Time to Get Real about Climate Change
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- 💰Special Offer!💰 Use our link joinnautilus.com/SABINE to get 15% off your membership!
I'm tired of both overly optimistic messages from climate activists and scare stories of the impending apocalypse. It's about time we get realistic. "Net zero” by 2050 is not a realistic goal and it's about time we admit it. I am afraid that many plans that are eating up money are fuelled by wishful thinking rather than by rational thought. Let’s have a look.
Correction to what I say at 01:30, that should have been "according to current policies and actions" (not just "policies")
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #climatechange #climate - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I think the reason we have so many BS plans is because there is money to be made from BS plans, and they're easier to make than good plans.
Exactly. Profit motive above all - modern existence in a nushell.
That's conspiracy theory level BS!
@@ruschein Not when you look at Exxon and Co., muzzling the reports, after their scientists looked into it in the 70's, and the board of directors started the deny, deny, deny, line.
Profits above all else.
@@alexxx4434 That's exactly the reason why Europe puts a price on carbon emissions.
Lets fund some grants to study the ammont of bs research and planning.
When Sabine is dopping an f-bomb you know the shit is serious.
It's finally completed://th-cam.com/video/v3NtXtU5Yj0/w-d-xo.html
Or ... she knows she is in trouble.
But what next? n-word?
@@noelward8047since this is the real world it is probably both. And both certainly merits the f-word. And in the real world being in trouble usually means you're telling the truth. The only way to maybe, just maybe, stay out of trouble is to join the rest of the world and spout bullshit. You go girl!
@@noelward8047 Yes, we're all in trouble!
we need to say " save our habitat" . the planet will always be fine
@alexwyler4570, I agree with you. Saying there is a climate change crisis is like saying there is a gravity crisis. Like gravity, climate change isn’t a “crisis”, it’s just reality. Climate changes. Always has. Always will. And there is nothing we can do about it.
What we can do is reduce pollution, and do it in a manner that is financially sound and leads to overall improvement in quality of life,
@@martinhughes2637its a true shame narratives like these are so non-existent in popular opinions. I am so grateful for my highschool teacher of biology that exposed us early to the nuance of climate change and the delusion we as humans have about how in “control” we think we are. To my understanding, it makes no sense to sacrifice so much at the cost of normality of day by day life, these people have an undoubted conviction in that humanity is destroying the planet, so everybody must suffer to save it, literal virtue signaling scum that never took a day in their life to study what climate change entails but love to advocate for the “good thing”, easy, naive and sheep behavior, then you got those ones that oppose everything climate related, also completely irrational in their conviction to not give a shit, they hold this conviction just to oppose the others. But the rational minds are left in the middle between two loud crazies, people who see the long term benefit of renewable energy production but aren’t obsessed with this zero-emission goal just because it sounds good. It reminds me on how germany’s government was gaslit into closing their nuclear reactor’s by the stupid masses because it was supposedly dangerous, only to realize that people started to advocate for it years later as a clean and cheap energy source. When you got governments and by extension mega corporations buy into this virtue crap, you get exactly what Sabrine describes, a load of wishful thinking and profit opportunities.
@@martinhughes2637Well said, great to see some people still actually apply a bit of thought to this rather than parroting "the message".
@@martinhughes2637 But ... there is a lot we can do about it. We know that, because we are already doing a lot about it, and in the wrong direction.
You are right unless the sun does something unthinkably stupid like exploding. That will never happen right?
I remember ranting about how all the measures to fix climate change seemed to be not just destined to fail but designed to fail and someone involved in finance said to me 'The difference is you want to fix the problem. They want to financialise the problem"
I.e. the objective is for a bunch of people to make money out of carbon credits and renewable energy subsidies. They don't care about actually reducing global CO2 emissions. And in fact this is impossible to do unless China agrees to deindustrialise like the West is doing. Which they won't do because they know that military power depends on industrial capacity. Also political stability in China depends on people believing they'll continue to get richer if they leave the CCP in power.
'Financialising' the problem is why free-market Capitalism is so inept at solving the problem which it created in the first place. A solution needs economies with central planning and control, which is why China is actually doing quite well at reducing it's CO2. They claim to have more solar PV than USA and Europe combined. Their progress is spurred on by the desire to have zero dependence on oil, which is largely imported.
@@davidinkster1296 Nonsense. China's CO2 emissions are still increasing and central planning is an environmental disaster.
@@davidinkster1296 It helps that China sits on the raw materials needed for batteries and PV panels.
@@davidinkster1296Don't be fooled by the good looking figures about renewables or nuclear energy in China. They are planning to build or are already building hundreds of gigawatts of coal power plants... We need to look at the big picture and not only focus on what we're interested in.
@@groovy_bear That anti-china story hasn't changed since 1992, but what has changed is increases in nuclear and hydro-electricity, and a huge increase in solar. (the latter verifiable by satellite data, not propaganda). They are now starting the phase-out of some of the thermal coal plants built in the 90's, as they reach the economic end-of-life.
I repeat that China strongly wants to be self-sufficient in energy, like USA and Russia, and will be phasing out coal ASAP. Australia, where I am, is well aware of China's coal usage, because we export the stuff, and I wish we didn't.
I've been in environmental business for a couple of decades and when working at a renewable energy convention in 2007, I was disappointed that most booths and attendees were just looking for a way to make money off the beginning movement. As a current environmental scientist I see no change, it's all about the money.
I really dont give a SHIT either way when all humanity is dead and gone the world will still be ticking away. Besides the way I see it it is still better then going into an ice age that was predicted in the 70s.
Bingo!!!!!!
The thing that got us into this mess can be the solution too. International agreements are needed to create the right incentives for capitalism to solve it Ie. a price on carbon.
My belief that this is the only way we are going to solve environmental issues, by working "with" the machine rather than going against it, or becoming jaded and checking out.
Cashing in on the scam
@@frankknight7968AGW is not a scam. It’s a fact. Whether you decide to mitigate it via capitalism or via any other route, it is either mitigated or it increasingly squashes us down the road. There is no way back, only A. mitigation or B. worsening.
"No! No! These are two different things." Speaking to social media really has become like speaking to a bunch of five-year-olds.
The basic principle of social media is that you'll generally end up communicating at the lowest common denominator, i.e. discourse will be dumbed down to the dumbest person in the room.
That makes it very, very easy for any monied interest to pollute and disrupt any constructive discourse about this sort of topic - just pay a few people to be dumb, and loudly.
"Speaking to social media really has become like speaking to a bunch of five-year-olds."
How much practice do you have speaking to a bunch of five year olds?
I'm proud to say that I don't have any social media accounts; no Farcebook, no Instagag, no Pint..., no X, none. Thinking for myself is so much more satisfying.
@@thomasmaughan4798you are correct! Five year olds come out way more intelligent, as compared to people with agendas.
Sabine, please stay the way you are, we love you this way, agendaless.
Five year olds are smarter
We're increasingly living in a world where people frighteningly think that their beliefs are facts, therefore living in their own obscure reality. So when you or someone else says something that doesn't match that reality, then in their minds they think you're wrong even though what you're talking about is actual facts based reality.
How do you even find out what reality is? Sure, in order to find out objective reality, you just have to look at the evidence. But the thing is that in order to even look at the evidence, you need a lot of technical education to parse through jargon and actually understand what they mean. And also, different methods of gathering evidence have different kinds of limitations and some means of gathering evidence are good for one purpose but bad for the other. Every single means of evidence gathering has like 12 caveats that have to properly understood to evaluate it properly. Then the thing is that you can't just jump to conclusions from one study alone, you have to take the whole of the available evidence into account and by that point it just becomes too tedious.
I was also in this kind of situation when I use to follow nutrition youtube (which is a complete shitshow). After some time, I decided to simply read studies by myself and then my head started spinnning from all the jargon in there. So I just gave up. And this is significantly greater effort than what most people accusing others of "frighteningly thinking that their beliefs are facts, therefore living in their own obscure reality" will ever expend. (I am not accusing you of anything, just that your sentence was too good to not use for myself).
Fact of the matter is that most people have no idea what they are talking about, they just pretend to be knowledgeable and accuse others of being propagandized and manipulated when they themselves are just as much propagandized and manipulated as anyone else.
Most people just get their information from unkowledgeable influencers which themselves have no understanding about the topic they are spreading (mis)information on. Then the people who follow those influences go around, spreading their gospel and call people who do not agree with them as sheeple who are turning away from the facts because of being victimes of propaganda or idiocy or whatever, when these allegations would equally apply to them as well.
