The video was published on Jun 13, 2011. Here is the Koch brothers worth updated:

Koch Industries is the second-largest privately held company in the U.S., per Forbes annual rankings, generating $110 billion in annual revenues. This has helped position the Koch family as the second richest family in the world, behind only the Walton family (Walmart owners). The Bloomberg Billionaires Index puts the Walton family fortune at $152 billion, while the Koch family is worth $99 billion.

@JesseThompson The fact that you asked those questions prove you are in the climate change denying cult. There is no debate: 97% of scientists agree on human caused climate change, those paid by the Koch brothers and other big money, do not, that is fact.

Please tell us in detail: Who paid Al Gore to push climate hysteria? Who paid those scientists (please list names)? Please post the evidence that science said we were going to lose Florida 20 years ago. The fact is, you would not even ask these questions if you had the answers, you would simply show the evidence. Just as, religions and cults cannot prove their delusions but just spew trite excuses and accusations.

If you truly wanted answers you would seek them out, unlike the cult mind. You can find the answers to your questions at [skepticalscience.com] Simply type your question into the search box.

I have dealt with the religious and cult mind for almost 40 years.

If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change is happening and humans are to blame, would you accept that fact? If you cannot, you are in a cult.

Just as: If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is a liar and guilty of crimes, would you accept that fact? If you cannot, you are in the Trump cult.

Just as: If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a religion or belief is false, would you accept that fact? If you cannot, you are in a cult.

Big Oil and Big Money do not want their profits diminished, what does the other side want? A cleaner world? Oh, the Horror!

Contributors to Global Warming over the Past 50-65 Years

@JesseThompson Spoken like a true cultist. No answers and no evidence. Proof is never a waste time for those who seek truth, yet, it is a stumbling block for those who can't.

@JesseThompson
You seem to be confusing the Election which the Obstructionist republicans stole via the Supreme Court!

Gore lost the election because of Florida, not because of Scientists!

You confuse Fascist republicans with science which is the ultimate oxymoron!

@nogod4me Thanks! Great bar chart ... and from "Skeptical Science!

@nogod4me ,
"The fact that you asked those questions prove you are in the climate change denying cult."

so anyone that has the temerity to ask any questions is automatically a climate denier?

@callmedubious The fact that you think those were actual questions is funny. Besides that, that is not what I said, I said:

If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change is happening and humans are to blame, would you accept that fact? If you cannot, you are in a cult.

Just as: If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is a liar and guilty of crimes, would you accept that fact? If you cannot, you are in the Trump cult.

Just as: If it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a religion or belief is false, would you accept that fact? If you cannot, you are in a cult.

Those inane "questions" have already been answered over and over and over again, they are tiresome. A believer simple cannot accept reality, facts, or science.

@Bushshaker You sound desperate and nervous, do you think someone is going to force you to believe fake news? Just check out news from many reputable sources, if you actually want the truth, you will find it, if you just want what you believe to be true and to be accepted and pushed, then you will not.

Excuse me, friend, but Katrina (16 yrs. after 1989) and multitudes of recent global weather catastrophes are related to global warming and climate change. The polar ice caps are melting fast and a lot. Wouldn't you think the UN considered what climate scientists constantly are predicting about climate change and how huge global populations will be adversely affected, seeing as how populations already are starving, dying of thirst, killed by hurricanes, and unable to remain on their land (Example: Bangladesh, Central American climate refugees fleeing to America) etc.?

@AnonySchmoose ,
i've lived beside the ocean for 44yrs & i can promise you that seal levels have not increased 3 inches, never mind 3 ft since 1989.

@callmedubious Okay, I accept your view that sea levels have not increased visibly where you live. Except, I think that still cannot discount what has happened with the weather, and the global average temperature increase, which global scientists have agreed will become impossible to remedy, if it increases more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Even the U.S. military is concerned that the world's populations will panic and become unmanageable in the face of worsening catastrophes.

@AnonySchmoose ,
that big bright ball in the sky will be the main determinant of future global temps.

@callmedubious and @OwlInASack

"Climate Change: Global Sea Level.
In 2017, global sea level was 3 inches (77 mm) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).
The pace of sea level rise is accelerating.
In many locations along the U.S. coastline, nuisance flooding is now 300% to more than 900% more frequent than it was 50 years ago.
Scientists are very confident that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) but no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100." [climate.gov]

"Climate Change Indicators: Sea Level.
Meanwhile, relative sea level fell at some locations in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. At those sites, even though absolute sea level has risen, land elevation has risen more rapidly.
While absolute sea level has increased steadily overall, particularly in recent decades, regional trends vary, and absolute sea level has decreased in some places. Relative sea level also has not risen uniformly because of regional and local changes in land movement and long-term changes in coastal circulation patterns." [epa.gov]

Oxyinternet???

