While people may think that we already know enough about climate change, I beg to differ with such a notion because I believe that "Knowledge" of anything for that matter does not stop anytime but continues to grow because of new circumstances and unexpected events which we, the people have to address. What is constant is "Change" and that applies to all aspects of life as well as factors which affect it.
Leodegardo, I think the video meant that we know enough to ACT on our knowledge so far, not that our knowledge is sufficient or that we can't learn more.
better we act to survive and be proven wrong by think tanks than do nothing and risk livelyhoods and even lives, this new epoch of enlightenment is here, all we need to do is act. Come paris 2016 after Vanuatu, the time to change has begun. Don't forget, there is not Planet B. I am ready to change, are you?
I agree that it is time to react to climate change and the problems riding with it. However, knowing that the economies are based on growth and governments and companies are driving by this kind of economy, it may be hard for them to give up the ever growing wealth they experience. Thus, most governments and companies based on the current economic system would not be willing to give up their system. Simply because the greed in humans nature. Therefor it might be a very hard task to convert governments and companies to act now. Meaning that changes that are being made are small, slow and inefficient in favor of climate change. Even if we stop CO2 emission one needs to 'filter' CO2 out the air to prevent global warming from melting earth's methane reserves which will speed up the global warming process and even might cause a mass extinction. In my opinion, the only way to sustain life as we know on earth is to both start filtering massive amounts of CO2 out of the air and change the economic system for which greed is not a driving power any longer. Along with this change, large investments must be made for sustainable energy, transport and consuming. I am aware of many problems that are running today like both marine and terrestrial ecosystem shifts, chemical shifts in waters and a still growing population. Knowing all this raises a question. Are we as a global community willing and going to change drastically enough to save life on earth as we know it. Or are we too greedy to save and are we heading to a possible mass extinction. I know I am ready to change, are you?
I would but what's the point becouse everyone else won't help untill its to late I'm 12 I want to have children I want to have a live but everyone isn't going to do anything
Hi Roy, I think you really got a point when stating that due to the current economic system it is quite difficult for governments to radically change, as large companies have great power and seem to be capable of influencing governmental decision making. From this perspective, the only possible solution seems that even larger parties (such as private investors or other ''good'' companies) take action in order to influence the system. However, I think that there is another, better solution that greatly mitigates the role of these companies. I believe it are the people that have to stand up and speak. I believe the best approach is a bottom-up approach. An approach in which people don't try to change the system, but to influence their direct surroundings. For example: organising a clothes trading event with your direct neighbours; initiatives for car-sharing; stimulating your teachers on school to educate you about climate change in their field; reduce meat consumption; reduce consumption in general; repair, upcycle & re-use; and much much more. I believe there is a lot we can do, but the key is not to try to change the world. The key is to change YOUR world.
bro this was the best, best mix of easy-digestable and in depth stuff i've ever read on the climate crisis. sucks it only has 7(now 8) likes in a video from 2012
It's a good video. It expresses about the problems of the world. The all countries in the world must work together to solve this problems to keep our environment clean for all
Its about time we looked at more than just economics to benchmark our success, without the health and wellbeing of our people and planet there is no economics!
So -- let's think about how well things have gone since 2012. If we have a baseline OKness for climate change (it's still accepting major disruption, however, because things will continue to get exponentially worse for at least another forty years; the effects total will last more than a hundred) ... if we accept this and therefore have a 100% achievement target by the middle of 2017 -- now -- how far along are we? 0.1%? If even that? Perhaps even 0.01%. That sounds more about right, honestly speaking, doesn't it (not a question). In other words: nothing. I know some from the right will quibble on the notable success we've had so far and insist it's more like 0.03% -- all due to their personal efforts, no doubt -- but let's chart that and compare it to the exponential sets here: sets that all point to a terrible death for everyone, selves included. So what is the likelihood that America shuts down it operations of endless war and takes all its citizens off the road immediately? Or even ten years from now? How will they take the total collapse of their currency? That'll be a bit of an economic shock worldwide (since so many of the debts are in that terrible currency; no wonder donald trump hates China). Everyone, every country on Earth, Britain -- the people, not the establishment-types -- included, despises America. Their reasons for doing so are not irrational. Now America is determined to 'soft'-kill its enemies (everyone not America), drowning and starving them, Britain included, whether by design or sheer pigheaded ignorance, I wonder what the 'diplomatic' responses are going to be. Until the UK shakes off the neoliberal poison, we don't stand a chance. The country cannot feed or power itself -- and it faces _millions_ of people being displaced in the mid 2030s; the government's plans prove it.
