Its called "gate", like Watergate, because its a Gate from one worldview (the naive) to another (the realistic; that money & corruption rules, not truth & honor etc).
This illustrates why context matters. Also why having background knowledge of the subject matter is important. Domain-specific communication can easily be misinterpreted (or misrepresented) by people unfamiliar with the technical details.
Scientists: We have overwhelming evidence that human activity is the driving force behind the ongoing climate catastrophe Fossil fuel companies: They're right, we've known about it for decades but supressed that evidence and ran enormous disinfo campaigns Deniers: WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE
Exxon pays bad scientists to lie for them. This was proven when their marketing person was told that he was speaking to a Saudi Arabian billionaire who he was trying to impress. In reality, Exxon and the other major oil companies have known about climate change caused by fossil fuel use since 1959. Edward Teller, a physicist who worked with J Robert Oppenheimer held a meeting with all of the head of the major oil companies. A memo from 1972 was discovered in which Exxon stated that they knew that climate change would occur because of fossil fuel use. I am just glad that I have the intelligence to check the science in the peer reviewed science journals instead of believing any lie that anyone tells me. You should try it some time. Your eyes will be opened.
@@stevesmith-sb2df yes - and I have a copy of the report from the EXXON science unit tasked with making an appraisal of the science by the board. Many of the denier scientists were the same individuals who denied the smoking/cancer link in the 50s/60s.
That "time" sewed in the populous enough doubt to ignore solid science and now we have to live with the consequences. It is also important to acknowledge that climate scientists paid by the Oil and Gas companies to find data that could be used to convince us that the warming was not caused by fossil fuels in what I consider a criminal act.
It is curious that this valid comment is so near the bottom. It's almost as if the climate change deniers are voting it down and their claims that they hate censorship is another lie.
It's not even that complicated to check (crudely, at least). When the leak came out, I was skeptical about climate change and read through the emails. Based on the emails I read, it seemed like the scientists were having trouble replicating the hockey stick graph after 1999, mostly because of the information technology they were using. So I downloaded the NOAA global surface temperature data from 1850 to 2009 and plotted the data. Turns out my simple graph looked pretty much exactly like the (end of) the hockey stick graph I'd seen everywhere. I didn't have any of the long term paleo data, but the difference between the 1800s and now was clear. So much for fun conspiracies.
If your intention is to find patterns in datasets you can easily find infinitely many. You can also find infinitely many to find the opposite conclusion. This is why a good test for pseudoscience is if what they are doing is recovering patterns in datasets. If you start with the conclusion and go looking for evidence to support it, you are not doing science.
@@QT5656 Because if you torture data long enough you can recover any shape you like. That's why it's so crucial that the evidence you should be looking is that the scientists are not STARTING with the hockey-stick shape before finding it in the data. The climategate leaks falsify that hypothesis. That's why it's devastating. The fact that the scientists are trying to prove a theory by statistical manipulation of data-set makes it pseudoscience. In any other (well regarded) discipline that kind of behaviour would be career ending. This is how you know that AGW climatology is not proper science. A consensus among experts in a pseudoscientific discipline is utterly irrelevant. Only pseudoscientists would appeal to consensus in the first place.
It's always interesting to see how rigorous some people are with trying to discredit claims they don't like Vs the speed in which they believe statements they do like. True of everyone (though more evident in right wing leaders like Trump and his followers).
I mean, the misinformation surrounding the topic of climate change is not exactly unprecedented. The same type of people who try to decry climate science is the exactly the same type of people who decried the harmful effects of tobacco, lead fuel and pesticides in the past. This level of misinformation is what happenes when there are rich people who stand to lose a lot of money if the science is taken as seriously as it should be. It's happened multiple times before and it disappoints me to no end that we still haven't learned those bloody lessons.
I don’t work as a scientist but more than half of my emails can easily be taken out of context and create global controversy… if anyone actually cared. I expect that is the case for most people who actually have jobs that matter. If someone wants to make a point if these its ridiculously easy… again who cares.
This video touches on a topic that I think deserves more coverage: the fact that many people, especially people without a scientific background, tend to conflate mistrust and "healthy" skepticism. Scientists are people and therefore make mistakes and present their work in a manner meant to persuade. Therefore, you should always question and check their work, under the presumption that any errors are good faith mistakes and not born out of ill intent. Mistrust should be reserved for malicious actors only. I place nearly all of the blame for this mischaracterization of the scientific community on the shoulders of mainstream media.
Not only scientists use the word "trick" for clever problem-solving - engineers do it, too! Maybe that's why I never understood where all the upset over this "nature trick" came from (I'm an electrical engineer).
"Trick" isn't problematic in an engineering context. Scientists. however, shouldn't be in the business of engineering solutions. Lesson 1 of day 1 of science 101 is to not start from a theory and work back to the data, which is what AGW climatologists are admitting to. What they were admitting to was pseudoscience. Plain and simple.
@@darkwingscooter9637 "What they were admitting to was pseudoscience. Plain and simple." You're not educated in science or methodologies. You have no credible evidence for this stupid claim.
How does a guy on TH-cam provide a clearer explanation with visual learning systems to these events that shaped our history and will shape our future? This is an example of science communication!
@13:24, you show the text "No 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords." I note with interest that there was NO mention of our REPTILIAN overlords.
it's actually an automated message put on all videos that talk about climate change or global warming. ironically, you're the one engaging in conspiratorial thinking
@@critiqueofthegothgfthe issue with the automated warning is that it puts the same "label" on scientists' videos and conspirationnists' ones. For one of the richest companies on Earth, this is quite lame and lazy.
Missing from your excellent recital of the history, that there were 3 tranches of stolen emails released, and they were released in order by the hacker who filtered the contents to emphasize the most confusing or wrong-sounding contents first in the initial release, then whatever suspect contents remained, later, then most of the rest. The thief worked very hard to create a false picture.
There are two climate breakdown belief camps - those that can see the evidence of climate change (scientists, economists, the insurance industry, doctors, farmers, land managers (especially along coastal areas subject to coastal erosion), meteorologists, those living in hazard prone areas etc) - those that "deny" climate change (those that depend on dirty industries to earn a living, those making s****loads of money from dirty industries, those that profit from disaster recovery, politicians whose funding comes from dirty businesses or people making s****loads of money from dirty businesses etc) It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it - Upton Sinclair
@urbanspaceman7183 Um, I don't think so. The world has been talking about climate change officially for at least 50 years now - it's even taught in schools... to primary school kids. The last couple of years has seen a major escalation of extreme weather events & other climate disasters. So much so that our mental health is being affected (it even has a name - climate anxiety). Climate change is no longer "subtle" - too many things are going wrong now and it's being covered 24/7 by the global news media. If you're thinking about some isolated tribes in the middle of a jungle somewhere, chances are they've noticed it too. Nope, everyone "knows" about climate change because everybody everywhere has seen it (no place is safe from the impacts) or worse, lived through it. If anyone says climate change isn't a thing, they're lying (even to themselves) for one reason or another.
@@DiNY-u9k Insurance agencies aren't playing a long-term game. They are still all about short-term profitability. They will NEVER protect the public from something.
The chapter Simon recommends towards the end ("Tricks," Hockey Sticks, and the Myth of Natural lnscription: How the Visual Rhetoric of Climategate Conflated Climate with Character) can be downloaded together with the entire book for free at the last source link, if you have a university account. Can recommend!
Valued your video. Picky but significant and consequential point. This post related to 19:43. Scientists are human, yes. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to weed out human bias and human imperfection of experimentation and interpretation. From my experience working in science labs, the vulnerability to personal intellectual bias (as distinct from personal emotional bias), while existent, is on many issues less, not the same, as the general public. By some very significant margin. This comes from the mind training and natural rational orientated minds and personalities of scientists. They appreciate the 'search for truth'. So their level of objectivity on matters of concern to science is generally distinctly higher as individuals, than most others. They actually 'do their research' for a start and have a culture to consider and argue to good purpose, differences of view and interpretation on data. That said, not infallible. And there is considerable individual difference. I see a greater source of bias upon scientists is from the increasing academic and university environment pressures upon research scientists and academics. Eg level of funding, push to publish x papers to progress careers, etc, etc. And also the social and public media and increasing attacks on science generally, and specific scientists. Pressures they feel themselves and struggle with. They also have partners, kids, mortgages like everyone else! Good work Simon Appreciated highly your unpacking of this issue. Really good. Thanks Cameron.
I spent the whole video thinking almost every sentence was a segway to an add for Ground News, or Data Visualisations courses on Brilliant. And then came the ad. 😂
Unfortunately, honest endeavour is too often ineffective against a self-serving cabal of interests who think they're doing nicely and in any event, believe their ill-gotten gains will somehow inure them against the effects of their own actions.
