This started in 1970 and within 15 years we were to have world wide famine and let's not forget it was global cooling because of what? Yes, CO2 emissions. 50 years later and it's the same rhetoric and it doesn't stop. We have to do something now. I live in South Florida and the beaches look the same today as they did 50 years ago.
What doesn't stop is the same rubbish trotted out over and over about how "they" supposedly predicted cooling. There was never any serious consideration by climate scientists that the world was going to cool, it was a fringe theory hyped up by media. The physics behind global warming has been known for more than a century and oil company scientists knew about man made global warming in the late seventies. That the beach in South Florida looks the same to you means absolutely nothing. The fact that you think it has some implications shows that you have not the slightest grasp of the subject.
Just another scam, fraud done by the criminal elites (Billionaires, old rich families, politicians). Power and control. Similar like in the past done by organized religions.
When she said climate involves 20 to 30 years I really had my doubts. Almost all climate cycles involve periods anywhere from 60 to 20,000 years or more. Climate history establishes climate and its range of change over long periods of time. The Sahara desert has gone from swamp to desert a number of times. Then when she said storms were getting worse, a look at just the last 100 years would show patterns of increase and decrease. And the last 20 years have been comparatively calm compared to the 1950's for example. After that I changed channels.
Yea, and the part of them sitting down as she whiteboards information and he saying he learned something, sounds and looks a bit odd. I do feel her very concerns; I don’t have the facts and figures... but I know we will be alright, if and when whatever is suppose to happen... or not. We’re here, so be prepared and be ever hopeful. When we turn our awareness and imagination to our worst fears, does it make the hurricane spin a little faster? I wonder.
The George Carlin video " Saving the Planet" supports your position and is quite factual and entertaining. He also brings up the idea of the earth creating viruses to fight back against the human threat. I would check it out if you haven't seen it.
Well I hope your really old and not planning living past 2050 because that's the point of no return! Have fun enjoy, don't forget that factor 1000th your gonna need
Key words there... "a few well selected places and convinced them." I did not feel like it was a balanced look at both sides of the argument, but more of a sales job, very agenda driven...
CRITICAL THINKING and the scientific method, so why isn't anyone addressing the fact that the earth is producing oil 24-7 and what happens if we don't use it. Where is it going to go, it seems to be much more abundant today than ever before. I fear we're not using it fast enough. We must use a million more times than the oil we used in the seventies, yet there seems to be oil everywhere.
@@ronk1001 You are so right. Air is another commodity that we're just not using enough of. You breathe and breathe and breathe, and somehow, it's still there. We need to get children to breathe harder, and perhaps persuade cows and other large mammals to inhale more often, and perhaps hold their breath. Or perhaps use gene technology to bring back creatures such as the diplodocus, whose enormous lung capacity could be used to trap excess oxygen. Ultimately, we probably have to construct pipelines into space, so that surplus air can be ejected some distance from the Earth's gravitational pull. If some technological fix can't be found, I fear that we will literally start drowning in air.
@@gerrymatheson4020 You're making the assumption that there are two sides to every argument. This is just not true. Do you have to give counter-arguments to an assertion that jumping from a tall building is dangerous? In discussions on water supply, should it be compulsory to have arguments in favour of lead and arsenic in the water supply? Would it be reasonable for a defence attorney to question the assumption that murder is bad? There is no counter argument to the adoption of renewable energy. The clue is in the name. Renewable. As in, it won't run out. Ever. You don't have to grovel to evil war-lords to get it. And the fumes that currently cause many premature deaths are removed from cities.
One of the most severe heatwaves in N. American history was in 1936, it claimed thousands of lives. Temperatures soared to over 100 degrees for months.
@@mrunning10 It means naturally occurring warming has happened before without runaway warming. So there is no reason to believe it would go out of control this time. See the temperatures of the Holocene Optimum and the previous interglacial and you will see that today's temperatures are not even unusual. In fact, from after the Younger Dryas, about 9000 to 5000 years ago, or most of this interglacial has been warmer than today.
@@starleyshelton2245 "there's no reason to believe" OK then, just WHAT is stopping THIS? assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/nab3/global-temp-carbon-dioxide.gif And explains THIS? blueskiesmeteorology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NCDC-NOAA-800k-year-co2-concentration.gif And tracks the co2 like THIS? www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo3/files/images/lesson10/co2_temp_ncdc.jpg Your comment regarding the Holocene is typical nonsense, knowing nothing of the physics of the models. YES, WHY were the temps during the Holocene not "runaway?" And WHAT physical characteristic of the Earth's co2 EXCHANGE process, NOT present NOW, explains the temps? At least the modeling is PYSICS based, rather than MAGA conspiracy like YOU seem to be. Here: Essentials of Atmospheric and Oceanic Dynamics, by Geoffrey K. Vallis | Mar 7, 2019 read try learning first, and not stopping when you get the answer your brainwashing seeks from the first MAGA conspiracy website your find. Your PhD in Atmospheric and Ocean Science? From Stanford? or MIT?
Although I believe in climate change, I think this documentary wasn't fair. Only one scientist was asked who argued against man-made climate change. The questions Justin was supposed to ask the other climate researchers were also not addressed. It is very reminiscent of cherry picking! Another point that should also be considered is that no one thinks about the fact that fossil fuels are also biomass. So they would actually be renewable. The problem is that bacteria developed around 300 million years ago and spread around the globe, which anaerobically break down the cellulose of the plants and thus prevent a renewed formation of coal and petroleum. Otherwise the process would definitely have to be rated as regenerative and absolutely natural. The question then would be, what would happen if such a deposit would naturally catch fire, which statistically would happen one way or another at some point? One would even have to take into account that such a naturally triggered combustion then releases the CO2 much faster than humans could ever do. It doesn't take much to set fire to a coal seam or an oil well. A lightning strike, a forest fire (which can be started by a drop of water) or volcanism is enough to ignite such a fire. Not to mention what would happen if an earthquake released a large reservoir of oil from under the ocean floor. In contrast, a tanker accident would be a trivial matter. Oh, and while we're at it, take a look at what NASA has to say us about CO2: wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/25/nasa-vegetation-index-globe-continues-rapid-greening-trend-sahara-alone-shrinks-700000-sq-km/ It seems that CO2 is better for our environment than these scientists claim or want us to believe. Vegetation growth is accelerated in desert regions and the vegetation helps to cool the planetary atmosphere.
@@bereal6590 You should really study more climate history. It would take either some fear away or make you very, very afraid of your future. Relax and don't fall for this fraud climate change, global warming, global cooling...
She IS part of the "establishment" with a famouse mother, a millionair father, and became a millionair herself - by this acting. And also the friend of the family, owning a PR company, who "happened to be" at the place when Greta begun her crusaid, made up it's income hundredfold. Oh, what a coincidence?
Interesting documentary as is often the case. The problem I have is so much of what I hear is bias or lies. So it is very difficult to tell who is telling the truth and what is real. One of many first hand examples related to this documentary occurred when I went on an Alaskan cruise a decade ago. I have other examples as well. On the cruise in the morning there was a lecture by three environmentalists. hundreds attended. They talked of the many animals seen from the ship early that morning. They asked all to stand and asked someone what they saw. The response was a family of black bears. They asked if any did not see the bears then sit down. After numerous animals and everyone else sitting I was the last man standing. They asked what I had seen. I said an albino wolf and told them where I had seen it. They told me perhaps I was mistaken. I said I don't think so. They said there were no wolves on the islands and an albino wolf is extremely rare. They suggested I saw other things and I might have seen or other colors, maybe not even an animal, etc., etc. They definitely thought I was mistaken. That was just not possible. I told them I was not mistaken and had taken several photos with a telephoto lens on my digital camera. They invited me up on the stage and looked at the photos. After some discussion they all agreed I had a sighting of an albino wolf on the island. With that they gave me a seat on the stage to join them. Next we passed glaciers. They said this one melted 1.2 miles. That one 0.5 miles. The next one 0.7 miles. They talked extensively about global warming and how if continued many animals would die. We might die. They asked what I thought as the honorary environmentalist now with a seat on the stage. I pointed out the window and said that glacier is huge. How much has that one melted. I was shocked to hear that glacier had grown 0.5 miles. I asked why? They said they did not know. Meanwhile we passed another glacier. I asked how much that one had melted? They said that glacier had grown 0.2 miles. I asked why when they talk about global warming and only pointed to glaciers that had melted? They did not tell of those that has grown. There was no answer... So many don't know much and many more are very bias and some just lie. So with these types of experiences how does one believe what is being said? To that end I believe there is some global warming. Do I know for sure? No because there are so many lies and the environmentalists did not believe me about the wolf until my proof was to them beyond doubt. They could not even come close to proving to me their story about global warming. Glaciers were not adequate proof to me as some melted and some grew. I still "believe" among all the ignorance and bias and lies that global warming possibly does exist. However, one has to sort out a lot to begin to consider that might be the case.
One cause of the planet warming, has not been mentioned by any climate expert, and I feel it should be considered. The planet warming from within. The crust actually becoming warmer. This warming would no doubt have an effect on everything on the surface, including the oceans.
It's only about the real cause if something gets warmer on Earth. That should be the human share of 0.0005291% of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 272 years (as of the year 1750). (277 ppm to 420 ppm , humans have 3.7% of that = 0.0143% x 3.7%) When the temperature is forecast for next week, it is always in a kind of "fan" form. The minimum and maximum temperatures will spread quickly due to uncertainties in the calculation model and that is in just 1 week. It is exactly the same for the climate, only there are many more uncertain factors + a very long time. It is certainly impossible to predict the climate with calculation models, so those models must always be corrected, which has already happened several times in a relatively short time. Unfortunately, one continues to work with this kind of calculation model, but calculation models only work exactly if exact data is entered and there are none. So we are hugely fooled with climate predictions. Unfortunately, environmentalists are always right, because if in 30 years the climate has not warmed up, they say that it is because of the measures and if it has become warmer, then they say that too little has been done. That's how politics works, it's NEVER the WHOLE truth, it just APPEARS to be the truth.
So whats being told as a narrative is that due to global warming, the glaciers are melting and thus the ocean level is rising… but there is no truth behind the fact that water level rises when ice melts.. because it Does Not! Try this out for yourself with a glass of ice water filled to the brim. When the ice melts, does water spill over the edge?
@@champspec That applies to the ice floating in the ocean. Glaciers are created by evaporating water from the ocean, so they don't cause sea level rise when they melt either, but glaciers are often old and have been on land for a long time, so they contribute something in our time, but that is little given the small volume. If land ice melts, sea levels could rise, but it's been several millimeters a year for many years now, so alarming reports are groundless. Those measurements can only be made accurately by satellites, because due to the large difference in earth masses in the ocean, the water is nowhere spherical, but a kind of hilly landscape and movements of continents can also cause an apparent rise in sea level. So you really have to calculate the average using thousands of measurements from satellites. I live in a polder in the Netherlands, where they have raised the dikes by 2.5 meters, because of the alarming stories, but the sea level is not alarming at all, so the "sea level madness" has also struck in the Netherlands. Reminiscent of Al Gore, who predicted more than ten years ago that sea levels would rise 7 meters after 10 years, so in 2010 he bought a large house worth 9 million dollars overlooking the sea. His house in Nashville uses 231 000 kWh per year of which less than 5% with solar panels and that is one of his many houses. I don't use 1700 kWh/year yet. These kinds of people have deceived the world.
Why do that, from another reply The skeptic get plenty of air time. It does not need to be shown. EXXON and the Koch Bro provide the funds, all the stuff they put out via the libertarian think tanks they fund is non scientific, ie scientific rigour via professional scrutiny would reject them as the science they use is so bad so they just by pass that. Yet the nonsense still gets out, so why repeat rubbish. They did the cirrect thing by not going. It is not a case of 50 50 air time for opinions because the skeptics have been shown time and again to be wrong, via lies, misinformation, taking thing sout of context, lying about what scientists intent is re a paper. One just lises total respect for the skeptics.
@@petergleeson295 in 1998 at least 30000+ american scientists, third of them with phd in related areas, signed the climate change petition saying there is no such thing as AGW. Today the warming church has taking over govts and media and heretics are labeled as deniers and doomed to death and oblivion loosing jobs, sponsorships and credibility, banned from media (magazines, social nets), if you are one better run away and hide or posse towards the other side
People fail to realize our whole planet and everything living on it is carbon based. Hell, farmers actually pump Co2 into their green houses to promote planet growth. And the experts are telling us Co2 is bad for the planet.
The difference is that it took millions of years to get to those temperatures. The current sudden increase in temperatures makes extreme weather events deadly. Not to mention rising sea levels, which will roll back shorelines by several mikes,in a short period of time. If you are a dinosaur fine-you move inland,homes & businesses can not do that.
@@tr7b410 And you believe what you've just wrote. I actually have a magazine from the 1970's. The cover story was "The Hot House Effect: Why the Whole of the East Coast of Britain will be Under 20 feet of water by 1980". Obviously not happened, no rising sea levels whatsoever. That began as a Left Wing political thing and has spread like wildfire. Don't be so gullible. If you can't use your own common sense, use real research, real history.
@@tr7b410 No, it did not take "millions of years" to reach those temps. Extreme weather events have always been deadly. The Sea level worldwide has not risen by any significant amount. Any other falsehoods you wish me to debunk?
My biggest problem is with all the past predictions, and how off they have all been . And with all that melted ice how come the coastline hasn’t changed the way it was predicted ?
I recently was going through some old college text books - year 1976. I came across a Geology book and a full chapter was devoted to explaining the coming ice age - complete with data, analysis and scientific buy-in. It’s all BS. Back then, and now.
This expedition was incredibly one sided. It means nothing without hearing both sides. Reporters are a dime a dozen. We are not discussing the earth only those who live on it.
Major flaw in the Texas tech professor's data, co2 atmospheric concentration was over 3000 parts per million from 60 to 100 million years ago which also was a time when earth had the most diversity of life and vegetation over the entire planet. We are currently at 400 parts per million.
The question is, if that would be a good climate for humans to thrive in? Also, if our climate changes drastically too quickly, would our current society be able to adapt and survive?
Lmao yes give me all temperatures in order to extinct almost everything that lives here now. That diversity always came with something before that going extinct, sounds not so good to me.
The problem with that argument is because during that time sun intensity was 25% less than it is today. So those CO2 concentrations kept the earth from freezing
@@kimwit1307 The answer is...living under corrupt lies and communism with a brain-dead resident being controlled by an America-hating grandson-of-a-CIA agent is no picnic and we won't survive that.
There are salmon in California streams, the stream salmon go to is the one they were born in. The reason salmon are GREATLY REDUCED in North America 🇺🇸 is because of fertilizers farmers allow to run off their lands and into streams end up in the oceans and kill all fish close to shore. And they are also reduced because of nuclear radiation ☢️ in the waters in Washington state were there were many radioactive waste spills. In Alaska farming of all kinds including very small farmers is highly subsidized by the state and this is a fairly recent policy, thus, farming and other toxins in the waters is the cause of the reduction in salmon NOT warmer waters!
The Alaskan guide says "This trail we're going to take has been in use by people for thousands of years". Later they are having a rest and he says "Where we are sitting here, in 1900 there would have been seven or eight hundred feet of ice over our heads." Make up your mind, dude 😅
And on Greenland a WW2 airplane that crashed in 1942 was found under 300feet of ice some 70 years later . Between 2017-2019 Greenland added about 1.2 trillion net tons of ice, one of the many facts climate alarmists never report
The Alaska scientist: "Everyone will be better served having more information." That's exactly where I am at. I am fed up with being told what to believe without answers that make logical sense, all the way to "OK, so how are we making the carbon dioxide link? What are the supports (and the questions) to the causation argument for CO2?" Good idea to do this documentary. Cool.
The link is our reliance on fossil fuels. We can measure todays carbon levels against carbon levels in the past. Carbon gets trapped in ice. They drill into ice in the arctic and you can see layers. Each layer represents a snow season. You can measure carbon in each layer. 98% of climate scientists worldwide agree humans have significantly added more CO2 than any other period in earths history based on multuple forms of data that all point to US as the culprits. Its an uncomfortable fact.