The climate policies can't do anything until we as a people consider it our responsibility. Start living a sustainable lifestyle and reduce consumption, and purchase only necessary things. The situation gonna be horrible in the upcoming years.
Romanus Bekweniwe is a state registered tour guide and coordinator of the community based extension initiative group and a watershed technician also a WWOOF host CAM 02 based in bambui tubah sub division in the NW REGION of CAMEROON based between central and WEST Africa. Climate change is really a worldwide problem
for me is sad to see that over 9billion people, on 56thousand saw this video, sadly scientist are right, intelligent species in the universe are the once who die faster
A good idea to remember is climate change predictions have been around for more than 50 years, predicting disaster just around the corner, but have not come true. The hottest recorded US temperature was in 1913, 134 degrees F. Deaths from climate disasters are down 99%. The earth is actually greener now because of the release of CO2 in the Industrial Revolution. More people are living longer, richer lives because of the use of fossil fuels.
You haven't researched deep enough to fully understand what you're purporting. For instance, the US is not the world. Many climate disruption events have indeed already happened (NYC under water twice now, for example). Deaths are down from disasters of all kinds, and that's because of development and early warning systems. The globe is greener because of CO2 fertilization but that hasn't made the trees or crops healthier. We're still seeing forest dieback. And unfortunately, that extra CO2 is also unleashing heatwaves, droughts, floods, storms and extreme precipitation, wildfires, pests, etc. that are increasing in intensity, frequency and/or duration. If you read something that denies all this, dig deeper. Triangulate to get at the truth. It's no longer just taking research at face value - many of us are now experiencing these extreme events empirically ... and viscerally.
@@greenhearted8453 Droughts AND extreme precipitation? It sounds ominous. The earth is more green AND forest diebacks? Hmmm. For your amusement and edification I recommend “Fake Invisible Catastrophes” by Patrick Moore (one of Green Peace’s founders), “Fossil Future” by Alex Epstein, a philosopher, and “Apocalypse Never,” by Michael Schulenberger, activist, reporter, and author of “San Fransicko’” the reason San Francisco has so many homeless drug addicts. Moore points out historical evidence shows CO2 was once 1,000 times greater in our atmosphere than it is now, and everyone survived nicely. Evidence shows palm trees even grew simultaneously at both poles. Epstein says fossil fuels are not necessarily dangerous and the energy from fossil fuels is necessary for people to flourish as they are doing today. Meanwhile he says we could build nuclear reactors and perfect our battery building skills. Schellenberger says if climate is changing it’s not changing faster than people can modify their environment to accommodate it. Supposedly America and Asia were once connected by a land bridge, and there’re no records of anyone drowning as a result. 😎
the feels more like fear mongering. the advancement in technology has contributed immensely to the negative impact of climate change. nobody talks about the nuclear weapons tested on humans, animals and aquatic life. emissions of co2 from major industrialized countries in the west. I feel the some less developed countries are still better in terms of using sustainable climate change mitigations method than already developed ones. Developed countries countries can not dictate what happens in less developed nations where most people still adopt traditional way of life.
***** The quantum leap from admitting climate has always changed to annihilation via co2 rising always amuses me. A bit of warming is welcome and was in line with natural cycles. Real data these past 20 yrs show Co2 continuing to rise yet temps stubbornly refusing to follow suit. It's because Co2 lags temp, it is not the cause. The lobby behind the contrary co2 theorem has to be admired, adjusting "global warming" to "climate change" is terrific stuff and while the industry surrounding this myth are not accurate they sure are brazen.
