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.


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.

    • 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 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.