I think the approach you are taking is the right way to go about it. I felt the same way and I am tired of not knowing so I am learning how climate works from the ground up. The woman in this video right in the beginning draws a wiggling line with an upward trend and says that is our climate for the last 30 years. Everything I have been reading says that is not true. If there is an upward trend it would be around a decade because before those 10 years the climate was actually cooling on average and this was measured by NOAA, NASA GISS, (The United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research), IPCC, they all show that the past 17 years on average the globe was cooling and these results were done in the year 2013 so how could it be 30 years. Also the climate models are not replicating the raw data correctly. Some say they are now after some adjustments though I haven't been able to find the adjustments made yet to understand them but if they are correct they are accounting for about 10 years give or take.
Pathetic, so ppl ruin the earth and the environment and other species suffer and children don't have a future In decades to come. How selfish can you get
I don't really understand how can people call themselves as "climate scientist" and not knowing BASIC physics? Claiming "the more CO2 the more it traps theheat ". No, bloody NO! This person does not KNOW physics! The greeenhouse effect of the CO2 is NOT linear. She SHOULD know that. And also she SHOULD know that there is a saturation level, there the CO2 can NOT trap any more heating. You listen? NOT ANY MORE after the saturation point. And we are very close to this saturation, doubling the amount of CO2 (rising by 200%) adds only to 25% to the trapped energy. Also, nowhere in this film I see on what ground they claim that the temperature rising is the RESULT of the CO2 rising and not the other way around? That the natural temperature rising CAUSES the releasing of the CO2 from the oceans. Just as ALL the climate history clearly shows: first rising temperature and with a clear delay rises the CO2 in the atmosphere. Why not a word about that? Why not a word about that there were times, when the amount of CO2 was 12 times higher then now, but the temperature was not significantly higher. Why not telling, that human activity makes only up 3-5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere? The rest is the normal circle of the biosphere. Why not saying that? Are they REALLY scientists? And finally: it's getting warmer since the last "little ice-age", yes, it's correct. Now when will we reach the OPTIMAL temperature?
Excellent comment. Also CO2 IS 0.004% the atmosphere. Glad someone else watched this with critical thinking and a brain. This was a hit piece with no evidence of causation.
@@thebritishbookworm2649 How about drinking a pint of beer every day, containing .04% arsenic. Would the low concentration make it harmless? Go on, try it. Great TH-cam video.
The warming caused by CO2 is amplified by increased water vapour, methane, decrease in albedo. The whole process has its own momentum. More warming leads to more warming.
@@thoutube9522 they don't use water vapour in there models which aren't anywhere close to being accurate. 10 years or 100 year's. They can't predict the weather after 5 days and you think these models are workable.
@@thoutube9522 Wrong. The rising of the water vapour in the air is a stupid bullshit, claimed by - again! - people not knowing BASIC physics. "Rising the water vapor..." WHERE? Te atmosphere is a 3 dimensional space, the vapor does different things on ground level, in the troposphere and in the stratosphere. And those behaviors do often oppose each other. Also WHEN? The clouds keep the heat in the night, but reflect the Sun at daytime, COOLING the atmosphere. Also important WHERE THE VAPOUR GOES? They act differently at the Equator and at the Poles, and again inbetween. So PLEASE do not spread thing you don't understand! NOTE: All the above is a strong simplification, to point out the complexity of the atmosphers physics
This is an excellent program, but I think it would've been better had they also taken Dr. John Christy, the scientist at the beginning of the program who is a climate change skeptic, along with them on the trip. Christy would've brought up major points from his background as a scientist that the other scientists in the program could've responded to with solid evidence. Not having a scientist like Dr. Christy go along on the trip is a major weakness of the program. Can you imagine what an impact it would've had on people across the country and around the world had Dr. Christy seen all of the evidence and changed his views like Justin did? It would've changed the program from being a standard documentary to being a block buster.
Hi, I have a degree in atmospheric science and communicated with him via email a few years back. I don't believe his arguments are terribly strong. His raises some relevant questions, not in this video but in other appearances he has had, but I don't think his conclusions are very accurate.
@@taylortreadgold4810 christy’s opening gambit that things naturally fluctuate between hot and cold misses the two massive factors of causation and rate of change We know what caused climate to change naturally and we know those causes do not apply today, so we need to find what is causing this particular change in global climate and the best answer we have is increasing GHGs
totally agree.Justin didnt have all the knowledge that was required to rebuff the mainstream dogma. No one even ? Ozone depletion effect,where more heat must come in as the depletion occurs,and we do burn easier now .Why do they warn us all the time about burn times ?because of more CO2 of course not ,its greater UV heat.. did people get more skin cancers before the ozone was depleted???? .CO2 cant burn and more CO2, even if itdid trap trap heat, still wont cause you to burn quicker , only more UV can do that .its an easy experiment to do.put a UV source that emits UVA B and C and all the other stuff we get from the sun, in a room and begin filling it with CO2 and measure what happens .not hard is it? ALL temps anywhere taken within a half mile of any manmade object must be suspect..come on buildings become heatsinks .concrete ,tarmac,.stop blaming our food source, try blaming all the other stuff we do first..CO2 is a copout so we dont have to stop the other more devistating polutants.
I remember in the late 80's the reported scientific theory was that the movement of the tectonic plates ment that by 2050 the average temperature in Ohio would be 70 degrees. Personally, I think we should try not to pollute our air and water as best we can. That doesn't mean we should let fear mongers pick and chose what information we note before making any environmental impacting decisions.
nearest thing I can find on the internet is this: "We found the Earth’s plate tectonics could become unstable if the surface temperature rose by 38 °C (100 °F) or more for a few million years,” said lead author Adrian Lenardic, associate professor of Earth science at Rice University" Tectonic plates move very, very slowly. Are you sure you're remembering this right?
They are not alarmists. I have total respect for people with their views if they are based on good science. The people who deny human induced climate warming by putting too much co2 and methane into the atmospher do not have good science to back them up and therefore I do not respect their views, when they continue to hold them despite seeing the obvious evidence, time and time again in so many ways. Just bizzar.
@@briancrowther3272 "Too much CO2 & methane" According to whom? Greta? Not alarmist huh? Go back and watch Al Gore's movie inconvenient truth. It's all bs. But you'll never admit that you're been duped. "It's much easier to fool someone than to get them to admit they've been fooled " -Mark Twain
@@johntempest267 no not alarmist at all. I certainly will value their views above yours as there are a lot of them, they are professional and do properly researched work. You just don't rate. Sorry but that is the reality.
@@briancrowther3272 Absolutely Brian. I'm nobody, and I don't expect to persuade you with a couple of wise ass remarks. But I urge you to take just a moment to peek behind the curtain. These are some names of the Doctors, Scientists, and Professors who have the proper credentials. Dr Willie Soon Prof. Don Easterbrook Dr Patrick Moore Tony Heller Prof. Steven F. Hayward Dr Susan Crockford Prof. Richard Lindzen After watching YT videos of these people, I'm convinced. If you watch some of these people speak, and still feel the same way, come back and say so. Otherwise, spread the word. Sincerely, John Tempest
@@briancrowther3272 What is "too much" CO2? Compared to almost the entire history of the planet we are at a CO2 drought level. Plants do better at twice the current levels. And projections of future temperature indicate a more even and temperate climate worldwide at the higher level. Personally, I am for MORE CO2.
A couple of points they didn't discuss... The population of Earth has gone from 1 Billion to 8 Billion in 200 years (8x more CO2 as well as 8x fires) When Mt. Pinatubo blew up in 1991, it belched out so much that the hole in the Ozone layer tripled! Yet two years later the ring had recovered. The Earth can heal itself in ways we don't understand.
It's always CO2 that is the culprit for the increase in temperature. What about water vapor? I never hear anyone mention that. Why was there a little ice age that ended in 1700 and the temperature starts increasing yet they always start at the industrial revolution and don't mention the first 150 years of increased temperature. hmm... what about going back in the geological records to when the earth was colder but CO2 levels were in the thousands are parts per million...? Always a lot of thing left out of the assumptions made so no wonder it's the wrong conclusion. What has the sun been doing all this time since that's where all this heat if coming from. Oh wait. That's natural. Their funding only studies anything related to human activity and nothing about what the planet or sun are doing on their own. Bottom Line: The climate is changing and not by much. It's not a big deal regardless if it's man made, nature or both. It's not going to be the end of the world. The apocalypse is made up.
I have a strong feeling that scientists are well aware of that. Water vapour increases with warming, and amplifies the CO2 effect. As does methane. As for the sun, this is carefully monitored (OF COURSE) and solar irradiance is actually DECLINING right now. So it's NOT the sun. You can see a graph her demonstrating that: www.sealevel.info/You_Zai-Jin_et_al_2009.pdf
Couple issues I had: Justin is a very impressionable skeptic who has no idea why he’s a skeptic. If you’re a skeptic know your stuff. Also, why weren’t skeptical scientists talked to more in depth? Just proponents of anthropogenic climate change. I get it, you had to pick a skeptic who won’t question much.
+HoodrichRacing These people discount the two most damaging factors to their beliefs. Second, the second law of thermodynamics, which is a scientific principle that has been overwhelmingly proven, and can be observed. It is undeniable. And First, they leave God's judgment on mankind's sin completely out of the picture. The whole world groans and is in misery because of our rebellion against God, dating back to Eve and Adam's sin, believing the devil instead of God. God is preparing to judge planet earth, in the most extreme ways ever, since He created all things. The destruction detailed in the Revelation of Jesus Christ will make anything taking place now insignificant. Escape? Forgiveness for sins, through genuine faith in Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior. John 3:16.
My thought was similar, I can think of at least 5 people in semi-elected positions by nature of having an online following, to argue against climate change, so why not bring one of them on, for example, I would love to see a 'climatologist' discuss these 'graphs' with Randall Carlson. For example the first 'scientist' shows her first graph, and it's only dated back to 1850, like how is that an honest discussion to begin with.
I'm sure they chose this guy very carefully. I would have had lots of questions they wouldn't be able to answer and they would have had to scrap the documentary, find someone else and start over.
I live in central Florida and I note with certainty that the so-called 'citrus line' has been moving steadily southward for almost one hundred years as a result of longer colder winters.
@@kennethliew7828 So if the world gives up meat burgers for veggie burgers all is well? Do you know what a volcano is powered by? When you see rock boiling over and pouring out of its banks...whats generating that heat? It's a fact they are powered by burning petroleum oil. And they burn continuously all over this planet. What you going to do about these carbon emitters? Are you saying giving up meat is the biggest solution..over volcanos? NEWS FLASH !!! COW gas cannot compete with 24/7 volcano activity around the world!!! Now just so you know..I am a 90% vegan who only eats a little cheese or 100%. I'm not fond of eating dead cow or any other dead animal or their by products. Not too many of the climate alarmist can say that...they are hypocrites. They don't do as they say.
The skeptic get plenty of air time. It does not need to be shown. EXXON and the Koch Bro provide the funds, all the stuff they put out via the libertarian think tanks they fund is non scientific, ie scientific rigour via professional scrutiny would reject them as the science they use is so bad so they just by pass that. Yet the nonsense still gets out, so why repeat rubbish. They did the cirrect thing by not going. It is not a case of 50 50 air time for opinions because the skeptics have been shown time and again to be wrong, via lies, misinformation, taking thing sout of context, lying about what scientists intent is re a paper. One just lises total respect for the skeptics.
One point that I noticed is out of all the things that affect the temperature on earth, they didn’t mention the magnetic pole shift and the weakening magnetic field. This helps shield not only the suns rays but the cosmic forces that come from not only outside our atmosphere but from outside our solar system and the galaxy itself.
This!, plus CO2 levels where much higher when you go back to the paleozoic and before. The earth was greener, life flourished. We are now in a low CO2 era
People point to coastal flooding in Miami as proof of sea level rise, but can't explain why Cuba is not experiencing sea level rise just 60 miles from Miami. Miami is sinking into the ground due to excessive fresh water pumping.
It is seeing the same sea level rise because he sea level is rising. Maybe Cuba is experiencing some tectonic uplift, I do not know the actual data but many places expderence the impression of sea level falling or it is static because they are rising due to many reasons. I am a geologist this is my field we use this stuff to find oil and gas. eg West Uk is rising and gaining coastline due to adjustments due to the ice melting while the east is sinking and losing coast line.
@@psychicspy and your point. Is it depth you are talking or sea level. I wrote about both if you read it properly. The land moves about and up and down, in different places at different times, the sea level changes too but over the world at the same time. Teasing out the latter is hard and takes a lot of skill. But it has been done by view and it is reliable.
@@kennethliew7828 Shhhhh. Talking too much and getting too excited will contribute to global warming. If you are serious about wanting to take personal action to combat global warming I suggest you sit quietly in a dark room and not impose a burden on mother Earth.
So you don't understand 95% of the heat has been absorbed by the oceans? The temperature under the glaciers is 40` F, that's whats melting the glaciers,
@@timelsen2236 Much of the warm water affecting the Antarctic ice sheet is believed to belong to a large, naturally occurring warm mass known as “circumpolar deep water.” Originally formed from the mixing of waters originating in other, warmer parts of the globe, circumpolar deep water is now a fixture in the Southern Ocean. Scientific American This water mass is very salty and dense, causing it to sink beneath the colder, less dense water closer to the surface of the Southern Ocean. It can be found all around the perimeter of Antarctica, typically at a depth of around 1,600 feet below the surface, according to University of Washington glacier expert Eric Steig. It’s this circumpolar deep water that’s believed to be driving glacier melt around the continent. “Although circumpolar deep water has probably warmed about a tenth of a degree in the last few decades, this warming is probably not the cause of the observed changes in the glaciers,” Steig said in an email to E&E News. “What is far more important is whether the already-warm water gets to the glacier front, under the floating ice shelves.”
Actually they melt because of the moolahs where the fresh water melting on the glaciers .create a way for fresh water to make it to the bottom of ice . .this melting . Was having an effect for many years .. we've have three major ice ages . Where I live it was three miles of ice . No more of course. So before modern man we had at least one that lasted for 53000 years glaciers.. Their we're few men around at that time . It lasted longer with no men than it has in the last two glaciers that moved south . I live in a cerk that was the beginning of a glacier . Love your videos Thanks ps we have a cave here that used to go 53 miles . The melting glaciers melted and a rush of water many times as it melted pushed from valley floor to Republic wa. This is not the Missoula floods . They came from Canada and north. The power of the water rushing down the valley cut into the sandstone and sand and granite . Making one longest caves in my area 53 miles
@@timelsen2236 glaciers are not floating on the ocean (that's icebergs). Glaciers are typically land based and if the bottoms are melting faster than their surfaces that would suggest the culprit isn't air temps... Maybe there's something going on below ground we should be paying attention to... 🤷♂️😂
It's a product of the physics of water and ice. Water is the denser state so with pressure you can squeeze ice into water. This is why ice dams can only reach so high.
Every time I see 'climate change' I see more taxes and more government intervention (power to politician). And that's my biggest barrier. I think also that a lot of improvements have been made in the population, in the automotive industry and in consuming habits. And every time we ear about climate change, it's like we are doing nothing. We (ordinary citizen) pay a lot to fight climate change. It's like nothing is good enough. We should pay and pay more. It's proven that the more you are rich the more you can go green. Also, what about China, India etc. Why is it always our fault (Western countries) that have to pay? There is a ton of money to make in this market (green economy) and weirdly enough, the richest man in the world is Elon Musk... This is my sincere opinion.
Your BIGGEST barrier is government intervention to take necessary actions to make things better for society?! Did you really just say that? I’ll assume you did, and ask - then WTF is the job of the government then??? You go and elect people to represent your state in Congress for what exactly?
