Thongchai Thailand

Ben Deniston Interviews Madhav Khandekar

Posted on: October 20, 2019

 

[LINK TO THE YOUTUBE VIDEO]

 

 

[HOME PAGE]

 

RELATED POSTS 

  1. RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION TO EMISSIONS
  2. 14C DILUTION IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2
  3. 13C DILUTION IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2
  4. UNCERTAINTY IN CARBON CYCLE FLOWS
  5. PRE-INDUSTRIAL TROPICAL CYCLONES
  6. THE BHOLA CYCLONE OF 1970
  7. THE IPCC IS AN AGENCY OF THE UN

 

Question: Nature on IPCC SR15: This new IPCC report means that without aggressive action, the world could become an almost impossible place for most people to live. Do you agree with that?

Answer: I was an UPCC reviewer in 2005 and 2006 for the AR4 report. When that report was published in 2007, I was very disappointed. Among several things my disappointment was because I had suggested several changes to be made in the final document. Sadly, no one single change I had suggested was incorporated in the IPCC final document. Thereafter, I lost interest in the IPCC Assessment Reports and stopped reading them and stopped taking them seriously. I did browse through the most recent report of 2013 the AR5 and found it repetitious and repetitious. There is nothing new. It has all been said before but apparently needs saying again that we have to reduceCO2 emissions if you want the climate to behave smoothly. What does that mean? There will always be extreme weather. Extreme weather is an integral part of the earth’s climate system. Why bother reducing CO2 at enormous cost and at the end of the day what do you get out of that is nothing.

 

Question: Outside of climate models where these relationships are programmed in, is there empirical evidence in the observational data that human emission of CO2 is the major driver of the climate?

Answer: No! In fact, this hypothesis of CO2 driven warming was first suggested by the IPCC in its 1995 Assessment Report. Before that, they did not do that. In the 1995 assessment report, the IPCC wrote that “there is a discernable human influence on the earth’s climate. That sentence has been debated and extensively studied by a large number of scientists on both sides of the argument. And most scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC view have shown again and again that the warming of the earth’s climate roughly from around 1977 to 1998 was quite possibly due to natural variability. More El Ninos occurred during that period and warming due to human CO2 emissions was possibly minimal at best. That is my personal view.

 

Question: Are climate models overstating the impact of human CO2 emissions on climate?

Answer: That is very correct. I am not an expert on climate models I have done some modeling work during my career with Environment Canada more than 20 years ago and I have since been retired. But my modeling of oceanic impact on climate was primarily for marine operations and our forecasts were for two or three days at most depending on how good the winds are. When I was studying meteorology at Florida State University, a leading meteorologist of our time (at MIT) was studying the predictability of the climate system. He came to the conclusion that climate was not predictable beyond a 2-week forecast boundary. Climate models are not capable of predicting weather or climate beyond that horizon. But they say that they can predict global mean surface temperature out to 2050 and 2075 and even out to 2100 but I have my doubts about these claims. In fact, more and more scientists have shown that a high sensitivity of temperature to CO2 is built into these models so that if you track their performance against data you find that they show higher rates of warming than we see in the data.

 

Question: Does the IPCC have any scientific credibility at this point? Is the IPCC really an independent, objective, scientific assessment based on an honest scientific investigation?

Answer: What the IPCC says has a lot of politics behind it. I have seen the reports about a huge UN bureaucracy that the IPCC is constrained by. And with their alarming projections coming from time to time like the most recent report. I recall that when I was a reviewer for the 2007 document, I had come to the same conclusion. In fact, I wrote a paper published in the UK based journal Energy and Environment on “Has the IPCC exaggerated climate change impacts on humans?” It included this sentence: “As I read through various documents about climate change I kept wondering about the claim that if nothing is done, if there is no climate action, if CO2 is not reduced right away, humans will perish from the earth. That was more than eleven years ago and humans are still here and they appear to be doing quite well having added to their population by hundreds of millions. Even in the poor developing countries, particularly in South Asia, people are doing very well with no sign of the dire conditions predicted. In the last two or three years, India had good grain harvests from healthy monsoons, a climate system that I have personally studied quite extensively. In fact, about two years ago India’s grain harvest set a record as the highest ever at 280 million tonnes. Currently, what I read in the papers is that food prices in India have come down – and that includes vegetable prices. But if you read the IPCC AR4 report of 2007, you find the prediction that global warming will reduce grain production worldwide. This prediction is totally wrong.

 

Question: Higher atmospheric CO2 has caused a global greening and it is going to have a positive impact on photosynthesis and plane growth.

Answer: That is so very true. Satellite imagery shows again and again an enrichment of world forestry. World forestry is getting greener, the planet is getting greener, because of higher CO2. In an ironical way, people refer to renewable energy such as wind and solar, as “green technology” and yet the planet is becoming greener by virtue of what green technology is supposed to replace. I wouldn’t want to touch wind farms with a ten-foot pole. Wind is unreliable because we don’t know how hard it will blow at any given time and whether that will match our demand curve. There are also problems with those large turbines. Solar has done better but that too has problems particularly at the greater latitudes. There is an airport in South India called Kochi that runs on 100% solar and serves a thousand flights a week. It is run efficiently. So maybe there are niche applications for wind and solar.

 

Question: These policies have a huge impact around the world. The latest IPCC report said hat 50 to 120 trillion dollars must be invested to get rid of carbon emissions by 2050. That is an enormous investment. A huge percentage of the world’s population is already suffering from the lack of electric power supply, lack of energy, and the changes being pushed by the IPCC can only curtail the availability of energy in poor countries.

