Day 12 UPDATE: Still at 89%! This is my most disliked video ever, by a wide margin (by nearly 3x)! But thank you to the many people who did like and enjoy this video 🙏 - Day 4 Edit: 89%! - 53- hour EDIT: Back down to 90% - 12-hour EDIT: We are up to 91%! Still the lowest on the channel but an improvement! For those wondering, we are 37 mins in and I'm sitting at 88% likes... which for this channel is very low.
The fossil fuel industry has its tendrils in so many aspects of modern civilisation, and in every government around the world. Factor in the huge disinformation and obfuscation campaigns they have run over the last 3 decades to poison the discourse in the public domain, and we arrive at the extremely dangerous result of the current situation. Shell has had drilling plans since 10+ years ago for when the arctic *no longer has any ice at all*... If humans are still drilling for more oil to burn when the arctic no longer has any ice, we have absolutely no chance at all. It is indescribably insane and is an ultimate example of the issue with commercial interests being allowed to pursue value for their investors regardless of the public interest and at huge detriment (and inevitable death and violence) to everyone and everything else.
Well, the science isn't political. But all the proposed solutions are. And some of them might work. But some are extremely unlikely to work and are just a waste of (often taxpayers') money. Some are just virtue signaling for proflt (companies claiming they're "green"). Some are outright scams (the recent explosion of "green" scams that crowdfund tons of money and then produce nothing or smth completely useless). Some solutions are so drastic that they'd cause mass unemployment, poverty, and starvation. And some people propose reducing the human population by mass genocides, sterilization programs, and draconian laws on family planning. So this is why it's highly political and controversial topic. Because everything we can do about it is highly political and controversial. Even if the science behind it isn't.
I've been around awhile, long enough that I've seen this show before. What we're seeing now with global warming is the same pattern we've seen with every profitable threat to civilization that's come along in the last couple hundred years. Take whatever deniers are saying about climate change right now and substitute lead, asbestos, DDT, PCB's, CFC's, tobbaco, seat belts, etc. It's like an old fashioned madlibs where you have blanks to write in whatever word you want. The crucial difference here is that rather than the suffering and dying end after lobbying and disinfo makes society drag its feet on the latest threat to public health, the damage done by climate change is frontloaded. If we manage to get this under control, the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to increase climate instability for generations to come.
It tells you /us that Most Powerful Corporations such as Exxon, SHell, Koch Industries, and so forth are really ruling the world. They are true OVERLORDS dictating to governments and top Market Figures. Our Petrochemical Overlords only care about their current power and money - they are Greed Made flesh and blood. Until we all admit who is calling the shots we won't be able to stop excess CO2 production.
ปีที่แล้ว
@@expandranon Quiet down you tragic drooling vegetable.
There's lots of planets. Dead balls of rock or gas. The point is the people are fucking this planet's ability to support life, choosing to do so, and choosing not to change, which will lead to a lot more than just us getting fucked out of existence. And maybe etch a sketch the ability for complex life for millions of years. Point being, much as i love George, thinking in cosmic timescales isn't really helpful when we are choosing to wipe out the only known life in the universe on a day by day basis, and could chose not to. It's kind of a cop out for not bothering to change because it requires nothing of us today.
And many of the other species who we share this planet with. They don't get a say or a chance. What species can evolve fast enough to cope with the speed with which the climate is changing?
"Maybe if governments and media were more busy with explaining and educating, rather than fear mongering and furthering their own political goals, more people would listen." (thanks 4 the likes lol im so late but thx!!)
Yep this is the problem right here. When the media spreads around misleading stories and then says "If we don't do something within 10 years we are all gonna die!" It ends up having the opposite affect that they think it does.
As long as the power that be doesn’t want to change course, everything will stay as it is, doesn’t matter how many people shout STOP, they are the ones steering the wheel.
The controversy surrounding this issue arises when the upper crust of society tells you that your cow is causing climate change, while flying a private jet to their special meetings about how to take away your cow, for causing climate change.
How much effect does the burning of thousands of lbs of chemical rocket propellants on a regular basis, to launch more junk into space have? I wonder...
Irony here is that habitat such as grasslands held carbon back, keeping it out of the atmosphere, and now recommending "burying" carbon in the oceans. How about stopping habitat destruction and engaging in habitat restoration? No one ever seems to talk about these options.
The ocean generates 50 percent of the oxygen we need, absorbs 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions and captures 90 percent of the excess heat generated by these emissions.
@@donaldhobson8873 by “some” carbon, you mean all the carbon that has ever been stored until the invention of these engineered systems. By what measure are they “better” than habitats, particularly considering they don’t operate independent of or without an effect on habitats?
This whole field of study has been corrupt for decades. Descenting voices have been eliminated . You were indoctrinated not given a balanced education. The "political agenda" was baked in long ago. Rapid change is not new. The Greenland ice core contains 10 deg. cooling in a few decades at one point. Most of the long proxy records have several centuries or millennia between data points, so simply would not record rapid changes like the present. Saying rapid change never happened before is a constructed lie that the author picked up because he does not know the subject. You neither it would seem.
No you dont know anything. You think you do but you dont. Climate change is the first and foremost political agenda, it prevents growth and substance. Germany played the climate changes games and then fell short when they dont have enough energy to sustain their own people.
Politicians aren’t smart enough to have a political agenda that you seem to think exists. There is only one agenda : money. When principles get in the way of money, they go out the window. And that isn’t true of only politicians. When there is more quick money to be made by reducing CO2 than by burning oil, that will become the next political ‘agenda’.
@@kohtalainenalias Thanks for your reply. There is no way multinational corporations will commit to what is needed until we get rid of capitalism. Its whole logic and incentive structure is wrong for fixing the climate crisis or broader ecological or societal crises. Take care.
@@doolsy I don't even have a Twitter account. Never been a fan of pretending to be something you're not. Meeting your friends in person is much more enjoyable than staring at an LCD screen.
I’ve always been on the fence about this topic, but I’ve always been certain that whether the climate changes or not I don’t want my planet covered in garbage. I wish people would use their brains and value the planet if not for climate change do it because living in trash is lame
Exactly. Worse case you helped clean up the planet so it's not covered in trash. Best case you saved the planet and humanity from destroying itself. lol
The IPCC has now incorporated environmental degrading into its assessments as part of the issues affecting Earth's balances. We just started banning PFAS and PFOS chemicals in some new manufacture. Unfortunately our plastics today are loaded with them. Other toxic chemicals banned in Western countries are still being used in some developing countries. These get circulated everywhere, and are very hard to clean up.
We can adapt to changing climate conditions, but not to poisoning our soil and water. The pollution of the Oceans, Air and Ground are definitely the biggest concerns for me personally.
@@charliefrharper Are you saying that average global temperatures aren't increasing or they are but it is not caused by human activity? I am not an aerospace engineer so when I fly on a plane I have to trust the people that design, test, manufacture and maintain passenger jets know what they are doing. I am also not a climate scientist so I have no way of evaluating climate change besides understanding the general principles. Could the climate scientists, NASA, WHO, UN, practically every government be wrong? Sure but they could also be right. Could this all be an elaborate hoax to make us pay more taxes? I suppose but that doesn't make much sense to me. My personal view is global warming is a thing and it's probably either caused or exacerbated by CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere due to human activity. But there's nothing I can do about it and I will be long dead before it has any significant effects. I have no time for the alarmists, they need to STFU. The planet isn't going to die and the human race is not facing extinction.
I'm always frustrated by explanations of the Milankovitch cycles, because people generally do not complete the explanation of how they cause glaciations. The whole point, is that deep ice caps can only form on land, not on ocean, and the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. The shore of the Arctic ocean averages around 70 degrees North, and the furthest southern extent of the ice caps averaged around 50 degrees North, so what is important to the formation of the large continental glaciers during glacial periods, is the intensity of summer insolation between 50 and 70 degrees north. That is what varies according to the Milankovitch cycles. During period of low summer insolation, mountain top ice caps in those latitudes begin to expand, snow melts later in spring, arctic ice takes longer to melt, all of which trigger a feedback mechanism where the higher albedo of ice and snow reflects more sunlight, cooling the climate even further. What is critical is the intensity and duration of sunlight from about early May to early August between about 50 and 70 degrees North.
@Al You have your choice of scientific sites (NASA, eg) & blogs, or your choice of videos. Here’s a good short clear one: "How Ice Ages Happen: The Milankovitch Cycles”. But you seem to know all that already. Of course, now, human greenhouse gases are overwhelming these cycles & other forcings. CO2 released by burning fossil fuels; methane created by rice & excess meat production; nitrous oxides from fossil fuel-derived fertilizers; industrial gases like chlorofluorocarbons; & as a feedback once those have started things, water vapor.
18:12 How is nuclear not on that graph, it's the singe most hopeful energy source we have. The fact that every climate activist movement seems to completely ignore nuclear as an option is beyond me.
Not specifically about the graph, but building new nuclear isn't as tractable as it seems. At this point, new reactors are too expensive to build, and will take too long to be operational to make the difference they need to make, with the lengthy construction process continuously emitting lots of carbon dioxide from concrete and transport requirements. For generation, renewables are cheaper, and quicker to build. As for the energy security problem from weather fluctuations, I think nuclear is a red herring solution for the reasons above, and what needs to be done is further investment and research into new energy storage.
Nuclear could be useful long term, but the time it takes given the process of getting them started means that they are not useful immediate solutions. It would require some more immediate solutions simultaneous to getting nuclear going. Personally, I agree that nuclear would be very useful, additionally, it would be amazing if Fusion technology produces results relatively soon. However, we still need to phase out carbon emitting sources as quick as we can so slow down the rate of change. For now only stuff like solar and wind can help mitigate that until we get more nuclear and other sources. The biggest hurdle to nuclear is finding places where the locals will let you build one. I agree that its frustrating that there doesn't seem to be more effort on the nuclear path. Although given Fukushima, Chernobyl, and recent concerns regarding the nuclear plant in Ukraine under Russian occupation could all contribute to politicians seeing nuclear as a being politically "radioactive."
Maybe if governments and media were more busy with explaining and educating, rather than fear mongering and furthering their own political goals, more people would listen.
start with the elite giving up their private jets and yachts then stop sending consumer goods halfway around the globe then build many nuclear power plants then i will take our govt solutions seriously
What makes global warming so unique is how most regions get warmer while a few get colder like in the town where I live in Reykjavík, Iceland. There have now been 8 months in a row below temperature while stormy weather has become more normal each year.
Also because it was the most ordinary take on climate change. Like wow, the earth is heating up, we need to stop that or animals will go extinct. This information was freely available in 2009. Outside of USA, this topic is not controversial in the slightest.
@@n0denz doesn't the title say "My Most Disliked Video On TH-cam"? also didn't mean to sound rude earlier but it does kind of come with making these types of comments.
Well, YT pushed it onto my home feed just now, and I'm watching it. I'm two thirds of the way thru, and they've only mentioned politics as a side effect of some other story, and they described those issues as a future historian would, rather than as a political troll, so I really appreciate it.
In speech class, we had to give a "convincing" speech about halfway into the class. Basically we had to try and sell something to the audience. I decided to pick the worst topic ever, and try. So I tried to convince my audience to cut down the rain forest. LOL. They did not like it.
I had something similar lmao. We had debates. We were assigned the topic and which side we would debate for. Basically, I had to debate about using animals as testing subjects for medications. My side would fight to keep testing on animals and other side had to fight to stop using animals and instead use lab created organs or whatever they're called. Organs grown in a lab. I guess it's safe to assume I lost that one badly. Especially when my opponents side had 3 person group, my side had a 2 person group because we ran out of students. On top of that, I had the special needs student in my team. So it was me and a special needs guy. Add that he didn't do anything for the research and couldn't even debate properly on the day of. Add that I had the losing side to debate. Add that I'm competitive and didn't take that loss very well lmao.
I am sure you must have researched the topic. There is plenty of evidence that cuttign down the rainforest would have a beneficial effect. More CO2 would be obsorbed, provided the soil is not disturbed and a new forsst can grow in its place.
I have four large carbon capture devices in my yard. Three of them are more than 80 feet tall and the fourth is in the shape of a globe 40 feet across. A white oak, a maple, a white pine and a honey locust.
We can't solve the issue just by planting trees, though that's still a good thing. 1 The extra co2 doesn't just come from cutting down forests, most of it was trapped safely underground and even if you reforested the entire planet that portion would still be an issue. 2 You can't reforest the entire planet because we need a high percentage of the land that's not glacier or desert as farmland to feed more than 7 billion people.
All of the Carbon Capture projects combined have so far managed to capture less than a day's* worth of humanity's emissions. Hopefully we'll get better at scaling it, but for now I'll keep planting as many trees as I can. (*I think it's actually about 10 minutes' worth, but I'll be vague so I'm less likely to be wrong).
I'm not a climate alarmist or anything, so I know you're right. But nothing wrong with more trees where possible anyways my dude. Let's have more of them. They're nice to look at.
The issue is too politicised. Whilst we see politicians buying luxury properties by the ocean, constantly flying around the globe and purely shifting industrial output to the Far East, people are not going to believe they think there is a true risk.
And yet it really is one his most disliked videos at 14k dislikes. Even his most popular videos with 5+ million views have less than half the dislikes of this one.
@@swanqlord3048 im pretty much certain that most of those dislikes are just people disliking for shits and giggles, if he didint say that this will be his most disliked video it wouldnt be
I think humans should be discussing this: how are we going to deal with climate effects in practice? Infrastructure, migration, deseases, etc. Not whether there is climate change.
Yes, let's not even entertain the thought that we could be wrong to a degree that is going to cost human lives if we implement drastic measures! We're so not on the evil side of history! No, siree! We pave our way to hell ONLY with the finest quality of good intentions.
We are presently experiencing human-induced climate change. We need to do more than discuss it. There is an urgent need for positive action - moving away from fossil fuel based energy to renewables NOW! Our energy needs will only grow in future, esp as our population grows. Electrification of our energy sources is the answer via solar, wind, thermal ... etc
@@HKDW-1 If anyone was SLIGHTLY serious about it all developed nations would have gone into nuclearizing everything. It's not serious, it's about selective deindustrialization to maximize profits.
I don't know why you waited three years. There is nothing in this video we haven't known for at least twenty years. What I do love about the video is how well you presented the facts and the scientific methods used to determine them. We need more of this. 😊
More Than 1,600 Scientists Declare Apocalyptic Global Warming a Myth BY ANDREW MIILLER • SEPTEMBER 3, 2023 Acoalition of 1,609 scientists and professionals have signed a declaration stating they “strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy” being pushed around the globe. The declaration, published on August 14 by the Global Climate Intelligence Group, states: Natural as well as human factors cause warming. Warming is far slower than predicted. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. CO2 is plant food (the basis of all life on Earth). Global warming has not increased natural disasters. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. The most recent signatory of the declaration is Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for work on entangled photons. Red environmentalism: Burning fossil fuels may have some limited effect on global temperatures, but it’s hard to tell because repeated scientific fraud has clouded the issue. Reasonable people want clean air, water and soil for themselves and others, so radical central planners are highly motivated to mix concern for the environment in with their socialist ideology. This strategy also makes socialist activists, journalists and politicians highly motivated to hijack and exaggerate concerns about the environment to literally doomsday-level proportions. When a course of action (such as soil remediation) would help the environment but do nothing for the socialist agenda, they ignore it. When a course of action would hurt the environment (such as giving a pass to the world’s biggest polluter, which happens to be Communist), they go for it. Deadly distraction: What you see in the news isn’t a may-the-best-facts-win scientific debate. It is the result of manipulation designed to frighten people into surrendering their God-endowed rights to a central planning committee. Many scientists scoff at the notion that God controls the weather, but the book of Job states that God balances the vapors of the clouds and warms the Earth with a south wind (Job 37:16-17). God commands the clouds to do His will, whether for mercy or for correction (verses 12-13). Psalm 148 shows this understanding of God’s power, stating, “Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word” (verse 8). Such passages confirm that God controls the sun and balances the gases that compose the clouds. They also confirm that God sends fire and stormy winds to fulfill His promises. Learn more: Read “Greenhouse Apocalypse.” E-MAIL ANDREW MIILLER OR FOLLOW ANDREW MIILLER ON TWITTER/𝕏
@@RonanGallagherBandI understood it by picturing him as a British accented Disney character 😂. He is saying that they are adding dramatic effects by saying they had to hide the info. Embellishment hooks listeners and readers.
@@helpmboab2034I'm not sure what you are saying. Then again, between Disney analogies and a lack of substance I'm not sure if you understand what you're saying either. Are you saying the Climate Change thing is false? Not sure what your point is. Are you? 😊
Sources would be great, but you can also find each of these facts in scholarly articles by using Google. It is important for everyone to "Do their own research" Self education is a good thing.
@brittneypagan5144 You are absolutely correct. I do, and I encourage everyone else to do their own research. I just think it's important to cite sources when one is making claims because it adds value for everyone.
@janamations1079 Yeah I agree it's a research video. You need to put sources when you compile research in scientific settings. It's a requirement for any sort of scientific publishing. Why shouldn't videos have similar standards even if their primary demographic is lay people.
like others before. Ever studied the younger Dryas temp fluctuations 13000 to 11 000 years ago? They still fight about the cause of the extremely rapid and short drop. What is the effect the massive deforestations since 1800 ? Who says they are not the cAUSE?
yes, this will also will be true for our species... the right wing radicals in my country in europe are: totally against immigration, and totally against taking action against climate change. i alwas tell them, then they have to set up a lot of weapons and ammunition factories, because they will have to shoot tens of millions of refugees at the borders to europe in the mid future, that will come because of climate change and spreading wars due to the enviroment failing to support half a billion people at the half to the end of this century.
The “Net Zero” plan includes caveats for “carbon offsets” which allows those with the money and resources to continue to consume as they please in return for paying for the “offset”. This will force a certain amount of rationing for the general public who can’t afford to pay an added tax on their carbon footprint , and as an added bonus this reduction in consumption will help ensure a sufficient supply for the people who can afford it.
That sounds fair. Jeff Bezos gets to travel the world on his private jet and yacht with his girlfriend and her ex while the rest of us have to ration what we consume.
@@carlt6932 I’m glad your onboard sir. Someone has to eat the bugs so there’s still enough beef for the wealthy to have their filet mignon when things get tight next decade.
A lot of people seem oblivious to the fact that all of these lifestyle changes effecting the standard of living will be burdened on the shoulders of the middle class.
The worst thing is, even the politicians who criticize others on global warming, don't do anything about it when they're in power. Also personally they have huge carbon footprints. The NZ and Canadian Prime Ministers flew in a private jet after a global warming conference.
As someone who has spent the last 35 years working on "the energy problem," I am in a perfect position to say this: The sheer scale of *the global excess heat* is nothing short of staggering: Over 400 million megawatts of excess heat, some 25 times Humanity's total combined direct energy use. Only 4% of that excess heat derives from our _present_ use of energy. The other 96% comes from the accumulated greenhouse gases emitted in the past few centuries. But *note that nearly 50% of ALL greenhouse gases emissions have occurred in just the past 30 years!* That ominous trend is what makes the "climate problem" into a CLIMATE CRISIS. Humanity MUST take immediate, large-scale action to deal with the excess heat itself, while we continue to whittle away at greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, we cannot suddenly slash energy use, or billions of people will die. First they will be dying from starvation, then from migration, then from the resulting wars... *Wars that will affect EVERYONE.*
Haven't had a record high in NH for over half a century, the farmers almanac is still the most accurate predictor of weather cycles. That publication has been around for 200 years.
Okay, Chicken Little. The "scientists" have been saying for decades that if we don't do something drastic, billions of people will die. Yet nothing has happened aside from economic investment resulting in fewer climate related deaths, proving the best solution to climate change is the unfettered use of all types of energy, especially fossil fuels. Economic advancement, which relies on cheap energy, is the only practical answer.
If all conversations about global warming could be done apolitically and factual instead of with the tone of Chicken Little, perhaps more people would take it seriously. Thank you for simply presenting information.
I don’t understand what you mean. Global warming is causing mass species die off, it is directly impacting our food and water systems. This video doesn’t dispute that. Chicken Little was lying, the scientists who say we must take drastic steps immediately are speaking with factual basis for their claims, which this video also backs up.
