Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 май 2024
- The toxic discourse around climate has changed... for the worse. Get 30 days free learning STEM with Brilliant: www.brilliant.org/simonclark
Earlier this year, the Center for Countering Digital Hate published a review of how arguments made by climate deniers had shifted, from "old denial" to "new denial". In this video, I talk about that shift, and how it has led to the growing "doomer" movement.
REFERENCES
1. www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
2. counterhate.com/wp-content/up...
3. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/do...
4. blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer...
5. www.un.org/en/climatechange/r...
6. ourworldindata.org/grapher/sh...
7. skepticalscience.com/ipcc-sci...
8. www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institut...
9. wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
More about me www.simonoxfphys.com/
My second channel - / simonclarkerrata
Threads - www.threads.net/@simonoxfphys
Instagram - / simonoxfphys
Twitch - / drsimonclark
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: nebula.tv/epidemic
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon:
I want to roll down a hill into a river of beans, Whitefang, Cemre D., David Mann, Jilbin George, Ben Thayer, Eric A Gentzler, Glen Monks, Daniel Chen, Gary Stark, Martina Alini, Cifer, dryfrog, Marcus Bosshard, bitreign33 , Thusto.
Lucas Johnston, Jeffry ., Marius Kießling, Jon Arlov, Pawel Piwek, Matze, Artem Plotnikov, Paul H and Linda L, Dan Sherman, Peter Reid, Andy Hartley.
Nicholas Hamdorf, Katharina Hartmuth, Trash Knife, Mark Phillips, Jor Eero Raico Svederic, KJ Xiao, Martin Sinclair, Matt Beer DFC, Tschäff Reisberg, Felipe Gutierrez, Faficzek, Tobias Ahsbahs, Stansky, James Gaskell, Denis Kovachev, Michael Thomas, Victor Gordan, Josh Müller, Joona Mäkinen, Tanner , Dominik Rihak, Nico Casal, Laura Glismann, Mark Harper, Ryan, Inten, John, James Haigh, Rick Kenny, Bailey Cook, Sergio Diaz, Command Chat, Aisolon, Christopher Mullin, I'm stuck in a PhD and I blame Simon., Philip Sullivan, Joseph , Ben Smith, Nicklas Kulp, Thomas Newman, Anže Cesar, Josef Probst, Kevin B, Phineas, Ishaan Shah, Katie Roberts, AngryPanda, Circuitrinos, Mark Richardson, Brian Moss, Hampus Sandell, Thomas Miller, Jens , Knut Nesheim, Issy Merritt, Dajeni, AYS , Adam Fairris, Kim Parnset, Crisan Talpes, Ted CLAY, Mike, Seb Stott, Duncan Robertson, xawt, Diederik Jekel, Fuzzy Leapfrog, Jan-Willem Goedmakers, Samat Galimov, Ashley Hauck, Nico, Thibault , GGH, FireFerretDann, Ciotka Cierpienia, Sam, szigyi, Marcin Wrochna, Alexander Johnston, Tom Painter, Sergiu Coroi, Phil Saici, Tom Marsh, Ashley Steel, Simone, Tomás Garnier Artiñano, Steffan , Oriol Muñoz Princep, Adam Gillard, Christopher Hall, Miguel Cabrera Brufau, Sylvus , Florian Thie, James Gurney, Andy Giesen, Vernon Swanepoel, Robin Anne McDuff, Jean-Marc Giffin, Felix Winkler, CC, Quinn Sinclair, Ebraheem Farag, Ivari Tölp, Thomas Charbonnel, Sekhalis, Mark Moore, Philipp Legner, Zoey O'Neill, Justin Warren, Heijde, streetlights, Gabriele Siino, David Mccann, Leonard Neamtu, James Leadbetter, Rapssack, ST0RMW1NG, Matthew Powell, Adrian Sand, Haris Karimjee, Alex, The Cairene on Caffeine, Cody VanZandt, Casandra “Kalamity Kas” Toledo, Igor Francetic, Daniel Irwin, Sean Richards, Michael B., Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Andrea De Mezzo, Real Engineering. 
Наука
Someone once said, "You can't get someone to believe something if their salary depends on them not believing it."