 

Answer: Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have no measurable effect on the earth’s climate. There are now several studies in peer reviewed journals that show that even if all nations abide by the Paris Agreement, then by the year 2100 the amount of cooling thus achieved will be 0.05C. It is an insignificant temperature effect at enormous cost. Why do it. Adaptation makes more sense than mitigation. Let us come up with a comprehensive adaptation strategy that should include early warning systems. If we can improve our short range weather forecasting and climate prediction models extending the forecast horizon to weeks and even months, it will make extreme weather more bearable and less injurious. We can already predict drought conditions a few months ahead of time but not heat waves. We can predict heat waves a few weeks ahead of time. If we can minimize the risk of extreme weather with better forecasting it will make adaptation a better option than costly mitigation. With respect to sea level rise due to melting glaciers and ice sheets, the dangers of it has been exaggerated. My estimate is that we are facing a sea level rise by 2100 of about 25 centimeters. It’s not going to be an adaptation issue. Other forecasts I have seen in the journals run as low as 10 cm in a hundred years but with high uncertainty levels such that the uncertainty bars are +/- 15 cm that derives mostly from uncertainty in the warming forecast. Then there is the forecast of a Grand Solar minimum in solar activity. That could bring about an extended cooling period. Besides that, my estimate is that the temperature has stabilized and that there is no warming threat and we may be in for some cooling.

 

Question: So the best way to deal with this is adaptation and we should build up our economies and build up our infrastructure to be able to deal with the possible effects of global warming in the form of adaptation rather than mitigation.

Answer: That is so true. I do agree that we need to develop infrastructure including shelters where people can go in the case of things like strong hurricanes and tropical cyclones as for example in the Bay of Bengal where the so called Bhola cyclone of 1970 swept away more than 250,000 people out to sea. To this day, this 1970 tropical cyclone still holds the record in the number of fatalities from a single weather event. Incidentally, the 1970 Bhola cyclone struck not during warming but during the 1945 to 1977 cooling period. It was in fact, a period of rapid rise in atmospheric CO2. Climate scientists don’t like to talk about this. Then the climate warmed from 1977 to 1998 in sync with rising CO2 but in the last 20 years, according to most climate scientists, there has not been a statistically significant warming of the earth’s climate. We can call this period the “global warming hiatus”, a period of time when warming took a break that has continued to the present as we speak. The expectation of rapid and dangerous warming in the next 20 to 50 years is almost preposterous. If the climate was getting ready to warm by that much, I think we would be seeing some evidence of that. The reality is that we are seeing rising incidence of extreme cold events. Boston in 2015 for example contrary to the IPCC 2005 report which says that snow will be gone from land areas of the earth in a few decades. Like so many other such scary forecasts, it turned out to be very wrong indeed.

 

570 comments by viewers of the video.

 


Johnny James Ferreira
2 days ago

IPCC is a political body not a scientific one.

11

REPLY

Hide replies

Jamal Munshi10 hours ago

An obvious truth not obvious to most. https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/08/11/ipccisun/

REPLY

Johan3 days ago

I do not get how people chose to lissten to a hysterical puppet teen rather than people like this that actually know what they are talking about.

10

REPLY

Hide replies

Leanne Dickson2 hours ago

Johan because those idiots will say oh he is paid off by the fossil fuel companies. It’s just like they don’t believe ex Muslims about Islam Ppl are funny but cause they may not believe in climate change cause they know of the lies but other things they don’t research into or believe ppl can be paid off about. And I’m meaning vaccines No money in cures but there will always be money in sickness All I’m saying is if one side is always pushing something while shutting down others via labels and more so if msm is supporting it and pushing it then you better do some serious research into it. Think about what I just said We know we can’t trust anything when money is involved or an agenda to make money and get power,question everything. And I mean everything.

Read more

REPLY

Natalie Mannering4 days ago

Good that mention was made of the effect of the Sun on the climate, and the Solar Minimum which will cause global cooling. Climate changes CAN be predicted by solar cycles.

15

REPLY

View reply

ms7113 days ago

The climate change fanatics are worried about a non toxic gas in the concentration of 400 ppm or 0.0004%?

4

REPLY

View reply

Tevita Tupouniua5 days ago

Climate change another reason for more taxes.

55

REPLY

View 6 replies

Vote PPC!1 week ago

I support the climate hysteria zealots. When I see them, I tell them they should volunteer to feed the worms and completely eliminate their own carbon foot prints to save the planet.

50

REPLY

View 21 replies

kellyd111431 week ago

Getting sick and tired of CLIMAPHOBIC HYSTERIA

75

REPLY

View 19 replies

potterzebra4 days ago

Climate models are simulations which are “tweaked” to produce the result specified by the climate alarmist funders. Any individual who supports an unfalsifiable hypothesis (anthropogenic global warming) should seek a career other than science.

10

REPLY

Peter Rumsby11 months ago

As soon as the banksters started introducing carbon trading it was obvious it was a money making scam, scientists just provided the numbers for politicians to act. Tell the left that they are saving the planet and they’ll stick their head in the oven.

64

REPLY

View 22 replies

Kelly McGowan4 days ago

As the climate religion fails to gain traction, they believe that if they amp up the fear rhetoric they will convince people.