Google Scholar shows thousands of new climatology papers a month. The subject goes back two centuries. The diversity of conciliant datasets exceeds ten thousand. What some scientists claim to be better pales compared to how much is shown by the sum of all data.
Have you taken inspiration from BobbyBrocoli in your editing style? Your timeline and image display techniques as well as some graphics seem really reminiscent (not calling you out, inspiration is fine)
I think it’s a particular application which formats things like that. BobbyBroccoli is a pretty famous example (and he makes great videos). I’ve also seen several other creators using a similar style
it's similar but if you watch several of his older videos like 'the decade we lost earth' or 'the century we saved earth', he's been using the style for quite a while. it's awesome
People mostly made fun of the shape of the hockeystick graph as if no serious graph ever showed sudden exponential developement, ever. The oughts were wild.
My supervisor was involved in the leak from the CRU, I've read about it before but I apreciate learning abut it in greater detail through your content!
Cook's method is to state what is true, and why we know it; to label as false the false statement to introduce it, then state it, then show why we know it to be false; finally, to repeat the truth and a second reason we know it to be true.
Wow! That is so amazing. I just saw the terrible flooding in Spain. Before that, I saw that the shoreline in England is washing away. Before that, I saw the results of Hurricane Helene. It went all the way up to the Mountains of North Carolina and destroyed several towns. Right now, forest fires are burning in Western Canada, the Western United States and on the East Coast of the United States. Boy do we have an awful lot of bad weather lately. I know that you don't want me to use the word climate. Maybe when you see that farms are no longer productive and you have no food, then you might understand what is really going on. Personally, I'm waiting for the collapse of the Thwaites Glacier that scientists have termed the Doomsday Glacier. I don't know how old you are but I am willing to bet that you die in the next few years because of the weather, not the climate. Keep up the good work. Bring out that one guy from 1999. Don't speak of the numerous peer reviewed journal papers that all speak of the fact that the poles are warming exponentially, faster than science previously believed they would. It is amazing to me to see that people are still lying about climate catastrophe, I mean the weather.
You know that the shorelines of the UK have been washing away since literally the formation of the Islands right? They have also been DEPOSITING since the formation of the islands.... The way the currents work in and around the UK what is washed away at say Ravenscar in the North East of England is deposited further south.... Climate is NOT changing erosion and deposition patterns in the UK *at the moment*. It may do in the future, with future sea level rise, but it is not the case at this moment.
@@alganhar1 Shorelines are also washing away in many places. Cities are receding by an inch a year all over the world because most were built near the water. At the same time, rivers all over the world are drying up. Some are so low that shipping has been halted. I suggest that you start studying peer reviewed science journals to learn the truth. You have bought the lie and it will kill you very soon. We are officially in the sixth mass extinction event and it is increasing exponentially instead of incrementally. None of us have long. They speak of decades but I am certain that it will happen within the next two years, maybe only one year.
Using 'trick' always seemed innocuous to me. Is a footballer being dishonest by scoring three goals in a match - a hat-trick? But the use of 'hide' was a poor choice of words. People talking to each other who understand the context of the words they're using will often be less than fastidious about the specific words they use, because they both know the background and can infer the genuine meaning. So I get it. But all the same, the word 'hide' was a horrible choice.
Good video but It’s stupid to call it an agenda. A message, a narrative, sure. But people pretty much use agenda to mean political agenda, which is something only the right wing not science based argument was doing here. The scientists “agenda” was just to accurately communicate the best scientific consensus. You could maybe argue that interpreting that we should do something about it is an agenda, but again the science directly says that it is a major threat to human life so I guess valuing human life counts as an agenda they might have pushed but I guess I thought that was supposed to be assumed for all people? You don’t have to validate every unfair talking point you hear just because there’s a way to argue it’s “technically not wrong” just to be “fair and balanced” or whatever
I kind of agree, but I would be even less dramatic and call it a "theory" or a "hypothesis". Then there might be a narrative behind the hypothesis, but it is generally not the case.
@@ehjapsyarsorry, but then you would be using both "theory" or "hypothesis" very wrongly. Narratives are not theories neither hypothesis. Btw, I entirely agree with OP
@@FelipeKana1 most graphs/figures are designed to show that data supports a model or hypothesis (which often fit in a theory). This is the case in the graph which is being discussed in this video. The authors have an hypothesis that there is a dramatic change in climate caused by human activity, and the graph attempts to show data supporting it. This is one of the basic methods in science: formulate hypotheses and test them against data. One could argue that formulating hypotheses implies having an agenda, narrative, or message, but I disagree.
If your 'Base Foundation' is flawed then prepare, for 'all' u have been told will collapse ! Paris Accord was fraud. Carbon Graphs enhanced at certain time of millenia to have dramatic effect on public. Human warming 0.004% Climate change is Solar Driven and 12.000yr cycle right on time. Magnetic Poles B-lining for the usual spot below the bay of bengal since the Carrington event 1859. Earth Flip as usual believed to be up also to 104 degrees followed days later by Our Suns Micro-Nova ! How Long?...well were past the 'Inflextion Pt'. 2 solar cycles ?...NO !!! less !
A nice nuanced video on the human bias that's present in all fields, including science, but how this is still the best way that we have to interpret the data and better understand the world around us.
Are you always thinking about how to phrase an email to your peers so that if it gets taken out of context a few years down the line it won't sound wrong?
It's pretty common wording, at work sometimes I'll write a correct but quick fix for a problem, these are often called a "fudge". Taken out of context a paper could try to imply that me "fudging" things means I made up data when any real due diligence on the work would reveal that it's correct, just could be written more elegantly. There will always be someone looking to twist your words
@@JanB1605 Yes, particularly since climate gate. You should always assume that your e-mail could get hacked or accidentally forwarded. The latter has happened to me several times. Over ten years ago I was explaining a very sensitive situation to a colleague and six months later they used the e-mail to reply to me about something else and copied in the person the first mail was about. Luckily my wording had been very magnanimous and the other person had to accept that my description of the situation was fair.
@@QT5656 "Yes, particularly since climate gate. You should always assume that your e-mail could get hacked or accidentally forwarded." This was in 1999...
I strongly suspect that you and the scientists who published this hockey stick are correct that tree ring data provide an accurate determination of past temperatures. However, it would be nice to have an explanation of why we can trust the tree ring data from before the blade of stick, whereas the tree ring sizes after are not correlated with global temperatures. My guess is that data from ice cores and peat cores and other methods correlate well with the pre-blade tree ring data. Please provide this rationale. Hiding the "decline" (i.e. the lack of correlation) seems like a bad decision. Why not just use other data to show past temperatures, or show a plot of past temperatures based on multiple techniques?
Yeah, I don't like the Simon is putting scare quotes around "hiding" the decline in that context. It's still a form of massaging data, presenting an idealized version of the data that matches the conclusion you think it already points to. It's condescending and untrustworthy behavior, that's unfortunately common in academia. It's valid to say that other indicators point at climate change being real, but then we should point at those indicators, even when they're noisy, not just go "it's probably fine" when one indicator gives inconvenient results.
yes; tree ring data prior to industrialization accurately predicts the same results you would see from, say, ice core data. you use the term 'correlated', but the relationship is much stronger than that. you can do a blind test of tree ring data and it will match blind tests of ice core data (and other data) i suspect you are intentionally using the word 'correlated' because in reactionary circles that perfectly legitimate term has taken on a dirty meaning, with reactionaries banging-on about how correlation does not equal causation without really understanding either concept and making an arguably worse error than anyone who just assumes correlation and causation are the same thing: that since correlation does not equal causation, correlation never even implies causation. that the two things never have any overlap or relationship with each other. by this reasoning, if you see two correlated data points, you should actually assume a negative relationship (which is dogmatic essentialism, not science) the only honest answer for why tree ring data stopped being accurate after industrialization, as simon says is the video, 'we don't know'. we only know it was accurate, and then it stopped being accurate. probably, given the timing, we just pumped too much pollution into the environment and the tree growth seasons began reacting to our pollution more than they react to temperature and rainfall we could at least hypothetically test that by, say, sampling trees that aren't being affected by as much pollution against trees that are, but people like yourself block access to that kind of fundamental research funding via your electoral political power, so *shrug*
@@Olivman7 Unfortunately for you the Hockey Stick paper outlines exactly why he did it, it identified the known issue with the divergence issue and followed good methodologies. It is fine, it's documented in the paper why he did what he did and how he did it, allowing for replication. It's not "idealized". It's homogenized. Homogenization of data happens with ALL datasets beyond a certain size and complexity. The results weren't "inconvenient". That's your bias. The results were correct right up until the KNOWN divergence issue made the later data corrupted while the early data was valid.
