Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

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.

100 Comments on "Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?"


  1. If you do a little bit of research, his credentials are bogus. He rides the MIT credibility train but he hasn't been a professor there since 2013 and now serves on a conservative panel in DC. He's as much a politician nowadays as the ones he criticizes. He even goes as far as to discredit the current MIT professors saying that they are politically biased when he himself relies on "climate deniers" to back-up his arguments and sign his petitions, as opposed to his science peers.

    "As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors."

    Source: google his name, it's all over the very first page.

    Reply

  2. Whats up with all these right-wing idiots claiming that 16 year old greta only wants money and power???

    Reply

  3. Awesome right wing propaganda funded by the fossil fuel industry. You guys really did a good job hiding behind some projected objectivity, de contexuralizing the ipcc's report and putting a "skeptic" who offered no evidence to refute which for now is the null hypothesis that man made emissions are driving global warming and causing a climate crisis, extreme weather events, and ecological collapse across the Earth. It is a good to be a skeptic, but you need to use data and thinking not just your feelings. Okay global warming deniers?

    Reply

  4. what he doesn't tell you is that 97% of all scientists agree on that climate change is real, and the other 3% are scientists funded by private corporations. IPPC is not under one government so no government gets any hands on the say-so they gain nothing they are scientist from all over the world plus who gains from this if it was fake politicians get paid millions from fossil fuel companies so why would they speak ill will about them, scientist, what would they gain from it their entire careers are on the line and if they sell short on a quick buck then their name in the science world would be tarnished and they would no longer would be able to do anything and have anyone believe them no matter the proof so no one gains anything from this tbh. But to each their own.

    Reply

  5. Does anyone believe anything the UN says? It's been turned into a despotic organisation run by totalitarian regimes.

    Reply

  6. The basic issue with all climate change deniers can be quickly summed up in this one statement – "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." This sentence takes the time period when man was first able to accurately measure the emissions and understand what they meant and turns it into the only time the emissions had value. Which is a logical falsehood. It also acknowledges the fact that mankind has been emitting enough CO2 and other greenhouse substances to have a negative affect, but does so in a shrewd enough manner to minimize it in the reader's view. But the acknowledgement is there nonetheless. How could it not be? Of course we are affecting our environment with these emissions. It's wholly illogical to presume otherwise. The true issue at hand is not whether we are or not, it's why people think we don't have to clean up our environment during and after we have used it? You prepare a meal, you clean the surfaces. You wash your hands, you put away your clothes, you close doors behind you…so why would you pollute the air you breathe, the soil that produces your food and the water you drink? You should WANT to harness renewable energy, pollute as little as possible, recycle as much as you can and create, in general, as little waste as possible which in turn will stave off excessive, man-altered climate change. (Psst, we'd all be healthier too!)

    Reply

  7. 0:18
    This graph does not convey the right message.
    This graph shows the speed of temperature changes over time, rather than actual global temperature, making it seem like the actual global temperature is fluctuating constantly. Along with this, the graph is mostly positive increases in temperature, above 0, yet the average-line seems a lot like a 0-degree line, considering the actual 0 isn't marked on the graph the same way the average-line is. Besides that, the source of the graph or how the data on the graph shown is never explicitly shown. The graph TECHNICALLY showing its data correctly, but the way it's presented conveys a totally different message than what the data shows.

    Reply

  8. He’s right, the climate will have the final word. When the last patch of ice at the North Pole is melted and eastern coast of the sea board is underwater the climate will
    most certainly have the last word.

    Reply

  9. I'm sorry, I prefer not to recieve facts about climate change from people who are being funded by big oil/coal/fossil fuel industries.

    Reply

  10. The largest atmospheric polluter is the vast commercial aviation industry, which is said to double in size so it can still accommodate the increasing numbers of people travelling all over the globe just for fun, encouraged to do so by a number of TV travelling programs.

    Reply

  11. The scientists are not going to save the world, but they will destroy the world instead.
    Ancient wars use to be fought with bows and arrows, and swords. But the scientists changed all that. Now wars are fought with fighter Jets, 2-ton- plus bombs, nuclear missiles are on standby locked and loaded, unimaginable destructive military hardware is often on military parades. The end of the world is near, but not by climate change, but by nuclear exchange. Not if, but when!