Sorry for the long rant, but I have simply given up. I do not believe in anything that anyone says anymore. I think the best course forward is for us to simply not burden our brains more than necessary by indulging in political debates online and taking sides which is going to become inevitable if we continue to consume content like this. Just live our life in peace and let it be.
@@nitishkumarjurel241 I mostly agree with you. The OP is also correct though. I think it's a result of the dominant epistemology in education, producing people who think knowledge is something to be passed from expert into their head, or in "consuming content", instead of something their own critical faculties constructs in collaboration with the external world.
However, there are some topics where objectivity ought to take the politics out of the discussion, such as the topic of this video. There's no need to be skeptical of instruments that give us a good enough accuracy of such measures as temperatures or ice sheet extent and so on. There is no need for debate on whether or not it's 40°C outdoors, and thus no discussion to be had over whether or not our measurements are showing quite troublesome patterns. These are simplifications of course, but we have a pretty good knowledge of what's going on, and how the system of systems works.
Of course, the next question is "so what?" - and that's where it gets difficult, but when the objective part in the first place itself is the subject of debate, and many people think like the OP described, that's where we really have a problem.
As a species, we don't really have a choice in simply switching off and letting it be, not while some of us would prefer to play the game and solve the puzzle.
Why do you think that certain organisations have been found to be manipulating climate data to make it look worse?
The issue is that climate change has never be about climate. It has always been about the limitations of capitalism. An understanding of costs at scale of managing 2% growth rate in energy production and the corresponding effect it has on a required 2% annual economic growth is all that is needed to bring this entire issue into perspective.
Climate change started to get involved with capitallism in the 70s.
That means it had nothing to do with it in the 70 years before.
But mainland China is not Capitalist. Yet they are causing and suffering from climate change at the same time.
It's kinda impressive how many people didn't get the point of the video: she isn't saying that the goals aren't legitimate or necessary, she's pointing out the disconnect between what's potentially necessary and what is actually being done
Did you see her other video about the nonsense of "thermal runaway" due to CO2.
That is like saying that Trump never incited the January 5th crowd.
Technically true if you parse the words out of context.
Sabina is assuming that our current economic system can't be changed.
Under that assumption she is right, but assuming that ordinary people, the 99%, won't accept limits to unnecessary travel and food consumption in order to save a human friendly climate is plainly wrong.
We undertook humongous changes in a very short time because of a pandemic, which was way less serious. Worst case then was 5% of the population gone. The climate crisis has the potential for 20-90% in a century or two.
@@madshorn5826 Your dates are about as wrong as your hysteria. It was Jan 6th, not 5th. And Trump called for the National Guard, but Nancy Pelosi didn't allow the Guard to be brought in. Facts proven by actual documents that are official US Government record.
@@madshorn5826 I think you're mistaken. The changes undertaken during the pandemic resulted in huge gains of wealth for the top 0.001%. That's why they were done. It wasn't done for your safety, although at a surface level that's the reasoning they said. None of the research supports lockdowns for viral pandemics, but it just so happens they could make a huge amount of money using lockdowns by shutting down small businesses, eliminating competition and using it as a reason to print ungodly amounts of cash out of thin air which then gets immediately spent at one of the few monopolistic enterprises you're allowed to shop at. Funny that.
The BS plans result in lots of wealth for them too. Taking a nuanced, highly technical approach and working hard to come up with the best solution is not what the government does. The government simply gets paid off by the 0.001% to funnel money to their assets and interests to make them as rich as possible.
@@madshorn5826 She isn't saying that they cant, just that they probably won't be changed. I personally expect climate change to do immense damage on a global scale but I don't really expect people to do anything about it.
We have the entire history of humanity as an example of us working towards a common goal. We have never worked together as a united planet towards a common goal. Our chances are slim to none. Now back to chores and I have to put out my plastic recycling that isn't actually recycled.
I mean, we pretty effectively moved off of CFC’s as a United planet to stave off the collapse of the ozone layer.
@@markwazny6361we did but it’s still there, which might be telling us something
@@markwazny6361 Not really on the same scale is it? And there were viable and scalable alternatives that didn't cost trillions of taxpayer money to switch to...
@@markwazny6361 Oh dear. What were CFC's replaced by ?
People's lives are hard enough. Its hard to expect people to care about the Earth's future and give up things that make people's lives easier. I'm not paying for less efficient green energy, rolling power grid blackouts, or sacrificing anything that makes living on this Earth easier. We haven't solved homelessness, poverty, and so many other basic things, and yet they want everyone to focus on this nebulous grand concept of saving the Earth? Give me a break!
"The people who make these plans don't take the situation seriously."
Maybe there's a reason for that.
Yes they’re to busy counting their money
I think if you set the required targets that we need to achieve, the requirements are so far away from current reality people will see them as completely unachievable. For the 2 degree target, global society needs to be turned on its head. Every aspect of modern life needs to change. Global dietary habits - birth rates - personal transportation - power generation - manufacturing techniques - political ideology - religious ideology. The list goes on and on. As tragic as it is where we find ourselves, and where we expect future generations to exist, the changes required are so fundamental the required plans would be rejected immediately.
Few people actually want to get anything done. Most people just want to make noise. Consider this: engineers, trained to get things done, rarely end up in government. Lawyers, trained to argue, regularly end up in government. Alas.
Man does not run earth much less the climate ,so there is nothing to get done.
I think our democracy needs an update. To run for office, you have to meet certain qualifications.
Na it's just don't exist any simple solutions you can make money from
I agree with you about engineers, but I'm pretty sure a huge portion of Politicians went to law school.
@@TheTaysoren When you are a lawyer and realize you just cannot steal enough to pay for your life style in the job you are in.
I think it goes back to the observation attributed to Upton Sinclair: 'It is impossible to make a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I note that Florida's governor has just made it illegal to base state plans on anticipation of climate change.
I love honesty
It's not a lack of understanding, it's telling people what they don't want to hear.
In that regard i dont think US and EU compares very well. I think it's far simpler: No one - state, government or private wants to look at the simplest, easiest way to curb emmisions: dial back consumerism to 1990 levels.
The entire western economy is being held up by our consumption of goods.
If the thing causing the problem is also the thing keeping you “alive”...? Well here we are.
Good thing Florida will be underwater in 20 years
@@atmatey Florida is already underwater... based on predictions made in the 80's.
The world will never be honest about climate change. The dishonesty, on every side of the issue, is too profitable.
The organisations reporting on climate and the governments controlling them are unable to be honest, so what do you expect?
@@ferrumignis Governments promote the idea of climate changes bringing disasters, because it enables those governments to justify bringing in policies designed to take more money from people and put it into government coffers instead.
@scubadude. Underrated comment 👍🏼
A challenge with getting "good" energy and environment projects is that most governments have two levers they can pull to drive projects. A money lever where they can subsidize or tax to try to get an outcome or a "regulatory" lever where they can set laws and rules. The money lever is comparatively easy to pull for most of the larger IPCC countries whereas the regulatory lever is more challenging and there are limits on how those same governments can pull the regulatory lever. With the relative ease of pulling the money lever you get a lot of people chasing that money as well as the added challenge that some things can't be sped up past a point no matter how much money you throw at it. The dialog around we have to hurry has caused money to be spent on any idea that promises quick results while more complicated things that take time frequently don't get money allocated because it doesn't show an immediate result.
The brutal truth, when facts are all you care about. I had to laugh at the log graph as well.
Yes, actually the report is quite funny in places because of the polite understatement like that it would require progress like never seen before. They actually have announced a new report will be coming out in 2 weeks: www.stateofcdr.org/
@@SabineHossenfelder CDR is absolutely necessary.
CDR is too weak, by orders of magnitude, to mend the harms of fossil emissions.
If all of the energy and money in the world went 100% into CDR, only about 6% of current emissions would be removed.
Still, we cannot get from a highly unstable and dangerous 420+ ppmv CO2 plus CH4 and so on from fossil fumes to a livable 350 ppmv in a timeframe of less than hundreds or thousands of years without CDR at least ten times greater than is now planned.
The obvious conclusion is that fossil trade must end as rapidly as possible. Project Drawdown tells us this will create wealth and reduce prices to consumers in 80% of transitions. Just 10% of that savings would be enough CDR, mostly by biochar from harvesting newly afforested trees, would suffice.
Cut 2% of today's level of fossil trade per month, down to zero by 2030, to motivate transition. That's the only measure that will lead policymakers and governments to take action seriously and dispense with the bull$h!t delaying tactics.
It's finally completed: https//th-cam.com/video/v3NtXtU5Yj0/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, when that graph appeared I was like "really? We're that far alo-oohhhh, that's a logarithmic scale. Yep, we're basically fucked."
