PragerU 
What do hurricanes, wildfires, floods, extreme cold, extreme heat, and even airplane turbulence have in common? According to environmental activists, they’re all caused by—you guessed it—climate change. But are they right? Matthew Wielicki, Earth scientist and author of the Irrational Fear Substack, sets the record straight.
📲 Watch our content ad-free on our app: https://prageru.onelink.me/3bas/vgyxvm79
Follow PragerU on social media!
Instagram ➡️ (https://www.instagram.com/prageru/)
Twitter ➡️ (https://twitter.com/prageru)
Facebook ➡️ (https://www.facebook.com/prageru/)
source
About The Author
Do you believe climate change is the cause of recent natural disasters? Why or why not?
Well if it isn’t climate change than it’s white supremacy 😂😂😂. Pure stupidity.
PragerU receives donations from people affiliated with the fossil fuel industry, so this isn't objective by any means
I was born and raised in Italy. In my town in Italy it has not snowed for more than 5 years. Summers are approximately 5°C warmer than for some years ago. Floods have killed many, heat is killing even more. Many coastal cities are disappearing under the sea. The air in northern Italy is among the most polluted in Europe. You can't drink tap water because it is not safe.
Not everything natural disaster or problem of the world are because of climate change, but be sure of this: I have leff Italy and live a much better life in Northern Europe, where the situation is not that bad, yet.
Right out of the gate the falsehoods start flying with the comment “climate change formerly known as global warming.” Factually, in the past, global warming and climate change were both in regular use. For example, the landmark 1956 paper that summed up all the accumulated knowledge of the past 100 years was called, "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change". So both terms have been around for ages. In fact, they mean slightly different things. 'Warming' means a rising temperature whilst 'climate' encompasses a lot more issues, such as how wet or dry it is.
In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms – in books published in the United States – has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years.
And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature.
So both terms have been used about equally for decades. You would think this guy would know that but he’s not a climate scientist. He’s a geologist. Stop lying Prager.
Climate change sucks water right from the hydrants and leaves the reservoirs dry. Ya that's a problem…
What's behind all these confident assertions? Simple. Faith. This is religious fervor. We've angered the gods.
So why do they push it ? What’s their agenda. ?
Have you noticed that conservatives blame every problem on woke?
Funny PragerU thinks climatologists use illegal immigrant scare tactics for climate.
It's as if PragerU thinks everyone is cribbing PragerU propaganda tactics. You aren't a university. Hard 'R' pants on head stupidity here.
Have you noticed that Fossil Fuel billionaires have put incredible amounts of money into propaganda centres like Prager U to deny basic climate science?
Damn who would've thaught that a channel made to make people dumber with their biased information about climate change is actually funded by fossil fuel companies and industrial billionaires 🤯🤯
So weird how in California, dried grass can spontaneously combust at 85 degrees.
Cherry picking data and a disgraced former scientist doesnt really make a compelling video… Also what is the problem with recognizing clamate change? the only people that benefit from the ignoring it are oul companies. No ones life is made harder because there are more aolar panels
The environmental awakening of the early 1980s was not unjustified. We humans had a great deal to do as regards cleaning up our emissions. Anyone who has ever heard the song "The Aroma of Tacoma" based on the industrial emissions in Tacoma, Washington knows of what I write. It took a turn for the surreal when it came to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. When politicians realized that by simply declaring CO2 a pollutant, they could justify taxing those products that produced CO2, namely fossil fuels, and look all noble while they were doing it. Thus began the plundering of the consumer class. Forgotten were the benefits of increasing CO2 levels as plants have flourished with higher CO2 levels. Perhaps the pendulum has finally begun to swing back the other way as signatories to the Paris Accords begin to realize the goals are not only impossible to reach but would destroy the economies of any who try. The Climate Mafia will not go quietly, however. They've built a whole industry based on denigrating a beneficial atmospheric trace gas and they don't want to see it torn down. Behind them they have all those who profit from the climate industry, including the solar and wind companies that have an interesting habit of going bankrupt shortly after they've gotten government loan guarantees. Hopefully this will all come to a halt soon. If not, it will mean the bankrupting of western civilization. Germany and Great Britain are the canaries in that coal mine and they're not looking good.