    Reply

  12. His view is definitely in the minority. He's a big time scientist but he is also insanely contrarian. He argued for the longest time that the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is weak. Prager U is a very partisan NGO.

    I think generally he makes some good points of objection but you shouldn't stop with him. He does get paid by coal companies.

    He also said almost 15 years ago that the world's temperature would drop.

    That said, the math behind climate change is tricky. Plants have increased in size so as to absorb more carbon emissions. But there's still a huge excess that's unaccounted for in the atmosphere, like 40% not used yet.

    Interesting video but people actually need to study this topic over watching propaganda sites. Same goes for activists.

    Reply

  13. The most shocking thing is that this professor teaches at MIT. A logical smart person teaches college. At MIT! There may be hope for our educational system after all.

    Reply

  14. The only “tiny” difference is that scientists belonging to group 1 are 99% of the scientific community, those belonging to group 2 are 0,1%.

    Reply

  15. Wouldn't the most accurate way of finding out if we are causing a major change in the climate be:

    1. Find out what current natural climate cycle we are in now,
    2. Find a similar natural climate cycle through history,
    3. Then compare those two to see if there is a big difference?

    Reply

  16. What a well balanced clear concise and believable talk that was. And kind of reassuring. Yes, emissions and cows farting do add to the CO2 production, but these are potentially manageable and not in themselves an existential threat. There are a number of factors that contribute to the modest increase in temperatures, and contrary to what potential Nobel Peace prize nominee (FFS!) Miss Greta Thunberg says ( aged 16 – so naturally she's had years to study the evidence), I don't feel guilty for driving my car to work, and I don't believe I've condemned my children and grandchildren to an early grave.

    Reply

  17. Let me give you a tip, people who never went to an actual University: when your "professor" doesn't introduce himself by name, nor does the platform find it right to introduce him by any means, he's not a Professor, it's not a university, and you are a fool watching foolishness on YouTube. When he shows no credentials and gives no citations, and refers you to no sources, he is telling you: "yes, I'm a fraud, but at least I know my audience, You! You don't expect me to have any actual authority, I'm on the internet, immarite? ;)"
    And he is.

    Reply

  18. It was not at all shocking to find out that Prager U is largely funded by the Wilkes brothers who are petroloium industry businessmen and made huge amounts of money by fracking… look it up

    Reply

  19. As I remover, environmentalist were screaming during the 60’s that if we did not stop the growth of industry, the planet would freeze before the year 2000. Now they say we will kill all life in 12 years. WTF??? Make up your mind, or shut up.

    Reply

  20. This guy is out dated and influenced by conservative think tank. He is not objectiv at all and not even respected by his pairs. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

    Reply

  21. Most of the 1.8 F increase happened between 1980 and now, not between 1800 and 1980. please do not use misleading information in an age where anybody can google search.
    Even if there is not a definitive absolute proof, does not mean that it is safer to assume there is a correlation between human activity and global warming.

    Reply

  22. A man with no credentials, speaking for a well funded propaganda channel? What could possibly be the motive? It's like a puzzle but a hard one… Wait! Can there be some reason for a world dominating oil company to not want people to know how they're killing the rest of us?! No! No way

    Reply

  23. If we can block out part of the sun, then climate change would be less of issue, but then we’d be left with an energy problem.

    Reply

  24. I still have not heard an answer as to why 1) all the prediction models of the global warming "scientists" from the 1990's, early 2000's have all failed miserably (ie Mann's hockey stick) 2) Since 1998 the increase in CO2 emission has continued at the same rate but the temperature increase has flat lined since then (correlation?)

    Reply

  25. There should be a group 3. True scientists. You shouldn't have beliefs as a scientist.

    Edit: mostly I mean you shouldnt have beliefs impact your career in a manner which inhibits actual science.

