Episode 439 Scott Adams: Talking to Dr. Shiva About Climate Change

Date: 2019-03-05 | Duration: 1:12:25

Topics

The earth maintains equilibrium via multiple processes Those processes NEUTRALIZE climate change Richard Lindzen’s “Iris effect” has been confirmed true Cloud shape changes with CO2 increase, neutralizes increase Cloud and water vapor changes from CO2, NOT in the models There is NO sharp rate increase in temperature over the last 50 years 2.5B years ago, the sun was putting out 30% LESS energy With 30% less sun energy…earth temperatures barely colder The earth maintained equilibrium via clouds and water vapor Multi-dimensional problems can’t be reduced to a single variable (like CO2) People don’t understand math and physics, they’re being bamboozled CO2 doubled already, temp should be up 4 degrees, per models The models are NOT supported by the data Actual temperature increase has only been half degree Scientists are keeping quiet about climate change model problems Climate change is BS, the data confirming BS is overwhelming Grant money ONLY exists for those who believe and promote the climate change hoax

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:03]

it's time for coffee with Scott Adams and we're gonna be joined by dr. Shiva here the moment I'm gonna as soon as he accepts the invite dr. Shiva you should be seeing right now a message that that tells you you can be a guest
and when you do we've got one person here already well we're going to start with just
dr. Shiva as soon as you're on here and we're going to talk about some climates to climate change stuff in a way you have not seen before I think all right there is not a lot of new news today there's a little bit news about apparently AIDS has been cured and the second patient doctors think but they're not sure

[1:08]

all right so I'm not seeing not seeing dr. Shiva yet I know you're on there uh-uh you're on so let me just send them a text you should see a prompt to join as guests so this is a
brand new process today we're trying to use the brand new and I mean brand new as of yesterday I think this feature was active in which I could invite a guest on at the same time that
make sure we're not having technical difficulties here says she's waiting to join alright that means I can there we are

[2:10]

should be live any moment man oops let me change my headset
hi Scott I think I'm on yes you are I'm going to change my headset so we better sound okay
how's that can you hear me yeah I can hear you great can you hear me I can hear you pretty sure they can hear ya so it just got it just got its full-form yesterday so you're the first person I've used with this version of the release and what it does is it allows the guest feature which we have had before but it also allows the Twitter notification for the first time those two features work together so that's brand-new and we're getting we're testing it now right now so dr. Shiva I like to ask people to give their own introduction because that would allow you to say the things that are relevant to what we're going to talk about in the quickest way so could you

[3:11]

about in the quickest way so could you for the benefit of those few people who have not already heard of you tell them your will say academic and/or professional background that is relevant to this discussion sure Scott so this is dr. Shiva ayyadurai you know I'm a working engineer and a scientist my specific area of training is in system science or systems biology and we can talk more about that but I have four degrees from MIT
MIT my undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering computer science I have another degree which came out of a integration of engineering and believe it or not graphics which is called scientific visualization how do you visualize very complex phenomenon and that's from the Media Lab a master's and I also have another master's degree in mechanical engineering and my thesis was really understanding very complex wave propagation and then my PhD is in biological engineering but specifically systems biology how do you understand

[4:12]

systems biology how do you understand complex systems so all right so you're in training sweet so you're you're a scientist you have for MIT degrees you're you've got a medical degree and the only thing we don't know is are you qualified for the simultaneous sip but yeah I am because we work because we're gonna have that right now hey everybody grab your mug your cup your glass your Stein your tankard your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me for the simultaneous it
alright now before we talk about climate change let me let me set this up a little bit one of the reasons I love talking to you is that you have visibility through lots of different windows that average people do not you've seen science through a different different angles you've you've worked in different fields so you have a broad and yet deep understanding of a lot of stuff

[5:14]

yet deep understanding of a lot of stuff that people don't now you're not a climate scientist but that's not why you were asked here we want to hear your argument in a way that's accessible to through the people who are watching now the other part of context is I'm neither a denier on climate nor a believer I am doing a deep dive which is I'm in a several month process to try to find out how worried I should be and what I've discovered is that both sides are completely convincing and both sides if I talk about all the people not anybody in particular but both sides seem like a lot of to me meaning that even if one side is absolutely right there are certainly a lot of people on both sides who are trying to sell stuff they even with my limited knowledge looks illegitimate on both sides so that's why I can't decide who's right cuz they both seem not quite right to me and so I thought we could get a little

[6:15]

so I thought we could get a little deeper dive and dr. Shiva give us give us your position on climate change should it be we be worried does the science solid where are you on everything yeah so Scott just to set this up you know very much like you I did not jump into this until recently from a science standpoint and I'll tell you just for I know you have sort of a broad view you have people who take a left position or a right position and when it comes to science as Richard Fineman the great physicist said you know you follow the scientific method you see something in nature and you try and explain it so you typically make a guess of why you think that's occurring it's a guess and that's up scientists start and then you attempt to validate your guests by seeing if you're
we lost our connection with dr. Shiva so as soon as his connection comes back we

[7:18]

as soon as his connection comes back we will connect him again so I think you just had a probably a Wi-Fi problem on his end
end let's see there he is back we're clicking him we're adding a guest
we're inviting him and
and dr. Chiba you're back
when someone calls you I had a call it's not sorry about that so certainly what what I was saying was Fineman basically said you follow the scientific method which is you you abuse e something in nature you think something's going on you make a guess you then take your guess and you validate it by experiments and if the experiments match then you say yes this is matching and I have something here if it doesn't doesn't matter whether you look great whether you have or you don't look great whether you say weird things like you know

[8:19]

you say weird things like you know co2 and demonization it doesn't matter what the issue is if the data matches then you actually have something that's true and evidence to be even more specific is the unambiguous repetition of predictions okay all right so this let's apply that to climate change have the climate scientists made their case under those standards they haven't they haven't and and the other thing is there is no thing called climate science this is a made-up field that has come up it really is we need to talk about this because and there's two phenomenon here that we need to understand before we dive into this is there's climate and then there's weather and the media has been very very clever at conflated weather to be climate and confusing both climate and weather are very different things and the best thing I can the analogy I can give Scott is you take your body your body has an