Every religion takes advantage of the unknown . Government religions are concerned for their own benefit. people been burning fire since beginning of time to stay warm to cook food and many other reasons. This only becomes an issue if a government sees a prophet. All you have to do is just get people to believe . Government and religion is the same thing.
@@chrisknowles5358 I think the guy said in a nutshell, the reason people are hesitant to believe is because politicians, instead of mobilizing the populace and investing in an infrastructure to move us away from carbon, they try to propose things like carbon credits, resource rationing, solar panels, and windmills to combat it. All these things limit humanity and stifle mobility, no to mention the energy sources they suggest bring civilization back 100 years in innovation, and stifle it to boot. We aren't trying to have more nuclear, we aren't trying to use hydrogen, we're proposing electric, battery storage. This type of thing taxes electrical grids and takes decades to return the CO2 investment, by which time the devices need replacing. What has happened is: Cars that can be shut off from space, proposed extra taxes for regular people, Lithium mines destroying other eco systems, as well as being far more finite a resource as fossil fuels. When we get a huge national effort to steer the infrastructure toward something that makes sense, people will come around.
In Roman times sea level was high enough for London to be on the coast. That was a time when global temperatures were higher than today. What caused that to happen?
Warming is better than freezing. We were heading into and ice age which has been reversed. You can not grow crops under ice but you can irrigate in the desert. Stop panicking everybody . we are doing just fine.
@@harrywalker5836 Yes Harry. Very good. And true. The one TINY problem with your analysis is that we are at a stage in the cycle when it should be cool. The Milankovitch cycles do not explain this sudden spike in temperatures. And you're talking about 24 thousand years. This has happened in one person's lifetime. Just think about that for, perhaps thirty seconds.
Except for the self-serving politically and financially-motivated wasteful spending and borrowing that is threatening to collapse the whole effort of frightening people into mindless submission to the dictates of the wealthy and powerful elite. We are definitely looking at doing less fine and continuing in that direction will ultimately cure us of this preoccupation with trying to believe we can control our environment in a God-like manner, unless it first enslaves us in Marxism as it intends to. The simple fact that only climate-alarmist experts are allowed to work and have power in academia and media and more recently, are the only individuals allowed to speak, is a major indicator of a systemically self-induced fallacy that is ultimately intended to convince people to self-immolate. Its downfall is that those same elite are too self-serving to allow this hypnosis of the population to occur at an adequately slow rate to avoid detection, because they want power and wealth now, and without allowing the people to have any freedom to make choices themselves. Their lies tell us the truth.
"He thinks..." "He doesn't think..." May as well ask someone who never took a science class if he thinks a chemical reaction is exothermic. Who cares what some Joe thinks about a science way over his head? What does he think of the Simplex Method? I really want to know.
There's a problem with the glacier theory they keep pushing in this video I live in a state (Maine) that had glaciers up to a mile thick during the last ice age roughly 10,000 years ago they're all gone now that's not man-made...
This is actually addressed in the film. At the end of the last ice age MOST of the glaciers disappeared, including the ones in Maine. The glaciers in Alaska were there 50 years ago, and now they're disappearing or already gone. Its the RATE of change that is unprecedented, not the change itself. The only culprit that we are aware of that could reasonably cause this change is the increase in greenhouse gasses.
Texmat Didn't they say that Co2 was released as the glaciers melted? Seems that they could be melting due to something else, then releasing Co2, instead of carbon causing the melting.
Study it and you will realise why. Your point is wrong. get an education. I will not take your comment seriously you are obviously not educated in this. This is my feild you have spoken rubbish here. Study it before you make such stupid comments.
I love how they always start around 1850 which was the lowest temperature point of the little ice age which began in 1350 so from that point on we are expected to warm exponentially. water levels have also risen for the last 14,000 years except during the LIA when they slowed, stop or possibly reversed so the fact that CO2 has risen doesn't mean that's caused the warming or the ice melt, the ice started melted long before the industrial revolution and temperature increase only took a pause during the LIA. The CO2 helps plants grow not trap heat to the point where it has this mich affect, it's a green house gas cuz its used in greenhouse to help plants grow, they take it in and exhale oxygen, the opposite of us.
An annoying aspect is that where I live what we're seeing is one of the predictions from when I was in university, that we'll have cooler but drier summers. I do conservation work, and everyone naturally expects that cooler temperatures should make for more moisture, but that's not what's happening. A possible prediction that didn't have a high degree of confidence was that we would get more high-temperature events despite the overall cooler weather, but so far that's not happening consistently.
65 million year old planet, doing quite well on it's own, one large asteriod strike will change the whole dynamics drastically, regardless of what man does,,,,,
Fact is, regardless of humans, climate has always been changing and will always continue to. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow. Change is the only constant. In ALL things.
No one is saying the climate has not changed, it has changed since the beginning of time. What we are saying is its happening at a rate that the earth can't heal from
@@prosperitygama9730 As I said, sometime change is very fast and occurs in a short span of time. Other times, it occurs unnoticed. The eart can heal from it, so to speak, but will remain forever changed.
The earth goes in cycles eg Greenland once had a thriving farmed agricultural landscape: Climate change was started to be a fearful thing to help usher in the new world order: Some are becoming very rich from it
I was optimistic that this would be a very balanced documentary truly looking at both sides of the argument... but instead am left feeling like it was a very smoothly done spin and "sales job", convincing a "skeptic" with the "science". Felt very agenda driven and left me feeling like someone tried to manipulate me... like so much of the climate change push... Carbon dioxide levels have been much higher (ppm) at points in the past...plants flourished, biomass in general flourished. All these fossil fuels that people are so afraid of were once a part of the environment, the carbon cycle, until they got buried deep and converted to fossil fuels. Overall we've seen a gradual greening of our planet (even with man made deforestation) in the past 60 or 70 years with CO2 levels (ppm) getting up into the 400's.
That Justin would "change his mind" was a foregone conclusion. I watched this in hopes of seeing the issue explored with input from both sides of the debate. That didn't happen. We saw 30 seconds of a skeptical scientist, then heard from only people deeply committed to AGW as a reality. It's a nicely produced propaganda piece, but not really useful to a thinking human being.
Ha, it's laughable you consider yourself as a "thinking human being" when you're clearly promoting climate change denialism here. When you deny something that 97 percent of climate scientists agree on then it goes to show who's promoting a propaganda here.
@@lastrationalist7890 You're what passes for a rationalist these days? 😂😂😂 We're in worse trouble than I thought. Carry on in your indoctrination, smegma. I won't interfere. You're already a lost cause.
I have no doubt the climate is changing. I've noticed the winters becoming milder. Warmer with less snow and ice. When I was a kid growing up in rural Alabama, I remember having more snow and ice cycles hanging off the eaves of houses. At this point, I doubt we can turn the change around. At least not in my time. Maybe in several generations. Adaptation might should be our main focus now. At the same time maybe do what we can. I don't buy the idea wind and solar will get the job done. Nuclear might be a better alternative then wind and solar. People are worried about melt downs and nuclear waste being radioactive. Yet they get in their fossil fuel driven vehicles and don't give much thought to the possibility of an accident. They will board a plane without much thought of a plane crash. Many more have been killed by auto and plane crashes than in nuclear melt downs. There's technology with nuclear that lowers the risk from nuclear melt downs and waste. Still, adaptation will be what saves humanity.
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.) From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc.
The original sin was politicizing science. The original no-no. One has to trust data, and have faith in that just as you have expertise in your field, so do others. There really are experts out there who know their brief. Trust them.
Two problems: 1 - There are a significant number of people and companies that profit enough from fossil fuels to have political and social influence. 2 - People are easily convinced that they are blameless and don't need to change anything about the way they live. We have a huge uphill struggle against these two forces. This documentary is a good small step in the right direction.
@David Bunney Can you give links to scientific articles on this issue, which in your opinion are trustworthy?(I'm trying to study this issue for myself)
@David Bunney - The total amount of "Green Money" is dwarfed by the huge revenues of fossil fuel industry. A scientist that could disprove human caused climate change would get 1000 X more money for research than any 'Green research'.
@@keolaq8748 - I have learned a lot from this series of Climate Change Videos on TH-cam from PotHoler54. See Links: www.bing.com/search?q=potholer54%20Climate%20Change&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=potholer54%20climate%20change&sc=1-25&sk=&cvid=0841C3E4AE1449459CE45B1C587BFBE2
And why should I listen to you when I am a geologist and you are just spouting? Information like that is used all the time by geologists all over the world. Do you really, really think that these people lie? Why would they do that, some mental disease, all these scientists all over the world all have a mental disease?? Really...REALLY???? Get rea..
Couple of questions. 1. Why was he not allowed to ask the scientists the two questions the first scientist gave him to ask the others? I believe in climate change but the questions were valid. Maybe the responses were edited out =/ 2. The TT scientist was a sensationalist, why were the charts over dramatic and why did she say "we" have been measuring Co2 for millions of years? Anyone knows that is not possible. Convincing skeptics is easier if there are no lies or sensationalism.
Here in Scandinavia, the ice disappears every spring. Need to worry? There are still people here who believe in climate change and still build their houses by the sea! Unbelievable?
That's caused by the warming arctic. The jet stream traditionally created a barrier blowing from west to east keeping the Arctic air to the north and the warmer air to the south. With the Arctic warming a few degrees the barrier is weaker allowing Arctic air further south. Scientists predicted this effect decades ago. The fossil fuel industry hires people to say climate change is a hoax to protect their profits. There is peer reviewed science supporting climate change, there is no peer reviewed science refuting that, just hired spokesmen. Climate warming doesn't make cold disappear completely but for decades there have been about twice as many record highs per year as record lows. Each of the last 7 or 8 decades has been the warmest on record (in order). Going forward 20 or 30 decades, each one will be progressively warmer.
Well, that's why it's called 'climate change'. This kind of phenomenon was predicted by scientists, long ago. America is not the WORLD AndrewX. Average temperatures can rise even when one part of your country gets cold.
There is no denying that the climate is changing. A long time ago the ice covered Europe and even longer back in North Africa. This is the same all over the globe. Since that time, the ice has slowly begun to disappear. The melt water ran to the lower parts of the earth and the sea level rose steadily. Due to the enormous amount of ice that covered large parts of the world in that distant past, the warming up started very slowly because the large amount of ice needed a lot of energy to melt. Now that the amount of ice has become very small in the present time, there remains more energy that warms the atmosphere. There is hardly any ice left to slow global warming. The ice melt is irreversible and all the current hassle will leave many with a well-filled wallet but it won't change anything.
wouldn't deforestation increase the CO2? at the time of the industrial revolution and coal burning there was also the fastest rate of deforestation. So coal was certainly not the only factor. Now, in spite of everything it's said, the earth has been getting greener she also went straight to blame human activity as the cause, ignoring any other possible causes. The fact that it happened in the last 150 years is irrelevant if you don't study and objectively exclude all other possibilities. She is just relying on emotions not on data, emotions is not a scientific argument
there is also the financial and economic aspect of climate change, for a fossil fuel poor nation it makes sense to support human made climate change, and for a fossil fuel poor country, the opposite is true. For entire sectors of industry it's not a matter of doing the right things, it represents lots of money. Even for the car industry, for instance, climate change represents a particularly interesting opportunity to force everyone to buy a new car. At the time when there is stiffer and stiffer competition and the market is actually contracting rather than expanding, forcing everyone to change car represents billion and billions of potential income, enough to keep the industry afloat for many years to come. Therefore, there are clear conflicts of interests and financial interest in the field to cast doubts on the veracity of many of the claims.
That Graph at 10.48 is misleading as it suggests that the correlation between CO2 level and temperature is linear --- it is an exponential relationship --- not linear. Unless China and India start joining the movement to reduce fossil fuel use, all,other efforts will be ineffective. It is highly likely we will reach 1200-1500 ppm before the increase reverses. If C02 drops below 150 ppm, most plant life will die off and with the death of plant life, we all die off. At our current higher CO2 levels, we are have a green booming because plants are more drought resistant at higher CO2 levels. You should be embarrassed if you offer only wind and solar as solutions and don't mention nuclear power as an alternative power generation method.
This is summer of 2023, Canada is on fire covering most of the US in smoke, Record heat in the South and West, the ocean is 5 degrees warmer than this time last year hitting 98 degrees which can kill off the coral reefs, and could lead to a collapse of the oceans ecosystem, this past week (early July) the temperature of the planet hit a new record 5 days in a row.
I found the 1 degree Celsius comment interesting. I would not notice if the global temp, on average, is 1 degree higher. - I wouldn't notice if it was happening locally. - There is so much variation from day/night and day to day, I'd never notice. - A few weeks ago, it was below average temp (slightly). Last week, it was near record high temps. The weather is all over the place.
Agreed. Warming isn't perceptible without scientific instruments. Ironically this means satellites, which would never have even been invented if it wasn't for fossil fuels. Cheers.
I live in the Midwest and we had a average to cooler than average summer no 100° days typical summer typical fall typical winner typical spring over and over. Actually the winters sometimes get colder more than the summers get hotter. It rains all the time the weeds grow, and the mosquitoes come out one year, the next year it doesn’t rain very much less mosquitoes weeds don’t grow as much. The following year reverts back always the same as it was 40 50 60 years ago.
@@briancrowther3272 I just Bass by observations what I see and feel, it is no hotter or colder and has been in 60 years here in the Midwest. According to your statistics the temperature should’ve risen considerably by now I know that would have been noticed by a great deal in the population. Just because we have big hurricanes now and then does that mean it’s caused by global warming. They been going on for Eons of time, along with many of these other phenomena such as droughts. Science is always changing it’s never the same they always discover something new. Or have you forgotten that part of the science thing
@@jaydonnelly3224 He made a film. Of course he gets royalties. He's a politician, not a scientist. If you want scientific fact, look at a peer-reviewed paper. Not a film. Not a TH-cam video. Here's a good one for starters. Just read the abstract. Two minutes maximum.
@@jaydonnelly3224 Predictions by SCIENTISTS (even long-ago ones, based on primitive models) have actually been impressively accurate. th-cam.com/video/f4zul0BuO8A/w-d-xo.html
here is a suggestion, get a climate change believer and take them to the opposing scientists who know the real truth about climate. Now that would be good viewing!!! this dude is not a hard core skeptic at all.
Numbers from a cave is not what it seems bats breathe out co2 in a cave is not the same as open atmosphere. Better to use deep ice on Antarctica to sample co2 concentrations.
18:22 "Andy says the historical connection is strong between increased carbon and increased temperature" Correlation, not causation. Some argue that temperature were going up first, then the CO2.
Egypt desertified in a period of 2000 years, the Sahara desert was rich in water, plants and animals just 8000 years ago. So no climate change can and has been fast in the past
@@MrMartibobs well if you look into it, the earth, including the Sahara desert, has been getting greener in the last 30 years exactly thanks to CO2 and the increase in temperature is not at all unusual in this time frame either since the middle ages went, very fast, into a mini ice age, from which we are currently moving out. So I do not see any real issues, but if you like drama, I guess, you can always make one up.
@@canemcave No-one's sure what caused the Medieval cool period. Probably a weakening of the Gulf Stream. The thing is, it only affected the NORTHERN Hemisphere. The rest of the world had cold periods, but at different times. I don't think we're still coming out of the cool period. We are still emerging from the Ice Age. You can't conflate the two. And people who know what they are doing have taken all factors into consideration - the sun, the Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, and find that the current situation is anomalous. And just for emphasis, the predictions made long, ago in the fifties are turning out to be pretty accurate. Not the ones made by Al Gore and Dick Durbin. The ones made by scientists in peer reviewed papers. It is BREATHTAKING arrogance to assume you know better than an entire profession. Why don't you go advise NASA on how to plot a course for Mars?