An argument?? No, no.. If we were only as bad off as that.. I reckon we're at opinions only now, more or less. Hell, if even that!? More like, unfounded, ungrounded, mostly emotionally based, entitled opinions.. 🙈🙉🙊
@@coraltown1 There is no identifiable man-made CC. But what the timelines do overlay with, are milestones for autonomy: 2035 and 2050 are interestingly both key dates for each. BOTH require a massive decrease/culling of the human herd.
It is very humbling, but not in the way you suggest. To think that people form their impassioned opinions based on data collected and interpreted is this manner absolutely boggles the mind. Holy cow are people arrogant and stupid.
Just imagine the margin of error in that data. 10-15% perhaps? Yet today's 'unusual' warming is what 2-3% if that. Yet we draw a quite interesting conclusion. One might wonder why... Let alone the fact that we gather data about our own sun which keeps on rocking the science community. You know the sun which fuels our life and the climate.
@@DigitalsapienYou don’t even have to look back millions of years to realize that the current rise in temperature is abnormal. There’s a reason every scientific organization takes this stuff seriously. Right wing media and random people who have no idea what they’re talking about aren’t going to change that
Recently, while living my life and working on projects at school to fight global warming, picking up trash and disposing of waste, I sometimes wondered, 'Why go to such lengths?' But through this video, I was able to learn how much the Earth's temperature has risen and how much the sea level has increased. It helped me understand how serious the current situation is, and I'm grateful that this video was made in such detail, allowing me to fully grasp the issue.
ironically i have always taken climate change to heart and knowing this will all come to a head likely before 2030 has me feeling like nothing matters anymore. Im getting whiplash from caring deeply and grieving, and just deciding fuck it and having fun. Its hard. I wish you peace in the coming years.
@@bradymoon1889 how long polar bears survive remains to be seen. The chance that they will successfully adapt to radically changing conditions is 50/50. They either will or they won't. If they do go extinct it will probably be fairly soon.
@@bradymoon1889 You appear to be quoting a Forbes-sponsored "researcher" who is not relevantly qualified and has never done any relevant research on polar bears and whose phoney research was debunked a decade ago.
If climate changers really want to do something they would push weather manipulation and Geo weathering that’s the fastest way to save the planet So people can still continue using fossil fuels, but we will manipulate the weather or they should be pushing putting gold in the atmosphere to reflect the heat rays of the sun. The technology is already there. Saudi Arabia makes it rain in the desert by doing cloud seeds, but that’s just my opinion .
People can't listen when they don't understand what's being said. If you went into a lecture on "Non-Gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity" you wouldn't pay attention after you realised it was all going over your head. That's why the number one thing when you encounter skeptics and deniers is not to attack, but to explain. Tell them what you know in words they'll understand. Spare no detail if they ask for more credible information. So long as you speak what's true then no arguments can counter it
The problem is everything is just sensory input to our minds. There's no such thing as true, only what is orthodox to the internal model our 250,000 wildly obsolete instincts create to navigate uncertainty and a worlď far more vast and complex than our brains can handle without a forest of mental shortcuts. Our minds handle those orthodoxies as though they're a body part - people trend toward reinforcement for the same reason they're loath to mash their hand into a hot plate, the instincts take it as a physical safety risk.
If western governments are really worried about Co2 then why do they keep down sizing heavy industry and manufacturing in their own countries? Laws and regulations are much stricter here, and the processes used to make these products and materials are much cleaner than they other parts of the world. Areas where they now need to ship the materials and products in from create much more pollution and Co2 to make the same things we could make ourselves! It literally makes zero sense. If this is a global problem, then it doesn't matter where the Co2 comes from. All that should matter is that there is less of it being produced no matter where it comes from. All western nations seem to care about it that their own co2 balance sheet looks good, but their actions actually caused more Co2 to be produced globally. Judge them by what they do not what they say and what they do seems to contradict what they say!
Are governments to blame for companies seeking to maximize profits and cut down on paying workers higher wages and having to give them more rights and benefits? the companies themselves choose to move overseas to push further profits for their shareholders, that’s not something the governments control
@@harmanthind2147 well they can but that would be a communistic system and has been proven almost impossible to implement. But governments can influence these decisions in other ways with various carrots and sticks to influence choices made by producers.
@@harmanthind2147yes. Because those governments are specifically enacting policies admittedly in their public statements doing so in order to cut down on their own manufacturing which has the effect of increasing manufacturing and those other countries.. In fact if you look at the Paris climate scam all it would have done is Forest Western countries with stricter regulations to reduce their manufacturing and thus their pollution but it placed no restrictions on the world's largest polluters which were China and India and in fact allowed them to INCREASE their pollution At the same time it would have taken hundreds of billions of dollars of Western taxpayer dollars and paid them out to China and India. And then you wonder why people say that the left-wing communists are controlled by China.. maybe it's because everything they do seems to be in the effort to hurt America and help China.. The point is that it wouldn't have done anything for global temperatures or pollution. Well it would have done is help the economies of foreign countries at the expense of the Western ones.. So yes it's the fault of the government's mostly.. They are specifically trying to force more manufacturing in these other countries that control them.. It's why they were so against Trump's trade war with China. By doing what George Washington and other founding fathers did and increasing tariffs it would motivate companies to move manufacturing back over large scale time frames. That would mean less money for China and if China owns your party you would very much be against that. Also the same with doing oil drilling in America. Making America energy independent hurts China and also reduces pollution because of less need for shipping. You don't have to drill it in the Middle East drive a truck to the ocean and then a giant oil ship across the ocean just to get it to America.. All of those are GOVERNMENT policies.. corporations will do whatever is cheaper. The government can influence whether manufacturing at home or in China is cheaper. Just like the lie about censorship. That they are "private companies" Who can "do whatever they want" As we know from leak to documents and public letters and freedom of information requests it's actually the government's typically the Western Communist governments of America and Europe FORCING these companies to censor We know that the Biden dictatorship openly forced many of these companies to censor his political opponents. We've seen public letters and documents coming from Western European regimes where they force the social media companies to censor political opponents of the Communist agenda.. The European regime sent a letter out to most social media companies telling them to demonetize Russell Brand. Over sexual assault allegations apparently.. Why would European Communist governments take such an interest in a former Hollywood actors allegations to that extent? Probably because it has nothing to do with the allegations and everything to do with them trying to silence a man that was exposing their corruption.. So yes the governments censored.. The government were behind most of these terrible things. Including pushing all the manufacturing to places that pollute more. China owned the left wing.. The Soviet plot that Joe McCarthy warned about where the Soviet communists were infiltrating every aspect of the Western world from academia to Hollywood the media the government the deep state etc came true.. The ripple effect continuing long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.. The only difference is that with the Soviet Union collapse those Communists had to go and pledge their loyalty to the next closest thing. The only other communist government: China And they were more than happy to allow it.. point is that yes these are done by the government. The government purposely enact policies to make those things happen. To influence gas prices going up so that Americans will have to buy electric cars. To influence manufacturing going abroad. Whether it's done for money or not is irrelevant. If they truly care about climate change and so it has the greatest threat the world ever faced the way they claim then one of their top priorities would be to bring manufacturing back to the Western countries with more restrictions and regulations and less pollution. By instead creating policies to force as much manufacturing as possible towards countries like China and India who pollute more than anyone they are showing that it's not a top priority for them. That they don't believe in it that badly. While Democrat voters might be so stupid and conspiracy doomsday cult that they think they will literally live through the end of the world as it literally burned the reality is that the politicians telling them those things don't believe it at all. Even their grifting spokes grifters like Greta Thunderbird run around the world on private jets that pollute more In one tr than the average person in an entire year So again people pushing these climate doomsday conspiracy theories Don't believe in it themselves. At least they don't believe that they're going to live through it.. And that's the basic premise. The governments that supposedly care enough about it to give millions of dollars of subsidies to the green energy lobby that fund most of their campaigns clearly aren't concerned enough to bring manufacturing back to countries that have emissions standards The grifting pundits and celebrities always talking about climate change when they're promoting a new book or movie clearly don't believe in it enough to stop flying on their private jet or even to buy a house slightly further inland from the beach.. They keep claiming that everything will be underwater yet they spend millions of dollars on beachfront property. Property that gets insured by insurance companies. Who also must not believe in that because if the insurance company believed that the beach house would be underwater they would never agree to insure it.. The biggest promoters of these doomsday conspiracy theories don't seem to believe them. So why should we?
You're conflating 'they'. Government and Scientists are not the same. You are also forgetting a core aspect of human nature - humans do NOT choose rationally. We have a myriad of incentives that would pull us toward danger - despite what you might think. Look up Expected Utility Theory, proposed by Neumann and why it doesn't work given it's perfectly logical and rational set up.
Yeah, we are so screwed. I remember 10 years ago there were predictions that things could be bad by 2050 and uninhabitable by 2100. I though bullshit...I'm saying 2030 and 2035 in place of those numbers. Even my pessimistic ass might not have been pessimistic enough
Heat index well over 100 here near Houston as always this time of year. I’m still without power 9 days now after the hurricane. 92 on the thermostat inside day and night. We’re actually predicted to get a cool front down here in a couple days. I’ve never seen one make it here in July in my 52 years of life.
The fact that you decided to go forward with such controversial topic and invest the time to make it even though you are aware it's risky is good enough reason to like the video.
If you’re tempted to dislike this video because it seems to say “don’t worry so much, climate has always changed, and life on 🌍 has coexisted with a much warmer global climate”, then WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO. I appreciate his calm & thorough presentation.
I disliked the video because of his adoration of the IPCC, - a hopelessly ideological and politically motivated organization that is divorced from sound science.
@@Shoey69 yes, the IPCC was caught in an email scandal where they deliberately manipulated data for political and ideological purposes. This among many, many other unscientific proclamations and ideologically derrived action that is an affront to sound scientific process. If a person blindly believes anything that they say at this point, they are either ignorant or tribally aligned with the ideology behind this faux scientific organization.
@@mistaajoneslol, right? I tried to listen till I saw propaganda bear. That polar bear was debunked as a diseased specimen. Polar bear populations are growing. Polar ice extant is growing yearly. The climate-tastrafy narrative is falling apart. It's a global money harvesting machine that has everyone addicted to terror though. Like a train it's going to keep rolling for a while.
Here you go on I 95 cut the trees down in the median there is a little decline valley like now there is water buildup on spend more money put in a drain system.dang the trees sucked the water up and took in CO2 and put out .smart move think not lol But guess what the drain not working.water ponds still there guess what else.mesequitos . anyways we can just spray chemicals and kill em 😁
@campland2880 imagine ignoring the science explained in the video and having the nerve to call someone else nonsense. It's ok to disagree. It's not ok to do it without seeing(and understanding) the evidence of the other side of the argument. Just, have the day you deserve.
@@campland2880 Can you explain how this is "clearly pseudo-science"? Maybe start by defining pseudo-science and explain how the climate science presented in this video fits that definition.
@@CompassionateCoos Easy, it's mostly not science. It's manipulated data, cherry-picking data, biased (input) modelling (that is most often wrong. . .but that never seems to matter), and it's closed conversations: "the debate is over". Watch "Climate: The Movie (the cold truth). It would be much clearer and more entertaining with sound citations and evidences from leading physicists and meteorologists, etc.
What a shockingly reasonable video, not what I expected when I clicked on it. Geological history is so fascinating to me - to me it's a shame that so few people are aware of the history of earth
But well, on a personal level, this makes me think a couple of things. One, is that if we stop abruptly producing carbon dioxide and somehow absorb it back (not feasible with our current economy) then there's a possibility of triggering an ice age. The another is that, although the Earth has been hotter in the past, if global warming goes out of control this will undoubtedly have a potentially catastrophic impact on our society. Life will exist, us, well, maybe, but in a deplorable state. Our civilization is extremely fragile to this and that is somehow demoralizing.
@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist8 Think twice: You sucessfully conformed to the current youtube comment spam pattern epidemia. Jesus didn't do and surely wouldn't have done it this way...
I saw this title and thought "ohh this will be disliked by climate change deniers right? Because he's going too hard with the mainstream narrative or something." But he actually meant pro climate change people because he's daring to talk about factual historical data instead of just spamming fear propaganda and I think that's hilarious lol. Discourse about this subject in recent years has shifted so much that the default for most people now is not skepticism but fanaticism. That shows how powerful propaganda is.
@@thekamotodragon I don't think so. How dare you to tell us what he meant? You can see the IPPCs worst prediction scenario maps for what happens if we do not change with 10-18 degrees (which is NOT Fahrenheit) of warming on land masses for the year 2300 in the video. Also, if you looked closer at the comments, you clearly could have witnessed that it's actually the notorious deniers that seem to dislike it - with some of these spammers showing that they didn't even whatch it 🤷
@@thekamotodragon Also, from a personal view, I would say that there is much more fear with the deniers than with the ones that are warning about climate change. The number of comments stating that AGW was made up on purpose to get everybody into some worldwide communism with total control and no private posession of goods and some of them even wildly fantasizing about breathing beeing rationed is no longer countable.
The reason many people doubt the "nagging" (not even sure thats the correct word) on global warming, is because the ones with the biggest influence and voice often are celebrities, politicians or other public figures who more often than not are hypicrits, they fly private jets and get driven everywhere , they probably fly/drive more kilometers per year than the average human does in their entire lifetime. Also the organisation known as WEF, were many global corporations are members and many political leaders are so called "Young Global Leaders", they tell people "You will own nothing, and you will be happy" meanwhile they fly out to Davoos every year, put first they fly private to Geneva, then Helicopter to Davoos. "Rules for thy but not for me" "There is enough for everyones needs but not everyones greed"
It's really hard to believe the "nagging" if you don't live in big cities. I live in a small agricultural town near a city of 2 million people. In every weather report, the temperature in the city is about 5-6°C higher than in my town and it's only an half an hour car drive to the city with nothing but flatland in between. This year, our government came out with a report that the number of farmers taking climate change loans has grown 600% since 2020. Well, if you take out an agricultural loan and put climate change as a reason for it, you get ridiculously low interest rates with almost no monitoring of spending. Presuming that we're taking those loans because of climate change is pretty naive. I kinda get all of the science behind it, it's just that living in an area with experience that differs so wildly from what the science is telling makes it really, really hard to get onboard.
@@MI982 It's one thing to "get" "the science" behind it, but it's another thing entirely to understand the plethora of ways that said "science" is biased & heavily skewed to reach conclusions deemed desirable by those responsible for funding & conducting it. Sadly, the vast majority of people - not least the vast majority of scientists - are so enamoured with their conception of humanity's intellectual supremacy and infallible brilliance, it's literally inconceivable to them that maybe we don't know nearly as much as we think we do, and maybe a huge chunk of what we think we know is actually completely wrong. I could point out a dozen glaring holes in the supposedly "scientific" reasoning used in this video, and the conclusions drawn from it, without even having to really think much. If I tried, I could pinpoint dozens & dozens of places where there's gaping holes in the knowledge relied upon, not to mention the multitude of ways in which the data we're told is incontrovertible is actually rubbish, because of flaws in the way it's defined/categorised/collected/interpreted etc. The temperature differential between rural & urban areas you identified is a prime example. This is a well-known phenomenon called "urban heat islands" - and yet much of the time, the locations where temperatures are recorded are in or near these "heat islands", meaning that the temperatures logged as the official temperature is substantially higher than it is in reality when you're not surrounded by miles of concrete & steel. Every time you hear politicians & media puppets talk about how this is the hottest year on record and everything is getting way hotter and we're all gonna burn to a crisp, just remember that more often than not, they're citing temperatures that are perfectly normal and unremarkable for anyone outside cities. It's just one of the many ways they deceptively misrepresent the facts to instil fear in the population and make people easier to manipulate & control.
& the Earth doesn't even care or change like saying someone spiting in the ocean changes the level . The Grift Theas so called scientist get paid screaming the sky is falling if it wasn't. Who would give them a Dime
@@MI982 Well said! I also want to add, here in Germany they wanted to proclaim a "climate lockdown" after the corona fascism was over. They said: Summer in Germany 2023 will be the hottest ever and we need to do something against this. They already planned all kinds of tyrannic measures for the people, just that the weather and climate this year didn't want to play along. We had the coldest and rainiest summer since at least 30 years or so, so they had to cancel this nonsensical tyranny. In general, all they did during the last years here in Germany was destroying jobs. First they flooded the country with migrants (which is illegal since they travelled from supposedly war-areas into other countries like Spain, Italy or Greece first, in which there is obviously NO war. The war treaty clearly states, that the first country which is not in war is responsible to take care of these people - I don't mean to say that we as Europeans shouldn't help each other out, but our politicians were putting it in a way as if the Germans were responsible to take care of all of these people. In the end, many of these people didn't even come from war areas and they threw away their passports to claim that they came from another country, which in some cases was ridiculous, because you could clearly see from skin colours for instance that someone came from Africa while claiming he came from Syria.) Then the American government destroyed the North Stream Pipelines, cutting us off from our main energy source. Now they force people to renovate their buildings to fit ridiculous energy standards, most people cannot afford this or will just get poorer from this. They force Germans to use 65% of renewable energy in any heating installation for private homes from next year on. In general, instead of convincing people, they rather use brute force, ridiculous laws and insane penalties, which is showing their totalitarian mindset. The EU is a communistic project, support big tech by introducing all kinds of stupid laws and regulations, which are killing all innovation and competition. The taxpayers are financing their own destruction and the money which is going to the gov is spread among the big tech companies which are lobbying in Brussels. It's a big "legal mafia" system and many people still think they care about the planet. In general, the German economy is the only one which is declining in Europe now. Many businesses are forced into moving out of Germany and the high energy costs, thanks to the destruction of the oil pipelines, just make running an industry business nearly impossible here now, when you can produce with a fraction of the costs in other countries.
@@MI982 Plenty of people who don't live in cities are seeing it happen in front of them. You must be one of the lucky ones. Or perhaps you're just not paying attention to anything but the thermometer in your lounge room.
It was a reasonable video, not controversial, just put the basic facts forward. The worrying things at present - the increased migration currently across the world and the tensions it is causing will only increase. We are handling it as a species very poorly indeed and it indicates the troubles ahead, especially when big business sends only to be fanning the flames or even instigating via manipulation and control of media etc. - another huge issue are the models used by climate scientists, limiting the rate of change within what are thought to be reasonable limits, only now to find the upper limit to be questioned as some evidence indicates the rate of global warming is faster than the models can deal with. That is, the global heating is actually occurring faster and measured to counteract this rise need to be applied faster. Governments are still playing catch up, partly due to fossil fuel corporations buying influence to maintain their own profits in the short term no matter how damaging the effect is for life on earth. - we have known about the potential for greenhousing our planet since Arrhenius and Tyndall, over a century ago and this is the real issue.... Humans and their utterly ignorant attitude to the planet not thinking it matters to them.
Imagine inventing nuclear-powered powerplants; an answer to most of current problems, and being too afraid to use it because of scare-tactics rich people use to stay wealthy with their fossil fuel businesses. Extraterrestrial beings would laugh at us
The problem with nuclear is that the technology will soon pass a point where ROI is too low to justify the building of new reactors.... It's just not an affordable solution. Nuclear's effectiveness has peaked, while renewables has just started, and in 2050 renewables have won in terms efficiency.
I think the best way to capture CO2 are plants. Taking into consideration how an increase in O2 has cooled Earth before, we should probably try our best to facilitate plant growth across the globe.
That's for sure. But it woud only cover CO2 emissions from deflorestation, not from fossil fuel. So it is necessary but not enough. We also need to capture carbon in other ways. Bioconstruction, for example
And depopulationing the planet, a return to animal fur, sheep shearing, cotton farming and silkworm production of clothing and other material based things, horse and buggy transportation because of evil oil.
Many like me find it madness that whole forests are being felled to make way for 'renewables' such as Wind & Solar banks, they themselves require enormous amounts of Fossil Fuels to Mine, Muster, Build, Spare, Repair, Support through to decommissioining.
Plants don't capture CO2 , they capture C and release O2. But with atmosphaeric CO2 concentration as low as it is right now, there is no need for capturing C at all.
We won't be spending our way out of this as much as people desperately want to believe that but it won't stop anyone from attempting to monetize the problems.
