Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

I’m an atmospheric physicist. I’ve published
more than 200 scientific papers. For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate
has changed remarkably little. But the cry of “global warming” has grown ever more
shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of
the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture
of where we really stand on the issue of global warming or, as it is now called — climate
change. There are basically three groups of people
dealing with this issue. Groups one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly,
at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and media.
Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International
Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe
that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels — oil,
coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe,
this might eventually dangerously heat the planet. Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics. We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes — the sun, clouds, oceans,
the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these
is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.
But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists. The following are
such points of agreement: 1) The climate is always changing.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to
the atmosphere should lead to some warming. 3) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing
since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century. 4) Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased
slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only
since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.
5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature
or its impact can be made. The IPCC, acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term
prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuels leads to catastrophe isn’t part of what either group asserts. So why are so many people worried, indeed, panic
stricken about this issue. Here’s where Group Three comes in — the politicians, environmentalists, and media. Global Warming Alarmism provides them, more
than any other issue, with the things they most want: For politicians it’s money and
power. For environmentalists it’s money for their organizations and confirmation of
their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon
nature. And for the media it’s ideology, money, and headlines — doomsday scenarios
sell. Meanwhile, over the last decade, scientists
outside of climate physics have jumped on the bandwagon, publishing papers blaming global
warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war. And, crony capitalists have eagerly
grabbed for the subsidies that governments have so lavishly provided.
Unfortunately, group three is winning the argument because they have drowned out the
serious debate that should be going on. But while politicians, environmentalists and
media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won’t be able to bury
the truth. The climate will have the final word on that. I’m Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, for PragerUniversity.

  1. Exxon invented climate science. Google it. They knew that hysterical hypocrisy would push green energy and carbon capture. They now make billions taking oil out of the ground and billions more to capture the carbon . They also invest in green energy devices. C02 was the big scam. If it was such a dangerous gas , why do we pump it into our children’s soda pop at 1200 psi?

  2. Disclaimer : this video contains opinions and interpretation (mis) of facts
    Climate change is worrying enough for New York to build a sea wall . I don't agree with YouTube demonetising your channel but you must at least link the sources of all your information.

    Very convincing, but what Lindzen does not say, is that he belongs to a one percent minority of scientists and that he, like many others of them, got money from the CO2 industry.

  4. How could we have such a lack of concensus. We are presented with overwhelming concencus from scientists that mit is the human caused greenhouse gmfrom documentarioes and activists and sometines school. Now there is the comolete opposite I'm not sure what to believe at this point

  5. My theory is and I am no scientist you go downtown buildings all around concrete everywhere asphalt is hotter than crap you go out in the country and it’s about 70° cooler and you can get a nice breeze and a lot of these people just don’t seem to understand but it’s so hot uptown yesterday is because I just got through pointing it out and I can’t believe it climate change happens every single year every day it’s nothing new find a dinosaur

  6. What an idiot!! I have seen so many of PragerU videos but this is a SHIT Video I've seen and I'm gonna unsubscribe to PragerU now..

  7. Intelligence: -100
    Also, this channel is funded by a FRACKING company. HMMMMMMMMM….. That video about media influencing you is a bit hypocritical dont you think?

  8. Nuclear energy is the future if we wish to stop green house gasses, for their potential destructive abilities

  9. FIrst I thought "well this sounds pretty reasonable". Then I learned he uses pretty much the same arguments to deny a correlation between smoking and lung cancer…

  10. ☝🏿😡 ¡ could save you from the satanists if you cut the crap and start an omnivore diet with me..,

  11. Global warming is a libtard idea to exploit the fears of the ill informed to keep their own political power.

  12. Let's say that we don't know if CO2 emission by human activities is the dominant factor behind climate change. But either it is or it isn't. If it is not the dominant factor, well, ok; but if it is such an important factor, and the climate can change in a dangerous way, then we'll better do something. So, as the first scenario is neutral, but the second is dangerously negative, even if we don't know which is the case, we'll be better reducing our emissions anyway.

  13. Hello, @PragerU. I do not want to insult the professor here, but I need to point out a few manipulations that I noticed in this video.

    1. Pointing the "2 subgroups" of scientists in parallel, suggesting that they are relatively equal and that the opinions on the climate change are divided in the scientific community. The fact is, the group that the professor belongs to is an almost negligible fraction of all the scientists and the scientific consensus on this subject is absolutely clear at this point.
    2. He had 5 minutes of chance to present data or evidence of any kind that would support his case. Instead, all he did was pointing out that he is "skeptical" (a.k.a. ignorant), he suggested that the goverments, corporations, activist organisations and media are lying to us. This is the classical conspiracy theorist technique of brainwashing that I can describe as "YOU'VE BEEN BRAINWASHED! NOW LISTEN TO ME, BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS WITH ME".
    3. No evidence given for his claim whatsoever, and full ignorance of the existing evidence. He said there is no evidence for this, no evidence for that – in fact there is plenty of evidence, but he either does not know it (which I doubt, because he surely has the knowledge at this level of scientific career), or chooses to ignore it and straight up lies to the viewers of this video. I don't know, is there a 3rd option?
    I understand that this video was out before the latest report from the IPCC. Anyway, the new report still did not change the opinion of the professor in question, which is just sad in my opinion.

