We've already warmed one degree Celsius and
do you know what's happened since then?
Here, let me tell you, we have had more food grown since then, which feeds people,
we are able to producing fossil fuels, keeps people's houses warm in the winter.
That saves people's lives.
People die in the cold, this earth warming and carbon, is actually healthy for us.
It's helps us to feed people, it helps keep people alive.
It helps.
The earth is more green than it was years and years ago.
And that's because of the earth warming, that's because of carbon.
>> That is Marjorie Greene inflicting her second grade understanding of science and
climate on the entire country.
Regrettably, she is an elected official.
She's on the committees or anything.
But in theory, she could be in a position where her vote in the future,
M could determine the path of America's response to climate change and
global warming, which she seems to think is cool.
She is setting herself off against the vast, vast,
vast majority of all of the nation's scientists, the world scientists.
I will leave it to you to determine who is more likely to be right in this case.
The point that she chose to make their is that,
we're making more food because it's warmer.
And she helpfully reminds us that food feeds people.
That's good.
I wasn't sure what the stakes were with the food thing.
But that also people die of cold.
And so it's good that it's getting hotter.
Look, this is madness.
If you know anything about the climate, about the debate over climate change,
none of this makes any sense.
But just in case we're gonna give you some of the basic facts, in just a second.
First though, what did you make of that?
She's a full grown adult and an elected representative.
>> Yeah, I mean you said that she had a second grade understanding of this
problem and I take offense to that because I think second graders know so
much more than whatever that statement was.
This is unbelievable.
I actually I had read heard comments but
I hadn't actually seen the video and this is, I mean,
she just goes lower and lower and lower and lower and lower.
And again, this is coming from someone,
just her tenuous grasp of the facts in every single situation.
She's talking about sickness but
also like doesn't believe that COVID was a big problem.
So, it's crazy.
And also the guy sitting next to her,
is he just her, >> I want his internal monologue so bad.
>> Yeah, if he has one.
If possible.
>> Yeah, I don't know.
>> I just be like a really tired rat running on a treadmill.
[LAUGH] >> No, it's good.
>> No, it's not good.
Although, I will say, it might not be clear if you're watching this, but
what you just saw from Marjorie Greene, is in fact progress.
It might not be clear, but what she said was,
the fact that the globe is warming is a good thing.
And that acknowledges that the globe is warming, that is actually progress.
I mean this is how it happens.
They deny that it's happening, then perhaps they argue that maybe it's
happening, but if it is happening, it's not our fault.
And then eventually they move to okay, it's happening, it's our fault but
we can't or shouldn't do anything about it.
I think, I hope that that's the final phase.
Unfortunately, it's likely that we will remain in that phase until we
hit mad Max Ian times.
But that's actual progress.
That said, let's give you a little bit of the actual science.
So, we say this for people who might be new to this issue including
Marjorie Green, I hope that you're watching Congresswoman.
The rise in temperature is driving an increase in extreme weather events,
shifting temperature extremes, intensifying heavy rainfall, droughts.
And other damaging climate extremes that are negatively impacting crop production
and threatening global foods security.
Things like using energy to heat or cool your home or for agricultural processes,
themselves generate carbon emissions that contribute to global warming,
not the other way around.
It's not like, the carbon goes into your house warms you up and
then poof it's gone and we're back.
That's not how that actually works.
And HuffPost had a little bit of fun with this saying that, as any school aged
biology student could tell you, plants do use carbon dioxide, she got that right.
This underscores the urgency to protect and restore ecosystems like forests and
grasslands to help remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere.
Unfortunately appears that her attachment to increased greenery is
a purely passive thing.
She's not interested in generating more of it.
She's just noticing that stuff is greener.
Here's the issue though.
She said, it's good that it's warming because then less people will die of
the cold, which should not require any fact checking.
But just to be clear, I looked at what the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric administration has to say about weather-related deaths.
And you can see this chart from 2017, it's the most recent data I was able to find.
And you can see right in the middle you see the tall lines,
that's the heat deaths.
You see the winter and cold deaths, those are much lower ones,
right to the right of that Middle one.
More people die from heat than cold.
Yes, people do die from cold.
I'm from Connecticut.
It happens there all the time.
You might live in Texas which because of its like purposefully bonked electrical
grid, people unfortunately die during the winter.
That is true.
More people die during the extreme heating events,
which are becoming more common and more extreme.
We brought up that graphic briefly,
there's a study done recently Columbia University's Earth Institute believes
that global warming will kill 83 million people in the next 80 years.
That's a lot.
It's more than those who will be saved by the fact that it won't be as cold
in winter.
Right now by the way, 96 million people are under warnings of heat waves,
right now.
People will die.
And they might get a little bit of cooling from that pond which looks like it has
a picture of Elizabeth Warren looking at it.
I'm not sure exactly who that is but, by the way, just one little fun thing,
I apologize Caroline, that estimate the 83 million people that will be dead
in the next 80 years, you might think well, okay, come on.
But that's like the most radical possible inclusion.
You're overestimating it.
You're including literally everything.
No, they very much were not.
Those calculations don't include the number of people who might die from rising
seas, super storms, crop failures or
changing disease patterns affected by atmospheric warming.
They are literally only including people who are killed by the literal direct
heating, not people who will lose access to water resources, not people who will
die as a result of intra or inter state conflict, civil wars, resource wars.
This is just people being killed by the heat and it's in the tens of millions.
>> Yeah. I think I wanna also hone in on something
she said about, the world is getting greener.
And honestly for her in her worldview, it might very well be, because she's
also getting richer as she is making, her profile is constantly expanding.
She just won re election by a pretty wide margin been her primary in Georgia.
And environmental justice is economic justice, it's been proven time and
time again that the wealthy have more access to green spaces,
shade, things that quite literally make it cooler and
make it easier to survive in hot temperatures.
So, she's honestly telling on herself by saying that her world view is getting
greener and it's getting more environmental.
Because for her, it literally is, that's what happens when you get richer,
you get more access to protections from these environmental disasters.
And this whole thing really is just like an absolute,
don't like breakdown of what the Republicans, how they operate.
They create problems and if they don't create the problems,
they exacerbate them and then they offer these solutions to the problems that could
have been mitigated in the first place.
And they call that governing.
And honestly, it's electable in some ways and
it's really frustrating and it's, >> Frustrating.
>> It's frustrating.
>> It is, yeah, yeah, their job is to delay as long as possible so that oil
companies can generate as much profit as possible for as long as possible.
That's all it really is.
And again, for anyone who might be relatively new to politics or whatever,
value systems and why certain positions on certain issues tend to be affiliated
with progresses versus conservatives, it might be complicated.
And it is interesting the way that those value systems are constructed.
Back when I was in academia,
that was actually the thing that I was doing my dissertation on.
But to be clear, as far as I can tell, there is no reason why it should be
the conservative position that we should either refuse to acknowledge or
should surrender in the face of climate destruction.
There's no reason for that.
Conservation was at one point a conservative thing.
Now, I understand why the politicians do it.
It is as we said, to protect those companies, to protect them from
regulation, to maintain their high profits, that's great for them.
But if you're a regular conservative, how much money are you making off of Exxon?
Do you have stock, maybe get it, because they're probably gonna do pretty well.
But other than, there's no reason why you cannot take this seriously and
still be a conservative to your very core.