    Reply

  26. Ooop, this guy said it’s a hoax. So it must be a hoax! You peeps keep talking about climate change politicians as being power hungry, yet dismiss the argument of current money/power hungry politicians of keeping the status quo. That’s funny to me. Smh

    Reply

  27. Climate change is used as a ploy to suck more tax out of people to supposedly either fund renewable energy or deter and discourage people using said "climate-harmful" subjects. But most often it is used so that the extra tax gained can be pocketed by the politicians and their close groups.

    Reply

  28. If he ignores all the evidences, he isn't even able to understand climate change and its consequences. Sceptism isnt a bad thing, but ignorance is.

    Reply

  29. Well he might be an atmospheric scientist, but he's no mechanical engineer like Bill Nye!!! I think we all know who we should listen to.

    Reply

  30. It's very well known that he is sponsored by big oil, and has been since the early 90's. Also his former colleges at MIT has debunked his claims – what a duch!

    Reply

  31. I wonder how many people only like this video because it absolves them from taking any responsibility or curtailing their selfish relentless consumption. They mock how gullible others are, after they watched one video on YouTube that told them exactly what they wanted to hear. Of course they didn't fact check it, because they don't want to run the risk of finding out it's not true. Then they might feel uncomfortable. Just believe what you want to believe, everybody. Stay safe, ignore everything inconvenient to you and despise those who remind you of it. Good job

    Reply

  32. But what about the impacts of Climate Change on environment? Like the Gulf Stream?

    https://youtu.be/UuGrBhK2c7U

    Reply

  33. You know what? The group 1 scientists know about the sun, clouds, ocean, orbital variations of the Earth, and many more — and you are just a dick, Dick and your "points" are straw men. You should know better. Shame on you.

    Reply

  34. On Point 4 starting at 2:22 — So, Dick, you are saying that we can determine the effect of CO2 on global temperature? Doesn't that contradict your main thesis, that it is not a strong forcing? Or have you found a way to somehow ignore all the CO2 we are taking from solid Earth pools and injecting into the air? What is your explanation for the observed warming? –"We don't know"? –"God did it"? –"the Sun got brighter"? –"It's about to get a lot cooler"? What??

    On Point 5 starting at 2:44 — What do you make of the paleoclimate record that strongly indicates that CO2 is a strong forcing at a variety of time scales? E.g., https://youtu.be/ujkcTZZlikg and all the published work this synthesis is based upon. No modeling required, pure observation. The 2007 IPCC report was — let's see — 12 years ago and science has progressed since then. Again, more skepticism is required, like here: https://www.realskeptic.com/video/the-ipcc-cant-predict-future-climates/

    People are panic-stricken for reasons that ought to be apparent to someone with your alleged level of knowledge on the climate system: because — all else being equal — what we do now will determine the atmosphere, climate, and ocean that our children have to live in. Moreover, what we do now may mean that there is nothing that they could do to stop it. Elegantly stated by someone else, "we are the first generation to understand this problem — and we are the last who will be able to do anything about it".

    Finally, ask yourself dear reader why someone as eminent as MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen would stoop to make a video for a fake university. For crying out loud: BE SKEPTICAL.

    Reply

  35. We learn a lot of things on the internet but when we try to tell people it's regarded as conspiracy nonsense!

    Reply

  36. I bet there are plenty of Climate Alarmists watching this from the comfort of their ocean front mansions, with the air conditioning blasting and windows wide open. Of course they'd also be planning their next vacation on the other side of the world and griping about all the common people that dare to drive their cars to work. The longer I live the more aware I become of all the hypocrisy in the world!

    Reply

  37. I mean, it's not really a problem of climate change caused by fossil fuels, but rather a problem of eventually running out of fossil fuels in the next 100 years. Given all the info I've seen, we should switch to renewable energy, but we should take our time to make our energy collectors as cheap and cost-efficient as possible. We should also focus on waste collection and management, like what 4Ocean is doing. I hope this vid doesn't get taken down.

    Reply

  38. What a great summary. This video should be seen by everyone regardless of their views, just to clear the air. Literally.

    Reply

  39. I do wish that the idiots would stop using the word "scientist". It is like that is a magic wand that is supposed to stop any disagreement. If you are going to reference a "scientist" at least make sure they are in a related field. I mean, they reference Bill Nye who has absolutely no training in climate. Of course, most of the ones who do are being paid to come up with the data to support their agenda. Just remember, the Earth only had 12 years to go over 40 years ago.