Thats the main issue I have to the current 'climate panic' .. so much focus on must buy new things , install nerw stuff etc ...... tbh generally making more repairable products, not buying new cars every couple of years or spending money on local renewables made from toxic materials is the most any singular person can do. the complex balance between brining the world's poorest out of poverty and also balancing environmental factors are I beleive made worse by the 'privilidged' protestors causing panic and confusion.. this video has been one of the best videos I've ever seen on climate change ... and its effects and I applaud them for this
@@synkuk It's not the CO2/environment that's important. It's the ability to buy Indulgences to wash away your sins. Moral purity and all that jazz. You're a much better person for buying the EV car in a coal powered province.
We already have the technology to buy us ample time to solve the problem. Not even all that expensive. Just park a couple of solar shades around the planet that will restrict the amount of solarrays hitting the surface. But obviously, the whole climatestory is an economic and geopolitical one. Now we are thinking we can produce ourselves out of trouble while we should actually all send our armies to the green lungs of our planet to prevent the cutting of our carbonabsorbers. Large parts of the amazone have changed into deserts. Our oceans are being poisoned by plastics and the toxins released by the production of batteries and solarpanels are pure horror for our waterways.
Of course we can, we could literally convert the production of the worlds factories to carbon scrubbing machines and deploy them worldwide if we were not beholden to rich assholes who want nothing to change.
Knowing and understanding this demands changing the exploitative global economy and the destructive lifestyle which comes along with consumer capitalism. That's why this topic is controversial and political. Systemic change always is.
Don’t really get this one … no one is advocating polluting, the environmental movement was very successful in cleaning up pollution in the 60s and 70s. Even coal burns extremely clean if you use the right kind of coal and have the scrubbers in place.
@@michaelw3927 @innerspace56 We are destroying the rainforest and also the natural forests in Eastern Europe at a rate that has never been seen before, partly to save the climate here in Europe. We continue to pollute the world's oceans with vast quantities of plastic, destroy the earth's coral reefs, overfish the seas, slaughter sharks on a grand scale, destroy Africa and other countries in order to obtain cobalt, lithium or neodymium to drive "environmentally friendly" cars in the western world or to generate "environmentally friendly" energy. But we are supposedly worried that global warming is destroying the world. Is it really that hard for people today to recognise propaganda?
As someone who’s interested in this stuff I’ve always pointed out that issues like deforestation have less to do with the creation of breathable air and more do to with biomass essentially acting as a carbon reserve preventing it from just being released into atmosphere.
@@badtuber1654 Astronomy is a science; astrology is a pseudoscience. Evolution is science; creationism is pseudoscience. Molecular biology is science; homeopathy is pseudoscience. Vaccination is science; the MMR scare is pseudoscience. Oxygen is science; phlogiston was pseudoscience. Chemistry is science; alchemy was pseudoscience. Climatology is science; anthropogenic climate change is pseudoscience.
Deforestation assuming burning will release CO2. But even animals dying contribute somewhat as carbon not contributing to carbon cycle can just end up contributing CO2 increases longterm.
@@michaelbayley9432 Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically more trees than previously thought. In a blockbuster study released Wednesday in Nature, a team of 38 scientists finds that the planet is home to 3.04 trillion trees, blowing away the previously estimate of 400 billion
CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere. Also 3% of that is man’s made. Finally the USA is only 13% of man made CO2 or .00016%. In other words a very small amount.
That small amount, and the rate that brought it to that amount, was enough to have altered the thermal equilibrium point between Earth and space. "Returning" the system to equilibrium manifests as global warming. It's just physics.
Human emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by fifty percent since the Industrial Revolution. We know that via isotopic analysis of the molecules themselves. That increase corresponds nicely with our rise in global temperature. Because CO2 molecules remain in circulation for centuries, nobody is responsible for more of it in the atmosphere now than the U.S. The U.S. industrialized a century before China did, which is why our total accumulation amounts to twice what theirs does. Who but the lion should clean up the lion's share of the mess?
Thanks. I think you added your voice in a good way. Lets hope it reaches more people that are confused by the way the debate is currently often held, like me.
I appreciate how you took your time in making this video (3 years). It shows in the way you are able to present the data, and use of visuals to assist in understanding. Well done.
I just clicked. Did he mention how phanerozoic co2 charts show that co2 was higher through all of earth's past? Did he mention that it proves the 'runaway greenhouse effect' wrong bc we didn't turn in to venus at 4999 ppm nor at 6999 ppm and we won't at our current 399 ppm. Did he mention the mass die off 30mya bc of low co2? I'll just watch.
He certainly did not spend 3y making it. He put off releasing it for 3y. He should have stayed with his instinct or done a lot more research. This is just the level 1 climate propaganda. He is not even aware of the issues. A token recognition of past climate change, which he erroneously falls into the CO2 propaganda on too, does not make it fair and objective. This is the kind of conclusion you'd come to if you don't know the subject because censored and discussion sniffled.
Here is a perfect example of how people read or hear facts and then completely misunderstand them or pass them on in a confusing way(just like the climate change discussion). The creator of the video did NOT say it took him 3 years to create this video he said he created it 3 years ago and 'sat on it' (waited) until now to release it. This is how messages like climate change get misunderstood. There is zero chance everyone listened fully to this video, understood it all and passed on that information accurately to others. That's why people argue about the climate so much. Lets be a little more tolerant people.
@@tuberroot1112 If CO2 and Methane were the problem, then the volcanoes may have done the trick by themselves. If CO2 and Methane were the problem, we could plant some tree farms and call it a day. If CO2 and Methane were the problem, they would be pushing for nuclear power. It's interesting how his "share of power capacity" graphic didn't even show it. I was really hoping when he started talking about Milankovich cycles that he would be giving at least a more nuanced or neutral perspective.
@@destroya3303I don't think a 7th grade science teacher is representative of what's been predicted. For the most part, scientists have been fairly accurate.
@@santaclaws1501 I disagree. He represents many of the silly predictions being published in the corporate press by "respected" scientists. The Maldives will be under water already. Snow in Britain will be a thing of the past. Polar Bears will go extinct. The Arctic will be ice free in 2013. 50 million climate refugees by 2010 (written in 2005). Only 10 years left to stop CO2 before it's too late (in the 1990s) The Great Barrier reef is dying (now it's doing better than ever)
Same "rubbish" been said by Parliament and Local Government in our Country. The sea has not risen so much as 1cm in 60 years AT ALL!!! They do not have a "clue" re. Glacial Ice Melt; etc.! 🤠
this. we have been hearing the same story since the 50's. Pretty much nothing has changed after every catastrophic warning. I hate it when people say scientist(s) plural say. Majority of the world's scientists don't have consensuses on this subject. too much contradicting data. This is why people don't listen nor care. Too many times someone cried wolf. Even if climate change was true, no one cares. I am from Africa. The temperatures have not really changed that much, 2-4 degrees (Celsius) hotter in summer than 30 years ago. We are used to hot temperatures, so we don't really see a difference.
Just curious, if we have not had any accurate previous measurement of short term climate change how do we know that the temperature during a 100 year period hasn't changed a million times?
The temperature changed more than a million times during that time. The world is big and numbers are infinite. Between 20C and 21C there are infinite temperature changes...
THE GREENING OF THE WORLD IS DUE TO MAN MADE CO2 This would have been a shock to the poor old scientist Where do you go now perhapes explain what going on at south pole Greenland You no the ice is melting or is it 🤔 😉 😳
@@SurefireWoodsmanyou sound as if your unwilling to accept the truth no matter how much evidence is provided. Care to explain the mass extinction event which is occurring right now? Or the extremely unpredictable weather patterns?
That's the problem in this and in many other areas of science with political implications. There are very powerful groups, driven by despotic motivations, who are willing to fudge the numbers and the research in order to find an excuse to impose totalitarian rule and eliminate democratic institutions. These groups exert a lot of control over the funding of research that supports their agenda, and they have enough control over media and academe to suppress evidence contrary to their agenda. This distortion of data was blatant during the recent public health crisis, and it was obviously slanted in the direction of their stated goals. Al Gore began 30 years ago to advocate for censorship with regard to scientific discourse regarding the climate, and those crazies in Switzerland have been touting climate as a reason to enslave the people and to depopulate the planet (with them having ownership and control, of course) for decades. So it's an open question how much we should trust a scientific community that has vested financial interests in finding conclusions that comport with their donors' desired "scientific" outcomes.
Politicized science is always BAD science. (politics are never "honest") With bad science it is almost impossible to know the truth. No science is more politicized than climate science.
How is it so difficult to imagine that adding so much energy to the system would do nothing? If I gave you a cup of coffee and drop 2 drops of laxative, you're definitely going to notice.
I remember watching an MIT testimony before the US congress, about 20 years ago, that addressed this. It put things into perspective for me back then. We need to be good stewards of our home planet. But, this subject has become a polarized political football.
From a profit perspective, it's intelligent to make it political. You immediately secure 50% of people believing you. From there you can sell tons of stuff. Like Tesla cars, which have been amazing for my net worth.
@@Cardioid2035do what? Somehow alert the world to this grift when everyone is so hyper political polarized? No thanks, I'll just profit. Just like Nancy Pelosi. Bought the green energy stocks, and quadruped my money.
Because it’s nonsense. When you have UK scientist’s caught faking sea level numbers and constantly spraying the atmosphere to keep the planet’s temperature warmer. You get warmer temps and worse storms.
I've heard the argument made before that drastic temperature increase has happened before, creatures evolve and continue, it's natural. But, for one, they always fail to account for the speed at which creatures can adapt, and even IF they could adapt that quickly, it would mean the creatures we know now, and the entire ecosystem would either completely change, or be completely destroyed, as it's forced to adapt to unnatural circumstances. The worry isn't the end of the world. The worry is the end of this one
@@thisexists2927 What mess? Technology and the use of fossil fuels has elevated the world's standard of living to its highest level in the past 10,000 years. An ever increase global population is placing strains on natural resources. This does require a real effort of conservation but government encourage consumption and then complain about it. Corporations = Consumption and governments love corporations!
the phrase "the hottest we've ever been" is often paired with "temperatures not seen since the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum." it is implied that these temperatures are the highest IN HUMAN history, not geologic history
@@sanji1259I have never heard someone say "the planet is the hottest it's ever been" referring to the entire life of that planet. It's always been implied that it's the hottest it's ever been in human history as that's the only point which is relevant to our survival. It's certainly a very open statement that can be taken either way and often lacks context when it's said.
What is the average concentration of the strongest climate gas - water vapor - in the atmosphere? What do you think? 14,000 ppm !! But the 100 ppm human CO² cause a climate catastrophe? Yes of course. Who believes it becomes blessed. 😆🤣
Even though it's a very tricky topic, most of your videos are quite relaxing and they end up making me falling asleep not because they're boring, just because the background music and your voice is pretty calm. Thanks for the great content.
I agree, at the end I was pretty relaxed even though my though was "nah, Governments and Institutions are too low, we will probably hit +3 before I am dead"
I am a climate denier. Why? I don't think it is all that urgent. I also believe it has been changing for thousands of years. I also believe that before Paul Bunyan cut down all the 1000 year old trees in Michigan. He cut down the Shara Forest first. I spent a summer inside the Persian Gulf. Guess what? It was warmer than this Summer in the south west point of Florida. No it was not. I also believe the earths obit is not a perfect circle. I also believe the sun is is unregulated nuclear furnace (no thermostat) But my big question is if the earth was once all magma. How much change has the magma induced heat been in the last 10,000 years? And how much deeper do you have dig now before you can not take the heat? AS for CO2 why does it fluctuate according to seasons at specific latitudes? Then there is my local government wants my grass to be between 2 and 8 inches. Preferably 2 inches. Does this have an effect vs prairie grass at 18 inches? What is the difference between Chattanooga and the Mojave average temperature and why? Where did the petrified forest in Arizona come from? Lastly Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai. Is that why there is a big change in the weather in the North Pacific this year? I won't wait around for those answers. I am pretty sure all I will get is just because answers.
Climate change is not always slow. Even in Earth’s recent past we have had the Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1300 and the Little Ice Age from the 14th to 19th centuries. These show than the climate can change naturally and very rapidly all on its own.
If anybody doesn’t think that all the things like carbon dioxide, no the other greenhouse gases, that trap hundreds of time more heat. Along with habitat destruction, destroying our soil to monoculture, the list is immensely long…. if you don’t think that we are playing huge role in how fast is happening then you were literally blowing to reality it have delusions… you need to get out into the field with botanists, ecologists, and all those alike to see the damage we are doing it is beyond comprehensible. To deny this is just pure ignorance…. For example, soil is great at trapping carbon dioxide. In Illinois use to be 22 million. Acres of Prairie now there’s 2500…… literally look and find out what native plants are suppose to be around you, go around you neighborhood and see if there’s any…. These plans evolved with the insects and animals and bacteria in the soil to use nutrients trap carbon dioxide among many other beneficial things to the ecology there… and it doesn’t exist. We have destroyed it all. These things have evolved over millions of years. We have a literally killed off 60% of all animals in all bird population since the 1950s or maybe in the last 50 years….. everything is contaminated with PFAS and herbicides…. To think you aren’t delusional or stuck in some information silo is to be denying reality.
People are always parroting fossil fuel rhetoric… even know there was a fossil fuel companies, predictive exactly where we are right now 30 years ago… as if we don’t actually understand at least enough to predict that stuff…. But yeah, which detract from the point and talk about how it’s gotten warm really fast before even though there’s probably a reason some kind of geological changes or something which I could look in to, but there’s besides the point
This may be one of the reasons why the temperature continues to rise. There are no cooling towers at all in nuclear power plants operating in Korea. Why? Nuclear power is promoted as environmentally friendly. All Korean nuclear power plants use natural seawater as cooling water. This method cools the nuclear reactor with a large amount of seawater drawn into the water intake and then returns it to the sea through the drain. When a cooling tower is installed, white smoke is emitted from the top of the cooling tower, which is a problem that causes complaints, so it is treated as eco-friendly, that is, it is not cooled and is just discharged into the sea. For reference, there are currently 21 nuclear power plants in commercial operation in Korea, including 17 pressurized light water reactors (PWR) and 4 pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWR). Too many nuclear power plants around the world are operating without cooling facilities on the coast and are continuing to be expanded. Is this kind of nuclear power truly eco-friendly? The temperature of seawater discharged from the drain after cooling the power plant must be regulated. As of 2015, there are 442 nuclear power plants in operation, 62 nuclear power plants under construction, and 287 nuclear power plants scheduled for construction worldwide. In 2015, there were 442 nuclear power plants, but the number will increase to 791 in the future. There are many nuclear power plants, but how many places like ours do not have cooling towers!!!! Nuclear power plants are not environmentally friendly and are facilities that melt the Arctic ice by raising the temperature of the sea. Does it really make sense to release water into the ocean rather than use it to cool it? Is it eco-friendly? When seawater is used as coolant in a nuclear power plant or smelter and then discharged into the sea, the discharge temperature of the coolant must be legally restricted. Additionally, the easiest way to slow down global warming is to legally limit the temperature of high-temperature gases emitted into the atmosphere from chimneys or exhaust gases emitted from cooling towers.
It makes me mad seeing this and knowing how many are misinformed and how people/politicians will intentionally debate such objective scientific things to fit a narrative. Like humanity has so much potential and it infuriates me
Unfortunately it's more profitable for specific organisations or certain politicians to mislead humanity for their own personal gain. For example pharmaceutical corporations or in this instance the climate change industrial complex. Unless there is a way to consistently keep out bad actors from positions of power/leadership roles or at the very least hold them accountable for their actions, this is just going to keep on happening.
It makes me mad knowing how many gullible sheep there are who just follow along with academia, despite the overwhelming evidence that academia has been captured by the controlling bodies like the IPCC. When a "scientists" future depends on him following their script, then of course "9 out of 10 scientists agree".
@douganderson7002 I'm not sure which specific controversy the Harvard one is, but are the grievance papers the Peter Boghossian thing? If so, it's a bit odd to conflate the excesses and, frankly, madnesses which can occur in the social sciences with the findings of the natural sciences. On top of that, why should it just be climate science which is the subject of mistrust because of malpractice or fraud in unrelated areas of science? Why not be on the fence about the germ theory of disease, or the laws of gravity, or of the existence of almost anything discovered or explained by science? I understand mistrust, because people do terrible things all the time, but I don't understand it if it's applied arbitrarily. If there are instances of fraud which undercut climate science then OK, there's a point there, but if its just that 'people are dishonest in other fields so why trust this one' then it doesn't make sense.
Another cool note on how scientists calculate the global temperature through ice cores. Aside from being able to measure the gases trapped within the air bubbles, they can also actually approximate the temperature through looking at the water itself.There are a couple stable isotopes of oxygen, with the two most abundant being Oxygen-16 and Oxygen-18. As ocean temperature increases, the likelihood of a water molecule with an Oxygen-18 isotope vaporizing increases, so in turn, in the rain and snow you'll have increased amounts of Oxygen-18 water molecules. So by looking at the abundance of the 18o water molecules in ice cores, you can also infer what the average ocean temperature was.
@@bane2201 I think they're referring to global climate oscillations over the past several million years. Every couple hundred thousand years, the global climate undergoes swift increases and decreases, and our present climate represents the average peaks we've seen. The bad news is that there is a swing of -12 to -15°C lower than what we're currently experiencing that accompanies the peak we're seeing, meaning cooling actually presents a greater risk to us than warming
As a paleo climatologist I can testify that climate changes all the time , and man’s contribution is so small it can’t be measured on the global scale .
Isotopic analysis of atmospheric molecules tell us that the fifty percent rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution was produced by human activity, primarily from combusted fossil fuels, not nature. Not volcanoes, not the ocean, not the biosphere. Combusted fossil fuels. It's not a coincidence that global temperature began to rise when our CO2 emissions did.
Im geology student, when i was mapping the geological features in my place, we use foraminifera as age determination factor. It's struck me in the head knowing something so familiar about this video but never expected to see it on TH-cam haha.
@@GentleReader01 Yeah, the feeling is really weird. Now i enjoy life more so i watch TH-cam. And then this come out, remind me the stressful time of 2 full days work just to get a handfull amount of sample, and then observed it under the microscope for another 6 hours. The feeling got me when he shows what's look like a Cibicidoides and Globigerina foram genus. It look like damn, this is the exact same thing under the microscope. So the scientists is true afterall (??) and actually forget that I'M ALSO A SCIENTISTS HAHA😭
@@oskha1815 As long as you cave either bubbling chemicals in various colors or a Jacob’s Ladder. TV taught me those are the marks of true science. Dad would periodically gripe that the only thing wrong with his work on ranging systems at NASA was that had neither of those things. :)
@@ronaldreagan5981 I did notice that they were too busy acting like this is real. Maybe they should do a real course, then they should learn at least something.
We are always rushing to assume we know more than we do. It is a tragic flaw of the human ego that we place social status above truth, and give greater significance to the patterns we happen to perceive most acutely and immediately, while ignoring or actively diminishing anything deeper.
I've been telling people this for years. We think that we are the center of everything, that we have transcended nature, but we are still at the mercy of it. We have the power to change the world, yes, but at the end of the day we don't know everything.
@@AiguilleVoodoo It doesn’t need to be said. Humans assume that we know the best decision for every situation and jump to it. The average person doesn’t have a major global effect with their tendency to assume they know best, but politicians do have a major global effect, as do scientists, and they presume that they will always make the best choice in every situation.
Because rich people are trying to bring back the medieval status quo by eliminating the middle class. Industrial revolution had led to a massive change in society increasing the standard of living and the rise of the middle class.
@@Czeckie as long as the tree is not cut down or burned, the carbon remains in the wood itself. Ideally, the tree decomposes and carbon is deposited into the soil. However, If the tree is cut or burned in a fire, carbon is not deposited into the soil and can be released back into the atmosphere.
@@Czeckie- What CO2? The CO2 in the air or the CO2 in the tree. If the tree dies, then the CO2 in the air will remain in the air until it is absorbed by another plant and is converted in the process of photosynthesis to make sugars. The CO2 in the tree is going to remain in the dead tree until it decomposes and is release by bacteria or fungi decomposing the tree or it gets buried and is converted into coal like other dead plants have been doing for millions of years. This is third grade science stuff. Besides, why are you concerned about trees? It is already been established that the majority of CO2 is captured by aquatic algae, plankton, and bacteria in the world's oceans.
found this on 12 12 24. thank you for cutting through the bologna rhetorixlc fear mongering snd presenting tbe facts you provide in a logical way. society needs more information provided this way instead of soundbites. keep it up.