  14. I'm on the fence with climate change. Some things I agree with, C02 is greenhouse gas, and we are putting more into the atmosphere. But the absolute certainty that we know the future is bogus. I work on petroleum pipelines, and have had experience with various leak detection tools. We have a closed system, with tons of telemetering, great historical data, many very intelligent PHD's working on differing systems. Yet, we struggle to implement systems that can detect small leaks in timely fashion. Things affecting the earth's climate are much more numerous and harder to measure. Visitors to Glacier National Park years ago saw signs that the Glaciers would be gone by 2020. As several of the glaciers have increased in size over the last few years, those signs have conveniently been removed. I'm not saying that we shouldn't reduce our dependency on fossil fuels for climate reasons, but also because they are limited, and needed for future generations for other needs.

  15. "The scenario that the burning of fossil fuels leads to catastrophe isn't part of what either goup asserts". This is a lie. Here's the IPCC's latest report, just read the title.

  16. If you have just a basic understanding of the causes behind man made climate change, you’ll see that this guy never gives any proof or explanation to his points.

    Let me explain. Scientists use what are called proxy records (ice cores, tree rings, etc) to see what air conditions were like throughout history. They have found that there is a link between CO2 content and the average temperature of the earth. When CO2 content increases energy being released by the earth is trapped, causing the earth to warm. As the earth warms, several positive feedback loops open up. One example of a feedback loop is ice melting. As ice melts due to increased temperature, the amount of ice surface area that rejects the sun’s rays is decreased, causing more energy to be absorbed and a greater temperature that starts the loop over.

    As we increase the CO2 levels in our atmosphere and remove carbon sinks such as forests, we increase the risk of a feedback loop opening up. It’s very possible that a small increase in temperature could start the snowball effect that makes our planet unliveable.

    So whatever “scientists” put this video together: please bring some facts to the table next time.

  17. Your very first statement is wrong already! It's not called climate change any more, the current Newspeak is climate crisis! 😉 Otherwise great job, great explanation and thanks for speaking out!

  18. Global warming is real. Temperature and climate has been changing …. you will be a fool not to feel the change ….

  19. Is this video being serious or is it just a joke? Climate Change is a FACT, not something to be discussed or debated. There are plenty of scientific papers and evidence to support it.

    Also, climate change is affecting our lives NOW not in 50 years.

    I'm surprised they put this on a university, oh wait, another lie.

  20. Thanks to this super convincing scientist man I am no longer worried about heat records broken in Europe, changes I have witnessed in my own country personally that are grim and seem irreversible. Now scientist man made everything ok again and I can go back to aerosol and fried dolphins. Science is amazing!

  21. So you mean to tell me that you can release millions if not billions of tons of carbon into the air and ocean without any negative effect at all? Because we know for a fact that carbon dioxide levels have historically been associated with higher average temperatures, I believe the Jurassic period was a notable example of this. And when you combine water and carbon dioxide you get carbonic acid, basically the same acid in soda, which can degrade and destroy the exoskeletons and shells of marine life which make up the foundation of most oceanic food chains. And if we manage to melt all the ice in the world we stand to lose a lot of land including most of America’s center, not that I’m mourning Missouri. Plus a rapid loss of heat in the North Atlantic could send Europe into another ice age, not that I’m mourning the loss of Europe either.
    If nothing else what’s the harm in assuming something is wrong? If we assume something is wrong and we fix it then we have a better world, even if nothing was wrong we’ve improved the world for future generations. If we assume nothing is wrong and don’t fix it only to find out something was wrong then we’ll probably be too late to fix it and we’ll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
    So weigh the odds here, we can do nothing and risk disaster or do something and potentially avert disaster. Do you really wanna take the risk of climate change being dangerous? Cuz we know it’s real. Because believe me, there are no second chances if we screw up earth.

  22. This is quite a good video. I think the politicians play the climate change game to win popular votes but also to introduce ‘green taxes’, which will ultimately lead to fuel poverty for the worst off in society, thus, tightening their grip on power. Us peasants can only buy and consume the basic things that sustain us.

  23. Good fact based explanation. Although I appreciate this video, I don’t think that anyone can deny that it’s getting hotter everywhere now, and climate change explains it. If we’re contributing to it via co2, what harm is there in reducing it?

  24. Follow the money! Green energy is trying to oust current energy providers by any means necessary!! Money and power is the name of the game!