@OwlInASack ,
i know a geologist who has no axe to grind & he was taught that 70% of global co2 is released from the oceans b/c of tectonic plate movements.

@OwlInASack ,
what makes you capable of deciding what is the best science available?
going with the majority popular view? the majority is more often wrong than right.

I don't drive more than 10k a month, my next car will be electric. I rarely have lights on in summer. Don't even have AC. I recycle everything, including food waste. I grow what I can. I reuse as much as possible, buy secondhand clothes. Never buy prepacked food if possible. My partner and I always walk in this little town. I am not an eco angel but it is important and relatively easy to do your bit. You really don't need to plant trees but you can plant veggies. I didn't have a car when I lived in USA and managed perfectly well to walk virtually everywhere. You just need to think differently. Its not about losing stuff its about contributing to the greater good.

@Amisja Cool, you are one person. This means everyone, from someone living on the streets to corporate business leaders.

Also even after doing all that you are still most likely carbon positive! You are still contributing to global warming, probably in ways you aren't fully aware of, although not nearly as much as the average person.

you would need 1200 square yards of grass to just the CO2 from a person breathing, about 2.3 pounds.
However one killowatt hour produces just over 1 pound of CO2.
that means that for the average power consumption of 10,399 KWh of power per year, about 438,000 square yards of grass per person in the US to balance CO2 emissions.

Trees are much more efficient at removing CO2 because they convert it to cellulose. Depending on the assumptions you make ( i used 48 pound sequestered by a tree per year ) and what kind of trees you are planting, you need to plant 247 trees per year to offset the amount of CO2 being released, and that's assuming they all have at least a 20 year lifespan!

There is not enough land mass on earth to plant enough trees to offset our carbon production. This means that everyone has to cut back, and we have to transition to an economy based on renewable and nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. Having an electric car means nothing if that power is made from burning coal. In fact, this could be worse because the power needed to go through several conversions to reach your car, meaning it is ultimately less efficient, therefore more CO2 has to be released for the same miles driven.

@TheInterlooper As a single point solution? Not a chance. At this point, just converting old coal fired electric plants to biomass will not change anything, because a lot of the CO2 absorbed will be re-released once used as fuel. That means we would have to grow all of these crops, irradiate them ( so they don't decay, slowly releasing CO2 ) then leave them sitting around.

That being said, converting to biomass is much more preferable to burning coal or natural gas, because in theory it is a carbon-neutral process as long as the ash is recycled into the soil where the crops are grown.

I would have to do more research on what is the best type of crop for biomass, but from what I currently know it depends more on geographic location than anything else.

@TheInterlooper Ughh... these sources are so one sided it makes me sick. That last one was written while stoned for sure.

Alright, so cotton vs hemp cultivation for clothing lets compare:
Softness?
-cotton: very soft, fine strands
-hemp: very course strands not so soft
Durability?
-cotton: relatively durable, machine washable
-hemp: relatively durable, machine washable
Price?

• cotton: very cheap and affordable
  -hemp: expensive due to regulation
  Carbon released per ton of spun fiber?
  -cotton: ~5.90 kg
  -hemp: ~4.05 kg
  KG per MJ of energy required for production?
  -cotton: 55
  -hemp: N/A no data
  Bio fuel potential?
  -cotton: poor candidate
  -hemp: good candidate
  required use of pesticides?
  -cotton: yes
  -hemp: No* no pesticide is approved for use
  water consumption per acre?
  -cotton: 27,193 gallons
  -hemp: ~25,000 (varies based on soil)

As a fiber, hemp does have some benefits over cotton, but ultimately it would still be carbon positive if used for fiber, and only slightly less than cotton anyways for a decrease in product quality. The lack of commercially approved pesticides and herbicides is a bit of an issue if farmed at industrial scales because it means that your crops are vulnerable to pests, which could ruin crops thus negating any benefits and driving prices.

Final conclusion, it definitely has a part to play, but it isn't going to save the world or anything.

Can you post a link to back up your statement that "GM crops are much more evironmentaly friendly per capita,"?

@Red_Cat [isaaa.org]

I didn't get that information originally from that link, but it makes the point clear.
.
-GM crops do not need or use less pesticides => less runoff to the environment
-GM crops are more calorie dense => more nutrition per plant than organic
-GM crops can be grown at a larger scale => feed more people than organic per acre
-GM crops can be farmed more efficiently => less release of CO2 per bushel produced

The risks are mostly concerns about the genes causing ecological damage or loss of biodiversity if released.

The "buy organic" movement is quite frankly, a very successful marketing campaign. The figures you will sometimes see are based on the aggregate, and because organic accounts for a smaller percentage of total food production it seems to have a smaller impact.

@Happy_Killbot I am not a scientist so can't argue with your points. However, "calorie dense" is not a well-rounded definition of nutrition. It is only significant in terms of energy.