@@Loonistrator
I hope that you aren't an "American." It's because you may have committed a prosecutable crime of using the world-renowned f-word. 😂
i had an old school Italian math teacher that said that he declared in class: "And those who do not understand Mathematics go on to become successful politicians"... He said that the Mussolini regime heard of this and promptly threw him in jail....
I think the reason we have high goals is because they would be possible if governments were run for the good of the people. The problem is they're run to make rich people richer.
@@coolbanana165 The point of this video was that these goals are impossible.... wildly impossible... Are you a politician or a political activist by any chance ? :-)
@@thorick590 I think the point was more that the goals would only be possible if the powers of the world "take it seriously" The transformation to make these goals possible would require most of the world transitioning to a war time demand economy targeted at this particular problem. And that is not going to happen.
The same ppl who say 'no lavoro, no manga'
@@DJWESG1 I don't understand ? Did you mean 'no mangiare', instead ?
It is a sad state when almost everyone nowadays automatically assumes that everyone who has other views voices those views only because they "have an agenda".
@jakedewyn8848 Well, all those people who are pushing the idea of climate change being a crisis, certainly DO have an agenda. Usually a money-making one.
There's so much money behind climate change, it's hard to tell who's in it for profit and who's actually offering real scientific data.
Is Al Gore interested in climate change for the millions he earns or for the good of humanity?
Cheers
They have. it is just a different one
The climate, the temperature, the rainfall patterns, the shoreline, the desert, the rain forest, has been in motion way before we started doing anything of consequence. It will continue to be in motion, colder, hotter, wetter, drier, etc, etc, etc.... Scrutinizing the last 100, even 1000 years is looking at way too narrow a slice to matter.
The matter is not change in general, but specific change.
They don't take it seriously because they don't think it's serious..
I worry when I see "they" twice or more in one sentence. It used to mean a plurality of people; now it can mean just one.
The people that truly understand the problem know it is too late to prevent it, so how can they take proposed solutions seriously. They also know anything we can actually get done will help us adapt to the coming reality, so they play along.
Climate catastrophism is a hoax, the climate is beyond our control.
cos its a lie cold always wins out
@@user-vf2mi7sz5fwhat?
Thank you Sabine! Someone needs to point out the Emperor has no clothes.
What is your keyboard made of ?
But who's the emperor?
It's finally completed: th-cam.com/video/v3NtXtU5Yj0/w-d-xo.html
@@timothyrussell4445 The scientists paid to present alarming data... but Sabrina here wants to blame the politicians (she sugests that they don't understand what they themselves placed orders for and paid a lot of money for all the scary predictions that we are getting).
But what I like most is the assumption that technologically will remain as backward as it is now and no new clean technologies will be created...
I would like to remind you that the best scientists of the 19th century predicted that due to the increase in population and the affluence of city inhabitants in the 20th century->cities were doomed as they could only drown in horse dung because of the increased amount of people that could own one and use for communication...
@@noelward8047 : If you don't burn your keyboard it won't add to global warming.
I'm super serious. I started wearing winter clothes in the summer and summer clothes in the winter to prepare for extreme temperature or if the seasons flip. Climate change, polls flipping, and all of that. I'm ready for anything. It's all about preparing your wardrobe. You have to train for it like a navy seal. I've been subscribing to special forces survival prep and that's what they said to do. Always be ready. I'm saving tons of money because everything is on sale when you buy it out season. It works better than a government subsidy to wear buy snow boots in july.
There are no clothes that help for 35C+
@@old-pete You didn't get the joke. I said I was wearing winter clothes in the summer. that makes it hotter than 35C. You have to evolve like navy seals. ;) Plus I know. I worked in energy star stuff, and I learned the hard way that attics are 135 degrees farenheit in august where I'm at. That is hot. I can work maybe 2 hours in that before losing too many brain cells. Especially when your head is right next to the roof. 35C is air conditioning when you get out of that.
Considering we've mapped more of Mars than our own oceans, is a sign we really don't know all the factors causing climate change. Not to mention, we are living in a relatively quite moment in historical climate changes. Like an ice cube in a glass sitting in the sun, it will milt just like earth's glaciers.
So to me, what would be helpful is to know what percent of climate changes are man related to earth's own contribution.
But then again, no one can make money off of what the earth contributes.
99%, probably higher, since earths contribution is cooling.
Oof, straight from the climate deniers handbook. All of your questions can be easily answered, I'm assuming you simply have no real interest in these answers.
@@churchofsolipsism2716 Climate change is real. But to think interested groups don't fudge numbers for their own profit is not smart thinking.
Schools often fudge numbers for the continuation of grants. Climate change is a huge money maker. Money corrupts.
What I'm saying is; Yes, we are seeing changing weather patterns. But until we know what is causing what, we can't solve the problem.
At the moment we know for a fact, that not all the science data is correct.
We have had recent weather events such as the Younger Dryas event 12K years ago.
So to assume only people can change the climate is not reasonable.
BTW, simply attacking an opposing view, doesn't make a person seem knowledgeable at all.
Just because someone tosses out numbers that supports your side, doesn't mean it's factual.
Lastly, hope you're enjoying the long weekend (If in the USA) and cheers.
"So to me, what would be helpful is to know what percent of climate changes are man related to earth's own contribution. " Thousands of research studies and 40+ years of quite accurate climate models prove that ~98% of global warming and resulting climate disruption since 1900 was caused by our emissions. We're the ones driving the car towards the edge of the cliff.
Helping people become well informed is by far the most dangerous agenda to those that have different agendas.
Yes and that is why we need free speech, despite the vicious attacks one might receive. Because the other alternative is censorship and it can be way worse.
Very well stated. Especially certain agendas. Keeping people ignorant,stressed out and frightened has a reason. And consequences.
They even work very hard to keep people uniformed.
Only theoretically by far the most dangerous because unfortunately most of the population neither has the knowledge nor the inclination to understand the reality behind climate change or any of the other potentially devastating issues facing our global technological civilasation. And as long as policy is in the hands of democratically elected and/or technically ill-informed governing elites the situation won't change until it's far too late to make a difference.
My dad had a saying, "money talks & BS walks." I believe this applies to this scenario 😑
Except that we live in a historical period in which they talk and walk happy together. Ask Elon.
The way I see it, we have current environmental problems, but we won’t blow up tomorrow, or even in a hundred years. But we are also doing very well to make technology which is both good for us and nature. But these transitions need to happen organically, not forced by governments.
Here in oz, 5 months ago it was hot and sunny. Today it's raining. Who do I complain to about this climate emergency?
"The question is, why do we have so many BS plans." I love you, Sabine. I wish we had a handful dozen Sabines more, to help out with all the stuff that we need to get to. Unfortunately we have only got 1 Sabine, afaik.
Unfortunately yes! One smart girl in her basement won´t save us, though she does what she can.
We all know why BS: not problem soving, but profit seeking incentive.
@@alexxx4434 it’s end game ladies and gentlemen all people that was deceived will know the truth b4 truth set u free
The thing is that books, papers, and movies have been written on answering her question, her rhetorical question is not rhetorical, it is thoroughly answered if she was a little more aware of how global power came to be.
We can all be Sabines in our own way if we inform ourselves of the realistic outcomes!
Also, when 2.4 trillion dollars per year is spent on war, you know where country’s priorities lie….
Which countries?
If only countries could live in peace. But they can't, and so military spending occurs. Not having a military would be like not having a police force..
Have you ever considered what happens if you dont spend that money on war and foreign aid?
You get invaded. America specifically.
Geo-Politics are EXTREMELY complicated, and while it may look like America just leaves its citizens to die so they can meddle around the worlds affairs... Have you ever noticed its STILL the most powerful country in the world. Surrounded by people who would literally invade you if they could.
Have you ever noticed that as soon as a country gets in shit they ask America for help? Think about why.
Its a really damning realization. Once it eclipses in your mind your entire world view will change.
A constant war between money and power, is the only thing thats kept your country afloat. Seriously think about it.
Its NOT as simple as just "not spending money on war"..
To have an army is different to have war. And to use an army to control the world economy, and to invade other countries to get their oil, is even more problematic.
@@AngeloMondaini oil is controlled by the countries whose oil is in their land. Your claim about invading for oil is simply incorrect.
I hope a university somewhere recognises the value of what you do Sabine and gives you a Professorship in the Public Communication of Science.
they don't take them seriously, because they know that the problem isn't that serious. they know that Bjorn Lomborg is basically right. The goal is to find the scheme that transfers the most power to central planners.
Well said! When you present data to people with an agenda or looking for grants you'll always get push back in comments.
