Let's not leave out Aaron Harber, he asked all the tough questions in a respectful way and got full and complete answers, you could not ask for anything more. Thank you Aaron.

@erickkylo3857

3 жыл бұрын

i guess it is kinda randomly asking but do anybody know a good site to watch newly released movies online ?

@bowenantonio3302

3 жыл бұрын

@Erick Kylo i watch on flixzone. Just search on google for it =)

@brycenvictor2714

3 жыл бұрын

@Bowen Antonio yea, I have been watching on FlixZone for since april myself :)

@chapter4travels

3 жыл бұрын

@@erickkylo3857 Why are you spamming such an obscure video with so few views?

@chapter4travels

3 жыл бұрын

@@bowenantonio3302 Why are you spamming such an obscure video with so few views?

I have read his book and watched several of his talks. This is Alex Epstein at his best, enjoy.

@johnschlenker3509

7 жыл бұрын

Greg Whi

@steve.schatz

5 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Am going to reread his book. Ready for a sequel.

I like how Alex deconstructs Aaron's questions and puts each element in perspective.

@JD..........

5 жыл бұрын

Still great questions that needed to be asked!

Wow, a lot of food for thought there, from a very eloquent speaker. I wish more people in the climate debate were talking as clearly as Alex.

@Scottar50

5 жыл бұрын

I don't find him too clear but he is mostly right on.

@reinhardweiss

5 жыл бұрын

Björn Morén i believe most on the skeptics side are, while the climascam frauds generally are dismissive and abusive. Just from a higher viewpoint... if one side is engaging the debate while the other is saying ‘there is NO debate”, it is fairly obvious that the alarmists cannot win so they default

This is by far the most eloquent interview/debate I've seen Alex partake in. I always knew he was a smart dude. but his ability to dismantle every single question/objection without blinking an eye.. and his complete ability to summarize his ideas in a way any layman can understand is absolutely fantastic! I just ordered his book based on this interview.

@misscameroon8062

Жыл бұрын

that`s a one silly comment; wtf means an eloquent interview;what about one meritorious interview, for a change?

@DavidRussellmotorcyles

Жыл бұрын

@@misscameroon8062 The ability to fully articulate your position from every angle - as well as your opponents -in an eloquent fashion is an intellectual trait everyone should strive for. Also, a meritorious debate is not mutually exclusive of an eloquently reasoned one.

@misscameroon8062

Жыл бұрын

@@DavidRussellmotorcyles eloquence for eloquence sake is just exercise in mental masturbation ;might be somewhat satisfying but short lived and leaving one wanting some substance...

@DavidRussellmotorcyles

Жыл бұрын

@@misscameroon8062 I didn't say nor did i elude to "eloquence for eloquence sake". That's something you made up in your head. Being able to fully articulate your ideas and reasoning falls under the realm of eloquent discussion, which is the backbone of a substantive debate....Your poor English grammar makes me think that perhaps you don't quite understand the context of "eloquent" in my initial comment.

@misscameroon8062

Жыл бұрын

@@DavidRussellmotorcyles you know you can do with your vacuous eloquence; you can stick up right up your arse,so it will be expelled right with your substantive 'correct' grammatical bs!

Great format -Rapidfire questions, quick answer! Brilliant guest! Great answers! I watched twice.

Alex, did a fine job. Sometimes Alex can get a bit rambly as evidenced in other interviews but this was great practice for Alex to get to the main point. This is very difficult to do. Many of us could us practice in communicating in this way. I absolutely enjoyed and appreciated Aaron's questions and the way he interacted with Alex. Thank you.

Alex’s arguments are compelling and logically argued. He not only has a solid layman's understanding of the scientific details of climate science, but more importantly, he understands the full context in which the issue of “climate change” arises, e.g., the nature of human life, liberty, science, technology, energy, and history, rather than focusing too narrowly on issues like average global temperature, where too many professional environmentalists and climate modelers jump to broad, unjustified apocalyptic conclusions. The result of listening to Alex is to gain an eye-opening, objective understanding of how to think about climate change and the environment. It is definitely worthwhile to ready his best-selling book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

@patricklincoln5942

5 жыл бұрын

You wrote: "He not only has a solid layman's understanding of the scientific details of climate science, but more importantly, he understands the full context in which the issue of “climate change” No No No. He is either dishonest or severely misinformed on climate science. He is spewing a lot of bullshit out of his mouth in particular his comments near the start of his interview, where he says that we couldn't get to 2 degrees if we wanted to and that models have not predicted the future are just so far removed from reality, that I have to call this Alex Epstein out for the quack that he is and you should to.