20

REPLY

View 4 replies

Steve Hatton2 days ago

UN: If we want to be a global government let’s find some global problems which only we can solve …. cue the IPCC … cue the immigrants crisis … cue the etc But hold on – people aren’t stupid they don’t all believe U

2

REPLY

tobias steurer4 days ago (edited)

We all know Human responsibility of the Climate change is very Little. ICE Core Science Shows Clearly First Climate warming then CO2 is following. Second geological science shows that rapid climate change in between 20 Years already happened ice core science of the arctic shoes that. Third melting glaciers in the alps show trees that are 3-5000years old . We see here that the tree limited zone was far higher than today and therefore it must have been far hotter than today. Science means data, analysis but today pseudoscience rules the media. Politic is the mirror of society . The society has no clue about real science and therefore our politicians also have no clue about true science.

Show less

7

REPLY

Bridge Beautys1 week ago

It’s all a scam to redistribute more money to the elite!!! Wake up and think for yourself!!

98

REPLY

View 49 replies

DAVID TAYLOR1 day ago

Climate change has become a religion for city dwellers. Politicians use this new religion to get votes but are very careful not to implement their climate promises as they know the climate is not due to become dangerous to humanity.

2

REPLY

Professor MAWillett5 days ago

IPCC has an agenda at odds with the truth. Don’t believe a word the IPCC preaches. They are more of a religious organization rather than an independent scientific investigative body.

19

REPLY

View 4 replies

Carl Miller1 month ago

“10 years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense, and was not supported by any scientific facts, or measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science, without first checking it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate, by turning a C02 adjustment knob”. GERMAN PHYSICIST AND METEOROLOGIST : KLAUS-ECKHART PULS

Read more

54

REPLY

View 11 replies

ixtasis2 days ago

Is there any proof of this man’s credentials and that he was, in fact, a member of the IPCC?

REPLY

View reply

Little Traveller4 days ago

The way alarmists make out we’re at the edge of a cliff it should be 120 degrees in spring. People dropping dead in cities because the temperature is wya beyond anything we’ve ever seen. It should be obvious we have problems. What we see is nothing.

4

REPLY

Roger Grandy6 days ago

Search Youtube for “The Climate of Science – Interview with Shiva Ayyadurai”. This explains why science (actual science) does not exist any. Also nealry 50% of all peer reviewed science literature is false or not duplicatable.

10

REPLY

View 2 replies

Liver Cat11 months ago

only a crazy liberal who suspends thier own mind and believes baloney buys into man made climate change. The idea itself is ABSURD, but if you frame it that people are “saving the planet” people will fall in line like sheep even though its complete rubbish

36

REPLY

View 8 replies

Annelise Freeman4 days ago

When “extreme actions” are simply sending money, it is hogwash.

6

REPLY

View reply

galefraney3 days ago

Dr. Khandekar says he has been retired for 20 years, and reviewed the IPCC report way back in 2007 !! That is 12 years ago !! You were unable to dredge up someone a bit more recent and relevant?! He admits being disappointed (disgruntled) because his suggestions weren’t used in the 2007 report … he says he has barely glanced at any recent reports. Wow you guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! He says CO2 is great because “India is producing lots of grain”. How is that relevant to Climate Change around the entire globe ?! Last time I looked, India is currently experiencing extreme droughts followed by severe flooding which India’s government attributes to Climate Change. This gentleman may have been relevant and on top of his game 30 years ago, but he is clearly completely out of touch with the current impact of Climate Change.

Read more

3

REPLY

Pantelis Lazarou1 day ago

Global warming is a scam, nothing is wrong with the climate, it’s a lot wrong with the tax imposed on poor people, people are sick and tired with the lies, and the scammers.

REPLY

Kelly McGowan4 days ago

Exactly!! Our models are good for 10 days, yet they claim to “know” with 1/10 of a degree over 100 years

3

REPLY

View reply

Mario Andreano6 days ago

They brainwashed the children already. Look at Greta. My friend has her picture on his wall. I flipped, l called him out. He claims he is awake but watches that TV like its his spouse. I got rid of TV. Best thing ever. Think for yourself. Man cant do all these things like control climate or Travel through space. The lies run so deep its generational.

12

REPLY

View 2 replies

Reginald Graves1 day ago

This business has to be seen for what it is , Global Revolution. The division is Left versus Right, the IPCC is Left. The US withdrew from the Paris Accord because POTUS is Right.

REPLY

William Watson20 hours ago

When the Al Gore’s of the world move out of their mansions, and travel like the rest of us, then perhaps I’ll believe.

REPLY

Hans Janetzke3 days ago (edited)

co² religion is in full swing believe it or not facts do not matter anymore simple facts greenhouse effect is only in greenhouses possible co² is foundation for all life on this planet still we not able to predict nor to change weather climate are 30 years weather data noting more

Read more

1

REPLY

IamtheFleecer6 days ago

Imagine how many wilderness areas we could protect, old growth forests, fragile habitats, endangered species, wild rivers, etc with trillions of dollars. All the people we could raise up from poverty with Molten Salt Reactors. When you see what an obvious diversion it is, it’s sickening

23

REPLY

View 6 replies

Joss Dionne3 days ago

Some are in love with Faked news as they are with “False Facts”!!

REPLY

Finadi Pleidan1 day ago

PLS NEVER FORGET CO2 AND NO2 ARE FOOD FOR NATURE. THE LESS THERE IS, THE LESS QUICKLY THE VEGETATION GROWS.

