Catastrophe Denied — Video From My Climate Lecture

Note- If you are reaching here from Google, there is an updated version of this video with better sound, and it can be found here.

The video from my climate lecture on November 10, 2009 is now available online.  This lecture is a fairly comprehensive overview of the science of the skeptic’s position.  I have overlaid the slides on the video so you can see them better.    I am currently re-recording the presentation in the studio to get better quality and when that is done I will offer the video as a DVD purchase or free bittorrent download.

The HD video is available full length via Vimeo embedded below.  This is a lower resolution version — to see it in its full high-resolution glory click here. This higher resolution version is greatly recommended – the Vimeo engine works well and I find it streams even better than low-resolution YouTube videos on most computers.

Catastrophe Denied: A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory from Warren Meyer on Vimeo.
Full Resolution Version Here

You can also view it on YouTube, though by YouTube’s rules the resolution gets crushed and it has to be broken up into nine (9!) parts.  The YouTube playlist is embedded below or is here.

The slides from this presentation can be downloaded here.

26 thoughts on “Catastrophe Denied — Video From My Climate Lecture”

  1. Interesting, some good vulgarization, but you’re speaking too fast starting from Hockey stick to reading Lindzen (which I have also seen on youtube).

    I think that if you slowed down more people unfamiliar with the topic would understand.

  2. What the worldwide spooked politicians all fail to say is just how putting huge consumer taxes, with in some cases compensation to consumers and producers will do anything to CO2 production, and that regardless of whether reducimg CO2 will do anything to global temperatures, if they are indeed rising. They just seem to be competing to show who has the biggest balls in the argument, all wanting to be credited with saving the world.

    Now most would have no argument against reducing pollution, and reducing the use of non-renewable resources, but equating this to saving the world from an impending global catastrophe is just immoral spin.

    Trouble is, nobody as in the Hans Christiansen Andersenn fable, has the courage to say “The Emperor has no clothes!”

  3. A terrific presentation. Thank you. I have always been sceptical of the catastrophe theory but not neccessarily of global warming as I see that as a perfectly natural. I always thought mankind had such arrogance , believing that humans were so important to the planet, to be capable of creating the foretold catastrophe. The facts are that this planet has managed perfectly well without us for billions of years and will manage perfectly well without when we are gone.

    I am from the UK, as a nation our politial elite and media seem to have conspired to ram their support for the catastrophe model home to such an extent that being sceptical is becoming a crime. The recent event at the University of East Anglia is starting to have a positive effect in that at last it is acceptable that the subject is debated sensibly. Your video has made it possible for a layman like myself to actually feel part of the debate. Keep up your good work.

  4. Great presentation Warren. I agree with Luc that it does have a 100mph breathlessness factor that some watchers might struggle with.
    Understandable, since you’re not sponsored; you have to be mindful of your time. Nonetheless, there’s a visceral reality in this video that’s almost reminiscent of a Bourne movie. I enjoyed it all.

    You hint that you might re-record the sound (recommended!). Bit given that we now have the Climategate fiasco, should you not now be considering a whole new production?

    Perhaps a hybrid, mapping cuts from this video with new material based on your take of current events?

    Bravo, dude. Keep it up.

  5. Why leave a comment when you can hardly read them against this dark gray background? It is an exercise in futility.

    And, even this video has such an echo factor that makes it difficult to understand!

  6. Thank you for a teriffic presentation

    Is there a correlation between Al Gore and Bernie Madoff?

    What about the IPCC and Lehman Brothers?

  7. The flaw in your presentation pops up at 1:19.
    “then I will talk about the science behind the skeptics position and why it probably will not be catastrophic [the global warming]”

    If there is even just the slightliest of chances that global warming might be catastrophic, I won’t take bets and wait to see if it’s true or not.

    All the best.