[9:21]

you take your body your body has an equilibrium it's a natural system your temperatures around 90 you point to on any particular day your temperature may vary right up and down based on you may have a fever you may have a cold etc but overall you have this equilibrium call your body's temperature so that equilibrium mode which is a much larger scale of time is called let's say quote-unquote climate the changes that occur from time to time or weather now would you agree would you agree with me that both the skeptics as a group and the climate scientists as a group make exactly the same Wiesel move which is they look outside and if the weather happens to agree with their larger theory of that day they'll make a claims like oh it's extra cold today or worse extra warm but don't both sides do that well yeah I mean I saw one of your videos Scott where he talked about Heller doing that thing with the 98 degree I think the 90 degrees and he said he was going down so here's a problem with this field right either so

[10:22]

problem with this field right either so you really have four types of people in this field right now or five one is you have serious scientists like a hopper like a dick lens and in my opinion who are physicists who have spent their lives understanding for example of karma co2 emits and absorbs radiation these are not simple equations so you have serious scientists the other extreme you have the news media who loves news who loves to conflate things because they sell advertising and then you have two other very interesting groups you have celebrities politicians and nonprofit organizations on one hand and then you have what I call
look so it looks like you got another call coming in so as soon as he clears that it'll be back with us various

[11:24]

yeah to use this word but it's almost academics versus scientists and academics have been brought into the frame including at places like MIT where if you say anything against the narrative about climate change your grants will get Oh your grants will get cut and there's two billion dollars now open for impacts on climate change so what you have is you you have serious physicists serious chemists serious astro physicist guys on one hand and then the last group which I call the fifth group is a common man which cannot rationalize things so they actually look at the facts based on non rationalization so what's happened in what I call among the educated idiot group of the plague scientist is this is what's going on see snow as linson talks about it talked about this if you go to a group of people today and you ask him can you people with degrees can you tell me the

[12:25]

people with degrees can you tell me the second law of thermodynamics most of them can't can you tell me the difference between mass and acceleration most of them can't but those two questions are similar to have you read Shakespeare in the humanities or do you know how to read so what we are creating now is a whole strata of people who are essentially taught in the College atmosphere to pleased professors and except if you told them the earth is flat they'd probably accept it because they get it a for it so I want to give this back-end milieu on what's actually going on there are these five groups of people so when when a guy like will happen William Hopper serious scientists at Princeton in fact one of the slides I sent you in fact in the 80s when he was getting into this field he actually did his own climate models and he predicted also a warming and then he later said you know these models are too complicated my models were way off and I think one of the graphs I say how's that by the way I didn't get those graphs it's a PowerPoint I sent you I emailed

[13:26]

it's a PowerPoint I sent you I emailed it here but so you have serious sizes like William Hopper who spent their lives understanding how this process works and I've also admitted that it's too difficult now let's go to the from a systems perspective Scott that's what I really wanted to share with your audience in you today let's step back because you say I think your rightful e saying there's sort of a two groups here the skeptics and the quote-unquote deniers right and I want to put double quotes around deniers because it has a lot of subtext there and gravitas they're almost related to Holocaust deniers and these terms are very very specifically chosen but if you step back and you just look at it very simply and I and I think we can do what's called basic bookkeeping
if the the Sun Scott is a big radiation machine it's about six thousand degrees and it puts out radiation that hits the

[14:26]

and it puts out radiation that hits the earth about 340 and by the way what I'm sharing right now there's no controversy on this everyone agrees on both sides so to just simply level set the Sun puts at around 340 watts per meter squared of energy so just think about the number 340 hits the earth well let's for the benefit of the general audience who won't be able to follow at that level can you give us the idiots version the idiots for the idiot's version is this all natural systems in the world your body and the earth have a have a principle called equilibrium they do things to maintain their equilibrium which means changes take place but they know how to adjust themselves to maintain equilibrium this is a process so in this case the earth the Sun is putting out a certain amount of sunlight and the earth wants to maintain its temperature at 15 degrees centigrade okay 15 degrees which is the average global mean temperature very

[15:27]

average global mean temperature very different than the temperature what's occurring today are in the winter that's whether we're talking about the global mean temperatures degrees so the earth if you believe in natural systems which is what we live in it tries to maintain that equilibrium Scott so the the Sun hits it certain amount of energy comes in certain amount of energies reflected around 200 watts per meters always maintained in order to do that the earth I mean emitted back the earth has to maintain 288 degrees Kelvin or 15 degrees so just think about know now doesn't that balance require that there are certain variables that always stay the same and if if any of those variables changed you would no longer have equilibrium right well it's a good question so this is where it gets into it it's a it's I'm a systems guy and systems have multiple inputs multiple outputs okay and it's a complex interaction of multiple inputs working in a very dynamic system again if you

[16:28]

in a very dynamic system again if you look at the earth and this if you really want if we go into it there's the atmosphere and then the oceans to what are called in fluid mechanics if you take a complex you know graduate course it's called two turbulent fluid but the bottom line there's multiple variable sky and what the intelligence of natural systems are is they know how to feed back now wait wait wait wait I think wait I think you lost you lost everybody on that why should we assume that natural variables have intelligence well what what would make us believe that even if things got out of whack they should trend back to being in balance yet what logic is are for that great question so Nature has you know this is a this is a very deep question right thermodynamics has to do a lot with this the second law of thermodynamics but when you take very complex system small and large the reason they exist

[17:30]

and large the reason they exist is they have to have feedback and they they try to maintain equilibrium so for example your body if you said that it has to only maintain ninety-eight point two degrees at every point if it went to ninety point three you're gonna blow up or if you'd freeze so natural systems have a property called resilience that's why evolution if you believe in that that's why we exist right now you and I are talking and we exist because natural systems are able to handle variations and maintain an equilibrium over a time scale this is there are so so is the bottom line that we could add lots of co2 you it would create create a greenhouse effect it would create warming in the short run but there would be some kind of balancing thing that naturally and unpredictably happens it right so this is what's so when they do these climate models the climate models are based on the assumption as co2 increases the