REPLY

Gillian Mason1 week ago

Sensible argument at last. Grand solar minimum the cooling of the climate is more likely to happen before the heating. We need to clean up the world and provide good shelter to people whatever climate they live in and share the food around the world when the weather becomes extreme …….as it will and always will.

Read more

17

REPLY

View 6 replies

GJ V5 days ago

The best way to save the planet… tell the lefties to jump from high clifs to lower their carbon footprint.

12

REPLY

View reply

DERMOT HENRY2 months ago

We’re being fed lies all the time about the c02 and climate change .it’s alll a way of making money and controlling people in what they do and not to do.our freedoms are being taken away every day with all this bull.time to wake up and see the big picture.

20

REPLY

View 3 replies

Brian Young3 days ago

“the scientific industrial complex” The other half of a famous quote the left always forgets

5

REPLY

Wesley Aldinger5 days ago (edited)

Earth’s climate was cooling due to the increased albedo from industrial pollution, especial sulfur dioxide, but other particulates as well. Increased regulation on air pollution has lowered the the reflection of solar radiation. Stop spreading lies, you know damn well why the Earth was cooling back then.

Read more

1

REPLY

Peter Viner4 days ago

The only qualification that is meaningful in discussing the cause of climate change is not the 97% of scientists he referenced but proper degree holding climatologists. Im sick of having a consensus b academics and others that CO2 causes the climate change we are experiencing.

1

REPLY

silkhead441 week ago

correlation is not causation

10

REPLY

View 2 replies

John Zyp7 hours ago

Every minute a hundred more humans r born and zero orangutans on our planet r born. Humans r like a virus infecting planet earth.

REPLY

Christian Falch5 days ago

Feelings woah feelings.

1

REPLY

Eric Harmon4 days ago

Follow the money. When banks stop funding building ocean front condos. Stop putting billions into vacation places like the Maldives, then you can believe it. But the opposite is happening. Development of these areas is increasing

1

REPLY

PeiLin4 days ago

Thanks for the interview! Very informative. 👏💐

1

REPLY

Mic C5 days ago

How much money has already been waisted

11

REPLY

View reply

Herb Levin11 months ago

FSU – GO NOLES. 😉

1

REPLY

Les Lieb1 week ago

I’m 62, and I remember in the late 70s and early 80s, I had a blue tick foxhound for 5 years and couldn’t get a snowfall to save my life. Mud, mud, mud, all winter, and Leonard Nimoy was saying we’re entering an ice age that was all backed by science and data. It’s all BS. God is in control of the weather, not puny little men with cars and BBQ grills.

21

REPLY

View 32 replies

mark simons5 days ago

How old is this weatherman dude? Retired for 20 years. You can do better.

REPLY

The Hound4 months ago

When i see a peer reviewed study that shows climate change in terms of the number of tons of carbon added to the atmosphere and the subsequent temperature changes, i will have made my decision on this topic.

12

REPLY

View 35 replies

Ardy Hagen5 days ago

If you listen closely to the introduction, you can search for the source of the outrage You would be forgiven to think it was the IPCC actually, all this outrage is about some ones reaction to the IPCC In other words… someone READ the IPCC report Then Helpfully told us what they thought was the unstated meaning of the report Which then this video is responding to as if there is no distinction between a reaction, vs what the IPCC report actually says

Read more

REPLY

Stig Olesen2 days ago

Jeeeeeez……. try checking out potholer’s videos on climate change (and follow the many sources in his video-discriptions). This unscientific opinionated i drivel could do with some Peer reviewing in, for instance, Nature, rather than the unimpressive open source imagazines I’m sure were paid to publish it. The connection between CO2 and global warming is well documented, and the level of CO2 is at the moment higher than it has been for sveral million years.

Read more

REPLY

Erth Mann2 days ago

Does more CO2 in the atmosphere make the planet warmer? Probably to some small degree but plants require it and do better if there is more. Could we possibly conduct business as usual by forcefully turning to wind and solar faster than the energy market could digest? Hell no, that would be the real catastrophe.

REPLY

View reply

Greg Pearcey2 days ago

It’s not just C02 though, is it? It’s all the greenhouse gases and pollution of all kinds, including the oceans choking on plastics. Whether or not Earth’s climate is changing, and who or what might be responsible, shouldn’t we invest in learning to manage our biosphere before it becomes uninhabitable for the less than .01% of all life as ever existed on Earth that is not yet extinct?

Read more

REPLY

mark travers2 days ago

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-admits-climate-change-is-due-to-earths-variable-solar-orbit/

REPLY

PeiLin4 days ago

Pulp Fiction: eine Amoklauf Gruppe hat diesen Film mehrfach vor Attentat geschaut. Wurde ernsthaft über Verbot des Films diskutiert. Diese Leute verstehen nix von Mathe (Schnittmengen) und Statistik (Korrelation vs Kausalität).

REPLY

Joey Heater2 days ago

🤣🤣😉😉😉😓😓😓😢😢😢😍😍😍🦍🦍🦍🦍

REPLY

samdee pride6 days ago

AOC is a climatologist said I quote: we only have 8 years to live in this world.

