2024 - Keynote - Global and National Energy Security and Geopolitics - Mark P. Mills 

Am i going mad thought i saw this guy chatting on Nate Hagen's Channel, but i cant find it. I was going to go back & listen because my gut said so - things wernt adding up & i felt Nate should have called him out on a few things. Im all for green realism - inc use the FF & ICEs weve got in the narrow window to transition, but my ben shapiro feeling is this guy is off. I might be wrong especially since i cant find the original Nate chat & I havent even finished this one.

@@garrenosborne9623 You must be thinking of Art Berman.

Yes, increased tech increases energy consumption, climate change and ecological collapse is on going and accelerating now. The future is now. Reality 101.

That is the popular narrative but it is wrong.

@@donbowen7826 really what specifically is wrong about it? Because the last time I looked scientific facts aren't narrative

And he spends endless time on the problems of EV's which are nor even a partial answer. Oil is essential for our civilization and it will kill us. End of story.

Thanks @JonathanLoganPDX. My 2€. 1) According to Dr. William Happer, The burning of fossil fuels releases embodied carbon which was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago by plants and animals. 2) This carbon in the form of atmospheric CO2 absorbs a percentage of the radiation from the sun, which makes it commonly referred to as a greenhouse gas. 3) There is currently around 420 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere which is up from 180 ppm in 1850. That’s averages about 1.4 ppm increase per year. Please share with us the science which proves that increase is due entirely to the burning of fossil fuels rather than the offgassing of carbon dioxide from the world’s oceans. The IPC ha Thanks @JonathanLoganPDX. My 2€. 1) According to Dr. Patrick Moore, The burning of fossil fuels releases embodied carbon which was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago by plants and animals. 2) This carbon in the form of atmospheric CO2 absorbs a percentage of the radiation from the sun, which makes it commonly referred to as a greenhouse gas. Dr. Van Wijngaarden and Dr. William Happer have found in their paper on radiative transfer for five greenhouse gases that a 100% increase of CO2 (doubling) in the atmosphere only reduces radiation to space by 1%. Therefore, increases in CO2 could only account for a small fraction of the current temperature increase. 3) There is currently around 420 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere which is up from 180 ppm in 1850. That’s averages about 1.4 ppm increase per year. Please share with us the science which proves that increase is due entirely to the burning of fossil fuels rather than the offgassing of carbon dioxide from the world’s oceans as stated by Dr. Patrick Moore. The IPC has recently revised its of atmosphere temperature rise since 1850 down to 1.5 C. Dr. Willy Soon et al has proven in a recent paper that the IPCC data has been tainted by the urban heat island effect of some weather stations being increasingly surrounded by urbanization over that time. His analysis shows that the actual increase is 0.7 C. In another study, he shows that increase in temperature coinciding with increased solar activity. More study is necessary. 4) Yes, the use of fossil fuels is increasing as the world’s poorest are lifted out of abject poverty at the rate of 160,000 people per day! Also, and more importantly, the energy needs for cloud computing and AI are increasing exponentially. 5) My understanding from Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Steve Koonin is that the basis for this “prediction“ comes from climate models, which the IPCC admits are unsuitable for policy. In fact, these models disagree with each other more than the margin of error of their predictions. 6) Same reply as in 5. Also, Dr. Patrick Moore states that it is inaccurate to say that the seas are becoming more acid and that the increase of CO2 has fostered the greening of formally desert land in an amount equal to the continental United States since 1980. 7) Same reply as in 5. Also, according to Bjorn Lomborg who does not doubt that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, it is the increased CO2, the widespread use of fertilizer, and the slightly warmer climate with longer growing seasons which has led to ever increasing crop yields making food much more affordable and thereby has dramatically increased nutrition in the third world which has led to better health and longer lives. His research estimates that the population will be 445% richer in the year 2100 rather than 450% richer, the slight loss being due to the negative impacts of global warming. 8) Same reply as in 7. Dr. Richard Lindzen states in part ‘…that the research literature does not support the claim of a climate emergency. Nor will there be one. None of the lurid predictions - dangerously accelerating, sea-level rise, increasingly extreme weather, more deadly forest fires, unprecedented warming, etc. - are any more accurate than the fire-and-brimstone sermons used to stoke fanaticism in medieval crusaders.’

*hypothetical climate catastrophe

There is no conequence of climate change that we can't handle with our current solutions.

@@hunterseufert8066 Not if you don't have an A.C.

@@chrisconklin2981 Not sure what you're getting at. If everyone has an AC, doesn't global warming sky rocket? Does having an AC matter in some way? Shouldn't you be more worried about those who don't have a heater since more people die from cold temperatures than from warm?

@@hunterseufert8066 You are correct, according to Our World more people die from the cold and I would add: at the present time. The issue is that with global warming induced high temperatures this will lead to many areas becoming uninhabitable. Poor people cannot afford mechanical cooling (AC).

It depends what lifestyle you think people should expect

Nope its the false problem, its always the behaviour, as south park might put it compare 1000 starvin marvins & their families in Africa resource consumption vs 1 CEO. People who worry about overpopulation are about 40+ years out of date on the research & tend to blame other usually poor countries & poor people. And strangely dont blame the rich & their ill gotten gains & resisitance to changing their behaviour.

That's because the "renewable energy experts" are intolerant pseudo-scientists.

This symposium is sponsored by the oil and gas industry.

Oh boy. You are so energy blind.

Superabundance barely an inconvenience

We have oil and gas left for over a century at least.