[18:31]

the assumption as co2 increases the average temperature of the earth earth is going to increase when they do those models gone they did not the way they calculated the feedback left out a very important factor called clouds okay so as co2 increases cloud they are you way are you telling me the climate scientists the people who study climate forgot to consider clouds well specifically they the esta they did a very very crude highly crude approximation of clouds highly crude so their models were fundamentally based on a positive feedback system which means you add more co2 the delta T and temperature keeps increasing dick limbs and in 2000 he published a very very important paper called the iris effect which said that as co2 as greenhouse gases increase that the earth has a very interesting modulating factor where

[19:31]

interesting modulating factor where cirrus clouds will get shorter smaller or larger or thinner or thinner or thicker to release infrared radiation growing now a case in point of this was this and when dick published that in a very eminent journal subsequently the editor was fired okay now let me make sure I understand this yeah so so the idea is that the climate scientists did they model clouds but they did it incorrectly because they imagined that the clouds would continue doing what the clouds always do but in fact the clouds will change their shape with the heat and no longer do what clouds used to do because there will be a different kind of cloud as what Emperor goes out this cirrus clouds the cirrus clouds are literally like a tire so if co2 levels or some phenomenon takes place to increase the infrared radiation to emit it or to store it the

[20:32]

radiation to emit it or to store it the cirrus clouds change their shape to put it simply like the iris in your eye this was something that linden published in 2002 people attacked him the editor was fired linson wrote back a report rebuttal and it's since been verified the iris effect so what that shows is that the earth has a way to modulate through negative feedback now let me it gets even though right well hold on so so have we already seen the module modulation or is it predicted that if it gets a little bit warmer that will kick in
in well you know the the cirrus cloud what what I'm saying is this feedback system is constantly taking place in fact if you look at that you could argue that the climate scientists - you're in one of the graphs I sent you said that the earth's temperature was going to continue increasing right this this is in their own thing and this is by the way from from the IPCC but

[21:34]

is by the way from from the IPCC but they had predicted that the temperature would keep increasing in fact starting around - it would continue to grow from 1980 all the way up but if you see around 2003 it's gotten flat okay hold on hold on every time you have a fact I might need to jump in just so we don't go far past that's the fact my understanding is that the climate scientists say they're anything less than maybe a 17 year period is meaningless in terms of that could just be noise but that any 17 year period they violated the trend would not be meaningful is that not the the scientific review well the scientific view is that these models can't predict over a long range I think there's a general consensus on that somebody was saying 35 years so I've seen two things I've seen that any any any small change within a 30 year period may not be long enough to even know anything do you have a sense of well

[22:36]

anything do you have a sense of well whether that's meaningful or not yeah I can just go by the current data that's out there Scott these models are highly variable because of the dynamics but if this is the data so if you look from 9th and in the 60s starting in 50s to 1975 the temperature was actually going down okay people are predicting a global cooling was going to take place starting from night now well hold on the hold on the the climate scientists would say that's just not true they would say that that the the warming has happened consistently the entire period isn't that their claim no no this is this is from IPCC so if you look from or this is actual data if you look from 1950s to 1975 if you remember when I was in the 70s people were saying the earth could be going into a cooling phase then starting around 1975 the temperature of the earth started rising and all throughout this period by the way co2 levels are increasing but starting

[23:38]

levels are increasing but starting around 2002 it's been flat the point is climate change the earth is consistent you know constantly varying there are positive things that hold on dr. human so I'm looking at a site called skeptical science which I have not which I I have no reason to believe that anything on this site is accurate but what it does is it lists the skeptical arguments and then gives the scientific counterpoint but I'm looking at their graph right here it goes from let's see before the 70s through to the 2000s and it shows that every mate every type of measurement is steadily up from ocean heat to land plus ice to atmosphere so the the scientific claim that I'm looking at is that the temperature has consistently gone up I mean it's got some Jags so they're little periods where it goes down but it's pretty much up since 90 right but look at started around 2002 to

[24:41]

right but look at started around 2002 to today Scott it's flat - the temperature global mean temperature you see people are confusing hold on yeah but so we have to have a standard matter of fact I'm looking at what is reportedly the scientific opinion which is that it's going up so that so as a point of fact there's a disagreement there there's a disagreement so we're talking about the temperature variation to be very specific what people are talking about is a the delta T which is a temperature variation from the mean delta T this is the measurement that is used in all of the models so if you looked at the math of it there's a big model that's calculating the change in temperature from the global mean and they have a big formula that they used to calculate it we can get into it but it's a the delta T that delta T temperature that the change from the global mean it has been flat for the last over decade well that I I don't understand we're out why I can't just

[25:43]

understand we're out why I can't just may measure the temperature itself and if it's going up sharply that's what that confirms the theory doesn't and and they would say we measured it 50 different ways every single way we measure it we get the same result that would be the scientific view right right they measure global mean temperature the Delta change from that has been flat for the last 15 years but what I don't understand at that point would it can can you address my point which is if the temperature the just the regular temperature is going up according to a sharper curve than ever before and it matches co2 why do I need to be measuring some Delta Delta what is the units of that temperature change the units I assume would be degrees
magnitude since the end of the last ice age the little ice age the temperatures

[26:43]

age the little ice age the temperatures gone up by one degree that was when thawing took place well but is it true is it true that the rate of increase for let's say the last 50 years that there is a definite a very sharp increase in the rate that is unprecedented is is very unprecedented rate of increase that's that's not true that's the big lie it's false let me let me jump in before you say that so I'm on The Skeptical site which I'll just mentioned and I was looking for some arguments that maybe would come up so I would know what the scientists say and the the primary the central argument of climate scientists is that the not just that the temperature is getting higher which would not mean that much because temperature has changed over time but that the rate is is greatly increasing and so when I look at their argument that says somebody will say well the temperature is not really increasing and then I look at these skeptical sites