***** In summary I've noticed people choose the time period to fit the temp argument and if you believe it's cataclysmic that's your call. Personally I always take the longer view, hence my skepticism. The Co2 argument requires so many external/natural events to explain pre industrial levels it borders on fairy tales, I go with the present data of co2 rising and temp not in accordance - there simply is no linear cause and effect. Plus the irony of natural phenomena being used to explain "lag" but abandoned now as co2 is identified as the de facto influence - plain daft. The industry is the plethora of people earning a living from research, journalism and manufacture. It is now so vested interest peer reviews are hardly worthy of the name and eminent bodies (the IPCC and Cambridge Climate Research) make North Korea look like a democracy. Sorry fella in my opinion it's a load of bollocks.
***** Skepticalscience is the source of my comments above. I use it for the "OTHER SIDE" of the argument assured they are four square behind the AGW co2 alarm. It is their "debunks" that helped form my skeptisism. When you read the "debunks" the forum comments are replete with pats on the back from the "face saved". But down the line an "outsider" enters the debate pointing out the flaws and it is as though Islamic fundamentalists have been prodded by a banner reading "parts of the Quran don't add up". The place goes nuts with all coherent argument dispensed with in favour of ad hominem (not allowed back btw) - their debunks are nothing of the sort they are however an excellent source of unanswered skeptic questions. The fossil fuel industries are undoubtedly full of shysters, frauds and crooks but if you think the same doesn't apply to the AGW community or indeed every walk of life you're naive. "Inconvenient Truth", "Michael Mann", "Emailgate" and claims the IPCC is not fit for purpose are the tip of the not so melted iceberg. At a common sense level the subject blows with the wind, headline name changes, semantics and weaseling and lack of decisive proof is not a basis for global policy making.
***** You've just done a Skepticalscience debunk right there. I have provided a few known examples of the climate industry hall of shame yet you persevere with the theorem scientists are a different breed. By simply ignoring or rationalising (your call) the examples I cite you create what you see as an unassailable platform to build upon ... and build you do. None of it changes the flaws, nothing you say eradicates the examples I raise. This is classic skepticalscience - leap frogging these pesky irritating facts that cut across the theorem - it's neither proper debate nor REAL science. But look, it's all opinion and at least you have avoided ad hominem. If it was "settled" and "the debate over" as some protagonists claim these conversations wouldn't be taking place. Personally I now accept no one in this generation will ever admit it's all bollocks even if another 10yrs drifts on with Co2 increasing and temp stubbornly staying at acceptable levels. Too many are hitched to the cause - reasearchers, politicians, manufacturers etc. But the media are distancing themselves, there is a marked reduction in sensationalist TV shows, debates and newspaper stories. If anything shows the tide is turning it's media ignoring the polar bears, ice melting etc, etc.
The opinion comes from interpretation of data as per the climate models which are thus far proving incorrect on so many levels. Ergo, what price the same people predicting man made cataclysm being right. You started benignly enough and I did think perhaps you might be the exception to the rule but perhaps not. "haha.." etc is perilously close to the usual route I've seen toooo often. If you're here for an abusing match just say the word and we can get straight to it.
While people may think that we already know enough about climate change, I beg to differ with such a notion because I believe that "Knowledge" of anything for that matter does not stop anytime but continues to grow because of new circumstances and unexpected events which we, the people have to address. What is constant is "Change" and that applies to all aspects of life as well as factors which affect it.
I can't believe this was in 2012!!! I'm watching in 2019 and it is even worse now!
Watching in 2023😢
8 years ago" "it is time for decisions NOW"
the whole world 8 yrs later: "ummmmm"
Leodegardo, I think the video meant that we know enough to ACT on our knowledge so far, not that our knowledge is sufficient or that we can't learn more.
better we act to survive and be proven wrong by think tanks than do nothing and risk livelyhoods and even lives, this new epoch of enlightenment is here, all we need to do is act.
Come paris 2016 after Vanuatu, the time to change has begun.
Don't forget, there is not Planet B.
I am ready to change, are you?
Very interesting, nice work..
I agree that it is time to react to climate change and the problems riding with it. However, knowing that the economies are based on growth and governments and companies are driving by this kind of economy, it may be hard for them to give up the ever growing wealth they experience. Thus, most governments and companies based on the current economic system would not be willing to give up their system. Simply because the greed in humans nature. Therefor it might be a very hard task to convert governments and companies to act now. Meaning that changes that are being made are small, slow and inefficient in favor of climate change.