1

REPLY

View 5 replies

Doc Will4 days ago

Subtitles please…

REPLY

Augustus Bartholomew1 hour ago

i’m still far from educated on this very (now with extinction rebeliion) public topic…and i’m still all ears… i know how in the scientific world people iike to study the in vouge topic and there are those that get off on challenging the mainstream….Rememeber this chap is one intellegent chap with theories……..and he was upset with the IPCC beacuse they ignored all his theories…..there are many more intriguing scientists on both sides of the debate…..this debate is not over yet!

Read more

REPLY

trick noon6 days ago

Who does he work for now I’m going to look it up

2

REPLY

View reply

John Weir2 days ago

https://www.c3headlines.com/2015/04/those-stubborn-facts-1970s-extreme-weather-severe-disasters-scientists-predicting-climate-change-global-cooling.html

REPLY

Maria Evora4 days ago

Please talk about Chemtrails

2

REPLY

View reply

RADman 114 days ago (edited)

The Shiller institute? Seriously,? Wow, that’s really funny.

1

REPLY

View 2 replies

Jim W.1 day ago

Pure denier propaganda.

REPLY

Clive Richardson6 days ago

Notice the YouTube ‘Global warming’ Wikipedia interjection below the video? Just goes to show that big tech are heavily invested in the climate emergency scam.

1

REPLY

View reply

Dr.0076 days ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rtystv7dc

REPLY

Circadin3 days ago

It’s just another tactic communists have invented to scare people into giving up their freedom to a global government.

4

REPLY

KR*Stoforo1 week ago

IPCC doesn’t examine any of the natural causes. IT’S UNSCIENTIFIC!

21

REPLY

View 12 replies

Benoit Paquette5 days ago

Does taxing CO2 reduce CO2 ?

13

REPLY

John Zyp8 hours ago

Please recklessly burn Brazil’s rainforests so people can have more cows to eat. Billions of people need to live somewhere and I think Antarctica and Greenland should be developed and utilised for us hungry and greedy people.

REPLY

AJHyland6315 hours ago

What if the object of the IPCC is not to save humanity but to destroy it? Let’s have a look at the “Green” goals. 1. Have a Global government run by a select few who know what is best for everyone. 2. Reduce industrialisation and mining. 3. Reduce human population. How can this be achieved? 1. Create a panel of bureaucrats that dictate what a final report should support, not what actual scientific data suggests. If the data doesn’t support the wanted conclusion then falsify the data and shut any dissenters down. Convince everyone that the panel has the only solution to correct the conclusion. 2. Put forward policy that shuts down cheap energy production and makes industrialisation too expensive to run in first world countries thus destabilising industry all together. Stop third world countries from taking advantage of cheap energy and shut down mining by “protest groups” thus reducing the availability of raw materials for the industrial complex altogether. 3. Introduce policy that destroys the family unit by removing the father and convinces females to not have babies or kill off any babies that are conceived all in the name of “family planning”. Encourage females into work so that the labour market is in glut causing a drop in wages for all, separates the mother from the child for 40 hours a week and into the hands of state run institutions for political indoctrination. 4. Enforce through violent political action and silencing of dissent policies that brings down the CO2 level down to where plants cannot grow quickly thus create famine to reduce population. 5. Encourage political division into “tribal” groups and “intersectionality” to break social cohesion and cooperation. 6. Move social structure back to a feudal system where the peasants supply the energy required to keep the elite in luxury and destroy the democratic system so that the peasants no longer have a say in what happens in the world. Does any of this sound familiar?

Read more

REPLY

SCOTT SMITH3 days ago

If nutty Al Gore and the hysterical Greta were to become extinct..the world might be saved.

8

REPLY

Ardy Hagen5 days ago

FWIW. This guy is · Dr. Madhav Khandekar

REPLY

Sayit AsItIs14 minutes ago

Mass corruption by the UN encouraged by the vast amounts of money to be made once they demand that everyone and every company has to buy carbon credits to balance their carbon output. It wont of course reduce carbon output but there is a hanger-load of money to be made out of it and the rich nations will fail while the poor nations will almost – nearly – flourish

REPLY

david cook15 hours ago

The Satanists will keep pushing this lie and cause so much chaos in human society that wars will start wiping out humanity There you are folks object achieved

REPLY

Patrick Anthony Pontillo10 months ago

People, just study basic atmospheric physics, and you’ll instantly recognize the specific declarative statements which are deliberate frauds and scare tactics. Example: Global Warming and a less temp gradient between Equator and Poles, guarantee much more mild frontal storms. See Baroclinic Instability. The list of erroneous atmospheric physics assertions goes on and on. They are Scare Tactics, to scare Cobgress into shelling out billion per year. It’s THEFT BY FRAUD.

Read more

9

REPLY

Tom Karlsborn5 days ago

CO2 at 0.04% in our atmosphere…. It is NOT a lot, is it? I would like to see a proper scientific display of the refraction index of CO2 with all appropriate light frequencies, in particular the range of infrared light, to prove that CO2 can really efficiently reflect these rays to the extent the alarmists seem to believe. 0.04%….. Not convinced about that at all. Is there a video about that?

Read more

1

REPLY

View 2 replies

Michael Crane11 months ago

Grand solar minimum is already underway. It is characterised by extremes of weather, which we are already seeing, increased tectonic activity, earthquakes, volcanoes etc, which we are beginning to see also, an increase in electrical storms, and a cooling trend in the Earth’s temperature, which we are already seeing. The temperature has been dropping for the last two years. The global warming business is just that- a business.

Read more

11

REPLY

View 16 replies

Derek Goldsmith4 days ago

Yes, human activity, try Geoengineering. That’s more than any CO2 issue.

