Greed is the driving impetus of most of our contemporary human endeavor. The wealthy ARE the powerful "deciders" (G.W. Bush terminology) who determine the course and speed of the human trajectory. Therefore greed is Humanity's prime motivating force. Our untenable climate situation and egregious income disparities around the globe are prima facie evidence of those assertions. As a species, we have abandoned most of the historically-learned, culturally-shared, life-enhancing, humanistic wisdom that we have acquired over many millennia. Greed, more than an other factor, has blinded us to our own self-destructive behavior.
Reserves and supply of many metals and minerals are already in decline, including phosphorus and potassium, that will limit low emissions energy production and electrification. The cost of food production is 95% is fossil fuel input. Well past time for planned and managed global economic and population decline or face the chaotic, violent and revolubinary alternative.
Global warming is only one of multiple problems. Globel net debt to global GDP is estimated at 400%. Global reserves and supplies of fossil fuels are near or at permanent decline, already impacting with increasing cost.
X-Files Humans vs. Alien Vampires For a rich man (greed) to solve the climate crisis...is like trying to drive a camel through the eye of a needle. Because vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet.
Absolutely! Crop yields havr grown substantially over the past 60 years. Without that we would see millions more suffering from extreme poverty and starvation. That is what awaits us in the future if atmospheric CO2 is not allowed to continue rising well above its present level of 412 ppm. What is the optimum level of atmospheric CO2 for humanity as a whole. The answer is very clear. About 1600 ppm. Will that cause run away global warming. Emphatically No!
@@leonardharris1350 You, Sir are Stupendously Stupid. 23 thousand Climate scientists, all have a BS degree. Half of them have Master degrees and a third of them have phds. They use 23 earth orbiting satellites and 15 thousand earth temperature stations and work in teams all over the World to monitor the Warming Planet. Let me guess your credentials are you watch FOX News.
@@globalwarming382 You Sir are the one who is stupendously stupid as are the thousands of so called climate scientists you quote. It is not the number of 'scientists' who assert that something is true that matters. It is only the one scientist who observes and measures the real data and correctly interprets it that matters. Coinsensus science is not science. All the relevant facts regarding climate show that the Earth is not warming at the present time; that the polar ice caps are not melting away, and that the Earth has been much warmer in the recent past than it is now. Do you not know about the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods. Start looking at the actual scientific data rather than what the global elites have to say.
@@leonardharris1350 Ok right out the gate, 1st sentence-you thank your smarter than Scientists with PHDs that collect data with 23 of these 🛰 2nd sentence- it matters 💯 % that scientific facts get peer reviewed before being published as FACTS. 3rd sentence-peer reviewed on steroids. 4th sentence-Coinsensus IS Science. 5th sentence-your relevant facts , throw them in the 🗑. The data on CO2 420 ppm + CH4 1910 ppb = 152.8 ppm + 420 =572.8. Math, not taught in Bible school. 6th sentence-Never has earth seen CO2 above 350 in over 3 million years. 😳. 7th sentence- minoan got taken out by a record volcano 1500bc. Im sure it got 🔥 with molten 🪨 raining down on their party. Medieval warm period the same as we were at 2010, 1 degree C above holocene. The difference is man is burning 🔥 fossil carbon and letting the CO2 collect in the atmosphere. The same one your kids and grandkids and probably by your age great grandkids live in. We are a carbon life form. 3 states of carbon. Gas, liquid, and solid. Carbon passes light but blocks infrared light. More heat in than gets out. Global warming. Last sentence-scientists are not global elites. 90 % make less than $150.000 yearly. Thats what the global elites wipe their asses with. P.S. the global elites are the 2500 Billionaires that rape this planet of its resources and leave the toxic mess for us non elites to clean-up. Thank you republicans.
@@globalwarming382 Well it would seem that you are beyond redemption, but nonetheless I will try. First I am quite capable of looking at the evidence and thinking for myself. I do not need a PhD to do that nor does anyone else. I do not rely on others to think for me or to tell me what to think. If CO2 at vastly higher levels was not a problem for our primate ancestors 8 million years ago, why should it be a problem now. The Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than today. There were highly productive vineyards in Yorkshire. Try doing that today! People like Michael Mann are not true scientists. He is simply a highly paid servant of the global elites. Simple question, why will he not publish his methods and data? Any true scientist would do so readily. And welcome others to check his work. Your motives are political, not scientific. Try looking at the actual data yourself, and thinking for yourself. You will find it quite refreshing.
Seeing that so many professors are so concerned about the impoverished in our world, perhaps they would agree to reduce their salaries to $50k a year & redistribute the income to the poor.
This would have been a more interesting talk if the professor has not injected so much of his own personal politics in the lecture. There is much to like about the subject and is worth discussing, but when speaking from a professorial point of view you should strive to remain more or less neutral, especially when your subtext is clearly to convince the unconvinced. But I need no convincing, and I see the writing on the wall as much as you do. But in spite of the fact that I'm generally on board, I'm actually turned off by your tone and your style. If you lose people like me who are already long ago convinced, imagine how you are received among those who opinion you seek to change. To my way of thinking, it is in fact the "pseudo-learned class" you represent that has more damaged the climate conversation than so-called "climate skeptics". You must be completely tone-deaf to how you sound to others except those of your class. The irony is rich when people like you is why people vote for Trump. But you just don't see that do you? Or is it just me?
Assuming you actually have looked, you might be referring to the piocene, 3 millions years ago, when it was also much warmer, and the Greenlant ice sheet did not yet exist. But you must already know all that, given that you surely must have actually "looked" at the historic levels? Or are you just repeating something you've heard somewhere?