@Scottar50

5 жыл бұрын

@@patricklincoln5942 You are an armchair, clueless, BSer.

@patricklincoln5942

5 жыл бұрын

@@Scottar50: The vast majority of climatologists are telling us that it will be a tough assignment for humanity to keep warming below 2 degrees (which is also mentioned in the IPCC). How does this make me an armchair? What did I miss. Why does this guy think he knows better than all these scientists?

@TeaParty1776

5 жыл бұрын

@@patricklincoln5942 You evade evaluating the 2 degrees as good or bad for man. Epstein claims to evaluate warming differently, not that he knows more science. Many scientists are neo-primitive nature worshippers,who, like primitive savages, want man to be sacrificed to wild nature. They hate mans need to transform nature. This is independent of science but many scientists use it as hidden context.

@patricklincoln5942

5 жыл бұрын

@@TeaParty1776: "They hate mans need to transform nature. This is independent of science but many scientists use it as hidden context." I am not one of these neo-primitive nature worshippers. I know who you are talking about and they are a minority. Withink Ecology, the majority agree, however, that we have grown to large for the environment to be able to sustain our global society. We need 1.7 earths of land to support ourselves in the sense that the amount of land needed to take out the CO2 we emit, grow our food, be in place for our fisheries and buildings etc is 1.7 earths of land. This just wont work long term. We need to consume less. You can do this by shrinking consumption per person, shrinking the population size or a combination thereof. The established need for this has something to do with the primitive worshipers". But we need to recognize that problem and act in a coordinated way. Scientists have established that 2 degree is a problem. Just 4 degrees colder than preindustrial was an ice age. So it makes a difference. Unless you have evidence that something is wrong, it doesn't really make sense to question scientists who are telling us that 2 degrees is a disaster. We are already having trouble at 1 degree.

This guy would be perfect as Trump's Energy secretary.

@TeaParty1776

5 жыл бұрын

Pragmatists dont hire principled people.

@Jemalacane0

4 жыл бұрын

Nah! Rachel Pritzker or Michael Shellenberger would be.

Excellent discussion...

Love this to the point interview. Both speakers aren’t adding in bs.

Yeah, I appreciate how Aaron is respectful and open minded to Alex's answers. I appreciate them both for speaking so respectfully.

@misscameroon8062

Жыл бұрын

wtf, what good does respectful talk do, if somebody talks bullshit? here ,though Alex(bravo young man !) wipes out all these EPA ,bogus government regulations, which make everybody crazy and the corporations and politicians rich

Some stock market prediction algorithms fall into this problem of predicting past data, but can't predict the future. It's a common problem is predicting any stochastic system and of complexity theory. There are stock prediction algorithms that work better than 50% some of the time, we could develop models to predict climate in the short term if the goal were real climate prediction and not politically motivated confirmation bias.

This man is so sharp..."send them a copy of the constitution...it's not a mystery that freedom is the key to success and wealth..." I would add trust as critical to prosperity

"and they're obsessed with these little fluctuations in weather." lol Truer words have rarely been spoken.

I'd like to see Alex debate against Noam Chomsky

@TeaParty1776

7 жыл бұрын

Wait until Chomsky discovers the alleged subjective language structures for which he is unjustly praised.

@Scottar50

5 жыл бұрын

That would be a good debate.

This video should have 4 million views not 4,000.

Great show. Amazing guest!

Alex Epstein...Presidential candidate 2020.

@stuffedchicken3627

5 жыл бұрын

I hope he doesn't lower himself to such positions.

Best argument I’ve heard Alex.

The point about externalities is 100% correct. You can justify basically any policy with them.

I don't agree with *everything* Alex says, but he is articulate, low in obvious bias, and chooses rationality over the emotional arguments that his opponents make. Aaron Huber's skill as an interviewer amazes me. He covers technological and political discussions with equal fluency and his questions are always on point.

I love it - radically original ways of thinking about issues. "Is it wise to take money away from productive people and give it to unproductive people?"