8

REPLY

View reply

Nun, Gina123456 days ago

6CO2+6H2O+Sun+Plant=C6H12O6 +6O2. If you remove one of these factors All animal and plant life on earth dies. CO2 is the source of all carbon life on earth and to treat it as a pollutant is madness. Our industrial creation of CO2 by use of fossil fuels is in fact Greening the earth. Photosynthesis and Oxidation/Combustion are complementary reactions and without the radiant heat retention of the gases CO2. CH4 and H2O we would freeze to death every night from the -270 degrees of space less than 100 km just above our heads. The UN and Globalists are scamming the whole world and mainly uneducated and ignorant women and children are falling for I

Read more

2

REPLY

View 2 replies

Eric Buhne5 months ago

Okay so another comment. This video discredited the IPCC on the basis that they rejected seven changes suggested by this man. One can infer some of these points from what he said, but he never actually said what they were. To discredit the IPCC, you’d have to explain his suggestions, compare them to the literature, and see if they’re founded. This wasn’t done, so the IPCC wasn’t discredited. On the note about grain production, the predictions are longer term. A temporary increase (and in some areas, a permanent increase due to several factors) in grain production doesn’t discredit the IPCC’s claim.

Read more

5

REPLY

View 12 replies

David Seeling3 days ago

None of the ideas he states here are published as peer reviewed scientific papers, regardless of previous accomplishments. Einstein was a pretty good scientist. His equations predicted black holes, he didn’t believe they really existed. Climate deniers are the equivalent of flat earthers that believe in Santa Claus. Be good you guys, Santa’s elves are watching!

REPLY

View reply

Robert Summerfield1 week ago

If you don’t think it’ll upset you too much, look at the evidence for yourself. Maybe you understand, perhaps not.

5

REPLY

Sainte Jeanne d’Arc5 days ago

The honest scientists are saying the same thing about climate models. The science may be so complicated that experts have a hard time parsing it out, but what is a no brainer is that if they can’t accurately predict the local weather for a week at a time, the claim that they can predict global climate w/ so many more variables accurately for a decade or several decades is utter hubris. Everyone knows their local forecast falls apart w/in a week, just think of the implications of what it means when they can barely predict local weather, but claim to predict global climate for decades. Not only that, expensive and far reaching policies are based on these faulty weather models. Carbon taxes are enforced, economies falter, smooth running and economical power grids are abandoned for so called clean energy that is undependable and so much more expensive. Decades later the so-called clean energy is found to not be clean and has a bigger carbon footprint, as well as sky high cost passed on to the poorest, all because of faulty climate models that are used for political and monetary reasons.

Read more

5

REPLY

ionlyemergeafterdark6 days ago

That IPCC statement is BS!

6

REPLY

horst weiter11 months ago

pure bull

4

REPLY

View reply

Sharon LePere3 days ago

Climate change is a fraud but why aren’t you taking into account the Geoengineering that has been taking place for decades? The planet is NOT greening , the trees are dying from the toxins in the rain! Weather warfare is very real and they are using it to destroy the food producing areas across the country. Forests are dying! It is manmade , but not from fossil fuels. They will do anything to get their New World Order, and that is exactly what they have been doing . Rosalind Peterson spoke on this at the UN years ago , did anyone listen?

Read more

REPLY

View reply

K D5 days ago (edited)

I love global warming, more global warmth is needed !

6

REPLY

View 2 replies

John Neomaster5 days ago

This climate crise is manmade! Yes, it’s all made up! By man! And guess why? Follow the money, follow the power. It’s people. I scratch your back if you scratch mine…

4

REPLY

Snowflake CA6 days ago

Why don’t all of the skeptics build a greenhouse in their backyard and continue to pump CO2 into it day after day, week after week, year after year and report what the temperature does? Then we can have a real discussion.

REPLY

View 2 replies

David Bunney1 week ago

Unfortunately there is a big deception going on in the lie about human CO2 induced enhanced global warming… the RAW DATA un-doctored by the collective frauds shows no change in trends…

3

REPLY

Kelly McGowan4 days ago

Well I guess he is just not part of the “97%”.

7

REPLY

View reply

Eric Buhne5 months ago

I have several comments to make, but I’ll make one for now. You say that recent decades (I’m assuming, because you offered no actual scale) refute IPCC models. Could you explain how that works since the models are based on former climate variations? If the models don’t help explain the recent past, that which they are designed with, then sure, they might not work. But they are designed with the recent past in mind, sooooo…false premise…

Read more

REPLY

View 5 replies

Dragan Radulovic9 months ago

The actual situation about the properties of the singular environment capable of harbouring humankind is by far and large more alarming than the already alarming report of IPCC. As for the former scientist of IPCC, I would like to say something well known in the scientific community, that is, that the number of published scientific papers has nothing in common with the quality of scientific to work, far otherwise. Since not able to publish anything of true importance, he fell into hypergraphia wasting the time of those idle and uninformed. If you are really keen on learning something on the subject, frequent NASA portal regarding climate change.

Read more

REPLY

View 3 replies

William Perrigo6 days ago

cc is so true they won’t even mention a CO2 ppm number. 4+ billion dollars and no number.

3

REPLY

paul bergin6 days ago

Some truth for a change. It’s healthy and factual rather than all this alarmist nonsense. Yes, it’s true the planet is greening.