@@Olivman7 The paper discloses and explains exactly how and why they are processing the data. Tree data is useful because you can get it from all over the world, while other data such as date of first freeze or pollen or ice breakup are restricted to a limited number of locations or times. You can compare other methods that are local in space or time against the tree data to verify that it is giving good numbers. As far as the tree data goes, note that it becomes uncertain at exactly the time that coal soot and smog and new rapid tree cutting spread to the whole world.
@@andywomack3414 That would look less dramatic, but the climate is still warming. 3 degrees would be a disaster, and showing that as a simple 1% increase would arguably be even more misleading.
@@xway2 We may have already crossed the threshold to disaster. And I can understand how showing the true relative magnitude of the change might lead some to think the change no big deal. However it would be a more honest depiction, and drive home the point that a few percent of difference can have huge consequences. Another point about the "hockey-stick" graph is that it shows until about 1900 the temperature of the northern hemisphere was actually declining, a trend that started about 7000 years ago. A study of Arctic Ocean sea-floor sediments indicates that the last ice-free summer occurred about 5,000 years ago. We were heading toward another glaciation, but us pesky humans have prevented that from happening. Look on the bright side of things, I guess.
@@bartroberts1514 Both of you are right! He's right because even the 'complicit' victims are participants in a war. You are right because those who don't fight are used by those who do. To have a war you must have sides, and everyone gets assigned a side. If you are a 'complicit victim' you've just been assigned to the side of the deniers whether you like that or not.
@@jimthain8777 Nobody's "assigned" a side. You pick your side. Either you've picked coal-rolling, pirateering, subsidy-demanding, polluting fossil, or you've picked clean air and food. What to do about it? We know what fossil's doing; it's continuing to extract, export, exploit, and emit. If you want a world where the climate is stable enough for food to continue to grow, where ocean pH is stable enough for the sea life we've known to continue, where the air doesn't fill with wildfire smoke and the coasts aren't always under storm surge, end fossil trade little by little until there is none. 1.7% per month less fossil trade is a good rate.
Interesting post Simon. As I scientist myself in the field electromagnetic field and health, I do see some similarities. I do want to mention that personally I find it extremely difficult not to try to convince people with facts. My talent is not so much on the psychologial side of debating. Cheers
and what would be the alternative ? Convincing people with émotions ? 😅 Like "mother Earth is hurt, can t you feel her pain? Dance and stop using fossils to heal her." 😂
@etienne8110 I really don't know. Scientists are warning for decades by now. The data and evidence is at their side. Humanity obviously is not worthy a future I guess. Perhaps that is the emotional rollercoaster one needs. As stated previously, presenting facts and showing data haven't caused sufficient action. For myself, I'm a scientist with a talent for physics and math, not so much for psychology;-)
@@etienne8110 You might think it's funny, but this is exactly how people are convinced. Marketing does not try to sell you facts, it tries to sell you the positive feeling you get from buying something. Populist politics usually appeals to fear and anger, which allows it to ignore facts. Art and entertainment can have a profound impact on people precisely because of emotions. Humans are inherently emotional beings. This can make us do bad things, but it also makes us care ... for climate change and the future of our planet for example.
@@etienne8110 demonstrate that the oil companies are evil and people will move to stop them. I think that the best argument is pointing out that the ultra rich billionaires and ultra rich fossil fuel companies are conspiring to take our money and destroy our planet to further their own greed. Renewable energy and decarbonisation is the way to fight back against them. I know a few people who've never really cared about global warming and still don't, but who want solar panels and electric cars just to get away from the oil companies who've been making record profits during the cost of living crisis.
Hey Simon! Good video, I really enjoyed it :) I just wanted to point out one thing that distracted me during the video: I think you put the shutter speed of your camera too slow. It makes your movement a bit sluggish and it strains my eyes. Have a good day!
No - scientists don’t push agendas. They push ideas. Ideas are not agendas. Agendas imply certain motivations. Scientific ideas are about exploring reality, not trying to insist what reality should be.
I believe you are getting hung up on semantics for some reason and I'm not sure why. Agenda doesn't imply 'certain' motivations, it implies that there is a motivation of some kind. It seems to have turned into a negative word in common usage, but it is not by definition negative. For example, your agenda as a scientist could be to conduct experiments/tests/observations and report your findings as neutrally and without bias as you can.
@@st3pwise This is why there is peer review and scientific consensus. The infrastructure behind science is specifically designed to remove bias and corruption to the greatest extent possible.
@@st3pwise Sure. But bribing, threatening an corrupting 97% of all climate scientists into "selling" the same science is a little much. That's like corrupting the whole medical health profession into tricking the public that smoking causes lung cancer. Or physicists into tricking the public that gravity exists
Hi Simon, a great video as always - I know you've covered this before (e.g. 'Global Warming: The Decade We Lost Earth' etc) but the message and delivery is so clear, precise and thoughtful, I think this is one of your best videos (nice jumper too!). The study of dendroclimatology reminds me slightly of Helen Czerski talking about Whale earwax taken from the Whale ear canal - and the timescale of the stress events held within the earwax. There's always things to learn (I'm hoping I'll remember the 'dendroclimatology fiasco' more clearly now). Keep up the great work. Best wishes🙂 Michael
The jig is up! Please take a look at Exxon's August 2024 global outlook executive summary. Exxon calls for net zero by 2050. States they're interested in lithium. Many many many more admissions and recommendations more inline with the laws of physics and thermodynamics which of course govern the game. What's needed now is action. Everything required to get started is available today. It's also becoming crystal clear theres gobs and gobs of $$$ to be made. PPM combined greenhouse gases pollution is accelerating. Combined emissions jumped to 57 billion tons annually. Time is not on our side. We've accomplished similar feats in the past. There's more intelligence among countries than at any time. We're connected as never before globally.
If the hackers etc were such good, honest people with the best of intentions (despite being vigilantees), why don't they reveal themselves now? It would help everyone if they come forward and admit they made a mistake, and try and heal some of the harm they caused.
The choice of scientific question depends on what is interesting and important to the scientist and their audiences. The way of answering it is usually still aiming at objectivity and accuracy. So it was with Phil Jones and the UEA. Scientists just aren't expecting to suddenly get such interest and hostility. I think the BBC drama 'The Trick' showed this really well.
What's worrying here is that completely logical mechanism of tree growth seems to now depend on other factors. For tree lover scientist that is really bad news, because unless evidence is provided, it cannot be assumed that other factors could have affected tree rings in the past, meaning the statement that tree rings is a good indicator of climate may not have always been true.
Great video! I was fully engaged from beginning to end. Your presentation, structure and the editing throughout the video were fantastic. Always happy to watch a Simon Clark video!
It remains a constant frustration to me that the news media is so often in direct opposition to the reality of a situation. That we treat these incidents as a catastrophic failure of handling the press, instead of many people asking: Why do we have to constantly manage the press like its a rabid dog? I mean, we all know why, but its depressing that everyone has largely just given up on the news being even remotely trustworthy. [and contrary to many a news article, this has very little to do with social media. The misinformation of social media is overblown, ignores the enormous good that it has done to inform people (See, Gaza.) and is more a symptom of the failing trust in the press, not its cause. (As proven by declining trust going back before social media was even a thing.) Its also a symptom exasperated by the fact that much of the worst examples of misinformation online is being actively signal boosted by the very press that criticises those outlets... Honestly, some slow days it feels like every other story is based on tweets.]
Jonathan Haidt has books on how social media directly caused a massive rise is teen suicide. Giving it a pass is absurd. It is the media most capable of being used deceptively. Facebook was puted for doing social experiments with its feeds years ago. Slightly changing stuff to gauge responses and learn the minutae of human behavior to sell it. Google and facebook pretty much started the data gathering wave that has removed privacy from our lives. We carry spy devices with us everywhere we go that can keep track of our breathing rate to gauge stress levels. Your opinion looks rooted in denial and tech worship.
If you think that graph is bad now factor in the projected 3.1 degree Celsius temperature rise, and the 5 to 7 C and 9 and 11 C that some are projecting between now ant 2100. Even for the 5 to 7 degree Celsius temperature rise consider the time scale we might expect to hit 4 C. At 4 C a number of scientists project the earth will support no more than 800 million people due to the collapse of international trade, conflict mass migration and starvation.
Yes, we are now officially in the sixth mass extinction event. If nothing is done, most of humanity will die along with most of the other species. Yet, we still liars like this guy who probably works for an oil company. They have been lying since 1959 when Edward Teller told them all that climate change would occur if fossil fuels continued to be used. They are disgusting.
