Debate: Global Warming- Krauss, Schrag, Molina vs Lindzen, Lowson, Happer- CDI 2017

[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] Manos es el debate a la marca significative Adela sulla Syria's less yarrow compartir Raton su steadies que es la primera vez en Diez años que antes de lavit a tango TRO devotee a que Atrocitus a estoy seguro que él debe de aqui en frente say pondrá muy bien le Baptist a a no es importante Simo por lo que se estaba viendo es el tema del cambio climatic o qué tanto effector realmente al cameo climatic o lo que los hermanos estamos prune siendo Vesper diciendo a cumulant oh yeah siendo es como es a vida por todos a un enorme consents o de que por supuesto el cambio climatic Oh porque xie na dou y magnificat o por los seres humanos soon hecho sin embargo a algunos Price's pocos pero algunos sobre todo esta dos Unidos gente dentro estos Unidos no todos que argument our case oh no es se queremos escuchar so punto de vista queremos pensar al respecto y para otra emos por supuesto agente expert n el tema yatras personas que también tienen saber y tiene por open airy y decir knows por qué piensas como piensa s become party rapid ease Mo's las velas del fuego lo cual nuestros ste ste stingy doze panelist 'as ya Lazcano seen less holy present are a cada uno de ellos la primera Regla del fuego respeto es que los argumento son sobre dayis yo sobre personas van avert race runs tres runs en el primero cada uno baton a Cinco minutos para expla NER a sus Ted Mentos perpose por que piensa Tomoe piensan por que dicen lo que dicen o como interpret an el problema por que por ahi seguramente den trabajaba ver divergence eeeh a solicitude de los momentos para ser lo concept de manera consecutive a los tres que considerin que el cambio climatic polka senado por el ser humano es un verdadero problema y posterior meant a sarin las otras personas or distant or en pero SI n consecutive o's los que opinon distinto en el segundo round kado nova tener tres minutos evos hacer muy especial des con tiempo para decir o.o preguntar Oh question our argument our porque el opinion de alguien en particular del otro lado esta comet en un crimen contra la logica no tiene datos sus comentários argumento son yo logic owes mosque a scientific OHS oh algunas Fatiha una misión une des conocimiento importante en el tercer on probable meant a favor und a logo Oh una pregunta de sus servidor para terminar con conclusions antes de comenzar quiero presentar lays a nuestros grandes ponente z-- y SI no no yes yes primero une applause o y todos kono samos a nuestro premio noble al dr. Mario Molina científico Mexicano especially salon quemic atmosphere iike investible los efectos Donnie knows de las FSA's sobre la kappa y sólo después una plough supportive or a Daniel's rock case - el cambio chromatic Alamos amplia gamma-d storia delle Tierra a reciever importantes premios de las Tres o cidades de física de Estados Unidos Steuben's harvard en Bertrille tambien de esta la voce por supuesto considerin el tema del cambio climatic OS una emergencia su problema de barro y que tenemos que hacer los individuos Daytona Sociedad an temple no collective of estimate a desta manera a tour de manera responsively in lawrence krauss la loco no Samos investigación seus Intrado el intersección de lotos molohia en la physica de particulars elementals la relative II - general la guerra Vedado antica a loss in Ezio's del universe o alto de más de Diez bestseller Senshi NC a-- presidente del consejo de la punta del valle 18 del del essentia Tomica s3v sobre ciencia a political public and public policy perfecto del otro lado Tami no applause Oh para nuestros invitados tenemos en el Centro Willem hopper case CC Podell universidad de princeton few director del oficina de investigación energetic ax DeMille novecientos momentum in novecientos no in tetris del dough a inventin solely in bento una dia de las estrellas de so do chase utilize o en un tellus propio moderno para companies are las turbulences atmospheric --is yo all Torinos los primeros libros de el SE o dos in Managua siento sent a DOS pronoun traduzido bien [Music] Lord negan lawson miembro de la casa de los Lorde's a former a few a mini-stroke de finanzas au k la energía alto de un libro kasama an appeal to reason a to look at global warming a founder from the door ec o the global warming policy foundation applause operate richard linson también conocido pour sobre la dinamica del medio atmospheric oh richard Tatra basado en todos estos temes desde hace mucho tiempo y domination Canosa dor de la materia señoras y señores las reglas del fuego Gisela the chemos van impe SRA dos tres Memphis our Lord Lord's were the first one Harper the third one four five six pero antes president mellifluous por favor quiero saber que levanta la mano tienes están de acuerdo de que el cambio chromatic o es un verdadero problema para la moneda que no es su Mito esta privado a greeting Joe okay tienes piensa Lopo esto es una septic waz dude on on necesita un poquito más de conocimiento el respeto para que probablemente definitel univ o del otro okay Seema's Priam bolos bienvenidos al devatta del cambio climatic Oh muchas gracias Lord Duke up five minutes well thank you very much andreas and good morning everybody I'm afraid I can't speak Spanish but I am really delighted that this great conference has decided to hold a debate about the important issue of climate change and climate change policy and that I'm afraid is all too rare these days when to question the quintessential wisdom on this issue is usually reconsidered an unacceptable heresy and the doctrine has indeed become a substitute religion with all the intolerance that so many religions have shown over centuries and it's also highly political first and foremost it's important to make clear what this debate is about and what it is not about what it is not about at least not to any significant extent is the science we are indeed fortunate to have with us today and professor Linden the world's greatest living climate scientist and I'm more than happy to leave the scientific dimension to him but if I may dare to summarize what I believed to be the case the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is one of a number of factors that affect the temperature of the planet our thing is being evil which they may well not be an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can be expected to warm the earth although by how much is less clear and there's no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels coal oil and gas that's the amount of that mysteric co2 but that is not what this debate is about this debate is about politics and policy according to what is now the conventional wisdom climate change caused by man-made co2 emissions is an existential threat greater than all others in the words of President Obama it is 2015 State of the Union address no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change or to quote Frances President Hollande when he was opening the Paris climate conference later that same year this was the last chance to show weather and I quote humankind is capable of deciding that we will preserve life on this planet and the necessary means of doing so is held is to abandon completely the use of fossil fuels that is what the Paris conference was about so what we're debating today are two interlocking questions is the prospect of a warmer world the greatest problem facing humanity today greater for example than the threat of nuclear war or from Islamic terrorism or global poverty and I'll come to that later I said is not far from it and to the extent that it is a problem at all should we respond by phasing out the use of fossil fuels I say we should not indeed that is a greater threat to humankind than global warming itself so let's start with the facts the Industrial Revolution occurred roughly 150 years ago it was an energy revolution a move away from windmills and water mills for basic energy and from horse-drawn carriages and ox carts and at sea sailing ships for transport replacing them with fossil fuels first coal then oil and more recently gas and this made possible the biggest game changer of all the generation and widespread use of electricity and the Industrial Revolution made possible the biggest improvement in living standards for ordinary people in the history of mankind and what has happened to mean global temperature over those 150 years since we first switched to fossil fuels according to the World Meteorological Organization it has risen by a total of wait for it one degrees Celsius one degree in a hundred and fifty years that is to put it bluntly trivial yet it is seriously suggested and this is the previous on which the Paris climate Accord is explicitly based that unless we can prevent more than a further path degree of warming the planet is doomed there is no scientific basis whatever for this it is an entirely political number plucked from the air and manifestly ludicrous the the toilet the temperature there is of course widely across the world the average over the world always somewhere Britain to be somewhere between fourteen and a half degrees Celsius and 15 degrees Celsius but take Singapore a conspicuously successful country in economic terms according to the I am sorry Lords the tiny silver well I have sorry I'm sorry no I have to we have to be right Lord well yeah Lord I'm sorry no I have just run one thing I cannot do it you will have the time later everybody will be the same okay for everyone there is no advantage for no one okay I'm sorry Laurie please William five minutes well thank you very much Lord Lawson I it was a very good introduction with which I agree this whole movement reminds me of the famous book called extraordinary delusions popular delusions and the madness of crowds and that's what we have here with the climate change movement you know if you actually look at the facts of climate it's hardly alarming I think Dick Linton will make more comments about that but take co2 we keep hearing about co2 I hope the staff can show a meter here which has a co2 levels here we're sitting on the stage but most of you know that in the outside air at sea level or at this level it's about 400 four million four hundred numbers are important in all of this it's not just feelings and over most of the history of the earth certainly since the Cambrian period when we have good fossil evidence of life co2 levels have been measured in thousands of parts per million much much higher than now and the plants around us on which we depend you know to live to get our food or clothing are adapted to much higher co2 levels than we have now and the only clear evidence of more co2 that you can see for example from satellites looking down on the earth is not a lot of warming the warming has been much much less than models predicted factors of two or more but what you see is the entire Earth is getting greener this is getting greener Pablo is getting greener you know the Sahel is getting greener the south of Africa of south of the Sahara is getting greener and that's because plants are starved for co2 we're in a co2 famine today compared to geological history and the reasons for this are easy to see you know a plant is required to have little holes in its leaves to get co2 from the air to use in photosynthesis to make sugar and other organic molecules but for every co2 molecule that diffuses into the leaf of a plant up to a hundred water molecules diffuse out so plants are faced with a engineering dilemma they have to get co2 through the holes in their leaves to live and to do photosynthesis but at the same time they're drying out so they're suffering from aridity and so what people are observing now and what was expected from experiments in greenhouses is that plants are now growing leaves with fewer holes in them so there are there's less leakage of water and therefore they don't need as much water they grow in arid regions like the state in Mexico or like the Sahel and in Africa so why is that a bad thing and if you look at the actions were taking to supposedly combat this exercise read that Lord Lawson mentioned you can't figure out why we're doing them what five for example are we using 30% of the US corn crop to make ethanol it doesn't save any co2 at all you know we heard a talk a day or two ago about you know using corn for meat well we don't use corn for meat we use corn to feed automobiles not not beef so everything that we're doing is distorted and it I think will be looked on with great interest by historians for many years there will be lots of dissertations written 50 years from now about the this latest popular delusion of the whole world in this case over co2 this meter I guess it's not being shown but it shows here 419 parts per million this is calibrated for sea level so you have to multiply that by about 0.7 so this is the this is what really we're living in if we had this meter out where you're sitting there it would be typically on thousand parts per million just from breathing out so let me leave you with one more number numbers are important each of us sitting here breeze out about two kilogram I mean two pounds of co2 per day a little less than a kilogram time thank you very much to not blows up on Apollo recharge five minutes please well you know we're talking about a political problem utilizing science when you do that you need two things you need a simple picture of the science so people feel they understand and you need to be assured that all scientists agree so you don't have to worry about it neither of these things are particularly correct but they make you feel good I'm concerned with the physical system that we're dealing with and it isn't simple it isn't one-dimensional the ocean isn't passive and something that is of interest to me the upper level cirrus which displaces the greenhouse gases they're not constant what are we looking at we're looking at a system that consists in to turbulent fluids the atmosphere and the oceans they're interacting with each other in a very intricate way we're on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the Sun the oceanic component has circulation systems with timescales ranging from years to millennia and these systems carry heat to and from the surface which is never in equilibrium with the Sun because of this interchange with the ocean and that provides variability that requires no external forcing in addition to the oceans the atmosphere is direct interacting with a very irregular surface which you see here every day a vital constituent of the atmosphere is water in the liquid solid vapor phases and the changes in phase have huge energetic ramifications the energy budget of the system involves the absorption and re-emission of 200 watts per meter squared doubling co2 what does that do it revolves of 2% perturbation in this budget as two minor changes in clouds and other features which are eminently common what I want to stress is the ability of natural systems to produce large temper variability without the need for external non-steady forcing nobody seriously questions the existence of solar cycles of reversals of magnetic field all of which occur without explicit temporal forcing there is no reason to suppose that the atmosphere or that what our climate system is any different now what is the approach to this problem of those who promote alarm the approach is the following this complex multi factor system the climate which itself consists in many variables is described by just one variable the globally averaged temperature anomaly and is controlled by a 2% perturbation in the energy budget due to one among many variables namely co2 and although we are not sure of the budget for this variable we know precisely what policies to implement in order to control it this represents an extraordinary claim and usually extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence do we have this evidence of course not instead we blame every natural disaster on global warming cold on warming warmth on warming floods on warming droughts on warming the Syrian civil war on warming obesity on warming as has long been noted something that accounts for everything accounts for nothing many scientists find it convenient given political correctness to take the position that alarming impacts are possible not only is it impossible to prove something impossible but this stands hardly justifies policies certainty also the notion that something is true unless proven untrue turns the scientific method on its head now instead of discussing the real policy we discussed my new changes and richer and so on and then we bring in all the disaster scenarios but you know they are not even based on models they were already introduced in a kind of science-fiction way in the early 60s and even late 50s now gurbles claimed that a big enough lie repeated often enough comes to be regarded as truth climate alarmism is a perfect example ok time is over moon applause opinel por favor total Mario Molina Cinco minutos por que en como piensan Cinco minutos Puzo's gracias por la oportunidad de plata car con ustedes Sam say muy brillante voy a ser unos cuantos puntos perez preparedness repetition primero que um consent so extraordinary Oh enter los expertos no entry at all los individuos was expertos in a nice toast em at the condo climatic Oh de más del noventa y siete por ciento y no es una cuestión de opinion esto se me Dido y en doe no Sol la encuesta sino publication a scientific Assessor toronto's esta Clarisse en la gran mayoria de los expertos está de acuerdo intrusive lo que acaba Mo's yours no está en tanto de Cirque weirdo de que hay un cambio de clima y hasta corriendo de que está Calzado pour actividad de la moneda ESO esta muy Claro pero a Claro tambien estamos de acuerdo que el clima Sol system accompli ho entonces los científicos opine incur no tienen la certes absolute adel que esto está corriendo de vie de la serda be resumed on espero as question day probably DARS según el consensual I'm Iselle noventa Y Cinco por ciento prob'ly de que eso circus Peron phenol Segundo Punto keesom s importante que no so Louis Slim el tema finales decir lo ya estamos viendo los cambios Janos estando Dondo no indication de porque preocupados los cambios de rozier mama's extremos de clima y el principio say varios años scientific O's muy bueno a la mejor no tenemos estadística z-- pero ya sabe con mucha Tulare that de nuevo embossing probably Dardis no insert ASIS absolute --is pero prolene s el nordeste que lo que pasó por ejemplo en El Caribe SE debe un cambio temperature enlasa proved easier los Oceanos los expertos en hora con es lo tienen clarissa me soo Ceballos espantoso x' y' no es porque el año pasado lo mismo hace muchos cientos de miles de an EOC por supuesto hasta Cinco enticing Commissioners diagnosis via maskel or pero había cocodrilos and El Pollo Norte and feel like no sobre BVD ahmo's fácilmente sus cameos por que esta pasando muchos Merapi demente de lo que ha pasado en any pocus Helio geological ptosis ya tenemos cambio climatic oh yes Alta meant a preocupe on peltor ser punto de Loup yankees a no es ciencia pro trabajando Conoco no mistis econ con la so sierra in general che se puede hacer la ciencia no no SI SE que hacer pero SI NOS dicen que pasar Eocene no hacemos nod yo más importante aqui con economists assess que podemos hacer un cambio Keano nos cuesta podemos dejar de metier Estoque norma cantidad viaggio carbon ok asougi doe pues más del Cuarenta por ciento reppin tina mental Nunez colloquial Logica lo mismo que la temperatura SUV Dojima como Yama's push en en en cientos de miles de años anteriors pero no en un siglo ESO no había pasado con esta preoccupation problemas yeah no no stock ran cosas se puede hacer lo que llamamos desarrollo sustainable energy RN overlays prácticamente lo puedo hacer con ingenue edad de tal manera que no haya problemas con la pobres al rebus podemos ayudar a menos cuenta por por que Yossarian y yeah Stan siendo los más efectos por el cambio climactic Oh muchos Muertos contas de calor clara meant si de banal paleoclimatic oh so no kabhi Duda pour medicines de satellite A's e tambien place a stand-in says por esta el sol guna serie de impact owes clarissa Mo's que esta pasando migration s enormous c noisy éramos nada lo que quiero Khizar terminar a quien do punta important TC Monsieur a question Terry patro chemos pues no standard neg and okay i un rio de que la temperatura puedes ooh beef pero el riesgo es este de que hacemos nada xia samos lo que nos diría poor ahem propresenter thrown no safe like a so a todo esto lo que podría su Sedaris KD a key a finales de si lo Subala temperatura hasta Cinco Grados Louise no mess probably pero puede hacer una pareja de uno en Cinco es opprobrious Gigantes cos she subieron tanto la temperatura see Syria terrible para la civilisation ah Bria partes del planet Akeno Syrian a Beatles no estamos hablando de que todo es a Paris Couture la vida y la humanidad no estamos Educare and oh no somos esta Corrado loss in team pero de riesgo total meant in acceptable a beso estamos todos de acuerdo polos economist --is con los politico's y por supuesto esta basado en ciencia muy muy bien establish EDA realmente no cobby do de de que tenemos que hacer algo todos juntos como Sociedad por que todos al dreama's gran ando mexico poor fortuna es un leader en SI cambio enter los países en de Cerio see gamos trabajando puntos yeah lewis emos por la kappa de Sonos CC Prudhoe vamos a hablar ericeira gracias Danielle 12 minutes please thank you I'm a a geologist and a climate scientist and let me give you a little perspective first from Earth history we've heard that the climate system is so complicated that we can't possibly predict the effect of co2 and yet what we see at these times when carbon dioxide was higher as William Hopper suggested Mario mentioned that these were times of very warm climate indeed there's a very strong correlation of carbon dioxide with climate change throughout Earth history when carbon dioxide is high the climate is warm and when carbon dioxide is cold the climate is cold when the when carbon dioxide is low the climate is cold now correlation doesn't mean causation but the fact is we've known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas for over a hundred years as Nigel Lawson said nobody is really disputing the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and so so the important point is when we look to the geologic past we see a strong connection between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the earth and that is partly why we can actually have some confidence in the projections that say that continued additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere bring great risk of global temperature change now let's think about the modern and think about what's actually happening I I agree that one single number a global average temperature doesn't mean much to most of us there are lots of different impacts one of the ones that is more global is sea level rise there are variations in different places but we see sea level going up today by satellite measurement we know that it's going up about three point four millimeters a year now by itself that isn't that much that's 35 centimeters over a century maybe that's tolerable but realize that this is going to keep going and that it's accelerating in the 70s and 80s that number was only closer to two millimeters a year and back in the earlier part of the century it was closer to one millimeter a year we've seen an increase in sea level rise and even if we look at things like the melting of the Greenland ice sheet by measure the gravitational field of the earth we can actually measure how much mass is being lost from Greenland and we know that that rate of Mithila will rise 10 years ago was half a millimetre a year today it's closer to 0.8 millimeters a year so we've seen an acceleration in just 10 years so so to me this is not just about making a perfect forecast of the future this is about looking at the trends the trends are getting worse and the question is what are we going to do about it so in the last 2 minutes let me turn to that topic because there's this supposition that we want to essentially destroy all of the bases of society it is true that fossil fuels access to cheap energy has led to the most incredible economic growth and quality of life decrease of of child mortality increase in life expectancy all sorts of wonderful things in our modern world we ultimately though have to get rid of fossil fuel or at least the co2 that comes from burning of fossil fuels if we're gonna solve the climate problem now that doesn't mean we need to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow our world is dependent on it let's let's be serious I'm going to Boston right after this debate and I'm not going to ride a bicycle to Boston I'm gonna get on a big airplane it burns a lot of petroleum the reality is that transforming the world's energy system is very difficult I've been studying this for the last decade and it's going to take a long time probably a hundred years our idea is not to just ban fossil fuels but to ultimately invest in technology that will someday displace fossil fuels we're not talking about a burdensome tax that will stifle society we're talking about something like $30 a ton of carbon dioxide that's like 25 cents a gallon of gasoline or 7 cents a liter of petrol that's that's not going to hurt that's not going to crush society and ultimately what those investments have already done for example in the US and the laughte six years we've seen the price of solar photovoltaics dropped by a factor of five in the UK we've seen offshore wind just in the last three years dropped by a factor of almost three so this technology and innovation is already paying off why wouldn't we want to use this as an insurance policy in case climate change is much worse than we expect I'll stop there thank you Loren's five minutes okay thanks Dan I want to start by saying that it's unfortunate we're having a debate on this subject and it's there's a good reason why we don't normally have debates on this subject because it's not debatable we don't debate facts debate policies that's why we don't have two baits on whether the earth is 6,000 years old or four and a half billion years old there's some people who do think it is but we don't put them on stage because it gives the illusion that there's controversy and what do you have a debate like this it gives you the illusion there's controversy because there are three people on three people but if it was accurate there'd be 10,000 scientists on this side and three people on that side now so I just want to frame that and the key point is that climate change is not and we'll get to it there's model dependent aspects of the future but it's happening it is happening the data says it's happening and that's what's really important now when talking to people who who deny climate change in one way or another there are two sets of viewpoints there are people who act like scientists and I'd say well what we heard from dr. Linden is exactly that saying okay the we can discuss models we can discuss interpretations the data there's data and there's models and they're people who distort the data and I think we heard that from Lord Lawson and will happen and we hear it from highly financed groups that have spent more money distorting reality like the Koch brothers than is entirely spent by the research on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change so there's incredible and of money to not using things that deny the facts like the claim that one degree is not important or they claim that we're getting greener everywhere that there aren't more droughts that there are more extreme weather events which is exactly what the IPCC is found or using tricks like say bringing a snowball into into the Senate and saying climate change isn't happening or bringing a carbon dioxide meter in a room full of people breathing carbon dioxide and claiming that has anything to do with the climate nothing so the the key point there here is it I'm not a climate scientist and and there are three active climate scientists and in this room okay the others aren't but I'm a scientist and I can at least look at data and I can look at papers and I can ask what seems reasonable and what doesn't and what is remarkable is that the basic physics of climate change isn't rocket science it's a greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and isn't it remarkable that when you just look at the effects that are happening now they're consistent with what you'd expect from basic physics now that could be a remarkable conspiracy it could be a remarkable fish pharisee based on all sorts of physics we don't understand but the simplest thing is the physics we do understand explains it and so as a scientist I look at this and I say well that seems reasonable then I look at other things and I say you know what the models are complicated as you just pointed out but they predict things like ice lofts and Greenland should be greater than an act Antarctica what's happening the ice loss in Greenland is greater than that Antarctica that gives me confidence as a scientist that we are in the right direction and you know what the ice loss is actually greater than the models predict which tells me the models are conservative which tells me I should maybe worry and that comes to the last thing I really want to point out as dad pointed out no one unlike the claim here is saying we should all ride horses tomorrow and and and and stop driving cars the point is we're arguing that what's it's hard to understand how anyone could argue against innovation let's say we wean ourselves off fossil fuel and we do it by innovation is that a bad thing by creating new technologies and new jobs let's compare that to the opposite so let's say they're right okay and climate isn't changing what happens we've got a lot of new technology oh dear what a sad story okay but let's say there let's say that every other scientist who's due looking at this is right let's look at the risks over the last five hundred thousand years you could look at carbon dioxide where it was less than half of what it is now and you can actually model it and the models fit pretty well but more important the sea-level change by maybe eighty meters hundred thousand years ago went last time the cela sea temperature was the same as it is now the sea level rise was six meters so if they're wrong we have potentially huge problems so the risk is clear louis pasteur that the scientists once said fortune favors the prepared mind if you look at the risks in one direction we spent a lot of money doing innovation the risk in the other direction is we produce catastrophic problem for hundreds of millions of people around the world who lose their land clearly the risks say let's just do what's reasonable thank you but no whoa muchos argumento zu lado del otro es el momento de que que uno de ustedes led Rica su preguntó SU commentary o Allah o contrary Oh tienen tres minutos para mostrar y decir nose donde yo crime encontrar la logic Adel argumento porque considerin que la persona del otro lado este kevo cada okay oh mighty aaron yo - eran el tiempo suficiente para la or are Y cierren la professor estos tres minutos para poder hacer lo tres minutos ahora no sabemos indistinct Ament a de aqui para yeah okay Lord you would you like to start quien quiere empezar de este lado Lord Richard who like to begin well one hardly knows where to start and three minutes will not be enough crowd speaks of basic physics well as I mentioned the basic physics that he's describing is one dimensional but we can use it you've seen temperature go up you've seen co2 increase you've seen the IPCC say that they believe most of the increase is due to man you can also calculate what sensitivity is most consistent with that data most consistent is the sensitivity of three quarters of a degree models often have higher sensitivity but they use fudge factors calls aerosols to cancel to get more than one and a half degrees they have to get more cancellation than is permitted by present data so if you're going to go by the data the data is telling you change occurs it always occurs and if it's due to co2 it suggests a minor problem I also don't like the money issue I think that comes close to a personal attack none of us have received any money from any of the sources you mentioned government funding which is distinctly prejudicial has increased by a factor of 15 by 19 between 1989 and 1993 mario mentions the 97 percent as a fact I have no idea what fact you're talking about is a bogus study and you never heard what the question was the question was does climate change occur everyone agrees climate change occurs and then it was does man have any impact the answer is yes some as I mentioned it seems pretty small how is that proof of anything unless you wish it to be propaganda to convince people who don't know what you're talking about now shraddh mentioned sea level sea level is an interesting issue it's a very difficult thing to measure we've measured it with tidal gauges the tidal gauges measure land relative to sea you have to pick tidal gauges in tectonic ly stable regions they give you the six inches a century then you have satellite measurements and they are dependent critically on knowing the GI Joe is the shape of the earth smallest errors and that can change the slope great deal what do we do what is Krauss do he takes one set of data says it's all right until you start the satellite tag on the satellite say that's an acceleration and continue the acceleration indefinitely you would flunk a physics student who did that in a freshman lab thank you Wow that's very good chuckling tengo el cambio climatic on a laudatory Oh Lord Jesus let me point out Richard that I never mentioned the word acceleration of my talk but in any case my my colleague Dan did who actually studies this knows what he's talking about so I'll I'll let him refer discuss that I did talk about Ned clump net sea-level change which you will not disagree with because again it's a fact okay good that when let me just say a few things I didn't I didn't talk I talked about money in general I talked about the Koch brothers which is really important to talk about I think because a lot of people who and and and I think this is what's really important not necessarily in this panel because it's panel and but when people hear these discussions you should ask yourself are the people claimed making claims benefiting from what they're saying now the climate scientists are going to be funded or not funded depending on whatever they find they're just doing science but say when a representative in the gas and oil industry says it does there's no big effect what do you think there's the problem is now I should say when it comes to funding I and I have to say this lord lawson have runs a an organization that denies climate change but hasn't told us where the funding comes from so i don't know where it's going to come from but anyway that's a different question the point is when we talk about okay well there you go when when talks about temperature change one should point out two things that net temperature change is one thing but it but one thing that is accelerating is the and that has been accelerating since the 1960's is the amount of carbon dioxide put in the atmosphere and the question is what's the rate of change of things you can't say things have been constant and the rate of change is accelerating as is the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that's an interesting observation and of course that's what's happening to both carbon dioxide and temperature 2014 2015-2016 have been consecutively the warmest years we've had so so we're seeing the effects accelerating and that's an important indicator that on a very short timeframe things are happening now the one thing I want to add is that's relevant because it didn't come up is the important fact that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time so when one is talking about action and policy the point is delaying our policies means that the carbon dioxide we put in today will still be here not just tomorrow but at least 600 years and maybe some people have too much longer so every bit of carbon dioxide we're putting in the atmosphere today will remain there and so we are not talking just about this generation and if we change things now within our children and our children's children be fine what we put in today will affect our children our grandchildren and their grandchildren and that's why we're talking about something that is of vital importance not just now but in the far future okay you know Sir William well I certainly agree with dick lens and let me talk a little bit about the correlation between co2 and temperature it's true if you look at ice cores that the proxies for temperature and the actual measurements of co2 and the bubbles track but in every careful study the temperature first rises and then co2 rises and the temperature first falls and then co2 falls so that what is causing what is caused and what's effect is that temperature is causing changes of co2 at least for the last million years there's no question about that if you're local over longer periods of times there were major worldwide ice ages in the Ordovician you know in the Paleozoic when co2 levels were ten times what they are now so how did that happen in fact the correlation between temperature and co2 is not all that good and I don't know what correlation matters how mr. dr. Krauss says you know the co2 levels have gone up and the temperature gone up well so has the price of a first-class stamp in the United States gone up it correlates just as well with co2 as does the temperature so I people have known for many years correlation is not causation and yet there's movement keep saying that now let me say something about conflicts of interest there's nobody more conflict than someone with a government grant to study climate you don't get that grant unless it's pretty clear to the grantee that you're going to come up with a result that supports the party line I know that because I used to make grants from 1990 to 1993 I ran the Department of Energy's basic research we made a lot of grants I was glad to support climate science in fact I started the arm program very nice set of instruments in Oklahoma and elsewhere in the world that are making some of the best data available and but I can assure you that even at that time if we were worried that we might get the wrong answer we didn't make the grant so anyone was a government grant is conflict it you know period there conflict it I think that's all I want to say right now that's just thank you Wow bust onion or it's interesting I had a government grant to study climate change during the George W Bush administration and I didn't feel a great need to say exactly what George W Bush thought about climate change so I'm not quite sure I agree with you that people who get government grants are conflicted in terms of the science they they talk about the other thing I want to mention quickly to William Harper is that nobody said that carbon dioxide was a poison the fact that co2 in the room might be a little high because we're all breathing who cares it's not gonna kill us and by the way that time 50 million years ago called the Eocene when carbon dioxide was something like a thousand parts per million and the climate was about eight or ten degrees warmer than today that would have been a perfectly fine climate to live in nobody is disputing that nothing was wrong with that climate it was much warmer sea level was about a hundred meters higher than today and they were as mario said they were there were palm trees in Wyoming and crocodiles living up above the Arctic Circle the problem is that were adapted to this climate we build cities close to sea level we have people living in places where they get water from snow on the mountains that snow didn't exist in the Eocene it was too warm for that snow to fall on the mountains and so could we survive of course we could but we we are adapted to this climate and it's all about time scale the climate is changing so quickly that it's all about rate so you know the fact that co2 was hired back in earth history to me is a sign of the trouble that we're in and let me be very clear carbon dioxide has never been as far as it is today for the last that we know directly for at least the last 800,000 years and indirectly it's probably something like four or five million years we are doing an experiment on the planet at a rate that has never been seen before and you know dik-dik says that the temperature sensitivity would only be three quarters of a degree i don't know how you get that because it's warmed by more than one degree we haven't yet doubled co2 so the reality is that looks like we're probably in for at least another degree of warming and maybe three or four that three or four degrees is catastrophic the difference between the glacial maximum 20,000 years ago when co2 was 180 parts per million and the difference between that and the pre-industrial period was only five degrees Celsius that difference was equivalent to about a hundred and twenty meters of sea level rise five degrees global average was the difference between a kilometer of ice on top of where I live in Boston and the Boston that I live in today we're talking about perhaps going five degrees warmer in the next century and if it's not the next century it'll be the next hundred and fifty years or 200 years that's really what's at stake thank you lord let me start by saying that I'm very sorry that mr. Kraus took it upon himself to make a personal attack on me and suggest that my foundation was funded by fossil fuel interests we have made it clear we have made it clear though we will take no money from the fossil fuel industry or anyone with a large stake in that industry we have made that absolutely clear so in the first place he's calling me a liar and I don't like being called a liar in the second place even if he does think I'm a liar I have among my fellow trustees in the foundation a former private secretary of the Queen a former head of the brilliance of civil service and a bishop of the Church of England all colleagues of mine House of Lords as happens he is therefore implying that there's a conspiracy among all of us to lie and to pretend that we're not taking money from the fossil fuel industry where we are that is paranoia at the very least I have would however like to make common cause in as much as I can with what has been said from the other side most of it is completely mistaken as Dickinson has in a short time he had pointed out pretty well but I absolutely agree I'm all in favor of investment in new technologies to see whether you can come up with some new source of energy which is cheap and reliable and we can all move to that's great let's do it but you can't assume it will happen I remember when I was energy minister in the UK I was told that that was 35 years ago I was told that fusion would produce energy economically within 25 years we're no nearer now that we were there so you can't assume it but what you do know is that the the far away the cheapest source of energy now and most reliable is fossil fuels this is what people depend on this is about above all the poor depend on and to reprise in the fossil fuels forced them to make have higher energy costs means more poverty more preventable disease more premature deaths and is unconscionable and this is to start eliminate fossil fuels now which is the attempt of a power supreme to try and do as quickly as possible is far worse than anything which is being proposed by us on this side it's it's monstrous it is immoral and I this is why and whoever said it's policy we should be discussing not facts I agree we should not go Mario doctora Mario Molina okay I've got a switch to English now sorry about that so that we are debating more directly first of all the point on conflict of interest and so on I totally disagree as well that if you have funding from the government that you have some sort of conflict there are many scientists also that have not directly connected with making a state about making some statement about the politics of climate change but in fact let me point out very directly just the opposites we in the scientific world and the just about everybody agrees with that if you have a discrepancy with what seems to be the consensus the agreement of a certain scientific thing way of thinking and if you can document it maybe it will cost you some trouble at the beginning but you can certainly publish it but at the point if it's sensible after whatever time it takes you become you become a hero for of course the other way around it doesn't work if what you're stating and claiming doesn't make much sense you do not become a hero so we have a huge sort of impulse to try to find out what's wrong with what everybody is thinking about climate change and that people have been trying very hard to leave me and they're not were close we haven't heard any really reasonable explanation that really goes against what you have heard from our side has been stated how does the natural climate work I could ask her for example mr. happer do you agree that these extreme events we are not talking about we are not saying that they are caused by climate change but the probability that they are more intense has increased recently that these are data these are facts and if that's the case that's something negative we cannot talk about very positive things coming out of climate change the it's happening so fast because civilization has grown up in the years and in these last ten thousand years with a very stable climate so there are all sorts of reasons why it would be very disruptive for from a politics and economics point of view to certainly have a very different climate and also very briefly they said we don't have to wait for innovation now we already have relatively cheap renewable energies so innovation will we'll move it even further faster and better so that we all have a better standard of living but why risk the standard of living of our child children grandchildren and so on that to me is highly responsible because the risk is huge explain to me why do you think the risk is negligible please that would be important given the fact that Gracias apostolis given the fact that some of your questions were pretty clearly directed to another of yeah I will let you two minutes - each of you - to answer exactly what I mean we could start with your research if you want to have tools and then with you enduring third very few things one has time to answer but first of all I would like the audience to consider the following in 1998 the temperature reached a maximum and then hovered around it remember it's an uncertain measurement for 18 years the counter to that by dr. Krauss is we've had some of the highest temperatures on record during that period does that contradict the statement that the temperature did not change within fluctuations no it doesn't if it didn't change I could say 18 of the hottest years on record have been the last 18 years it's the use of that misleading argument that makes should make you question whether you've been led astray now Mario asks why do we think it's not Siri and the answer is simply I mean Dan should know the answer to the question he has there is almost a doubling of co2 s radiative forcing when you include n 2o and H 3 and so ammonia yeah it's three and a half versus three point seven what do you want and the fact that that is still leading to that even if you include transiency is most consistent with 0.75 so that's one reason I don't think it's serious now you mentioned the exponential growth well but it's also a logarithmic effect so it's linear and they're saying each doubling will do the same thing so if you're doubling does three quarters another doubling will do that we've then pretty much run out of way to go no matter how much time you give it so I think it pays to understand that this is a scientific question at this level it is motivated by politics because energy is a huge part of the economy but please count this over well you know I don't know whether it from a I want to respond but I think it's better let Danvers I mean intellectually it's probably better to let Dan respond to what what Richard just said so because people forget what you just said in a few minutes so maybe it's better to do that with you is that okay that sounds reasonable so so Richard you are the as you know starting from your former colleague Jules Charney but continuing to this day the consensus on climate sensitivity is more like between one-and-a-half and something like three and a half or four degrees you have always been on well below the rest of the group let's talk a little bit about why the temperature pattern hasn't followed perfectly the carbon dioxide and the reason you know DIC is because the ocean is a big heat sink imagine you start adding carbon dioxide and you have a birth that's 3/4 covered by ocean well what happens is the oceans moving heat around is Dick said in the very beginning and it's resisting the heat it's actually in fact ninety percent of the energy from the greenhouse gases is actually absorbed by the ocean so it's ironic but actually sea level rise that we see that's mostly due to thermal expansion is actually global warming that is global warming that is the warming of the oceans now what that does to the surface temperature what it means is that the ocean warming is is global warming and the surface temperature is the tail of the dog and what happens is we they're cycles in the ocean and in fact the best explanation in my opinion for why there's been kind of a fluctuations in the rate of warming is because of cycles in the ocean I suspect sometime in the next ten years we're gonna see a time like the mid seventies when we're gonna warm even quicker and that that's part of the natural cycle that is the interaction of the natural cycle with adding all this carbon dioxide but to say that that the warming has stopped for the last eighteen years it's just not true look at the data yourself you would never come to that conclusion and you please go look at the data yourself you will actually see it's not that complicated that's just the is that the gentleman over there I've talked about this huge increase in extreme weather events professor bilko who has made the greatest study of extreme weather events has found that there has been overall a no increase in extreme weather events there has been some years when there's more some years when there are fewer and if you take because it's important in this particular area tropical storms because the Bay of Mexico is particularly an area for tropical storms the although it has been a very bad year this year the previous 10 years were unusually low and this this fair is had the the fact matter is that live the the trouble with renewable energy is that it is intermittent you cannot yet store electricity on any large scale if you could and let's have more research into possibilities but there's been an enormous amount of searching you can't do it therefore it is inevitably going to be more expensive you didn't need an international agreement to go to fossil fuels 150 years ago it was obvious that you do it now it is obvious that you shouldn't there's only an international breed was trying to force people and those that will force people to in the poorer countries where were the hundreds of millions of people still in dire poverty to die younger to have diseases that they didn't need that disease and and it is monstrous to impose on this these poor people a policy which is dictated only by this politically correct obsession let me answer I feel compelled to to do that first of all with Roger pinky you are just about oh maybe a decade behind the facts of we should not create our own facts in spite of the example that we have in a neighboring country okay so the facts are and you can see the curves and so on that extreme events have increased no doubt whatsoever okay let me make that clear the second point another fact is that The Economist's people that we have discussed with very clever they polish tape recorder are completely in disagreement with you that's awful because you're the consequence of what you're saying is is it terrible thing to do for future generations what's a disagreement it's a pool people that are going to suffer most from these changes in the weather that we have and the economists we work with and others and many have worked together and they claim very clearly that if we work in a creative way we work all together that's going to be the way to decrease poverty not to increase it so that these are all facts these are all things that have well established in the literature and so on and so forth so there's really no need to discuss these sort of obvious things that perhaps a big lens and also you mentioned that this 97% is something fictitious no it has been terribly well documented okay it has been extremely well documented with interviews and so on so it's very clear that there are just a handful of scientists that disagree and we have discussed with them we have it's not that we do have not considered their opinions they have been discussed very very carefully and it really doesn't matter they don't make much sense that's a point all right thank you thank you first of all let me talk about the current warming there's absolutely nothing unusual about the warming we've had over the past 50 years it's not nearly as much as the warming that to the settlement of Greenland by the Norse you know around the Year 900 1000 there was massive melting of the glaciers in the Alps during that time so what's new you know and how do I know it's due to co2 it's probably not it's probably mostly natural just as it was when the Vikings sailed and when the Alps glaciers melted secondly let me talk about scientific consensus when I was a graduate student in 1960 nobody believed on continental drift and there had been conferences in the United States of United States geologists you know completely dismissing continental drift and and denigrating Wagner of the man who proposed continental drift and it was a hundred percent consensus it wasn't 97% practically there were people in the southern hemisphere who were sympathetic but nobody in North America so scientific consensus is often wrong another good example is the consensus over eugenics in America in the early part of the last century 1900 the late 1800s you know it was fabricated data it was wrong it was designed to show that the anglo-saxon race was better than any other race in the world and it was nonsense and yet it was a consensus and every university president in the United States people who could hold themselves up and faculty meetings they all agreed on eugenics so consensus doesn't mean anything okay I can finally get back first of all Lord Boston I don't think ever called you I certainly never meant to I did say at the time that that we hadn't heard and funded your organization and I'm extremely happy that you now say that that no one with any vested interest right now well in any case I'm very happy to hear you say it and so but all that means to me is that there must be another reason why your organization is denying the evidence of reality and that's fine that's do you but it you know so there's a some other rationale some other rationale for why you're denying the data and the models now when it comes to quoting an individual and Mary already hit it you can always find an outlier to say anything so finding someone who says something I was just talking to a journalist about 300 people are saying the earth is flat at a scientific meeting right now you can find PhDs to say anything in in terms of the Wills statement about that the correlation optimization that's a very important point but when in science when you say the relationship between correlations and causation it's when you have an underlying physical mechanism and then you can try and make predictions and look at correlations and that's exactly what the climate scientists do they don't just say these things are happening there is actually an underlying physical mechanism I think the the the the key point that that you just said about about consensus is actually the really important point scientists are not funded and in fact it would be awful I was funded by you and I've always been funded by the Department of Energy and it would have been awful if you told me what to do scientists go out and try and prove their colleagues wrong because that's the way to become famous and you know how you do it you provide evidence and theories and eventually at first it may be hard but eventually you get consensus and maybe eventually you win a Nobel Prize for showing that something was not believed like like Mary Molina did is actually true and so I say to you if you have some argument why everyone is wrong go out and try and get providing underlying mechanism none of you ever have no support for water Emma Stampede en doe un comentario mess le soir darken minuto los que necesitan pero seed este lado al un minuto de este lado para un minuto OPC versa dos dos o tres tres we don't understand you I will explain jewel jewel some people here to my right needs another minute so you will couples for another minute in case you need two minutes you have to means we'll have exactly a fair timing sharing for each of the sites and after that I will have a question and we have to leave so George please I would just love to know the new mario with extreme weather while you contradict the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which concluded they could find no relation between extreme weather and climate change yes your again you are at the wrong time I would encourage you to read data from this year for example or even last year just carry a manual you know very welcome beak and I were come on I could not please I'm talking we were neighbours we were friends for many years but Kerry Manuel is also our neighbor he is a global expert on hurricanes he just has a paper please read read a recent literature because if we go back 10 or 20 years of course climate change was not that well established at that time but now it's very clearly established no doubt whatsoever in spite of him it has the fury Keynes in for example wait I am talking shut up to carry talk to Kerry you can answer afterwards what Kerry has it demonstrated very clearly that there is just a very high probability and the same thing has happened with all the other extreme events I'm sorry I have to finish if you want to respond up and I apologize for being but I just have to talk about what is the current science what's the scientific consensus about which there is no doubt whatsoever is that clear please it is not only clear it's wrong I cannot it's let me now Mario you cannot make long term trends by someone's latest paper that refers to the last two years that is just bad stats carries arguments are by no means the consensus at this point virtually everyone at the National Hurricane Center in the US disagrees with it so stop mixing consensus the latest paper and the trends over a hundred years trends over a hundred years are not changed in two years well I want to make very quickly a question and we'll have one minute to answer and thanks all I would like to start with you based on what you just mentioned to him you just said that trends of two years are actually not significant for long well no I'm saying if you have a trend or government over a hundred years two years fluctuation cannot change it sucks in every but before that you also mentioned that the last ten years is also wait a second you mentioned before that in the last ten years and that was your argument the climate change actually haven't increased so you make also just let me finish and let me elaborate my question when the one can't you say two years is not significant in a trend of 100 not even 10 and in the last argument you mention 10 the last 10 years actually climate change haven't increased in terms of heat so the same argument that you are telling dr. Mario Molina that his room is exactly the same that you use on your favor two minutes ago integrity but well that's my quote that's a point that I want to make to you does a question for you I agree a mr. William that consensus actually is not evidence and and I agree with you I I absolutely agree but my question is I also agree that in science we could be wrong and that probably we could hear and listen to fact consensus is not evidence but facts and statistics and correlations are my question has to do with probabilities in case you're wrong in case you are actually not with a consensus but you study strongly the statistics it's not cost-benefit efficient as they have said to avoid the risk of Lawrence mention that co2 will stays here for many many many years and that we could give the chance that we scientists you are wrong and help for the better society that's my question for you for you Lord what could convince you what do you need to know what will be the thing that it will make you change your mind I mean it doesn't matter what argument is on this itis I can hear if you believe in the day wrong I don't understand what could be only a sign that you say you know I accept I was wrong what it has to happen we're not going to be able to live two hundred thousand years to know or two hundred years for 50 years or like dr. Molina mentioned to you today what is happening and which is clear for many people there is no way that you could watch it so give me a hint and that calls me to your question Lord to start saying okay here were three and here were three but here it would be billions and here there will be three however mm industry there is a guy named Donald Trump and that's an issue and Donald Trump and people like Donald Trump are stopping and are doing a lot of damage to humanity and mailing this topic which is urgent okay so Lawrence it's important to debate this and it's important to understand like Chomsky mentioned that there is a great market failure is the greatest market failure of humanity what did happen this is a collective problem how can we be able to work convenes and change the policy of a person like Trump and others for you my friend Danny I really believe that there is a problem it doesn't matter what you do there are still people and there are still countries that they won't do anything that all is not the solution given what you have been storing that and this panel and this and this exactly festival of ideas have been about disruption that the only way to fix this is not with the bait is with market solutions how about going to Uline we work and invest in technological arrangements we human beings are are not so rational we're about incentives what do you think as a solution that the price of oil increases we invest more in another kind of energy and we stop the bearing these silly things in terms of if we agree or if we don't agree and disruption will be only the solution and we'll get other because it were tired of it dr. Mario Molina as always thank you very much with sure chiarella's areas with us to mention at the beginning 95% of probabilities were right but 5% were not and it's a thing that you also mentioned Daniel you mention many many many many years ago climate change was worst all but now is different because we have cities but when you mentioned many many many years ago and there was not a human factor to make me to make me doubt well without humans was worst now you know what I mean is there's real a correlation the same thing with you dr. Mary morena 5% is 5% and we are in science and we don't never talk about causation we always talk about correlations that's the truth but when you give 5% a chance how could you be in self-critic to yourself deep to that 5% the research and a way to show that this 5% could go to 1% what can we do in science what can we do - because represent I still think it's a number what can we do actually to change it and just to finish to mention at the beginning is not expensive to change to other kind of energy if that's a fact what are we waiting for I think it's still very expensive all what's going on if it is not expensive why we're not doing it I'm sorry if I make you to questions I I don't know if he didn't he still there I know climate change disability law danger so say you're a theorist one minute please Lord well you asked me a very good question but it's a good question for the other side what would cause them to change their mind and I would like to hear the answer to that in my case I am relatively sanguine because first of all warming has benefits as well as advantages and with a benefit with modern technology we have a good chance of enjoying the benefits while using the technology to adapt so that we can be less affected by the disadvantages so the first thing is it would take a very considerable increase in the rate of warming for me to change my mind absolutely in my bearing in mind that for a hundred and fifty years but we have used fossil fuels there's be virtually no warming at all one degree over the whole about thank you please yes I I second what Lord Lawson has said you know they we keep talking about probabilities and someone's scented once there there lies their damn lies and their statistics and you know you can do a lot of line with statistics and I can't believe for example that my distinguished colleagues believe really think that there's going to be five degrees of warming between now and 2100 you know look at the facts you know the warming that we've observed the last two decades it's somewhere it's it's around a tenth of a degree per decade you know we're already you know within eight decades at the end of you know the century there's no way you can get five degrees eight times point one is point eight degrees right okay so you how much is that going to accelerate so there there's lots of numbers thrown away to frighten the gullible I'm sorry because of the dental thank you Lawrence your question well this is one case where Trump is irrelevant happily in a sense that leaders unimportant issues generally lead from behind and the really important global changes require the people and there's a history for that there is success for that we we often feel impotent but in fact movements can do things and that's why the leaders that's why what's happened what Donald Trump has said is irrelevant it's even happened at Bonn that other people like Governor Jerry Brown and other people have said look we're our local communities are doing something the Pentagon who cares about these things is writing reports on the security implications of climate change because they need to know the realities much of the business community which relies in the realities is doing something with Vietnam the normal Chomsky's here with the non-proliferation treaty with with CFCs we have changed because without the public involved and that's the only way things gonna change leaders lead from behind the public has to convince a back know you can get all sorts of enthusiasm for issues I'm a little bit disturbed as the difference in facts that are being discussed and the way they're being thrown to Brown I objected to your statement that I was using 10 years for a trend I was simply pointing out the obvious thing that predictions of the models for warming have greatly exceeded what is observed and I think as far as Nigel might have said you know if you want to know what would change our opinion sure if you kept on seeing that the observation succeeded or went with the models you'd have plenty of reasons to be concerned but they're doing the opposite and so the question should sometimes be addressed by an objective moderator what would it take to change the mind of the other side good morning absolutely decent but I actually forget a little bit what you asked me but let me let me just sum up in this way there's one by one degree and we think one to five degrees you know really I'm the reason we're worried about five degrees I think it's on the outer realm that's why it's the upper edge of the probability it's it's the outer edge of the envelope and I think there's lots of things in the climate system that are possible feedbacks positive feedbacks that could accelerate the problem I hope they don't happen and by the way I hope that Richard is right the dick is the dick is correct that it's only going to be another half a degree or three quarters of a degree that would be wonderful because I do fear that many people will suffer I care about the people in the developing world and they do have a right to get out of poverty but we have to help them with a new pathway with new technology that can actually make their lives better and not have risks of suffering from extreme heat or sea-level rise or a variety of other factors Thank You del minimus cone in dr. Mario Molina poor fellow okay let me first it to be fair address what would it take to change my mind well very briefly if I were to see a very reasonable scientific set of logics statement that goes with the fact science is based on evidence if that comes through I will certainly change my mind but I think the facts and the evidence are just the other way around that's why I disagree very much with with my friends dick Clinton but the facts actually point the opposite temperature is changing more but if you look at the overall budget again some recent papers have documented that very clear to all this energy that appeared to be missing no it's in the oceans as was pointed out before it's there so all the logics is shows that we are on the right side but to finish we've done it before we did it with the ozone layer people were against it but the probability was work and all the planets got together and we saw problem it can be done let's work together bravo Bravo Bravo una casa para todos porfavor gran gran dia Wow looses porfavor luces de la pregunta let's at all su Stella Sally mother is Ellis Island ustedes que el principio pensive and esta manera open seven days to manera and cambiado the opinion pero no me diga no aliens he ahora por ejemplo Jacobo jo penis at the strip in Ava's I know two per dune s can only be in the loop no calm overlayer to nom brain scoop ami Jose Manuel pajamas como esto como esta Dennis do this okay kid mascara cambio opinion but para transport our cheapest pajamas I mean Aramis fast it'll pass yo mismo estaba con la costura de diplomatic Oh in me parece que los argumento z-- de este lado we're on masses can't ADO's mask your mise en como mass nappa precisa a casa general in so mucho me so dude re-question are because que no me question Avante or mentos felicito a lakipo desde la Valliere mass money Kalia can be a walrus cellular si Senora cell demise case the super perdón perdón chi por favor don't tell you I will not eat any moon I don't you're careless he'll escape si con esta posición y ways to charge her go Mentos Makeda Norma meant a mass preocupado del cambio chromatic of Cortes and significant controversy ons ideological pour for the puzzle me no phone no said gracias por un excellent a discussion undress me observe a Sione's la siguiente eed algún inform on no cambia completamente de opinion pero lo que estamos viendo es un diagnostic o adecuado creo que si esta cambiado la temperatura creo que la vie da da moneh tiene una una y una participation significative a no sabemos quanto LD agnostic o es correcto yo Hasina lado perfectamente el dr. Mario Molina la pregunta si la medicina casey a plan Thiago es la correct in nadie se D Co is a Tama tenemos Uno's acuerdo de paris' que no resolve n el problema en caso de que al diagnostic o sayyaa correcto yes us lo que no me Mo's en este discusion total me de si por esto lo del los precios l'énergie las navas tecnologías señoras y señores a Jose Luis Mateos quieres decir algo que es su isseo no esteban Moctezuma que estado en este tema involucre donde se encuentra la señora a CC or a z' alguien más el último comentario pass discuss Oh combos lo que está diciendo esta muy bien lo queremos porque ESO no scientific OHS say Laura si Senora so tell me no kanessa conclusion nos queda nosotros investigan yes Tarkan's ents de que si les tamos haciendo Daniel mundo este son say Leo Danny Oh yo que hacer algo y nosotros somos responsibles Deo nosotros somos responsable del muchas gracias trenta minuti OHS daybreak en la sala Syria [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music]

Channel: LaCiudaddelasIdeas

Views: 60,843

Rating: 4.1265645 out of 5

Keywords: andres roemer, roemer, ciudad de las ideas, grupo salinas, poder cívico, congreso, mentes brillantes, ideas, pláticas, conferencia, ciencia, pensar, puebla, conocimiento, pensamiento, idea, cdi, cdipuebla, talks, speakers, ted, global warming, calentamiento global, nobel

Id: sZsnAdGaxkY

Length: 94min 40sec (5680 seconds)

Published: Tue Apr 17 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/no_k3tchup]

Notice how the alarmists side keeps throwing ad-hominems and 97% claims at the skeptics

[u/[deleted]]

great stuff

[u/[deleted]]

great stuff