We value your accuracy, impartiality, and clear explanations (and humour!) - this is the foundation of your audiences’ trust in your daily Science News...and why I happily support your channel.
Do you remember 'Trust the science' ?
@@noelward8047 : The science is fine and improving. It's corporate politics obstructing progress. The fossil fuel industry doesn't want to give up it's $4 trillion a year cash cow.
"When you present data to people with an agenda"
English fails again! Is that:
1. you [present data to people] with an agenda OR
2. you present data to [people with an agenda].
In form 1, the presenter has the agenda, in form 2, the recipients of the data have an agenda.
@@lrvogt1257 "The science is fine and improving"
If it is fine, it needs no improving. If it is improving, it is not fine.
@@thomasmaughan4798 : Science is not an object it is a process and improving with new data is part of it.
Oddly enough, I heard this when I was a kid in church… and it’s changed how I feel on everything.
Pastor said “I can say what you want to hear, and we’ll all pretend everything is ok. I could tell you what you need to hear and we can try to make everything ok”
I live by that rule even though I no longer go to church and all that. Facts sometimes hurt… just because it’s not what you want to hear, doesn’t mean it isn’t reality. So I often believe the more melancholy news that’s a bit more doom and gloom, but isn’t using fear to motivate people. That’s why I love your channel. You’re honest, upfront, straightforward, and still fun to watch. I don’t need to like the fact our world is a shit hole, but at least I’m not pretending that it isn’t and I’m not pretending we have the grand solution for everything. Shits gonna get uglier before it gets prettier. That’s just how it is.
...especially because we won't organise The Vote for the poor & the just in our fascist, fake-democracies.
Reflect, sentient ones; recite the hex of final vows.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge, hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (book I)
Well put.
"Facts sometimes hurt"
Oh? Bee stings hurt. Dropping a stone on your foot hurts. 2+2=4 is a fact and it does not hurt. Is there a fact that hurts? I cannot think of one.
"So I often believe the more melancholy news that’s a bit more doom and gloom"
Yes, that is human nature particularly among People of the Left. It is an evolutionary adaptation to respond to fear immediately.
"I don’t need to like the fact our world is a shit hole"
Also a judgment common among People of the Left who see things darkly and also collectively ("our" world?)
The problem is that people pick sides before they hear a word of evidence. After that, evidence is irrelevant because you can always find a way to reinterpret anything to mean what you want. It's hard to get to what's true when politics gets in the way.
Just listen to science. Ignore politics.
Dear Sabine, i like the way how you explain complicated things based on physical facts. For sure it is mostly not that easy for me to understand all the physics behind, but i will not give up. Please don‘t change your attitude. Thank you for all. Michael Steimer from Bochum Germany.
I'm incredibly surprised how patient you are with the troll of the internet. Hats off Sabine! 🎩
It happens so often, people making plans with variables they don’t control and assume all of them will be favorable.
Sabine calls them “plans” but they are not really that. More like illustrations of what would have to happen. Nobody thinks these things actually will happen. do they ? That would be delusional.
Earths future has never been in question. The question is whether or not we are part of it.
Great evidence-based no nonsense analysis. Nice to see someone openly applying completely objective 'scientific method'. .... something you only see in top class educational establishments and research networks. Not even the best media outlets can resist the 'my opinion urge'.
5:30 "...historically mankind has never been able to act until it was time to start digging Mass Graves of one sort or another..." Phillip Mason PhD
PhD ... there it is Haha
@@noelward8047Im honestly impressed that you somehow managed to reply to most comments
Well yes, but Phil collects toy tanks. Is that an ad hominem?
Historically, humans are still chimps, and act exactly as you would expect them to.
Mankind are also quick to act if they earn a lot of money.
Sabine will likely never see this comment, which is why I don't often leave them, but I really must emphatically concur with her point on the frustrating lack of adoption of a sound plan with measurement, to address climate issues.
Sabine, please keep your no-nonsense, video's coming. Much love and support to you.
"lack of adoption of a sound plan with measurement"
So what is your plan and how were you planning on measuring?
What climate issues? All of the modeled temperature increases from 20-40 years ago came out dead wrong, the earth's temperature (edit: correction:) did go up but way not as high as all of those models. (end edit) So now, they changed the way temperature is measured, they now measure it much closer to the surface and duh - it's hotter there. That's the one "climate issue" I see - a change in measurement technique.
@@thorman1742 I suggest you stick to measuring THC content.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Todd isn't making the point you seem to think he's making.
*yawn* - people here will (hopefully) ignore trolling deniers of the proven scientific theory of carbon-induced global warming
Increasingly, credence is only given to a proposal because it is well written, not because the ideas in it are sound. There is an entire industry devoted to helping you write a proposal, massaging the language so that it appears more compelling. Decades ago I saw that a lot in grant applications for the arts, but it's also in major industrial proposals too.
I am a farmer/rancher and worry about future especially because we have seen more drought than wet periods last couple of decades. Yet I find historical records of middle ages having terrible drought and warming period. We cannot accurately predict next weeks weather but we think we can predict future. I find that those who talk about the distortion of historical data or CO2 shortage are beat down. I worked as engineer for many years to stay out of poor house. I also was a grad student 40+ years ago and we worked on EPA funded research and nothing has changed. Data that goes against narrative is thrown out. I just hope nobody seeds upper atmosphere with reflective particles to solve a non-problem and causes global winter.
We can predict on the basis of observing what processes are in fact happening, and extrapolate on the basis of how we know those processes work. Climate change is the result of us adding CO2 to the atmosphere, retaining more heat than before. Next week's weather is not the same as global climate.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the summer 2030 is warmer than the winter 2030. That is climate.
@@old-pete i assume this is humor
@@judithbradford9130That is 100% true what I posted.
Its like in my office,
Boss giving unrealistic deadlines to the team thinking "if we push for 100%" we will get atleast 80%.
Team: No way we can make that deadline, and just gives up.
Good summary. I work on tech to make the power grids dynamic and capable of handling a lot of distributed renewable generation. We see massive installations of batteries, wind and solar going into Europe and N. Europe. It's a hockey stick. It's not enough, though, and it's 20 years too late. And it doesn't begin to address other massive CO2 emitting industries and sectors. But we all have to do what we can otherwise it will be even worse than the pessimistic projections. Some skeptics think climate tech is all about chasing money but anecdotally most of us gave up more lucrative endeavors / jobs elsewhere.
You emitted a lot of carbon in your waffling. The trees thank you.
Well, keep working at it. We may all be doomed, but if that's the case I think it's better to die trying to do the right thing then just giving up.
yeah, kinda hard to keep to goals when countries just aren't following the accords at all. They're just not doing anything while others are doing everything they can. It just so happens that the countries doing everything are the ones that aren't global producers of green house gasses.
NOT 20 years too late. Had we installed batteries 20 years ago, we would be at ground zero replacing them all again now!
Plus 20 year old battery technology sucks.
We cannot jump the technology curve just because governments are willing to write checks.
The mining and extractive industries are so clean and green!
I'm 71 and I live alone in an old house that is costly to heat. I keep an eye on the gas I am burning to heat my home. In 2021 I was heating my home for £10 per week. I would only start heating the place about mid November and by March it would be used intermittently and I would not use it again until November. Now it is costing me £35 per week. However, this winter I started heating my home at the end of October and it is still cold at the end of May. We did get a couple of warm days at the start of May but today (24 May 2024) I am at home all day and I have had to get into bed to keep warm. That's where I'm typing this comment.
It's the global activists that have caused fuel to increase in price, petrol for cars, increase in food and every other item in the shops. The result is that I cannot live on my pension. Its costing me 3.5 times more to heat my home and I paying to do it over an extra 2 months at least. Fuel companies have made an average extra 120% profit, and every other business has done the same and all because the weather is suppose to be getting warmer. Its not. I'm a fisherman and used to be on the riverbank on the 1st of March, every year, usually in sunshine. Not this year as it's too cold.
I hear the newscastors telling me that every day in April broke the record for heat but I trust my senses and memory. It has been a long cold and wet winter and now we are nearly out of May and it is no better. You cannot even con someone that it is so. We cannot be gaslit on the matter.
If humans are changing the climate, please tell me how we experienced a mini ice age and how we managed to thaw it out, all before the industrial revolution? Surely we had no hand in that.
We may be getting warm days, we may be getting cold days, we may be getting dry days and we may be getting wet days, but why is a pensioner like myself having to scrimp on everything to satisfy the paranoia of the unstable and the greed of the rich?