  8. In the slide on energy entering and leaving the earth, only the infra red leaving the earth is shown to be absorbed. If water vapor and CO2 absorb the low energy infra red from the earth, they will absorb the inherently greater energy near infra red portion of the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy from the sun to the earth, i.e. uv, visible and infra red.
    The real question is what are the net energy dynamics from the sun to the earth and the net energy dynamics from the earth upward towards outer space. Infra red radiation up is probably a quite minor portion of the upward energy dynamics, most of which is heat from molecular vibrational energy heating the upward flowing air.
    The term greenhouse gas is scientific garbage. Absorption of infra red energy by gases in the atmosphere is a very minor portion of atmospheric heat dynamics
    Literally, heat in the atmosphere from infra red emission from the earth is probably minimal relative to the heat from

  9. I just watched the entire presentation, well done.

    I already knew most of this, but learnt a some new things, for example your point about aerosol cooling.

  10. I watched you entire presentation, and I must say it was the best explanation of the “climate fiasco” I have ever seen and I’ve tried to watch them all. It was simple enough that the average lay person would understand all the scientific data, easily. Keep up the good work, Dr Kenneth Albano, Coral gables, Fl

  11. Ph.D I think stands for Phoney Deceiver. Those who keep up this nonsense about man’s influence upon climate change should have their doctorates revoked by their awarding agency and study a little science a little more. Computers programmed by opinions will turn out opinions. There is no sea level because oceans and seas have different levels due to a multidue of influences; not least the earth’s rotation, sunspots of active strong magnetic activity and air pressure ( esp oin shallow waters ) The influence of volacnoes in spewing out CO2 is huge and trhis is NOT and never was a greenhouse gas but an essential compound for life and for Plankton by the tons of tons to release Oxygen into the atmosphere.If one drinks a G & T at the equator one is travelling at around 1040 MPH The oceans are vast and have much more acidity ( that means an XS of Hydrogen ions – sorry if your Ph D was in History research into the delusions of religions )Graham

  12. Copenhagen Disgrace

    It’s outrageous that the document “Copenhagen Diagnosis” being distributed to all delegates by the organisers of the Copenhagen summit on climate change was co-authored by the great data fiddler and very dishonest Michael Mann!

    Michael Mann has been ostracised by his peers. Why? Because he fudged widely accepted data on global temperatures to produce his dishonest “hockey stick” used by the gross exaggerator, Al Gore.

    For many years, temperature data for the last 1,000 years has been analysed by experts who have agreed on the variations shown which include the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Mann’s massaging of the data intentionally did away with these to produce his rigged “hockey stick” chart.

    In 1996, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “Second Assessment Summary for Policy Makers” chart on global temperatures included the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age and late Twentieth Century warming. However, in 2001, the IPPC uncritically adopted Michael Mann’s fraudulent data and in their 2001 Climate Change Report included a totally different chart using Michael Mann’s rigged figures and showing his ridiculous “hockey stick”.

    Following widespread condemnation of Michel Mann’s dishonesty(a), subsequent IPCC reports have included charts omitting the “hockey stick” without explanation. This is also disgraceful, as the 2001 IPPC chart based on rigged data together with al Gore’s hyperbole, were crucial in putting so much unjustified fear and emotion into the whole Global Warming debate. It is clear that the IPPC authors knew that the rigged “hockey stick” data was wrong and sent a very misleading case to the public.

    At the Copenhagen Summit, Saudi Arabia has called for an independent investigation into “Climategate”, the scandal over hacked e-mails that threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations. The emails came from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), headed by Phil Jones (since stood down) and widely used by the IPCC. In one email Phil Jones says: “I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature [Magazine] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline [in temperatures].”

    (a) See:

    More info’ here:


    Denis Maclaine
    Brisbane, Asutralia

  13. Excellent video,…I am a great fan of Ian Plimer,and have been for years ….long before alleged human induced Global warming became such a critical …..almost religious issue and he forecast that it would become a major world misconception and also that no good would come of it……Something in particular that really galls me is the way schools and politicians etc. are attempting to brainwash children about all of the so called ‘endangered’ animals caused by them being sinful ’emitters’ of a life giving natural gas which is actually essential to a balanced life on this dear old planet of ours …Dec 19 2009 3:22 pm

  14. Global warming down to the sins of Mankind?…Definatley! It’s all the “Hot Air” comming from the “Save the Planet” Mandarins who refuse to ackowlege the proof through historic data that “We’ve been here before”.Prefering to rely on spurious data from the computer models that they input spurious data.