[27:45]

then I look at these skeptical sites answer to that it'll say yes we've measured it a whole bunch of different ways we've measured it from satellites we've measured the ocean we've measured the land and and we've looked at proxies and no matter what we look at it's always getting warmer and I say hold on hold on you just changed the argument I was asking you about the rate of increase that's the theory right right so why is it what why let me finish the point yeah but why is it that your best argument on the scientific side ignores your central argument you just said it's the rate what show me how the rate is going up and then you look at the argument and it ignores rate and says look it's going up so to me that's a perfect example of how even if it's true even if it's true that the climate scientists are completely right that co2 is driving temperature it's going up that is presented as a lie in other

[28:46]

that is presented as a lie in other words it's presented in a form of communication that a reasonable would have to say well it looks like you're trying to fool me because you just changed the argument your central argument is rate of increase and when you defend the temperature you leave out rate of increase that looks like just a fraud number one yes the graph I sent you Scott that's precisely what it has basic calculus the rate what you just said is the derivative is a change in temperature over time so if it's if you have a slope which is a angled line then you have a rate of increase or if it's going down the other way of a rate of decrease when it's flat it's zero so the rate of increase of temperature since 2002 has been flat and now I saw well hold on yep hold on but would you agree that the climate scientists would say that is not meaningful because that's a short period of time

[29:47]

of time well think this is what this is where we're moving into a space where all of this is governed by models everything that they're talking about is governed by models and models climate occurs on a large time scale weather occurs on much shorter time scales so this is a very malicious scientific thing that these guys are doing there they are absolutely confusing climate with weather let me give you an example of this 2.5 billion years ago we had what was called a faint son Carl Sagan you know the astronomer there is it very interesting paradox the son was a new son so 2.5 billion years ago the amount of heat the son was putting out was was 30% less guy so if it's 30% less what would you think the earth's temperature would be 2.5 billion years ago 2.5 billion years 30% less son I'm here

[30:48]

2.5 billion years 30% less son I'm here to say I have no idea it's probably not 30% less
I would say that there are more variables than the the Sun and so it depend on the composition of the atmosphere at the time exactly so so what happened was when this phenomenon came out that 2.5 billion years ago the Sun was putting out 30% less heat people found something fascinating the the temperature of their worth earth was around the same around 15 degrees centigrade 2.5 billion years ago so how is that possible how could it be were getting 30% less it was called the faint Sun paradox pointed out by Carl Sagan that 2.5 billion years ago the Sun is putting out 30% less energy but we have the same temperatures we have today 15 degrees so a cottage industry as Vic Lynton points out was created by a bunch of scientists saying Oh must be the greenhouse gases right because the

[31:51]

greenhouse gases right because the greenhouse gases must be the things that are keeping that energy here to maintain you know that umbrella around us to keep it at 15 degrees and people propose all sorts of things lots of papers came out in fact Carl Sagan said it must be more ammonia all of this was disproven but what they did find out it was the cirrus clouds the iris effect at that time 2.5 billion years ago we had a thicker cirrus cloud cover how yep you have to tell me how certain are we that the cirrus clouds 1.5 billion years ago I had an iris effect that feels like something we couldn't possibly know well well there's a set of calculations that were performed and those calculations you know science goes like this you start with a guess you do your hypothesis and you iterate when Dick Linden put out that paper it was refuted but people can look it up but the iris effect consistently now that effect has been shown repeatedly in experiments to

[32:52]

been shown repeatedly in experiments to exist and in fact exist today and it likely existed at that point but so in other words experiments today show us that that's probably what was happening in the past but we we don't have direct evidence well we don't have totally we do know that the level of greenhouse gases that would have had to exist to maintain that temperature are nearly impossible okay okay so so the point is greenhouse gases are always being pointed out in the climate change argument as the fundamental demon as happer said co2 is a demonic Satan here or one of the that they are the modulator of the Earth's surface temperature when it turns out water vapor and clouds have far more effect and in the body of research that research and the findings of that have been diminished and that is a very very

[33:52]

been diminished and that is a very very important piece because that is a feedback system that the earth offers to modulate the surface temperature of the earth now there's a question coming in that we should we should address as somebody asked are you associated with any oil companies the answer is no right no in fact just to point that person remember when monster you know when when I published a series of six papers using systems biology methods and I expose that that there are no essentially safety standards for GMOs all the people on the Left loved me okay and they said are you working with all the green companies so I have no interest in oil companies in fact the oil company Scott loved this because my PS change their logo it makes them look like they're green so there's a bigger picture here no I don't have any interest in oil companies I don't have no no you do you do have a connection with Richard Lin's in though the famous skeptical climate scientists well I

[34:54]

skeptical climate scientists well I think there are three terms don't take this the wrong way Scott that are wrong skeptical climate scientist he's dick does not claim to be a climate scientist it is a serious applied mathematician of physicists I'm saying this term climate science has been created because once the Gore's and the Clinton created this and we can talk about this in detail well don't let it I don't get too far from that but you have a personal relationship with one of the most famous voices on this topic so what happened was when I started I was saying wow climate change does take place but do we have extreme we have the article I smell so I actually reached out to Dickinson he's a professor at MIT I wrote to him and dick got back to me and dick gave me a body of work a lot of science a lot of math that I had to go through to come to my own conclusions that there's climate there's weather climate does change but the co2 effect on the increase in temperature is there's no scientific evidence for it

[35:57]

is there's no scientific evidence for it at all period so in fact one of the charts that I sent you Scott it this is probably one of the most important ones dick shared with me there are 20 different models because one of the big things we've been told is that the polar bears are gonna die off that the Arctic ice caps are gonna melt I'm sure you've seen this right yes what the IPCC they're working group of 250 scientists across the world has nearly 21 different models for predicting the Arctic ice heat decay and if you look at that one diagram that I sent you I think it's up slide 6 there are there are literally 20 different models some predicting there will be no ice left and others predicting there will be all the ice left there so here's one of these models I've got your slides but they're trying to find what I need well yeah it's it's the one it's a colorful one it's it's it's not the