Its just way too easy for people to use a simple excuse to not care, instead of educating on a topic, beeing open to learn something about it, they didnt know. Living is learning. Great Video.
@georgemiller2503 --- “These are the facts, set in ice and the bones of organisms long dead, they will broke no argument”. That quote goes hard Wayne Patterson --- The statement is a gross lie which misrepresents how the Climate Change Alarmists manipulate the facts and the data to produce absurdly false results. For example, the statement is false and denies how the atmospheric gases are not "set in ice" as they would mislead the public to believe.
That quote presupposes that the vague generalities that can be inferred from such isolated data points is even remotely close to being reliable, not to mention accurate. Using historical gas composition to infer temperature is premised on the atmospheric composition being the sole factor determining global temperatures. That's self-evidently absurd, and to just blindly accept that the people claiming they can reliably deduce global temperatures from the gas in ice cores know everything there is to know and aren't wildly off base, is perhaps even more absurd than making such claims in the first place.
What happened to just planting more trees to remove the carbon from the air? Did we decide that trees are too thirsty or is it that Corporations cant make any money with a solution that cant be patented?
The real answer is that the resources used to plant trees can instead be used in other solutions that are more effective (carbon capture systems, greenhouse gas reduction policies)
@@phil2768 ....That is scarier than most people going Deaf from the Media's ShitInTheEar style. Just agree and say the simplest answer is usually the best one.
EDIT: I'm quite aware there are researches regarding urban climates, and regarding other pollution. For those who only read the start of my comment. The point of my rant is: "...why (is in the public via media the movement 'Fight against climate change') just focus(ed) on air pollution?" It is always so fascinating to me that so many are contributing gases to such a rapid global change to gasses, yet, the most obvious change in temperature that everybody can verify on their own, is to measure the temperature on asphalt in the city and then on the forest ground in the forest. Why is nobody addressing the change in the temperatures brought by building houses and roads on such a large scale that they are built now? Or what kind of damage the pollution to the earth and waters do and how they influence the Earth's natural cycles the pollution to the earth and waters, why just focus on air pollution?
@@elalogar7340 It does exist and is as mentioned well known. The global change in temperature shows the same trend, measured within and outside of urban areas. Although it has an effect, it is negligible. The effects of the ocean storing all the extra energy trapped by man made greenhouse emissions are way way bigger. In addition, long term, this extra heat negatively affects the reflective ability of the planet, way more than urban areas do. That is because of the decrease in snowy and icy surfaces. So we also need to consider and measure places that are not urban and implement them in the global pile. In the bigger picture, the results are that the urban effect is just very small and negligible, compared to other effects.
Trees and the oceans absorb C02 but nothing is said about sulphur hexafluride a man made gas used by electricity companies 23000 times worse for the environment than C02 and cannot dissipate for over a thousand years 🤫
Absorption isn't important. Storage is. Seeing we're removing trapped carbon from the ground, we'd need more living trees than the earth can support to hold all the carbon we've added.
@@MikeisFunnyCollection It's not carbon . It is carbon dioxide. It's essential in the cycle called photosynthesis. Most of the air you are breathing contains oxygen produced by plankton. 70% of all the oxygen in the atmosphere was produced in the oceans.
@brianterence3211 it is carbon. The carbon in the carbon dioxide is from fossil fuels which were trapped either in coal or oil. The oxygen in carbon dioxide was already part of our biom in the atmosphere. The plankton and trees break that bond and re-release the oxygen. But don't trap the carbon back in the earth. Especially plankton that has a short life cycle, is either eaten or rots. Re-releasing the carbon. Trees can store the carbon much longer, but it comes down to biomass. We aren't reusing the carbon already up here. We're pulling more trapped carbon. So we need more trees every day to remove the carbon that was not previously part of our ecosystem.
1 thing I still struggle with is, if the land ice mass is melting at a rapid rate and the oceans are warming, why am I not observing a faster ocean rise rate.
Because oceans are huge and the ice mass is huge. The amount melting is small compared to the ocean and the remaining ice masses. Melting all ice will take around 5000 years at the current rate (or never if we slow down the warming) or at least 600 years, if we emit CO2 like madmen and reach multiple tipping points.
mostly because they are not the important part in ocean rise: the entire polar cap and all glacier melting would mean less than half meter of ocean level raise. to compare, every degree of heating mean around three quarters of a meter rise. the big one will the permafrost (it it will take long time to all the water slowly reach the ocean) and greenland melting. even those will be two or so degrees worth of rise, so temperature will be the greatest contributor for it.
@@old-pete nope, less than half a meter, not that hard to check, what you meant is the antarctic, but that is a continent, not a polar cap. and even that is closer to 5-10 meter, and not sixty.
Very interesting. Learnt alot. But I really should point out that some of the "smokestacks" are actually steam towers and are not emitting CO2. Just in the interest of accuracy.
When factoring Human impact, we can't ignore one main problem. When it comes to temps lowering, your graphs showed these coincided with plant expansion. In the past 100 years we have seen an vast deforestation on Earth. Thus, lowering plant's ability to convert CO2 to Oxygen. If humans want to decrease CO2 and warming, planting trees will certainly help. Especially considering that plants are the best way to reduce CO2.
We wouldn't need to just replant today's trees, we would need to replant all the Devonian-era trees we've burned as well (ie: coal). And a few extra to make up for the other ancient plants and animals that contribute to our fossil fuel consumption. Even if we had a mind to do that, there simply isn't enough surface area on the planet. Planting trees is fine and helpful, but its not sufficient.
Ice ages are controlled by surface albedo. The primary feedback agent involved in ice age modulation is DUST, not CO2. It is the deposition of dust just before every interglacial, that lowers the albedo of the northern ice sheets and allows additional insolation absorption and melting. And every interglacial is preceded by 10,000 years of dust. But how is that dust suddenly formed.? Interestingly, it is due to CO2 becoming so low that the Gobi region is turned into a shifting-sand CO2 desert. Without CO2, all plant life on the Gobi is extunguished. This is confirmed by the strata in the Loess Plateau. Thus is in LOW CO2 that is the feedback agent that assists and causes interglacial warming. It is an elegant theory that explains every facet of ice age modulation. See paper: ‘Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks’. Doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.04.004 Ralph
@@RalphEllis First of all, I don't need to look at a paper dude. This ain't my first rodeo. CO2 is NOT the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is. Rising ocean temperatures, aided by rapid deglaciation and lowering albedo levels is causing an unprecedented rise in temperatures. Further, as Alex's video stated, its not that the climate is changing that is the problem. Its the rapidity of the change. Hundreds of years instead of 10s of thousands, and is linked directly to the onset of industrialization. We JUST came out of an ice age 12,000 years ago. Based on hundreds of millions of years of climate history, we're due for another 50,000 years of temperate climate. The science is in, and the cause of rapid rising global temperatures is humans.
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie. Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie. Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm. Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods. Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear. Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus. Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court. In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
@@captcorajusYour opening statement says it all. Why so scared? Nobody says you have to agree with it. Just stay informed. As Carl Sagan said, a healthy skepticism is the heart of science.
In the last week or so, I have read a couple of articles written by the D ai ly Sc ep tic (Dec 2024). One announcing that there have been at least three scientific reports, peer reviewed and published (how did they get them through?), which essentially confirm the Equilibrium of Climate Sensitivity, that the bulk of warming due to CO2, has reached saturation level. Any increase will be minimal at best. And that any further warming will be due to water vapour. Additionally, from NOAA and UAH satellite records, there has been a global cooling trend over the last two years (2023 & 2024). Global sea surface temperatures have dropped by about 0.5c, and the UAH, show a similar trend over land. But, you will never hear this on the MSM.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
That's an absurd myopic take. "Yes, we will get desertification and mass food shortages eventually, but there is a brief moment in time on the way there where plants thrive. So let's keep fucking with our planet's thermostat guys!" 🤡
I'd disagree on _always_ : You cannot lie to a tower about its foundations being compromised, or spin the news of rudder damage to an aircraft so it stays up. Floodwater does not listen to rhetoric. Thousands of kilometers of dried out vegetation cannot be booed into not igniting at an errant spark from a power cable or campfire. Sooner or later, even the most persuasive speaker, or the most devote follower, is beholden to reality, because that's what their body and brain lives in. The issue is not when will reality sink it's teeth into the children of the shouting conspiracy theorists. It is whether their determination to win and gain that satisfaction, and their belief that is the most important thing, will fade to reality before it is too late to change course. And I'm afraid that the answer is 'no'. We place too high a premium on winning, and too much scorn on losing, admitting a mistake, or 'I don't know' - especially to ourselves. Somehow, on some level, the 'win' has become more important than the truth, to too many.
@@asura4418 It is certainly human activity that is responsible. If you think not, what is? Something supernatural? Some force or forces as yet undiscovered? What is it? HMMMMM?
It is one of the best videos on this topic I have seen. I think there is one weak spot, when you speak about global temperature. It's not that obvious and easy topic, even with modern thermometers and sensors grid. They are actually using global anomaly, which is the averaged YoY (year over year) difference of monthly averages in all measuring spots, but the number and location of spots with thermometers is changing. Spots that were in suburban locations were swallowed in time by growing cities. When I am approaching my home town by car I see increase of temperature of about 2 °C within distance change of the order of 10 km. They apply some correction factors which are at least to some degree arbitrary, so the mean global temperature anomaly is not a simple property of the system, it's a product of calculations and procedures. When it comes to temperature proxy records it's even more complicated: how to unify such a different measurements and processed data products? This was the reason why Mann et al. removed some data points from the (in)famous 'hockey stick' (which made it's way to your video) - "to hide a decline" (in the mean temperature anomaly indication). Was that sound procedure? Not all climate scientists agree on that.
Yeah.. its ACTUALLY urban warming... Big cities hold heat with concrete/asphalt, cars, electrical transformers, etc... and that's where the temp. Are taken... in the cities at the airport. This topic is highly politicized.. aka weaponized... The elites have an agenda, and they manipulate the mass's at will.
Re: your first point about urbanisation changing the temperature at a measuring location independent of global warming: we're seeing similar patterns in anomaly of sea ice extent, and ocean temperature (even excluding the North Atlantic anomaly which appears to have alternate explanation).
thats what folks get wrong. Thats what folks always mess up. Its not just that its rising. Its that its speed running rising. And thats what puts us in danger
Yeah, none of this is controversial or a counter-narrative or whatever. When people say we're "hotter than we've ever been" they mean within recorded human history. This video is literally the same very mainstream scientific spiel you're likely to see in any other pop science space.
Yup, this is just an IPCC propaganda and this dude contradicted himself several times and lied on a graph that literally showed he is lying 10:30 "most steep warming ever in short period of 100 years" guess he should have done what the IPCC always do on their propaganda sites and deleted the 16,000 - 10,000 end of last glacier era steep rise in temperatures and that's a rough measurements on rough dates and its as steep as our accurate 100 years measurements.
Unfortunately right wing ideology has ruined the brains of many Americans (and lots of dummies outside the US now as well), so claims like "AGW is real" are now dubbed "controversial" by them. Because they also conveniently dominate the media and can push whatever narratives they want.
They assume when calculating those "trapped ancient air bubbles" that the output of the sun is a constant, which has been proven to be wrong. The sun goes through cycles just as everything else and it has a drastic effect on the temperature of the planet.
No. There are a lot of papers explaining the sun is a relative small contributor compared to greenhouse gases. The spectral irradiance with the 11 cycle and even the actions of cosmics rays with atmosphère are taken into account in the models. Also if sun and an impact we will assist in an increase of stratosphere temperature but the measure show a decrease and increase in troposphere. .. The sun may have an impact regionaly and decadaly. ..
Day 12 UPDATE: Still at 89%! This is my most disliked video ever, by a wide margin (by nearly 3x)! But thank you to the many people who did like and enjoy this video 🙏
- Day 4 Edit: 89%!
- 53- hour EDIT: Back down to 90%
- 12-hour EDIT: We are up to 91%! Still the lowest on the channel but an improvement!
For those wondering, we are 37 mins in and I'm sitting at 88% likes... which for this channel is very low.
Oh trust me, it's gonna get lower.
you're harming their profiteering lol
That’s crazy. Science is science. It doesn’t care about political opinions. This video is a truth bomb to ignorant people.
Can you as the content creator see the percentage of dislikes as well?
Thanks for doing this. Facts and science are the proper way forward, always.
The fact that merely talking about this topic is now considered 'controversial' and 'political' says a lot about the state of modern society.
The fossil fuel industry has its tendrils in so many aspects of modern civilisation, and in every government around the world.
Factor in the huge disinformation and obfuscation campaigns they have run over the last 3 decades to poison the discourse in the public domain, and we arrive at the extremely dangerous result of the current situation.
Shell has had drilling plans since 10+ years ago for when the arctic *no longer has any ice at all*...
If humans are still drilling for more oil to burn when the arctic no longer has any ice, we have absolutely no chance at all. It is indescribably insane and is an ultimate example of the issue with commercial interests being allowed to pursue value for their investors regardless of the public interest and at huge detriment (and inevitable death and violence) to everyone and everything else.
Well, the science isn't political. But all the proposed solutions are. And some of them might work. But some are extremely unlikely to work and are just a waste of (often taxpayers') money. Some are just virtue signaling for proflt (companies claiming they're "green"). Some are outright scams (the recent explosion of "green" scams that crowdfund tons of money and then produce nothing or smth completely useless). Some solutions are so drastic that they'd cause mass unemployment, poverty, and starvation. And some people propose reducing the human population by mass genocides, sterilization programs, and draconian laws on family planning.
So this is why it's highly political and controversial topic. Because everything we can do about it is highly political and controversial. Even if the science behind it isn't.
I've been around awhile, long enough that I've seen this show before. What we're seeing now with global warming is the same pattern we've seen with every profitable threat to civilization that's come along in the last couple hundred years. Take whatever deniers are saying about climate change right now and substitute lead, asbestos, DDT, PCB's, CFC's, tobbaco, seat belts, etc. It's like an old fashioned madlibs where you have blanks to write in whatever word you want. The crucial difference here is that rather than the suffering and dying end after lobbying and disinfo makes society drag its feet on the latest threat to public health, the damage done by climate change is frontloaded. If we manage to get this under control, the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to increase climate instability for generations to come.
It tells you /us that Most Powerful Corporations such as Exxon, SHell, Koch Industries, and so forth are really ruling the world. They are true OVERLORDS dictating to governments and top Market Figures. Our Petrochemical Overlords only care about their current power and money - they are Greed Made flesh and blood. Until we all admit who is calling the shots we won't be able to stop excess CO2 production.
@@expandranon Quiet down you tragic drooling vegetable.
As George Carlin said,
"The planet will be fine.
The people are fucked"
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👍🏻
Always has been true, always will be true.
There's lots of planets. Dead balls of rock or gas. The point is the people are fucking this planet's ability to support life, choosing to do so, and choosing not to change, which will lead to a lot more than just us getting fucked out of existence. And maybe etch a sketch the ability for complex life for millions of years. Point being, much as i love George, thinking in cosmic timescales isn't really helpful when we are choosing to wipe out the only known life in the universe on a day by day basis, and could chose not to. It's kind of a cop out for not bothering to change because it requires nothing of us today.
And many of the other species who we share this planet with. They don't get a say or a chance. What species can evolve fast enough to cope with the speed with which the climate is changing?
more accurate WESTERN CAPITALISM WILL KILL OUR PLANET.
@@richardallan2767
"Maybe if governments and media were more busy with explaining and educating, rather than fear mongering and furthering their own political goals, more people would listen."
(thanks 4 the likes lol im so late but thx!!)
They don’t want us to be educated. They want us to be brainwashed. That’s the fundamental problem.
Hear hear. The media landscape is particularly atrocious. Surely it's worse than previous eras
Yep this is the problem right here. When the media spreads around misleading stories and then says "If we don't do something within 10 years we are all gonna die!" It ends up having the opposite affect that they think it does.
I think the dark ages might have been worse. At least we get Astrum today.
As long as the power that be doesn’t want to change course, everything will stay as it is, doesn’t matter how many people shout STOP, they are the ones steering the wheel.
This is the most considered and careful articulation of global warming we have ever seen. Well done. Definitely not “disliked”.
The controversy surrounding this issue arises when the upper crust of society tells you that your cow is causing climate change, while flying a private jet to their special meetings about how to take away your cow, for causing climate change.
How much effect does the burning of thousands of lbs of chemical rocket propellants on a regular basis, to launch more junk into space have? I wonder...
Who is taking your cow?
Then pass a carbon tax.
@@Kenbark42 don't be obtuse. The UN is all about taking away from the West and telling us to eat bugs like other people do.
If the environmentalists were really concerned about the Earth they would put a moratorium on War making.
Irony here is that habitat such as grasslands held carbon back, keeping it out of the atmosphere, and now recommending "burying" carbon in the oceans. How about stopping habitat destruction and engaging in habitat restoration? No one ever seems to talk about these options.
That cuts into the profits, so it's out of the question.
Habitats store some carbon, but they aren't as good at it as systems engineered to store lots of carbon.
I'm with you. Need more plants to suck up CO2 and Make Oxygen. Problem Solved.
The ocean generates 50 percent of the oxygen we need, absorbs 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions and captures 90 percent of the excess heat generated by these emissions.
@@donaldhobson8873 by “some” carbon, you mean all the carbon that has ever been stored until the invention of these engineered systems. By what measure are they “better” than habitats, particularly considering they don’t operate independent of or without an effect on habitats?
I was trained as a marine scientist a decade ago, we knew all this; political agenda and other problems are more pressing(apparently).
This whole field of study has been corrupt for decades. Descenting voices have been eliminated . You were indoctrinated not given a balanced education. The "political agenda" was baked in long ago. Rapid change is not new. The Greenland ice core contains 10 deg. cooling in a few decades at one point. Most of the long proxy records have several centuries or millennia between data points, so simply would not record rapid changes like the present. Saying rapid change never happened before is a constructed lie that the author picked up because he does not know the subject. You neither it would seem.
No you dont know anything. You think you do but you dont. Climate change is the first and foremost political agenda, it prevents growth and substance. Germany played the climate changes games and then fell short when they dont have enough energy to sustain their own people.
Politicians aren’t smart enough to have a political agenda that you seem to think exists. There is only one agenda : money. When principles get in the way of money, they go out the window. And that isn’t true of only politicians. When there is more quick money to be made by reducing CO2 than by burning oil, that will become the next political ‘agenda’.
But that little self indulgent rant aside, I agree totally.
Guess they didn't manage to teach you the scientific method, eh?
I think the reason for the majority of the dislikes is because people stopped watching when they got angry about what they were hearing.
Too many Gretas
@@kohtalainenalias Actually, we need more Gretas.
@@HealingLifeKwikly No, we need multinational corporation commitment and real progress
@@kohtalainenalias Thanks for your reply. There is no way multinational corporations will commit to what is needed until we get rid of capitalism. Its whole logic and incentive structure is wrong for fixing the climate crisis or broader ecological or societal crises.
Take care.
@@kohtalainenalias Search up Keith McCoy Exxon and see why that won't work.
Most people don't like climate change; I agree
most people don't like any change
@@doolsy Did you watch the video?
@@doolsySays who? Your Facebook _"friends?"_
@@upgradeplans777 yes. Why?
@@doolsy I don't even have a Twitter account. Never been a fan of pretending to be something you're not. Meeting your friends in person is much more enjoyable than staring at an LCD screen.
I’ve always been on the fence about this topic, but I’ve always been certain that whether the climate changes or not I don’t want my planet covered in garbage. I wish people would use their brains and value the planet if not for climate change do it because living in trash is lame
Exactly. Worse case you helped clean up the planet so it's not covered in trash. Best case you saved the planet and humanity from destroying itself.
lol
yes, each of us must be responsible. to leave it as it was, or better. most of these 'tool's are being paid to do something else. condition us.
@@prestonburton8504 If by 'tools' you mean the lobbyists, they are paid to stupefy the ppl. Hence, we now have Trump!