Upton Sinclair. True for feelings and prejudices too, it seems.
Exactly. The climate change industry is huge and powerful and there are numerous of people world wide dependent on it staying afloat, thanks to massive funding funneled into by the UN. No way they are going to let that cash cow go because of something as silly as scientific truth/observation. Entire careers are built on the scam, as transparently obvious and easily debunked as it is (and has been by numerous scientists world wide for decades now).
science is not about believing.
Believing in climate science is much like still believing the covid injections are "safe and effective", it takes a whole lot of ignorance of some very basic facts.
@@armynyus9123 I agree. But many people, especially those who work for the fossil fuel, tobacco, meat&dairy, gun, and/or sugar industries, refuse to "believe" the science or statistics proving the harm of their products.
I met a guy the other day who believed that we should accelerate climate change because it's God's will that we die a fiery death. This was not a local loon, but a influential person…
yeah, apocalypse accelerationists are a pretty powerful force in evangelical Christianity these days. They also believe Jews need to be ruling over the whole of historical Jewdia for the biblical prophecies to come about and enable the end of the world to happen. So they are big supporters of the Israeli far right and extremist settlers, even though a lot of them are also antisemitic. It's scary that such crazy people have soo much influence in our modern world
Lots of Christian fundies in the US hoping that Megiddo gets used as the final battlefield that leads to apocalypse. 2,000 years of waiting for something that will never happen has become boring so they want to hurry it along any way they can.
it's already happening
End Timers are gonna fight tooth and nail to get their wish. The end of the world is allegedly A Good Thing(tm) because that's when [god of choice] returns and [does god stuff to good guys] while also [doing god stuff to bad guys] and hey, what reasonable person wouldn't want that?
@@Average_Internet_DMC_420It doesn't exist.
When I was a petulant teenager, I used to ignore chores and homework until it was too late to do them. Either because someone else had done the chores out of annoyance, or because the homework due date had passed.
Yes, parents and teachers got angry, but I didn't have to get off my ass and do something.
It seems to me that some adults still operate on that level.
"This problem doesn't exist, no need to do anything."
A few years later:
"Whoops, guess it does exist, but now it's too late to fix it, no need to do anything."
wow. proFOUND
Yes, this is the MAGA crowd in a nutshell
Yes, it's all about TDS, on every nation across the globe, Trump is King Kong.
@MyynMyyn
Honestly, feel like this is a good example of how inevitable growing out of bad habits _isn't,_ at times regardless of intelligence...
Once met a student who quit their geology degree because their dissertation on some interesting history of a local region got them legal threats by real estate companies. In short: real estate wanted them to shut up about exposing potential local phenomena in our new climate that might make housing prices in that area drop.
Yes Barak Obama still buys seaside property.
sure this happened. sure
Legal threats on what basis? What would they have against her that could make them win in court?
What a cool drop out story, I'm unemployed because of legal threats, they said I can't smoke meth at work and will call the police.
Yes it is not convenient to admit climate does change. That is the problem with geology.
Well lets reverse this warm change thing. It should be convenient to stick my hand out the window and chip some ice for my rye whiskey.
But to think that we as humans have control over the sun? It after all is a unregulated nuclear fusion furnace and a source of most of the heat and light.
Then there is physical chemistry. Let us ignore that too. Really? A 0.03 to 0.04% increase in Carbon Dioxide will do what to plant life? After all that is 25% increase.
Oh and how does that CO2 get high in the atmosphere enough to make a difference? Why does hydrogen hydroxide make a greater difference. Is it relative to specific gravity?
Maybe the problem is Russia may end being a better place to grow crops. Those same crops that presently grow better in Georgia and Alabama.
Like Gates and Steve Wozniak I dropped out of engineering. I got offered jobs before I graduated. But there is not room for all of us to make billions.
I am happy I don't have to hire full time security. My Mutzhus do that just fine.
So many questions and illogical answers. Time for someone else to deal with it.
Oh & there is another way of putting it.
One person's Mead is another person's Poisson. That is transforming. I remember Mead from somewhere in my probability math.
