Hey everyone. So, a topic I get asked to
cover quite a lot is climate change
denial. I have made one very meaty video
on this topic, but like most areas of
science denial, one video is never
enough. So, let's continue to discuss
this. Now, as I said, I have done one
video on this topic, and that is my
video debunking Matt Ridley. He's an
aristocratic scumbag who profits off of
fossil fuels, among other things. Hence
his devotion to spreading propaganda,
minimizing the dangers of anthropogenic
climate change, and denigrating
alternative energy sources. He also made
a cameo in my video debunking COVID lab
leak propaganda given his popular book
with Alina Chan that brainwashed lots of
people. So, he's definitely made the
rounds in the science denial zeitgeist.
That video was very thorough and
examined a mountain of data in order to
combat Ridley's brand of climate change
denial, which is called lukewarmism. But
just as how debunking Andrew Wakefield
isn't enough to address the entire
antivaxer community, we can't stop with
this topic simply after debunking
Ridley, it will be worth our time to
examine the most common talking points
that climate change deniers of all
flavors put forward. To best tackle
this, I present to you a discussion with
Peter Hadfield, also known as Potholeer
54. Many of you will recognize him as an
OG YouTube debunker who was out there
debunking pseudocience well before I
even started my channel. Peter is a
geologist who has been covering climate
change as a science journalist since the
mid1 1990s, reporting from the
conference in Japan that gave us the
Kyoto protocol. Since then, he has
devoted a lot of time to addressing
climate change deniers and related
charlatans, which has made him a master
at debunking their most common
arguments. I first became aware of him
when debunking the deranged cult leader
Ben Davidson and his ridiculous channel
Suspicious Observers, which is now
called Space Weather News. Peter took
him down a peg or two in a couple of
live interactions which resulted in Ben
never attempting to directly engage a
real expert ever again. Now Peter is
here to help us understand the
distortions put forward by climate
change deniers so that we can all be
armed with the knowledge and
understanding required to cut down such
claims in our personal and professional
lives. If you have friends with these
views and you want to show them how
wrong they are, this video is for you.
So without further delay, let's begin
our discussion with Peter. Peter, thanks
so much for joining me. I'm excited to
have a discussion here about climate
change and in particular climate change
deniers. Uh maybe just go ahead and
introduce yourself to my viewers. Some
may know you, some may not.
>> Yeah. Well, um okay. So, Peter Hadfield,
I go under the name uh Potola 54 on
YouTube. Uh I've been YouTubing since
2006 in the very early days. Um and most
of what I do is um debunking science
myths on the internet uh of which there
are many and and they they they come
thick and fast much faster than they can
be debunked. But prior to that I've been
a journalist for the last 40 years um
mostly working as a science journalist.
I was a new scientist correspondent in
the Far East and uh well based in Japan
and um I I also worked as a journalist
in the Far East for a number of
newspapers and television networks and
um these days I'm in Australia working a
little less in news and a little more in
feature stories which is nice and easy.
>> Nice. Yeah, I I I think there's probably
a lot of people going I know that voice
but that's a new face.
>> So I've had that before. Yeah,
definitely. So, okay. So, let's talk
about climate change denial. So, this is
not new at all. Like, climate change
denial is decades. I mean, it's been
around. It's older than me probably. I
mean, it's this is something that's been
around, but I think that probably who
has been behind these various narratives
has probably changed hands. You've been
go you've been at this for a long time.
What have you noticed about the way
climate change denial has evolved over
the decades? Who's behind it? How has
the narrative changed? Has he become
more sophisticated, less sophisticated?
What do you think?
>> Yeah, it's interesting because um you
think it's been around for a long time,
but uh I mean this the the the
hypothesis has been around that carbon
dioxide affects global temperature
that's been around since the 1890s and
has been confirmed uh I mean the theory
goes back to the 1950s. It's never been
controversial. This is the interesting
thing. Um when I started reporting on
this in the late 80s, early 90s, it was
not a controversial thing. This was a
piece of science just like any other. Um
and I I remember I went to the Kyoto uh
conference in 1997. This is the famous
Kyoto protocol that was signed which is
the first attempt to reduce carbon
emissions. And um there was no
anti-science lobby there except there
were about two or three desks inhabited
by fossil fuel industry.
>> Um and they were there to put the case
of the oil, gas and coal to say no, we
don't think this is happening. Actually,
despite the fact that Exxon of course
had a secret report that said the
science is exactly right on this, but
they they hid that. But they their
public face was to say uh we don't think
this is going to be a problem. And um I
remember there was just very little
interest in in in it at the time and I I
went over to them and chatted with them
and joked that you guys are looking
rather lonely over here. Now you fast
forward to today it's a huge industry
now isn't it? And I think uh the
arguments have definitely changed
because in the '9s the best they could
come up with is well we're not seeing
any warming at the moment so probably
the scientists have got this wrong. when
there was warming the argument changed
to okay it must be the sun uh and then
when it was clear that the sun was not
responsible because we can measure solar
output um then that changed to um okay
it might be carbon dioxide but the earth
has this wonderful self-regulating
mechanism the clouds are going to
increase and it's going to cool us down
again
>> and when that was clear that global
warming was still continuing every
effort they've made to say well it
stopped now or it's going to stop and
those have been overturned by events
that the warming has continued and um
then we began to get okay there's going
to be more carbon dioxide but it's a
good thing right and warmer world is a
good thing greener warmer is good for us
when that's now becoming clear that
that's not the case and I can give a
number of reasons why but won't go into
those now but it's becoming clear that
that's not the case and they've shifted
the argument now to well we can adapt
and this seems to be the latest one and
My bet, Dave, is the next one down the
road is going to be uh well, yeah, we
should have done something 40 years ago.
It's too late now.
>> Too late. Yeah.
>> And the thing is, you can't stop the
progress of science. Science will always
advance. Yeah. And and our understanding
of this has not changed and and it's
advanced, confirmed what was said in the
1950s, ever since. They can't stop that.
The best they can do is to put
roadblocks in the way to try to slow it
down to create doubt. And I think that's
what uh really has been happening.