The IPCC has now incorporated environmental degrading into its assessments as part of the issues affecting Earth's balances. We just started banning PFAS and PFOS chemicals in some new manufacture. Unfortunately our plastics today are loaded with them. Other toxic chemicals banned in Western countries are still being used in some developing countries. These get circulated everywhere, and are very hard to clean up.
We can adapt to changing climate conditions, but not to poisoning our soil and water.
The pollution of the Oceans, Air and Ground are definitely the biggest concerns for me personally.
The fact that this is considered controversial is ridiculous.
Because we should all follow the narrative blindfolded. Here is a chocolate bar my good slave.
@@charliefrharper You sound just like you would use a car mechanic as a brain-surgeon.
You make that much sense.
@@charliefrharper I hope the chocolate is gluten free and 100% organic
@@charliefrharper Yeah, i think we should eat expired meat, expiration dates are just a scam to make us buy more food.
@@charliefrharper Are you saying that average global temperatures aren't increasing or they are but it is not caused by human activity?
I am not an aerospace engineer so when I fly on a plane I have to trust the people that design, test, manufacture and maintain passenger jets know what they are doing. I am also not a climate scientist so I have no way of evaluating climate change besides understanding the general principles.
Could the climate scientists, NASA, WHO, UN, practically every government be wrong? Sure but they could also be right. Could this all be an elaborate hoax to make us pay more taxes? I suppose but that doesn't make much sense to me.
My personal view is global warming is a thing and it's probably either caused or exacerbated by CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere due to human activity. But there's nothing I can do about it and I will be long dead before it has any significant effects.
I have no time for the alarmists, they need to STFU. The planet isn't going to die and the human race is not facing extinction.
I'm always frustrated by explanations of the Milankovitch cycles, because people generally do not complete the explanation of how they cause glaciations. The whole point, is that deep ice caps can only form on land, not on ocean, and the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. The shore of the Arctic ocean averages around 70 degrees North, and the furthest southern extent of the ice caps averaged around 50 degrees North, so what is important to the formation of the large continental glaciers during glacial periods, is the intensity of summer insolation between 50 and 70 degrees north. That is what varies according to the Milankovitch cycles. During period of low summer insolation, mountain top ice caps in those latitudes begin to expand, snow melts later in spring, arctic ice takes longer to melt, all of which trigger a feedback mechanism where the higher albedo of ice and snow reflects more sunlight, cooling the climate even further. What is critical is the intensity and duration of sunlight from about early May to early August between about 50 and 70 degrees North.
The answer to that is short attention spans. It's why the vast majority of people don't even know what a Milankovitch Cycle is.
@Al You have your choice of scientific sites (NASA, eg) & blogs, or your choice of videos. Here’s a good short clear one: "How Ice Ages Happen: The Milankovitch Cycles”. But you seem to know all that already.
Of course, now, human greenhouse gases are overwhelming these cycles & other forcings. CO2 released by burning fossil fuels; methane created by rice & excess meat production; nitrous oxides from fossil fuel-derived fertilizers; industrial gases like chlorofluorocarbons; & as a feedback once those have started things, water vapor.
Thanks I always look for what they don't tell you
The fact that this subject is characterized as "sensitive" or "controversial" is mind boggling to me
cuz its propaganda buddy
@@Lboy-ym7oy bruh
@@Lboy-ym7oy noob
@@Lboy-ym7oy What's the alternative if you're wrong buddy?
Because the snowflake generation will cry if you go against them..
18:12 How is nuclear not on that graph, it's the singe most hopeful energy source we have. The fact that every climate activist movement seems to completely ignore nuclear as an option is beyond me.
the chart only goes up to 40%, you could say that the nuclear went off the charts
Fukushima. Tchernobyl. Earthquakes. Reality. Death.
Not specifically about the graph, but building new nuclear isn't as tractable as it seems. At this point, new reactors are too expensive to build, and will take too long to be operational to make the difference they need to make, with the lengthy construction process continuously emitting lots of carbon dioxide from concrete and transport requirements.
For generation, renewables are cheaper, and quicker to build. As for the energy security problem from weather fluctuations, I think nuclear is a red herring solution for the reasons above, and what needs to be done is further investment and research into new energy storage.
Nuclear could be useful long term, but the time it takes given the process of getting them started means that they are not useful immediate solutions. It would require some more immediate solutions simultaneous to getting nuclear going. Personally, I agree that nuclear would be very useful, additionally, it would be amazing if Fusion technology produces results relatively soon. However, we still need to phase out carbon emitting sources as quick as we can so slow down the rate of change. For now only stuff like solar and wind can help mitigate that until we get more nuclear and other sources. The biggest hurdle to nuclear is finding places where the locals will let you build one. I agree that its frustrating that there doesn't seem to be more effort on the nuclear path. Although given Fukushima, Chernobyl, and recent concerns regarding the nuclear plant in Ukraine under Russian occupation could all contribute to politicians seeing nuclear as a being politically "radioactive."
It’s the only real solution to get rid of coal burning.
Maybe if governments and media were more busy with explaining and educating, rather than fear mongering and furthering their own political goals, more people would listen.
It’s be nice if the science actually made sense
97% of scientist agree something is happening meaning more than 0 nobody can predict ANYTHING about it
start with the elite giving up their private jets and yachts
then stop sending consumer goods halfway around the globe
then build many nuclear power plants
then i will take our govt solutions seriously
Simply telling the truth is not fear mongering lmao
Why did the Scotland government cut down 17 million trees?
Truth is not fear-mongering. You are just too stupid to read science.
What makes global warming so unique is how most regions get warmer while a few get colder like in the town where I live in Reykjavík, Iceland. There have now been 8 months in a row below temperature while stormy weather has become more normal each year.
As long as there's a TH-cam Rewind, this will never be the most-disliked video on TH-cam.
Also because it was the most ordinary take on climate change. Like wow, the earth is heating up, we need to stop that or animals will go extinct. This information was freely available in 2009. Outside of USA, this topic is not controversial in the slightest.
well they technically said *their own* most disliked video.
@@meapyboy12345 well the title technically says the most disliked video on youtube
@@n0denz doesn't the title say "My Most Disliked Video On TH-cam"? also didn't mean to sound rude earlier but it does kind of come with making these types of comments.
Well, YT pushed it onto my home feed just now, and I'm watching it. I'm two thirds of the way thru, and they've only mentioned politics as a side effect of some other story, and they described those issues as a future historian would, rather than as a political troll, so I really appreciate it.
In speech class, we had to give a "convincing" speech about halfway into the class.
Basically we had to try and sell something to the audience.
I decided to pick the worst topic ever, and try. So I tried to convince my audience to cut down the rain forest. LOL.
They did not like it.
I know some loggers. I can hook you up.
hero!!!
I had something similar lmao. We had debates. We were assigned the topic and which side we would debate for. Basically, I had to debate about using animals as testing subjects for medications. My side would fight to keep testing on animals and other side had to fight to stop using animals and instead use lab created organs or whatever they're called. Organs grown in a lab. I guess it's safe to assume I lost that one badly. Especially when my opponents side had 3 person group, my side had a 2 person group because we ran out of students. On top of that, I had the special needs student in my team. So it was me and a special needs guy. Add that he didn't do anything for the research and couldn't even debate properly on the day of. Add that I had the losing side to debate. Add that I'm competitive and didn't take that loss very well lmao.
Very interesting. Well played. That should go further and be used more. ‘How would you like a world without trees?’
I am sure you must have researched the topic. There is plenty of evidence that cuttign down the rainforest would have a beneficial effect. More CO2 would be obsorbed, provided the soil is not disturbed and a new forsst can grow in its place.
I have four large carbon capture devices in my yard. Three of them are more than 80 feet tall and the fourth is in the shape of a globe 40 feet across. A white oak, a maple, a white pine and a honey locust.
I love that!
We can't solve the issue just by planting trees, though that's still a good thing.
1 The extra co2 doesn't just come from cutting down forests, most of it was trapped safely underground and even if you reforested the entire planet that portion would still be an issue.
2 You can't reforest the entire planet because we need a high percentage of the land that's not glacier or desert as farmland to feed more than 7 billion people.
All of the Carbon Capture projects combined have so far managed to capture less than a day's* worth of humanity's emissions. Hopefully we'll get better at scaling it, but for now I'll keep planting as many trees as I can.
(*I think it's actually about 10 minutes' worth, but I'll be vague so I'm less likely to be wrong).
I'm not a climate alarmist or anything, so I know you're right. But nothing wrong with more trees where possible anyways my dude.
Let's have more of them. They're nice to look at.
You must be used to raking up leaves and cleaning out your roof gutters?
The issue is too politicised. Whilst we see politicians buying luxury properties by the ocean, constantly flying around the globe and purely shifting industrial output to the Far East, people are not going to believe they think there is a true risk.
Most disliked video on TH-cam? How would anyone even know? TH-cam hid that useful feature long ago. I’m still upset
Clickbait title
Browser add-ons are your friend. Get the like-dislike ratio back.
I've gone off it now. It's just another fearmongering video.
@@Rayblondie nope, it is a science video tho
He claims it will be HIS most disliked video. Not the most disliked on the entire platform.
And creators can still see dislikes.
BetterHelp is a scam company, please quit advertising for them.
This whole video is a scam. It's part of the climate alarmism terror-propaganda complex.
“You’re not gonna like this”
Proceeds to make the most milquetoast and uncontroversial video ever.
The video is highly disliked on YT. Half of America doesn’t believe in climate change. You need to realize how stupid conservatives are
And yet it really is one his most disliked videos at 14k dislikes. Even his most popular videos with 5+ million views have less than half the dislikes of this one.
modern political state means something that was a normal take 10 years ago will get you called a million 'isms' by social justice particularly
@@swanqlord3048 im pretty much certain that most of those dislikes are just people disliking for shits and giggles, if he didint say that this will be his most disliked video it wouldnt be
@@fur_avery ...i am guilty of that, yes
I think humans should be discussing this: how are we going to deal with climate effects in practice? Infrastructure, migration, deseases, etc.
Not whether there is climate change.
Yes, let's not even entertain the thought that we could be wrong to a degree that is going to cost human lives if we implement drastic measures! We're so not on the evil side of history! No, siree! We pave our way to hell ONLY with the finest quality of good intentions.
We are presently experiencing human-induced climate change. We need to do more than discuss it. There is an urgent need for positive action - moving away from fossil fuel based energy to renewables NOW! Our energy needs will only grow in future, esp as our population grows. Electrification of our energy sources is the answer via solar, wind, thermal ... etc
Or how much a growing population is adding to the issue
"We should just force consensus and move forward with the assumption that is driven by private interests"
@@HKDW-1 If anyone was SLIGHTLY serious about it all developed nations would have gone into nuclearizing everything. It's not serious, it's about selective deindustrialization to maximize profits.
I don't know why you waited three years. There is nothing in this video we haven't known for at least twenty years. What I do love about the video is how well you presented the facts and the scientific methods used to determine them. We need more of this. 😊
@@helpmboab2034 Is that some random words you just either willingly or inadvertently typed out, or am I seriously meant to make sense out of it?
More Than 1,600 Scientists Declare Apocalyptic Global Warming a Myth
BY ANDREW MIILLER • SEPTEMBER 3, 2023
Acoalition of 1,609 scientists and professionals have signed a declaration stating they “strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy” being pushed around the globe. The declaration, published on August 14 by the Global Climate Intelligence Group, states:
Natural as well as human factors cause warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
CO2 is plant food (the basis of all life on Earth).
Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
The most recent signatory of the declaration is Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for work on entangled photons.
Red environmentalism: Burning fossil fuels may have some limited effect on global temperatures, but it’s hard to tell because repeated scientific fraud has clouded the issue. Reasonable people want clean air, water and soil for themselves and others, so radical central planners are highly motivated to mix concern for the environment in with their socialist ideology. This strategy also makes socialist activists, journalists and politicians highly motivated to hijack and exaggerate concerns about the environment to literally doomsday-level proportions.
When a course of action (such as soil remediation) would help the environment but do nothing for the socialist agenda, they ignore it. When a course of action would hurt the environment (such as giving a pass to the world’s biggest polluter, which happens to be Communist), they go for it.
Deadly distraction: What you see in the news isn’t a may-the-best-facts-win scientific debate. It is the result of manipulation designed to frighten people into surrendering their God-endowed rights to a central planning committee.
Many scientists scoff at the notion that God controls the weather, but the book of Job states that God balances the vapors of the clouds and warms the Earth with a south wind (Job 37:16-17). God commands the clouds to do His will, whether for mercy or for correction (verses 12-13). Psalm 148 shows this understanding of God’s power, stating, “Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word” (verse 8). Such passages confirm that God controls the sun and balances the gases that compose the clouds. They also confirm that God sends fire and stormy winds to fulfill His promises.
Learn more: Read “Greenhouse Apocalypse.”
E-MAIL ANDREW MIILLER
OR FOLLOW ANDREW MIILLER ON TWITTER/𝕏
@@RonanGallagherBandI understood it by picturing him as a British accented Disney character 😂. He is saying that they are adding dramatic effects by saying they had to hide the info. Embellishment hooks listeners and readers.
@@helpmboab2034I'm not sure what you are saying. Then again, between Disney analogies and a lack of substance I'm not sure if you understand what you're saying either. Are you saying the Climate Change thing is false? Not sure what your point is. Are you? 😊
I bet you’re real fun to be around 😂😂
You really ought to put your sources in the description for all the information mentioned in the video. Its important when making something like this.
Sources would be great, but you can also find each of these facts in scholarly articles by using Google. It is important for everyone to "Do their own research"
Self education is a good thing.
800w power plus gold
@brittneypagan5144 You are absolutely correct. I do, and I encourage everyone else to do their own research. I just think it's important to cite sources when one is making claims because it adds value for everyone.
@janamations1079 Yeah I agree it's a research video. You need to put sources when you compile research in scientific settings. It's a requirement for any sort of scientific publishing. Why shouldn't videos have similar standards even if their primary demographic is lay people.
The sources that AGW cult members use are paid by the government to produce numbers to scare new members into believing the science. So, there’s that.
"A species must move to a more suitable environment or perish..." That sounds like a global conflict like no other.
See: The USA's southern border with Mexico. ;)
like others before. Ever studied the younger Dryas temp fluctuations 13000 to 11 000 years ago? They still fight about the cause of the extremely rapid and short drop. What is the effect the massive deforestations since 1800 ? Who says they are not the cAUSE?
yes, this will also will be true for our species...
the right wing radicals in my country in europe are: totally against immigration, and totally against taking action against climate change.
i alwas tell them, then they have to set up a lot of weapons and ammunition factories, because they will have to shoot tens of millions of refugees at the borders to europe in the mid future, that will come because of climate change and spreading wars due to the enviroment failing to support half a billion people at the half to the end of this century.
There is massive migration in Europe and USA now. It has NOTHING to do with climate.
Living in snow country takes a lot of energy.
To reduce FF use, northern migration should be strongly discouraged.
A year later and there are still soo many bots copy pasting the same big oil comments and red herrings 💀
big oil comments?
Clearly all problems can be fixed by giving money to politicians.
Who will then immediately cede all power to their rich investor friends who use it to enrich themselves.
Say no more!!
Many problems have been solved by governments in the past. You're cherry picking if you think governments have never done anything for society.
@@eliaspanayi3465 Who will then hire those same politicians to be their CEO once (if) they retire.
@Ta Which of course is the lunatic right wing’s strategy.
The “Net Zero” plan includes caveats for “carbon offsets” which allows those with the money and resources to continue to consume as they please in return for paying for the “offset”. This will force a certain amount of rationing for the general public who can’t afford to pay an added tax on their carbon footprint , and as an added bonus this reduction in consumption will help ensure a sufficient supply for the people who can afford it.
That sounds fair. Jeff Bezos gets to travel the world on his private jet and yacht with his girlfriend and her ex while the rest of us have to ration what we consume.
You are the carbon they want to get rid off
@@carlt6932 I’m glad your onboard sir. Someone has to eat the bugs so there’s still enough beef for the wealthy to have their filet mignon when things get tight next decade.
A lot of people seem oblivious to the fact that all of these lifestyle changes effecting the standard of living will be burdened on the shoulders of the middle class.
We are the carbon they want to get rid of
The worst thing standing in the way of the climate change conversation are political allegiances.
The worst thing is, even the politicians who criticize others on global warming, don't do anything about it when they're in power.
Also personally they have huge carbon footprints. The NZ and Canadian Prime Ministers flew in a private jet after a global warming conference.
Whose 🤔
politics in at all is problem in science
@@TheRilluma there's pro and anti science politics
People can change their behaviour, no need for politics in that case. Though it would help.
As someone who has spent the last 35 years working on "the energy problem," I am in a perfect position to say this:
The sheer scale of *the global excess heat* is nothing short of staggering: Over 400 million megawatts of excess heat, some 25 times Humanity's total combined direct energy use. Only 4% of that excess heat derives from our _present_ use of energy. The other 96% comes from the accumulated greenhouse gases emitted in the past few centuries.
But *note that nearly 50% of ALL greenhouse gases emissions have occurred in just the past 30 years!* That ominous trend is what makes the "climate problem" into a CLIMATE CRISIS. Humanity MUST take immediate, large-scale action to deal with the excess heat itself, while we continue to whittle away at greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time, we cannot suddenly slash energy use, or billions of people will die. First they will be dying from starvation, then from migration, then from the resulting wars... *Wars that will affect EVERYONE.*
Nah…
Haven't had a record high in NH for over half a century, the farmers almanac is still the most accurate predictor of weather cycles. That publication has been around for 200 years.
Okay, Chicken Little. The "scientists" have been saying for decades that if we don't do something drastic, billions of people will die. Yet nothing has happened aside from economic investment resulting in fewer climate related deaths, proving the best solution to climate change is the unfettered use of all types of energy, especially fossil fuels. Economic advancement, which relies on cheap energy, is the only practical answer.
If all conversations about global warming could be done apolitically and factual instead of with the tone of Chicken Little, perhaps more people would take it seriously. Thank you for simply presenting information.
How I understand, “Waaagh give me power or we all are going to die… waaaah I want to be most important president.”
I don’t understand what you mean. Global warming is causing mass species die off, it is directly impacting our food and water systems. This video doesn’t dispute that. Chicken Little was lying, the scientists who say we must take drastic steps immediately are speaking with factual basis for their claims, which this video also backs up.
the world needs to change, apoltical and factual aren't mutually exclusive
Pretty pictures of steam coming out of coolers (no pollution there) and comments about sea levels rising (they are not) rather undermine this.
@@ArstotzkaEmpire”Waagh” why are you talking about Warhammer orks?
Stating plain fact has become controversial because these days, it seems, everything has to be an argument.
No it doesn't
People are too stupid, immature and apathetic to change their destructive behaviors.
An argument?? No, no.. If we were only as bad off as that.. I reckon we're at opinions only now, more or less. Hell, if even that!? More like, unfounded, ungrounded, mostly emotionally based, entitled opinions.. 🙈🙉🙊
@@kinjunranger140 You said it did.
@@coraltown1 There is no identifiable man-made CC. But what the timelines do overlay with, are milestones for autonomy: 2035 and 2050 are interestingly both key dates for each. BOTH require a massive decrease/culling of the human herd.
I love the fact that the tiniest clam-like animals send us climate data from millions of years ago. Humbling. Live your channel, Greetings from Spain.
yet the presenter proceeds to ignore the data and push human made climate change agenda.
Garbage data in garbage data out
It is very humbling, but not in the way you suggest. To think that people form their impassioned opinions based on data collected and interpreted is this manner absolutely boggles the mind. Holy cow are people arrogant and stupid.
Just imagine the margin of error in that data. 10-15% perhaps? Yet today's 'unusual' warming is what 2-3% if that. Yet we draw a quite interesting conclusion. One might wonder why... Let alone the fact that we gather data about our own sun which keeps on rocking the science community. You know the sun which fuels our life and the climate.
@@DigitalsapienYou don’t even have to look back millions of years to realize that the current rise in temperature is abnormal. There’s a reason every scientific organization takes this stuff seriously. Right wing media and random people who have no idea what they’re talking about aren’t going to change that
Recently, while living my life and working on projects at school to fight global warming, picking up trash and disposing of waste, I sometimes wondered, 'Why go to such lengths?' But through this video, I was able to learn how much the Earth's temperature has risen and how much the sea level has increased. It helped me understand how serious the current situation is, and I'm grateful that this video was made in such detail, allowing me to fully grasp the issue.
ironically i have always taken climate change to heart and knowing this will all come to a head likely before 2030 has me feeling like nothing matters anymore. Im getting whiplash from caring deeply and grieving, and just deciding fuck it and having fun. Its hard. I wish you peace in the coming years.