It is a fact that Scientists have a tendency to create results that the funding agency or person would like too see. It's not intentional bias but it does exist.
If you expand Simon's 'blurb' immediately under the video (click 'show more') and then scroll down to the bottom of the blurb, the video is there! "Global Warming: the decade we lost the Earth" If you want to have your mind blown/theory confirmed about you-tube comments: When I checked your comment it had 1 reply giving the name of the video. After I checked the blurb to see if the video was mentioned (it is!) I came back to add this reply to the first one.... only the first one was no longer there!? It was posted 1 hour after yours and an hour before this. Can you see it, because i can no longer see it?
The thing that has annoyed me most over the past 40 years of keeping an eye on this subject is not so much the sceptics failed attempts to prove some conspiracy or other but given the huge implications of the scientific findings that have been presented by IPCC over the years is just how overly conservative the whole community has been specifically regarding tipping points - I honestly think we have totally missed any chance we ever had of limiting the impacts and at some point this centaury it will become irrefutable and we can look forward to climate driven conflicts arising from famine floods migration etc all while the tipping points flip into positive feedback loops and no doubt we will throw money at some geoengineering pipe dream and make it even worse.
How about insurance companies refusing to do business in certain states due to the number of disasters. Does that not tell you something? It's okay. You will figure it out when it happens to you personally. It shouldn't be long before it does.
So.... what is the reason behind the divergence? No one knows and understands, but somehow it makes sense to use a "benign trick" to get rid of the divergence but dude trust us its really "benign" like how could we know? I think the public does need an explanation for that however benign the decision seems to be.
As someone who believes the climate science but also doesn't know anything about dendroclimatology...I don't get why it's ok to just swap one data point for another. I get that they were trying to plot temperature, and had reliable temperature measurements, but just because you don't understand "why" the tree ring data doesn't align with expectations, doesn't mean you can just hand wave it away. I'm generally curious why erasing data is fine. Seems like you could easily plot two separate data points and let the conversation happen without obscuring your data source. I know that's asking people to embrace nuance, but hey, I'm an optimisit.
No one waved it away. The data diverged from other proxies and observations, indicating that something that has changed since 1980 (or before) that affected the dataset to make it unreliable. No one erased the data, it's documented that it's not reliable. It's all HIGHLY documented.
@@jaykanta4326 Fair enough. Thanks for the response. Scientific literacy is tough (I'm not great at it), but that's kind of the point, right? Statistics is hard, so when one of the most influential climate graphs shifts data sets MID GRAPH because it became unreliable, it doesn't communicate well. Unreliable data IS significant data. Don't remove it from the X-axis because you don't know why it's not moving the way you think it should. Add an asterisk. Change the color. Add more data points (like temperature), but don't take a data point off because you can't explain why it's not reliable anymore. Does that make sense, or am I still missing the point?
I think the key point is that the graph wasn't designed for twitter, or a thumbnail, it was designed for an academic paper - with a lot of detail explaining how the plot was made and why certain decisions were made. The graph went "viral" out of its original context because of how powerful it is, but claiming that it's misleading ignores the rest of the paper.
Lot's of things are measured differently than in the past. A well known example is radioactivity. Since 1945 we need to correct for all the radioactive stuff in the air and materials due to all the nuclear bombs we have exploded in war and testing. Something that has worked well for centuries might no longer work because of changes we understand or don't understand. But if we have many ways to measure something, than we can see if one of them is behaving oddly and argue it should no longer be trusted.
The scientific method is not unbiased. That is not and never was it's purpose. It's purpose is to remove bias _over time,_ by replacing older knowledge with newer knowledge as we gain it. That time component is absolutely critical - it is what allows scientists to discover and produce knowledge while still acknowledging that they're you know... human. Most of the problem with modern science is not the scientists or the scientific method, it's the science reporting. The stuff average people (and in particular, voters and the politicians they elect) get to see. You simply can't compress a 37-page paper into a single headline or even a three-paragraph article without losing immense amounts of information and nuance, never mind the propensity for monetary influence - buying a scientist can get you an intentionally-biased research paper to be sure, but as noted above the scientific method corrects for that (eventually). Buying a science _reporter_ on the other hand doesn't really get a correction. The domain of public knowledge doesn't have the same sort of replacement mechanism that functions to correct scientific knowledge, even with the dimension of time included. Once a narrative becomes "popular" it becomes very hard to change, regardless of what the evidence suggests.
Climategate, pizzagate, gamergate. Conspiracy theorists need to stop making -gates and start browsing researchgate
Well, at least it makes it east to spot when something is a conspiracy theroy 😆
@somerandomguy___ true
Its called "gate", like Watergate, because its a Gate from one worldview (the naive) to another (the realistic; that money & corruption rules, not truth & honor etc).
@@st3pwise not entirely true but I know what you mean. Still doesn't make any of the ones I listed any less insane
@@FeeshUnofficialwhats not true? Tell me the truth.
This illustrates why context matters. Also why having background knowledge of the subject matter is important. Domain-specific communication can easily be misinterpreted (or misrepresented) by people unfamiliar with the technical details.
Scientists: We have overwhelming evidence that human activity is the driving force behind the ongoing climate catastrophe
Fossil fuel companies: They're right, we've known about it for decades but supressed that evidence and ran enormous disinfo campaigns
Deniers: WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE
Great video. Exxon also calculated the rise in temperatures similar to climate scientists. The right never brings up the Exxon calculation.
Exxon pays bad scientists to lie for them. This was proven when their marketing person was told that he was speaking to a Saudi Arabian billionaire who he was trying to impress. In reality, Exxon and the other major oil companies have known about climate change caused by fossil fuel use since 1959. Edward Teller, a physicist who worked with J Robert Oppenheimer held a meeting with all of the head of the major oil companies. A memo from 1972 was discovered in which Exxon stated that they knew that climate change would occur because of fossil fuel use. I am just glad that I have the intelligence to check the science in the peer reviewed science journals instead of believing any lie that anyone tells me. You should try it some time. Your eyes will be opened.
@@stevesmith-sb2df yes - and I have a copy of the report from the EXXON science unit tasked with making an appraisal of the science by the board.
Many of the denier scientists were the same individuals who denied the smoking/cancer link in the 50s/60s.
That "time" sewed in the populous enough doubt to ignore solid science and now we have to live with the consequences. It is also important to acknowledge that climate scientists paid by the Oil and Gas companies to find data that could be used to convince us that the warming was not caused by fossil fuels in what I consider a criminal act.
The climate change denialism in the world is awful
Yes, but I don't get Lord Monkton videos anymore.
It is curious that this valid comment is so near the bottom. It's almost as if the climate change deniers are voting it down and their claims that they hate censorship is another lie.
@@Stupidityindex Lord Monkton is fool that doesn't even acknowledge the slow long term increase in Solar irradiance.
The fact is that the hockeystick pattern has been recovered by over 60 independent studies using different datasets.
It's not even that complicated to check (crudely, at least). When the leak came out, I was skeptical about climate change and read through the emails. Based on the emails I read, it seemed like the scientists were having trouble replicating the hockey stick graph after 1999, mostly because of the information technology they were using. So I downloaded the NOAA global surface temperature data from 1850 to 2009 and plotted the data. Turns out my simple graph looked pretty much exactly like the (end of) the hockey stick graph I'd seen everywhere. I didn't have any of the long term paleo data, but the difference between the 1800s and now was clear. So much for fun conspiracies.
If your intention is to find patterns in datasets you can easily find infinitely many.
You can also find infinitely many to find the opposite conclusion.
This is why a good test for pseudoscience is if what they are doing is recovering patterns in datasets. If you start with the conclusion and go looking for evidence to support it, you are not doing science.
@@darkwingscooter9637 Knock it off, denialist.
@@darkwingscooter9637 So how come skeptics have also recovered a hockey stick shape?
@@QT5656 Because if you torture data long enough you can recover any shape you like.
That's why it's so crucial that the evidence you should be looking is that the scientists are not STARTING with the hockey-stick shape before finding it in the data.
The climategate leaks falsify that hypothesis. That's why it's devastating. The fact that the scientists are trying to prove a theory by statistical manipulation of data-set makes it pseudoscience.
In any other (well regarded) discipline that kind of behaviour would be career ending. This is how you know that AGW climatology is not proper science. A consensus among experts in a pseudoscientific discipline is utterly irrelevant. Only pseudoscientists would appeal to consensus in the first place.
It's always interesting to see how rigorous some people are with trying to discredit claims they don't like Vs the speed in which they believe statements they do like.
True of everyone (though more evident in right wing leaders like Trump and his followers).
Spot on.
It's interesting but should be expected. Especially when the the actions that should be taken based on the data are not appealing.