@@MrMartibobs " Probably a weakening of the Gulf Stream The thing is, it only affected the NORTHERN Hemisphere" what affected the Gulf stream? if it's a complex chaotic system how the fk do you know it affected only the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE when we have no global data to make that conclusion! "And just for emphasis, the predictions made long, ago in the fifties are turning out to be pretty accurate." I was there in the 70s and I see that all the predictions they made including several meters high water levels of a new ice age or global overpopulation and famine were all rubbish. "It is BREATHTAKING arrogance to assume you know better than an entire profession" It is breathtaking arrogance for undergraduate students to write IPPC papers, it is BREATHTAKING arrogance for inexperienced hot headed drama seeking prima donna to write national and international columns and dominate the international narrative in any topic nowadays you want to discuss. It is BREATHTAKING arrogance for twenty years old with no experience in life to teach even before having learned anything! While people like you are fking about, the real scientists, giants on these fields, are still deeply discussing the science behind these phenomena and they are all firmly stating that the climate holocaust is a nonsensical drama! Richard Lindzen th-cam.com/video/dBUNY8LPV_0/w-d-xo.html William Harper th-cam.com/video/o5HYbAkVXuU/w-d-xo.html Nir J. Shaviv, Racah th-cam.com/video/2lNnggKFYu0/w-d-xo.html Steven E Koonin th-cam.com/video/6Tz1MiX1p5I/w-d-xo.html Bjorn Lomborg th-cam.com/video/xf7WOy9QvwA/w-d-xo.html Piers Corbyn th-cam.com/video/g2ZrVagO9D0/w-d-xo.html you make up the bunch of sheep that follow the political dram for someone else's benefit, because let be clear, you will get only sht out of this
@@MrMartibobs The IPPC report a discredited document written by a group of inexperienced, under qualified, politically motivated activists. Because nowadays everything has become activism. It is a manipulative document only presenting part of the picture and as the current climate models tuning the picture to whatever the activists would like to show. This is better explained by another video: th-cam.com/video/anJL3D9YW4o/w-d-xo.html No, I am not feeling breathtakingly arrogant, I am feeling breathtakingly skeptical, suspicious on the motives and the material that is being presented and I want to get away from the political BS and look at the problem (if there is one) OBJECTIVELY! Something that nowadays has become something beyond comprehension. STOP fking about and put your fking head and not your fking a@@ into it!
The mediaeval warm period, the Roman warm period and before that, the Minoan warm period were all warmer than today. These were all time periods when human civilization thrived. The little ice age, which ended in the mid 1800s was the coldest period since the end of the last ice age. Examples; the famous Battle of Thermopylae was only possible because the sea level was several meters higher at that time. The famous "Hot Gates" pass has expanded from about a hundred meters in 480 BC to more than a mile wide today. Hannibal's invasion of the Italian Peninsula over the Alps wouldn't be possible today because his route is currently obstructed by multiple impassable glaciers. Commercial green houses commonly inject additional CO2 into the growing environment because optimal CO2 levels for plant growth is 1000 to 1200 parts per million, which is roughly 3 times the current atmospheric CO2 level. Main stream media, including Wikipedia does their best to white wash, obscure and diminish these facts but anyone who cares to actually "follow the science" can verify my examples by looking at the actual Greenland and Antarctic ice core data, and reading the actual scientific literature on the topic.
Do you mean to say that instead of 105 degree temps you are now say up to 120 all the time. Have you heard of El Nino which affects cycles of heavy rain & drought during the seasons. How does co2 make a storm stronger. How would you know storms are worse-were you around say in 150 AD or 750 AD or 14oo AD to observe comparable storms. Maybe it's the $ amount of damage that has risen over the decades.
Not many true scientists in this film. A scientist would not say "carbon" if he means carbon dioxide. They are completely different things. It would be like saying that the world is full of hydrogen, instead of full of water...
What effect do increasing sunspots have ion the climate. Maby are saying that those must be accounted for as well as anything man does. And there was the "medieval warm period" and then the "little ice age" later. If things were much warmer and much colder in the past, why should we think man is the main cause of climate "change"? And if the world is warmer overall, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, plant life will have more to breathe in and plants will grow faster and larger, and having more land available for farming due to there being longer growing seasons, we can feed more people in the world. If it ends up raining more, then there will be more water for farming and drinking. How can people think they know nothing good can come from a warmer planet? But no one ever asks themselves why the richest people in the world create and finance international organizations that ask the world to give up their sovereignty to them in order to save us from ourselves. I'd be suspicious that they have ulterior motives.
I swear I remember there were land bridges that connected the land masses thousands of years ago, now under water, and they didn't have cars. Not to mention that the earth axis is shifting as the magnetic north pole is also moving meaning the land masses aren't where they were 200 years ago I would bet that has a bigger effect then CO2. The fact remains you'll always find what you're looking for and people to verify it especially if their lively hood is at stake. The climate changes naturally, when I was a kid we called them the 4 season winter, spring, summer, and fall. High temp ranging from 30 degrees to 107 ish. 40,years later it's the same.
But atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature are now changing far more rapidly than the natural rates of change. "the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past. See: Geological Society of London Scientific Statement: what the geological record tells us about our present and future climate", Journal of the Geological Society, Lear et al, vol.178, 2020
How can you say " I work for you" when you don't have any skeptical scientists to give their sides on this. Seems obvious to me that you have formed an opinion and this was just an exercise in confirmation bias
@@simonreeves2017 very hard to do. Not because they don’t exist, but because they are blackballed. Look into climategate: it shows the depth the climate alarmists went to in order for their narrative to never be questioned, which itself is the exact opposite of what any scientist should do.
@@estebansantiago2670 I assume you are referring to the ‘hack’ at the university of east anglia in 2009. The misinterpretation of those emails was debunked years ago! There is no scientific disagreement over anthropomorphic climate change any more, the disagreements are about the rate of change and how to reverse it. Glaciers are in retreat around the world, the Arctic ice sheet gets smaller each year, there is no debate anymore.
The "new information" given by that first college professor in Texas that was so eye opening to that man is stuff I have known for many decades. I am very glad you interviewed real scientists and science explainers (for example anyone teaching at a state university) instead of the phony ones.
The problem with scientists is that they follow the money. That's how they survive. See how long a scientists would last in a university if he kept coming up with evidence (which is out there) that refutes these flawed climate models. He would be gone in no time.
@@Marley-ii6ls If that evidence can be vetted and verified, then no he wouldn't be gone. He would be applauded as someone who changed the field of science.
@@yasi4877 so, you are calling literally tens of thousands of scientists of different nationalities, cultures and political leanings liars just because they are able to provide evidence that builds on the scientific understanding. Just because their evidence does not support your ideological fantasies. Nice.
So far, no one has explained the Little Ice Age. Something warmed the atmosphere through the Medieval Warm Period. This was not caused by humans - it was natural. Then the warming stopped, and the atmosphere cooled, and the LIA happened. Again, this was not caused by humans - it was natural. Finally, "something" again started warming the atmosphere. Finally, yet again, this was not caused by humans - it was natural. So the question now is: Since the "something" that warmed the atmosphere out of the LIA was natural, is it still operating? Or did it stop because humans chose to burn fossil fuels? Hint: If no one knows what the natural "something" is or how it works, there is no way to determine whether it's still operational.
Sorry, did it to my son too. His problem is that he really likes pure science . the one that uses facts.This is more tuned for the psych class to study than a science class,how to manipulate by using emotional responses
In the several decades of my life, the weather on Southern Plains has definitely warmed with less snow especially being obvious. As children, we played every winter sledding down slopes, making snow people, throwing snow balls, etc. Now, we have little snow and when it does come it is very short lasting. My electronic outdoor thermometer has shown 116 degrees f. this September while only .14 of rain came in closest mesonet station in the normally 3rd wettest month of average year. Farmers and ranchers are having especially difficult economic conditions. Reports from around the world show similar conditions where food production, river transportation, and water power generation are in steep declines. Unless these weather trends end soon, there will be a drastic drop in human population numbers. There is strong evidence ancient human populations, some with very high levels of achievement, have existed for awhile before disappearing. Are the high levels of accomplishments of our present age headed for non-existence? Could be!
+PayneCty Gardener Along with those observations, we need to consider what's going on behind the scenes. Globalists buying up range land and prime land by the tens of thousands of acres; their agenda in general, including de-population, as you mentioned; and the bigger picture. As we take a step back to view it, those of us who know God's word and are honest with ourselves have to admit that the war against the human race being waged by the devil is coming to its ultimate conclusion. He has hated us ever since God created us. He proved this with his lie to Eve in the Garden, persuading her to believe him over God. He brought us down, we being totally complicit in sinning against God, and in his attempt to build his own kingdom, he has been preparing his man of sin, the antichrist, for some time. -- Signs of the time and season are everywhere, and are increasing exponentially, just as the birth pains Jesus warned of, and mothers are so familiar with. There is no other time than today available to us to make ready, by turning from our sin to the Savior. All He asked of us--and all we can do, really--is believe in Jesus, who He is and what He did to redeem us, and trust Him alone as our Savior. Tomorrow may literally be too late.
@@debravictoria7452 Yes, you are correct. Over 100 commercial weather modification companies, plus NOA, even operating out of Senegal where the hurricanes form before crossing the Atlantic and inundating the Caribbean and southern US.
I am a geoscience grad from TTU and I am totally embarrassed that Dr Hayhoe is considered a competent climate scientist.....will not donate no matter how many times TTU solicits me for donations
Does anyone notice that this show was 3 years ago? The way they're talking about rising temperatures and CO2 and here we are 3 years later, actually going into a cooling trend with more rain and snow and the same co2. I wish I could ask these climatologists if they know what level of co2 is in the atmosphere because I know that the level is .04%
From when I was a kid in West Virginia iv noticed warmer winter's it never rained as much in winter as it does nowand has been this way for few years now
What was it like in 1938 when you lived there ? and what was it like in 1021, remember a SINGLE climate segment is 30 years, what you are describing is weather, climate is the average over 30 years, and you need many climate segments to get an idea of the trend.
Pls, stop making conclusions based on stuff that happened near you, that you never perform any scientific experiments. It's like saying since malaria did kill you means it is not that bad, Climate change has an impact at the global level, make your conclusion based on scientific data and evidence done on the ecosystems level.
I wonder if part of the Problem could be that were poring Concrete and Asphalt all over our Precious Earth, which causes the land to be heated, which might lead to weather pattern changes. Pushing our Clouds away, thus less rain. And as far as The Ice melting couldn't that because the underwater current changing Patterns.
Even if it was total BS, the people who push it would still do it because it’s an excuse to do things that they already wanted to do. A majority of sociologists believe stuff that we all know is false, the FED has no idea what they are doing with monetary policy so take these experts with a grain of salt.
This started in 1970 and within 15 years we were to have world wide famine and let's not forget it was global cooling because of what? Yes, CO2 emissions. 50 years later and it's the same rhetoric and it doesn't stop. We have to do something now. I live in South Florida and the beaches look the same today as they did 50 years ago.
Climate change is a hoax In the history of the earth CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature and the climate on earth
You're either full of shit or just plain ol stupid...which one is it???
What doesn't stop is the same rubbish trotted out over and over about how "they" supposedly predicted cooling. There was never any serious consideration by climate scientists that the world was going to cool, it was a fringe theory hyped up by media. The physics behind global warming has been known for more than a century and oil company scientists knew about man made global warming in the late seventies. That the beach in South Florida looks the same to you means absolutely nothing. The fact that you think it has some implications shows that you have not the slightest grasp of the subject.
Root cause
th-cam.com/video/lmKnu6EXIkc/w-d-xo.html
Just another scam, fraud done by the criminal elites (Billionaires, old rich families, politicians). Power and control. Similar like in the past done by organized religions.
When she said climate involves 20 to 30 years I really had my doubts. Almost all climate cycles involve periods anywhere from 60 to 20,000 years or more. Climate history establishes climate and its range of change over long periods of time. The Sahara desert has gone from swamp to desert a number of times.
Then when she said storms were getting worse, a look at just the last 100 years would show patterns of increase and decrease. And the last 20 years have been comparatively calm compared to the 1950's for example. After that I changed channels.
Yea, and the part of them sitting down as she whiteboards information and he saying he learned something, sounds and looks a bit odd.
I do feel her very concerns; I don’t have the facts and figures... but I know we will be alright, if and when whatever is suppose to happen... or not. We’re here, so be prepared and be ever hopeful.
When we turn our awareness and imagination to our worst fears, does it make the hurricane spin a little faster? I wonder.
The George Carlin video " Saving the Planet" supports your position and is quite factual and entertaining. He also brings up the idea of the earth creating viruses to fight back against the human threat. I would check it out if you haven't seen it.
Climate change is a hoax In the history of the earth CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature and the climate on earth
Well I hope your really old and not planning living past 2050 because that's the point of no return! Have fun enjoy, don't forget that factor 1000th your gonna need
Doesn't it seem talking to 'climate scientists' is like talking to 'gender disphorics' ?
In my 59 years on this planet the worst example of air pollution I’ve seen has all come from the mouths of politicians
No, the worst air pollution has come from the cigarette industry.
CRITICAL THINKING and the scientific method are king. This video takes punters with little knowledge to a few well selected places and convinced them.
Key words there... "a few well selected places and convinced them." I did not feel like it was a balanced look at both sides of the argument, but more of a sales job, very agenda driven...
You think maybe a WORLD TOUR?
CRITICAL THINKING and the scientific method, so why isn't anyone addressing the fact that the earth is producing oil 24-7 and what happens if we don't use it. Where is it going to go, it seems to be much more abundant today than ever before. I fear we're not using it fast enough. We must use a million more times than the oil we used in the seventies, yet there seems to be oil everywhere.
@@ronk1001 You are so right. Air is another commodity that we're just not using enough of. You breathe and breathe and breathe, and somehow, it's still there. We need to get children to breathe harder, and perhaps persuade cows and other large mammals to inhale more often, and perhaps hold their breath. Or perhaps use gene technology to bring back creatures such as the diplodocus, whose enormous lung capacity could be used to trap excess oxygen.
Ultimately, we probably have to construct pipelines into space, so that surplus air can be ejected some distance from the Earth's gravitational pull. If some technological fix can't be found, I fear that we will literally start drowning in air.
@@gerrymatheson4020 You're making the assumption that there are two sides to every argument. This is just not true. Do you have to give counter-arguments to an assertion that jumping from a tall building is dangerous? In discussions on water supply, should it be compulsory to have arguments in favour of lead and arsenic in the water supply?
Would it be reasonable for a defence attorney to question the assumption that murder is bad?
There is no counter argument to the adoption of renewable energy. The clue is in the name. Renewable. As in, it won't run out. Ever. You don't have to grovel to evil war-lords to get it. And the fumes that currently cause many premature deaths are removed from cities.
One of the most severe heatwaves in N. American history was in 1936, it claimed thousands of lives. Temperatures soared to over 100 degrees for months.
You should watch Prof. Don Easterbrook's videos. He explains that 30's warming.
So the fuck what?
Blame the industrial revolution according to the "experts". Climate change by humans is a hoax.
@@mrunning10 It means naturally occurring warming has happened before without runaway warming. So there is no reason to believe it would go out of control this time. See the temperatures of the Holocene Optimum and the previous interglacial and you will see that today's temperatures are not even unusual. In fact, from after the Younger Dryas, about 9000 to 5000 years ago, or most of this interglacial has been warmer than today.
@@starleyshelton2245 "there's no reason to believe" OK then, just WHAT is stopping THIS? assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/nab3/global-temp-carbon-dioxide.gif
And explains THIS? blueskiesmeteorology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NCDC-NOAA-800k-year-co2-concentration.gif
And tracks the co2 like THIS? www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.meteo3/files/images/lesson10/co2_temp_ncdc.jpg
Your comment regarding the Holocene is typical nonsense, knowing nothing of the physics of the models. YES, WHY were the temps during the Holocene not "runaway?" And WHAT physical characteristic of the Earth's co2 EXCHANGE process, NOT present NOW, explains the temps?
At least the modeling is PYSICS based, rather than MAGA conspiracy like YOU seem to be.
Here: Essentials of Atmospheric and Oceanic Dynamics, by Geoffrey K. Vallis | Mar 7, 2019
read try learning first, and not stopping when you get the answer your brainwashing seeks from the first MAGA conspiracy website your find.