I am always bothered when they show "smokestacks" belching out pollution in videos and invariably they are showing steam.
And when they talk about animals going extinct and they show polar bears....who are thriving btw
@jmace1957 steam is in fact a form of pollution. Water vapor is now the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
@@bradymoon1889 how long polar bears survive remains to be seen. The chance that they will successfully adapt to radically changing conditions is 50/50. They either will or they won't. If they do go extinct it will probably be fairly soon.
@@bradymoon1889 You appear to be quoting a Forbes-sponsored "researcher" who is not relevantly qualified and has never done any relevant research on polar bears and whose phoney research was debunked a decade ago.
@@dingusdingus2152 so thats why the planets heating up, its covered in water
people are only willing to listen to what they want, not what is actually true, which explains alot of our problems
If climate changers really want to do something they would push weather manipulation and Geo weathering that’s the fastest way to save the planet
So people can still continue using fossil fuels, but we will manipulate the weather or they should be pushing putting gold in the atmosphere to reflect the heat rays of the sun. The technology is already there. Saudi Arabia makes it rain in the desert by doing cloud seeds, but that’s just my opinion .
People can't listen when they don't understand what's being said. If you went into a lecture on "Non-Gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity" you wouldn't pay attention after you realised it was all going over your head. That's why the number one thing when you encounter skeptics and deniers is not to attack, but to explain. Tell them what you know in words they'll understand. Spare no detail if they ask for more credible information. So long as you speak what's true then no arguments can counter it
Look up John Kay. He wrote a good book about this. NOT the musician.
..it's about money of course, one trillion and counting but they want 17 trillion more last time I checked, could be far higher now.
The problem is everything is just sensory input to our minds.
There's no such thing as true, only what is orthodox to the internal model our 250,000 wildly obsolete instincts create to navigate uncertainty and a worlď far more vast and complex than our brains can handle without a forest of mental shortcuts. Our minds handle those orthodoxies as though they're a body part - people trend toward reinforcement for the same reason they're loath to mash their hand into a hot plate, the instincts take it as a physical safety risk.
If western governments are really worried about Co2 then why do they keep down sizing heavy industry and manufacturing in their own countries? Laws and regulations are much stricter here, and the processes used to make these products and materials are much cleaner than they other parts of the world. Areas where they now need to ship the materials and products in from create much more pollution and Co2 to make the same things we could make ourselves! It literally makes zero sense. If this is a global problem, then it doesn't matter where the Co2 comes from. All that should matter is that there is less of it being produced no matter where it comes from. All western nations seem to care about it that their own co2 balance sheet looks good, but their actions actually caused more Co2 to be produced globally. Judge them by what they do not what they say and what they do seems to contradict what they say!
Are governments to blame for companies seeking to maximize profits and cut down on paying workers higher wages and having to give them more rights and benefits? the companies themselves choose to move overseas to push further profits for their shareholders, that’s not something the governments control
We are carbon based lifeforms..they say they want to get net zero carbon emissions…pretty obvious what the climate change agenda is about
@@harmanthind2147 well they can but that would be a communistic system and has been proven almost impossible to implement. But governments can influence these decisions in other ways with various carrots and sticks to influence choices made by producers.
@@harmanthind2147yes. Because those governments are specifically enacting policies admittedly in their public statements doing so in order to cut down on their own manufacturing which has the effect of increasing manufacturing and those other countries.. In fact if you look at the Paris climate scam all it would have done is Forest Western countries with stricter regulations to reduce their manufacturing and thus their pollution but it placed no restrictions on the world's largest polluters which were China and India and in fact allowed them to INCREASE their pollution
At the same time it would have taken hundreds of billions of dollars of Western taxpayer dollars and paid them out to China and India. And then you wonder why people say that the left-wing communists are controlled by China.. maybe it's because everything they do seems to be in the effort to hurt America and help China.. The point is that it wouldn't have done anything for global temperatures or pollution. Well it would have done is help the economies of foreign countries at the expense of the Western ones.. So yes it's the fault of the government's mostly.. They are specifically trying to force more manufacturing in these other countries that control them.. It's why they were so against Trump's trade war with China. By doing what George Washington and other founding fathers did and increasing tariffs it would motivate companies to move manufacturing back over large scale time frames. That would mean less money for China and if China owns your party you would very much be against that. Also the same with doing oil drilling in America. Making America energy independent hurts China and also reduces pollution because of less need for shipping. You don't have to drill it in the Middle East drive a truck to the ocean and then a giant oil ship across the ocean just to get it to America..
All of those are GOVERNMENT policies.. corporations will do whatever is cheaper. The government can influence whether manufacturing at home or in China is cheaper.
Just like the lie about censorship. That they are "private companies" Who can "do whatever they want"
As we know from leak to documents and public letters and freedom of information requests it's actually the government's typically the Western Communist governments of America and Europe FORCING these companies to censor
We know that the Biden dictatorship openly forced many of these companies to censor his political opponents. We've seen public letters and documents coming from Western European regimes where they force the social media companies to censor political opponents of the Communist agenda..
The European regime sent a letter out to most social media companies telling them to demonetize Russell Brand. Over sexual assault allegations apparently.. Why would European Communist governments take such an interest in a former Hollywood actors allegations to that extent? Probably because it has nothing to do with the allegations and everything to do with them trying to silence a man that was exposing their corruption..
So yes the governments censored.. The government were behind most of these terrible things. Including pushing all the manufacturing to places that pollute more. China owned the left wing.. The Soviet plot that Joe McCarthy warned about where the Soviet communists were infiltrating every aspect of the Western world from academia to Hollywood the media the government the deep state etc came true.. The ripple effect continuing long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.. The only difference is that with the Soviet Union collapse those Communists had to go and pledge their loyalty to the next closest thing. The only other communist government: China
And they were more than happy to allow it.. point is that yes these are done by the government. The government purposely enact policies to make those things happen. To influence gas prices going up so that Americans will have to buy electric cars. To influence manufacturing going abroad. Whether it's done for money or not is irrelevant. If they truly care about climate change and so it has the greatest threat the world ever faced the way they claim then one of their top priorities would be to bring manufacturing back to the Western countries with more restrictions and regulations and less pollution. By instead creating policies to force as much manufacturing as possible towards countries like China and India who pollute more than anyone they are showing that it's not a top priority for them. That they don't believe in it that badly. While Democrat voters might be so stupid and conspiracy doomsday cult that they think they will literally live through the end of the world as it literally burned the reality is that the politicians telling them those things don't believe it at all. Even their grifting spokes grifters like Greta Thunderbird run around the world on private jets that pollute more In one tr than the average person in an entire year
So again people pushing these climate doomsday conspiracy theories Don't believe in it themselves. At least they don't believe that they're going to live through it.. And that's the basic premise. The governments that supposedly care enough about it to give millions of dollars of subsidies to the green energy lobby that fund most of their campaigns clearly aren't concerned enough to bring manufacturing back to countries that have emissions standards
The grifting pundits and celebrities always talking about climate change when they're promoting a new book or movie clearly don't believe in it enough to stop flying on their private jet or even to buy a house slightly further inland from the beach.. They keep claiming that everything will be underwater yet they spend millions of dollars on beachfront property. Property that gets insured by insurance companies. Who also must not believe in that because if the insurance company believed that the beach house would be underwater they would never agree to insure it..
The biggest promoters of these doomsday conspiracy theories don't seem to believe them. So why should we?
You're conflating 'they'. Government and Scientists are not the same. You are also forgetting a core aspect of human nature - humans do NOT choose rationally. We have a myriad of incentives that would pull us toward danger - despite what you might think. Look up Expected Utility Theory, proposed by Neumann and why it doesn't work given it's perfectly logical and rational set up.
Watching this in Las Vegas where yesterday it was 120F which broke the all-time record in Las Vegas by 3 degrees.
Yeah, we are so screwed. I remember 10 years ago there were predictions that things could be bad by 2050 and uninhabitable by 2100. I though bullshit...I'm saying 2030 and 2035 in place of those numbers. Even my pessimistic ass might not have been pessimistic enough
I was there in 1997 and it was 123 degrees.
Heat index well over 100 here near Houston as always this time of year. I’m still without power 9 days now after the hurricane. 92 on the thermostat inside day and night. We’re actually predicted to get a cool front down here in a couple days. I’ve never seen one make it here in July in my 52 years of life.
So?
Concrete retains heat so it’s going to continue to get harder as you build more buildings. Nothing to do with that atmosphere
The fact that you decided to go forward with such controversial topic and invest the time to make it even though you are aware it's risky is good enough reason to like the video.
There's nothing controversial about it.
@@nilssonakerlund2852 Exactly lol.
And we can already see why this will be controversial
Exactly.
@@doolsy You wish
If you’re tempted to dislike this video because it seems to say “don’t worry so much, climate has always changed, and life on 🌍 has coexisted with a much warmer global climate”, then WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO. I appreciate his calm & thorough presentation.
I disliked the video because of his adoration of the IPCC, - a hopelessly ideological and politically motivated organization that is divorced from sound science.
@@slooob23got evidence backing up or just parroting/inventing a sentiment?
@@Shoey69 yes, the IPCC was caught in an email scandal where they deliberately manipulated data for political and ideological purposes.
This among many, many other unscientific proclamations and ideologically derrived action that is an affront to sound scientific process.
If a person blindly believes anything that they say at this point, they are either ignorant or tribally aligned with the ideology behind this faux scientific organization.
its super easy to look it up, its all a scam. idk why you guys don't just research it on your own. its easy to debunk.@@Shoey69
Which “sound science” are you referring to?
Carbondioxide removal facility : A forest.
nope. cut down the trees and put in the solar and wind farms!!!!
@@mistaajonesgreat idea, because trees have zero effect on local humidty and temperature, none at all.
@@mistaajoneslol, right? I tried to listen till I saw propaganda bear. That polar bear was debunked as a diseased specimen. Polar bear populations are growing. Polar ice extant is growing yearly. The climate-tastrafy narrative is falling apart. It's a global money harvesting machine that has everyone addicted to terror though. Like a train it's going to keep rolling for a while.
Here you go on I 95 cut the trees down in the median there is a little decline valley like now there is water buildup on spend more money put in a drain system.dang the trees sucked the water up and took in CO2 and put out .smart move think not lol But guess what the drain not working.water ponds still there guess what else.mesequitos . anyways we can just spray chemicals and kill em 😁
@@darrelv764How erudite.
I am just sick and tired of breathing filthy poisonous air.
Utube free download chemtrails
Stop breathing then.
Co2 is neither filthy nor poison. A great deal has been done in 75 yrs to clean air in free countries. Not CCP etc
Telling the truth in times of deceit is considered a revolutionary act
Saying what the TV says is not brave, just saying.
@@FooneyFoo-we4qfand yet we all who watch this channel know he doesn't just repeat info, he researches it himself and comes to his own conclusions.
@campland2880 imagine ignoring the science explained in the video and having the nerve to call someone else nonsense.
It's ok to disagree. It's not ok to do it without seeing(and understanding) the evidence of the other side of the argument.
Just, have the day you deserve.
@@campland2880 Can you explain how this is "clearly pseudo-science"? Maybe start by defining pseudo-science and explain how the climate science presented in this video fits that definition.
@@CompassionateCoos Easy, it's mostly not science. It's manipulated data, cherry-picking data, biased (input) modelling (that is most often wrong. . .but that never seems to matter), and it's closed conversations: "the debate is over".
Watch "Climate: The Movie (the cold truth). It would be much clearer and more entertaining with sound citations and evidences from leading physicists and meteorologists, etc.
What a shockingly reasonable video, not what I expected when I clicked on it. Geological history is so fascinating to me - to me it's a shame that so few people are aware of the history of earth
But well, on a personal level, this makes me think a couple of things. One, is that if we stop abruptly producing carbon dioxide and somehow absorb it back (not feasible with our current economy) then there's a possibility of triggering an ice age. The another is that, although the Earth has been hotter in the past, if global warming goes out of control this will undoubtedly have a potentially catastrophic impact on our society. Life will exist, us, well, maybe, but in a deplorable state. Our civilization is extremely fragile to this and that is somehow demoralizing.
@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist8 Think twice: You sucessfully conformed to the current youtube comment spam pattern epidemia. Jesus didn't do and surely wouldn't have done it this way...
I saw this title and thought "ohh this will be disliked by climate change deniers right? Because he's going too hard with the mainstream narrative or something." But he actually meant pro climate change people because he's daring to talk about factual historical data instead of just spamming fear propaganda and I think that's hilarious lol. Discourse about this subject in recent years has shifted so much that the default for most people now is not skepticism but fanaticism. That shows how powerful propaganda is.
@@thekamotodragon I don't think so. How dare you to tell us what he meant? You can see the IPPCs worst prediction scenario maps for what happens if we do not change with 10-18 degrees (which is NOT Fahrenheit) of warming on land masses for the year 2300 in the video. Also, if you looked closer at the comments, you clearly could have witnessed that it's actually the notorious deniers that seem to dislike it - with some of these spammers showing that they didn't even whatch it 🤷
@@thekamotodragon Also, from a personal view, I would say that there is much more fear with the deniers than with the ones that are warning about climate change.
The number of comments stating that AGW was made up on purpose to get everybody into some worldwide communism with total control and no private posession of goods and some of them even wildly fantasizing about breathing beeing rationed is no longer countable.
The reason many people doubt the "nagging" (not even sure thats the correct word) on global warming, is because the ones with the biggest influence and voice often are celebrities, politicians or other public figures who more often than not are hypicrits, they fly private jets and get driven everywhere , they probably fly/drive more kilometers per year than the average human does in their entire lifetime.
Also the organisation known as WEF, were many global corporations are members and many political leaders are so called "Young Global Leaders", they tell people "You will own nothing, and you will be happy" meanwhile they fly out to Davoos every year, put first they fly private to Geneva, then Helicopter to Davoos. "Rules for thy but not for me"
"There is enough for everyones needs but not everyones greed"
It's really hard to believe the "nagging" if you don't live in big cities.
I live in a small agricultural town near a city of 2 million people. In every weather report, the temperature in the city is about 5-6°C higher than in my town and it's only an half an hour car drive to the city with nothing but flatland in between.
This year, our government came out with a report that the number of farmers taking climate change loans has grown 600% since 2020. Well, if you take out an agricultural loan and put climate change as a reason for it, you get ridiculously low interest rates with almost no monitoring of spending. Presuming that we're taking those loans because of climate change is pretty naive.
I kinda get all of the science behind it, it's just that living in an area with experience that differs so wildly from what the science is telling makes it really, really hard to get onboard.
@@MI982 It's one thing to "get" "the science" behind it, but it's another thing entirely to understand the plethora of ways that said "science" is biased & heavily skewed to reach conclusions deemed desirable by those responsible for funding & conducting it.
Sadly, the vast majority of people - not least the vast majority of scientists - are so enamoured with their conception of humanity's intellectual supremacy and infallible brilliance, it's literally inconceivable to them that maybe we don't know nearly as much as we think we do, and maybe a huge chunk of what we think we know is actually completely wrong.
I could point out a dozen glaring holes in the supposedly "scientific" reasoning used in this video, and the conclusions drawn from it, without even having to really think much. If I tried, I could pinpoint dozens & dozens of places where there's gaping holes in the knowledge relied upon, not to mention the multitude of ways in which the data we're told is incontrovertible is actually rubbish, because of flaws in the way it's defined/categorised/collected/interpreted etc.
The temperature differential between rural & urban areas you identified is a prime example. This is a well-known phenomenon called "urban heat islands" - and yet much of the time, the locations where temperatures are recorded are in or near these "heat islands", meaning that the temperatures logged as the official temperature is substantially higher than it is in reality when you're not surrounded by miles of concrete & steel. Every time you hear politicians & media puppets talk about how this is the hottest year on record and everything is getting way hotter and we're all gonna burn to a crisp, just remember that more often than not, they're citing temperatures that are perfectly normal and unremarkable for anyone outside cities. It's just one of the many ways they deceptively misrepresent the facts to instil fear in the population and make people easier to manipulate & control.
& the Earth doesn't even care or change like saying someone spiting in the ocean changes the level . The Grift Theas so called scientist get paid screaming the sky is falling if it wasn't. Who would give them a Dime
@@MI982 Well said! I also want to add, here in Germany they wanted to proclaim a "climate lockdown" after the corona fascism was over. They said: Summer in Germany 2023 will be the hottest ever and we need to do something against this. They already planned all kinds of tyrannic measures for the people, just that the weather and climate this year didn't want to play along. We had the coldest and rainiest summer since at least 30 years or so, so they had to cancel this nonsensical tyranny.
In general, all they did during the last years here in Germany was destroying jobs. First they flooded the country with migrants (which is illegal since they travelled from supposedly war-areas into other countries like Spain, Italy or Greece first, in which there is obviously NO war. The war treaty clearly states, that the first country which is not in war is responsible to take care of these people - I don't mean to say that we as Europeans shouldn't help each other out, but our politicians were putting it in a way as if the Germans were responsible to take care of all of these people. In the end, many of these people didn't even come from war areas and they threw away their passports to claim that they came from another country, which in some cases was ridiculous, because you could clearly see from skin colours for instance that someone came from Africa while claiming he came from Syria.)
Then the American government destroyed the North Stream Pipelines, cutting us off from our main energy source.
Now they force people to renovate their buildings to fit ridiculous energy standards, most people cannot afford this or will just get poorer from this.
They force Germans to use 65% of renewable energy in any heating installation for private homes from next year on.
In general, instead of convincing people, they rather use brute force, ridiculous laws and insane penalties, which is showing their totalitarian mindset. The EU is a communistic project, support big tech by introducing all kinds of stupid laws and regulations, which are killing all innovation and competition. The taxpayers are financing their own destruction and the money which is going to the gov is spread among the big tech companies which are lobbying in Brussels. It's a big "legal mafia" system and many people still think they care about the planet.
In general, the German economy is the only one which is declining in Europe now. Many businesses are forced into moving out of Germany and the high energy costs, thanks to the destruction of the oil pipelines, just make running an industry business nearly impossible here now, when you can produce with a fraction of the costs in other countries.
@@MI982 Plenty of people who don't live in cities are seeing it happen in front of them. You must be one of the lucky ones. Or perhaps you're just not paying attention to anything but the thermometer in your lounge room.
It was a reasonable video, not controversial, just put the basic facts forward. The worrying things at present - the increased migration currently across the world and the tensions it is causing will only increase. We are handling it as a species very poorly indeed and it indicates the troubles ahead, especially when big business sends only to be fanning the flames or even instigating via manipulation and control of media etc. - another huge issue are the models used by climate scientists, limiting the rate of change within what are thought to be reasonable limits, only now to find the upper limit to be questioned as some evidence indicates the rate of global warming is faster than the models can deal with. That is, the global heating is actually occurring faster and measured to counteract this rise need to be applied faster. Governments are still playing catch up, partly due to fossil fuel corporations buying influence to maintain their own profits in the short term no matter how damaging the effect is for life on earth. - we have known about the potential for greenhousing our planet since Arrhenius and Tyndall, over a century ago and this is the real issue.... Humans and their utterly ignorant attitude to the planet not thinking it matters to them.
Imagine inventing nuclear-powered powerplants; an answer to most of current problems, and being too afraid to use it because of scare-tactics rich people use to stay wealthy with their fossil fuel businesses.
Extraterrestrial beings would laugh at us
I mean.. chernobyl and fukushima were pretty convincing scare tactics. But I agree, I'd much rather have nuclear than coal.
The problem with nuclear is that the technology will soon pass a point where ROI is too low to justify the building of new reactors.... It's just not an affordable solution. Nuclear's effectiveness has peaked, while renewables has just started, and in 2050 renewables have won in terms efficiency.
@PixelShade what does ROI mean?
@@clydekimsey7503 Return of investment.