I mean, the misinformation surrounding the topic of climate change is not exactly unprecedented. The same type of people who try to decry climate science is the exactly the same type of people who decried the harmful effects of tobacco, lead fuel and pesticides in the past. This level of misinformation is what happenes when there are rich people who stand to lose a lot of money if the science is taken as seriously as it should be. It's happened multiple times before and it disappoints me to no end that we still haven't learned those bloody lessons.
Yes, if they told the truth, they wouldn't make as much money. So, they lie and coverup. That has been proven.
I don’t work as a scientist but more than half of my emails can easily be taken out of context and create global controversy… if anyone actually cared. I expect that is the case for most people who actually have jobs that matter. If someone wants to make a point if these its ridiculously easy… again who cares.
This video touches on a topic that I think deserves more coverage: the fact that many people, especially people without a scientific background, tend to conflate mistrust and "healthy" skepticism.
Scientists are people and therefore make mistakes and present their work in a manner meant to persuade. Therefore, you should always question and check their work, under the presumption that any errors are good faith mistakes and not born out of ill intent.
Mistrust should be reserved for malicious actors only. I place nearly all of the blame for this mischaracterization of the scientific community on the shoulders of mainstream media.
Not only scientists use the word "trick" for clever problem-solving - engineers do it, too! Maybe that's why I never understood where all the upset over this "nature trick" came from (I'm an electrical engineer).
And 'One weird trick' ads...
If you are not informed or have a specific mindset, every word can twist its meaning, especially if being framed in a certain way.
@@thirdeye4654 The mindset is the more important factor (otherwise you would try to get informed before jumping to conclusions).
"Trick" isn't problematic in an engineering context. Scientists. however, shouldn't be in the business of engineering solutions. Lesson 1 of day 1 of science 101 is to not start from a theory and work back to the data, which is what AGW climatologists are admitting to.
What they were admitting to was pseudoscience. Plain and simple.
@@darkwingscooter9637 "What they were admitting to was pseudoscience. Plain and simple."
You're not educated in science or methodologies. You have no credible evidence for this stupid claim.
a lie will spread halfway around the world before the truth gets it's shoes on...
How does a guy on TH-cam provide a clearer explanation with visual learning systems to these events that shaped our history and will shape our future?
This is an example of science communication!
"Reported first in The Telegraph" - and I could have stopped watching. Their next big win was Brexit.
13:00 such an amazingly good point: The alleged "proof" for a climate conspiracy proves that there was no conspiratorial behaviour whatsoever
"Climate Deniers hate this one simple trick"....
@13:24, you show the text "No 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."
I note with interest that there was NO mention of our REPTILIAN overlords.
Very good video!
Thank you for explaining what "hide the decline" was referring to.
Lovely video, but unfortunately the people who need to watch it the most won't...
I still link them whatever chance I get
Always love TH-cam putting the warning under Simon's video like he's some crackpot conspiracy theorist
it's actually an automated message put on all videos that talk about climate change or global warming. ironically, you're the one engaging in conspiratorial thinking
It's a automated banner whenever YT detects climate change as a topic in these videos.
There is no human control here, why do people pretend there is?
@@critiqueofthegothgfthe issue with the automated warning is that it puts the same "label" on scientists' videos and conspirationnists' ones.
For one of the richest companies on Earth, this is quite lame and lazy.
As if a Russian hacker is a neutral source. Ha.
Russian? He's probably American.
Yeah I don't trust that "interview" for a second.
The quality of your videos is getting even better with the new studio.
Missing from your excellent recital of the history, that there were 3 tranches of stolen emails released, and they were released in order by the hacker who filtered the contents to emphasize the most confusing or wrong-sounding contents first in the initial release, then whatever suspect contents remained, later, then most of the rest. The thief worked very hard to create a false picture.
Hah. You got me. I expected the sponsor to be Ground News, not Brilliant.
There are two climate breakdown belief camps
- those that can see the evidence of climate change (scientists, economists, the insurance industry, doctors, farmers, land managers (especially along coastal areas subject to coastal erosion), meteorologists, those living in hazard prone areas etc)
- those that "deny" climate change (those that depend on dirty industries to earn a living, those making s****loads of money from dirty industries, those that profit from disaster recovery, politicians whose funding comes from dirty businesses or people making s****loads of money from dirty businesses etc)
It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it - Upton Sinclair
@@CitiesForTheFuture2030 Rubbish, there is plenty of crossover between the two camps you describe. Pigeonholing is so lazy, and inaccurate.
@urbanspaceman7183 Um, I don't think so. The world has been talking about climate change officially for at least 50 years now - it's even taught in schools... to primary school kids. The last couple of years has seen a major escalation of extreme weather events & other climate disasters. So much so that our mental health is being affected (it even has a name - climate anxiety). Climate change is no longer "subtle" - too many things are going wrong now and it's being covered 24/7 by the global news media. If you're thinking about some isolated tribes in the middle of a jungle somewhere, chances are they've noticed it too. Nope, everyone "knows" about climate change because everybody everywhere has seen it (no place is safe from the impacts) or worse, lived through it. If anyone says climate change isn't a thing, they're lying (even to themselves) for one reason or another.
Absolutely. Insurance companies moving out of certain states should be a good indicator to anyone with half a brain.
@@DiNY-u9k Insurance agencies aren't playing a long-term game. They are still all about short-term profitability. They will NEVER protect the public from something.
@@jaykanta4326If you want to win when gambling, you don't play against a rigged game.
The chapter Simon recommends towards the end ("Tricks," Hockey Sticks, and the Myth of Natural lnscription: How the Visual Rhetoric of Climategate Conflated Climate with Character) can be downloaded together with the entire book for free at the last source link, if you have a university account. Can recommend!
Valued your video.
Picky but significant and consequential point.
This post related to 19:43.
Scientists are human, yes.
The whole purpose of the scientific method is to weed out human bias and human imperfection of experimentation and interpretation.
From my experience working in science labs, the vulnerability to personal intellectual bias (as distinct from personal emotional bias), while existent, is on many issues less, not the same, as the general public. By some very significant margin. This comes from the mind training and natural rational orientated minds and personalities of scientists. They appreciate the 'search for truth'. So their level of objectivity on matters of concern to science is generally distinctly higher as individuals, than most others. They actually 'do their research' for a start and have a culture to consider and argue to good purpose, differences of view and interpretation on data. That said, not infallible. And there is considerable individual difference.
I see a greater source of bias upon scientists is from the increasing academic and university environment pressures upon research scientists and academics. Eg level of funding, push to publish x papers to progress careers, etc, etc. And also the social and public media and increasing attacks on science generally, and specific scientists. Pressures they feel themselves and struggle with. They also have partners, kids, mortgages like everyone else!
Good work Simon Appreciated highly your unpacking of this issue. Really good. Thanks Cameron.
Your comment fits with my experience as a published scientist that has worked at universities in both the UK and Australia.
I spent the whole video thinking almost every sentence was a segway to an add for Ground News, or Data Visualisations courses on Brilliant.
And then came the ad. 😂
There was a kind of segue. A Segway would be unlikely.
I often ask myselfz what came first? the video concept or the ad?
Unfortunately, honest endeavour is too often ineffective against a self-serving cabal of interests who think they're doing nicely and in any event, believe their ill-gotten gains will somehow inure them against the effects of their own actions.
"communist vegetarian overlords" lmaoooo that's mee frfr.
If only that was true man
World would be a better olace
Some scientists claim that plant stomata numbers on leaves are a better indicator of past and present CO2 levels.
Paleoclimatologists use many proxies. Plant's stomates can depend upon various factors, such as humidity.
Google Scholar shows thousands of new climatology papers a month. The subject goes back two centuries. The diversity of conciliant datasets exceeds ten thousand. What some scientists claim to be better pales compared to how much is shown by the sum of all data.
Have you taken inspiration from BobbyBrocoli in your editing style? Your timeline and image display techniques as well as some graphics seem really reminiscent (not calling you out, inspiration is fine)
I think it’s a particular application which formats things like that. BobbyBroccoli is a pretty famous example (and he makes great videos). I’ve also seen several other creators using a similar style
it's similar but if you watch several of his older videos like 'the decade we lost earth' or 'the century we saved earth', he's been using the style for quite a while. it's awesome
People mostly made fun of the shape of the hockeystick graph as if no serious graph ever showed sudden exponential developement, ever. The oughts were wild.
Good explanation. I would link this video to people who talk about “climate gate” but we all know they wouldn’t watch it…..
Oooh, that Bobby Broccoli styling! I don't mind this pivot.
Simon Spinach
The Earth is hollow, and the climate goblins inside the Earth are faking climate change #goblinchange
Could you please send me a nice gobliness?