[36:57]

it's it's it's not the this one yes no no no the next one the next one it's got bunch of graphs on it bunch of graphs on it nope not that one the one that has
goes from the year 2000 to 2100 and it has NIH ice extent that must be the one that fell on the floor hold on okay okay so what while Scott's coming so what you see is these are mathematical models that are done predict why meant multiple variables are involved in predicting so remember the three things that the climate
alarmists says that the ice sheets are gonna melt we're gonna have temper to extremes and the oceans are rising these are the three big things so I want to take each one Scott and just share with you some facts on them let's let's so we're gonna talk about ocean rising first no no let's talk about the I seat

[37:59]

first no no let's talk about the I seat which is that graph sheet yeah my printer died lost paper I'm just I'm just gonna grab a piece of paper and throw it in there hold on yeah [Applause]
so take your time Scott so this so if you look from to that when Scott gets if you go from the year 2000
these models were created to say what percentage of the Arctic ice sheet would be less Scott that's what these are looking at okay okay and
this is slide six by the way slide five and six and this was done by Eisenman that comes up all right I don't have anything like that in what you sent me but let's let's try to proceed without it okay it's the one before the earth that the earth coming and and graphs coming the Sun hitting

[38:59]

and and graphs coming the Sun hitting and then red stuff going back but
look at that paper it literally has 20 lines on it's got 20 different predictions evidence from the scientific perspective is unambiguous predictions unambiguous here you have 20 different predictions of ice melting from 0 to 100 so how can you say that's evidence it's not there's no evidence that the Arctic ice sheets are gonna melt and be gone by 2100 which is what the alarmists are saying but threes evidence there is evidence that the ice has been consistently melting in current years is that not true well okay so so here's the ice melts and it also grows and now we can talk about science you know there's been some very interesting science done all the way from the 20s and 30s show the orbit of

[40:01]

from the 20s and 30s show the orbit of the earth affects the ice growth in some cyclical form which creates insulation in the Arctic and that process creates a temperature differential from the Arctic to the tropics which grows where ice grows and it recedes this is a natural phenomenon that's been going on for you know millennia but what I'm trying to say is let's focus in on the climate change alarmists they have no model that consistently shows because evidence is unambiguous predictions that is science if we want to do so it's unambiguous predictions you have 20 different models which are all predicting varying amounts of ice from zero to hundred percent it's just look yeah let me take that point but of all the things that they measure so they're measuring land temperatures you know ocean temperatures measuring sea level and the measuring ice of all

[41:04]

sea level and the measuring ice of all of those things I've always thought measuring the ice might be the sketchiest because I'm they're just not sure that they can do that even though they can see it from space how deep is it you know et cetera but what what would you consider the gold standard of things that we do have a good way to measure that if that one thing changed you'd say okay there is climate change in other words would you Bank everything on sea level would you Bank everything on ocean temperature or tropospheric temperature because we can maybe we can measure that with greater precision with our satellites what would be your your most reliable one thing that you would bet it all on if you could put a model on that and say okay if your model can can predict this whether it's sea level or ice I will change my mind what would it be
be okay first of all you know the climate

[42:05]

okay first of all you know the climate alarmists have have created a platform which is not even based on science by taking a multi dimensional systems problem and say that you've measured by one variable called co2 it is basically not even science but if you were to ask me it would be the you know surface temperature of the earth the global mean temperature of the earth okay but overall hold on but but but the global mean temperature of the earth my understanding is that ninety percent of the warming goes into the into the poles and and into the into the water so would you really get what you need if you're only measuring land temperatures and do we have enough my understanding is the only place we have good long term measurements is the United States and there's some thinking that the United States may not have been in a place where there was a lot of warming in the first place you know because it's going to be in the poles and in the ocean so I'm unconvinced that measuring land temperatures would be the gold standard

[43:08]

temperatures would be the gold standard but do you think it is well what so what I'm saying Scott is you can't measure one thinks you're asking me a question to reduce a a multi-dimensional prompt to one variable but what I can tell you is that we are starting to with satellite data we're starting to be able to measure the radiative the rate the radiation that's being emitted across different parts of the globe the emission of radiation is of a value that we should be measuring the radiative forcing it's it's a it's a it's a term that is a little bit difficult to explain but what I'm trying to say is that reducing this entire problem to co2 and reducing this entire problem to sink co2 and this delta T is everything is is is how the climate science in distributed climate change industry has started but let me ask you this

[44:12]

if it's true that the temperature is rising and the only thing that we can measure that's changing at the same rate is the co2 does that tell you everything you need because nothing else is changing at least changing at a rate that would make a difference to our occur temperatures is that what's wrong with that logic this isn't true a party's not true well for example I'll give you an effect what is the cirrus cloud thickness as these things change over time are we measuring that for example there's a modulation taking place constantly the the big picture here is we are sitting here as human beings with about a hundred year lifespan and wait hold on yeah hold on so the on the cloud thing if but the temperatures are only going in one direction and and the only thing that's also going in in a you know substantially changed

[45:12]

in a you know substantially changed direction is co2 the clouds as far as we know unless you can tell me that we've measured this the clouds are not having an effect of moderating because the temperature continues to go up doesn't that prove the month that the clouds are not modulating the temperatures we don't see them doing what I'm saying there's a couple assumptions here the temperature has gone up one degree over the last 200 years which was the thawing of the last ice the Little Ice Age let's just this is this is something that people will not you know contest the temperature that has that they claim has gone up the delta T over the last 15 years the rate of change of temperature has been stable it's been zero delta T over time so the rate of change 0 how does that square with a graph that goes like this are you saying that that graph is not well you know whenever you see a hockey stick curve let's start looking at the units and let's start