Your PhD in Atmospheric and Ocean Science? From Stanford? or MIT?
Well, holy cow, you show a picture of the most easy to convince person ever and gave him a free trip to the North Pole. What can you say?
Although I believe in climate change, I think this documentary wasn't fair. Only one scientist was asked who argued against man-made climate change. The questions Justin was supposed to ask the other climate researchers were also not addressed. It is very reminiscent of cherry picking!
Another point that should also be considered is that no one thinks about the fact that fossil fuels are also biomass. So they would actually be renewable. The problem is that bacteria developed around 300 million years ago and spread around the globe, which anaerobically break down the cellulose of the plants and thus prevent a renewed formation of coal and petroleum. Otherwise the process would definitely have to be rated as regenerative and absolutely natural. The question then would be, what would happen if such a deposit would naturally catch fire, which statistically would happen one way or another at some point?
One would even have to take into account that such a naturally triggered combustion then releases the CO2 much faster than humans could ever do. It doesn't take much to set fire to a coal seam or an oil well. A lightning strike, a forest fire (which can be started by a drop of water) or volcanism is enough to ignite such a fire.
Not to mention what would happen if an earthquake released a large reservoir of oil from under the ocean floor. In contrast, a tanker accident would be a trivial matter.
Oh, and while we're at it, take a look at what NASA has to say us about CO2: wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/25/nasa-vegetation-index-globe-continues-rapid-greening-trend-sahara-alone-shrinks-700000-sq-km/
It seems that CO2 is better for our environment than these scientists claim or want us to believe. Vegetation growth is accelerated in desert regions and the vegetation helps to cool the planetary atmosphere.
Climate change is a hoax In the history of the earth CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature and the climate on earth
Thanks for sharing that link... good info... CO2 is not a pollutant... it is "plant food"!
Your 100% right ! Take away the CO2 " earth would look much like the moon!
Climate Change is pure bullshit. It's a communist approach to control the people from being a free people.
@@gerrymatheson4020 and when you destroy forests and increase co2 that's the problem der
She was very passionate. Yeah, because the people who fund her establishment won't fund it if she isn't.
Bingo!!!
Yeah oil and gas companies and big business are very passionate at telling you everything is fine....
@@bereal6590 You should really study more climate history. It would take either some fear away or make you very, very afraid of your future. Relax and don't fall for this fraud climate change, global warming, global cooling...
Climate "scientists" are the ones who are bought and paid for. They don't dance to music of the climate alarmists and they lose their jobs.
She IS part of the "establishment" with a famouse mother, a millionair father, and became a millionair herself - by this acting. And also the friend of the family, owning a PR company, who "happened to be" at the place when Greta begun her crusaid, made up it's income hundredfold.
Oh, what a coincidence?
Interesting documentary as is often the case. The problem I have is so much of what I hear is bias or lies. So it is very difficult to tell who is telling the truth and what is real. One of many first hand examples related to this documentary occurred when I went on an Alaskan cruise a decade ago. I have other examples as well. On the cruise in the morning there was a lecture by three environmentalists. hundreds attended. They talked of the many animals seen from the ship early that morning. They asked all to stand and asked someone what they saw. The response was a family of black bears. They asked if any did not see the bears then sit down. After numerous animals and everyone else sitting I was the last man standing. They asked what I had seen. I said an albino wolf and told them where I had seen it. They told me perhaps I was mistaken. I said I don't think so. They said there were no wolves on the islands and an albino wolf is extremely rare. They suggested I saw other things and I might have seen or other colors, maybe not even an animal, etc., etc. They definitely thought I was mistaken. That was just not possible. I told them I was not mistaken and had taken several photos with a telephoto lens on my digital camera. They invited me up on the stage and looked at the photos. After some discussion they all agreed I had a sighting of an albino wolf on the island. With that they gave me a seat on the stage to join them. Next we passed glaciers. They said this one melted 1.2 miles. That one 0.5 miles. The next one 0.7 miles. They talked extensively about global warming and how if continued many animals would die. We might die. They asked what I thought as the honorary environmentalist now with a seat on the stage. I pointed out the window and said that glacier is huge. How much has that one melted. I was shocked to hear that glacier had grown 0.5 miles. I asked why? They said they did not know. Meanwhile we passed another glacier. I asked how much that one had melted? They said that glacier had grown 0.2 miles. I asked why when they talk about global warming and only pointed to glaciers that had melted? They did not tell of those that has grown. There was no answer... So many don't know much and many more are very bias and some just lie. So with these types of experiences how does one believe what is being said? To that end I believe there is some global warming. Do I know for sure? No because there are so many lies and the environmentalists did not believe me about the wolf until my proof was to them beyond doubt. They could not even come close to proving to me their story about global warming. Glaciers were not adequate proof to me as some melted and some grew. I still "believe" among all the ignorance and bias and lies that global warming possibly does exist. However, one has to sort out a lot to begin to consider that might be the case.
One cause of the planet warming, has not been mentioned by any climate expert, and I feel it should be considered. The planet warming from within. The crust actually becoming warmer. This warming would no doubt have an effect on everything on the surface, including the oceans.
It's only about the real cause if something gets warmer on Earth.
That should be the human share of 0.0005291% of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 272 years (as of the year 1750).
(277 ppm to 420 ppm , humans have 3.7% of that = 0.0143% x 3.7%)
When the temperature is forecast for next week, it is always in a kind of "fan" form.
The minimum and maximum temperatures will spread quickly due to uncertainties in the calculation model and that is in just 1 week.
It is exactly the same for the climate, only there are many more uncertain factors + a very long time.
It is certainly impossible to predict the climate with calculation models, so those models must always be corrected, which has already happened several times in a relatively short time.
Unfortunately, one continues to work with this kind of calculation model, but calculation models only work exactly if exact data is entered and there are none.
So we are hugely fooled with climate predictions.
Unfortunately, environmentalists are always right, because if in 30 years the climate has not warmed up, they say that it is because of the measures and if it has become warmer, then they say that too little has been done.
That's how politics works, it's NEVER the WHOLE truth, it just APPEARS to be the truth.
So whats being told as a narrative is that due to global warming, the glaciers are melting and thus the ocean level is rising… but there is no truth behind the fact that water level rises when ice melts.. because it Does Not! Try this out for yourself with a glass of ice water filled to the brim. When the ice melts, does water spill over the edge?
@@champspec That applies to the ice floating in the ocean.
Glaciers are created by evaporating water from the ocean, so they don't cause sea level rise when they melt either, but glaciers are often old and have been on land for a long time, so they contribute something in our time, but that is little given the small volume.
If land ice melts, sea levels could rise, but it's been several millimeters a year for many years now, so alarming reports are groundless.
Those measurements can only be made accurately by satellites, because due to the large difference in earth masses in the ocean, the water is nowhere spherical, but a kind of hilly landscape and movements of continents can also cause an apparent rise in sea level.
So you really have to calculate the average using thousands of measurements from satellites.
I live in a polder in the Netherlands, where they have raised the dikes by 2.5 meters, because of the alarming stories, but the sea level is not alarming at all, so the "sea level madness" has also struck in the Netherlands.
Reminiscent of Al Gore, who predicted more than ten years ago that sea levels would rise 7 meters after 10 years, so in 2010 he bought a large house worth 9 million dollars overlooking the sea.
His house in Nashville uses 231 000 kWh per year of which less than 5% with solar panels and that is one of his many houses.
I don't use 1700 kWh/year yet.
These kinds of people have deceived the world.
@@heinpereboom5521 Nothing you just said has anything to do with climate change.
If no-one had come up with the idea of Global Warning, no-one will have noticed.
Exactly, its more of propaganda and fear mongering bcuz its a natural cycle
This all started from one person doing a flawed experiment with co2.
Climate change is a hoax In the history of the earth CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature and the climate on earth
Global-warning.
That's one way to put it.😉
@@kennethliew7828 Climate change is a hoax In the history of the earth CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature and the climate on earth
There were no scientists in the video to offer an opposing view, to give a real debate. The skeptic was swayed easily.
Exactly!!!
Thanks for the info
Why do that, from another reply
The skeptic get plenty of air time. It does not need to be shown. EXXON and the Koch Bro provide the funds, all the stuff they put out via the libertarian think tanks they fund is non scientific, ie scientific rigour via professional scrutiny would reject them as the science they use is so bad so they just by pass that. Yet the nonsense still gets out, so why repeat rubbish. They did the cirrect thing by not going. It is not a case of 50 50 air time for opinions because the skeptics have been shown time and again to be wrong, via lies, misinformation, taking thing sout of context, lying about what scientists intent is re a paper. One just lises total respect for the skeptics.
Do you expect young Earth creationists to be included in documentaries on evolution?
@@petergleeson295 in 1998 at least 30000+ american scientists, third of them with phd in related areas, signed the climate change petition saying there is no such thing as AGW. Today the warming church has taking over govts and media and heretics are labeled as deniers and doomed to death and oblivion loosing jobs, sponsorships and credibility, banned from media (magazines, social nets), if you are one better run away and hide or posse towards the other side
Actually during the Jurassic time the volcanoes produce more CO2 than we’ve ever seen in our whole lifetime that’s why it was so green Back then
People fail to realize our whole planet and everything living on it is carbon based. Hell, farmers actually pump Co2 into their green houses to promote planet growth. And the experts are telling us Co2 is bad for the planet.
and dinosaurs and vegetation grew to massive heights too.
The difference is that it took millions of years to get to those temperatures.
The current sudden increase in temperatures makes extreme weather events deadly.
Not to mention rising sea levels, which will roll back shorelines by several mikes,in a short period of time.
If you are a dinosaur fine-you move inland,homes & businesses can not do that.
@@tr7b410 And you believe what you've just wrote. I actually have a magazine from the 1970's. The cover story was "The Hot House Effect: Why the Whole of the East Coast of Britain will be Under 20 feet of water by 1980". Obviously not happened, no rising sea levels whatsoever. That began as a Left Wing political thing and has spread like wildfire. Don't be so gullible. If you can't use your own common sense, use real research, real history.
@@tr7b410 No, it did not take "millions of years" to reach those temps. Extreme weather events have always been deadly. The Sea level worldwide has not risen by any significant amount. Any other falsehoods you wish me to debunk?
WOW another truth finding documentary that only covers one side of the story.
Ditto
What is the matter with additional information?
@@simpinainteasy680 ...yeah...what about that...if you are looking for some... this ain't it
Yeah. Why don't scientists include the bible in their understanding? Why can't documentaries include bullshit to balance their conclusions?
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
My biggest problem is with all the past predictions, and how off they have all been . And with all that melted ice how come the coastline hasn’t changed the way it was predicted ?
th-cam.com/video/CA1zUW4uOSw/w-d-xo.html
Will explains that perfectly
because new ice has formed. youre not meant to hear about that
Bcuz this time also they are wrong and 30yrs later we say do u remember we must have been sunk under water 4-5 times!? But nothing happened
Climate change is a hoax In the history of the earth CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature and the climate on earth
I recently was going through some old college text books - year 1976. I came across a Geology book and a full chapter was devoted to explaining the coming ice age - complete with data, analysis and scientific buy-in. It’s all BS. Back then, and now.
This expedition was incredibly one sided. It means nothing without hearing both sides. Reporters are a dime a dozen. We are not discussing the earth only those who live on it.
Major flaw in the Texas tech professor's data, co2 atmospheric concentration was over 3000 parts per million from 60 to 100 million years ago which also was a time when earth had the most diversity of life and vegetation over the entire planet. We are currently at 400 parts per million.
The question is, if that would be a good climate for humans to thrive in? Also, if our climate changes drastically too quickly, would our current society be able to adapt and survive?
Lmao yes give me all temperatures in order to extinct almost everything that lives here now. That diversity always came with something before that going extinct, sounds not so good to me.
The problem with that argument is because during that time sun intensity was 25% less than it is today. So those CO2 concentrations kept the earth from freezing
Are you a plant?
@@kimwit1307
The answer is...living under corrupt lies and communism with a brain-dead resident being controlled by an America-hating grandson-of-a-CIA agent is no picnic and we won't survive that.
There are salmon in California streams, the stream salmon go to is the one they were born in. The reason salmon are GREATLY REDUCED in North America 🇺🇸 is because of fertilizers farmers allow to run off their lands and into streams end up in the oceans and kill all fish close to shore. And they are also reduced because of nuclear radiation ☢️ in the waters in Washington state were there were many radioactive waste spills. In Alaska farming of all kinds including very small farmers is highly subsidized by the state and this is a fairly recent policy, thus, farming and other toxins in the waters is the cause of the reduction in salmon NOT warmer waters!
The Alaskan guide says "This trail we're going to take has been in use by people for thousands of years". Later they are having a rest and he says "Where we are sitting here, in 1900 there would have been seven or eight hundred feet of ice over our heads."
Make up your mind, dude 😅
Glaciers stick to valleys mostly. Car parks are not made next to Glaciers
@@petergleeson295 more than glaciers "stcking to valleys mostly", it's that glaciers actually create valleys
And on Greenland a WW2 airplane that crashed in 1942 was found under 300feet of ice some 70 years later . Between 2017-2019 Greenland added about 1.2 trillion net tons of ice, one of the many facts climate alarmists never report
The Alaska scientist: "Everyone will be better served having more information." That's exactly where I am at. I am fed up with being told what to believe without answers that make logical sense, all the way to "OK, so how are we making the carbon dioxide link? What are the supports (and the questions) to the causation argument for CO2?" Good idea to do this documentary. Cool.
The link is our reliance on fossil fuels. We can measure todays carbon levels against carbon levels in the past. Carbon gets trapped in ice. They drill into ice in the arctic and you can see layers. Each layer represents a snow season. You can measure carbon in each layer. 98% of climate scientists worldwide agree humans have significantly added more CO2 than any other period in earths history based on multuple forms of data that all point to US as the culprits. Its an uncomfortable fact.
th-cam.com/video/CA1zUW4uOSw/w-d-xo.html
This is a great accompaniment to thisvideo
I think the approach you are taking is the right way to go about it. I felt the same way and I am tired of not knowing so I am learning how climate works from the ground up. The woman in this video right in the beginning draws a wiggling line with an upward trend and says that is our climate for the last 30 years. Everything I have been reading says that is not true. If there is an upward trend it would be around a decade because before those 10 years the climate was actually cooling on average and this was measured by NOAA, NASA GISS, (The United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research), IPCC, they all show that the past 17 years on average the globe was cooling and these results were done in the year 2013 so how could it be 30 years. Also the climate models are not replicating the raw data correctly. Some say they are now after some adjustments though I haven't been able to find the adjustments made yet to understand them but if they are correct they are accounting for about 10 years give or take.
This video proves nothing.
Climate change is a hoax In the history of the earth CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature and the climate on earth
The global climate is constantly changing, and there is nothing man can say or do to change it. Either we live with it or not.
Absolutely agree 100 percent.
Exactly, its a natural cycle
Exactly! Glad to see more people waking up!
Pathetic, so ppl ruin the earth and the environment and other species suffer and children don't have a future In decades to come. How selfish can you get
Suggest you watch it, before commenting.
I'd like to see what happens when governments quit manipulating the weather
I don't really understand how can people call themselves as "climate scientist" and not knowing BASIC physics?
Claiming "the more CO2 the more it traps theheat ". No, bloody NO! This person does not KNOW physics!
The greeenhouse effect of the CO2 is NOT linear. She SHOULD know that. And also she SHOULD know that there is a saturation level, there the CO2 can NOT trap any more heating. You listen? NOT ANY MORE after the saturation point. And we are very close to this saturation, doubling the amount of CO2 (rising by 200%) adds only to 25% to the trapped energy.
Also, nowhere in this film I see on what ground they claim that the temperature rising is the RESULT of the CO2 rising and not the other way around? That the natural temperature rising CAUSES the releasing of the CO2 from the oceans. Just as ALL the climate history clearly shows: first rising temperature and with a clear delay rises the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Why not a word about that? Why not a word about that there were times, when the amount of CO2 was 12 times higher then now, but the temperature was not significantly higher. Why not telling, that human activity makes only up 3-5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere? The rest is the normal circle of the biosphere. Why not saying that?