With 1 particles of Co2 in the atmosphere amidst 2,500 other gaseous particles, how does that heat the planet? It doesn't make any sense. It's the equivalent of the concept of the Trinity in religion which doesn't make sense but so many people believe it without question and look at you as if you have a pea for a brain if you say you don't understand their explanation. Delusion in religion and delusion in science.
The costs increased because of the Ukraine war.
We are in an ice age. The industrial revolution started in the 18th century.
The physics of CO2 are known for over 150 years. CO2 reflects thermic radiation back to earth.
I agree that the science is not settled, we have a lot more to learn about what drives our climate and significantly reducing the availiblity of cheap energy from Coal, oil and gas is making an economic hardship for many without proof that this is necessary.. The earth is in a paused Ice age presently and has been a lot warmer in the past that allowed human civilization to flourish. Consider agenda 21 as a reason for this delusion of human activity causing a climate crisis alarm..
How's the fishing? Do you ever fish the ocean from shore or fish the bays?
I fish the rivers for trout. Between my car breaking down and illness I haven't gotten out yet but the car will be fixed next week and I'm fit again. I'm hoping they are in the mood to eat my fly. Here's hoping. Do you fish much?@@stilnaughttelling6587
The installation of renewables is growing exponentially, and quicker than ever expected.
So yes, there is a chance to reach at least the 2°C goal.
"If I would be in charge of the World - I think I would step down" - this is exactly THE problem we have. Honest, logical, materialistic people with scientific approach and love to our Planet "step down" and the World is ruled with what we call "politicians" guided by quite different, doubtful "values".
and they all seem to buy expensive , ocean front estates while crying about rising sea levels , 8!tch please !!!!!!!!!!!
What?
Why would "logical, materialistic, honest people with a scientific approach" (whatever that means) step down?
That is simply not true.
The issue is that normal people aren't power hungry and sociopathic enough to endure the fight to the top.
@@carlpanzram7081 Your argument has no internal logic. First you say "No, honest, logical and unbiased people wouldn't step down from positions of great power." then you give some of reasons why they would.
If honest, logical and unbiased people would be in charge, the power and money hungry would constantly battle them with intrigue to have them removed.
@@carlpanzram7081 You literally explained part of why they step down. THINK before you speak.
because politicians tell people what they want to hear. A scientist will tell you cold, hard facts. Who do you think the majority would give their vote to?
So basically Germany gave up on reality (nuclear fission) and embraced the H2 fantasy, Well done my dear neighbors. 😢
You forgot the part where they made their entire economy dependent on hydrocarbons piped in from their oldest geopolitical enemy. Truly the biggest own goal in human history.
Considering even one of our former chancellors lobbies for the russian gas company Gazprom, it's safe to say a lot of money is changing hands to make sure nuclear power will not be the future for Germany. I'm sure the same can be said for lignite (of which we are the worlds biggest producer apparently)
they’ll probably blame the jews
At great expense to its pastoral scenery, as is the case everywhere wind monsters prowl.
@@athmaid How did they sway public opinion in Germany about nuclear power? But more importantly: how can we sway it back?
I think the essence of what she is saying is that we have to make a distinction between what is practical and what is practicable.
If you want to reduce energy waste and pollution you need to install local production. There is no reason for a product that costs less that $2 to be transported over 10,000 miles to reach someone. We need a maximum transport of 1,000 from ground to production to end user. That means many smaller factories close to home. That would also solve pollution because the factories would have to switch to non-polluting procedures because the end consumer does not want to have heavily polluting factories that close to where they live. Also, if the oil crisis ever happened, people would be reliant on things that were made within 1,000 miles of them, not 10,000 miles, so that is much easier to manage than trying to find out how to ship things from China without coal or oil. Not only that but it would make current oil and coal supplies last 10 times as long since the distances are so much shorter.
I could come up with 10 solutions that would put a huge dent in pollution, but the way Governments currently work is that nothing gets done unless you can convince dozens of billionaires that they will make more money doing things the new way. Using less fuel is never going to make anyone more money. Polluting less in mass production is also not going to save anyone any money. Laws are not going to be enacted, we are all screwed. At this rate the only thing that will force change is if the climate starts killing millions of people every year, and if that started happening, there would still be billionaires trying to convince lawmakers that we still shouldn't reduce pollution and decrease fuel use.
All that said, and my method wouldn't actually make products cost more, and it also wouldn't mean we have to make fewer of them, just that we wouldn't burn as much oil and we have to change to cleaner production. The only losers would be oil sellers and cheap overseas sweatshops, who should really be treating their people better anyway.
It's not climate doom-n-glooming to see the fact that every time a new study about where we are says we're worse off than we thought, and have much less time to act than we thought we did. I'm glad Sabine can present this to folks in as non-bias a way as you can on this platform. It's just unfortunate that those in positions to change our stance on the climate won't care to fix it anyway.
Dr. James Hansen thinks we're headed beyond 3.4 to 4.8, and after that straight to 10. He is the world's leading authority on global climate. Nobody cares.
Who's we? Some folk already think we will all die soon, so when it's worse some folk think, we will die sooner.
Well the climate doomsday cult have been saying we only have 10 years left until climate doomsday kills us all EVERY year now for +50 years, and they have been totally wrong with every climate prediction they have ever made...
What new study? I mean study about current trends based on data analysis. Seas aren't rising at an accelerated rate. Temperature has warmed a little (thankfully, in some places). Crop yields have been steadily rising. The coral on great barrier reef was at its highest level in 40 years. Ice extent is largest in 20 years in the arctic. More and more people in developing countries are rising out of poverty. No increasing trends in hurricanes, extreme weather events, apart from some increased intensity in rainfall. Remember all the predictions of doom from Al Gore? Never happened.
@@marksouthern7542 Enjoy the trolling.
Sabine has confirmed what I've suspected about our prospects to dealing with the climate change problem, which is we're totally fucked.
"which is we're totally fucked."
Alas, it has been a long time for me.
Well, you are. I'm fine over here. This stuff lives rent free in your head. Not mine.
@@Mechulus Considering you bothered to reply to a comment regarding a climate change video, it lives rent free in your head too. 🤣
@@familiartoad5366 A million years ago CO2 was two times higher than now, but fragile life forms survived without a hitch. Fear and ignorance is eternally living in your head.
@@glennwoodruff2398 ohh you cannot talk about that they're followers of a failed scientists turned fear mongering TH-camr I know all lady.
Anybody knows the exact date of climate change this year? that rotten weather as June approaches is unacceptable.
Great sense as ever Sabine. There are so many ideologues in this field where reality does not make an entry into their considerations. It is a shame you have to qualify everything but good on you for doing so.
Worth noting temps during the last glacial maximum (when ice sheets reach as far south as centucy and most of the U.S and Europe had a boreal climate) are estimated at around 4 degrees below pre-industrial levels.
So, +3-5 degrees would be about as much warmer as the glacial maximum was colder. That's a pretty big difference.
Planetary temperatures vary ? Who knew !
Someone should turn off that big light in the sky.
@@noelward8047 Nobody denies that temperatures vary....
Utter tosh. We’re busy removing farming which is going to cause a much bugger problem for people. We need more CO2 more vegetation and most importantly, less politicians.
@@ianclarke8821 Truer words I've never heard!
@@ianclarke8821 No, plants are adapted to this level of Co2 - adding more won't' help.
No serious scientists make such claims. Only armchair conservatives who believe "what makes common sense" based on their "life experience". Aka anecdotal evidence and biases.
I am absolutely thriled to hear you telling the truth about climate goals instead of the stupidity we get from government agentcies!!
Yes sure the governments are the problems yeah.
What we get from government depends on how tied to the fossil fuel industry the party in power is. US Republicans are an arm of the fossil fuel industry.
another "we" user
I also don't usually read comments, but when I do I often despair for the ability of humans to think, learn, and (especially) accept new ideas! d'oh ... Can you spell extinction, boys and girls? D'oh
What is the optimal temperature for the entire planet?
As far as I can tell. The temperature varies around the world from north to soy and east to west.
There is no optimal temperature.
The year I was born Carl Sagan testified before Congress about what was then called "The Greenhouse Effect" he told them "If we don't do the right thing now, there are very serious problems that our children and grandchildren will have to face". Literally my entire life Congress has been aware of the problem and did not deign to meaningfully address the problem. I'm nearly middle aged now. My generation and the next generation will bear the consequences of their inaction.
No worries. You're all gonna face the consequences of your actions in the afterlife.
The people in Congress who heard Sagan, are now just as dead as Sagan. There is no continuity. Except for the fossil fuels industry, which is immortal and eternal. They heard Sagan, too, and they knew he was right. They have never slept, not once. They will never sleep. They will keep us burning fossil fuels until the bitter end.
@@lucifercaeleste That's different for everybody. You add up all your mortal sins and multiply that number by 50. Then you add up all your venial sins and multiply that by 25. You add that together and that's your sentence. I figure I'm gonna have to do 6,000 years before I get accepted into heaven and 6,000 years is nothin' in eternity terms. I can do that standing on my head. It's like a couple of days here.
@@stanstrum nope. See you on the other side.
@@lucifercaeleste No such thing as the afterlife. They get away scot-free.
I learned a very long time ago - long before social media - that people tend to assume that you endorse something you believe to be true.
Who do you think is going to win this argument. A bunch of scientists telling people to give up on the modern world or a bunch of marketing experts telling them what they want to hear?
It's not that simple. A lot of the scientists are telling people BS, too.
The problem with your framing is the word 'ask'; climate activism and policy - and I am speaking of activism at the federal and international level - doesn't advocate for asking people to do anything. Instead they involve a combination of incentives, regulations, and economic carrots and sticks that are designed to 'compel' behavior from the people, and those policies and regulations are often drawn up in circles far removed from the public vote. The public feel they are being given a 'lose lose' scenario; ecological calamity on the one hand, or the gradual end of the rule of the people on the other. It's hard to motivate people to choose the 'correct' bad option..
@@clearlypellucidWhat is "a lot."
Scientists are not telling people to give up. They are saying get your shit together.
We should be realistic but climate doomerism lets not bother trying will only make things worst and not what climate scientist advocate for
@@clearlypellucid You fell for the marketing BS,
We should talk more about the effect of cleaning up the particulate load in the atmosphere. Cleaning up the fuel used for Maritime shipping has really heated up the oceans. More sunlight is getting through.
It also reduces the number of people dying from lung diseases.
Not even able to control my bathing water temperature
I studied Archaeology and I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of civilizations that collapsed because of endless dithering making one plan after another. You can call it bureaucratic inertia or you can say it's various cliques promoting their agenda. People are paid to make plans, not solutions. We had a solution back in the '70s - replace all the fossil fuel plants with fission plants. Boom! Done! One problem mostly solved and now we have the new problems - but that's okay the new problems are better than the old problems. But ... that plan was ditched and no one has another that might work.
If you look at biology, humans are the only species that can shift to a new food source if the previous staple is no longer available. It doesn’t seem like we’re able to do the same trick in economics.
Didn't the now defunct Soviet Union (Russia et al for you youngins) have a continuous series of "Five Year Plans" over its 70-year history?
Not enough uranium. That would not have worked anyway.
Honestly we have time to let technology grow, even enough time for cold fusion. And that’s assuming this is a problem at all and not just creeping nature.
@@WhoeverNevermind Old Saw: Perfection is the enemy of good. A perfect solution too late is still a failure. In 1975 we needed a solution that would replace the bulk if not all of fossil fuel use for the grid and have it *completed* in 10 -20 years, or we would have climate change. Wasn't done so we got Climate Change. Key point: completed. We needed to be DONE by 2000 latest. Of course all of these new plants would become old plants someday and need to be replaced. If we found the perfect solution tomorrow it would still be too late. You also leave out that fission would run on a lot of radioactive materials, no just uranium.
In the United States we have a congressman who was worried that the island can capsize from parking too many tanks on one side. Most recently, we have a congresswoman who said we need to get to the moon because it's mostly made of gas.
Anything that comes out of these people's mouths about global warming, I will immediately scoff.
Yeah, were not getting the best and the brightest.
The woman who said that the moon is made of gas... worked at high level position at NASA.
Yeah, I remember one congressman brought in a chunk of snow thinking that disproves climate change. These people are clueless.
And yet they'll call you a 'science denier' if you disagree with them.
Diversity hires
Dear Sabine.
You are so very right about these matter you bring.
As for your 3 degrees-ish rise in global temperatures, not a lot will be done ( on a global scale) until it reaches 5 -ish degrees rise. This WILL happen. !!
Clearly, we have an issue, and this `issue` is a global catastrophe which WILL happen.
Sadly, until then, impoverished places will suffer the most, whilst money rich countries (western) will delay action to combat the `created` problem. That is, until it affects them so directly it CANNOT be ignored anymore.
By then it will already be more than too late. !
Regrettably, we humans are the 'Instigators of our own demise` ... Our emotional Psyche is totally imbalanced for `Peaceful harmony`... (Basically, we haven't `grown up` yet..) Or, put another way, we, as humans, are so entrenched in our genetic/nurture past that to conquer/ kill/ take power/be selfish /greed ( to the detriment of others) in order that ` this` group survives (Sod the rest of you).....is SO narrow minded.. Yet, this IS what we ALL are (exceptions made)...
I`m getting tired of keep banging on about this subject. Everywhere I go, the `Ostrich syndrome` arises.(Stick your head in the sand, and it will go away)
Walk down my High street, .... Any High street, In fact... anywhere... 80% ++++ people couldn't give a F**k about anything , as long as they get to PRIMARK. !!
This is the intelligence (or lack of it) that is strategically the poison that surrounds Humanity.!!
So be it.
Adding WIDESPREAD residential-level solar production would help to mitigate the need to add grid capacity. However, if all home owners have to carry 70% of the burden to mitigate, then you will not see widespread adoption. People have living costs above and beyond just home energy production.
Sabine, the fact that you have to explain yourself explaining yourself is utterly ridiculous and palpable. Don't let others' lack of attention skills/absence of metacognition and utter misnomer think you should have to further reevaluate your statements, even though I appreciate you doing so, because anybody involved in wanting to make a change and inform others of real-life dilemmas would do just that. These people, just like the flat earthers, only seek to one-up the informer and have an "aha! I gotcha!" moment. They really never bring any sort of value or substance to the whole of the topic, but rather flat out deny it altogether because of a lack of understanding either unwillingly or willingly. You do you, Sabine. Thank you for all.
I agree, though I think it´s ok, that she posted a clarification for simpletons
Have you considered your 'carbon footprint' ?
@@noelward8047 Is that personal footprint even close to the mean carbon use? I strongly suspect most carbon emission is not personal.
@@noelward8047 Of course. Who wouldn't if they were aware of the climate crisis caused by humans?
@@abj136unless you are taylor swift
"The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov, 1972. This book explains everything about why it's so hard to get voters and policy makers to agree to meaningful climate action, even though the book was written long before the average person knew manmade climate change is a thing, and the book isn't about the cilmate at all. We humans are incredibly intelligent and resourceful, yet so infuriatingly stupid as a species, when it comes to long term thinking. "War with the Newts" by Karel Čapek, 1936, has the same kind of birds eye view on our inability to act even though we have all the knowledge we need.
On the plus side, we did manage to save the ozone layer (literally saving our own skin) and made good progress on acid rain prevention. They were easier problems to solve, but still.
"They were easier problems" is not just a small difference, it's what made the WORLD of difference between those two positive examples, and climate change.
"yet so infuriatingly stupid as a species, when it comes to long term thinking."
Evolution does not depend on long term species thinking. It cares about the next generation and if the next generation has more of my children and fewer of yours, so much the better.
The scientific evidence compellingly shows that Arrhenius was right: _you-know-what-that-starts-with-C_ change and _you-also-know-what-that-also-starts-with-C_ emissions are *_highly beneficial,_* rather than harmful. What is infuriating is that a massive Madison Avenue FUD campaign has managed to convince even intelligent people like you and Dr. Hossenfelder, in the face of all evidence, that good is bad, up is down, and those highly beneficial emissions are a "crisis," or even an "emergency."
"There is no direct evidence to prove that CFCs created the ozone hole in the 1980s. While CFCs were suspected to be a contributing factor, the exact cause of the ozone hole remains unclear." -- ChatGPT: there you go. In fact, the "ozone hole" is seasonal and is continually varying in thickness. Another rush-to-judgement.
@@glennwoodruff2398
Thanks for proving the OPs point 🙄
1. Analyse the link between the atmospheric co2 level and its predictive ability Vs global temperatures as measured by satellite.
2. Check and report on how measuring global temperatures has changed in a way that can skew outputs - specifically when temperatures start being measured right next to airports and runways which will artificially inflate measurements.
3. Backtest models and evaluate objectively how accurate predictions made 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago have been. Use this data to say more objectively that models have/haven't any predictive power.
I would say the the worlds response in general to climate change which we have known about for decades and is fundamentally one of the easiest scientific concepts to understand has pretty much made me lose faith in humanity as a whole. Humans seem to always choose greed and immediate gratification. At this point I pretty much do hope for the worst scenario that wipes out most of us.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” - Kurt Vonnegut
Certainly not the first.
No, we will not.
Save itself from what? Nothing about climate change makes the world less habitable. Only doomsday conspiracy theories claim that.
Moot point. If climate change is gonna kill us all, then no one we be here to ascertain this statement was true.
Why do you think the cosmos is eerily empty - evolution produces 1-trick-pony liars & cheats who accelerate disastrous climate change by propagating extra-filthy "Green" technology which entails the combustion of MORE fossil fuels, not less 😱
Wise woman. All wise folks would balk at seriously attempting to counter global political foolishness. Nice to hear you identify the level of challenge so well.
Unfortunately bureaucrats and technocrats are beginning another dark age. Power and money drive policy vs legitimate science.
Bourgeoisie is. Bureucrats are just puppets who guard Kapital and it's owners.
One problem is the amount of natural gas that is straight up WASTED by the oil industry, Instead of flaring it off, we could make use of it and get more energy out of less resources. Resources that by the way, are LIMITED. Yes, even if you ignore climate, we will eventually run out of them.
I always say: "It's not enough to save the world, it also has to be profitable". That's why so many promising technologies that could actually help mitigate climate desaster, take so endlessly long. They have to file for government subsidies, find VC investors, do small pilots, then larger pilots, then find more funding, fight against the lobbyists of existing technologies they would replace, ... and so on. Years and years pass before they either succeed or fail. As if time was not of essence. Our unbridled capitalism and the fact that everything needs to turn a profit, even potentially saving the world, will be our undoing as a species. We probably deserve this ....
Solar, wind and batteries. They are profitable now, and will do most of the heavy lifting, if not hampered by ideology or legislation.
If "they have to file for government subsidies" it is hardly "unbridled capitalism". Also, what was your plan again? Remember that time socialism saved the planet?
If it doesn´t turn a profit it usually means it is not efficient. This is why socialism has efficiency problems.
Or we could stop blaming the other and take it upon ourselves to go vegan. That way we could save the planet and all it's inhabitants. Yes, and we could do it all without swearing. Get real you people veganism is our only hope. 🌱☮🌱
Humanity's famous last words: This is bad for the economy
Pinning this all on capitalism alone seems rather narrow-sighted. Just look at the parties that are voted into power in any of the big industrial nations of the West - are the parties that are voted into power those that have dedicated themselves to preventing the climate catastrophe? In the big picture, no they're not. Why? Because people have a nasty habit of not appreciating the danger of effects that happen in the near future, and heavily focus on things that affect us right now. What we're doing as a species is pretty much the same thing that a heavily overweight person is doing to themselves when they're eating their way into an early grave.
Can you do a video of what a +3.5-4 degree world looks like?
Are we talking just “people living by oceans will need to move back a few meters”, or are we talking “desertification of all land on earth and most humans die”?
I don’t know how seriously to take the issue - like not even to within 4 orders of magnitude.
Yes, I would request Sabine to do that as well
Good request - I suspect the answer is both! It will depend on where you live and what happens to the local climate - there will be good news in limited supply and bad news in great big chunks.
my guess is that we will have more natural disasters and we will have to deal with more extreme weather.
We can deal with both of that (as in we have the technology), but it will be tough.
Covid showed that even if science and politics have a plan in the drawer, the population is still reluctant to follow. As long as people don't want to reduce their quality of life, we will first need a (couple) catastrophy that forces people to behave accordingly.
@@andrewharrison8436Assuming there is significant man-made warming.
Which is totally not proven, highly unlikely and in the end it does not really matter except for what to do if significant warming true!
Sea level changes have been going on for a long time and there is no acceleration in that.
So those predicting disaster where people live near coasts is just talking nonsense out of ignorance or is outright lying.
What we do have in many places is that construction pushes the land down, a big city both warms the area (as well as lowers the ground-level).
And rivers that get canalized and/or dammed also change the supply of fresh water drastically.
No curtailing of carbon emissions is ever going to have any impact on either of these factual mechanics at play!
Every penny spend to fight CO2, instead of addressing real problems is outright criminal due to the loss of life and property that results from it.
We thus must do as we always did and use money to adapt.
In most cases where problems do slowly show up that means building dykes and make better plans when dealing with waterway construction.
It's all very logical and not hard to understand, it does not even require much knowledge, just that one is not ignorant of basic knowledge.
Just take the blindfolds off and do not simply believe that authorities and activists are telling us.
They are most of the time entirely wrong and have a horrible track record on top of it.
What I present here is way more logical and provable than what the snake oil climate change catastrophe people are telling us.
In the end those just want money and power, at the expense of everyone else.
They are pure evil.
As far as I know the most devastating effect is that some countries around the equator will increasingly become uninhabitable due to a combination of heat and humidity during more and more days of the year (i.e. it'll no longer be rare that you can't stay outside due to extreme heat wave). Places where lots of people live, like India, sub-Saharan Africa and Brazil. Some scientists expect that the migration waves and wars over resources (like water and arable land) will be so intense that it will destabilize our civilization.
Example of such a study: "Probabilistic projections of increased heat stress driven by climate change" by Lucas R. Vargas Zeppetello, Adrian E. Raftery & David S. Battisti
Or:
"Global risk of deadly heat" by Camilo Mora and others, published in Nature Climate Change in 2017
in Oktober 2023, the UN Climate Change Conference or COP28, was held in Dubai, Saudi Arabia. The conference was headed by Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), one of the biggest oil producers and exporters in the world. as expected, no real agreements were made beyond a wage "move away from fossil fuel."
A week before COP 28, Al Jaber claimed that there is “no science” showing that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees requires ending fossil fuel production and consumption.
At the time, ADNOC invested $150 billion into a series of massive new oil and gas projects.
the Centre for Climate Reporting in the UK, and other NGO also discovered that Al Jaber and other Saudi officals were in meetings with 28 other countries to expand fossil fuel use and power in their industries. Similarly ADNOC and others have plans to "help bring energy" to developing african nations to ensure their continued sales and relevance in the future. With the aim to hook them on fossil fuels instead of leapfrogging straight to superior and more flexible wind and solar systems.
5:32 Sabine using "Fuck Around" caught me off guard but im here for it lol
The sad irony in this is that it’s all about money but we will pay more if we are greedy. Indeed it is a known fact that the price we will collectively pay for climate change damages will be hugely greater than the investment we need to contain it 😢.
yeah, but the problem is profiteering:
Those doing nothing still profit from the effort of others. While those spending more still suffer the same as everyone else.
That's why I think the EU needs to be way way way harsher in their international trade policy.
The problem is people living today won`t pay. Our children will.
It is actually not obvious, even conceptually, in what sense working on damages in closed society (and we are talking about the whole Earth here) is money related. Imagine an isolated village, nothing outside, which suffered from a fire. It took half a year of collective villagers work to restore the village. In what sense did they pay ? (if there is nothing outside which provided them with goods for purchase) ? They used some time, during which they could have done other things. So in that sense they lost something, basically they lost 1/2 year of development. But were other things they would have gotten valuable ? How to measure it monetary ?
Four "we" in three lines. Herd much?
The discourse on climate change has been co-opted by corporations and politicians as a means to promote consumption and pass legislation that favors their interests. Meanwhile, blame is unjustly shifted onto individuals for their everyday actions, such as driving cars or consuming meat.
Isn't it perfectly understandable? Both actions take money from other people to line up their own pockets.
The average individual of the developed world does not affect climate change appreciably themselves with what they consume, but all of them together certainly due. Blame isn’t “unjustly shifted”, it is indeed the fault of all of us, while simultaneously none of us. Emergent properties make morality very strange.
Meat is murder.
The graphs charts, and organizations pushing climate change are based on projected models. In the past these models have never yielded reality or actuality. The money is on pushing these climate change alarms with CO2 removal, Sabine is right there. However, the fact that CO2 is plant food and with it comes more oxygen in the atmosphere both counteract the low levels of CO2 we had prior to it's rise in the 20th century. More CO2=more plants and hence more food for the population. Studies have already been done on this and with more CO2, up to 700 PPM we'll get a 40% increase in food production.
Todays warming was accurately calculated 40 years ago.
More CO2 leads to more droughts and floodings. Farmers do not like that.
Sunday, June 02, 2024 ... The fact of the matter is, because of "Nutation: (Astronomical nutation is a phenomenon which causes the orientation of the axis of rotation of a spinning astronomical object to vary over time. It is caused by the gravitational forces of other nearby bodies acting upon the spinning object. ) and its 25,000-year cycle/interval, the Earth would experience "Global warming" even if all the Carbon Emissions have been eliminated within the next interim 25,000 years. It would likely trigger climatic random turbulence globally. This does not advocate that Human activity is absent and/or passive in these Natural Ecological Behaviors.