[46:14]

looking at the units and let's start looking at the error bars on that and if you look at the units on that I believe it's like 0.2 0.3 these are predictions and the error bars on that are you know unknown you know meaning that they're very very high error bars it's even the IPCC if you look at the IPCC report I sent you Scott of the big working group of 250 scientists it's a very important report because it pretty much exposes the entire do you have it there Scott I send it to you about what I have is not useful so
so the inter panel everyone knows the IPCC is right what they are right yeah they I think everybody here knows what the IP right so I places because when you bring when you so the IPCC the the last major report not the one that just came out a

[47:16]

report not the one that just came out a couple years ago but the major one 250 scientists this is a conclusion and this is buried in the report it says there is no evidence and no consensus to support claims of imminent pilot catastrophes or irreversible tipping points - there are indeed a 15-year hiatus in global warming from 1998 to 2013 and the climate models all failed to predict and overshot warming so bad they had to be disregarded three both IPCC and NOAA agree there was and is no trend of increasing severity or frequency of hurricanes or typhoons or even thunderstorms in the 20th and 21st century for the previous IPCC report in 2007 was wrong there is no evidence or likelihood that man's release of co2 or any other behaviors doing anything to cause more droughts 5 the overall I mean it keeps going when this report came out and the same kind of report came out in 1999 shortly

[48:17]

of report came out in 1999 shortly before Al Gore did Inconvenient Truth by the way in the cover of that book in the inside cover he's got tornadoes going the wrong way hurricanes going the wrong way photoshopped so what I'm trying to say is every time the IPCC actually brings in more scientists they actually say this is all rubbish from a science standpoint and what happens is the other people react to start the PR machine even when this report came out stat they released a one-page press release done by the media we're in a situation in this country where people do not understand they do not understand math and they're being bamboozled this whole thing is nonsense there the relationship between co2 and delta T is so nominal let me give you if you actually look at the numbers doubling co2 and both sides agree to this will only change the the radiative forcing by 3 watts per meter squared now when

[49:20]

by 3 watts per meter squared now when you use their models it says that that Earth's temperatures are going to go up by 4 degrees but if you use their model they did not include the feedback system accurately of clouds so I'll repeat again everyone agrees that it if co2 doubles and it's a logarithmic scale for every time it doubles the amount of radiative forcing which we will have additional will be 3.7 watts per meter squared which is about 2% Scott additional ok that addition using their climate models will increase the temperature by three point seven degrees we haven't even witnessed that it's kameen this is going back to basic science we have not witnessed that at all what what specifically have we not witnessed the radiation forcings of the temperature well well you know happer is if there is a climate expert in the world it's it's William Hopper because he has spent his life understanding how

[50:21]

he has spent his life understanding how co2 vibrates to keep it simple how it emits and absorbs radiation and what we do know is if you double co2 doubling co2 it will increase the radiative forcing you know that oaked which means you're adding another 3.7 watts per meter imagine if the Sun sent us more sunlight to keep it simple by another 3.7 so how much does that increase temperature according to the climate alarmists models that 3.7 is going to increase temperature by it close to 3 3 degrees 3 to 4 degrees ok and we should have seen that already we haven't seen that yeah we've double co2 we have double co2 we don't see a 4 degree in recent temperature so is that but but is that but is that is that for every every place on the curves that the Dublin because I would imagine doubling what we have now would be a bigger effect than W it's a logarithmic scale

[51:25]

effect than W it's a logarithmic scale logarithms for every doubling you get the same Delta increase so if you if you went from 200 parts by the way if you go from by the way do you know what happens when you have 130 parts per million or less of co2 do you know what happens right of course I do know I really know what happens well we don't have we die okay we need co2 oh yeah okay okay I do know that yes that's the so if you went from 200 parts per million to 400 which we've doubled it that doubling will increase a radiative forcing by 3.7 watts per meter there models predict that that will therefore increase temperature by 4 degrees we have already gone through that doubling we've maybe had a half a degree increase maybe okay so now if we double again this is what the alarmists are saying go from 400 to 800 oh my god we're gonna see an 8 degree right it's not happening I'm saying we go to basic science their predictions are not being revealed in

[52:26]

predictions are not being revealed in the actual data even happer has had his models and he if you see that one graph he says this is what I predicted but the earth is pretty much maintaining its delta T it's pretty much maintaining that 15 degrees man in their models they purposefully did not include the effect of the cirrus clouds which have an iris effect so you're looking at people who are frankly doing bogus science they do not understand equilibrium they do not understand feedback and they're leaving out variables and moreover their own models are predicting for degree increases which have not taken place and based around this false science we have now created an environment where if you in academia if you say anything against this I mean I live up here in Cambridge you know I got three professors who live around me two MIT guys one Harvard guy they all get funding forget climates science at MIT if you say anything you're gonna be screwed and

[53:31]

there's a bigger issue going on you're Scott is 97% agree well you know this is nonsense because what's disgraceful is these scientists who know fluid mechanics who know turbulent physics they're keeping mum because research has become an industry that's what's really happened since the 1914 1960 the Mansfield Act was passed which said military could no longer support science except for weaponry so the entire scientific field was based on the National Science Foundation and bureaucrats so all of scientific research grants come from one body so what you have now is when climate science quote-unquote climate science took place two billion dollars got released you go the MIT Sloan School you put anything climate science you're gonna get funded when so so we're looking at a deeper issue here because even the IPCC I mean 2013 report the biggest working group it even says only seventeen out of the nine

[54:32]

says only seventeen out of the nine hundred eighty eight nine hundred eighty thousand glaciers in the world have records of thirty years or more and those that are receding we're doing so end of the Little Ice Age ice sheets of both Greenland and Antarctica are growing and slowing the rate of sea level rise this is even more important sea level rise is less than three millimeters per year far slower than the peak of forty millimeters per year several thousand years ago even the IPCC people go read the report admits this whole thing is nonsense the whole thing is nonsense and to end now I think everybody watching this agrees that money influences things and so there there should be a predictable bias in the science have you talked to anybody besides Lyndon have you talked to anybody who's actually gone and got some climate funding who actually didn't believe their own story in other words have you met anybody in person who's who's in the climate science world even if that's the wrong name for it who will