Even if we stop CO2 emission one needs to 'filter' CO2 out the air to prevent global warming from melting earth's methane reserves which will speed up the global warming process and even might cause a mass extinction.
In my opinion, the only way to sustain life as we know on earth is to both start filtering massive amounts of CO2 out of the air and change the economic system for which greed is not a driving power any longer. Along with this change, large investments must be made for sustainable energy, transport and consuming.
I am aware of many problems that are running today like both marine and terrestrial ecosystem shifts, chemical shifts in waters and a still growing population.
Knowing all this raises a question. Are we as a global community willing and going to change drastically enough to save life on earth as we know it. Or are we too greedy to save and are we heading to a possible mass extinction.
I know I am ready to change, are you?
I would but what's the point becouse everyone else won't help untill its to late I'm 12 I want to have children I want to have a live but everyone isn't going to do anything
Oh god... i was thinking like oh yes it must be done....then i saw the date it was posted😢😢😢...
Hi Roy, I think you really got a point when stating that due to the current economic system it is quite difficult for governments to radically change, as large companies have great power and seem to be capable of influencing governmental decision making. From this perspective, the only possible solution seems that even larger parties (such as private investors or other ''good'' companies) take action in order to influence the system.
However, I think that there is another, better solution that greatly mitigates the role of these companies. I believe it are the people that have to stand up and speak. I believe the best approach is a bottom-up approach. An approach in which people don't try to change the system, but to influence their direct surroundings. For example: organising a clothes trading event with your direct neighbours; initiatives for car-sharing; stimulating your teachers on school to educate you about climate change in their field; reduce meat consumption; reduce consumption in general; repair, upcycle & re-use; and much much more. I believe there is a lot we can do, but the key is not to try to change the world. The key is to change YOUR world.
bro this was the best, best mix of easy-digestable and in depth stuff i've ever read on the climate crisis. sucks it only has 7(now 8) likes in a video from 2012
@@abidaly9763 how’s it going ig you’re 19 now
It's a good video. It expresses about the problems of the world. The all countries in the world must work together to solve this problems to keep our environment clean for all
can I use the video in my fb page to aware people?
Good video. Policy makers need to take action.
Correction* EVERYONE needs to take action.
Thank you for nice descriptions
Very informative. Thanks For sharing
Great knowledge
0:50 that sold me
also this was in 2012. wow.
App used?
Sehr gutes Video. Mit was für einer Software ist es produziert worden?
Is this video done through whiteboard? Thanks for answering
Thank you for your question. For information about the production please contact Climate Media Factory www.climatemediafactory.de/#contact
@@GIZonlineTV bro couldnt answer yes or no question 💀
a great video, btw, what did you use to make this video?
Great Video !
Its about time we looked at more than just economics to benchmark our success, without the health and wellbeing of our people and planet there is no economics!
Wonderful!
Good video. Educational
Some think adaptation is nice,but what we really need is mitigation.
China will help with that.
It's not either-or, we're already too far down the global warming path for that. We need both adaptation and mitigation, and urgently.
thinkin about the gamecube in the water at 3:57
How to bypass the denial army is part of the issue.
It is certainly tedious and tiresome dealing with "the denial army" (good term for it!).
Thank you
So -- let's think about how well things have gone since 2012. If we have a baseline OKness for climate change (it's still accepting major disruption, however, because things will continue to get exponentially worse for at least another forty years; the effects total will last more than a hundred) ... if we accept this and therefore have a 100% achievement target by the middle of 2017 -- now -- how far along are we? 0.1%? If even that? Perhaps even 0.01%. That sounds more about right, honestly speaking, doesn't it (not a question). In other words: nothing. I know some from the right will quibble on the notable success we've had so far and insist it's more like 0.03% -- all due to their personal efforts, no doubt -- but let's chart that and compare it to the exponential sets here: sets that all point to a terrible death for everyone, selves included.