You have no answers for radioactive waste. Nuclear power is even not really cheap and still the technology is not safe
I think the best way to capture CO2 are plants. Taking into consideration how an increase in O2 has cooled Earth before, we should probably try our best to facilitate plant growth across the globe.
That's for sure. But it woud only cover CO2 emissions from deflorestation, not from fossil fuel. So it is necessary but not enough. We also need to capture carbon in other ways. Bioconstruction, for example
And depopulationing the planet, a return to animal fur, sheep shearing, cotton farming and silkworm production of clothing and other material based things, horse and buggy transportation because of evil oil.
Many like me find it madness that whole forests are being felled to make way for 'renewables' such as Wind & Solar banks, they themselves require enormous amounts of Fossil Fuels to Mine, Muster, Build, Spare, Repair, Support through to decommissioining.
Plants don't capture CO2 , they capture C and release O2. But with atmosphaeric CO2 concentration as low as it is right now, there is no need for capturing C at all.
@@jonmyles4531 So true & the decommissioning makes the above a poor investment in addition to env problem. This madness makes NO sense.
We won't be spending our way out of this as much as people desperately want to believe that but it won't stop anyone from attempting to monetize the problems.
Thats the main issue I have to the current 'climate panic' .. so much focus on must buy new things , install nerw stuff etc ...... tbh generally making more repairable products, not buying new cars every couple of years or spending money on local renewables made from toxic materials is the most any singular person can do. the complex balance between brining the world's poorest out of poverty and also balancing environmental factors are I beleive made worse by the 'privilidged' protestors causing panic and confusion.. this video has been one of the best videos I've ever seen on climate change ... and its effects and I applaud them for this
@@synkuk It's not the CO2/environment that's important. It's the ability to buy Indulgences to wash away your sins. Moral purity and all that jazz. You're a much better person for buying the EV car in a coal powered province.
@@synkuk there is way way more you can do than that, you just don't feel like bothering
We already have the technology to buy us ample time to solve the problem. Not even all that expensive. Just park a couple of solar shades around the planet that will restrict the amount of solarrays hitting the surface. But obviously, the whole climatestory is an economic and geopolitical one. Now we are thinking we can produce ourselves out of trouble while we should actually all send our armies to the green lungs of our planet to prevent the cutting of our carbonabsorbers. Large parts of the amazone have changed into deserts. Our oceans are being poisoned by plastics and the toxins released by the production of batteries and solarpanels are pure horror for our waterways.
Of course we can, we could literally convert the production of the worlds factories to carbon scrubbing machines and deploy them worldwide if we were not beholden to rich assholes who want nothing to change.
Knowing and understanding this demands changing the exploitative global economy and the destructive lifestyle which comes along with consumer capitalism. That's why this topic is controversial and political. Systemic change always is.
"If we get them to squabble over temperature and carbon we can keep on polluting like there is no tomorrow."
Exactly.
Until we have people in power who actually CARE TO MANDATE CHANGE, we are just puppets in their greed game.
Don’t really get this one … no one is advocating polluting, the environmental movement was very successful in cleaning up pollution in the 60s and 70s. Even coal burns extremely clean if you use the right kind of coal and have the scrubbers in place.
"no one is advocating polluting" apparently you've never had eyes/ears in a corporate boardroom?
@@michaelw3927 @innerspace56 We are destroying the rainforest and also the natural forests in Eastern Europe at a rate that has never been seen before, partly to save the climate here in Europe. We continue to pollute the world's oceans with vast quantities of plastic, destroy the earth's coral reefs, overfish the seas, slaughter sharks on a grand scale, destroy Africa and other countries in order to obtain cobalt, lithium or neodymium to drive "environmentally friendly" cars in the western world or to generate "environmentally friendly" energy. But we are supposedly worried that global warming is destroying the world. Is it really that hard for people today to recognise propaganda?
Go 'Complain' to China/India 😅😅. 0 Co2 =Dead Planet.😮😮😢😢
As someone who’s interested in this stuff I’ve always pointed out that issues like deforestation have less to do with the creation of breathable air and more do to with biomass essentially acting as a carbon reserve preventing it from just being released into atmosphere.
are you calling CO2 carbon?
ITS ALL PSEUDOSCIENCE THERES NO COORELATION WITH CO2 LVLS AND TEMPERATURE INCREASE. TAX IS THEFT
@@badtuber1654 Astronomy is a science; astrology is a pseudoscience.
Evolution is science; creationism is pseudoscience.
Molecular biology is science; homeopathy is pseudoscience.
Vaccination is science; the MMR scare is pseudoscience.
Oxygen is science; phlogiston was pseudoscience.
Chemistry is science; alchemy was pseudoscience.
Climatology is science; anthropogenic climate change is pseudoscience.
Deforestation assuming burning will release CO2. But even animals dying contribute somewhat as carbon not contributing to carbon cycle can just end up contributing CO2 increases longterm.
@@michaelbayley9432 Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically more trees than previously thought. In a blockbuster study released Wednesday in Nature, a team of 38 scientists finds that the planet is home to 3.04 trillion trees, blowing away the previously estimate of 400 billion
“It’s not the hottest we’ve ever been. It’s the coldest we’ll be for the rest of our lives.” Great video!
Wrong video
Our wood stove makes a blast of heat right before it goes out. I think the earth is doing the same thing.
Travel to the south and tell me
@@diegodrenoso
Dats called geography dude.
Or and this is a big OR , the Earths climate is always changing and the Earth will be just fine...@@suzieseabee
CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere. Also 3% of that is man’s made. Finally the USA is only 13% of man made CO2 or .00016%. In other words a very small amount.
That small amount, and the rate that brought it to that amount, was enough to have altered the thermal equilibrium point between Earth and space. "Returning" the system to equilibrium manifests as global warming. It's just physics.
Human emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by fifty percent since the Industrial Revolution. We know that via isotopic analysis of the molecules themselves. That increase corresponds nicely with our rise in global temperature. Because CO2 molecules remain in circulation for centuries, nobody is responsible for more of it in the atmosphere now than the U.S. The U.S. industrialized a century before China did, which is why our total accumulation amounts to twice what theirs does. Who but the lion should clean up the lion's share of the mess?
Thank you for the effort you put in this important video!
Thanks. I think you added your voice in a good way. Lets hope it reaches more people that are confused by the way the debate is currently often held, like me.
I appreciate how you took your time in making this video (3 years). It shows in the way you are able to present the data, and use of visuals to assist in understanding. Well done.
I just clicked. Did he mention how phanerozoic co2 charts show that co2 was higher through all of earth's past? Did he mention that it proves the 'runaway greenhouse effect' wrong bc we didn't turn in to venus at 4999 ppm nor at 6999 ppm and we won't at our current 399 ppm. Did he mention the mass die off 30mya bc of low co2? I'll just watch.
He certainly did not spend 3y making it. He put off releasing it for 3y. He should have stayed with his instinct or done a lot more research. This is just the level 1 climate propaganda. He is not even aware of the issues. A token recognition of past climate change, which he erroneously falls into the CO2 propaganda on too, does not make it fair and objective. This is the kind of conclusion you'd come to if you don't know the subject because censored and discussion sniffled.
Here is a perfect example of how people read or hear facts and then completely misunderstand them or pass them on in a confusing way(just like the climate change discussion). The creator of the video did NOT say it took him 3 years to create this video he said he created it 3 years ago and 'sat on it' (waited) until now to release it. This is how messages like climate change get misunderstood. There is zero chance everyone listened fully to this video, understood it all and passed on that information accurately to others. That's why people argue about the climate so much. Lets be a little more tolerant people.
@@pauls3075
And work on their reading comprehension skills.
@@tuberroot1112 If CO2 and Methane were the problem, then the volcanoes may have done the trick by themselves. If CO2 and Methane were the problem, we could plant some tree farms and call it a day. If CO2 and Methane were the problem, they would be pushing for nuclear power. It's interesting how his "share of power capacity" graphic didn't even show it. I was really hoping when he started talking about Milankovich cycles that he would be giving at least a more nuanced or neutral perspective.
Very informative, and not as doom laden as some might think. Anything that helps the planet has to be good, but it will take everyone.
My 7th grade science teacher told the class, when we’re his age, our home town will be 6 feet under water. That was in 1982 …41 years ago.
No matter how many failed predictions, they will always be "right"
@@destroya3303I don't think a 7th grade science teacher is representative of what's been predicted. For the most part, scientists have been fairly accurate.
@@santaclaws1501 I disagree. He represents many of the silly predictions being published in the corporate press by "respected" scientists.
The Maldives will be under water already.
Snow in Britain will be a thing of the past.
Polar Bears will go extinct.
The Arctic will be ice free in 2013.
50 million climate refugees by 2010 (written in 2005).
Only 10 years left to stop CO2 before it's too late (in the 1990s)
The Great Barrier reef is dying (now it's doing better than ever)
Same "rubbish" been said by Parliament and Local Government in our Country. The sea has not risen so much as 1cm in 60 years AT ALL!!! They do not have a "clue" re. Glacial Ice Melt; etc.! 🤠
this. we have been hearing the same story since the 50's. Pretty much nothing has changed after every catastrophic warning. I hate it when people say scientist(s) plural say. Majority of the world's scientists don't have consensuses on this subject. too much contradicting data. This is why people don't listen nor care. Too many times someone cried wolf. Even if climate change was true, no one cares. I am from Africa. The temperatures have not really changed that much, 2-4 degrees (Celsius) hotter in summer than 30 years ago. We are used to hot temperatures, so we don't really see a difference.
Just curious, if we have not had any accurate previous measurement of short term climate change how do we know that the temperature during a 100 year period hasn't changed a million times?
The temperature changed more than a million times during that time. The world is big and numbers are infinite. Between 20C and 21C there are infinite temperature changes...
That's exactly why they changed the name from Global Worming to Climate Change. it's all a con job
Until we factor in carbon emissions from volcanoes and forest fires, I'm not interested in the restricted "man caused" debate PERIOD
THE GREENING OF THE WORLD IS DUE TO MAN MADE CO2 This would have been a shock to the poor old scientist Where do you go now perhapes explain what going on at south pole Greenland You no the ice is melting or is it 🤔 😉 😳
@@SurefireWoodsmanyou sound as if your unwilling to accept the truth no matter how much evidence is provided. Care to explain the mass extinction event which is occurring right now? Or the extremely unpredictable weather patterns?
Science doesn't have to be liked, it just has to be the most honest attempt to find the truth.
During COVID we learned that science did not really have that answer but was instead used to control the population
That's the problem in this and in many other areas of science with political implications. There are very powerful groups, driven by despotic motivations, who are willing to fudge the numbers and the research in order to find an excuse to impose totalitarian rule and eliminate democratic institutions. These groups exert a lot of control over the funding of research that supports their agenda, and they have enough control over media and academe to suppress evidence contrary to their agenda. This distortion of data was blatant during the recent public health crisis, and it was obviously slanted in the direction of their stated goals. Al Gore began 30 years ago to advocate for censorship with regard to scientific discourse regarding the climate, and those crazies in Switzerland have been touting climate as a reason to enslave the people and to depopulate the planet (with them having ownership and control, of course) for decades. So it's an open question how much we should trust a scientific community that has vested financial interests in finding conclusions that comport with their donors' desired "scientific" outcomes.
@@grizzlygrizzle10,000 upvotes!
@@grizzlygrizzle The system of giving grants provokes distrust.
Politicized science is always BAD science. (politics are never "honest")
With bad science it is almost impossible to know the truth. No science is more politicized than climate science.
How is it so difficult to imagine that adding so much energy to the system would do nothing?
If I gave you a cup of coffee and drop 2 drops of laxative, you're definitely going to notice.
I remember watching an MIT testimony before the US congress, about 20 years ago, that addressed this. It put things into perspective for me back then. We need to be good stewards of our home planet. But, this subject has become a polarized political football.
Baa a check then it was global cooling.
You thought to do nothing about it since then?
From a profit perspective, it's intelligent to make it political. You immediately secure 50% of people believing you. From there you can sell tons of stuff. Like Tesla cars, which have been amazing for my net worth.
@@Cardioid2035do what? Somehow alert the world to this grift when everyone is so hyper political polarized? No thanks, I'll just profit. Just like Nancy Pelosi. Bought the green energy stocks, and quadruped my money.
Because it’s nonsense. When you have UK scientist’s caught faking sea level numbers and constantly spraying the atmosphere to keep the planet’s temperature warmer. You get warmer temps and worse storms.
I've heard the argument made before that drastic temperature increase has happened before, creatures evolve and continue, it's natural. But, for one, they always fail to account for the speed at which creatures can adapt, and even IF they could adapt that quickly, it would mean the creatures we know now, and the entire ecosystem would either completely change, or be completely destroyed, as it's forced to adapt to unnatural circumstances. The worry isn't the end of the world. The worry is the end of this one
your comment says it perfectly
perfectly put, but again, just because we'll survive, is not an excuse for not doing our part to try fixing our mess.
Well there are scientific studies of cave fish evolving in 45 days so um yeah
@@thisexists2927 What mess? Technology and the use of fossil fuels has elevated the world's standard of living to its highest level in the past 10,000 years. An ever increase global population is placing strains on natural resources. This does require a real effort of conservation but government encourage consumption and then complain about it. Corporations = Consumption and governments love corporations!
What unnatural circumstances ?
the phrase "the hottest we've ever been" is often paired with "temperatures not seen since the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum." it is implied that these temperatures are the highest IN HUMAN history, not geologic history
no, it is implied in geologic history, that´s why people hate that expression
@@sanji1259I have never heard someone say "the planet is the hottest it's ever been" referring to the entire life of that planet. It's always been implied that it's the hottest it's ever been in human history as that's the only point which is relevant to our survival.
It's certainly a very open statement that can be taken either way and often lacks context when it's said.
@@sanji1259absolutely not LMAO. Who the fuck think the planet can ever be hotter than it was when it was a ball of magma in the early days?
@@DavorZdralo People who never learnt about the early days of Earth/forgot the information if they ever even absorbed it
Most of the hottest recorded temperatures aren't from 60 plus years ago.
Permission to use This video , thank you so much❤
This video needed to be made. Don't be afraid to present the truth. If truth is 'controversial' then society is rotten.
why don't make a video on the ozone layer hole instead? maybe because that climate scare hoax has been exposed already.
They tell you TRUTH is plural.
What is the average concentration of the strongest climate gas - water vapor - in the atmosphere? What do you think? 14,000 ppm !!
But the 100 ppm human CO² cause a climate catastrophe? Yes of course. Who believes it becomes blessed. 😆🤣
muh alternate faxts 😢
I mean the video isn't really controversial.
Even though it's a very tricky topic, most of your videos are quite relaxing and they end up making me falling asleep not because they're boring, just because the background music and your voice is pretty calm. Thanks for the great content.
I agree, at the end I was pretty relaxed even though my though was "nah, Governments and Institutions are too low, we will probably hit +3 before I am dead"
That music has the purpose of hypnotizing us and accept his conclusion without reasoning.
@@socorromorales4614 I hope that was a joke
I am a climate denier. Why?
I don't think it is all that urgent.
I also believe it has been changing for thousands of years.
I also believe that before Paul Bunyan cut down all the 1000 year old trees in Michigan. He cut down the Shara Forest first.
I spent a summer inside the Persian Gulf. Guess what? It was warmer than this Summer in the south west point of Florida. No it was not.
I also believe the earths obit is not a perfect circle.
I also believe the sun is is unregulated nuclear furnace (no thermostat)
But my big question is if the earth was once all magma. How much change has the magma induced heat been in the last 10,000 years?
And how much deeper do you have dig now before you can not take the heat?
AS for CO2 why does it fluctuate according to seasons at specific latitudes?
Then there is my local government wants my grass to be between 2 and 8 inches. Preferably 2 inches.
Does this have an effect vs prairie grass at 18 inches?
What is the difference between Chattanooga and the Mojave average temperature and why?
Where did the petrified forest in Arizona come from?
Lastly Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai. Is that why there is a big change in the weather in the North Pacific this year?
I won't wait around for those answers. I am pretty sure all I will get is just because answers.
@@MrCaiobrz I HIGHLY doubt it was a joke.
Climate change is not always slow. Even in Earth’s recent past we have had the Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1300 and the Little Ice Age from the 14th to 19th centuries. These show than the climate can change naturally and very rapidly all on its own.
400-500 years is not rapid whatsoever compared to 100.
'Tom Nelson Podcast' channel where all the scientists are getting together to tell the truth on climate.
You mean weather. Over such short periods it’s called weather.
If anybody doesn’t think that all the things like carbon dioxide, no the other greenhouse gases, that trap hundreds of time more heat. Along with habitat destruction, destroying our soil to monoculture, the list is immensely long…. if you don’t think that we are playing huge role in how fast is happening then you were literally blowing to reality it have delusions… you need to get out into the field with botanists, ecologists, and all those alike to see the damage we are doing it is beyond comprehensible.
To deny this is just pure ignorance…. For example, soil is great at trapping carbon dioxide. In Illinois use to be 22 million. Acres of Prairie now there’s 2500…… literally look and find out what native plants are suppose to be around you, go around you neighborhood and see if there’s any…. These plans evolved with the insects and animals and bacteria in the soil to use nutrients trap carbon dioxide among many other beneficial things to the ecology there… and it doesn’t exist. We have destroyed it all. These things have evolved over millions of years.
We have a literally killed off 60% of all animals in all bird population since the 1950s or maybe in the last 50 years….. everything is contaminated with PFAS and herbicides…. To think you aren’t delusional or stuck in some information silo is to be denying reality.
People are always parroting fossil fuel rhetoric… even know there was a fossil fuel companies, predictive exactly where we are right now 30 years ago… as if we don’t actually understand at least enough to predict that stuff…. But yeah, which detract from the point and talk about how it’s gotten warm really fast before even though there’s probably a reason some kind of geological changes or something which I could look in to, but there’s besides the point
This may be one of the reasons why the temperature continues to rise. There are no cooling towers at all in nuclear power plants operating in Korea. Why? Nuclear power is promoted as environmentally friendly. All Korean nuclear power plants use natural seawater as cooling water. This method cools the nuclear reactor with a large amount of seawater drawn into the water intake and then returns it to the sea through the drain. When a cooling tower is installed, white smoke is emitted from the top of the cooling tower, which is a problem that causes complaints, so it is treated as eco-friendly, that is, it is not cooled and is just discharged into the sea. For reference, there are currently 21 nuclear power plants in commercial operation in Korea, including 17 pressurized light water reactors (PWR) and 4 pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWR).
Too many nuclear power plants around the world are operating without cooling facilities on the coast and are continuing to be expanded. Is this kind of nuclear power truly eco-friendly? The temperature of seawater discharged from the drain after cooling the power plant must be regulated. As of 2015, there are 442 nuclear power plants in operation, 62 nuclear power plants under construction, and 287 nuclear power plants scheduled for construction worldwide. In 2015, there were 442 nuclear power plants, but the number will increase to 791 in the future.
There are many nuclear power plants, but how many places like ours do not have cooling towers!!!! Nuclear power plants are not environmentally friendly and are facilities that melt the Arctic ice by raising the temperature of the sea. Does it really make sense to release water into the ocean rather than use it to cool it? Is it eco-friendly? When seawater is used as coolant in a nuclear power plant or smelter and then discharged into the sea, the discharge temperature of the coolant must be legally restricted. Additionally, the easiest way to slow down global warming is to legally limit the temperature of high-temperature gases emitted into the atmosphere from chimneys or exhaust gases emitted from cooling towers.
It makes me mad seeing this and knowing how many are misinformed and how people/politicians will intentionally debate such objective scientific things to fit a narrative. Like humanity has so much potential and it infuriates me
Misinforming people makes it harder to find solutions. Need to know the truth. Just give facts, not an agenda.
Lefties breed in uncertainties such as climate studies
Unfortunately it's more profitable for specific organisations or certain politicians to mislead humanity for their own personal gain. For example pharmaceutical corporations or in this instance the climate change industrial complex. Unless there is a way to consistently keep out bad actors from positions of power/leadership roles or at the very least hold them accountable for their actions, this is just going to keep on happening.
It makes me mad knowing how many gullible sheep there are who just follow along with academia, despite the overwhelming evidence that academia has been captured by the controlling bodies like the IPCC.
When a "scientists" future depends on him following their script, then of course "9 out of 10 scientists agree".