    More temperature rises to come shortly when they start to burn,at the stake, us sceptics. …… Keep up the good work…well done.

  15. In reply to the post by Jules, keep in mind the context of the interview. These are three people who have had prior contact. This interview is the latest contact. Plimer has it right in saying the focus needs to be taken off recent history. Monbiot has it wrong is saying Plimer was not answering the questions. The truth is that Monbiot was not hearing the answers. It is like asking the marital status of the number five. Is it married? No it is not married. Well then, it must be a bachelor. No it is not a bachelor. The reality is, there is something fundamentally wrong with the question. The question is somehow inappropriate. Monbiot is inappropriate in attempting to pin down Plimer, on the question of there being global warming based on data of the last decade. Plimer is right in saying you need to take your focus off the last couple of hundred years, and place the last couple of hundred years in the context of the last few million years. When you make this change in focus, you see there is no catastrophic global warming that is or will occur outside of normal variability, within the context of the last few million years. Plimer does not deny there is recent warming since the little ice age. What he says, is that within the context of the last few million years, the current temperatures are well within normal natural variations, and that the normal natural variations have a far larger impact on global temperatures, than the impact of the increased level of atmospheric carbon from human activity. Plimer comes across as a passionate scientist who is attempting to respond tactfully to the aggressive questioning. Monbiot needs to major on the majors, and minor on the minors. The question that needs to be debated, is not if there is global warming. Rather the question that needs to be debated, is what proportion of warming can be attributed to human activity, and what is natural. And is the combined impact of both natural and man made warming of benefit or not. When you consider the data, there is nothing unusual going on with global temperatures. We are a long way, from anything unusual happening. If you stick your nose in the data, and see only the last two hundred years, then yes there is a definite trend happening. If however, you get your nose out of the data, and look at the big picture of the last few million years, then certainly, there is nothing happening. There is no catastrophic global warming, there is only an unexceptional and very normal short term natural warming trend happening over the last two hundred years. What is happening is misunderstanding arising due to semantics, differing perspectives, and words having different meaning when placed in different contexts. Plimer is clever in using controversy to publicise his message.

  16. Congratulations on the work you have done to prepare your presentation.

    I agree with many of the observations made in your presentation, including some of the areas in which science remains uncertain, but view the uncertainty as a major argument for immediate action to reduce emissions and the potential threats they pose to our children and grandchildren.

    My further observations and comments may be summarized as follows:

    1) The impact of carbon dioxide and other green house gases (collectively GHGs) on climate has been understood since the 1820’s, and reasonably well estimated since the turn of the 19th century.

    2) Human activity is having a massive and growing impact on atmospheric chemistry, both in relative and absolute terms, such that it would be irresponsible to assume (contrary to science that has remained undisputed since the 19th century) that the change will not have a substantial and detrimental effect on climate.

    3) The reference to changes over a short term period (such as the last decade) are not proof of climate change (or the speed of same) – factors such as the massive discharges of cooling aerosols by countries such as China and India, cyclical changes ocean currents, minor cyclical variations in solar output, etc. can all mask the inexorable long term impact of GHG emissions (for the short term).

    4) There are numerous reasons to fear positive feedbacks and out of control climate change (these include the rapid warming of the arctic and Antarctic regions due to loss of ice cover, massive releases of frozen methane from tundra and ocean floors, desertification of rain forests, etc.

    5) Positive feedbacks will predictably lead to massive human and security impacts due to rising sea levels which will increasingly and predictably lead to loss of seashore areas inhabited by hundreds of millions, and the vulnerability of billions to potential climate impacts on their food supply. These potential impacts far outweigh any potential costs of mitigation.

    6) Carbon taxes such as those imposed in Europe and the UK (on the order of $4 per gallon of gas), are in fact effective and have resulted in Europeans enjoying a comparable standard of living while emitting less than half of the GHG emissions per capita of North Americans.

    7) Many experts agree with your suggestion that a tax and dividend (or tax reduction) is far preferable to a cap and trade model.