So what is the likelihood that America shuts down it operations of endless war and takes all its citizens off the road immediately? Or even ten years from now? How will they take the total collapse of their currency? That'll be a bit of an economic shock worldwide (since so many of the debts are in that terrible currency; no wonder donald trump hates China).
Everyone, every country on Earth, Britain -- the people, not the establishment-types -- included, despises America. Their reasons for doing so are not irrational. Now America is determined to 'soft'-kill its enemies (everyone not America), drowning and starving them, Britain included, whether by design or sheer pigheaded ignorance, I wonder what the 'diplomatic' responses are going to be. Until the UK shakes off the neoliberal poison, we don't stand a chance. The country cannot feed or power itself -- and it faces _millions_ of people being displaced in the mid 2030s; the government's plans prove it.
The climate policies can't do anything until we as a people consider it our responsibility. Start living a sustainable lifestyle and reduce consumption, and purchase only necessary things. The situation gonna be horrible in the upcoming years.
Very nice
Romanus Bekweniwe is a state registered tour guide and coordinator of the community based extension initiative group and a watershed technician also a WWOOF host CAM 02 based in bambui tubah sub division in the NW REGION of CAMEROON based between central and WEST Africa. Climate change is really a worldwide problem
It was time fore a decision in 1919 when Milankovitch warned us about global cooling!
This is our world
it's a good video
Who are watching in 2024?
for me is sad to see that over 9billion people, on 56thousand saw this video, sadly scientist are right, intelligent species in the universe are the once who die faster
A good idea to remember is climate change predictions have been around for more than 50 years, predicting disaster just around the corner, but have not come true. The hottest recorded US temperature was in 1913, 134 degrees F. Deaths from climate disasters are down 99%. The earth is actually greener now because of the release of CO2 in the Industrial Revolution. More people are living longer, richer lives because of the use of fossil fuels.
You haven't researched deep enough to fully understand what you're purporting. For instance, the US is not the world. Many climate disruption events have indeed already happened (NYC under water twice now, for example). Deaths are down from disasters of all kinds, and that's because of development and early warning systems. The globe is greener because of CO2 fertilization but that hasn't made the trees or crops healthier. We're still seeing forest dieback. And unfortunately, that extra CO2 is also unleashing heatwaves, droughts, floods, storms and extreme precipitation, wildfires, pests, etc. that are increasing in intensity, frequency and/or duration. If you read something that denies all this, dig deeper. Triangulate to get at the truth. It's no longer just taking research at face value - many of us are now experiencing these extreme events empirically ... and viscerally.
@@greenhearted8453 Droughts AND extreme precipitation? It sounds ominous. The earth is more green AND forest diebacks? Hmmm. For your amusement and edification I recommend “Fake Invisible Catastrophes” by Patrick Moore (one of Green Peace’s founders), “Fossil Future” by Alex Epstein, a philosopher, and “Apocalypse Never,” by Michael Schulenberger, activist, reporter, and author of “San Fransicko’” the reason San Francisco has so many homeless drug addicts.
Moore points out historical evidence shows CO2 was once 1,000 times greater in our atmosphere than it is now, and everyone survived nicely. Evidence shows palm trees even grew simultaneously at both poles. Epstein says fossil fuels are not necessarily dangerous and the energy from fossil fuels is necessary for people to flourish as they are doing today. Meanwhile he says we could build nuclear reactors and perfect our battery building skills. Schellenberger says if climate is changing it’s not changing faster than people can modify their environment to accommodate it. Supposedly America and Asia were once connected by a land bridge, and there’re no records of anyone drowning as a result. 😎
8 years after:
WE NEED RAIN WATER HARVESTING IN BANGLADESH TO SAME ENVIRONMENT
TO SAVE GROUND WATER
S
TO SAVE FOSSIL FUEL
#climaterevolutionhasbegun
6 years later...
YEAH
Cruickshank Square
See link below-help with funding. Urgent
Corona😭
PLEASE USE ECO-FRIENDLY JUTE MADE PRODUCTS AND SAVE ENVIRONMENT
WE ARE READY TO SUPPLY FROM BANGLADESH
PLEASE USE
climate
projections
PLEASE AVOID ONE TIME PLASTIC
AND PLEASE USE ECO-FRIENDLY JUTE FABRIC FROM BANGLADESH WE ARE READY TO SUPPLY
the feels more like fear mongering. the advancement in technology has contributed immensely to the negative impact of climate change. nobody talks about the nuclear weapons tested on humans, animals and aquatic life. emissions of co2 from major industrialized countries in the west. I feel the some less developed countries are still better in terms of using sustainable climate change mitigations method than already developed ones. Developed countries countries can not dictate what happens in less developed nations where most people still adopt traditional way of life.
Laughing out loud here.
*****
The quantum leap from admitting climate has always changed to annihilation via co2 rising always amuses me. A bit of warming is welcome and was in line with natural cycles. Real data these past 20 yrs show Co2 continuing to rise yet temps stubbornly refusing to follow suit.
It's because Co2 lags temp, it is not the cause. The lobby behind the contrary co2 theorem has to be admired, adjusting "global warming" to "climate change" is terrific stuff and while the industry surrounding this myth are not accurate they sure are brazen.
***** In summary I've noticed people choose the time period to fit the temp argument and if you believe it's cataclysmic that's your call. Personally I always take the longer view, hence my skepticism.
The Co2 argument requires so many external/natural events to explain pre industrial levels it borders on fairy tales, I go with the present data of co2 rising and temp not in accordance - there simply is no linear cause and effect.
Plus the irony of natural phenomena being used to explain "lag" but abandoned now as co2 is identified as the de facto influence - plain daft.
The industry is the plethora of people earning a living from research, journalism and manufacture. It is now so vested interest peer reviews are hardly worthy of the name and eminent bodies (the IPCC and Cambridge Climate Research) make North Korea look like a democracy.
Sorry fella in my opinion it's a load of bollocks.
***** Skepticalscience is the source of my comments above. I use it for the "OTHER SIDE" of the argument assured they are four square behind the AGW co2 alarm. It is their "debunks" that helped form my skeptisism.
When you read the "debunks" the forum comments are replete with pats on the back from the "face saved". But down the line an "outsider" enters the debate pointing out the flaws and it is as though Islamic fundamentalists have been prodded by a banner reading "parts of the Quran don't add up".
The place goes nuts with all coherent argument dispensed with in favour of ad hominem (not allowed back btw) - their debunks are nothing of the sort they are however an excellent source of unanswered skeptic questions.
The fossil fuel industries are undoubtedly full of shysters, frauds and crooks but if you think the same doesn't apply to the AGW community or indeed every walk of life you're naive.
"Inconvenient Truth", "Michael Mann", "Emailgate" and claims the IPCC is not fit for purpose are the tip of the not so melted iceberg. At a common sense level the subject blows with the wind, headline name changes, semantics and weaseling and lack of decisive proof is not a basis for global policy making.
***** You've just done a Skepticalscience debunk right there.
I have provided a few known examples of the climate industry hall of shame yet you persevere with the theorem scientists are a different breed.
By simply ignoring or rationalising (your call) the examples I cite you create what you see as an unassailable platform to build upon ... and build you do.
None of it changes the flaws, nothing you say eradicates the examples I raise. This is classic skepticalscience - leap frogging these pesky irritating facts that cut across the theorem - it's neither proper debate nor REAL science.
But look, it's all opinion and at least you have avoided ad hominem. If it was "settled" and "the debate over" as some protagonists claim these conversations wouldn't be taking place.
Personally I now accept no one in this generation will ever admit it's all bollocks even if another 10yrs drifts on with Co2 increasing and temp stubbornly staying at acceptable levels. Too many are hitched to the cause - reasearchers, politicians, manufacturers etc. But the media are distancing themselves, there is a marked reduction in sensationalist TV shows, debates and newspaper stories.
If anything shows the tide is turning it's media ignoring the polar bears, ice melting etc, etc.
The opinion comes from interpretation of data as per the climate models which are thus far proving incorrect on so many levels. Ergo, what price the same people predicting man made cataclysm being right.
You started benignly enough and I did think perhaps you might be the exception to the rule but perhaps not.
"haha.." etc is perilously close to the usual route I've seen toooo often. If you're here for an abusing match just say the word and we can get straight to it.