3

REPLY

old man vollox5 days ago

search tony heller for the truth instead of this bs

3

REPLY

View reply

Sam Lair5 days ago

We know that Earth’s biosphere is warming. The melting of ages old ice and permafrost proves that. What’s problematic is the idea that the onset and increase of average global temperatures is merely incidental when considering the data showing that the occurrence correlates exactly with the degree of increasing release levels of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, et al. Search: samslair blogspot thermokarst flow

Read more

REPLY

Donald McCarthy11 months ago

When 7.7 billion people realize they’ve been lied to by fossil fuel apoogists they will be very angry and possibly vengeful.

16

REPLY

View 12 replies

john pope3 days ago

Oil money got to this guy. Shilling for the fossil fool industry.

REPLY

xchopp3 days ago

So, a “former expert REVIEWER for IPCC” becomes “Former IPCC Scientist”? Anyone “expert” or otherwise can be a reviewer for IPCC. Dr Khandekar, all you have to do is publish your ideas in a respectable journal. However, your views are all in CEI, Heartland, GWPF sites and videos. Why is that? A global conspiracy amongst scientists? Give me a break. Did you guys hear that the UK got more electricity from renewables + nuclear than from fossil fuel burning, for the first time since the 1880s? EVs are here and are fantastic — we can do this! Anyway, on Dr Khandekar, from DeSmogBlog: “Madhav Khandekar is a retired Environment Canada scientist. The Heartland Institute describes him as “an environmental consultant on extreme weather events and a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.” [2] According to leaked documents from Heartland, Khandekar has been receiving $1,000 per month from the Heartland Institute, an organization at the forefront of climate change science denial.” Sources: https://www.desmogblog.com/madhav-khandekar https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/madhav-khandekar Oh… Lyndon LaRouche, ça s’explique. I wrote “hilarious” above — but this is really very sad.

Read more

2

REPLY

View reply

Science Junkie 5 by 56 days ago

Agenda 30 of The New World Order ! !

1

REPLY

Wesley Aldinger5 days ago

He also does not cite any peer reviewed science journal articles I. His info section. He is just regurgitating already debunked claims

REPLY

Clair Rollings5 days ago (edited)

People gotta wake up to the lies about co2 s it’s really about us agreeing to UN Agenda 2030.

2

REPLY

james williams11 months ago

A credible voice free of globalist agenda. Refreshing.

11

REPLY

View 9 replies

Eric Johnson4 days ago (edited)

There are two hard facts: 1. Fossil Fuels are a finite resource, we will eventually run out of them, Climate Crisis or not. 2. Electric Vehicles (EVs) are cheaper to operate than Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) vehicles, and soon they’ll be driving themselves, how cool is that? Another often ignored fact is that the Oil Cartel is the one that’s making billions in profits and spending millions on denying climate science for decades… naturally they’re pulling the old ‘projection politics’ maneuver on this subject by pointing the finger at climate scientists and claiming they’re making millions off this to distract from not only their own greed but also to obscure the horrific regime change wars we’re waging in the Middle East because of our thirst for oil!

Read more

REPLY

Gerry De naro6 days ago

Why should we humans ever expect climate or weather to be forever pleasant, “beautiful” perfect or unchanging,, let alone be in a position to control it? We are merely  one very small speck of dust hurtling thru space around an average star that converts 5mill tonnes of mass into energy every second? There are some 30 plus, unique,  parameters that make our fragile earth life supporting, not least our  ever diminishing rainforests and carbon cycle That some alarmists or  control freaks think we can  manipulate  just one tiny component of one parameter (CO2) and “save” the planet (from what?) , is laughable. Of course under a banner of “saving the planet” what they really want is to control it, to control governments and thus where your taxes go. It’s just a clever charade to change the power base of world politics, by scare-mongering, and force if necessary. CO2, that single atmospheric component is barely 1 part in 2500, 0.04%. To claim it is partly or solely responsible, is merely a conclusion drawn from highly speculative virtual computer models, not real science data. In fact, CO2 is not a pollutant but food for all plants and reason all carbon based lifeforms like us, exist. Morever, to expect the “average” temperature  to not vary 1 degree C in 100years when it ranges between minus 50 to plus 50c across the planet, is madness. If the demand wasn’t so tragic and dangerous, it would be laughable. In another post I’ll discuss how that “average” temp’ is fudged.

Read more

1

REPLY

John Baldwin11 months ago

There are other scientific discoveries being the biggest concern like the Earth’s electromagnetic field has been weakening causing fissures allowing more of the Sun’s heat and radiation through… plus there is the Polar Shifting having a direct and indirect impact on global weather…The fossil resources is making the situation worse in addition to these other factors!

REPLY

Tina Melton1 week ago

When they said that it would be very uncomfortable for humans if we do not pass this climate change Environmental fraud. You’re thinking weather wise. They’re thinking they’re minions of Plenty are going to start causing some serious problems like setting forest fires and other things more militant scale and violence. You have to know who’s speaking to you to know what they’re talkin about. For them to fundamentally change the world in a new direction to where they could have total control over natural resources, they have to pass this fraud. They have spent hundreds of millions of their wealth to get this through. They will stop at nothing. This is what they’re talkin about they’re telling their minions. But they know that you have an ear listening, get it yet. They’ve infiltrated our government’s paid people off to put people in positions to help their cause they’re taking over the UN and the unions around the world have been funneling money to them for the last 30 years not to mention out the back door of America’s arsehole. Do you get it yet it’s all about the Bloodlines and who’s going to be on top when they decide to drain the population of the world. Read some of their writings and look at the actions I have taken.actions always speak louder than words.