Are they REALLY scientists?
And finally: it's getting warmer since the last "little ice-age", yes, it's correct. Now when will we reach the OPTIMAL temperature?
Excellent comment. Also CO2 IS 0.004% the atmosphere. Glad someone else watched this with critical thinking and a brain. This was a hit piece with no evidence of causation.
@@thebritishbookworm2649 How about drinking a pint of beer every day, containing .04% arsenic. Would the low concentration make it harmless? Go on, try it. Great TH-cam video.
The warming caused by CO2 is amplified by increased water vapour, methane, decrease in albedo. The whole process has its own momentum. More warming leads to more warming.
@@thoutube9522 they don't use water vapour in there models which aren't anywhere close to being accurate. 10 years or 100 year's. They can't predict the weather after 5 days and you think these models are workable.
@@thoutube9522 Wrong. The rising of the water vapour in the air is a stupid bullshit, claimed by - again! - people not knowing BASIC physics. "Rising the water vapor..." WHERE? Te atmosphere is a 3 dimensional space, the vapor does different things on ground level, in the troposphere and in the stratosphere. And those behaviors do often oppose each other. Also WHEN? The clouds keep the heat in the night, but reflect the Sun at daytime, COOLING the atmosphere. Also important WHERE THE VAPOUR GOES? They act differently at the Equator and at the Poles, and again inbetween. So PLEASE do not spread thing you don't understand!
NOTE:
All the above is a strong simplification, to point out the complexity of the atmosphers physics
This is an excellent program, but I think it would've been better had they also taken Dr. John Christy, the scientist at the beginning of the program who is a climate change skeptic, along with them on the trip. Christy would've brought up major points from his background as a scientist that the other scientists in the program could've responded to with solid evidence. Not having a scientist like Dr. Christy go along on the trip is a major weakness of the program. Can you imagine what an impact it would've had on people across the country and around the world had Dr. Christy seen all of the evidence and changed his views like Justin did? It would've changed the program from being a standard documentary to being a block buster.
Hi, I have a degree in atmospheric science and communicated with him via email a few years back. I don't believe his arguments are terribly strong. His raises some relevant questions, not in this video but in other appearances he has had, but I don't think his conclusions are very accurate.
Christy knows all the information and would refute the erroneous info spewed by Katherine Hayhoe...
@@taylortreadgold4810 christy’s opening gambit that things naturally fluctuate between hot and cold misses the two massive factors of causation and rate of change
We know what caused climate to change naturally and we know those causes do not apply today, so we need to find what is causing this particular change in global climate and the best answer we have is increasing GHGs
John Christy is a fraud who wouldve contributed nothing but contrarian talking points
totally agree.Justin didnt have all the knowledge that was required to rebuff the mainstream dogma. No one even ? Ozone depletion effect,where more heat must come in as the depletion occurs,and we do burn easier now .Why do they warn us all the time about burn times ?because of more CO2 of course not ,its greater UV heat.. did people get more skin cancers before the ozone was depleted???? .CO2 cant burn and more CO2, even if itdid trap trap heat, still wont cause you to burn quicker , only more UV can do that .its an easy experiment to do.put a UV source that emits UVA B and C and all the other stuff we get from the sun, in a room and begin filling it with CO2 and measure what happens .not hard is it? ALL temps anywhere taken within a half mile of any manmade object must be suspect..come on buildings become heatsinks .concrete ,tarmac,.stop blaming our food source, try blaming all the other stuff we do first..CO2 is a copout so we dont have to stop the other more devistating polutants.
I remember in the late 80's the reported scientific theory was that the movement of the tectonic plates ment that by 2050 the average temperature in Ohio would be 70 degrees. Personally, I think we should try not to pollute our air and water as best we can. That doesn't mean we should let fear mongers pick and chose what information we note before making any environmental impacting decisions.
I seriously wish the average temp in ohio was 70F!
I remember that and I'm Canadian.
I attended national climate conferences in the late 80s and the predictions have come true
nearest thing I can find on the internet is this: "We found the Earth’s plate tectonics could become unstable if the surface temperature rose by 38 °C (100 °F) or more for a few million years,” said lead author Adrian Lenardic, associate professor of Earth science at Rice University"
Tectonic plates move very, very slowly. Are you sure you're remembering this right?
@@MrMartibobs I'm sure, even remember a conversation with several co workers, discussing what each of us thought about it.
When I lived in Florida I swore global warming was real, now that I live in New Hampshire I could use a little global warming.
and in the uK we would agree with you.
Climate alarmist use the term "climate change" when they mean " man made climate change". Tony Heller is unassailable.
They are not alarmists. I have total respect for people with their views if they are based on good science. The people who deny human induced climate warming by putting too much co2 and methane into the atmospher do not have good science to back them up and therefore I do not respect their views, when they continue to hold them despite seeing the obvious evidence, time and time again in so many ways. Just bizzar.
@@briancrowther3272
"Too much CO2 & methane"
According to whom?
Greta?
Not alarmist huh?
Go back and watch Al Gore's movie inconvenient truth. It's all bs.
But you'll never admit that you're been duped.
"It's much easier to fool someone than to get them to admit they've been fooled " -Mark Twain
@@johntempest267 no not alarmist at all. I certainly will value their views above yours as there are a lot of them, they are professional and do properly researched work. You just don't rate. Sorry but that is the reality.
@@briancrowther3272
Absolutely Brian.
I'm nobody, and I don't expect to persuade you with a couple of wise ass remarks.
But I urge you to take just a moment to peek behind the curtain.
These are some names of the Doctors, Scientists, and Professors who have the proper credentials.
Dr Willie Soon
Prof. Don Easterbrook
Dr Patrick Moore
Tony Heller
Prof. Steven F. Hayward
Dr Susan Crockford
Prof. Richard Lindzen
After watching YT videos of these people, I'm convinced.
If you watch some of these people speak, and still feel the same way, come back and say so. Otherwise, spread the word.
Sincerely, John Tempest
@@briancrowther3272 What is "too much" CO2? Compared to almost the entire history of the planet we are at a CO2 drought level. Plants do better at twice the current levels. And projections of future temperature indicate a more even and temperate climate worldwide at the higher level. Personally, I am for MORE CO2.
A couple of points they didn't discuss... The population of Earth has gone from 1 Billion to 8 Billion in 200 years (8x more CO2 as well as 8x fires)
When Mt. Pinatubo blew up in 1991, it belched out so much that the hole in the Ozone layer tripled! Yet two years later the ring had recovered.
The Earth can heal itself in ways we don't understand.
Don’t forget to thank fossil fuels for the trip these guys took….
Well used.
I guess that justifies our international flights and the 4X4 road trips for fun
The world is in an intermediate ice age enjoy it while it lasts.
A question I’d like to ask is:Who is funding their program?
The top 1 percent who run the show. Its all about control
Great question. Stare university's are funded by govt. In order to keep their grant they need to come up with answers that they want
It's always CO2 that is the culprit for the increase in temperature. What about water vapor? I never hear anyone mention that. Why was there a little ice age that ended in 1700 and the temperature starts increasing yet they always start at the industrial revolution and don't mention the first 150 years of increased temperature. hmm... what about going back in the geological records to when the earth was colder but CO2 levels were in the thousands are parts per million...? Always a lot of thing left out of the assumptions made so no wonder it's the wrong conclusion. What has the sun been doing all this time since that's where all this heat if coming from. Oh wait. That's natural. Their funding only studies anything related to human activity and nothing about what the planet or sun are doing on their own. Bottom Line: The climate is changing and not by much. It's not a big deal regardless if it's man made, nature or both. It's not going to be the end of the world. The apocalypse is made up.
I have a strong feeling that scientists are well aware of that. Water vapour increases with warming, and amplifies the CO2 effect. As does methane. As for the sun, this is carefully monitored (OF COURSE) and solar irradiance is actually DECLINING right now.
So it's NOT the sun. You can see a graph her demonstrating that: www.sealevel.info/You_Zai-Jin_et_al_2009.pdf
Couple issues I had: Justin is a very impressionable skeptic who has no idea why he’s a skeptic. If you’re a skeptic know your stuff.
Also, why weren’t skeptical scientists talked to more in depth? Just proponents of anthropogenic climate change.
I get it, you had to pick a skeptic who won’t question much.
+HoodrichRacing These people discount the two most damaging factors to their beliefs.
Second, the second law of thermodynamics, which is a scientific principle that has been overwhelmingly proven, and can be observed. It is undeniable.
And First, they leave God's judgment on mankind's sin completely out of the picture. The whole world groans and is in misery because of our rebellion against God, dating back to Eve and Adam's sin, believing the devil instead of God. God is preparing to judge planet earth, in the most extreme ways ever, since He created all things. The destruction detailed in the Revelation of Jesus Christ will make anything taking place now insignificant. Escape? Forgiveness for sins, through genuine faith in Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior. John 3:16.
My thought was similar, I can think of at least 5 people in semi-elected positions by nature of having an online following, to argue against climate change, so why not bring one of them on, for example, I would love to see a 'climatologist' discuss these 'graphs' with Randall Carlson.
For example the first 'scientist' shows her first graph, and it's only dated back to 1850, like how is that an honest discussion to begin with.
I'm sure they chose this guy very carefully. I would have had lots of questions they wouldn't be able to answer and they would have had to scrap the documentary, find someone else and start over.
They say CO2 causes climate change yet trees are cut down at a phenomenonal rate. Trees and plant life that absorb CO2 and give off oxygen
Because they talk crap.
I live in central Florida and I note with certainty that the so-called 'citrus line' has been moving steadily southward for almost one hundred years as a result of longer colder winters.
the earth has cycles, 23,500 yr cycles..have you been around for 52,000 yrs,,no..climate change is bs..being green, is bs..
Geoengineering is to blame.
They haven't made Geo's for years....
Wow, that must put you around 145 years old LOL
@@kennethliew7828 So if the world gives up meat burgers for veggie burgers all is well?
Do you know what a volcano is powered by? When you see rock boiling over and pouring out of its banks...whats generating that heat? It's a fact they are powered by burning petroleum oil. And they burn continuously all over this planet. What you going to do about these carbon emitters? Are you saying giving up meat is the biggest solution..over volcanos? NEWS FLASH !!! COW gas cannot compete with 24/7 volcano activity around the world!!!
Now just so you know..I am a 90% vegan who only eats a little cheese or 100%. I'm not fond of eating dead cow or any other dead animal or their by products. Not too many of the climate alarmist can say that...they are hypocrites. They don't do as they say.
Like how the visit to the skeptics wasn’t even showed. This show was intentionally constructed with biases.
th-cam.com/video/CA1zUW4uOSw/w-d-xo.html
The skeptic get plenty of air time. It does not need to be shown. EXXON and the Koch Bro provide the funds, all the stuff they put out via the libertarian think tanks they fund is non scientific, ie scientific rigour via professional scrutiny would reject them as the science they use is so bad so they just by pass that. Yet the nonsense still gets out, so why repeat rubbish. They did the cirrect thing by not going. It is not a case of 50 50 air time for opinions because the skeptics have been shown time and again to be wrong, via lies, misinformation, taking thing sout of context, lying about what scientists intent is re a paper. One just lises total respect for the skeptics.
Did anyone consider that the Sun & the earth's tilt may have something to do with this?
A guy named Milankovitch did so about a hundred years ago. His theory is just that, a theory, which is scientist speak for established fact.
@@andywomack3414 Indeed he did.
@Frank Smith Evolution is an observation. Natural Selection is the theory accepted as it's cause.
One point that I noticed is out of all the things that affect the temperature on earth, they didn’t mention the magnetic pole shift and the weakening magnetic field. This helps shield not only the suns rays but the cosmic forces that come from not only outside our atmosphere but from outside our solar system and the galaxy itself.
Absolutely correct!! I have been saying this for years now
decades is nothing in geological terms, there was a mini ice age between the 15th and 19th century, so decades is insignificant.
This!, plus CO2 levels where much higher when you go back to the paleozoic and before. The earth was greener, life flourished. We are now in a low CO2 era
@@Mananitoh
That was also when life was only really fit for giant cold-blooded lizards.
watch dan britt,. self made scientist, he deals in 10,000, yrs,,as a day..
People point to coastal flooding in Miami as proof of sea level rise, but can't explain why Cuba is not experiencing sea level rise just 60 miles from Miami.
Miami is sinking into the ground due to excessive fresh water pumping.
It is seeing the same sea level rise because he sea level is rising. Maybe Cuba is experiencing some tectonic uplift, I do not know the actual data but many places expderence the impression of sea level falling or it is static because they are rising due to many reasons. I am a geologist this is my field we use this stuff to find oil and gas. eg West Uk is rising and gaining coastline due to adjustments due to the ice melting while the east is sinking and losing coast line.
@@briancrowther3272
Which has nothing to do with the depth of the ocean/s.
@@psychicspy and your point. Is it depth you are talking or sea level. I wrote about both if you read it properly. The land moves about and up and down, in different places at different times, the sea level changes too but over the world at the same time. Teasing out the latter is hard and takes a lot of skill. But it has been done by view and it is reliable.
@@kennethliew7828
Shhhhh. Talking too much and getting too excited will contribute to global warming. If you are serious about wanting to take personal action to combat global warming I suggest you sit quietly in a dark room and not impose a burden on mother Earth.
As the sea levels rise the Plymouth rock remains exactly the same as it was 403 years ago.
The very fact that glaciers melt from the bottom up tells us that rising air temperature is not the problem.
So you don't understand 95% of the heat has been absorbed by the oceans? The temperature under the glaciers is 40` F, that's whats melting the glaciers,
@@timelsen2236
Much of the warm water affecting the Antarctic ice sheet is believed to belong to a large, naturally occurring warm mass known as “circumpolar deep water.” Originally formed from the mixing of waters originating in other, warmer parts of the globe, circumpolar deep water is now a fixture in the Southern Ocean.
Scientific American
This water mass is very salty and dense, causing it to sink beneath the colder, less dense water closer to the surface of the Southern Ocean. It can be found all around the perimeter of Antarctica, typically at a depth of around 1,600 feet below the surface, according to University of Washington glacier expert Eric Steig. It’s this circumpolar deep water that’s believed to be driving glacier melt around the continent.
“Although circumpolar deep water has probably warmed about a tenth of a degree in the last few decades, this warming is probably not the cause of the observed changes in the glaciers,” Steig said in an email to E&E News. “What is far more important is whether the already-warm water gets to the glacier front, under the floating ice shelves.”
Actually they melt because of the moolahs where the fresh water melting on the glaciers .create a way for fresh water to make it to the bottom of ice .
.this melting . Was having an effect for many years .. we've have three major ice ages . Where I live it was three miles of ice . No more of course. So before modern man we had at least one that lasted for 53000 years glaciers..
Their we're few men around at that time . It lasted longer with no men than it has in the last two glaciers that moved south . I live in a cerk that was the beginning of a glacier . Love your videos
Thanks ps we have a cave here that used to go 53 miles . The melting glaciers melted and a rush of water many times as it melted pushed from valley floor to Republic wa. This is not the Missoula floods . They came from Canada and north. The power of the water rushing down the valley cut into the sandstone and sand and granite . Making one longest caves in my area 53 miles
@@timelsen2236 glaciers are not floating on the ocean (that's icebergs). Glaciers are typically land based and if the bottoms are melting faster than their surfaces that would suggest the culprit isn't air temps... Maybe there's something going on below ground we should be paying attention to... 🤷♂️😂
It's a product of the physics of water and ice. Water is the denser state so with pressure you can squeeze ice into water. This is why ice dams can only reach so high.