@kevinoneill41

Жыл бұрын

That's a question. What is the answer? My answer is an opinion. My opinion is no. My rationale is also my opinion. It makes people lazy.

Thanks for providing me with an argument against myself on externalities.

Too bad politicians didn’t answer questions that succinctly

Fantastic exchange

If the climate is going to increase 2 degrees, it is questable that humans can change this. We are only responsible for 4% of the CO2 released in the air each year. Also, are we falsely believing that all weather is controlled by CO2? When burning takes place, water vapor is also released in the air. Does this water vapor affect the weather?

Alex is very intelligent!

Alex is a brave guardian of democracy. A true hero!

@Scottar50

5 жыл бұрын

No, he is a hero of freedom and quality of life.

@wilmahestepigen8340

5 жыл бұрын

Scottar Brooke - I can do with that.

@Jazzper79

4 жыл бұрын

No, he is a guardian of a constitutional republic - i.e. laissez-faire capitalism i.e. freedom!

CO2 geologists are certain that the oil comes from either a plant or an animal biologists are certain that living beings only take carbon from the atmosphere so burning gasoline only returns the carbon to the atmosphere geologists are sure that the oil comes from a plant or an animal biologists are sure that living things only take carbon from the atmosphere and then burn gasoline only returns carbon to the atmosphere they are certain that the oil comes from a plant or an animal Biologists are sure that living things only take carbon from the atmosphere and then burn gasoline they only return carbon to the atmosphere. We need to focus on this topic to teach people the CO2 cycle, the relationship of CO2 and photosynthesis, the sun, water and CO2 become vegetables Life and animals eat carbohydrates and cellulose and then all together after millions years turn into oil burning gasoline only means returning CO2 to its original places

that lower third is so distracting. it doesnt have to come in every time you change speaker. again, its distracting to an otherwise interesting discussion.

Can't help but comment again...this guy Alex Epstein is like a godsend...i might just have to go on a binge of his recordings...and also i think i might have to buy that second Jag XJ8 i wanted ( partly because they are vastly under priced, a real bargain, built like an areoplane- literally- and driving it around will tick off the Climate fear mongering chicken-littles, and THAT is very fun indeed...)

@davidbatson8801

Жыл бұрын

That jag is nice my man. Good tip

Freedom gives the possibility of companies improving Cleanliness of pollution to compete with other companies. Government and competition together. Government tends to mess up

Are we really going to hit 20 or 40 billion people.?..I thought the replacement rate will near 2 per couple and it will level off at like 10 billion? (after reaching like 13bil temporarily)

The planet is dangerous. I would say this planet is hostile. Hostile towards human survival.

Because the ocean is warming, it emits 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide each year. Carbon dioxide reacts with ocean water to produce carbonic acid. When the ocean loses carbon dioxide, there is less carbonic acid (hence less acid), not more acid in the ocean. The ocean is basic and not getting more acidic.

The screen graphics are distracting.

I think CC has reached a catastrophic stage. It is happening now and is accelerating.

Relatively his arguments are almost 100% right on. I disagree that population growth is a necessary indicator of a healthy economy or quality of life. But relative access to relatively clean energy is. Renewables get their false perception that since the fuel is relatively clean then it's labeled as clean energy along with the false perception that CO2 is a pollutant. It's the infrastructure that is not clean, but it certainly must be renewed often and expensively and not cleanly. Like sausage people disregard how it is made.

Why does this music sound like Legend of Zelda or something?

Start: 0:45 :-)

🙏

They've been saying garbage for centuries !!! CENTURIES !!! The sky is falling !! The end of the world is near !!!!

Fossil fuels saved the Sperm whale from extinction. WooHoo.

This: 27:21

And, in contrast to the ocean, humans emit 5 gigatons of CO2 each year.

If you are worried about over population then you ought to be screaming that the govt should be pursuing space exploration with every dime they can free up from everywhere!

Alex is great... I think that sums it up. Don't believe me? Just listen to him. An open mind might be required

Can we predict ecology? Well, are we God?

I love how the same people who believe in Noah's Ark don't believe in climate change. But then expect us to take them serious.

@anthonymorris5084

2 жыл бұрын

Nowhere has Epstein ever denied that climate change is real, occurring or caused by humans. When you have no argument invalidate the messenger.