There is no 25,000 year cycle of warming....
We had a glaciation 25,000 years ago.
The Milankovitch Cycles are known for over 70 years and they are in cooling.
Worth pointing out that the carbon removal graph has a logarithmic scale; I.e the degree of underperformance can be easily missed by non mathematicians
Oh dear ... Oh dear ... Oh dear.
1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. (Please explain the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Minoan Warm period (extra credit for explainging the Little Ice Age)).
2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant.
3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.)
4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice.
5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas.
6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal.
7) Elon Musk: the Laptop Class is in La-La Land.
Oh yeah, when that "log scale" text hit the screen I was like "ah shit". That's also why 3C warmer doesn't sound as worrying as it really is. If you graph it, it's only a minor change. If you show the reality of how sensitive a stochastic system, such as the global climate, is to any tiny change, then 3C starts to look a lot more worrying.
I just feel like most of the "solutions" always turn out to be moneygrubbing schemes that also over time tend to cripple the common citizens even more, while those deciding on these things will remain cozy in their ivory towers, still enjoying their comfort (which on average causes more of the problem than a common citizen's contribution)
EV's are massively pushed while there's still no proper planning in place to recycle them after their shorter lifespan compared to CV's, wind plants often still don't have a reasonable way of recycling their blades (which in turn are just buried in the ground) and more. We need more realistic solutions in general.
How do you propose we recycle the CO2 from a CV? The problem with CVs is the emissions go -everywhere-. With EVs and wind turbine blades, we know where they are. We can move them to a suitable remediation site with a forklift. You can't do that with a kg-CO2 that's floating in the atmosphere.
@@mattpujol4787 but we are already working on means to get rid of CO2. Also, plants get rid of CO2. Atm there's just more CO2 coming in than the current greenery can process. Like the lovely lady said we have to look for feasible solutions. Ev are good for Short distances and city traffic. They are not as realistic for logistics and heavy duty work so far.
@@somesassybrat305 she never said "not feasible at scale", she said "won't work". Those are 2 very different statements and they are crafted to play to a specific audience, IMO.
On EVs, according to enerygy.gov, in 2021 52% of trips from home were less than 3 miles from home, 28% were less than 1 mile. Just 2% were over 50 miles. Just because you can't drive to Cleveland once every 3 years doesn't mean an EV won't make a kg-CO2 equivalent impact.
You don’t want to get rid of CO2. There is no need to Matt. So far “renewables” are harming the planet more than any dose of CO2 ever could. And it will continue to get worse.
That's by design! You are correct!!
I'm less pessimistic as you are, I look at graphs and see we are making lots of changes. Is it enough ? No, but a lot of these changes take a lot of time. But some things are on the right track.
In the next few years EV cars will be cheaper than the others and maybe we'll run into grid problems, batteries will be cheap enough people will buy batteries for the home. This will probably help smoothing demands on the grid.
'I don't often read comments... but when I do'
You are right. I am afraid many people really think it is a good idea to pump highly purified, water soluble gases through long pipelines into old oilfields / oilsands to "store" the CO2 (CCS). The Canadians (Capital Power Inc) just gave up this month, because it seems not to be economically feasable - not even for enhanced oil recovery (with supercriticial CO2).
Trees eat c02, remove the c, then release 02. Just plant more trees.
I retired at 48 and I'm 67 now and I basically love history, science and math. When I find someone intelligent to listen to its such a relief. Sabine is a lovely jewel and we are lucky to have her fighting for our future.
I love your sarcasm!!!❤️❤️👍
"fighting for our future" or pushing the same fake agenda...
Sabina is being highly partisan though.
She is using "realistic" with a hidden assumption: That our destructive economic system is unchangeable.
We *_can_* still reach the 1.5° goal *_IF_* we accept that the biosphere has limits and that private jets, private yachts and billionaires are not and have ever been something we can afford.
Sabina is basically saying "Sorry, we can't save the world, because the solutions have bad PR".
That is not the scientific approach.
The scientific approach would be to list the solutions and the consequences, not accepting soft facts like politics as "realistic".
Ohh! I don't find a youtuber intelligent who doesn't talk about solutions instead fear mongers to gain views from Grandpas who don't know anything about current world and your not gonna even survive to see consequences of your consumerism.
@@madshorn5826She isn't "accepting" it, like it's something she hopes for. She understands human nature is unlikely to change and has come to terms with it. It's the "acceptance" stage of grief. It's pessimistic thinking, but I fear she's right. This doesn't mean we're all going to die, it just means quality of life will most likely get worse.
Sabine, Would you please discuss the question of where all the carbon that is locked up in fossil fuels originally came from? I presume the organisms that produced the fossil fuels got their carbon out of the atmosphere, same as where growing things now get their carbon. That would raise the question of why the world didn't burn up (end) in those days ??
The CO2 comes from vulcanism.
Thanks for that Sabine. I can see and hear your anger and frustration. But, if it makes you feel any better, you’ve made me feel better because I’m now going to stop fretting for the world, because we’re basically f#cked, and none of the world’s controllers (governments, corporations and scientists) are seemingly willing enough to change anything other than to come up with new plans and ideas that, while making them more money, are not going to save us in time. And so I can now take a deep breath of relatively clean air and make the most of what time we have left.
These "things that don't work" but we're told "we must invest all our money into in order to avoid doom" are grifts. Simple as. Many such cases.
The most classic kind of scam you can get, too.
Every time you are told to give someone money on a time limit you should assume you shouldn't be giving them that money.
Ya, needs to go all into nuclear power imo instead all this windmill or electric car b.s.
@@maestroanth Please tell me how nuclear power plants will make ICE engines cleaner. Less CO2 from refining? Nuclear power is the perfect companion to electric cars. Clean on both ends.
@@TessaBain That's kinda problematic then, because we objectively _do_ need to invest lots of money and resources on a time limit in order to stave off the worst of the climate disaster. If we don't, we're toast.
@@maestroanth Surely "we have to build nuclear power plants right now" is exactly the same sort of "give me money under time pressure" proposition as "we have to build solar panels and wind farms right now".
I agree 100% Sabine. Good on you for having the courage and insight to say so.
She is right, government in this situation should just order and get things done, like a parent with a child.
You can lose time and joke around most of the time, but not when there is a danger and things get serious, at that time you force them to obey whatever they like it or not.
You don't phuck around... Love it!
Climate change discourse annoys me to no end. Being skeptical of proposed goals and solutions is not the same as flat out denying climate change happens at all. Can't even tell if it's stupidity or bad faith.
Stupidity and bad faith are not mutually exclusive.
@@danharold3087 was about to comment the same. also people in denial or purposely misinterpreting for financial gain
That's the lie. The issue isn't whether the climate is changing, but whether the quality of the proxy record supports claims that human produced CO2 is the "tuning knob" that drives the change at this point in time, and whether such a change is a net negative.
Well, it's a layer cake. There ARE people who legitimately deny climate change exists. There ARE people who legitimately deny that humans have anything to do with it. There ARE people who believe that even though humans are responsible, there is nothing that can be done to solve it. There ARE people who believe that the problems can be solved, but that it is more difficult than is politically likely to actually happen. And then there are people who believe that it's easy to do and we should definitely do it. All we need is to get more people into the camp that is actually working seriously toward these goals, even though they are difficult.
Ever wonder why it's how climate change and not global warming?
The former is a harder umbrella term to debunk and therefor more profitable
"If they can't figure out what agenda I have, they make one up." Truer words have never been spoken. When science is treated as a religion, this is what you get.
Yep.
And as a Jew, I find "Climate Denier" a vile appropriated term related to Holocaust denial.
Sadly, I'm sure that the manipulative term "Climate Denier" was coined in part by wordsmithing Leftist Jews.
That, and "Don't fuck around."
its even worse when politics are treated as a religion. Then things get really tricky
Science is the opposite of religion. What is accepted as fact changes with new information. In religion, what is accepted as fact was written in the bronze age.
Ha see that happening most every day in comments. Not only do people read between the lines they read from the wrong book. Many just want to feel good making others look bad. Did I mention YT comments suck.
In terms of CDR, there's a long way to go to hit the "targets" and it seems unreasonable. But don't underestimate the United States ability to ramp up "production" if there's a clear economic benefit. The US is unbelievably dynamic when there's money to be made.
Love your honest and frank take on this situation. Reality can be brutal but needs to be faced.