    Reply

  40. haha, quoting a 10+ year old paper is pretty sad. that's basically ancient history in the modern world

    what about the group of crony capitalists who jump on coal and gas subsidies?
    What about that group 2 that get lavish speaking fees for their contrarian views by mineral extraction companies and others because they're desperate to be allowed to keep polluting?
    "Global warming caused Syria? tee hee that's silly" One of the leading causes of instability leading up to the conflict was crop kill from a drought that was worsened by rising temperatures that prevented rain fall in traditional regions

    Reply

  41. This video's corrected title: Climate Change: What Do Denier Propagandists Say?
    If you have an eighth grade education, you might have noticed that much of his argument would apply equally well if he were trying to help the Tobacco anti-science propaganda effort rather than the denier propaganda effort. (Of course, there's a great deal of personnel overlap between the Big Tobaccoo anti-science propaganda scumbags, and the denier scumbags.)

    Reply

  42. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNkVGiSgOM4 This man cannot see the Sea for all the intellectual waves in the way.

    Reply

  43. It's good to hear from this scientist, but why is he on a political channel? Science shouldn't be mixed with politics. Climate change isn't about left or right politics, and just because you're on the right, doesn't mean you should be a climate skeptic or vice versa for the left.

    Reply

  44. If u want irrefutable proof of Correlation being proof of Causation, consider this example. Shark attacks show exactly the same binomial distribution in summer as ice cream consumption. If we could only discourage people from eating ice cream and going to the beach, we could save lives. On the other hand if we could reduce CO2 to 150ppm, all plant life would die, then humans would follow not long after. Alas sharks would then have nothing to eat, Damn! Conclusion: a virtual computer model designed with parameters including shark attacks, ice cream and atmospheric CO2, could accurate make predictions of future population growth. Right? This is the sad state of climagate and its evidence base for predicting how man is adversely hcontrolling climate change.

    Reply

  45. prageru is funded by dan and farris wilks, billionaires who made their money off of fracking and oil. perhaps not the most unbiased source.

    Reply

  46. I believe from reading all the reports I can get my hands on that the climate is changing faster than is natural. If I am proved wrong in ten years time, I shall apologize. I hope we can expect the same from the deniers.

    Reply

  47. "Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist" Who has been told by MIT he is totally wrong.
    "and one of the world's leading climatologists, " In his own mind.

    Reply

  48. Group 3 must have been the clowns from the 70's that thought there was going to be a second Ice Age since they love doomsdays so much.

    Reply

  49. There Is No Radiative Greenhouse Effect https://principia-scientific.org/webcast-no-radiative-greenhouse-effect/

    Reply

  50. They say no more polar ice caps they are still there no more snow in England it snows in England it snows in Louisiana, earth is cold

    Reply

  51. This doesn't argue that we shouldn't find new energy sources, it only argues that little is actually known about climate change. People who dislike this video missed the point.

    Reply

  52. Children are our future.
    And don't argue with children.
    Good luck in the future kids.
    Don't forget we tried us old ones you blame.

    Reply

  53. i mean it is a problem but i would argue that most don’t fully understand HOW it will kill us, it seems most seem to think it will kill us like living in an oven but it will be more likely we’ll have less land to live on (because of how the temperature will affect crop growth) and the shortage along with human nature will make us kill ourselves or have I miss understood something (not an expert on the subject) if this is the case surely one way to fix this would be through change how we grow food and what we eat

    Reply

  54. Thank you for finally making a video debunking climate change science that has a Title that will get people who believe in climate change to potentially watch it. You can debunk climate change all day long but if you post your videos and title them "Climate Change isn't Real you Liberal Snowflakes!!" Nobody who doesn't already agree with you is ever going to watch or listen.

    Reply

  55. Why is it our friends in Europe have bought in so fanatical about the global warming scam? How can Europe…the epicenter of the civilized world be so stupid?