    The following are some numerical data and other support for the foregoing:

    1) During most of the time of our existence as a species, the amounts of carbon in the atmosphere has ranged from 190 ppm (during the ice ages) to 280 ppm (a difference of 90 ppm) during the interglacial periods such as that leading up to the current period. The difference between these two levels is approximately 220 billion tons. Human activity around the globe has added more than 220 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere since 1750 (with most of it being added in the last 50 years). The current concentration is approaching 390 ppm. The rate of GHG emissions continue to increase and are currently increasing atmospheric concentrations by more than 2 ppm per year. This corresponds to approximately 4.8 billion tons per year (and average of approximately 0.7 tons per year per each of the planet’s 6.8 billion inhabitants – keep in mind that North Americans are responsible for approximately 20 Tons per person per year).

    2) The ability of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases to trap heat (in the form of infrared radiation) have been know and understood since the 1820’s (Fourier) and is the basis of the relatively simple, model developed by Arrhenius at the end of the 19th century which predicts substantial increases in average temperature as a result of increased GHG concentrations.

    3) The thawing of frozen methane (methane hydrates) is known to have led to sudden climate change in the geologic past and has been identified as are one of the factors which could well lead to run away climate change. Methane hydrates are found all over the world. Methane produced by anaerobic decay gets trapped in ice or silt as methane hydrates until increased temperature or reduced pressure leads to its release. Frozen methane hydrates can contain 170 times their own volume of methane and are found in seabed deposits in the Arctic. Methane is also trapped by permafrost which covers layers of vegetable material that is decaying and producing methane. Melting the permafrost allows the methane to escape into the atmosphere. It has been estimated that hundreds or thousands of billions of Tons of methane are trapped in the permafrost and methane hydrates. Since methane is approximately 60 times as effective (for a ten year time frame) as carbon dioxide in terms of its green house impact it is easy to see how methane emissions could quickly overtake the human emissions of GHGs and lead to uncontrollable, runaway climate change.

    4) Such rapid warming could dramatically accelerate the melting of the ice in the arctic and on Antarctica (which is currently expected to take place over centuries). To put this in context, the melting of all of that ice would increase sea levels by about 230 feet, with the obvious catastrophic impacts on all coastal areas below that level. (While sea levels are currently rising quite slowly plans to relocate residents from low elevation islands are in the process of being implemented.) Climate changes involving the monsoon rains would threaten the food supply of the billions who live there, with obvious implications for global security.

    5) While these models are not perfectly proven, the significant risk of such outcomes requires that we protect civilization from these potential outcomes.

  17. Richards posting (above) is interesting, but not for its purported review of the state of the science. Despite its apparent attempt to appear reasonable it is simply a repetition of the global warming mantra. This is curious considering the lecture presentation casts doubt, either directly or by implication, on all the points Richard lists. Richard, were you listening?

    In the early days of this debate the global warming people were adamant that we are all going to die. You might have noticed some changes in their methods in recent years. Now they use, as Richard has, “the precautionary principle”. That is, we must act as if gobal warming is fact just in case it is. This is actually an admission by them that there is room for doubt on this issue, and there certainly is.

    But the global warming people never mention the downside of the actions they are proposing. I think maybe its because it will not affect us in western developed nations (where most Green/Gobal Warming organizations are based) as much as in the less developed nations. Two examples: a few years ago there was a rush to bio-fuel because it is supposed to be carbon neutral. The result was that corn prices jumped and 300 million people suddenly couldn’t afford to buy enough food. In Indonesia the rate of felling rain-forests jumped as companies tried to plant oil palms that could produce fuel.

    One of the intractable problems for all of Richards arguments is the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). For several hundred years around the middle ages it was warmer than today by several degrees (despite the best efforts of the “Climategate” guys they have not been able to make this period disappear). So why didn’t the frozen tundra melt then? Why didn’t the frozen methane melt? Why didn’t all the polar bears die? Why are we still alive? Until you can make the MWP go away you will not convince me that we are in serious danger.

    Speaking of medieval times, I can’t help but see a similarity between medieval doctors and the global warming people. Neither have a good understanding of the physiology of their patient, both are likely to mis-diagnose the illness, and both are likely to kill their patient with the treatment they administer.