This author backs up the saying "torture the data long enough and it will admit to anything"
Climate change is REAL, I heard a teenager from skandinavia say it on TV and politicians and woke people supprt it so it must be truth
Fossil fuels are cheap (sortof), reliable, fungible, and clean (even coal, with proper scrubbers). Turbines kill eagles and bats, solar panels pollute with lithium and byproducts, and both are intermittent and unreliable.
CO2 is not in control of climate at this time at these levels.
We are not in control of CO2.
These facts have never been contested or disputed.
We need to spend resources on real problems – plastic in the oceans, in our bodies; clean water, clean air; education and civilization, safety on the streets and in the homes.
I agree with the video, but what about the melting of polar icecaps? Is there data to suggest that it is from "climate change" or are there other factors?
I guess global warming gave snow to Florida.
Im sorry but 97%of climate scientists agree that current changes are largely man made. Extreme weather events are a byproduct of these changes. I question this scientist's political motives. Does he work in conjunction with Big Oil? Does Praeger U have financial ties to Big Oil? Questions worth investigating…
Just a reminder that PragerU is funded by the Koch brothers. Oil barons who love their money
And by the way, polar bear population is INCREASING.
This video ignores the irrefutable increase of atmospheric CO2 levels and greenhouse gases. You can’t argue the measurements aren’t real.
You could argue there will be no resulting ramifications from these concentrations, but that wouldn’t be the smart bet. Why some people are pro pollution is a curious position. It has been twisted into a political argument that benefits corporate profits from polluting the environment.
Tried to like the video. I'm not even kidding. YouTube has blocked the feature. I keep pressing the button
Sensationalism draws readers.
Your research actually doesn't address anything about change in climate or environmental factors, you look at human adverse costs and casualties. Your argument misses the mark on actually addressing the issue. Also, can you show where your data came from? Without sources your data doesn't have a foothold.
Rachel Maddow is an anti-American globalist!!!
One thing to take into account is the inevitable proposed solutions: Send Money Now and restrictions on primarily Western nations.
Drill baby drill
Sorry, but you’ve manipulated the metrics in this clip as well. While most people can perceive certain effects of global warming, scientists are not entirely certain about its true causes. We have two options: wait and see or take action and evaluate the results. The key issue is determining how much sacrifice we can afford—something science cannot decide for us. That responsibility falls on elected leaders. Rather than idolizing or demonizing the scientific community, we should have the courage to experiment with new solutions and acknowledge mistakes if they don’t work.
When you don't believe in "truth", no evidence is necessary. It is sufficient if they merely WANT it to be true. Your logic, reason, facts only confirm the rest of us.
The climate crisis is nothing more than a ruse to undermine capitalism.
Love the video, but where’s the sources for all the presented data?
Yes I know, but what about Saint Greta?
Turbulence-related accidents vs number of passengers isn't a great comparison ratio. What's the incidents of reported turbulence vs number of flights?
Pilots could be getting better training for turbulence now than in the past, planes are bigger (meaning more passengers and at least some higher resistance to turbulence), etc. Still far too many variables to make assertions, which is exactly what you're accusing the other side of.
Over using water to creat electricity in Turbines……
Thanks
I don’t think you guys fully understand how greenhouse effects and energy works, like anybody can do the same math as climate scientists, and it’s pretty clear and physically consistent. The units are consistent, and it is graph-able, predictable, and consistent with real data.. so I don’t get the point here
Have you considered that the modernization of weather monitoring systems has helped pilots avoid air turbulence and provided early warnings to areas affected by severe weather, reducing the risk of fatalities?
It is climate change. Only idiots claim otherwise. If you don't understand how hot and cold interact to cause storms/turbulence, then don't vote.