  25. While the definition of "group 3" is sadly pretty accurate, It is nauseating to see such a biased comparition between "group 1" and "group 2".

    And for being such an expert, he purporsefully? makes seem like global warming and climate change are the same thing, when they are 2 different but related processes.

    I honestly expect that his papers/lectures are better than this video: poor alumni if not

  26. So this means the world isn’t going to end in 12 years ??? Omg thank you, I’m not going to spend my savings on hookers, drugs , new cars etc.. dam I hope I can get my old job back lol

  27. The minute I saw Tucker Carlson on this forum, I realized that this is a conservative-driven organization with a strong bias. Take it with a grain of salt.

  28. Why the hell is climate change political? Right or left, straight or gay, we only have one planet, one home. Whatever you believe in won't matter if we're all dead or just barely living in a world with a wrecked ecosystem

  29. I can't get plastic straws at the cinema anymore just these crappy paper ones, I'm sure the logging industry is grateful.

  30. Plant trees in cities etc etc. If CO2 is destroyed by trees then plant loads of them. Simple solution, but no, it's have the public pay trillions of Dollars to 'Climate Proof' LOL.

    Does anybody else see the reflection with the Y2K scam.

  31. America is the only country that actually is debating on this.

    Listen to the farmers, the weather directly affects them and when you have five generations of farmers and it wasn't this bad in their day, they know something is wrong.

    Also, if you think we can't affect the climate, remember the dust bowl.

  32. This guy still believes ManBearPig isn't real as he literally rips his head off, lol at these flat-earthers.

  33. We need to get AOC tied to a chair and her eyes pinned open (just like in "Clockwork Orange") and run this video 24/7 until she understands the truth! And only then might this harpie STFU about her "Green Raw Deal" and afford the world some sanity and peace about this topic!!

  34. Lo que me da risa de este tipo de vídeos es que te dicen las malvadas universidades, organización sin fines de lucro y científicos están conspirando contra las pobrecitas petroleras No existe el cambio climático y piensas aja te creo como no

  35. IPCC is under UN control which tells your everything you need to know about climate change.
    Its the perfect problem/reaction/solution scheme for them to push for Agenda 21 and justify its implementation as well as other fascists ideas.

    Another indicator displaying how its all just a scheme to get more control over us is the fact that most proposals to combat this challenge is by changing OUR lives. We the normal folks… the people have to change. Use public transportation, walk, run or ride on bicycles, give up our cars, pay a carbon tax, get smart meters installed and do all other sorts of crazy shit, give our freedoms and privacy to the state and so much more to save the planet. Really? We are the problem? I dont think so. If climate change was real, we the people would be the very LAST thing to talk about and reform. Government would be the NUMBER 1. Shrinking government. Shrinking the military. But try and ask the government if they would agree to give up their powers and influence and shrink by 50%? You already know the answer. After that its all the industries. We the normal people are not responsible for the majority of Co2 emissions but we are the focus of all their agendas. That alone gives away how its all a scheme.

  36. I'm all for efficiency. Wastefulness is not to be lauded. Whether climate change is real or not, we can all be more efficient and have a smaller footprint on the Earth. And it's not just burning fossil fuel, meat production is responsible for more hothouse gases than transport – mainly methane which is much more potent than CO2. And, of course, meat production is the number one reason for deforestation.

    Since the middle seventies, the temperature has only been going one way, albeit the rise is less than 1 degree C.

  37. A insane amount of stuff has occurred during the last few years since this Video, permafrost has started melting 70 years earlier then expected in short we’re gonna be in deep crap.

  38. Coke or Pepsi which ones better? The one writing the check (These "scientists" will say whatever they are told without any debate and their predictions have proven 100% wrong. They make a living at speculation and half truths

  39. This guy has a pretty long history of untrue and misleading statements:

  40. well worded and reasonable. I'm no scientist but I like to think I know logical arguments when I hear them.
    I don't support destruction of nature, but I could care less what the climate ultimately decides to do. Not a fan of environmentalism becoming this religion that's being pushed on everyone.

  41. I'm a big fan of conservatism as well as Prager U. Although I grew up in California and am now an Environmental Studies major. It's the only issue that I agree with mainstream scientific outlets about. That being said, the future of pollution and deforestation will not be solved with a $93 trillion dollar Green New Deal. It will be solved, like everything, with innovation, creativity, ingenuity, and the free market! Nuclear, according to the UN, is cleaner than solar. That's one step in the right direction. Face it people, we face two main crisis today in The United States. 1. Energy Crisis 2. National Debt. These issues branch down into everything imaginable. Trump 2020

  42. Yeah, well I’m Publishing a Comment that refutes All CO2 “Magic.”

    The trace has, CO2, doesn’t hold heat at night.