This was one of your best videos yet. Great infographs, informative, engaging.
My supervisor was involved in the leak from the CRU, I've read about it before but I apreciate learning abut it in greater detail through your content!
Wow. Just... wow. Why is our reality so depressing...
Because greed and a profit seeking attitude above all else by the wealthy ruling elites and big businesses.
Very well explained. Send this to Tom Nelson!
He'll just pretend it doesn't exist.
Restating the lie upfront is a really bad way to convince people they've been lied to. There's research on this.
Cook's method is to state what is true, and why we know it; to label as false the false statement to introduce it, then state it, then show why we know it to be false; finally, to repeat the truth and a second reason we know it to be true.
Is this a bobby broccoli inspired animation?
Wow! That is so amazing. I just saw the terrible flooding in Spain. Before that, I saw that the shoreline in England is washing away. Before that, I saw the results of Hurricane Helene. It went all the way up to the Mountains of North Carolina and destroyed several towns. Right now, forest fires are burning in Western Canada, the Western United States and on the East Coast of the United States. Boy do we have an awful lot of bad weather lately. I know that you don't want me to use the word climate.
Maybe when you see that farms are no longer productive and you have no food, then you might understand what is really going on. Personally, I'm waiting for the collapse of the Thwaites Glacier that scientists have termed the Doomsday Glacier. I don't know how old you are but I am willing to bet that you die in the next few years because of the weather, not the climate.
Keep up the good work. Bring out that one guy from 1999. Don't speak of the numerous peer reviewed journal papers that all speak of the fact that the poles are warming exponentially, faster than science previously believed they would. It is amazing to me to see that people are still lying about climate catastrophe, I mean the weather.
You know that the shorelines of the UK have been washing away since literally the formation of the Islands right? They have also been DEPOSITING since the formation of the islands.... The way the currents work in and around the UK what is washed away at say Ravenscar in the North East of England is deposited further south....
Climate is NOT changing erosion and deposition patterns in the UK *at the moment*. It may do in the future, with future sea level rise, but it is not the case at this moment.
@@alganhar1 Shorelines are also washing away in many places. Cities are receding by an inch a year all over the world because most were built near the water. At the same time, rivers all over the world are drying up. Some are so low that shipping has been halted. I suggest that you start studying peer reviewed science journals to learn the truth. You have bought the lie and it will kill you very soon. We are officially in the sixth mass extinction event and it is increasing exponentially instead of incrementally. None of us have long. They speak of decades but I am certain that it will happen within the next two years, maybe only one year.
All of the people talking about "Bobby Brocolli style" not knowing Bobby Broccoli's style is openly aping Jon Bois is funny.
My boss is one of the people involved, thanks for covering this follow-up
60 MB leak, lol that seems so tiny compared to leaks these days
I guess those mails didn't have any attachments stored on that server.
True, but if it's all text with a few simple graphs in between, then it's A LOT to read.
Using 'trick' always seemed innocuous to me. Is a footballer being dishonest by scoring three goals in a match - a hat-trick? But the use of 'hide' was a poor choice of words. People talking to each other who understand the context of the words they're using will often be less than fastidious about the specific words they use, because they both know the background and can infer the genuine meaning. So I get it. But all the same, the word 'hide' was a horrible choice.
Good video but It’s stupid to call it an agenda. A message, a narrative, sure. But people pretty much use agenda to mean political agenda, which is something only the right wing not science based argument was doing here. The scientists “agenda” was just to accurately communicate the best scientific consensus. You could maybe argue that interpreting that we should do something about it is an agenda, but again the science directly says that it is a major threat to human life so I guess valuing human life counts as an agenda they might have pushed but I guess I thought that was supposed to be assumed for all people? You don’t have to validate every unfair talking point you hear just because there’s a way to argue it’s “technically not wrong” just to be “fair and balanced” or whatever
I kind of agree, but I would be even less dramatic and call it a "theory" or a "hypothesis". Then there might be a narrative behind the hypothesis, but it is generally not the case.
@@ehjapsyarsorry, but then you would be using both "theory" or "hypothesis" very wrongly. Narratives are not theories neither hypothesis.
Btw, I entirely agree with OP
@@FelipeKana1 most graphs/figures are designed to show that data supports a model or hypothesis (which often fit in a theory). This is the case in the graph which is being discussed in this video. The authors have an hypothesis that there is a dramatic change in climate caused by human activity, and the graph attempts to show data supporting it. This is one of the basic methods in science: formulate hypotheses and test them against data.
One could argue that formulating hypotheses implies having an agenda, narrative, or message, but I disagree.
If your 'Base Foundation' is flawed then prepare, for 'all' u have been told will collapse ! Paris Accord was fraud. Carbon Graphs enhanced at certain time of millenia to have dramatic effect on public. Human warming 0.004% Climate change is Solar Driven and 12.000yr cycle right on time. Magnetic Poles B-lining for the usual spot below the bay of bengal since the Carrington event 1859. Earth Flip as usual believed to be up also to 104 degrees followed days later by Our Suns Micro-Nova ! How Long?...well were past the 'Inflextion Pt'. 2 solar cycles ?...NO !!! less !
A nice nuanced video on the human bias that's present in all fields, including science, but how this is still the best way that we have to interpret the data and better understand the world around us.
yas
Someone has been watching Bobby Broccoli :D
(it's a great style, imitation is flattery and all that)
That is such bad wording.
They could have used: To fix the data divergence.
Are you always thinking about how to phrase an email to your peers so that if it gets taken out of context a few years down the line it won't sound wrong?
It's pretty common wording, at work sometimes I'll write a correct but quick fix for a problem, these are often called a "fudge". Taken out of context a paper could try to imply that me "fudging" things means I made up data when any real due diligence on the work would reveal that it's correct, just could be written more elegantly.
There will always be someone looking to twist your words
@@JanB1605 Yes, particularly since climate gate. You should always assume that your e-mail could get hacked or accidentally forwarded. The latter has happened to me several times. Over ten years ago I was explaining a very sensitive situation to a colleague and six months later they used the e-mail to reply to me about something else and copied in the person the first mail was about. Luckily my wording had been very magnanimous and the other person had to accept that my description of the situation was fair.
@@QT5656 "Yes, particularly since climate gate. You should always assume that your e-mail could get hacked or accidentally forwarded."
This was in 1999...
@DirtyPoul I'm old. I've been using e-mail since 1997.... 😬
I strongly suspect that you and the scientists who published this hockey stick are correct that tree ring data provide an accurate determination of past temperatures. However, it would be nice to have an explanation of why we can trust the tree ring data from before the blade of stick, whereas the tree ring sizes after are not correlated with global temperatures. My guess is that data from ice cores and peat cores and other methods correlate well with the pre-blade tree ring data. Please provide this rationale. Hiding the "decline" (i.e. the lack of correlation) seems like a bad decision. Why not just use other data to show past temperatures, or show a plot of past temperatures based on multiple techniques?
th-cam.com/video/dc8A6SIJijs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=dxERjFqwyJHnhqnA
Yeah, I don't like the Simon is putting scare quotes around "hiding" the decline in that context. It's still a form of massaging data, presenting an idealized version of the data that matches the conclusion you think it already points to. It's condescending and untrustworthy behavior, that's unfortunately common in academia.
It's valid to say that other indicators point at climate change being real, but then we should point at those indicators, even when they're noisy, not just go "it's probably fine" when one indicator gives inconvenient results.
yes; tree ring data prior to industrialization accurately predicts the same results you would see from, say, ice core data. you use the term 'correlated', but the relationship is much stronger than that. you can do a blind test of tree ring data and it will match blind tests of ice core data (and other data)
i suspect you are intentionally using the word 'correlated' because in reactionary circles that perfectly legitimate term has taken on a dirty meaning, with reactionaries banging-on about how correlation does not equal causation without really understanding either concept and making an arguably worse error than anyone who just assumes correlation and causation are the same thing: that since correlation does not equal causation, correlation never even implies causation. that the two things never have any overlap or relationship with each other. by this reasoning, if you see two correlated data points, you should actually assume a negative relationship (which is dogmatic essentialism, not science)
the only honest answer for why tree ring data stopped being accurate after industrialization, as simon says is the video, 'we don't know'. we only know it was accurate, and then it stopped being accurate. probably, given the timing, we just pumped too much pollution into the environment and the tree growth seasons began reacting to our pollution more than they react to temperature and rainfall
we could at least hypothetically test that by, say, sampling trees that aren't being affected by as much pollution against trees that are, but people like yourself block access to that kind of fundamental research funding via your electoral political power, so *shrug*
@@Olivman7 Unfortunately for you the Hockey Stick paper outlines exactly why he did it, it identified the known issue with the divergence issue and followed good methodologies.