Also do not be surprised if reality is somewhere in the outlying probability functions..
I am an engineer and what I feel it most disheartening is that, technically, I KNOW we have the solution to almost all the problems (with the exception of some hard-to-abate sectors). But people without technical knowledge are convinced that there is no other way. The problem I see is psychological and political, and on that point I can do very little and I feel overwhelmed by stupidity and groupthink.
Ditto. From a science and technical standpoint I would be optimistic (we definitely have solutions even if we don't know all the answers), but I have nearly 0 hope on the political front. Many people try their best, but we have empires of wealth built into political systems serving the latter, IMO creating the symptoms listed by Mark above, and a myriad of societal hardships as a consequence.
Put otherwise, political systems are seemingly undoing themselves through misery, misinformation and fear, at the time we need the greatest unity to band against an existential threat. The scientist in me screams at it all.
Yeah. I'm a scientist. I follow energy and clean tech. We HAVE the solutions. Even the hard-to-abate sectors are starting to look promising. The problem is political. There's a lot of stupidity and mendacity out there. There are things you can do: Tell people about the solutions, and vote for the side that is willing to do something about climate change.
I'm right there with you. We have the solutions if we just have the political will to do it. Meanwhile we are starting new wars, which are fueled with oil. That to me is just incredibly dumb.
An example of this: if we paint an area similar in size to the state of Texas with barium sulfate microspheres, we can plunge the earth into another glacial period due to the amount of light that's reflected into space.
Basically, paint every roof and parking lot with the stuff.
@@incognitotorpedo42 there isn’t a side like that in America. Don’t get me wrong,im voting Dem but when push comes to shove Dems are just republican lite. They dont want to force the poor billionaires to spend money on changing the way they do things. They dont want to demonize the poor oil companies. The pretend to the public they care about these issues while not doing a damn thing about them. And they know they dont have to do anything, with the radicalization of the right, they know we have a choice of either no change or change in the wrong direction.
Im so tired.
Tactics first set out by Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister 40 years ago to ensure that no action is taken:
Stage 1: We say nothing is going to happen.
Stage 2: We say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3: We say maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage 4: We say maybe there was something, but it's too late now.
There was more honesty int that silly TV show, than there is in ALL of politics today sadly.
Thankfully since we live in a capitalist society if the majority of us do something to limit our fossil fuels use, we deny the enemy what they most want: money.
Enough people deny them one pence each, and they lose billions!
Very droll Bernhard
Great show
o.o
nothing will happen
I think the most disturbing thing is that it shows how willing humanity is to just give up
the most disturbing thing is how uneducated people like you are and your cohort
I remember my father would always deny climate change despite all of the evidence we had. Now, he no longer denies it but blames it on the cabal and geoengineering. It's amazing to me that he had to find a conspiracy theory that conveniently fit into his worldview in order to believe it rather than the plain evidence and adjusting his worldview to that.
Your father is right.
Wake up.
@@soyboymotivation Every civilization has claimed the end of the world. And guess what, every civilization has died in some way. We are no different. Our technology, are cultural norms, our capitalistic way of life will return to dust. It’s silly to think we are special. I don’t care how it will end, I’m just enjoying the show.
yes your father is correct
@@playlistofthegods My elders taught me to hate anyone who isn’t white or straight so, no I don’t think I’ll be listening to them.
Also, these few comments saying “he’s right!” make it seem like you didn’t actually read my comment but latched onto some buzzwords you recognized.
you and your father's beliefs are meaningless
Hoping a company would willining do something that hurts its profits for the benefit of society is ignoring WHY we are in the current situation.
Exactly. Being a single citizen of a small european country, what the hell can I do that would matter? My actions alone won't change anything, my pig-headed government (no matter which party controls it at the moment, to be honest) doesn't give a shit and even if they did, what we produce is fucking miniscule compared to what China pours out daily, and they definately do not give half a shit. And don't get me started on the EVs craze, if anyone truly cared instead of just wanting to be "eco" for fame, they'd have already pushed hydrogen fuel cells to commercial viability.