Every time I see 'climate change' I see more taxes and more government intervention (power to politician). And that's my biggest barrier. I think also that a lot of improvements have been made in the population, in the automotive industry and in consuming habits. And every time we ear about climate change, it's like we are doing nothing. We (ordinary citizen) pay a lot to fight climate change. It's like nothing is good enough. We should pay and pay more. It's proven that the more you are rich the more you can go green. Also, what about China, India etc. Why is it always our fault (Western countries) that have to pay? There is a ton of money to make in this market (green economy) and weirdly enough, the richest man in the world is Elon Musk...
This is my sincere opinion.
Your BIGGEST barrier is government intervention to take necessary actions to make things better for society?! Did you really just say that?
I’ll assume you did, and ask - then WTF is the job of the government then??? You go and elect people to represent your state in Congress for what exactly?
Every religion takes advantage of the unknown . Government religions are concerned for their own benefit. people been burning fire since beginning of time to stay warm to cook food and many other reasons. This only becomes an issue if a government sees a prophet. All you have to do is just get people to believe . Government and religion is the same thing.
Very good said,I think the same 👍
@@chrisknowles5358 I think the guy said in a nutshell, the reason people are hesitant to believe is because politicians, instead of mobilizing the populace and investing in an infrastructure to move us away from carbon, they try to propose things like carbon credits, resource rationing, solar panels, and windmills to combat it. All these things limit humanity and stifle mobility, no to mention the energy sources they suggest bring civilization back 100 years in innovation, and stifle it to boot. We aren't trying to have more nuclear, we aren't trying to use hydrogen, we're proposing electric, battery storage. This type of thing taxes electrical grids and takes decades to return the CO2 investment, by which time the devices need replacing. What has happened is: Cars that can be shut off from space, proposed extra taxes for regular people, Lithium mines destroying other eco systems, as well as being far more finite a resource as fossil fuels. When we get a huge national effort to steer the infrastructure toward something that makes sense, people will come around.
Don't look up luv feel sorry for you. Green energy is cheap and clean yet you uselil and gas keeping billionaires rich.. way to go!
In Roman times sea level was high enough for London to be on the coast. That was a time when global temperatures were higher than today. What caused that to happen?
Warming is better than freezing. We were heading into and ice age which has been reversed. You can not grow crops under ice but you can irrigate in the desert. Stop panicking everybody . we are doing just fine.
Wrong on every count.
the earth has 24,000 yr cycles..cant stop it..all this green bs,,is bs..
@@harrywalker5836 Yes Harry. Very good. And true. The one TINY problem with your analysis is that we are at a stage in the cycle when it should be cool. The Milankovitch cycles do not explain this sudden spike in temperatures. And you're talking about 24 thousand years. This has happened in one person's lifetime.
Just think about that for, perhaps thirty seconds.
Except for the self-serving politically and financially-motivated wasteful spending and borrowing that is threatening to collapse the whole effort of frightening people into mindless submission to the dictates of the wealthy and powerful elite. We are definitely looking at doing less fine and continuing in that direction will ultimately cure us of this preoccupation with trying to believe we can control our environment in a God-like manner, unless it first enslaves us in Marxism as it intends to.
The simple fact that only climate-alarmist experts are allowed to work and have power in academia and media and more recently, are the only individuals allowed to speak, is a major indicator of a systemically self-induced fallacy that is ultimately intended to convince people to self-immolate.
Its downfall is that those same elite are too self-serving to allow this hypnosis of the population to occur at an adequately slow rate to avoid detection, because they want power and wealth now, and without allowing the people to have any freedom to make choices themselves.
Their lies tell us the truth.
@@MrMartibobs maybe the whole world should be like San Diego all year?? Lol lunatics
120 is a milli-milli-second of the life of the planet.
"He thinks..." "He doesn't think..."
May as well ask someone who never took a science class if he thinks a chemical reaction is exothermic. Who cares what some Joe thinks about a science way over his head?
What does he think of the Simplex Method? I really want to know.
There's a problem with the glacier theory they keep pushing in this video I live in a state (Maine) that had glaciers up to a mile thick during the last ice age roughly 10,000 years ago they're all gone now that's not man-made...
This is actually addressed in the film. At the end of the last ice age MOST of the glaciers disappeared, including the ones in Maine. The glaciers in Alaska were there 50 years ago, and now they're disappearing or already gone. Its the RATE of change that is unprecedented, not the change itself. The only culprit that we are aware of that could reasonably cause this change is the increase in greenhouse gasses.
Texmat
Didn't they say that Co2 was released as the glaciers melted? Seems that they could be melting due to something else, then releasing Co2, instead of carbon causing the melting.
Study it and you will realise why. Your point is wrong. get an education. I will not take your comment seriously you are obviously not educated in this. This is my feild you have spoken rubbish here. Study it before you make such stupid comments.
I love how they always start around 1850 which was the lowest temperature point of the little ice age which began in 1350 so from that point on we are expected to warm exponentially. water levels have also risen for the last 14,000 years except during the LIA when they slowed, stop or possibly reversed so the fact that CO2 has risen doesn't mean that's caused the warming or the ice melt, the ice started melted long before the industrial revolution and temperature increase only took a pause during the LIA. The CO2 helps plants grow not trap heat to the point where it has this mich affect, it's a green house gas cuz its used in greenhouse to help plants grow, they take it in and exhale oxygen, the opposite of us.
An annoying aspect is that where I live what we're seeing is one of the predictions from when I was in university, that we'll have cooler but drier summers. I do conservation work, and everyone naturally expects that cooler temperatures should make for more moisture, but that's not what's happening.
A possible prediction that didn't have a high degree of confidence was that we would get more high-temperature events despite the overall cooler weather, but so far that's not happening consistently.
65 million year old planet, doing quite well on it's own, one large asteriod strike will change the whole dynamics drastically, regardless of what man does,,,,,
The earth is 4 billion years old… dinosaurs were extinguished 65 million years ago… humans have been hear for a blink ..
Fact is, regardless of humans, climate has always been changing and will always continue to. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow. Change is the only constant. In ALL things.
No one is saying the climate has not changed, it has changed since the beginning of time. What we are saying is its happening at a rate that the earth can't heal from
@@prosperitygama9730
As I said, sometime change is very fast and occurs in a short span of time. Other times, it occurs unnoticed. The eart can heal from it, so to speak, but will remain forever changed.
Watch the video before you comment.
One-sided!
Why wasn’t the sceptical argument investigated??? Why not interview Tony Heller, Patrick Moore and many others???
The earth goes in cycles eg Greenland once had a thriving farmed agricultural landscape:
Climate change was started to be a fearful thing to help usher in the new world order: Some are becoming very rich from it
Try telling that to the Pakistanis
@@petergleeson295 they know how to play with the weather: Back in the 1980’s the UN tried to pass a resolution that weather warfare could not be used:
I was optimistic that this would be a very balanced documentary truly looking at both sides of the argument... but instead am left feeling like it was a very smoothly done spin and "sales job", convincing a "skeptic" with the "science". Felt very agenda driven and left me feeling like someone tried to manipulate me... like so much of the climate change push...
Carbon dioxide levels have been much higher (ppm) at points in the past...plants flourished, biomass in general flourished. All these fossil fuels that people are so afraid of were once a part of the environment, the carbon cycle, until they got buried deep and converted to fossil fuels. Overall we've seen a gradual greening of our planet (even with man made deforestation) in the past 60 or 70 years with CO2 levels (ppm) getting up into the 400's.
Thats blasphemy
You obviously haven't studied climate change and have relied on being told what to think
@@petergleeson295 You too.
@@russellaustin4988 yes. All I have done is dedicte 40 years into becoming a polymath. I began studying climate change in 1985
@@petergleeson295 What have you discovered on your own without someone leading your thoughts?
4.5 Billion years ago it was 2,400 times hotter, at least, than it is now without a single human on the planet and zero atmospheric CO2, go figure.
That Justin would "change his mind" was a foregone conclusion.
I watched this in hopes of seeing the issue explored with input from both sides of the debate. That didn't happen. We saw 30 seconds of a skeptical scientist, then heard from only people deeply committed to AGW as a reality.
It's a nicely produced propaganda piece, but not really useful to a thinking human being.
Ha, it's laughable you consider yourself as a "thinking human being" when you're clearly promoting climate change denialism here. When you deny something that 97 percent of climate scientists agree on then it goes to show who's promoting a propaganda here.
@@lastrationalist7890 You're what passes for a rationalist these days? 😂😂😂
We're in worse trouble than I thought. Carry on in your indoctrination, smegma. I won't interfere. You're already a lost cause.
I have no doubt the climate is changing. I've noticed the winters becoming milder. Warmer with less snow and ice. When I was a kid growing up in rural Alabama, I remember having more snow and ice cycles hanging off the eaves of houses. At this point, I doubt we can turn the change around. At least not in my time. Maybe in several generations. Adaptation might should be our main focus now. At the same time maybe do what we can. I don't buy the idea wind and solar will get the job done. Nuclear might be a better alternative then wind and solar. People are worried about melt downs and nuclear waste being radioactive. Yet they get in their fossil fuel driven vehicles and don't give much thought to the possibility of an accident. They will board a plane without much thought of a plane crash. Many more have been killed by auto and plane crashes than in nuclear melt downs. There's technology with nuclear that lowers the risk from nuclear melt downs and waste. Still, adaptation will be what saves humanity.
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.)
From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc.
The original sin was politicizing science. The original no-no. One has to trust data, and have faith in that just as you have expertise in your field, so do others. There really are experts out there who know their brief. Trust them.
Two problems:
1 - There are a significant number of people and companies that profit enough from fossil fuels to have political and social influence.
2 - People are easily convinced that they are blameless and don't need to change anything about the way they live.
We have a huge uphill struggle against these two forces. This documentary is a good small step in the right direction.
@David Bunney And you know this because some disinterested good-hearted citizen told you? Sure.
@David Bunney Can you give links to scientific articles on this issue, which in your opinion are trustworthy?(I'm trying to study this issue for myself)
@David Bunney - The total amount of "Green Money" is dwarfed by the huge revenues of fossil fuel industry. A scientist that could disprove human caused climate change would get 1000 X more money for research than any 'Green research'.
@@keolaq8748 - I have learned a lot from this series of Climate Change Videos on TH-cam from PotHoler54. See Links: www.bing.com/search?q=potholer54%20Climate%20Change&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=potholer54%20climate%20change&sc=1-25&sk=&cvid=0841C3E4AE1449459CE45B1C587BFBE2
Those stalagtites grow back about an inch every 10 years, how could you possibly get thousands of years out of that?
And why should I listen to you when I am a geologist and you are just spouting? Information like that is used all the time by geologists all over the world. Do you really, really think that these people lie? Why would they do that, some mental disease, all these scientists all over the world all have a mental disease?? Really...REALLY???? Get rea..
Couple of questions.
1. Why was he not allowed to ask the scientists the two questions the first scientist gave him to ask the others? I believe in climate change but the questions were valid. Maybe the responses were edited out =/
2. The TT scientist was a sensationalist, why were the charts over dramatic and why did she say "we" have been measuring Co2 for millions of years? Anyone knows that is not possible. Convincing skeptics is easier if there are no lies or sensationalism.
Still no sign of global warming in Scotland, I remain unconvinced
Here in Scandinavia, the ice disappears every spring.
Need to worry?
There are still people here who believe in climate change and still build their houses by the sea! Unbelievable?
IF IT IS TRUE THEN YOU GET WARMING IN THE TROPE OR STRATIS ITS NOT HAPENING
Alaska might be a nice place to live if it keeps warming
Now that Texas is freezing cold, what do you guys think now?
That's caused by the warming arctic. The jet stream traditionally created a barrier blowing from west to east keeping the Arctic air to the north and the warmer air to the south. With the Arctic warming a few degrees the barrier is weaker allowing Arctic air further south. Scientists predicted this effect decades ago. The fossil fuel industry hires people to say climate change is a hoax to protect their profits. There is peer reviewed science supporting climate change, there is no peer reviewed science refuting that, just hired spokesmen. Climate warming doesn't make cold disappear completely but for decades there have been about twice as many record highs per year as record lows. Each of the last 7 or 8 decades has been the warmest on record (in order). Going forward 20 or 30 decades, each one will be progressively warmer.
Where ever you are Andrew: STAY IN SCHOOL!!
Well, that's why it's called 'climate change'. This kind of phenomenon was predicted by scientists, long ago. America is not the WORLD AndrewX. Average temperatures can rise even when one part of your country gets cold.
I think the scientist from the beginning that doesn't believe should be doing this journey. I'd like to see how the scientists talk about it.
39:35 so I guess we should be upset that we’re not freezing?
She admits we reversed an ice age, yet somehow that’s a bad thing 😂
she,s full of sht. knows only what books tell her..has she been around for 25,000 yrs,??, no..
Who's 'WE'? Certainly not the people of India who experienced temperatures of 51 degrees Celsius (123.8 degrees Fahrenheit) this year.
I’m going to deny climate change - to go on this trip!
Yes looks like it was a good trip.
There is no denying that the climate is changing. A long time ago the ice covered Europe and even longer back in North Africa. This is the same all over the globe. Since that time, the ice has slowly begun to disappear. The melt water ran to the lower parts of the earth and the sea level rose steadily. Due to the enormous amount of ice that covered large parts of the world in that distant past, the warming up started very slowly because the large amount of ice needed a lot of energy to melt. Now that the amount of ice has become very small in the present time, there remains more energy that warms the atmosphere. There is hardly any ice left to slow global warming. The ice melt is irreversible and all the current hassle will leave many with a well-filled wallet but it won't change anything.
THE WORLD ALWAYS CHANGES IN WEATHER, THE ARTIC WAS A TROPIC ONCE
That's right. Because CO2 at the time was very high. Look it up.
wouldn't deforestation increase the CO2? at the time of the industrial revolution and coal burning there was also the fastest rate of deforestation. So coal was certainly not the only factor. Now, in spite of everything it's said, the earth has been getting greener
she also went straight to blame human activity as the cause, ignoring any other possible causes. The fact that it happened in the last 150 years is irrelevant if you don't study and objectively exclude all other possibilities.
She is just relying on emotions not on data, emotions is not a scientific argument
there is also the financial and economic aspect of climate change, for a fossil fuel poor nation it makes sense to support human made climate change, and for a fossil fuel poor country, the opposite is true.
For entire sectors of industry it's not a matter of doing the right things, it represents lots of money. Even for the car industry, for instance, climate change represents a particularly interesting opportunity to force everyone to buy a new car.
At the time when there is stiffer and stiffer competition and the market is actually contracting rather than expanding, forcing everyone to change car represents billion and billions of potential income, enough to keep the industry afloat for many years to come.
Therefore, there are clear conflicts of interests and financial interest in the field to cast doubts on the veracity of many of the claims.
We are more than stupid if we think that just because we are on this time we are responsible for everything and everything is happening today
That Graph at 10.48 is misleading as it suggests that the correlation between CO2 level and temperature is linear --- it is an exponential relationship --- not linear.
Unless China and India start joining the movement to reduce fossil fuel use, all,other efforts will be ineffective. It is highly likely we will reach 1200-1500 ppm before the increase reverses.
If C02 drops below 150 ppm, most plant life will die off and with the death of plant life, we all die off. At our current higher CO2 levels, we are have a green booming because plants are more drought resistant at higher CO2 levels.
You should be embarrassed if you offer only wind and solar as solutions and don't mention nuclear power as an alternative power generation method.
This is summer of 2023, Canada is on fire covering most of the US in smoke, Record heat in the South and West, the ocean is 5 degrees warmer than this time last year hitting 98 degrees which can kill off the coral reefs, and could lead to a collapse of the oceans ecosystem, this past week (early July) the temperature of the planet hit a new record 5 days in a row.
I found the 1 degree Celsius comment interesting.
I would not notice if the global temp, on average, is 1 degree higher.
- I wouldn't notice if it was happening locally.
- There is so much variation from day/night and day to day, I'd never notice.
- A few weeks ago, it was below average temp (slightly). Last week, it was near record high temps. The weather is all over the place.