@Randsurfer

Жыл бұрын

Pretty sure Alex is an atheist. But maybe you are just Dr. non sequitur.

@amarreder6241

Жыл бұрын

Alex admits he's a philosopher not a Christian His major in college was Philosophy

Did you see juicy sommelier, yikes

Remove the flashing notification over the lower half of the screen every 5 seconds. We know who's speaking. It's worse than a popup advert.

@OptimalOwl

Жыл бұрын

I think the interview was aired on TV, where viewers come and go for the duration of the whole segment, and the recurring on-screen reminder is helpful. I guess they just didn't take the extra effort to strip it from the segment before uploading it here.

Good, isn't he. You don't think so? I can't help you. You think so, and you want to know more. Study Objectivism directly, meaning don't read what others have said/written about it, Read it yourself, and understand it. Alex is good, and his good is built upon the premises that lead to human flourishing.

Alex Epstein is a champion of rational thinking.

I understand Alex's thought process and at face value his arguments seem to make sense, but his views are very short sighted and if you did all the analysis, you would realize, like all the scientists in the world, that his arguments are not the governing effect, and that the levels of growth of CO2 are significantly detrimental to the environment. But there is no shortcut for him or anyone who believes him, to understand what is really going on. For starters, you would have to fill one big glass room up with air and another with varying percentages of carbon dioxide, and let them sit in the sun and take ALOT of temperature measurements. You would then also have to figure out how much CO2 is being created from burning fossil fuels on the planet, calculate how much it is increasing in the air as a percentage of all the other gases, and then compare that rate to amounts you set in your glass rooms. And all that is the super easy part. Then, with air currents, large bodies of water, large ice reserves, varying levels of vegetation and forestry, varying seasons , and a dozen other factors, etc. figure out the net effect of all of these changes and how they woudl result in different temperature changes in reality than those changes you observed in your two glass rooms. And you would need teams of people all working together the triple checking everything and each other and seeing if your prediction models accurately predicted what happened in the past where we actually have the answers (how much gas we burned vs how much the temperature actually rose). You would have to keep tweaking those modems thousands of times to properly predict the past so they had a chance of predicting the future. I don;t think he has done any of that, or believe anyone that has, because he may not have the patience for it, or does not believe the people that have done it. Instead, he seems to be preaching what he simply sees and understands. Yes solar and wind is much harder to work as the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow, and mass energy storage system to store it are not already developed and not cheap, etc., but they are the long term solution, and the sooner we do it, the better. Long term is typically better than short term if you care about kids and the future. Poking holes in the ground and selling as much as you can is a much quicker way for a few people that "own" that oil well to get very rich, and they will do what they can to keep everyone buying there oil and eliminate the competition of course. He is playing with the gray area of how much is too much CO2 and has not done the work to prove it, but is much easier to relate too and understand than all the people that have. But I don't know that he intends to be misleading, in fact I don't think he means any harm at all and is just trying to help.

@Quaerite.Intellectum

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear is the long term solution.

@Randsurfer

Жыл бұрын

Your first sentence "...you would realize, like all the scientists in the world," Thank you for writing this early so I don't waste my time with your verbose B.S.

@amarreder6241

Жыл бұрын

You're Right @@Randsurfer Climate Extremists assume there is 100% agreement of their opinion.

@milankovitch8697

Жыл бұрын

@@amarreder6241 No! 97%.

Can anyone predict the gaseous eruptions from the depths of Uranus?

@steve.schatz

5 жыл бұрын

Probably not. But I am sure there is a model somewhere that ....

Alex Epstein hombre.

fantatstic logic great interview

Alex thinks at an A+ level. Aaron thinks on a 'D' level. It is obvious. That is the norm for liberal government officials.

It starts at 0:45. You're welcome.

carbon based energy = prosperity is a very dubious equation. Energy = prosperity is the point here. At the moment in time that carbon based energy is damaging, then that equation falters. That point has arrived, climate scientists argue.

Are you a Christian organization? (ihs on the wall)

@johnk2452

Жыл бұрын

*_Seriously? Are you joking ... or maybe you are an ESL student?_* That backdrop sign says "IHS Energy", a broadly diversified globally active company, which started, if I recall correctly, as "Information Handling Sevices" ... but has since merged with some other entity ... to where I no longer know the new name.