>> Yeah. Yeah. The evolution is clearly
from it's not happening to okay, it is
happening but it's good to oh it is
happening but it's not as bad as you
think to oh well who cares. It's like
>> that's kind of it and all stops in
between because you'll still get people
who think it's the sun. You'll still get
people who say it's not warming.
>> There's so much disagreement among the
critics of climate science about what
you know argument to use. which should
be an enormous red flag, right? Because
the the climate scientists are in
complete agreement with the data and and
the predictions and just like look, this
is, you know, we've had 1.5 degrees of
warming since pre-industrial, another
half a degree, and we're screwed, right?
And it's going to happen in this amount
of time, probably 20 years or whatever
it is. And uh yeah, I've become familiar
with a lot of this through debunking
Matt Ridley, who I'm sure you were
familiar with, this whole the
lukewarmism uh uh thing. And um so yeah
so I I think what we should do here this
is very interesting right because as you
said there are these so many different
narratives and different approaches to
climate change and now let's kind of go
through some of them and just talk about
what people say and and just kind of arm
the viewer with like you know this is if
someone says this to you this is how you
debunk this right so like for example
first of all they'll a lot of them will
say like climate change whatever the
climate's always changing like it's just
all throughout geological history, the
climate's changing all over the place
and they'll be like, "Oh, Malinkovich
cycles and blah blah blah blah blah
blah." So, why do you what do you why do
you care that the climate is changing?
It's supposed to do that.
>> What do you say to that?
>> That's one of the first questions I hear
and and the reason I love it is my
background is in geology. I was actually
a geologist for a couple of years before
becoming a journalist. So, I had a
degree in geology. Um, let let me just
start by saying you have to understand
the person that's making these
arguments. And I'm sure we're all
familiar with the crazy uncle at
Thanksgiving who then spouts what he's
learned over the last year about uh
climate change on the internet and and
someone at work who's the conspiracy
theorist. They'll always try and corner
you with the latest ideas and latest
theories. It's very tempting to just
lecture them and tell them, you know,
no, that's not the case. Blah blah.
>> Remember that these guys think they are
absolutely brilliant. It's not just that
they are as smart as the scientists.
They never studied science. They never
went to university to do science. They
are beyond that. They are so much
smarter than scientists. They've
actually leapfrogged leaprogged over the
university system and now they're far
advanced in their understanding and left
all those book learners behind them. So
you need to play to their strengths
because uh to to your strengths and
their and make that their weakness. And
I when I was a um interviewing
government officials or politicians and
so on as a journalist, it's very
tempting to go in pretending you know it
all, but that puts them on their guard.
>> What you have to do is what I call the
Columbbo principle. And I don't know if
you remember Columbbo from the 1960s and
70s. Yeah. Peter Peter reruns of this.
And Columbbo was this shabby
um detective who looked completely
stupid and looked like he didn't know
what he was doing. Yeah.
>> And that always leads people into lulls
them into a false
>> sense of security. Yeah.
>> So what I would do at an interview is
I'd shuffle the papers around. I'd
forget my batteries. I'd say, "Oh, I had
my questions here. I don't know where
they are now. I must have left them at
home." And immediately they start
thinking, "We're dealing with an idiot.
I don't have to worry about this." Yeah.
>> And the first questions that come out
should be softball questions. Just make
it as though you know nothing about this
subject. make it that they are the the
clever one, the the the crazy uncle at
Thanksgiving or the conspiracy theorist
at work. They are the ones who know
everything and you are there to learn
from them.
>> So immediately, let's go back to the
question you asked. The climate always
changes. Don't immediately say, "Yes,
but it's always changed, but this time
we're the ones doing it and uh it's
humans that are causing it and we're all
in trouble." They're not bothered about
that. They're not listening to that. Um
it confirms in their mind that you're an
idiot. What you need to do is treat them
like the guru they think they are and
say, "Yeah, that's interesting.
Actually, the climate does always
change." And it's true, it's changed
throughout geological history, hasn't
it? So why is that? And they will start
then you've got to feed them a bit of
rope. Let them come out with all their
theories about why this happens.
>> But familiarize yourself with the
reasons. And now I'm just going to very
briefly um give my geological spiel here
because it's important that people do
understand the reasons so that they can
use this as as ammunition. The the
history of the earth over the last 500
million years the phenoroic which was
when we've got a basically good uh
geological record. Prior to that it's a
bit more cloudy. Um, we've seen uh
carbon dioxide levels uh from the uh
Cambrian uh fall over the last 500
million years. And they will always say
uh it's the sun that does it or it's
galactic rays that that are causing it.
They won't blame carbon dioxide. It's
what I call the ABCD. Anything but
carbon dioxide. They'll find all kinds
of other reasons and each one you have
to explain, no, it can't be that. So
they'll try and use the argument that
it's the sun.
>> But solar output has been rising over
the last 500 million years. So it hasn't
suddenly caused this warming and it
hasn't caused all the ups and downs and
over the last 500 million years. It's
not galactic rays because galactic rays
run in periods of 20 million years and
that doesn't fit the cycle. And it's not
volcanoes. Um, which is another argument
they come up with because volcanoes have
a tendency to cool the earth in the
short term.
>> And then Melankovich, they they bring up
Melankovich cycles.
>> Melankovich, you see, now this is
another thing they get very confused
about time scales. Melankovich cycles
only work, as far as we know, they only
work in our um ice age. Probably worked
in previous ones. But our ice age is an
anomaly. It's it's a weird period over
the last 500 million years. There have
only been three ice ages. Ours has only
lasted for two million years, two maybe
two and a half. So, um it's it's an
anomaly. And Melankovich cycles are what
tips the earth from a glacial into an
interglacial, which is not the way that
the earth has has behaved in the past.