[55:33]

if that's the wrong name for it who will admit to you yeah I don't even leave what I'm doing but I need this this money have you run into anything like that well let me just reiterate your questions I get your asking you have I run into people who did not believe climate change was taking place and then they later agreed is that you're saying it's got people who were who didn't necessarily believe in climate change but knew that's where the money was so they pretended that they did go look at the MIT Sloan School how many people have applied for grants in poverty in anything you put you put climate science on its gonna get funded pretty much MIT gets twenty to forty million dollars a year that's the reason when linson wrote his article his paper to trump they try to denounce him and later dick said they apologize to him also okay this is a number one university in the world but that we are supposed to believe in and what's happened is that research funding and Eisenhower talked about this he said when you start giving grants to people

[56:35]

when you start giving grants to people that's when you get mediocre science so what we've done is academia is different than science academics do not the thing is you follow the party line you do not shake the boat scientists do that Lyndon is a scientist most of the people at MIT and other institutions are academics and I hate to say this about my alma mater but it's disgraceful what's taking place in this country we do not have science taking place anymore by and large we have belief I mean the fact that you call it climate denier Scott think about it Holocaust denier this is a religion and the fact that when will happen let's have a debate bringing both sides he's attacked he's demonized I think I think you pointed this out we should have an open debate it should be completely televised like you know the hearings completely and to end these guys do not want to have a debate on this because their science is so thin it's based on Al Gore who is putting pictures of hurricanes going the wrong direction

[57:37]

hurricanes going the wrong direction now their argument would be let's say if you were a holocaust denier and they believed in the Holocaust because they're real historians why would they why would they grant such illegitimate views you know a platform so that's not crazy as a story whether it's true or not true that you at least their coverage story if that's what it is is solid which is you would not grant a platform to people who are not serious you know that players so how do we who don't know science know that that that's not a good argument because they would be giving a platform to well let me put it another way there are lots of different people who have skeptical views on climate science they are not all as persuasive as you are would you agree that the people who are skeptical of the of the climate

[58:38]

skeptical of the of the climate emergency would you say that there are so many people who are not serious players that if you picked the wrong people it would just be a circus yes I see you're saying yeah I think you're bringing up a good point look what's happened is it's it's a it's a very deep point you bring up you have a set of people by the way fifty percent of people you could argue voted for Donald Trump don't believe in climate change okay or I'm not gonna say climate change or climate alarmism okay okay majority of those people Scott if you look at them are orden everyday ordinary people who have not been indoctrinated into the process called rationalizing fortunately they still have common sense this is a very very important point dick and I had an interesting conversation about what you have now is a university system is creating people who rationalize stuff because you get grades you get advanced by agreeing to things the person who does plumbing the person to does electricity the person to build software you know you're running a software

[59:38]

you know you're running a software company right Scott if it doesn't work you can't your way out of that I'm sorry it doesn't work it doesn't work it doesn't work you can't have an opinion on it we have a lot of people now who are getting degrees like Acacio cortez in international relations who knows doesn't probably know how to solve a differential equation probably doesn't know the difference between rate of change and the second derivative etc these people horribly are involved in promoting policies and ideas which make no scientific and physical sense so what you're talking about is in reaction to that are the climate spec skeptics a lot of people I'm sure who in their gut knows something doesn't make sense now obviously choosing some of one of them to argue with the climate alarmists would be devastating right you need people who understand science like myself or like a guy like tapper and a guy like Lyndon and others to be the people who are but more importantly I'm saying if you actually bring people together actually scientists and you put them into a room whether they're for or

[1:00:39]

them into a room whether they're for or against climate change the the data is so overwhelmingly showing this is nonsense that's why it's so horrible that scientists are keeping mum because they are afraid of going against her religion Scott this is no different than something out of the scarlet Nathaniel Hawthorne scar scarlet letter now that's what's what are some good examples you're probably more of a student of scientific history than I am I know examples such as nutrition science the the consensus was pretty solidly in the wrong for decades I've heard the example of scientists thought that or I guess medical science thought that ulcers were caused by stress and that turned out not to be true can you think of any other what would be the closest example where the scientists were this wrong in your opinion historically well in some other topic
for tobacco for 50 years scientists said smoking was fine dentists would say it

[1:01:41]

smoking was fine dentists would say it was good it was seen as a cure for asthma I mean these were the ads right no no seriously I mean many years ago as a meeting with Noam Chomsky on something else no one said you got to read this book by Robert Proctor is called a golden Holocaust and that book clearly shows how a cadet Domitian's colluded with big tobacco to say smoking was good for you think about it by the way we should do at some point we should follow up the same phenomenons going on with cannabis alex Berenson has written a great book on it I'm finishing up some research showing this same lemming model is taking place I think what climate change of the climate alarmism discussion is revealing SCOTUS we live at a point in human history now where politicians cannot even understand this because they don't even know how to refute it you know I'm gonna be running in 2020 against a guy called Mark II I mean think about this this guy standing next to a OSE promoting the green New Deal this is nothing to do with lowering pollution this has nothing to do with anything to understand science and yet

[1:02:43]

anything to understand science and yet he's representing Massachusetts this is about one thing money period and it's that simple it's about researchers wanting to get their 2 billion dollars so they could get tenure and they can proceed along their path but it has nothing to do with it looking at the fundamentals of what's taking place I mean if you look at the history of the Scott Maggie Thatcher if you go to the 80s and 90s was against the coal miners remember that all right party olof palme a wanted nuclear power right a Maurice Gordon I think it's his name I forget his name the guy who did the food for science program do you know I'm talking about no he's the one who started the real conference this guy's absolute criminal they set up Rio and they had two groups at Rio conference in 1992 one was the partiers the Congress of people you know the al gore's and the politicians who no no science and a representative the IPCC group the net of it was they created propaganda in 1999 the IPCC said wait a minute none of this is taking place that's when Al Gore gets