The is just not enough CO2, to do all that they claim it to do.

@scottekoontz

5 жыл бұрын

All scientists are wrong. Some philosopher is right!

Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, and Alex Epstein, three of the greatest Jews in the USA!!!

@annemouse6788

5 жыл бұрын

Three of the greatest Americans in the USA...

@bobby33x97

5 жыл бұрын

@@annemouse6788Clearly "the USA" was implied but I'll so stipulate in any case...

Alex is messing with liars’ lie.

I cannot believe that rational intelligent people even give this loon the time of day. If Alex has shoelaces who ties them for him or does he use Velcro. I get it now he”s jedd clampetts forgotten child.

Crazy how all these talking points for fossil fuels have been absolutely debunked in 2023. Floridas water pools at reaching 100 degrees, people are getting burns from falling on concrete in Arizona, and some national parks are too hot to visit.

Alex Epstein is very intelligent.

Only in America could something this idiotic be glitzed up and pass for anything other than the claptrap that it is.

@Scottar50

5 жыл бұрын

Only libtards talk you do. No intelligence, beam me up Scotty.

@inotmark

5 жыл бұрын

@@Scottar50 Buh Bye! The planet will be better without you!

@davidburgin5261

5 жыл бұрын

Give a specific example of what Alex has said that is factually incorrect. Why don’t you debate Mr Epstein Guo...I would like to see that

Don't let a whiny philosopher tell you about science.

@OptimalOwl

Жыл бұрын

Who should I let tell me? I'm not going to sit down and consume the research papers themselves in a responsible way. You aren't going to do that either. Almost no one is, because almost no one has the ability or the patience to do this. Rather, almost everyone is going to form an opinion by weighing third- and fourth-hand accounts of that research. Usually activists of one stripe or another, or some journalism major at a media company whose job is to uncritically repeat what he's being told. And in this context, if a philosopher can correctly represent his opponents' arguments, credibly evidence problems with those arguments, and explain what's a more reasonable conclusion to come to and why, then I say he deserves to be listened to.

@scottekoontz

Жыл бұрын

@@OptimalOwl Sorry, you are the type of person who should let far right wing shills with philosophy degrees tell you about the science. My mistake. The rest of us will read science papers from actual scientists. Good luck. May I suggest Watts (no degree) ro Monckton (literature) for your next dive into political politics?

@OptimalOwl

Жыл бұрын

@@scottekoontz When some journalist or activist or teacher or politician tells you what "the science" is, that's not the same as you actually reading the science. That's something like a fourth-hand account of the research, with fresh distortions along every step of the way. You're never going to consume the science in a responsible way. You don't know how to judge the methodological quality of papers, you don't care enough to learn, and you especially don't care enough to actually follow through and read whole research literatures and form an educated opinion. And the kicker is that, even if you _did,_ there aren't enough hours in the day for you to form an educated opinion on _everything._ You're going to have to choose a few fields of particular interest, and outsource your opinions on the remaining 99% of science to those third- or fourth hand accounts. _That's_ what you're comparing the whiny philosopher to.

@scottekoontz

Жыл бұрын

@@OptimalOwl YES^^^^^ You need to stop listening to activists or politicians. NOW you're finally getting it.

@OptimalOwl

Жыл бұрын

@@scottekoontz What I'm saying is that you _are_ listening to such distorted accounts, and that you have no option but _to_ listen to such distorted accounts. You have no ability to do otherwise, nor the patience, nor enough hours in the day even if you did have the ability and patience. At most you can choose to directly, responsibly consume ~1% of science, and at least gain an educated opinion on that. And even then, for reasons that should be perfectly understandable when you look at it in this way, almost no one chooses to do that. This is the epistemic reality that you need to be comparing the whiny philosopher to. You're not comparing a distorted third-hand account to a direct first-hand account. You're comparing it to other distorted third- and fourth-hand accounts.

nope this guy knows nothing about climate science .... economics maybe, science?....nada