@douganderson7002 I'm not sure which specific controversy the Harvard one is, but are the grievance papers the Peter Boghossian thing? If so, it's a bit odd to conflate the excesses and, frankly, madnesses which can occur in the social sciences with the findings of the natural sciences.
On top of that, why should it just be climate science which is the subject of mistrust because of malpractice or fraud in unrelated areas of science? Why not be on the fence about the germ theory of disease, or the laws of gravity, or of the existence of almost anything discovered or explained by science?
I understand mistrust, because people do terrible things all the time, but I don't understand it if it's applied arbitrarily. If there are instances of fraud which undercut climate science then OK, there's a point there, but if its just that 'people are dishonest in other fields so why trust this one' then it doesn't make sense.
Another cool note on how scientists calculate the global temperature through ice cores. Aside from being able to measure the gases trapped within the air bubbles, they can also actually approximate the temperature through looking at the water itself.There are a couple stable isotopes of oxygen, with the two most abundant being Oxygen-16 and Oxygen-18. As ocean temperature increases, the likelihood of a water molecule with an Oxygen-18 isotope vaporizing increases, so in turn, in the rain and snow you'll have increased amounts of Oxygen-18 water molecules. So by looking at the abundance of the 18o water molecules in ice cores, you can also infer what the average ocean temperature was.
Which is great, because it gives us evidence that we should really be hoping for more warming,from any source.
@@RonaldReagan99-oh2dv what?
@@bane2201 I think they're referring to global climate oscillations over the past several million years. Every couple hundred thousand years, the global climate undergoes swift increases and decreases, and our present climate represents the average peaks we've seen. The bad news is that there is a swing of -12 to -15°C lower than what we're currently experiencing that accompanies the peak we're seeing, meaning cooling actually presents a greater risk to us than warming
@@RonaldReagan99-oh2dv no offense but were you dropped on your head a couple times as a baby?
@@RonaldReagan99-oh2dvMan you’re dumb. Like impressively so.
Each dip represents a glaciation, not an ice age. As you said, we're already in an ice age, but in an interglacial period between glaciations.
Did you notice how his milankovic cycles chart disagreed with his 100 year chart? Very sloppy lying.
@@RonaldReagan99-oh2dv Man you’re dumb. Like impressively so.
@@RonaldReagan99-oh2dv hey again, yeah questioning his every video now
As a paleo climatologist I can testify that climate changes all the time , and man’s contribution is so small it can’t be measured on the global scale .
Isotopic analysis of atmospheric molecules tell us that the fifty percent rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution was produced by human activity, primarily from combusted fossil fuels, not nature. Not volcanoes, not the ocean, not the biosphere. Combusted fossil fuels. It's not a coincidence that global temperature began to rise when our CO2 emissions did.
Im geology student, when i was mapping the geological features in my place, we use foraminifera as age determination factor. It's struck me in the head knowing something so familiar about this video but never expected to see it on TH-cam haha.
That “hey! This was my homework!” feeling is a weird one, for sure. I was a history student and get it occasionally, too.
@@GentleReader01 Yeah, the feeling is really weird. Now i enjoy life more so i watch TH-cam. And then this come out, remind me the stressful time of 2 full days work just to get a handfull amount of sample, and then observed it under the microscope for another 6 hours. The feeling got me when he shows what's look like a Cibicidoides and Globigerina foram genus. It look like damn, this is the exact same thing under the microscope. So the scientists is true afterall (??) and actually forget that I'M ALSO A SCIENTISTS HAHA😭
@@oskha1815 As long as you cave either bubbling chemicals in various colors or a Jacob’s Ladder. TV taught me those are the marks of true science. Dad would periodically gripe that the only thing wrong with his work on ranging systems at NASA was that had neither of those things. :)
Did you happen to notice that he used the data to lie to you?
@@ronaldreagan5981 I did notice that they were too busy acting like this is real. Maybe they should do a real course, then they should learn at least something.
We are always rushing to assume we know more than we do. It is a tragic flaw of the human ego that we place social status above truth, and give greater significance to the patterns we happen to perceive most acutely and immediately, while ignoring or actively diminishing anything deeper.
I've been telling people this for years. We think that we are the center of everything, that we have transcended nature, but we are still at the mercy of it. We have the power to change the world, yes, but at the end of the day we don't know everything.
@@Loktuzov Who said we knew everything? Nobody said that.
@@AiguilleVoodoo It doesn’t need to be said. Humans assume that we know the best decision for every situation and jump to it. The average person doesn’t have a major global effect with their tendency to assume they know best, but politicians do have a major global effect, as do scientists, and they presume that they will always make the best choice in every situation.
Because rich people are trying to bring back the medieval status quo by eliminating the middle class. Industrial revolution had led to a massive change in society increasing the standard of living and the rise of the middle class.
No its only white people
The carbon capture project described appears to be a very expensive way to do very little. Trees are free.
They look nice and wave at you too !
what will happen to the co2 when the tree dies?
@@Czeckie as long as the tree is not cut down or burned, the carbon remains in the wood itself. Ideally, the tree decomposes and carbon is deposited into the soil. However, If the tree is cut or burned in a fire, carbon is not deposited into the soil and can be released back into the atmosphere.
@@Czeckie- What CO2? The CO2 in the air or the CO2 in the tree. If the tree dies, then the CO2 in the air will remain in the air until it is absorbed by another plant and is converted in the process of photosynthesis to make sugars. The CO2 in the tree is going to remain in the dead tree until it decomposes and is release by bacteria or fungi decomposing the tree or it gets buried and is converted into coal like other dead plants have been doing for millions of years. This is third grade science stuff. Besides, why are you concerned about trees? It is already been established that the majority of CO2 is captured by aquatic algae, plankton, and bacteria in the world's oceans.
The problem with trees is that they don't cost enough or kill enough people. Never work.
@@RonaldReagan99-oh2dvthis is the first thing you’ve said so far that isn’t utterly ignorant. Hot damn, common ground!
found this on 12 12 24. thank you for cutting through the bologna rhetorixlc fear mongering snd presenting tbe facts you provide in a logical way. society needs more information provided this way instead of soundbites. keep it up.
Its just way too easy for people to use a simple excuse to not care, instead of educating on a topic, beeing open to learn something about it, they didnt know. Living is learning. Great Video.
Ah yes and the same politicians that warn about climate change and rising sea levels but houses near the beach.
This comment says it has 2 replies, including this one, you cannot see the first reply.
@@The_Random_Guy_200👌
“These are the facts, set in ice and the bones of organisms long dead, they will broke no argument”. That quote goes hard
@georgemiller2503 --- “These are the facts, set in ice and the bones of organisms long dead, they will broke no argument”. That quote goes hard
Wayne Patterson --- The statement is a gross lie which misrepresents how the Climate Change Alarmists manipulate the facts and the data to produce absurdly false results. For example, the statement is false and denies how the atmospheric gases are not "set in ice" as they would mislead the public to believe.
😬
REAL 🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣
Unfortunately, facts are now the least valuable currency in the modern world.
That quote presupposes that the vague generalities that can be inferred from such isolated data points is even remotely close to being reliable, not to mention accurate. Using historical gas composition to infer temperature is premised on the atmospheric composition being the sole factor determining global temperatures. That's self-evidently absurd, and to just blindly accept that the people claiming they can reliably deduce global temperatures from the gas in ice cores know everything there is to know and aren't wildly off base, is perhaps even more absurd than making such claims in the first place.
What happened to just planting more trees to remove the carbon from the air?
Did we decide that trees are too thirsty or is it that Corporations cant make any money with a solution that cant be patented?
Bingo! Most know the real answer.
The real answer is that the resources used to plant trees can instead be used in other solutions that are more effective (carbon capture systems, greenhouse gas reduction policies)
That's still a thing you just need ACRES of it. Not really effective than other solutions
@@skillfulfighter23Are those misdirected resources in the room with us right now?
@@phil2768 ....That is scarier than most people going Deaf from the Media's ShitInTheEar style.
Just agree and say the simplest answer is usually the best one.
As the likelihood of liking this video is linked to rational thought, your results, & the outlook for everyone, is rather GRIM! (doomed by morons?)
EDIT: I'm quite aware there are researches regarding urban climates, and regarding other pollution. For those who only read the start of my comment. The point of my rant is: "...why (is in the public via media the movement 'Fight against climate change') just focus(ed) on air pollution?"
It is always so fascinating to me that so many are contributing gases to such a rapid global change to gasses, yet, the most obvious change in temperature that everybody can verify on their own, is to measure the temperature on asphalt in the city and then on the forest ground in the forest. Why is nobody addressing the change in the temperatures brought by building houses and roads on such a large scale that they are built now? Or what kind of damage the pollution to the earth and waters do and how they influence the Earth's natural cycles the pollution to the earth and waters, why just focus on air pollution?
City microclimates are extremely well known about.
@@UnitSe7en Yet, how many times are they addressed in the global change talks and debates in the media? It's like it doesn't exist.
@@elalogar7340 It does exist and is as mentioned well known. The global change in temperature shows the same trend, measured within and outside of urban areas. Although it has an effect, it is negligible. The effects of the ocean storing all the extra energy trapped by man made greenhouse emissions are way way bigger. In addition, long term, this extra heat negatively affects the reflective ability of the planet, way more than urban areas do. That is because of the decrease in snowy and icy surfaces. So we also need to consider and measure places that are not urban and implement them in the global pile. In the bigger picture, the results are that the urban effect is just very small and negligible, compared to other effects.
@@elalogar7340it’s isn’t talked about in the same breath as global climate because it is an absolutely minuscule driver
so dumb you don't know how to measure a comparative temperature...
Maybe one other thing that’s contributing is deforestation, given that trees are the most effective CO2 absorption “devices” that exist…
Trees and the oceans absorb C02 but nothing is said about sulphur hexafluride a man made gas used by electricity companies 23000 times worse for the environment than C02 and cannot dissipate for over a thousand years 🤫
Your assumption is not correct.
In fact it's plankton which absorbs the most CO2 during photosynthesis.
Absorption isn't important. Storage is. Seeing we're removing trapped carbon from the ground, we'd need more living trees than the earth can support to hold all the carbon we've added.
@@MikeisFunnyCollection It's not carbon . It is carbon dioxide.
It's essential in the cycle called photosynthesis. Most of the air
you are breathing contains oxygen produced by plankton.
70% of all the oxygen in the atmosphere was produced in the
oceans.
@brianterence3211 it is carbon. The carbon in the carbon dioxide is from fossil fuels which were trapped either in coal or oil. The oxygen in carbon dioxide was already part of our biom in the atmosphere. The plankton and trees break that bond and re-release the oxygen. But don't trap the carbon back in the earth. Especially plankton that has a short life cycle, is either eaten or rots. Re-releasing the carbon. Trees can store the carbon much longer, but it comes down to biomass. We aren't reusing the carbon already up here. We're pulling more trapped carbon. So we need more trees every day to remove the carbon that was not previously part of our ecosystem.
1 thing I still struggle with is, if the land ice mass is melting at a rapid rate and the oceans are warming, why am I not observing a faster ocean rise rate.
Because oceans are huge and the ice mass is huge. The amount melting is small compared to the ocean and the remaining ice masses.
Melting all ice will take around 5000 years at the current rate (or never if we slow down the warming) or at least 600 years, if we emit CO2 like madmen and reach multiple tipping points.
mostly because they are not the important part in ocean rise: the entire polar cap and all glacier melting would mean less than half meter of ocean level raise. to compare, every degree of heating mean around three quarters of a meter rise. the big one will the permafrost (it it will take long time to all the water slowly reach the ocean) and greenland melting. even those will be two or so degrees worth of rise, so temperature will be the greatest contributor for it.
@@thorin1045 Melting polar caps and glaciers would raise sea level by 60m...
@@old-pete nope, less than half a meter, not that hard to check, what you meant is the antarctic, but that is a continent, not a polar cap. and even that is closer to 5-10 meter, and not sixty.
@@thorin1045 The antarctic is a polar cap...
And yes, that are around 60m.
Well done. You might want to look into the AMOC and the CME coming around May - July
Very interesting. Learnt alot. But I really should point out that some of the "smokestacks" are actually steam towers and are not emitting CO2. Just in the interest of accuracy.
All of them are.
When factoring Human impact, we can't ignore one main problem. When it comes to temps lowering, your graphs showed these coincided with plant expansion. In the past 100 years we have seen an vast deforestation on Earth. Thus, lowering plant's ability to convert CO2 to Oxygen. If humans want to decrease CO2 and warming, planting trees will certainly help. Especially considering that plants are the best way to reduce CO2.
We wouldn't need to just replant today's trees, we would need to replant all the Devonian-era trees we've burned as well (ie: coal). And a few extra to make up for the other ancient plants and animals that contribute to our fossil fuel consumption.
Even if we had a mind to do that, there simply isn't enough surface area on the planet. Planting trees is fine and helpful, but its not sufficient.
Its a real shame that anything you said in this video is controversial.
Ice ages are controlled by surface albedo.
The primary feedback agent involved in ice age modulation is DUST, not CO2. It is the deposition of dust just before every interglacial, that lowers the albedo of the northern ice sheets and allows additional insolation absorption and melting. And every interglacial is preceded by 10,000 years of dust.
But how is that dust suddenly formed.? Interestingly, it is due to CO2 becoming so low that the Gobi region is turned into a shifting-sand CO2 desert. Without CO2, all plant life on the Gobi is extunguished. This is confirmed by the strata in the Loess Plateau.
Thus is in LOW CO2 that is the feedback agent that assists and causes interglacial warming. It is an elegant theory that explains every facet of ice age modulation.
See paper:
‘Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks’.
Doi: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.04.004
Ralph
@@RalphEllis First of all, I don't need to look at a paper dude. This ain't my first rodeo. CO2 is NOT the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is. Rising ocean temperatures, aided by rapid deglaciation and lowering albedo levels is causing an unprecedented rise in temperatures.
Further, as Alex's video stated, its not that the climate is changing that is the problem. Its the rapidity of the change. Hundreds of years instead of 10s of thousands, and is linked directly to the onset of industrialization.
We JUST came out of an ice age 12,000 years ago. Based on hundreds of millions of years of climate history, we're due for another 50,000 years of temperate climate. The science is in, and the cause of rapid rising global temperatures is humans.
Thats litterly because it is.
Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie.
Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie.
Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm.
Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods.
Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear.
Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus.
Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court.
In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
@@captcorajusYour opening statement says it all. Why so scared? Nobody says you have to agree with it. Just stay informed. As Carl Sagan said, a healthy skepticism is the heart of science.
In the last week or so, I have read a couple of articles written by the D ai ly Sc ep tic (Dec 2024). One announcing that there have been at least three scientific reports, peer reviewed and published (how did they get them through?), which essentially confirm the Equilibrium of Climate Sensitivity, that the bulk of warming due to CO2, has reached saturation level. Any increase will be minimal at best. And that any further warming will be due to water vapour.
Additionally, from NOAA and UAH satellite records, there has been a global cooling trend over the last two years (2023 & 2024). Global sea surface temperatures have dropped by about 0.5c, and the UAH, show a similar trend over land.
But, you will never hear this on the MSM.
"There are huge non climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favorable which are not taken into account. To me that's the main issue that the earth is actually growing greener. This has been actually measured from satellites the whole earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests, it's increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world and that's more important and more certain than the effects on climate." ~Freeman Dyson, Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
That's an absurd myopic take. "Yes, we will get desertification and mass food shortages eventually, but there is a brief moment in time on the way there where plants thrive. So let's keep fucking with our planet's thermostat guys!" 🤡
Narrative always beats facts. Facts just get in the way of an agenda.
This comment needs more likes
I'd disagree on _always_ : You cannot lie to a tower about its foundations being compromised, or spin the news of rudder damage to an aircraft so it stays up. Floodwater does not listen to rhetoric. Thousands of kilometers of dried out vegetation cannot be booed into not igniting at an errant spark from a power cable or campfire. Sooner or later, even the most persuasive speaker, or the most devote follower, is beholden to reality, because that's what their body and brain lives in.
The issue is not when will reality sink it's teeth into the children of the shouting conspiracy theorists. It is whether their determination to win and gain that satisfaction, and their belief that is the most important thing, will fade to reality before it is too late to change course. And I'm afraid that the answer is 'no'. We place too high a premium on winning, and too much scorn on losing, admitting a mistake, or 'I don't know' - especially to ourselves. Somehow, on some level, the 'win' has become more important than the truth, to too many.
Propaganda has a way of turning a narrative into "science". Follow the "science"?
@@asura4418 this comment here is an example of a narrative beating the facts presented in the video.
@@asura4418 It is certainly human activity that is responsible. If you think not, what is? Something supernatural? Some force or forces as yet undiscovered? What is it? HMMMMM?
It is one of the best videos on this topic I have seen. I think there is one weak spot, when you speak about global temperature. It's not that obvious and easy topic, even with modern thermometers and sensors grid. They are actually using global anomaly, which is the averaged YoY (year over year) difference of monthly averages in all measuring spots, but the number and location of spots with thermometers is changing. Spots that were in suburban locations were swallowed in time by growing cities. When I am approaching my home town by car I see increase of temperature of about 2 °C within distance change of the order of 10 km. They apply some correction factors which are at least to some degree arbitrary, so the mean global temperature anomaly is not a simple property of the system, it's a product of calculations and procedures.
When it comes to temperature proxy records it's even more complicated: how to unify such a different measurements and processed data products? This was the reason why Mann et al. removed some data points from the (in)famous 'hockey stick' (which made it's way to your video) - "to hide a decline" (in the mean temperature anomaly indication). Was that sound procedure? Not all climate scientists agree on that.
Yeah.. its ACTUALLY urban warming...
Big cities hold heat with concrete/asphalt, cars, electrical transformers, etc... and that's where the temp. Are taken... in the cities at the airport.
This topic is highly politicized..
aka weaponized...
The elites have an agenda, and they manipulate the mass's at will.
Re: your first point about urbanisation changing the temperature at a measuring location independent of global warming: we're seeing similar patterns in anomaly of sea ice extent, and ocean temperature (even excluding the North Atlantic anomaly which appears to have alternate explanation).
Good for you. You are one of the few here who is paying attention to reality instead of the nicely painted narrative.
It's all so complicated! Scientists are used to dealing with complicated stuff, genius.
@@tthomas184 Yet, in the end they are just people. Vain, corruptible, sometimes dishonest.
thats what folks get wrong. Thats what folks always mess up.
Its not just that its rising. Its that its speed running rising. And thats what puts us in danger
Yeah, none of this is controversial or a counter-narrative or whatever. When people say we're "hotter than we've ever been" they mean within recorded human history. This video is literally the same very mainstream scientific spiel you're likely to see in any other pop science space.
Yup, this is just an IPCC propaganda and this dude contradicted himself several times and lied on a graph that literally showed he is lying 10:30 "most steep warming ever in short period of 100 years" guess he should have done what the IPCC always do on their propaganda sites and deleted the 16,000 - 10,000 end of last glacier era steep rise in temperatures and that's a rough measurements on rough dates and its as steep as our accurate 100 years measurements.
Terrible video!
Unfortunately right wing ideology has ruined the brains of many Americans (and lots of dummies outside the US now as well), so claims like "AGW is real" are now dubbed "controversial" by them. Because they also conveniently dominate the media and can push whatever narratives they want.
Still not true.
They assume when calculating those "trapped ancient air bubbles" that the output of the sun is a constant, which has been proven to be wrong. The sun goes through cycles just as everything else and it has a drastic effect on the temperature of the planet.
This is beginning to be a big problem in the realm of AGW. More papers are coming out saying the sun as a constant is a problem. I hope they continue.
No. There are a lot of papers explaining the sun is a relative small contributor compared to greenhouse gases. The spectral irradiance with the 11 cycle and even the actions of cosmics rays with atmosphère are taken into account in the models.
Also if sun and an impact we will assist in an increase of stratosphere temperature but the measure show a decrease and increase in troposphere. ..
The sun may have an impact regionaly and decadaly. ..
@@SoilToSoul models take into account the spectral irradiance with the 11 cycle (for uv )
What if we made the world a better place by mistake?
FInally some sense, the sun and its cycles, the micro nova. SIgns of ice on ecuator.. maybe pole shift?
As usual. Balanced scientific and calmly presented. Nothing to complain about here.