Agreed. Warming isn't perceptible without scientific instruments. Ironically this means satellites, which would never have even been invented if it wasn't for fossil fuels. Cheers.
I live in the Midwest and we had a average to cooler than average summer no 100° days typical summer typical fall typical winner typical spring over and over. Actually the winters sometimes get colder more than the summers get hotter. It rains all the time the weeds grow, and the mosquitoes come out one year, the next year it doesn’t rain very much less mosquitoes weeds don’t grow as much. The following year reverts back always the same as it was 40 50 60 years ago.
Year to year climate is weather variability. ONLY centurial and millenial climate records hint at and begin to reveal trends.
NO your anedcodatal evidence is not mateched by the actual data and statiistics when applied. So I suggest you look at them.
@@briancrowther3272 I just Bass by observations what I see and feel, it is no hotter or colder and has been in 60 years here in the Midwest. According to your statistics the temperature should’ve risen considerably by now I know that would have been noticed by a great deal in the population. Just because we have big hurricanes now and then does that mean it’s caused by global warming. They been going on for Eons of time, along with many of these other phenomena such as droughts. Science is always changing it’s never the same they always discover something new. Or have you forgotten that part of the science thing
Warching the climate cult make continueous contradicting arguements has always been fun
Is Florida underwater like Al Gore said?😂😂
Al gore is not and has never been a climate scientist. Why is this so hard to understand?
The climate grift was Gore’s idea .. that’s why he still gets royalties 😮
@@jaydonnelly3224 He made a film. Of course he gets royalties. He's a politician, not a scientist. If you want scientific fact, look at a peer-reviewed paper. Not a film. Not a TH-cam video.
Here's a good one for starters. Just read the abstract. Two minutes maximum.
@@jaydonnelly3224 Predictions by SCIENTISTS (even long-ago ones, based on primitive models) have actually been impressively accurate.
th-cam.com/video/f4zul0BuO8A/w-d-xo.html
No and the United Nations HQ still sits on the river banks of East River NYC 30 years after all the sea level non sense.
It’s a big scam for the insurance companies to raise your rates if you don’t believe me check that check into that
here is a suggestion, get a climate change believer and take them to the opposing scientists who know the real truth about climate. Now that would be good viewing!!! this dude is not a hard core skeptic at all.
Numbers from a cave is not what it seems bats breathe out co2 in a cave is not the same as open atmosphere. Better to use deep ice on Antarctica to sample co2 concentrations.
That was not what was recorded. What was seen was banding from the water that seeped into the chamber after falling from the sky
39:12 "the only reason we're getting warming out is humans" another lie - how about the Sun and volcanoes?
18:22 "Andy says the historical connection is strong between increased carbon and increased temperature" Correlation, not causation. Some argue that temperature were going up first, then the CO2.
it was hotter,,before the industrial revolution..all this green bs,,is bs..
Far, far less of an "argument" than "recognition of fact" plainly recorded iin both ice and sediment cores
Egypt desertified in a period of 2000 years, the Sahara desert was rich in water, plants and animals just 8000 years ago. So no climate change can and has been fast in the past
Is there a difference between 2000 years and 30 years? Mmmmm?
@@MrMartibobs well if you look into it, the earth, including the Sahara desert, has been getting greener in the last 30 years exactly thanks to CO2 and the increase in temperature is not at all unusual in this time frame either since the middle ages went, very fast, into a mini ice age, from which we are currently moving out.
So I do not see any real issues, but if you like drama, I guess, you can always make one up.
@@canemcave No-one's sure what caused the Medieval cool period. Probably a weakening of the Gulf Stream. The thing is, it only affected the NORTHERN Hemisphere. The rest of the world had cold periods, but at different times. I don't think we're still coming out of the cool period. We are still emerging from the Ice Age. You can't conflate the two. And people who know what they are doing have taken all factors into consideration - the sun, the Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity, and find that the current situation is anomalous. And just for emphasis, the predictions made long, ago in the fifties are turning out to be pretty accurate. Not the ones made by Al Gore and Dick Durbin. The ones made by scientists in peer reviewed papers.
It is BREATHTAKING arrogance to assume you know better than an entire profession.
Why don't you go advise NASA on how to plot a course for Mars?
@@MrMartibobs " Probably a weakening of the Gulf Stream The thing is, it only affected the NORTHERN Hemisphere"
what affected the Gulf stream? if it's a complex chaotic system how the fk do you know it affected only the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE when we have no global data to make that conclusion!
"And just for emphasis, the predictions made long, ago in the fifties are turning out to be pretty accurate."
I was there in the 70s and I see that all the predictions they made including several meters high water levels of a new ice age or global overpopulation and famine were all rubbish.
"It is BREATHTAKING arrogance to assume you know better than an entire profession"
It is breathtaking arrogance for undergraduate students to write IPPC papers, it is BREATHTAKING arrogance for inexperienced hot headed drama seeking prima donna to write national and international columns and dominate the international narrative in any topic nowadays you want to discuss. It is BREATHTAKING arrogance for twenty years old with no experience in life to teach even before having learned anything!
While people like you are fking about, the real scientists, giants on these fields, are still deeply discussing the science behind these phenomena and they are all firmly stating that the climate holocaust is a nonsensical drama!
Richard Lindzen
th-cam.com/video/dBUNY8LPV_0/w-d-xo.html
William Harper
th-cam.com/video/o5HYbAkVXuU/w-d-xo.html
Nir J. Shaviv, Racah
th-cam.com/video/2lNnggKFYu0/w-d-xo.html
Steven E Koonin
th-cam.com/video/6Tz1MiX1p5I/w-d-xo.html
Bjorn Lomborg
th-cam.com/video/xf7WOy9QvwA/w-d-xo.html
Piers Corbyn
th-cam.com/video/g2ZrVagO9D0/w-d-xo.html
you make up the bunch of sheep that follow the political dram for someone else's benefit, because let be clear, you will get only sht out of this
@@MrMartibobs The IPPC report a discredited document written by a group of inexperienced, under qualified, politically motivated activists. Because nowadays everything has become activism. It is a manipulative document only presenting part of the picture and as the current climate models tuning the picture to whatever the activists would like to show.
This is better explained by another video: th-cam.com/video/anJL3D9YW4o/w-d-xo.html
No, I am not feeling breathtakingly arrogant, I am feeling breathtakingly skeptical, suspicious on the motives and the material that is being presented and I want to get away from the political BS and look at the problem (if there is one) OBJECTIVELY!
Something that nowadays has become something beyond comprehension.
STOP fking about and put your fking head and not your fking a@@ into it!
The mediaeval warm period, the Roman warm period and before that, the Minoan warm period were all warmer than today. These were all time periods when human civilization thrived. The little ice age, which ended in the mid 1800s was the coldest period since the end of the last ice age. Examples; the famous Battle of Thermopylae was only possible because the sea level was several meters higher at that time. The famous "Hot Gates" pass has expanded from about a hundred meters in 480 BC to more than a mile wide today. Hannibal's invasion of the Italian Peninsula over the Alps wouldn't be possible today because his route is currently obstructed by multiple impassable glaciers. Commercial green houses commonly inject additional CO2 into the growing environment because optimal CO2 levels for plant growth is 1000 to 1200 parts per million, which is roughly 3 times the current atmospheric CO2 level. Main stream media, including Wikipedia does their best to white wash, obscure and diminish these facts but anyone who cares to actually "follow the science" can verify my examples by looking at the actual Greenland and Antarctic ice core data, and reading the actual scientific literature on the topic.
Do you mean to say that instead of 105 degree temps you are now say up to 120 all the time. Have you heard of El Nino which affects cycles of heavy rain & drought during the seasons. How does co2 make a storm stronger. How would you know storms are worse-were you around say in 150 AD or 750 AD or 14oo AD to observe comparable storms. Maybe it's the $ amount of damage that has risen over the decades.
Not many true scientists in this film. A scientist would not say "carbon" if he means carbon dioxide. They are completely different things. It would be like saying that the world is full of hydrogen, instead of full of water...
What effect do increasing sunspots have ion the climate. Maby are saying that those must be accounted for as well as anything man does. And there was the "medieval warm period" and then the "little ice age" later. If things were much warmer and much colder in the past, why should we think man is the main cause of climate "change"? And if the world is warmer overall, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, plant life will have more to breathe in and plants will grow faster and larger, and having more land available for farming due to there being longer growing seasons, we can feed more people in the world. If it ends up raining more, then there will be more water for farming and drinking. How can people think they know nothing good can come from a warmer planet?
But no one ever asks themselves why the richest people in the world create and finance international organizations that ask the world to give up their sovereignty to them in order to save us from ourselves. I'd be suspicious that they have ulterior motives.
I swear I remember there were land bridges that connected the land masses thousands of years ago, now under water, and they didn't have cars.
Not to mention that the earth axis is shifting as the magnetic north pole is also moving meaning the land masses aren't where they were 200 years ago I would bet that has a bigger effect then CO2. The fact remains you'll always find what you're looking for and people to verify it especially if their lively hood is at stake. The climate changes naturally, when I was a kid we called them the 4 season winter, spring, summer, and fall. High temp ranging from 30 degrees to 107 ish. 40,years later it's the same.
I think you need an education. Get working.
There is no way to have precise temperature from before 1800. Just that is enough to be skeptical.
Why was it changing in 17, 18, 19 Century. We can not stop it ever no matter what we will do.
But atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature are now changing far more rapidly than the natural rates of change.
"the current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago. In short, whilst atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied dramatically during the geological past due to natural processes, and have often been higher than today, the current rate of CO2 (and therefore temperature) change is unprecedented in almost the entire geological past.
See: Geological Society of London Scientific Statement: what the geological record tells us about our present and future climate", Journal of the Geological Society, Lear et al, vol.178, 2020
How can you say " I work for you" when you don't have any skeptical scientists to give their sides on this. Seems obvious to me that you have formed an opinion and this was just an exercise in confirmation bias
OK, try finding a climate scientist that doesn’t believe in climate change.
@@simonreeves2017 very hard to do. Not because they don’t exist, but because they are blackballed. Look into climategate: it shows the depth the climate alarmists went to in order for their narrative to never be questioned, which itself is the exact opposite of what any scientist should do.
@@estebansantiago2670 I assume you are referring to the ‘hack’ at the university of east anglia in 2009. The misinterpretation of those emails was debunked years ago! There is no scientific disagreement over anthropomorphic climate change any more, the disagreements are about the rate of change and how to reverse it. Glaciers are in retreat around the world, the Arctic ice sheet gets smaller each year, there is no debate anymore.
@@simonreeves2017 Hey, I was going to say that!
@@estebansantiago2670 yep
The "new information" given by that first college professor in Texas that was so eye opening to that man is stuff I have known for many decades.
I am very glad you interviewed real scientists and science explainers (for example anyone teaching at a state university) instead of the phony ones.
The problem with scientists is that they follow the money. That's how they survive. See how long a scientists would last in a university if he kept coming up with evidence (which is out there) that refutes these flawed climate models. He would be gone in no time.
@@Marley-ii6ls If that evidence can be vetted and verified, then no he wouldn't be gone. He would be applauded as someone who changed the field of science.
@@Stratosarge Not any more. Money speaks
@@yasi4877 so, you are calling literally tens of thousands of scientists of different nationalities, cultures and political leanings liars just because they are able to provide evidence that builds on the scientific understanding. Just because their evidence does not support your ideological fantasies. Nice.
So far, no one has explained the Little Ice Age. Something warmed the atmosphere through the Medieval Warm Period. This was not caused by humans - it was natural. Then the warming stopped, and the atmosphere cooled, and the LIA happened. Again, this was not caused by humans - it was natural. Finally, "something" again started warming the atmosphere. Finally, yet again, this was not caused by humans - it was natural. So the question now is: Since the "something" that warmed the atmosphere out of the LIA was natural, is it still operating? Or did it stop because humans chose to burn fossil fuels?
Hint: If no one knows what the natural "something" is or how it works, there is no way to determine whether it's still operational.
This video was assigned for my class along with 3 hours worth of readings and I just want to say that it is very rude
Same thing here lmao how dare they
Sorry, did it to my son too. His problem is that he really likes pure science . the one that uses facts.This is more tuned for the psych class to study than a science class,how to manipulate by using emotional responses
They can’t predict the weather more than five days out, but we’re supposed to believe ten on this? 😮
Yep…..
Well that was a waste of time. They just said things were happening, no proof. Yes, the earth is in a warming period, please show me proof of WHY!
In the several decades of my life, the weather on Southern Plains has definitely warmed with less snow especially being obvious. As children, we played every winter sledding down slopes, making snow people, throwing snow balls, etc. Now, we have little snow and when it does come it is very short lasting. My electronic outdoor thermometer has shown 116 degrees f. this September while only .14 of rain came in closest mesonet station in the normally 3rd wettest month of average year. Farmers and ranchers are having especially difficult economic conditions. Reports from around the world show similar conditions where food production, river transportation, and water power generation are in steep declines. Unless these weather trends end soon, there will be a drastic drop in human population numbers. There is strong evidence ancient human populations, some with very high levels of achievement, have existed for awhile before disappearing. Are the high levels of accomplishments of our present age headed for non-existence? Could be!
+PayneCty Gardener
Along with those observations, we need to consider what's going on behind the scenes. Globalists buying up range land and prime land by the tens of thousands of acres; their agenda in general, including de-population, as you mentioned; and the bigger picture. As we take a step back to view it, those of us who know God's word and are honest with ourselves have to admit that the war against the human race being waged by the devil is coming to its ultimate conclusion. He has hated us ever since God created us. He proved this with his lie to Eve in the Garden, persuading her to believe him over God. He brought us down, we being totally complicit in sinning against God, and in his attempt to build his own kingdom, he has been preparing his man of sin, the antichrist, for some time.
--
Signs of the time and season are everywhere, and are increasing exponentially, just as the birth pains Jesus warned of, and mothers are so familiar with. There is no other time than today available to us to make ready, by turning from our sin to the Savior. All He asked of us--and all we can do, really--is believe in Jesus, who He is and what He did to redeem us, and trust Him alone as our Savior. Tomorrow may literally be too late.
Check out the 'Weather Modification' flight activity on TH-cam's Monkeywerx channel, especially the SITREP 90.30.22 video.
HAARP
@@GypzyJack There are even companies for hire to manipulate the weather. One is called weather modification, inc.
@@debravictoria7452 Yes, you are correct. Over 100 commercial weather modification companies, plus NOA, even operating out of Senegal where the hurricanes form before crossing the Atlantic and inundating the Caribbean and southern US.
I am a geoscience grad from TTU and I am totally embarrassed that Dr Hayhoe is considered a competent climate scientist.....will not donate no matter how many times TTU solicits me for donations
Does anyone notice that this show was 3 years ago? The way they're talking about rising temperatures and CO2 and here we are 3 years later, actually going into a cooling trend with more rain and snow and the same co2. I wish I could ask these climatologists if they know what level of co2 is in the atmosphere because I know that the level is .04%
From when I was a kid in West Virginia iv noticed warmer winter's it never rained as much in winter as it does nowand has been this way for few years now
What was it like in 1938 when you lived there ? and what was it like in 1021, remember a SINGLE climate segment is 30 years, what you are describing is weather, climate is the average over 30 years, and you need many climate segments to get an idea of the trend.
Pls, stop making conclusions based on stuff that happened near you, that you never perform any scientific experiments. It's like saying since malaria did kill you means it is not that bad, Climate change has an impact at the global level, make your conclusion based on scientific data and evidence done on the ecosystems level.
I wonder if part of the Problem could be that were poring Concrete and Asphalt all over our Precious Earth, which causes the land to be heated, which might lead to weather pattern changes. Pushing our Clouds away, thus less rain. And as far as The Ice melting couldn't that because the underwater current changing Patterns.
Even if it was total BS, the people who push it would still do it because it’s an excuse to do things that they already wanted to do. A majority of sociologists believe stuff that we all know is false, the FED has no idea what they are doing with monetary policy so take these experts with a grain of salt.