    Reply

  56. IPCC is the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged. The Petition Project was signed by 31000+ people with at least a Bachelor of Science degree. Compare them…

    Reply

  57. I don’t think new innovations such as an electric car or solar panels can do any more harm then burning fossil fuels; So personally I’d rather stay on the safe side, but I am glad to accept this video and it’s facts as true and I am grateful to have watched it to gain a new perspective. (Also be mindful of how we treat the planet, even if the big problem isn’t global warming, that doesn’t mean deforestation/loss of environments and artificial chemicals/plastics belong in the airs, oceans, and woods. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read this.

    Reply

  58. I noticed XR 'sanitize' their comments sections and remove successful
    dissenters, like me, who know how to argue in a respectful and factual
    way. They do leave a few rambling ones. So nobody comments on
    my comments anymore. Talking about "Telling The Truth".

    Reply

  59. PragerU, an organisation funded mostly by petrol money, hires a skeptic to talk about climate change. That is the core of group three. This video is part of group three. It is about money, politics and power – and NOT about the truth of the matter.
    Richard Lindzen may consider himself part of group two, but PragerU is definitely not.

    Reply

  60. This man is misleading people by not mentioning all the facts. His 4th fact that it's only been since the 1960s that greenhouse emissions have played a role is true. However he "forgets" to mention that research also has shown that while temperature has been rising since the 1850s, the increase has also accelerated(picked up speed) since the 1970s. Why doesn't Lindzen mention this? Because that doesn't fit his narrative. If you look at his wikipedia page he is a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company!

    Reply

  61. You don't have to be a scientist to see how the climate has changed over the history of our planet. The great deserts where once forests. Ice ages come in cycles. A human life is fleeting, so when we have a bit of bad/unusual weather it comes as a surprise. Our ancestors must have thought similar when the last Ice age hit. And it hit quickly. The majority simply don't understand time scale. Which plays into the hands of climate change alarmists. If the planets history was a 12 hour clock humans would have only been here being industrious (last 200 years making stuff on mass making a bit of a mess) for less than one tenth of a second. C02 is stored in everything. Nature is responsible for 99.9% of all CO2 release. The ocean has vast pockets which can be released at any given moment. So do some volcanic fresh water lakes. Google 1986 lake Nyos. Trees capture carbon yet when they die and decay they release it back. We have no control over nature. All we are capable of in making isolated mess. Which is wrong, but we are only screwing ourselves doing so, it won't affect the planet. Even huge oil spills if left unattended are cleaned up by nature. Ultimately the sun controls the climate. It's a nuclear furnace one hundred times the size of the earth we have no control over it. Study the sun to understand climate change, there are other smaller localised factors but ultimately it's the sun that changes the climate. It is being totally overlooked which makes zero sense. Maybe its because we have no control over it? Just as we have no control over tiny things by comparison, like volcano's. We are about to start the next ice age which no doubt be turned around to be humans fault. No I am not a scientist, but do have the ability to think freely and am able to apply commonsense. Do this and you can see just what a gaint scam man made globle warming has become. It is simply a method of tax and control of the masses. No different to how religion was used to keep the masses in check in the past. Yes let's clean up after ourselves, and look after our one and only home, but ultimately we are just along for the ride. Nature is in control. If you want to worry about stuff we still just about have control over maybe think about over population. Or Al either of which could be our self inflicted undoing.

    Reply

  62. So what part of the science is he skeptical about? I missed that part. Probably because he didn’t talk about the science.

    Oh politicians are paying attention to what the vast majority of scientists have been warning about for decades and are considering implementing policy to address the problem? How horrible!

    You’ll notice nothing in this video addresses any science or debunks any arguments. The whole goal here is just to plant doubt in your mind so you don’t take any action. If you’re unsure about this important issue I recommend studying it yourself.

    Reply

  63. A graph showing a relationship between CO2 and temperature DOES NOT give you causality. Increased CO2 is associated with increased temperature, but you cannot infer what causes what just by that graph.

    Also, a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, is not evidence. Scientists can vote on the speculation that CO2 causes increased temperature, but this is NOT a replacement for actual evidence.

    Reply

  64. the quote at 3:05 is fake, you can verify yourself: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg3_full_report-1.pdf

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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