[1:03:44]

is taking place that's when Al Gore gets concerned he puts that Inconvenient Truth in 2000 and he goes on a lecture tour made about a hundred million dollars every time the IPCC which is their own group which is create created to create climate alarmism and the scientists get together they go against a narrative they go back on a massive PR thing that's what this green new deal is out it is a reaction to the 2013 entire working group report is that the entire thing is nonsense dude do you have an opinion on the generation for nuclear as a solution to whether you believe in climate change being a problem or not that it's that's the the future for energy if you looked into that yeah I mean I saw your you know your your flow chart you know you had and and you know so the flow chart went like is climate change occurring green New Deal green new deal could go to 50 percent mass extinction and the 50 percent Golden Age and the other one was is climate change a hoax right uh in which case you go to

[1:04:45]

a hoax right uh in which case you go to I think Jen whatever Jen or Jen for nuclear and that reads a Golden Age but I think there's an a third point we need to make here and again I don't get paid by the coal or oil industry look chemical engineers have done a lot of work over the last 50 years they have really refined the process of clean coal and natural gas right clean coal clean coal well what I'm saying is if you look over really fifty years ago right it's fundamentally Scott I'm not look my point is this it's about lowering pollution if we really want to have a discussion it's about lowering pollution we want we all want clean air well that's slightly different from the the nuclear question because nuclear which is climate change is a hoax okay we definitely I love the fact that I think we should put I mean Fusion is a long way off but the the the new

[1:05:46]

long way off but the the the new generation nuclear reactors make a lot of sense we should you know do a Manhattan Project type thing to support them and put I mean it's a very rational conclusion what you reach but I'm saying we also still have we've made from an engineering standpoint quite a number of strides in gas and coal we have I mean it's not like dirty stuff what was it what what percentage would you say from let's say standard dirty coal if that was you know a 10 and a 10 and dirtiness what is clean coal is it an 8 the resident - I mean we still have the missions like so2 sulfur dioxide you know I still have greenhouse emissions but I'm saying I think pretty much everyone would agree that the the fossil fuels the methodology that we burned today also has not just stood still for 40 50 years that technology also gotten better it's not like in chemical engineers are just sitting there not doing any work I mean everything has to get better more

[1:06:48]

everything has to get better more efficient and things have gotten better the bigger issue is how much of this stuff is real and it's not where should we be really rationally putting our scientific endeavors what you've proposed with nuclear makes a lot of sense you know many people have felt that for years but I think with the new generation reactors it makes even more sense to pursue so so if I could summarize what you just said even if you did a Manhattan Project to make these safer cleaner meltdown proof generation for nuclear reactors which we know how to make by the way and Rick Perry just opened up a test site for testing fuels which is one of the important developments in this field but even if we decided to go nuclear the safe ones the ones that don't melt down and also here's the cool thing they eat they eat they're on the nuclear waste yeah he did with Mark Snyder yeah yeah right

[1:07:50]

he did with Mark Snyder yeah yeah right you got it yeah his his periscopes are great and but even if you did that you'd still want to work just as hard as you could on making your coal cleaner your gas you know less definitely I'm saying these are engineering problems and science problems these are not when you look at the alternative when you look at those other two groups of people that we're talking about the fake the academics who you put your name on bedbugs and climate science you're gonna get funded or Syrian war on climate science you're gonna get funded what happened was when the climate change when the climate alarmism took place Scott it created a need for climate scientists a new job there weren't enough people qualified to be climate scientists so every Tom Dick and Harry is now in this field now every you know business people are in it sociologists are in it anthropologists are in it because academia is about getting grants and getting tenure it is not it has become less and less about doing science

[1:08:51]

become less and less about doing science and I think this is a more bigger that we need to talk about relative to this discussion why is a hacker demonized I mean it's crazy look he may be a nerd a little bit and maybe he didn't use he didn't use the right analogy but he's not getting Botox all day and his collagen injections to look good assert
your talking about real people who don't have time for that then you have people like John Kerry and Al Gore who are a different beast they get Nobel Prizes right mm-hmm so we're living in a very dangerous world on who is allowed to determine what is fact and and what is not fact and demonizing people I think this is really dangerous uh dr. Shiva we could talk forever but I'd like to keep these keeps usually close to an hour just because they're more consumable for people so I love the the view into this

[1:09:52]

people so I love the the view into this world that you gave me and I think most of the viewers as well I was not really aware of this whole cloud iris concept and it's very interesting I'm not gonna say that I believe it because you know in order to find belief in science you'd have to be smarter than me and I would need just a lot of evidence of any claim in climate before I could be convinced but I got to say it's pretty darn persuasive so I love that it gives me a new a new thing to dig into a little bit more it's great context and but the most important thing is you've you've convinced me to change careers because I hear I could be a qualified climate scientist and the money's there
everyone listening you know start a non-profit put climate science on it even if you don't believe it and I'm sure you will get a good shot of getting funded that

[1:10:54]

get a good shot of getting funded that is with two billion dollars of funding out there that's what's not but Scott in all seriousness I think the important point of this conversation is natural systems have equilibriums they have feedback mechanisms they're complex systems and and we and science is about going into the unknown testing things and finding truth it's not about essentially creating terms like climate denier it's not about demonizing people who spend their lifetime on this and that's what the point here is we need to get back into science and appreciating science you know if Nolan Ryan I just want to say this one this laughs if no one Ryan told you how to throw a fastball you're gonna listen to him are you gonna listen to his mechanics how to throw a fastball or a little leaguer but for some reason when it comes to this field when a physicist with their degrees and who've actually worked on these problems says something's wrong like a William Hopper he's demonized by people in the press

[1:11:54]

he's demonized by people in the press who've never even probably taken a course in basic level physics or know the second law of thermodynamics that's the issue that we're dealing with in this in the world right now the deception that's taking place all right we're gonna leave it on that note we're gonna wrap it up thank you so much this was tremendous I'm watching the comments people are blown away people loving this and thank you so much sure thank you be well Scott alright take care and we're gonna wrap this up and I'll talk to all of you tomorrow