  18. The immediacy of the argument for climate change action as though there was impending catastrophic doom within our lifetime and the lack of real efforts to implement same only fuel doubt in the pro climate change argument.
    If as we are lead to believe we have only 1hour to save the world, all the proposals seem to centre around money, carbon trade offs
    etc. If world leaders were serious about curtailing carbon emissions in leiw of impending doom they would propose far more draconion measures.
    Why promote the scrapping of perfectly good motor vehicles when replacement vehicles togther with the emmisions from construction and use will combine to add more to the carbon footpront than if well enough was left alone. Likewise wind power, do giant windmills over their lifespan produce more power than their construction and maintainence consume.
    No from a laymans point of view this must be a massive con. If serious reductions were really the aim then far simpler but less pallitable measures would have to be taken. how about a ban on junk mail, stop recycleing food tins as we all wash them out so consuming preasious water before putting then in the recycleing bin to await collection, complsorily reorganise jobs and transport, in Britain we travel the furthest to work each day pro rate than any country in Europe, in my village 4 people work at the same premisis 5 miles distant one travels by bus the other three use their own individual cars, I know a teacher who lives locally who teaches at a school 25 miles away, a teacher at my sons school lives in the same street as the previous teachers school. All air travel for other than essential reasons would have to be banned, flying to Spain is not essencial so why? I could go on.
    Until world leaders (that means western leaders as the third world is only in it for the hand outs) take this sort of action then I will not believe in our impending doom.
    Perhaps its all a big conspiricy to control the population, we need an enemy, we need to fear something to allow governments to control us.
    In my lifetime we had communism and the Soviet threat when in reallity they were as frightened of us, we had the oil shortage which would not last beyond last week and yet the world seems to be awash with the stuff, James Bond had Spectre, The Man From Uncle had Smersh, the threat from radical islam is being contained and could be
    vertually eradicated if the will was there but we have to be frightened of something to be controlled.

  19. Well put! I totally respect this man’s opinion. The logic makes sense. Although I am not a scientist, I believe that putting all our eggs in one basket is a great mistake. The planet’s Issues on “Global Warming” or ” Mans ignorance” is growing. Maybe we can focus on what we have learned and go from there. We need a bigger plan !! One that helps everyone immediately and long term. I believe that our plan could be better, especially since its been proven wrong here.

    Could there be a real simple answer to this mess we got ourselves into ? I know this sounds stupid.

    Still looking.

  20. I was unable to watch, as my laptop was Buffing most of the time since i have dial up connection (mobile broadband) When I watched the and I few others none of this happened. Never mind. I will go to my mate place. You are doing a very good job.

  21. The post from Richard (not Mr. Richards) has a few things wrong with it. First off, he’s basing his reasoning on a 19th century theory that was born out of the notions of a guy who had none of the technology we now have, including satellites, ARGO buoy data net, etc. Nor do I believe that the guy who started that theory had a total command of climate knowledge, as none of today’s scientists claim that omniscience, either.

    The theory of GHG is just that. And shows a lack of understanding of feedback, negative or positive. Positive feedback is used in electronic switching, such as using a transistor to act as a switch. The transistor is biased (supplied with polarized power) toward positive feedback. A small signal at the gate triggers an avalanche of current flow until the transistor is in saturation. When the signal is removed, the transistor drops off its output below a certain level. Point being, that even in a positive feedback system, the changing of one factor, such as the sun’s flare output, is enough to “reverse” the saturation. Not to mention the losses (thermodynamics) in any system. Any feedback, including positive, oscillates back to a previous state.

    But what is shown in evidence and data and historical record, even in the daily temps of a region, is that climate and weather operate as a negative feedback. A certain amount of flow happens. A signal at the gate modulates that flow but there never is a saturation point.

    Modern analysis of evidence from a variety of proxies and real-time data shows that the AGW theory couldn’t predict its way out of a wet paper bag with a sharp knife in each hand, flailing wildly.

  22. The speaker gabbles, speaking far too fast. This is not aided by poor sound quality, at least in the low resolution version i attempted to hear.

    What comes across is an intelligent man unable to present his ideas in a style which is unobtrusive

    The necessity of refuting the delusion of AGW is too important to be fudged by a person who is a poor public speaker

Comments are closed.