It is fine, it's documented in the paper why he did what he did and how he did it, allowing for replication.
It's not "idealized". It's homogenized. Homogenization of data happens with ALL datasets beyond a certain size and complexity.
The results weren't "inconvenient". That's your bias. The results were correct right up until the KNOWN divergence issue made the later data corrupted while the early data was valid.
@@Olivman7 The paper discloses and explains exactly how and why they are processing the data. Tree data is useful because you can get it from all over the world, while other data such as date of first freeze or pollen or ice breakup are restricted to a limited number of locations or times. You can compare other methods that are local in space or time against the tree data to verify that it is giving good numbers.
As far as the tree data goes, note that it becomes uncertain at exactly the time that coal soot and smog and new rapid tree cutting spread to the whole world.
This is tremendous, Simon. Nice work! I feel like 19:26 is the heart of the Kuhn-Popper debate about what science is (in theory versus in practice).
Plotting data is an art. Especially if you re trying to show real facts that people haven't thought abt before.
The hockey-stick graph is vertically exaggerated. I'd like to see it on a graph with O Kelvin as the base value.
@@andywomack3414 That would look less dramatic, but the climate is still warming. 3 degrees would be a disaster, and showing that as a simple 1% increase would arguably be even more misleading.
@@xway2 We may have already crossed the threshold to disaster. And I can understand how showing the true relative magnitude of the change might lead some to think the change no big deal.
However it would be a more honest depiction, and drive home the point that a few percent of difference can have huge consequences.
Another point about the "hockey-stick" graph is that it shows until about 1900 the temperature of the northern hemisphere was actually declining, a trend that started about 7000 years ago.
A study of Arctic Ocean sea-floor sediments indicates that the last ice-free summer occurred about 5,000 years ago.
We were heading toward another glaciation, but us pesky humans have prevented that from happening.
Look on the bright side of things, I guess.
We are all participants in an information war. 😐
You're only a participant if you take action to fight it; otherwise you're just another complicit victim.
@@bartroberts1514
Both of you are right!
He's right because even the 'complicit' victims are participants in a war.
You are right because those who don't fight are used by those who do.
To have a war you must have sides, and everyone gets assigned a side.
If you are a 'complicit victim' you've just been assigned to the side of the deniers whether you like that or not.
Teaming up is key. Please listen to Drilled by Amy Westervelt and look up theDisproof and Ceist8.
@@jimthain8777 Nobody's "assigned" a side.
You pick your side.
Either you've picked coal-rolling, pirateering, subsidy-demanding, polluting fossil, or you've picked clean air and food.
What to do about it?
We know what fossil's doing; it's continuing to extract, export, exploit, and emit.
If you want a world where the climate is stable enough for food to continue to grow, where ocean pH is stable enough for the sea life we've known to continue, where the air doesn't fill with wildfire smoke and the coasts aren't always under storm surge, end fossil trade little by little until there is none. 1.7% per month less fossil trade is a good rate.
A comment for the algorithm
Great video, not only the topic itself, but also how you presented it (graphics and such), and the way you narrated it.
Interesting post Simon. As I scientist myself in the field electromagnetic field and health, I do see some similarities. I do want to mention that personally I find it extremely difficult not to try to convince people with facts. My talent is not so much on the psychologial side of debating. Cheers
and what would be the alternative ? Convincing people with émotions ? 😅
Like "mother Earth is hurt, can t you feel her pain? Dance and stop using fossils to heal her." 😂
@etienne8110 I really don't know. Scientists are warning for decades by now. The data and evidence is at their side. Humanity obviously is not worthy a future I guess. Perhaps that is the emotional rollercoaster one needs.
As stated previously, presenting facts and showing data haven't caused sufficient action.
For myself, I'm a scientist with a talent for physics and math, not so much for psychology;-)
@@etienne8110 You might think it's funny, but this is exactly how people are convinced.
Marketing does not try to sell you facts, it tries to sell you the positive feeling you get from buying something. Populist politics usually appeals to fear and anger, which allows it to ignore facts. Art and entertainment can have a profound impact on people precisely because of emotions.
Humans are inherently emotional beings. This can make us do bad things, but it also makes us care ... for climate change and the future of our planet for example.
@@etienne8110 demonstrate that the oil companies are evil and people will move to stop them.
I think that the best argument is pointing out that the ultra rich billionaires and ultra rich fossil fuel companies are conspiring to take our money and destroy our planet to further their own greed. Renewable energy and decarbonisation is the way to fight back against them.
I know a few people who've never really cared about global warming and still don't, but who want solar panels and electric cars just to get away from the oil companies who've been making record profits during the cost of living crisis.
@S7hadow if fear and anger were working, people would be full on board with ecology to prevent clilmate disaster ..
Top quality analysis as per usual.
Hey Simon! Good video, I really enjoyed it :) I just wanted to point out one thing that distracted me during the video: I think you put the shutter speed of your camera too slow. It makes your movement a bit sluggish and it strains my eyes. Have a good day!
No - scientists don’t push agendas. They push ideas. Ideas are not agendas. Agendas imply certain motivations. Scientific ideas are about exploring reality, not trying to insist what reality should be.
Scientists are people, like everyone else, and equally susceptible to bribes, threats and general corruption...like everyone else.
I believe you are getting hung up on semantics for some reason and I'm not sure why.
Agenda doesn't imply 'certain' motivations, it implies that there is a motivation of some kind. It seems to have turned into a negative word in common usage, but it is not by definition negative. For example, your agenda as a scientist could be to conduct experiments/tests/observations and report your findings as neutrally and without bias as you can.
@@st3pwise This is why there is peer review and scientific consensus. The infrastructure behind science is specifically designed to remove bias and corruption to the greatest extent possible.
@@st3pwise Sure. But bribing, threatening an corrupting 97% of all climate scientists into "selling" the same science is a little much. That's like corrupting the whole medical health profession into tricking the public that smoking causes lung cancer. Or physicists into tricking the public that gravity exists
@st3pwise
You could also be susceptible to bribes and corruption.... how do we know you arent being paid by fossil fuel industries?
1:48 I went back to this to make sure I didn't miss a Walking Dead Carl meme here.
Really great video. It's great to have a succinct history and analysis all in the same place.
The video society needs.
Hi Simon,
a great video as always - I know you've covered this before (e.g. 'Global Warming: The Decade We Lost Earth' etc) but the message and delivery is so clear, precise and thoughtful, I think this is one of your best videos (nice jumper too!). The study of dendroclimatology reminds me slightly of Helen Czerski talking about Whale earwax taken from the Whale ear canal - and the timescale of the stress events held within the earwax. There's always things to learn (I'm hoping I'll remember the 'dendroclimatology fiasco' more clearly now).
Keep up the great work. Best wishes🙂
Michael
The motion graphics, e.g., at 9:28, 17:29 and 20:33, are dazzling. (And the content is _very_ engaging as well.)
Yeah really feels like professional documentary type stuff!
Finally! The video you promised years ago... :)
The jig is up! Please take a look at Exxon's August 2024 global outlook executive summary. Exxon calls for net zero by 2050. States they're interested in lithium. Many many many more admissions and recommendations more inline with the laws of physics and thermodynamics which of course govern the game. What's needed now is action. Everything required to get started is available today. It's also becoming crystal clear theres gobs and gobs of $$$ to be made. PPM combined greenhouse gases pollution is accelerating. Combined emissions jumped to 57 billion tons annually. Time is not on our side. We've accomplished similar feats in the past. There's more intelligence among countries than at any time. We're connected as never before globally.
the jig😬😬😬😬
Excellent summary. Thank you again.
If the hackers etc were such good, honest people with the best of intentions (despite being vigilantees), why don't they reveal themselves now? It would help everyone if they come forward and admit they made a mistake, and try and heal some of the harm they caused.
The hacker released Michael Mann's data. Isn't that a good thing?
@@bobo-r5k6x No idea what you are talking about.
@@jitteryjet7525 The release of Mann's data is sufficient justification for the hack.
@@bobo-r5k6x Mann's data was always available.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 It was released by the Climategate hacker in 2009. It was definitely an ethically defensible hack in that regard.
The choice of scientific question depends on what is interesting and important to the scientist and their audiences. The way of answering it is usually still aiming at objectivity and accuracy. So it was with Phil Jones and the UEA. Scientists just aren't expecting to suddenly get such interest and hostility. I think the BBC drama 'The Trick' showed this really well.
The timeline is done really interestingly! How did you achieve this (or was it Luke, the editor)?
Great video, good work! 👍👍👍
What's worrying here is that completely logical mechanism of tree growth seems to now depend on other factors. For tree lover scientist that is really bad news, because unless evidence is provided, it cannot be assumed that other factors could have affected tree rings in the past, meaning the statement that tree rings is a good indicator of climate may not have always been true.