Read more

2

REPLY

Kim Shepherd3 days ago

You people are so off the mark. Guess what, there’s a satellite in space measuring kw energy reflecting back from earth. And, one on earth measuring kw energy absorbed by the earth, so there accurate measurements indicating the difference in kw energy according to CO2 levels. You are misleading people. Shame

REPLY

skeetorkiftwon11 months ago

Plants aren’t made from CO2 and sunlight alone. They also release most of the CO2 as they rot. This is all you need to know to question his claims. There is no way to have modern life and reduce CO2. There is no way to “capture carbon” without expending more energy, and expelling more carbon, to do it. CO2 is a stable molecule. Increasing the amount of eggs in a recipe does not give you more, or better, cake. Increasing CO2 does not create a stable increase in plant growth. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur are also minimally necessary for life. Climate change is real, there is no fix, and there is no way to continue modern life and stop feeding into it.

Read more

7

REPLY

View 11 replies

MsLittleChristine3 weeks ago

So 99% of scientists are wrong and you (a high school dropout) knows best?

3

REPLY

View 15 replies

Joseph O’Leary5 days ago

Madhav Khandekar is a denialist linked with the Heartland Institute, “Friends of Science” and the fossil fuel industry.

REPLY

View 4 replies

David King5 days ago (edited)

Complete nonsense. The only thing wrong with the Report is that it under estimates the trajectory and likley extent of warming by leaving the effects of some major feedback loops out of the model. The extent of human impact on the climate will be much worse than the IPCC are saying.

2

REPLY

View 2 replies

Kronos my account got hacked11 months ago

Climate change is a hoax – please keep up the good work.

14

REPLY

View 5 replies

Bestoink Dooley11 months ago (edited)

AHAHAHAHA. The Heartland Institute of climate science deniers managed to find a senile old crackpot. The Koch money keeps flowing.

6

REPLY

View 3 replies

jules6 days ago

This rubbish about the elites, let’s just drop it. There are elites against and for climate change, let’s just stick to the facts. What the scientists say and they overwhelmingly say we have a serious problem. We can change and we will, let’s just look forward rather than trying to go backwards.

REPLY

HeavierThanLight5 days ago (edited)

It isn’t rocketscience… we massively put co2 into the atmosphere where o2 is present. Trees absorb co2 and convert it to oxygen. When we cut big areas of trees plus still pump major volumes of co2 in the atmosphere, the C in co2 can’t be absorbed and stays in the air. Because co2 is a more heavy element than oxygen it holds more and more heat in the atmosphere from the sun and in time heats the earth. If the earth heats up by a few degrees, the oceancurrents will shift and THAT holds direct relations with the climate. If we let this go, NO, it will not wipe out everything instantly, but be prepared to have much more deserts on which we can’t grow crops to feed ourselves. So although people will try to avoid this logical chain of events affecting nothing… they are wrong.

Read more

REPLY

View 5 replies

Botwinka11 months ago

Old fool with hurting ego because they didn’t consider his “changes” in the report as valuable. So he goes around and whine that whole report is not true. Like a little, spoiled brat. He is great example what is wrong with the world now. Grumpy baby boomer angry that not everything is about him and thus willing to risk future generetion exsitence so he can get some attention and shine as a “rebel”. Pathetic.

Read more

3

REPLY

View 4 replies

Bill Franks3 weeks ago

He is a math teacher. He denied C02 has any effect on the atmosphere. I can prove him wrong with computer simulations. Anyone can! LMFAO!

Read more

REPLY

View reply

Simpel Zat4 months ago

He works for Heartland Institute, funded by oil and gas. The claims he makes are ridiculous. Furthermore: “Expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn’t mean that they asked him to review material – all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.”

Read more

REPLY

View 8 replies

BuellersBack3 weeks ago (edited)

9 out 10 people tell you that your house is on fire and if you don’t do anything, everyone you love in this world will die, and if you make some s sacrifices and work hard, you can prevent this horrible event from happening. Do you act on the overwhelming evidence, or do you trust the one outlier with your loved ones fate?

2

REPLY

View 2 replies

CMDR Richard Feynman3 weeks ago

Should be called shiller institute because he’s shilling for the fossil fuel industry! Please stop ignoring the consensus and elevating the kooks and industry lapdogs.

1

REPLY

View 2 replies

mark schuette11 months ago

climate models are a hell of lot better than personal opinion !

5

REPLY

View 5 replies

David Seed6 days ago

dangerous nonsense from someone who has worked on weather models but not climate models. Evidence of climate change in the past 20 years is very clear. Trillions of tonnes of ice have melted. The sea level has risen measurabliy by several cm. Frequency and severity of severe westher has definitely increased. eg cat 5 hurricanes. Mitigation measures are important and in Bangladesh as quoted mitigation measures are more urgent than CO2 reduction. but it is unmistakable that CO2 warms the planet both historically and by calculation. and the only explanation for the unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 level is that we are experiencing is the trillions of tonnes of CO2 that has been created by burning fossil fuel in the past approx. 200 years. Isotopic analysis proves that the extra CO2 must have come from fossil fuel. All natural processes such as solar variation and Milankovitch cyles are either too weak or too slow to be the cause.

 

 

1 Response to "Ben Deniston Interviews Madhav Khandekar"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: