Summary of #14 - Climate debate between Tom Nelson and Gerald Kutney

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase summarize.tech Premium

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

Tom Nelson and climate expert Gerald Kutney discuss the impact of global warming on extreme weather events, with Kutney arguing that while extreme weather events are not solely caused by global warming, it contributes to their severity and frequency. The two also discuss the discrepancies in the IPCC's reports regarding the confidence level of extreme weather events, and the impact of global warming on colder regions. They also discuss the transparency and potential bias within the IPCC, and the idea of consensus in modern science. Finally, they debate the impact of natural variability and solar variability on climate change, and the sensitivity of global climate to doubled CO2. The debate also touches on the positive and negative impact of climate change, with Nelson arguing that climate change has benefits such as increased crop yields, while Kutney presents examples of the adverse effects of climate change, including heat domes and wildfires in Canada. They also debate the validity of experts.

00:00:00 In this section, Tom Nelson interviews climate expert Gerald Kutney on climate change skepticism and alarmism. Kutney emphasizes that science states the Earth is hotter than it should be and that the rate of change in the heat is the real disturbance. He notes that man-made emissions have increased the world's temperature by over a degree Celsius and that this has caused the climate crisis we exist in today, leading to more extreme weather. On the other hand, Nelson argues that the addition of more CO2 in the atmosphere has caused global greening, greater global leaf area and that most plants, including food plants, perform better with less water with 400 PPM CO2.
00:05:00 section discusses the impact of increased CO2 levels on plant growth and crop yields, with Nelson arguing that plants have benefited from the alleged "Greening of the earth". Kutney counters by stating that any benefits are dwarfed by the negative impacts of climate change, including extreme weather events. Nelson then argues that warm periods in history have been better for humans, but Kutney questions this claim and highlights that global temperatures are currently higher than they have been in thousands of years. The section concludes with a discussion on extreme weather events, with Kutney arguing that the data shows they have become more extreme in recent years.
00:10:00 In this section of the debate, Nelson and Kutney discuss the impact of global warming on extreme weather events. Kutney argues that while extreme weather events are not solely caused by global warming, it contributes to their severity and frequency. He cites peer-reviewed literature, including the IPCC's SR15 report, to support his argument. Nelson challenges this claim, asking what data proves that storms are worse now than 100 years ago, and points to an IPCC statement that shows low confidence in observed long-term increases in tropical cyclone activity. Kutney defends the IPCC as a valuable source of information and believes that their statements should be taken as the best guess at the truth.
00:15:00 In this section, the debate highlights the discrepancies in the IPCC's reports regarding the confidence level of extreme weather events, particularly floods and droughts. While the IPCC reports on the seriousness of global warming, it does not state whether or not the Earth is currently experiencing a climate crisis. The discussion also emphasizes how the impact of global warming varies from region to region, but the overall effect is negative. Increased CO2 levels can cause increased moisture in the air, which can prevent droughts and deadly wildfires in some areas, but this does not negate the negative impact of global warming.
00:20:00 In this section, the debate focuses on the impacts of warming temperatures on regions that currently have colder climates. The speakers discuss the issue of permafrost melting in areas such as the Yukon, which poses ecological, environmental and structural problems. They also argue that the cost of reducing Earth's temperature by one degree Celsius would be significant, with studies showing mixed results on the economic benefits of combatting climate change. The discussion then shifts to a comparison between the risks of cold and warm weather, with one speaker claiming that a warming planet has been a benefit to humans and the other stating that scientific expertise is necessary to interpret climate data accurately.
00:25:00 In this section of the debate, Tom Nelson and Gerald Kutney discuss the accuracy of online websites, such as the EPA, to examine data on climate change. Nelson argues that he distrusts the judgment of experts and instead places his faith in examining the data, such as temperature fluctuations in Minnesota. Kutney argues that although such data exists on specific areas, it does not necessarily account for global changes and regional impacts that occur due to global warming.
00:30:00 In this section, the two debaters discuss the idea that global warming should produce record high temperatures every year, and the lack of new high temperature records in recent years. Kutney mentions that just because there isn't a new high temperature record every year doesn't mean warming isn't happening. He points out that overall trends are important, and that record highs are increasing much more than record lows in the world. Kutney also discusses how warming affects certain regions more than others, using Canada as an example. They also touch on the idea of benefits to global warming, with Kutney acknowledging that there could be some regional benefits, but stating that there are no net benefits to the world. Lastly, the relationship between experts and climate change is brought up, with Kutney challenging Nelson to name one major scientific organization in the world that states the science of climate change is wrong.
00:35:00 In this section of the debate, Tom Nelson and Gerald Kutney discussed the notion of consensus and how it is determined in modern science. Kutney argued that science is not determined by lists but rather the peer-reviewed literature. He cited the peer-reviewed literature as evidence that there is a climate crisis. Although there are a handful of contrarians who have papers in peer-reviewed literature arguing against climate change, there are tens of thousands of papers that support the science of climate change. Kutney also discussed the IPCC summary for policymakers and explained that while it is not a scientific document, the summary is written by the leading climate scientists in the world, and there is evidence to show that the summary does not change the science behind the conclusions.
00:40:00 In this section, Nelson and Kutney discussed the transparency and potential bias within the IPCC. They emphasized that the fear of political interference in the IPCC comes from petro states trying to protect their assets. While there may be some ultra-liberal individuals within the IPCC, they are not the ones trying to declare a climate crisis. However, the IPCC does have a major problem in that scientists are not allowed to be prescriptive, and hence cannot tell politicians what to do. While CO2 is not inherently bad, dumping large amounts of it into the atmosphere can cause global warming which leads to various negative consequences. In order to mitigate these negative consequences, scientists and politicians need to work together to reduce CO2 levels.
00:45:00 In this section, the two speakers debate the idea that natural variability is the primary cause of climate change. The proponent of climate change due to human activity argues that there is no evidence that natural variability has caused global warming in the past century, while the other speaker points out that there have been periods of natural cooling and warming throughout history. They also discuss the impact of the sun and other factors on the Earth's temperature, but ultimately, they largely disagree on the role of humans in climate change.
00:50:00 In this section of the climate debate, the two discuss the impact of solar variability on climate change, with one arguing that there is no evidence to support the idea that solar variability has a significant impact on global warming, while the other claims that the sun does play a role in climate change, but it is overwhelmed by greenhouse gas emissions. They then discuss the potential for future ice ages and whether there will be any 30-year periods of cooling in this century, with one arguing that it is highly unlikely due to the continued presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The discussion then turns to the sensitivity of global climate to doubled CO2 and the impact of rising temperatures on deaths related to climate change, with one arguing that the actual data should be used to inform policies, rather than model deaths in the future.
00:55:00 In this section of the debate between Tom Nelson and Gerald Kutney, they continue to argue about the impact of climate change on people. Kutney presents the example of a heat dome in Canada and a subsequent wildfire burning a town to the ground. However, Nelson argues that climate change has a positive impact such as increasing crop yields, and preventing cold weather deaths. He also questions the contribution of greenhouse gases to the heat dome. The two then debate about the validity of experts, with Kutney citing Richard Feynman's scientific skepticism while Nelson scoffs at the idea of blindly trusting experts.

01:00:00 - 01:25:00

The climate debate between Tom Nelson and Gerald Kutney covers several topics, including scientific theory, the credibility of experts in NASA and other scientific organizations, natural climate variability, whether humans can stop climate change, wildfires in North America, and the controversy surrounding the ClimateGate emails. Kutney stresses the importance of accepting the science of climate change, reducing greenhouse gas levels to reduce the risk of extreme weather events, and preventing potential future harm by listening to experts and acknowledging the science behind climate change. On the other hand, Nelson believes that the science of climate change is unproven, and there is no evidence to support the theory that increasing CO2 causes reduced crop yields. The debate ends with Kutney maintaining that the science of climate change is accepted by the greater scientific community, while Nelson distrusts NASA and criticizes Dr. Michael Mann's tree ring data to hide the decline in temperature after the 1960s.

01:00:00 In this section of the debate, one participant argues that scientific theory is accepted until new evidence shows otherwise. They claim that there is no evidence to support the theory that increasing CO2 causes reduced crop yields and that climate deniers tend to isolate one piece of evidence instead of looking at the whole picture. The other participant accuses them of denying science and argues that they should accept the science of climate change, which has some of the greatest reviews. They emphasize that people should learn how to think and not just how to regurgitate information.
01:05:00 In this section, the debate focuses on whether or not the experts at NASA and other scientific organizations can be trusted on climate change. Tom Nelson expresses his distrust for NASA, stating that they are ruining their brand with their climate alarmism, while Gerald Kutney questions why Nelson seems to dislike every expert opinion on climate change. Kutney argues that the burden of proof is on the skeptics to disprove the science of climate change, while science itself is self-correcting and always open to new evidence. The debate ends with Nelson claiming that the science of climate change is unproven, while Kutney maintains that it is accepted by the greater scientific community.
01:10:00 In this section of the debate, the two participants discuss the understanding of natural climate variability and settled science. The IPCC report is mentioned, and it is suggested that the lead authors and scientific community understand natural variability. The idea of settled science is debated, and although one participant prefers to use the word "accepted" over "settled," the other participant quotes him saying that the science is settled in multiple instances. Sea level rise is also discussed, and while one participant does not believe it is a huge concern, the other emphasizes the astronomical change it brings to the planet's system.
01:15:00 In this section, the debate revolves around whether humans can stop climate change or not. Kutney argues that the point is not about picking a specific temperature or sea level but about reducing greenhouse gas levels to what they were about a century ago. This could lower the risk of extreme weather events, improving people's lives. However, Nelson claims that there is no data to back up the idea that weather has gotten worse since 1850 and that the predictions for the future are mere guesswork. Kutney points out that scientists use computer models to predict where the world is headed, and it's better to stop a crisis before disaster strikes. By listening to experts and acknowledging the science behind climate change, we may prevent potential future harm.
01:20:00 In this section, the two speakers discuss the issue of wildfires and whether they have worsened in North America since 1900. While one participant argues that he has never seen any data that proves the worsening of wildfires, the other emphasizes the importance of looking at data from multiple sources. They later debate the significance of the so-called "climate gate" emails and the investigations that took place after their release, with one participant stating that no wrongdoing was found on the part of climate scientists.
01:25:00 In this section, the discussion revolved around the controversy surrounding the ClimateGate emails, which were stolen from the University of East Anglia in 2009. Tom Nelson defended the climate scientists by saying that numerous reviews both in the UK and the United States did not find any wrongdoing by the said scientists. He also accused Gerald Kutney of quote mining and taking comments out of context from the emails. Kutney, on the other hand, said that it was difficult to defend every quote that was taken out of context and that the climate denialists use the hacked emails to further their agenda. They also talked about Dr. Michael Mann and his infamous "Mike's nature trick" which was about using tree ring data to hide the decline in temperature after the 1960s. Nelson criticized this practice, but Kutney defended Dr. Mann, saying he was one of the leading climate scientists in the world and a member of the National Academy of Scientists.