I recently published a rebuttal to Alex Epstein's book titled "The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." At the same time it also rebuts a book by Kathleen Hartnett White of a similar title and proposition. It is preposterous to claim that there is anything moral about fossil fuels, and to claim that we owe any debt of gratitude to gasoline/diesel/coal for enhancing our lives. If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels...regardless of what those fuels are. The inventions were all created without consideration to any specific fossil fuel. Internal combustion engines, for example, were created before the invention of either gasoline or diesel petroleum fuel. The steam engine was not created because coal was available. The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by petroleum oil. Tens of millions of people; no, make that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in these wars. To the war dead-toll we have to add the people who have died as a result of the illnesses caused by the use of petroleum oil fuels. Then there's the life-long injuries and disabilities suffered by untold millions more. There's nothing moral about any of this. Previous attempts to rebuke Mr. Epstein and Ms. White, such as the one written by Jody Freeman, have failed because the writers have as little understanding of history, fuels, energy, and real solutions as Epstein and White do. You can read my complete rebuttal at www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/02/19/511177-immorality-arguing-that-there-s-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels.html. Marc J. Rauch Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher THE AUTO CHANNEL

@LoughansDragstra

6 жыл бұрын

The Auto Channel - why don’t you debate alex then? In your few paragraphs above you did very little to make your case other than defame and insult. If that’s all you got I’d rather pass on your book. Fossil fuels caused wars and destruction? No, they were used for it, they were not the cause for it. A gun doesn’t kill - the one who pulls does.

@TheAutoChannel

6 жыл бұрын

Very good, Luke. The remedial reading classes seem to be working for you. One or two more years and you should be up to 4th grade reading level. At that time, you'll be able to read my rebuttal and learn that I've challenged Alex to a debate and that he's been ducking me, although his website claims he will debate anyone at anytime.

@muddymike

6 жыл бұрын

You're right to some degree. What you are missing is the role of $$, banksters, and the speculation and central management of resources. We live in a literal fascist economy where the government and all of her cronies own the resources through many many years of misleading the public. The Rockefellers got the ball rolling on the environmentalist movement in the 20th C... Before that they created an abominable "public land" system (For the fish and birds, of course) in order for the resource moguls to split up the "nation's wealth" for themselves. They also invented the idea of "Mineral Rights" so they could scoop up as much land as they wanted at circa 1900 prices, dupe the original inhabitants of the land, and then create a trust with the government to maintain control of the mineral rights to the land for 100 or so years. Read about John Locke and his homesteading theory of land ownership if you don't understand the problem with letting farmers "Sell the mineral rights" to something they couldn't have actually owned. Mineral rights are incompatible with Lockean theory (OUR LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE SUPPOSEDLY BASED ON HIS THEORIES!)

@muddymike

6 жыл бұрын

So think about how is it that automobiles that ran on PETROL became so much more popular.. why are roads made from PETROL? Why did they use so much PETROL in WWI and WWII especially? Who paid for all that damn PETROL? Also, is petroleum actually made of dead dinosaurs? Or is it something else? Does it come FROM the Earth? Apparently the Soviets had other ideas about oil: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZJeJyZWldMqwYpM.html

@pattybaselines

6 жыл бұрын

Woah I did not know oil could cause a war lmao

Yes,Alex,tell them asses that models used for predicting climate are unrealistic ;this is just political mumbo-jumbo....

@OptimalOwl

Жыл бұрын

I just drew a line on a piece of graph paper. It didn't correspond to anything, it's just a line that I drew. Then I filled in some gredations for years and temperatures, and now my line says temperature is going to go down by -5º by the end of this century. How much stock should you put in this prediction?

@misscameroon8062

Жыл бұрын

@@OptimalOwl good for you; now you see how downright silly and worthless are these dire predictions of climate disasters or ,for example, the impossibility of evolution...

@milankovitch8697

Жыл бұрын

@@misscameroon8062 One of the first projections of future warming came from John Sawyer at the UK’s Met Office in 1973. In a paper published in Nature in 1973, he hypothesised that the world would warm 0.6C between 1969 and 2000, and that atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25%. Sawyer argued for a climate sensitivity - how much long-term warming will occur per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels - of 2.4C, which is not too far off If you the best estimate of 3C used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today.

@milankovitch8697

Жыл бұрын

If you want to view the paper, search for this "J. S. Sawyer (1 September 1972) Man-Made CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect".

@misscameroon8062

Жыл бұрын

@@milankovitch8697 is thsi Sawyer guy a climatologist or meteorologist or an activist?