Which is why we use other proxies as validation for tree rings, which is how we know about the divergence problem.
Except it can't be assumed that they are unrelaible. We have used other things to validate their reliability.
Thanks Simon! Please keep up the excellent work!
Paleoclimate is such a raw name for a scientific field
Great video! I was fully engaged from beginning to end. Your presentation, structure and the editing throughout the video were fantastic. Always happy to watch a Simon Clark video!
It remains a constant frustration to me that the news media is so often in direct opposition to the reality of a situation. That we treat these incidents as a catastrophic failure of handling the press, instead of many people asking: Why do we have to constantly manage the press like its a rabid dog? I mean, we all know why, but its depressing that everyone has largely just given up on the news being even remotely trustworthy.
[and contrary to many a news article, this has very little to do with social media. The misinformation of social media is overblown, ignores the enormous good that it has done to inform people (See, Gaza.) and is more a symptom of the failing trust in the press, not its cause. (As proven by declining trust going back before social media was even a thing.)
Its also a symptom exasperated by the fact that much of the worst examples of misinformation online is being actively signal boosted by the very press that criticises those outlets... Honestly, some slow days it feels like every other story is based on tweets.]
Media=Society => liking their own lifestyle today. It is not hard-denial they share. "We" just flatten the risks to the thinnest.
Jonathan Haidt has books on how social media directly caused a massive rise is teen suicide. Giving it a pass is absurd. It is the media most capable of being used deceptively. Facebook was puted for doing social experiments with its feeds years ago. Slightly changing stuff to gauge responses and learn the minutae of human behavior to sell it. Google and facebook pretty much started the data gathering wave that has removed privacy from our lives. We carry spy devices with us everywhere we go that can keep track of our breathing rate to gauge stress levels. Your opinion looks rooted in denial and tech worship.
Literally all news outlets and media is bought and in rhe pockets of the rich, what do you expect
@@HoboGardenerBenputed isnt a word
@@HoboGardenerBen Real scientists publish peer-reviewed research. Haidt is a propagandist and grifter.
I guess you could call this the climate deniers playbook
The Right - Can science support our perspective? Not in a really convincing way. Hum, I know, let's discredit science and scientists. Perfect.
If you think that graph is bad now factor in the projected 3.1 degree Celsius temperature rise, and the 5 to 7 C and 9 and 11 C that some are projecting between now ant 2100.
Even for the 5 to 7 degree Celsius temperature rise consider the time scale we might expect to hit 4 C.
At 4 C a number of scientists project the earth will support no more than 800 million people due to the collapse of international trade, conflict mass migration and starvation.
Yes, we are now officially in the sixth mass extinction event. If nothing is done, most of humanity will die along with most of the other species. Yet, we still liars like this guy who probably works for an oil company. They have been lying since 1959 when Edward Teller told them all that climate change would occur if fossil fuels continued to be used. They are disgusting.
And that's an average. Some places will be much hotter. It will make weather even more unpredictable which threatens crops and infrastructure.
There are soooooo many 'tricks' in particle physics too! How else would anyone get 10 data points from 140 inverse femtobarns?
love this new graphics Simon! very intuitive and engaging
Why am I not surprised the Russians were involved...
It is a fact that Scientists have a tendency to create results that the funding agency or person would like too see. It's not intentional bias but it does exist.
Great video. But could you please link to the video mentioned at 14.30? Couldn't find it.
Should be this one: Global Warming: The Decade We Lost Earth
th-cam.com/video/hvGQMZFP9IA/w-d-xo.html
If you expand Simon's 'blurb' immediately under the video (click 'show more') and then scroll down to the bottom of the blurb, the video is there! "Global Warming: the decade we lost the Earth"
If you want to have your mind blown/theory confirmed about you-tube comments: When I checked your comment it had 1 reply giving the name of the video. After I checked the blurb to see if the video was mentioned (it is!) I came back to add this reply to the first one.... only the first one was no longer there!? It was posted 1 hour after yours and an hour before this. Can you see it, because i can no longer see it?
@@MrAuswest Yes, I see it.Thanks!
3:10 still an awesome visual effect. Just wanted to let you know
The timeline is so well made!!!
Totally, I wonder what tool he used ^^
Oooh I’ve been waiting for this one
Despite the video being sponsored and patreon supported, i had to sit through 4 publicity breaks, not sure you are aware of this
The thing that has annoyed me most over the past 40 years of keeping an eye on this subject is not so much the sceptics failed attempts to prove some conspiracy or other but given the huge implications of the scientific findings that have been presented by IPCC over the years is just how overly conservative the whole community has been specifically regarding tipping points - I honestly think we have totally missed any chance we ever had of limiting the impacts and at some point this centaury it will become irrefutable and we can look forward to climate driven conflicts arising from famine floods migration etc all while the tipping points flip into positive feedback loops and no doubt we will throw money at some geoengineering pipe dream and make it even worse.
How about insurance companies refusing to do business in certain states due to the number of disasters. Does that not tell you something? It's okay. You will figure it out when it happens to you personally. It shouldn't be long before it does.
Thanks for being such a cool guy my geography teacher plays all of your videos every second Friday a month
One of your best videos! Cheers Simon.
I struggle to find a “hockey stick” t-shirt online. Would love to buy this.
Buy climate town's t shirt
Or become part of Scientist Rebellion, they use the graph in their logo!
"Hide the decline" - the video? Yes. Called it. That was such a bad episode. Good to keep the information out there.
So.... what is the reason behind the divergence? No one knows and understands, but somehow it makes sense to use a "benign trick" to get rid of the divergence but dude trust us its really "benign" like how could we know?
I think the public does need an explanation for that however benign the decision seems to be.
As someone who believes the climate science but also doesn't know anything about dendroclimatology...I don't get why it's ok to just swap one data point for another. I get that they were trying to plot temperature, and had reliable temperature measurements, but just because you don't understand "why" the tree ring data doesn't align with expectations, doesn't mean you can just hand wave it away. I'm generally curious why erasing data is fine. Seems like you could easily plot two separate data points and let the conversation happen without obscuring your data source. I know that's asking people to embrace nuance, but hey, I'm an optimisit.
No one waved it away. The data diverged from other proxies and observations, indicating that something that has changed since 1980 (or before) that affected the dataset to make it unreliable.
No one erased the data, it's documented that it's not reliable. It's all HIGHLY documented.
@@jaykanta4326 Fair enough. Thanks for the response. Scientific literacy is tough (I'm not great at it), but that's kind of the point, right? Statistics is hard, so when one of the most influential climate graphs shifts data sets MID GRAPH because it became unreliable, it doesn't communicate well. Unreliable data IS significant data. Don't remove it from the X-axis because you don't know why it's not moving the way you think it should. Add an asterisk. Change the color. Add more data points (like temperature), but don't take a data point off because you can't explain why it's not reliable anymore. Does that make sense, or am I still missing the point?
@ a graph is explained by the paper. The paper goes into great detail about how the data was generated.
I think the key point is that the graph wasn't designed for twitter, or a thumbnail, it was designed for an academic paper - with a lot of detail explaining how the plot was made and why certain decisions were made.
The graph went "viral" out of its original context because of how powerful it is, but claiming that it's misleading ignores the rest of the paper.
Lot's of things are measured differently than in the past. A well known example is radioactivity.
Since 1945 we need to correct for all the radioactive stuff in the air and materials due to all the nuclear bombs we have exploded in war and testing.
Something that has worked well for centuries might no longer work because of changes we understand or don't understand.
But if we have many ways to measure something, than we can see if one of them is behaving oddly and argue it should no longer be trusted.
Fantastic video!
The scientific method is not unbiased. That is not and never was it's purpose. It's purpose is to remove bias _over time,_ by replacing older knowledge with newer knowledge as we gain it. That time component is absolutely critical - it is what allows scientists to discover and produce knowledge while still acknowledging that they're you know... human.
Most of the problem with modern science is not the scientists or the scientific method, it's the science reporting. The stuff average people (and in particular, voters and the politicians they elect) get to see. You simply can't compress a 37-page paper into a single headline or even a three-paragraph article without losing immense amounts of information and nuance, never mind the propensity for monetary influence - buying a scientist can get you an intentionally-biased research paper to be sure, but as noted above the scientific method corrects for that (eventually). Buying a science _reporter_ on the other hand doesn't really get a correction. The domain of public knowledge doesn't have the same sort of replacement mechanism that functions to correct scientific knowledge, even with the dimension of time included. Once a narrative becomes "popular" it becomes very hard to change, regardless of what the evidence suggests.