill us we're going to run out of

oil nuclear power will give us cancer

Killer Bees swarm ever closer bird flu

flesh eating B bacteria the list of

terrible things that we're going to get

us is long and yet we're living longer

than ever none of those scares turned

out to be as frightening as the warnings

but I'm told global warming is different

and TI ecosystems are collapsing we are

in the beginning of a mass extinction

the alarmists have evidence that

supports their fears temperature is

rising the UN predicts that it'll rise

another 2 to 5 degrees what do we do in

the land we live on is under attack but

does that justify the fear climate

change is not a life of please don't let

our planet die does it justify this

claim we have 12 years to act we have 12

years we have 12 years before the

effects are irreversible really 12 years

it's warmed up around 1° C since 1900

and life expectancy doubled the

industrialized democracies and and yet

that temperature ticks up another half a

degree

and the entire system crashes that's the

most absurd belief I recently moderated

this debate on climate change at the

Heartland Institute well not a debate

because the alarmists who were invited

didn't show Heartland invited many

please come over here and sit next to

that place and let's have a discussion

there are a lot more people want to hear

what you have to say climate alarmist

never agreed to debate we'd love to

offer you the airtime we will give give

it to you I'll give you a special phone

number that goes to this phone I invited

Al Gore in my show often but he would

never come in order to solve the climate

crisis he makes a lot of speeches but

won't respond to people who disagree

it's too bad that the alarmists won't

debate because so much of what they say

deserves debate the world is going to

end in 12 years if we don't address

climate change 12 years well and in 12

Years it'll be 12 more years David

legates is a professor of climatology at

the University of Delaware Pat Michaels

is former president of the American

Association of state climatologists will

he soon is an

astrophysicist it's all about har waving

it's about emotion about sending out kid

in protest we have nothing to do with

the science this group pointed out that

even if the planet warms by 5 degre

humans can adjust people in Holland did

years ago they said we're going to adapt

to the fact that we're a low-line

country and we're going to build these

dkes and we're going to build these

pumps are you telling me that the people

of Miami are so dumb that they're just

going to sit there and drown you

acknowledge that the water is

rising yes water has been rising for

approximately 20,000 years and probably

will continue but we can adapt like

Holland has

except the alarmist say hurricanes and

other storms are getting worse it's

getting stronger and stronger the winds

are getting harder and harder no they

aren't you can take a look at all the

Hurricanes around the planet we can see

them since 1970 because we got global

satellite coverage and we can measure

their power and we can add up their

power and there is no significant

increase whatsoever there is no

relationship between hurricane activity

and the surface temperature of the

planet the claim that hurricanes are

getting worse and the 12-year deadline

were two of four myths I heard the

Heartland panel convincingly debunk myth

number three was that government action

today will save us we have to act now

the Obama administration's model

projects that the amount of global

warming that would be saved for going to

zero emissions tomorrow you don't know

how to do that put you back in the in

the Stone Age but let's just say we did

it uh would be 1400s of a degree celsus

so no real effect on the climate but

you'll sure have an impoverished Dark

Country won't you myth number four the

idea that carbon dioxide is carbon

pollution that just does harm and

threatens the food supply there are

places on Earth where it is just

Greening up like crazy so if you're

really concerned about the plants more

carbon dioxide makes them not just grow

faster but also makes them more water

efficient carbon dioxide is a greenhouse

gas but it also helps Feed the World a

lot of people pretend to know about

climate pretend to have studied it

pretend to come up with these answers

and then make these proclamations to

scare you so that you'll do what we want

you to do but if what the alarmists say

is not true why would the International

Panel on climate change the United

Nations go along with the exaggerations

governments like control most

governments want to keep control and

most want governments get bigger and

bigger over time ipcc does stand for

intergovernmental panel on climate

change carbon dioxide becomes that

molecule by which we can take control of

your lives of your efforts and

everything that goes on are they right

it's confusing when there are so many

serious people who are so worried I wish

there were a real debate why won't the

other side

debate