@Red_Cat If we had to rely on the truly "organic" variety of foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate, we would all starve within a year. We have been "genetically modifying" crops for millennia through selective breeding. Modern science allows for the possibility of a more direct approach. Most of those natural plants have little or no nutritional content, because nature decided that wasn't necessary.

[skepticalraptor.com]

@Happy_Killbot I'll have a look at the link later. It seems to me that overpopulation is one of the biggest causes of our present crisis. Reducing population growth to zero would be a start.

@Happy_Killbot Finished reading it. To my (non-science-trained) brain it seems like a great idea. Given that all living things are equal we should be able to introduce a mutation that will ensure, for example, that there will be no more Trumps or Johnsons/Farages. Should we? And if the answer is "no" that means we should not for corn. But we did because we are the best species at successfully putting ourselves first. I noticed towards the end of the article there was a line stating we needed more corn for a growing population. That would seem to support my previous assertion about reducing population growth.

@Red_Cat There is no scientific consensus on the factors that influence anti-social personality disorders. Many studies suggest that it is a combination of environmental factors and genetics. More research in this area is needed. That being said, there are tons of genetic disorders such as Huntington's and sickle cell anemia that could be completely eliminated through this technology, and yes we should do that.

Overpopulation is an old doomsday myth that never seems to become reality, and in my opinion never will.

in the second century, Tertullian of Carthage said our numbers are our largest burden when the population was less than 200 million.
In 1798 Thomas Malthus argued that there would be a Malthusian catastrophe in the future because food production was linear and population exponential. Instead we had an industrial revolution allowing great increases in farming capability.
in 1960's Paul Ehrlich claimed that the earth would be overpopulated by 1980 and we would run out of food in his book "the population bomb" Instead we had an obesity epidemic.
The UN currently predicts that the world's population will stabilize at 11.2 - 11.5 billion, and cease to grow after that. Why? Because educated women have less children. 43 countries populations have already plateaued, such as Japan, Russia, Germany,and South Korea .

@Happy_Killbot Yet we are using over 50% more resources than we should, and some of them are irreplaceable: [populationmatters.org]

@Red_Cat It is true that:
-more people consume more resources, this is self evident
-more resource consumption requires more land to obtain those resources
-a higher land requirement leads to greater ecological damage.
-population is increasing rapidly, especially in developing nations.
-as required by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, some resources are non-renewable

The real question to ask is, what is the maximum carrying capacity of the earth?

Lets assume 100% of our farmland was used for the most calorie dense crops, everyone was a vegetarian, and everyone lived in a single mega-city at Tokyo living density.

We currently have about 4.62 billion acres of farmland,
[fao.org]
Sweet potatoes are most calorie dense per acre, about 28,328 calories per acre per day (conversion acres/hectare is 2.471)
[fao.org]
Tokyo has 6,158 people per square kilometer,
[metro.tokyo.jp]
The average person needs about 2000 calories a day to survive, I rounded to 2500

That means that we could feed up to 36 billion people, and they could all fit in a city of 5.9 million square kilometers, about twice the size of India.

This is impracticable for obvious reasons, but it does go to show that the carrying capacity for earth may be a lot higher than projected even without further advances in technology.

@Happy_Killbot But we don't, it isn't, contraception/vasectomies are cheap, only religious zealots want more and more (of their own) people to be born, consensus is difficult if not impossible.

@Red_Cat F*** that, population controls are inhumane, autocratic, and unnecessary. If you want to stop population growth, you need only do one thing:

SUPPORT WOMEN'S RIGHTS
[unesco.org]

that is all.

@Happy_Killbot I already have been doing, since 1970. And in 1971 I had a vasectomy. I decided not to bring any more children into this mess, and I know women in my own family who will never have children although they are quite able. There is nothing inhumane about choosing how to use one's own body.
Are you advocating random proliferation of our species?

@Red_Cat if its by choice, it's ok. If it's government regulated, it's fascist. The Nazi's actually did this by mandating castration of undesirables. You deciding what to do with your body isn't population control.

The problem with womens rights isn't in the developed world, it's in 3rd world and developing nations. You need to go to African countries that don't exist, find anyone who thinks women should be subservient to men, and convince them them stop it.

@Happy_Killbot We agree about population control. No argument there. Concerning your recommendation for me to travel to non-existent countries, I will leave that one to you. I am a little old for soapboxing in the deserted bush. Or savannah. Or at the top of Kilemanjaro/Table mountain/Atlas Mountains. I will have to make do with home-based campaigning. I do not have to go far from home to find the kind of throwback you describe. Plenty both sides of the Atlantic.

Thanks for posting excellent video, which is much needed substantiation for our assertions that climate science is real science.

Yeah ... that is weird ... and hard to have a meaningful conversation about such invented "facts."

There are good channels. For instance, I teach physics and have a significant background in the subject. I've improved my understanding of the deeper theory sigificantly from:

also

Some agnostic/ atheist videos are also interesting