And certainly, we can't say that we're
in one of these wobbles or Blankovich
cycles now because we know we're not. So
um that doesn't account for the warming
over the last
>> it's totally ad hoc right if you look at
each meal cycle it's not in a position
in that cycle that would be responsible
for warming nor could it possibly
explain the rapidity of the warming
right over a couple of centuries these
are 20,000 year 25,000year
>> cycles um
>> yeah and in fact we we have another
16,000 years before we even start
looking at another glacial cycles
>> I I think people get very confused about
the history of the earth and geological
time. And I actually did a video showing
the difference between the the length of
time over the Phanto 500 million year
period and the 2 million years of our
recent geological history. I mean I say
recent as a geologist. Uh it's all new
stuff. Um but you know there's a there's
a huge difference in geological terms.
Let's talk a little bit more about the
sun because that is so the uh as I told
my viewers, the the first time I became
aware of you was uh I found you uh
making fun of Ben Davidson a little bit
in a couple of uh interactions which led
to him never challenging an actual
expert ever again, which is hilarious to
me.
>> It wasn't hard, but it was fun.
>> Yeah, I I I thought it was quite
humorous. But um so his the the sun
angle and I think that there are these
other kind of space disaster weather
news. Uh it's a very trendy thing right
now on YouTube. There's a bunch of
copycat frauds that kind of all spew the
same stuff and Ben's a little more like
cult leader compound about it. Um uh
super ma. Others are like a little
chiller but they kind of have the same
grift. How what like let's just dig a
little bit more into this sun thing. the
sun is causing not I mean it Ben's thing
is like it's causing earthquakes and
stuff too but um let's let's a little
spend a couple more minutes debunking
the sun angle.
>> Yeah, let's do that because there's so
many ways you can do this. I mean, if
people um again, if if we're looking at
time scales, it's different during the
glacial interglacial periods because a
very small change in solar radiance at
certain latitudes starts the melt of ice
sheets and as ice sheets melt, they
reflect a lot of sunlight. So then
they're opening up a land or sea where
the energy from the sun can be absorbed.
So that's an amplifying effect. So it's
a huge amplifier. Now if we look over
the phenorizoic um as I was saying the
the solar output has been increasing
over time at the same rate more or less
at which CO2 has been going down. It's
been very very steady. If the sun was
responsible for all the ups and downs in
global temperature over the last 500
million years and we've gone from hot
houses for example during the Siluran
during the uh the Cambrian and we've
gone to ice ages during the Deavonian
and the Carboniferous which by the way I
think in the United States it's called
the Mississippian um different same
period but but different name and these
ups and downs um cannot be explained by
the sun because you
>> I mean the sun has been gradually
increasing but it hasn't been flipping
you know one two 3% either way would
cause this the only thing that's been
changing uh is carbon dioxide and I'll
just very quickly explain how this
happens because carbon dioxide was
around 20 times today's level during the
Cambrian this is about 500 million years
ago
>> and over time it's gradually decreased
and the way it decreases is something
called chemical weathering where you get
um uh carbon dioxide in the air mixing
with rain forms a weak acid dissolving
rocks sending those into the ocean as a
calcium carbonate. So most of the
world's limestone is a calcium carbonate
that's basically locked up all of that
carbon dioxide that used to be in our
atmosphere and to a certain extent the
coal and oil not quite as much but
certainly a good deal of that
>> and that's taken that out of the
atmosphere. So over time carbon dioxide
has has been falling and it gets
replenished every now and again you get
a blip with carbon dioxide and that's
caused by things called flood bassels
which are events where the earth
basically opens up and the upper mantle
uh lava floods across the surface of the
earth and an outpouring of carbon
dioxide and when that happens you get a
huge increase in CO2 and with every fall
in CO2 we've seen an ice age and every
rise in CO2, you know, significant
enough, we've seen increases in
temperatures. So that's how we know that
CO2 is the long-term driver. It can't be
the sun because otherwise you would have
seen these violent swings. And
>> you can't propose that that is the cause
when there is no correlation
historically, right? One trend in the
other. There they just don't correlate
at all. Where's the basis for for saying
that? Um, so yeah. So I guess it it's
very difficult for a climate change
denier to uh to deny that CO2 is the
culprit, but then they always go to, oh,
but it's it's such a trace gas. It's
0.2% of the atmosphere, whatever it is.
How can this possibly like like yeah,
there's some correlation, but how is it
going to make the Earth like, you know,
how is it going to be this catastrophic
thing? Like what do we say to that?
Yeah, you this is where I love the
contradictions. Um actually just going
back to the sun, talking of
contradictions, one of the things they
always say is, "Oh, scientists are
ignoring the sun." Um and yet when they
show the correlation that doesn't exist
between CO2 and global temperatures,
they say, "Well, there's no correlation
between CO2 and global temperature."
they are completely ignoring the role of
the sun because you have to you have to
take the fact that the sun's been
increasing over 500 million years along
with the decrease. You've got to look at
all the factors and not just one. But um
sorry getting back to your point about
0.3% of the atmosphere. This is another
great contradiction because one of the
things I've heard and I'm sure you have
too Dave is that uh CO2 is is vital to
our planet. It's plant food. We need
more of it because it's so absolutely
crucial. Yeah.
>> Well, hang on a minute. You just told me
it's only 0.3% of the atmosphere and
therefore completely insignificant and
can't have any effect. But the way to
argue this, as I say, is you've got to
treat the other person like a teacher.
So, you you ask a question instead of
telling giving him information. So, you
say,
>> um, okay, so you don't think it can
possibly have an effect on on the earth
at all? I mean, would it have no effect?
And when they say yeah, it can't
possibly have an effect, then you go
into the argument about, well, what
about plants? What about
>> crops grown and all that? The other
thing I I always ask is um okay, how
many how many tons of carbon dioxide are
in the atmosphere? Never mind the
percentage because most of the
atmosphere is inert. It's nitrogen.
>> See if they can throw out a number,
right? How many
>> billions? Get an actual number. Now,
they would be amazed because they don't
know. And one of one of the great things
about uh arguing with these people for
some reason they will never be able to
say I don't know. And as a scientist you
know that's one of the most common
things you hear from scientists is
>> I don't know. And as a science
journalist that's one of the most
frustrating. You ask them a question
well we don't know that yet. Um but but
they will never say I don't know. And
because they can't say I don't know they
will have to make something up. And if
you make something up on the spur of the
moment, that's going to be a trap. So
they will make up a number which you can
very quickly disprove. If they really
don't know, the actual figure is is
surprising for people who don't know it.
It's 3,364
billion tons. That's over 3 trillion
tons of carbon dioxide in the air.
Now you're talking about a figure to
say, well, this couldn't possibly have
any effect when a third of that that's
over a trillion tons has been put up
there since the industrial revolution,
>> right?
>> Uh people will start to see, well, are
you saying that could have no effect?
And there's one other thing, and I've
got a video which maybe you've seen,
Dave, it's um fantastic. A guy did a an
experiment where he got that same
percentage, 0.3% of black ink and put it
in water, mixed it up, and the ink you
couldn't see through it. And that's that
if that was in the atmosphere, if carbon
dioxide was visible as a gas, if it had
a a black color to it, we would not be
able to see the sky. It would become
totally
>> opaque. I mean, that video is fantastic.
>> That's interesting. Yeah. I mean, it it
is true. It's like I I feel like some
people are operating under the under the
like presumption of like oh air is like
it doesn't even weigh anything. It's
it's massless. It's it's air. It's air
you guys. Just the the sheer amounts. I
mean if you haven't seen footage of like
what industrial emissions look like uh
you know like huge huge stacks um and
just think of that pouring constantly
all the time. um the naive of thinking
that that wouldn't have an impact
especially given planetary science and
looking at other bodies in the solar
system um that have dramatically
different climates uh due to the
atmospheric composition there.
>> It's just crazy.
>> And and also the fact that this was
predicted way back in the 1950s and the
actual figure for how much a doubling of
CO2 would warm the atmosphere is pretty
much the same figure we've got today. It
was a it was I think 3.6 degrees for a
doubling and now it's around about the
3° mark and we are absolutely on track.
I mean they'll always say yeah it
doesn't match the predictions but it
does absolutely um the predictions have
been really good and if someone gets a
prediction right that is uh very good
evidence they're on the right track.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. No, looking at the
data over the past decades it's very
clear that the yeah that the predictions
were on point. Um just to wrap up with
CO2, there's this other point that I
hear sometimes of about uh like uh that
CO2 is always lagging global
temperature. So like temperature will
always rise and then CO2 levels rise. So
uh so it can't be CO2 then from that
like what what's that talking point
about?
>> Yeah. Okay. Now there's a there's an
element of truth to that. Um and and I
blame Al Gore for being rather
misleading on this when he did the
inconvenient truth movie uh which really
started this as a polarized uh thing.
You know, your whether you trust science
or not depends on your political
position, which seems to be only a thing
in the United States rather than
anywhere else in the world. But um yeah,
that that was one of the things that he
kind of fudged. And you have to accept
that during the uh uh glacial
deglaciation period of the current ice
age, the trigger for that was the solar
insulation at certain areas that started
me melting glacias that caused the
glacias to recede. Less uh reflection of
sunlight, more sunlight absorbed. Now
there is this phenomenon where as oceans
warm they are able to dissolve less
carbon dioxide. So as the oceans warm up
they will release more CO2
>> and therefore as a result of warming you
get an increase in carbon dioxide. That
is certainly an effect but you still
have to have the initial warming and the
initial warming during glacial um
deglaciation periods was the sun. That
is not the case anymore. We know and
here we're getting back to the argument
of the sun. We know that that recent
warming this is warming over the last 40
years has not been caused by the sun
because solar irradiance is measured by
satellite directly. There's no
interference from the atmosphere or
anything else. It's measured and it has
been stable and then decreasing over the
last what since 1950s last 70 years. So
um the clearly the sun is um is not
responsible for that. Um so I I I mean
sorry I'm I kind of lost the point
there. Um
>> well no I mean I I think that is
important like we're we're talking about
you know oh this changed and then the
CO2 changed so that
>> Oh yeah sorry. Yeah I got I got so much
of a tangent on I was I kind of got and
I want sorry I'll bring it back to that
point. So you you cannot say that the
sun is what is causing the warming now
that that you could certainly say that
during the delaciations the sun was the
principle and then carbon dioxide
followed. You certainly cannot say that
now and and obviously what's happening
now is that a lot of the carbon dioxide
that would normally be released from the
oceans because they're warming actually
the oceans are doing the opposite.
They're absorbing carbon dioxide. And
the reason for that is a thing called
partial pressure. And I won't get into
it. You know more about the physics than
I do. But but because we are now
increasing the concentration of CO2 so
much in the atmosphere that is actually
dissolving more in the oceans at a time
when they should be releasing it. And
the biggest danger for the future of uh
global warming is that there will be a
point at which the oceans will no longer
be able to absorb CO2 but will have
warmed so much they will start pushing
it back into the atmosphere.
>> It's a complicated thing and you can't
look back over the last 500 million
years certainly and say that CO2 lagged.
It was the instigator of almost every
warming period we've had.
>> Right. Yeah. this the the the amount of
CO2 in the and in the meantime
esphyxiating all the aquatic life and
everything but but I think that's the
main problem is that just people are not
especially
didn't study science or aren't
science-minded can't kind of wrap their
head around sort of this dynamic system
where you have all these different
inputs and then furthermore you have
feedback mechanisms. like what you're
saying about the first the warming
occurring um and then the release of
right it's just like you you have this
positive feedback where the warming is
causing more warming um there's just so
and then some negative feedback as well
right you did mention the reverse
happening as well and then there's all
these different aerosols and some of the
just like there's a lot of different
factors at play so it is complicated
right it's not so uh cut and dry but um
but there's nothing to suggest that uh
that this is slowing down in any way,
shape, or form. That's for sure.
>> Yeah. And I I don't want to make people
to think it's so complicated they can't
grasp it because look, I I'm I was a
dunce at school and and uh if I can
grasp it, anyone can. And I I think that
was why I was so successful as a science
journalist because half the time I
didn't understand the things I was
reporting on. I had to get them to
explain it to me in really simple terms
and that way I could explain it to the
readership and they would understand it.
And um I I think that's that's the goal
of science communicators like us, I
think, is to make this accessible for
people. And
>> once you do understand it, then I I
think you you can then go out and
confront these um the these conspiracy
theorists on their own terms.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. And I love the method
of going socratic and just forcing them
to humiliate themselves. But um so let's
let's help given that we want the
viewers to kind of understand how
climate science works. There's all the
talk about you know oh all of these
projections they're all based on
computer models. It's not based on any
kind of data. It's all unreliable. What
like how are climate scientists
gathering data? How are the projections
made? How do we know they're reliable? I
mean we mentioned that the that many of
the predictions have been accurate. So
what just like the the the the quick
version of what are we doing? How are we
doing it?
Okay. I I mean the easiest argument
against this it's all computers. Well,
how come this this uh theory has been
around the hypothesis has been around
since the 1890s. There were no computers
back then. There were no computers in
the 1950s when it was consolidated
consolidated into a theory. Even in the
1960 none of this was done with
computers. This was all done with simple
physics and geology. it and and the
physics was the theory that um when they
looked at the effect of CO2 um as as a
um you know absorbing and remitting
radiation and so on they can measure
that in a laboratory you can do a
theoretical calculation that's all
theory but then when they actually got
down and and started measuring it and
looking at the past that was confirmed
and that was all without computers at
all. uh all computers are doing are just
speeding up the process. I I guess the
way to look at this is the theory that
the sun is the center of the universe.
So hang on the center of the solar
system has been around since um
capernicus in 16th century you could
say. Now these days when you're working
out planetary motions the ancient Greeks
could do it without computers. We are
using computers today you know to
fine-tune it but they're not necessary
to understand the basic principle. All
computers are doing with climate change,
with plate tectonics, with anything else
in the modern world is just refining it,
getting it a little bit more accurate,
>> an order of magnitude more precision,
but the the principles are the same.
>> Yeah. It's like saying, well, okay, we
know that global warming is caused by
carbon dioxide and uh we know that
climate change is going to result. Where
exactly is that change going to be? How
much drier is this going to get? How
much wetter is that area going to get?
what's the wind um speeds and and the
circulation going to be like? That's
that is helped with computer models.
>> But so so then let's let's dig it a
little bit into some of the the the
physical data. Um what what are some of
the things that we're looking at?
>> Yeah. So I mean the best uh estimates at
the moment and this is um where they all
cluster. uh everything's got a margin of
error and the best estimates at the
moment is that a double doubling of of
carbon dioxide will lead to around about
a 3°ree centigrade increase in warming.
This is a what's called an equilibrium
temperature because uh as you mentioned
when you increase carbon dioxide you
also have other factors which amplify
that warming. So the carbon dioxide
itself will cause around about 1.1
degree of warming for a doubling. But
it's the it's the amplification of that
by the atmosphere for example being able
to hold more water vapor and water water
vapor is an incredibly powerful
greenhouse gas. Um and that will amplify
the warming and that will cause you know
release of methane and other things from
arctic perafrost and and other offense
and also one of the most crucial is the
melting
ice which is going to reveal dark ocean
water and dark land which will reduce
the earth's reflectivity. So ultimately
that 1.1 will translate into basically a
threederee centigrade mode of warming.
And people say, "Yeah, but this is way
into the future." But the thing is we
are beginning to see the effects now.
And I think the canary in the coal mine
for me is the glaciers because uh they
are retreating so fast and so so quickly
that either they are melting uh to the
extent that in the spring they are
flooding uh the rivers, flooding
agricultural areas, uh eroding river
banks and so on. or they've been
depleted so much that they're causing
water shortages. Um, and that's
happening, for example, in places like
Bolivia. And we're already seeing that.
We are even, and never thought I would
see this, but but we're even seeing real
estate in Miami being affected. Not
because sea levels are going to flood
Miami, but because the king tides that
occasionally come are going to get worse
in certain areas. And they're looking
ahead now 50 years. You're getting a 25
year mortgage on a house. you're now
beginning to look in generational terms
at what global warming will do. So I
never use the argument that we're going
to, you know, the whole human race is
going to be extinct. That's Yeah, it's
speculation,
>> right?
>> And and it's pointless even to talk
about it. But you talk about the
economics, you talk about whether
people's jobs will be at stake or their
kids' jobs or whether they have to pay
more in taxes and you start explaining
where why that is true. people will
start uh listening to that,
>> right? Yeah. I think this is a good a
good thing to talk about because there's
a lot of people just go, "Oh, two
degrees hotter. Who cares?" Like the
summer's hot, cold, whatever. Like
there's all huge fluctuation seasonally.
Um but they're not getting like, you
know, we're talking about uh the ice
caps. What are what are people missing?
Right? We're talking about sea level
rising. We're talking about uh ocean
currents being disrupted. we're talking
like what are some of the things that
they're not thinking about in terms of
what this damage will be with this?
>> If you want to go further down the
track, I mean, one of the the big
problems is when we talk about 3 degrees
of of warming, um, of course, we're
talking Celsius and one of the big
problems in the United States is you
guys are still using this, right?
>> I don't know when this Fahrenheit thing
or fatter degrees.
>> It's actually bigger. I I wish we would
use Fahrenheit and more Americans might
wake up and say, "Wow, actually that's
quite a large amount." But uh I can't
remember what the figure of 3 degrees
centiggra is. I think at 5.4 Fahrenheit,
>> something like that.
>> Even you might notice that on a on a
warm day, you'd notice the difference,
but that's not the crucial thing. The
crucial thing is that plants notice it.
And um we the the ocean definitely
notices it because it's not just the
melting glaciers and the ice
>> thermal expansion.
>> It's exactly right. It's thermal
expansion. As you warm water, it expands
and that is going to be the biggest
thing that over time is going to start
increasing it. Now we have set our
economy up and again I want to talk
economy because that's what people are
interested in. we we've set the economy
up to uh function in the world that
we've had for the last 150 years. Um and
that's been the climate that we've had
for the last 150 years since the
invention of electricity and the motorc
car and telephone and everything else,
cinematography, that's the modern age
that we live in. So all our
infrastructure, our port infrastructure
um has been set to certain sea levels.
Um, and it's not just the fact that sea
levels are going to rise. They're not
going to suddenly flood New York or
Miami overnight,
but they they will cause problems with
salination, which is salt water
intruding into freshwater areas. And
there is going to be problem with fresh
water in the future. And over time, if
we're looking hundreds of years ahead,
of course, everything that we built is
going to have to be moved in land. Now,
if you're going to move it in land, how
far are you going to go? And if if you
are going to go that far, um it's going
to catch up with you because the last
time we we had ice claps melting, the
sea the sea level rose around 400 ft.
>> Uh we're not going to get that in the
short term. But I mean, if nothing is
done, clearly this is something.
>> Yeah. Over the centuries, we will get
that.
>> Over the centuries, we're going to do
the but the problem I have and I'm not
sure if you have this too, but people
don't think centuries ahead. they're
looking ahead next week or next month
and you know and and this is the
difficult thing and this is why I I tend
to sort of focus on what's going to
happen over the next 20 30 years. What's
going to happen to your children or your
grandchildren? um even if you think it's
not going to affect you and it's going
to be expensive because we do have to
take measures at some point and at what
point are you going to do this because
they people don't want taxes to go up
but if you're going to have to start
protecting places against salination and
flood water and and stronger hurricans
and everything else that's going to cost
money
>> which won't get spent obviously. Um so
the the the problem here is that
obviously uh what we can say is that um
this is all made up right scientists are
making this up to get grant money.
>> Yeah.
>> Obviously right this sense of urgency
keep the money flowing so we can say so
what do you say to that?
>> Okay well look I I had a very
comfortable life and a very nice career
because I was not top of my class. The
guys that came top of the class were the
ones that went into scientific research.
I mean, one of my friends became a
researcher and um I I just don't get why
people think that is such a great uh
rewarding experience financially. It's a
great rewarding experience to discover
something and and so on, but they're not
looking to they don't get into that to
fake things. If they wanted to get a a
job with lots of money, they would go
and work for uh you know some um some
>> whichever lobby is denying climate
change
>> or a lobbyist. I mean, look at the
people. Look, and I won't mention any
names here because I don't want to get
you into trouble, but I mean, look at
the names. Some of the people who uh
have been lobbying, they're they're all
funded by fossil fuel industry and so
on. So, I mean, if you're going to look
at a target, those are the guys who are
making money because they don't have to
go out onto the top of a an ice sheet in
Greenland and live in a cabin for six
months of the year collecting data.
They're not rolling around in the gale
force wind in a in a ship in the South
Atlantic trying to pick up buckets of
seawater to measure temperature and so
on. Um, these are the guys that sit in
very comfortable offices raking in
millions of dollars just producing blogs
and papers and going on TV to do
interviews to say the whole thing's
nonsense. There's absolutely no
incentive for scientists to fake it.
Faking stuff in the scientific world is
is the biggest sin and it would
immediately stop your career. It would
be career ending. Yeah. Now the only way
that they can just say that that's
what's happening is to say, "Yeah, but
every single scientist in the world is
involved in this. Japanese scientists,
British scientists, Australian
scientists, French scientists, they're
all in on this conspiracy." I said,
"Where even if they were, where did this
thing start?" I mean, back in 1955, they
all decided, "Hey, let's pretend the
world is warming."
>> Brief cases of money. Yeah. It's as dumb
as as as it's as dumb as flat Earth. Um,
but yeah, ju like in general just this
whole rhetoric and I'm seeing it
everywhere. Obviously, I'm seeing it in
climate. I'm seeing it in theoretical
physics. Uh, like you have all these
frauds that say the same about about
theoretical physicists are sitting in
their cushy tax paid positions and
they're getting all this all this grant
money to push string theory and all the
it like every single field of science
that you do this in, it just does not
make any sense, right? Like the money
will go to what is fruitful. Um, and all
of these researchers are not making that
much money. You know, your average
scientist is making a pretty meager
salary. Um, it's just so transparently
of the oligarchy uh just completely
flipping the narrative uh and pointing,
you know, oh, they're getting money, not
us. Don't look at us, you know.
>> Uh, it's it's crazy to me.
>> And again, these are the smartest people
in the class. The only ones that go into
research have to be really smart. They
could get a much better paying job in a
cushy office working for a company,
>> but they want to figure [\h__\h] out.
>> You know, you know, and I know and and
I've interviewed hundreds of scientists,
and what motivates them is getting to
solve that problem. That's what they
want to do. They don't want to fake it.
But, you know, it's it's a I guess it's
a scraping the bottom of the barrel
argument. If you can't attack the
science, you you attack the scientists.
If you if you got no way of saying that
the science is wrong, then all you can
say is, "Oh, it's just
>> shout shill. Just shout shill and run
away." Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, okay. But the problem is if these
scientists are so super smart and so
super right, why are they changing the
narrative all the time? Why Why did they
change it from global warming to climate
change? They're just admitting that that
that warming isn't happening. Why the
name change? Why did that happen?
>> Yeah. Okay. No, that's a good question.
No, I'm just doing Columbbo again. No,
of course it's not.
>> It's It's easy.
>> Th This is just a complete
misunderstanding and I've tried to get
to the bottom of this because I I I
engage with these people on my channel
uh all the time because I would love to
know where they get all this from. And
okay, the truth of the matter is that uh
the term climatic change or climate
change came from a paper by PLA in 1955
where he laid out the theory of Guy
Stewart calendar and and other
scientists that have gone before. And I
mean, look, I I hate I feel like I'm
telling you stuff that you know far more
about than I do, and therefore I don't
want to sort of,
>> you know, I'm just I'm I'm addressing
the people who might not know this, and
I know you do, but basically, scientific
papers, um, you occasionally get a
review paper, which are really useful
for science journalists like me. Review
papers will summarize the state of the
science. They'll go through everything
that's been done on studies and and
evaluate it and then summarize the way
that we we understand things. And PLA to
a certain extent did he did a lot of
obviously most of it was original
research, but he took what we knew about
carbon dioxide and encapsulated it into
the theory of climatic change. That's
what the paper was called. So, ever
since then, it's been called climate
change for short. So, you know, back to
the climate always changes. We are
specifically dealing with climate change
which is caused by a warming of the
planet. Now what do we call that warming
of the planet? Well, in 1979 and I can't
remember who did this, someone coined
the term climate change uh sorry uh
global warming and that perfectly
encapsulated what it was that was
causing the climate change. So they have
now become in in in the mind of
scientists these are now two different
things. One is global warming which is
the warming of the planet that's been
around since 1979. The other is the
theory of climate change. This is
climate change which says that the
warming, the global warming that we're
seeing is causing climate change all
over the world. And this is why the IPCC
has the word climate change in it. The
CC stands for climate change. Um so I
it's not that um global warming came
first. It's the other way round. Climate
change came in 1955. Global warming came
in 1979. They mean different things.
They are sometimes used interchangeably,
but because that's the nature of it,
they they they are the almost the same
phenomenon, but one is a cause, the
other's an effect. And the fact that
people don't know this is so easy to
overturn because all you have to do is
point them to the PLA paper. Um I I've
got it on my channel and several times
and I'm sure you've covered it, but it's
it's a paper by Pl55. It's the theory of
climatic change. just show them that
this was 1955 and I think Wikipedia
talks about um I' I've checked their
sources by the way um that 1979
um turn of phrase global warming very
easy to debunk that one
>> yeah it's clearly a category error right
people are just not understand like I to
me it's just how can you if we're saying
that warming is c look at all of these
effect these myriad effects right we're
talking about more hurricanes right
differences isn't like precipitate like
you those don't those can't be described
by the word warming we're talking about
all of these dramatic effects uh that
are the result of warming right so it's
a broader uh term it's a it's a broad
>> term stronger I have to I have to
emphasize stronger hurricans yeah um and
and the huracans will get much more
intense that is the biggest problem
>> just because the water they form over is
warmer
>> it's warmer exactly that's where they
get energy from uh it was interesting ly
it was um uh Dick I forget his name now.
kind of one of the now the biggest
contrarians in science who who
discovered that actually uh global
warming would increase the intensity of
of hurricanes and and cause if you're
getting more water vapor in the
atmosphere um that is then when it does
rain uh it's going to be more intense
and uh if the earth is getting warmer it
means when you do get evaporation that
evaporation is going to be more intense
so you get more extremes of climate
generally extreme weather patterns.
Yeah.
>> And and this is where the computers are
useful because they'll be able to
pinpoint exactly where this is
happening. We would never have been able
to do this maybe 50 years ago. We could
say generally this is what global
warming is going to cause in terms of
climate change. Now they can pinpoint it
a lot more accurately.
>> So it's it's it's all very depressing.
Uh I mean we're we're really outlining
all of these catastrophic things that
can and will happen. Um, and if the
bureaucracy is not going to budge an
inch, is there anything that the
scientific community and grassroots
movements can do? Is there something we
can do to just brill brilliantly reduce
the carbon content of the atmosphere
through some incredible genetically
engineered microorganism or or like just
to just take it into our own hands and
say, "All right, screw you guys. Screw
you fossil fuel industry. We'll do it
ourselves." Um, and just fix the whole
thing. Is there anything is there
anything that we can think of?
>> Yeah, geo geoengineering. I mean, one of
one of the things that has been mut
mooted is is to put a whole load of um
uh aerosol in the atmosphere and reflect
the sunlight, but it doesn't cure the
problem because you've still got the
underlying carbon dioxide still
accumulating underneath that. So, you
have to
>> put a shedload of um more aerosols up in
the air for the next two or three
centuries to to mask that. and who's
going to pay for it? Um, organisms on
ground. I mean, you know, people are
doing as much as they can to uh inc to
green the earth. Um, I mean, there's a
certain amount of greening 10 10% of uh
the biomass uh sorry, the carbon dioxide
going into the atmosphere is going into
the biomass, which is good. Doesn't help
us unfortunately because it's going into
all the things we can't eat. Um, you
know, weeds and desert scrub and stuff.
That's not going to help us. So don't
think someone say, "Oh yeah, but that's
the answer. That's not going to get us
out of it." But no, there are all kinds
of things that we we can do on a very
local, very um personal level, but
ultimately it's going to have to be
solved by people recognizing that
there's a problem and saying it doesn't
have to cost us anything to do this.
They now wind turbines and solar panels
are now so cheap. Uh here in Australia,
and I don't know if that's the same in
the States, now our solar panels here
are being used as fencing because
they're cheaper than fencing and you can
hook the solar panels up to a grid. And
wind turbines now in the UK are so cheap
that they are much cheaper than new uh
coal powered uh coal fired powered
stations uh for electricity. So the
gradually the technology is getting
there. We've got electric cars now which
are much more economical. And once
things become more economical, once
people realize they can actually save
money with these things, if they're not
just ideologically or religiously bound
to oppose whatever it is the
environmental lobby is looking at, if
they could just open their eyes and say,
"Well, actually, yeah, we could we could
save money on this." Um, this is
ultimately the way it's going to go
because this is what we have to do is
make things cheap enough that people are
going to want to do it because it saves
them money and it's going to be a lot
cheaper in the long term to do these
things now to save money in the short
term and not have to pay for seaw walls
and and crop failures and uh freshwater
problems in the future because that will
cost us. Yeah, I mean this does
endlessly mystify me is I've just never
really fully understood why these
gigantic energy conglomerates don't
invest enormous amounts of money into
these alternative energy sources and
then profit off of those. Right? You can
still be this gigantic corporation
making unbelievable amounts of money.
Just stop screwing over the entire uh
human civilization. But as you said, I
mean, I I guess I guess I guess that's
the answer to my question is that the
scientific community needs to innovate
these energy sources to the degree to to
such an astonishing degree that they
become undeniably so much cheaper than
traditional sources of energy that
everybody switches and that's and that's
the end. You know what I mean? I I think
I mean I'm probably a bit more
optimistic than you because I I I tend
to in when I'm doing technology stories
I I go to events where they are coming
out with all these new technologies and
I'm seeing synthetic fuels in aircraft
and uh you know there's there's all
kinds of ways now that they can store
energy which they never could before. Um
I one of the examples I give Dave um is
I went to South Australia um where the
Labor government which is the left-wing
government here had put in um they
they'd got rid of some coal fired power
stations and put in wind turbines and
solar panels and so on and the
opposition the Conservative party which
here confusingly is called the Liberal
Party. Um, they all said uh they all
said that as soon as they get into
power, they're going to scrap all this
mambby pami woke nonsense of of
renewable energy. Well, they did get
into power a few years later. And they
not only kept the systems that the Labor
Party had put in, they expanded them.
They actually built more um uh wind
turbines. they destroyed a couple of
coal fired power stations because the
thing was so successful and and so cheap
um that it it was working and ultimately
that's we're all pragmatists in the end
whatever political beliefs are and and
that was a success story. So uh and and
the other thing they did was Elon Musk
came in and built a massive great
battery which stabilized the whole
energy system. It's one of the most
successful projects in Australia and
it's now being copied elsewhere. And I
think we're going to see God, if you
look at the crisis at the moment. If if
you wanted to know why it's not a good
idea to be so dependent on oil, I think
recent events have told us why. Um the
people who bought electric cars and are
running those off renewable energy are
now laughing because they don't have to
worry about price of gas.
>> They don't have to worry about gas going
up. Yeah, maybe that's it. Maybe just
one day, like 10 years from now, um
everything will pivot on a dime and all
of those conglomerates will go, "Just
kidding. Sorry. We're done. We're done
with that now because this is cheaper
and we can make more money with this.
So, we're done. Don't worry. It's all
over."
>> Yeah. And I think I think the tipping
the tipping point is with us. I mean,
love to see nuclear fusion, which now
>> Exactly. Yeah. I talk about fusion a lot
as well.
>> Breakthrough. Yeah. And then that's had
a breakthrough. Not my field, but uh but
that's fantastic. Yeah. My understanding
is that we not even that recently hit uh
hit um break even output with one of the
tokamaxs. I don't remember what it was,
but I I don't know. I I haven't
completely kept up on that, but yeah, I
mean it seems like certainly we're not
too too far away from that being viable.
Um so yeah, in the end the scientists
and the engineers will save the day uh
as always. Uh and um yeah, I don't know.
That's it.
>> But I think what you're what you're
doing is is fantastic because uh you
know being a science communicator who
who can get things across to people and
and help them understand that what
they're seeing on the internet is not
necessarily
>> good science. I mean I loved your inter
interactions with Ben Davidson which
have been so so similar to mine and the
guy is an absolute pussycat. When you
get him in a corner he knows absolutely
nothing. Um, but I mean the these
people, these charlatans who put
themselves out there as gurus who who
say, "I know everything. I know better
than the scientists, when you actually
get them in a corner, they really know
nothing." So, I would urge everybody um
to to listen to the science that you're
um putting out there and learn how to
deal with the these um conspiracy
theorists who are getting a lot of their
science off the internet. Um, I think
that would be, you know, the best way
that we can combat it.
>> I agree. Yeah. Everybody watch me more.
No, I agree. I mean, it is it is what
I've kind of come to to realize is that
this is all an optics game and you do
have these very specific bad faith
actors that are trying to polarize the
public against uh against the scientific
community, against legitimate sources of
information. Um, and it's all for for
profit. So, um, this to me, I've said
this in a lot of my videos, this is
where the the war is being waged is, um,
is on the internet. It's a war of
information. Um, and so that's that's
where that's where I'm at. That's where
I spend all my time. And, uh, seems like
you as well. So, I think we're we're in
the right
>> Well, I mean, I think if you look at
public polling surveys, the message is
getting through. I think people are
beginning to understand it now. You
know, there's more support for action on
climate than there ever was.
>> Yeah. And in general, I see this like
where the COVID era plummeted plummeted
us into a local minimum of of of science
denial and distrust of the scientific
community. I think we're finally seeing
the pendulum swing the other way a
little bit. I think we're seeing the
ramifications of what that science
denial brought us and everyone's kind of
snapping to attention and and a lot more
scientists uh are are becoming more
vocal than ever before because they're
like, "Oh my gosh, this got so bad so
fast. Um, we need to do something."
thing. And so there's a lot more
communication. There's a lot more uh
push back on on these on these bad faith
actors. And so yeah, I just want to do
my part and and and help shine a
spotlight on uh whatever needs to be uh
elucidated. So yeah,
>> well, as they say in Australia, good on
you.
>> Yeah, you as well. Well, I can't think
of any I think that was that was that
was a great talk. I think everybody got
a few morsels uh there uh to help combat
the climate change denier in their life
because we all have one or two of those.
Um any any last uh parting words here?
>> Yeah, I'd love to know if it works. Uh
people can their experience. Uh just
remember what I said at the beginning.
Uh don't just come in hard and and use
passion and emotion. Treat them like
they know everything and ask them
questions. Get them to think in their
own head to see their own
contradictions. You can see the brain
cells worring as they're suddenly
confronted with something they said
earlier. Yeah. Doesn't that contradict
that what you but you said earlier but
you and then suddenly they'll realize,
oh, hang on a minute. I'm not dealing
with an idiot.
>> And then they got to start think it's
great fun to watch. It's
>> I don't actually know anything.
>> Yeah.
>> It's been great talking to you, Dave.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for lending your
expertise. I think this is great. Good
stuff. No. While climate change denial
has long been the most pervasive type of
science denial in our government, it
certainly isn't going anywhere anytime
soon and is only going to get even worse
in this Trump administration. Energy
Secretary Chris Wright is an oil and gas
fracking executive who says there is no
climate crisis. Head of EPA Lee Zeldon
is addicted to deregulation and thinks
we should drill everywhere. Interior
Secretary Doug Bergam is a proponent of
increased fossil fuel production, always
siding with industry interests over
environmental regulations. And things
don't look much better in a lot of other
industrialized nations. Things are
getting worse. And far from doing
anything to stop it, we are accelerating
the damage. Of all the things that could
ruin human civilization, this is towards
the top of the list. So you can count on
me checking back on this topic from time
to time as new developments arise. Until
then, stay angry and stay loud.