    CO2 is the same particles as any other atom, and None of them hold heat differently than CO2.

    Everyone is wrong, and they’re fooling the stupid.

  43. Yeah let's believe a video about climate change produced by a conservative youtube channel founded by billionaires wich got all their wealth through selling oil

  44. The guy makes some valid points thou
    For one example that he doesn't mention that in the middle ages one of the major factor that put end to the Viking raids of England was climate change
    The areas of Sweden and Norway became warm enough to support more serrious agriculture
    As i listened to the video it is apparent to me that this channel has its own leaning in the political spectrum
    Truth is there is no problem with that
    People always lean either right or left to varying degrees
    If You as a viewer want Absolute Truth
    My advice is to listen to all parties involved and take the mathematical avarage of what they say
    That should point you a bit closer to the answers you seek than joining one "fanclub"

  45. Mr. Lindzen, you're not a sceptic, you are a paid denier, not even accepted amongst genuine climate scientists for obvious reasons. You are proven to be on the payroll of fossil fuel companies. Prager U is mainly funded by the Wilks brothers, who are frecking billionaires. You are fooling your own people, plus your cherry picking in the graph you present and you even know it, which makes you even worse. You call yourself a scientist but look at data like a 3rd grade.

  46. See, this right here is the problem. There’s no more objective scientific interest in climate change. It’s a completely political issue, and both sides think they have the Real Science™.

    Look, conservatives, you don’t even need to believe in man made climate change to agree with the liberals that we need to move towards renewable energy. Don’t you know that our reliance on oil is the only thing keeping the west involved in the Middle East? Don’t you want us to stop supporting Islamic theocracies that use oil money to fund terrorists? Don’t you want the west out of the Middle East so the left no longer has an excuse to say we need to take in their migrants? Who cares about global warming, there are other highly pragmatic reasons to give up on oil.

  47. Ok this is absolute bullcrap , there is a strong scientific consensus that we humans due to our CO2 emissions are affecting the climate is drastique ways . Yes the climate has always been changing but never has it changed so rapidly like nowadays .

  48. I would advise anyone to open the link below, and read the 'funding' section. Trust me, all your questions about the value of this video will be answered.

  49. Can I get a a source on that first graph? I looked up average climate deviation and every graph I found with a scale above 20 years seems much more drastic. Could it be lateral scale? Is a 1 degree change not so bad?

  50. Say it goes up another 2 degrees by 2200. By then our technology will be advanced that will will be running everything on solar or electric.

  51. I don't understand the controversy, all oil ran out in 1998 20 years after I graduated, at least according to my teachers. They said there will be no more oil in 20 years!


  53. From what I understand climate scientists agree that climate is changing and humans at least are responsable for some of the change since 1960. If this Is the case I thinking we should take action, maybe the market comes with a solution maybe in alliance with the UN and with goverments of the world.

  54. Progressives doesnt care about facts and evidences. They believe global warming, gender ideology and socialism…what else you could expect from then? They are worse than the flat earth movement..

  55. I'm seeing a lot of interesting framing in the comments like:
    "Oh guess Prager U is conservative now"
    "Prager U now only listening to 3% of scientists"
    Among other things. But here is where you screw up. 1. Not all conservatives are on the "climate change is a myth" bandwagon so go screw yourself. 2. We should ONLY be listening to voices who's job it is to know about climate change.

    In this video the man stated that the climate is always changing. Even since before the 1800's climate has never been a constant. And he never stated that fossil fuels have no affect on the climate. Only that we don't for sure know the specific impact based on several other factors that also exist.

    We as people have this HUGE issue in assuming we know everything….. Literally always. And once our mind is made up, (even if it's not us making up our minds) we can ignore even blindingly true evidence against what we have already locked into our head. It's what makes us irrational. And something he said that almost no one commented on, was his want to have a discussion between group 1 who does slightly disagree with him, and group 2 of which he belongs. Because honestly everyday people and politicians are not qualified to talk like they know what's going on.

    We need to be able to objectively look at our own arguments. Because if you can't defend your argument against other ideas, then it's not a very sound argument. And ignoring facts also does not make you right.

  56. So many people are worried because Al Gore started this panic to gain money and power. Al Gore was worth about two and a half million dollars when he left the Vice Presidency. He has increased his wealth at least 50 fold since he started this hoax. He charges organizations $300 thousand dollars to speak to them about Climate Change. He preaches that the coasts of this country will be under water while he buys homes on the coast.


  58. Come on. I understand this channel is conservative. But idk if any political ideology can deny climate change.

  59. Scientists will say whatever the globalists who pay them want them to say. Climate Change is natural, there is nothing we can do.

  60. Global warming and climate change are not political. This man explained it at the end. Global warming doesnt give you acne nor it started the war in siria, but people need to be educated properly on the drastic sideaffects that these phenomenon will have in the future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *