Vintage CO2Science videos are still useful today

When looking for YouTube videos skeptical of alarmism and alarmist science, especially for teaching, one should not overlook the extensive collection of vintage CO2Science videos. CO2Science has one of the largest collections of sound science material on the Web, including excellent non-technical summaries of many hundreds of scientific research papers which present findings that are inconsistent with alarmism. They have almost 100 carefully crafted videos as well. Most of the videos date from the Copenhagen Conference era, circa 2008-2009 or a decade ago.

All of these videos are directly available on the YouTube CO2Science channel. (None play directly from the CO2Science website, at least not on my admittedly old computers.) In addition each can easily be found using the YouTube search feature and once you find one you are then offered the full channel.

While some of the videos of are dated, many are still very relevant because the alarmist arguments and methods have not changed much. For example there is a whole series on how the IPCC advocacy apparatus works. There are also many on the benefits of atmospheric CO2, the usefulness of fossil fuels, etc. It is interesting to wonder what role these may have played in the happy failure of that ridiculous UNFCCC Conference.

Interestingly, most of these videos are very short, between 1 and 6 minutes long, which means they can be combined in many different ways to create classroom materials. The practice of weaving teaching materials out of short videos is part of the popular movement called Open Educational Resources, which hopes to replace expensive textbooks. These videos can also be used to replace alarmism.

There are four groups of videos:

1. “Copenhagen Climate Concerns”
Over 50 short (1 to 6 minute) YouTube videos expressing the concerns of many scientists and scholars about alarmism and the Copenhagen Conference of Parties meeting in December 2009. Many prominent skeptical scientists appear and many of the videos are about alarmism, not just the Conference.

2. “The Scientists Speak” Video Series
Eight short (1-4 minute) YouTube videos on various global warming related topics from 2009 by prominent skeptical scientists like Christy, McKitrick and Balling.

3. “CO2 Truth-Alert” Video Series
A series of 14 short (1-4 minute) videos produced from 2008 to 2010. Some are rather dated but others are still highly relevant. There is also a new one, which suggests that more may be coming.

4. “Feature Documentaries”
This group consists of five longer (27-53 minute) feature presentations, with the “Carbon Dioxide and the Climate Crisis” series of three and “The Greening of Planet Earth” series of two, which begins way back in 1992. There is truly some history here. In some ways the debate has not changed in 25 years.

The entire collection of roughly 80 videos is divided between science issues and energy issues. Sometimes there is political analysis as well. The statistics may well be outdated in some cases but the reasoning is often still perfectly valid.

While these vintage videos are still useful, we could certainly use new versions of the arguments and their supporting data today. Today’s target is not just a Conference; it is alarmism itself, especially the teaching of climate alarmism in our schools.

Categories

About the Author: David Wojick, Ph.D.

David Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.

  • Ian5

    David, please don’t be fooled by the intentionally misleading CO2Science website. Most of the videos feature the usual disinformation professionals and climate contrarians like Myron Ebell, Bonner Cohen, Paul Driessen, William Happer and Richard Lindzen. The site also prominently features the silly Heartland-sponsored NIPCC reports. The NIPCC II report for example evaluated fewer than 100 scientific papers, many of which were written by NIPCC members. It’s sponsor has a long history of opposing tobacco regulation and intentionally misleading the public. Heartland also equated climate change proponents to unabomber Ted Kaczynski. So no, CO2Science is not a good source of objective, science-based information and I urge readers to avoid it.

    • Immortal600

      Yes it is. Your trolling here doesn’t change anything. YOU are no expert. You simply don’t understand the thermodynamics that shows AGW as being a farce.

      • Jeffrey Levine

        Me too. I don’t understand the thermodynamics that shows AGW as being a farce either…. Could you please refer me to some trustworthy scientific publications that explain this? Thanks in advance!

        • Michael Castillo

          They intentionally make it way too complicated. You really only need the most simple basic physics and a little history knowledge to show runaway global warming based on a rise in atmospheric CO2 is false propaganda and not scientific fact. For argument sake you only need to consider the primary interactions of adding one CO2 to a population of 10,000 air molecules. There are secondary, tertiary and so on interactions, but the impact of those interactions drop off exponentially. Theories that don’t include that premise violate the laws of physics. For simplicity you can characterize the interactions as the directions plus the CO2 molecule interacts with itself. So the primary impact of adding one CO2 molecule to our system increases the affect of CO2 by seven interactions out of population of 10,000 molecules. A positive but MINUTE change. The competing theory is that cycles of changes in solar output are responsible for the changes in climate. We have continuous records of observed sunspots since 1755 and know there is a correlation between the number of observed sunspot activity. During the height of the Little Ice Age observed sunspots were often in the teens. During the recent warm period in the 1980’s 1990’s the number of observed sunspots was in the thousands. How many of the molecules in our sample are affected by a change in solar output? All 10,000! A little more history: ice cores going back thousands of years show that climatic conditions sometimes changed from relatively frigid to relatively balmy in as little as 70 years. In each cycle the warming PRECEDED a rise in atmospheric CO2. That makes sense because warming increases organic activity and also releases CO2 locked in permafrost. The short of it is theories implicating a slight change in atmospheric CO2 at trace gas levels causing drastic climatic changes do not hold up to scrutiny, so be skeptical!

          • Jeffrey Levine

            I guess that’s part of why I’m confused.

            Regarding your statement, “How many of the molecules in our sample are affected by a change in solar output? All 10,000!”. It was my understanding (and, as it turns out, the understanding of most physicists, that the answer to your question would be “4”, and not 10,000. But that would be assuming that no GHGs other than CO2 were present (such as water vapor, for example, which must make up at least a few hundred of your 10,000 molecules, and is a much better absorber of IR than CO2).

            Most physicists (and I’d have to defer to their expertise on this) are under the impression that nitrogen and oxygen, which together make up most of your 10,000 molecules, are pretty much transparent to both sunlight (at least the part that’s in fhe visible spectrum) and earthlight, which (as a blackbody radiator) lies mostly in the IR, and that that the so-called GHGs are really the ones doing the hard work in keeping us warm, and that the rest of the 10,000 molecules are just going along for the ride. (Admittedly, N2 and O2 DO contribute to Rayleigh scattering, which gives us our beautiful blue sky. (Gee, THANKS, O2 and N2 !!!) but that this is an elastic process with no (significant??) energy loss.

            But wadda they know? And and accordingly, wadda I know? So I’m still confused as to what it is in thermodynamics that disproves enhanced greenhouse warming.

    • David Wojick

      Ian, you are clearly an alarmist so your denouncements are endorsements in my view. Your misinformation is my sound science. The people you list are heroes to me.

      CO2Science is a grand story. A pioneering father and son team begun by Sherwood Idso, who stood up to then Senator Al Gore in the early days of alarmism. Their website features thousands if summaries of scientific journal articles that support skepticism. The videos are just the tip of the sound science iceberg.

      By the way, regarding the unabomber. I once ran a Gore-unabomber quiz on my Climatechangedebate.org website. There were 5 passages from Gore’s ridiculous “Earth in the Balance” book and 5 from the Unabomber Manifesto. The quiz was to say which were which and no one could do it. In short, Heartland was right.

      As for the NIPCC reports, they are a model for the upcoming federal Red Team analysis of alarmist dogma. I can hardly wait.

      • Immortal600

        Dr. Wojick, great response! Of course, Ian won’t be able to agree with your comments because he thinks that all the worlds science academies can’t be wrong, yet they are!! They, like him, have a poor to little understanding of the thermodynamics involved in the AGW farce.

        • Michael Castillo

          My question is how can so many “scientists “ be wrong? The reason parts per million statistics are used is because CO2 is a trace gas and if you use a more reasonable measure, say parts per thousand the amount of CO2 is zero. The supposed problem is due to a change in CO2 from 3 parts per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000. The difference in atmospheric properties in that change is so minute that it’s difficult to measure. It’s not about science. It’s a political movement based on what I call anti-fossil fuel theology.

          • Jeffrey Levine

            Your powers of reasoning are indeed formidable. Now that you’ve exposed the fallacy regarding atmospheric CO2, how about if you turn your mind to exposing the fallacies of the alarmist EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide (CO), which are at the preposterously low levels of 35 ppm. How ridiculous! How could a gas have a harmful effect at such low concentrations?!! Am I right, or am I right??

            We pay such a dear price when know-nothing “scientists” get involved trying to tell others what’s safe and unsafe…. So, go get ’em, tiger.