Yep that and abandoning strategies that allows us to put pressure on companies and state agents that simply do not care otherwise. The climate accords for instance allows the world to put at least a minimum amount of pressure on state agents like China and other producers, that also allows us to put sanctions on our own corporations without simply putting them out of business due to foreign competition (from producing nations like china, taiwan etc.).
A company that consistently did that would be outfunded and outcompeted by a company that maximizes shareholder return.
We should challenge Jordan Peterson (and others interested in honest communication) to say what policy they would favor for taking account of externalities (making prices more honestly show costs, including costs to the environment). If prices show true costs, profit will align with sustainability. Asking businesses to disregard profit is like asking consumers to not look for the low price when they go shopping. The fact that we think that would be necessary is a *symptom* of a dishonest system. If we charge environmental impact fees, we can limit impacts. If we share proceeds from fees, we will end abject poverty and give workers more latitude in deciding what job to take.
No, we are in any situation because people didn't know any better. F.e When plastic was invented people thought it's literally a god send. Also, "pulling up a ladder" is also a thing which terribly harms normal people.
The path of denial sounds a lot like the narcissist's prayer.
"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, then that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it."
Paleontology calls climate change NORMAL and COMMON dummy..sooo much so its teh ONLY driver of evolution:) Astronomy,y knows why :)
Do you think Simon intentionally phrased it that way in order to purposefully draw parallels to the "Narcissist's Prayer"?
@@LoganChristianson idk Who Simon is
The climate cult are the ones claiming to be able to control the entire planets temperature and weather so who's really the narsasist???
@@TruthAndFreedom. the guy who's going to save the planet.
To move beyond the doom I felt about climate change about a decade ago, I studied sustainability focusing on climate adaptation, and over time I have gained enough experience to be in a position in a career field where I, as an individual and working on a team, can make a difference in policies around climate change in government at a regional scale. I know everyone worries about individual climate friendly choices, but I would encourage younger people (I'm in my early 30s) to get jobs in government or private industry or nonprofits working on climate mitigation and adaptation. Fighting this fight while earning enough to sustain your own life is what eases burnout and eventual feelings of doom.
I feel like this was a wise move and good advice
Yes, funny how no politician wants to take about 'climate change mitigation or adaption'. It's obvious that fossil fuels are here to stay. Maybe time to make preparations for this 'inevitable future'.
Hi, can you say what subject you studied specifically? I'm interested in studying at sustainability related subject but feeling confused since there's a lot of options
@saraf5414 Hello! In undergrad my major was sustainability with a minor in environmental science. I had to tailor that program to meet my needs of focusing on climate adaptation and not green energy or climate mitigation. Then I worked for a few years in environmental nonprofits, and found I needed to go to grad school to rise up the career ladder, so I went to Duke Nicholas School for masters of environmental management, focusing on coastal management. I highly recommend that program. Good luck!
I think the reason many of us gen z think that there's no reason in altering our individual behavior as it won't make any difference for climate change, is because we know that the biggest offenders in this issue are large scale companies. What we need is a legislative change within these companies to actually make a difference.
I understand that view, but large scale companies ultimately are in the hands of consumers and shareholders. When enough individual consumers stop buying their products, or shareholders demand action, they have no choice but to change, even though they will fight and obfuscate every step of the way.
@@Tannhauser62 Well yeah what you're describing is a boycott, and good luck organizing that against Chinese and Indian companies that mainly deal in coal and oil. Look up the top companies responsible for the most CO2 emissions and you'll see what I mean.
@@KuratCTA Thing is, those companies enable our lifestyles. Just blaming them without doing anything ourselves are what keeps them going ironically. Its the same as when the west blame India and China for their high co2 releases without admitting that their high emissions are due to our consumption of goods that they produce. To solve the crisis, we AND the large companies need to change. We must consume less and demand companies become sustainable. We must support sustainable infrastructure, companies, governments and practices. Its also sad that people think that their happiness depends on being able to purchase mostly garbage. We need food, water, shelter, clothes and each other but we have forgotten.
@@elateride I live in Norway, which is considered a world leader in the use of renewable energy, green technologies, and sustainable resource handling. We're all already doing everything we can here.
@@KuratCTA Is this the same Norway that's the world's largest exporter of petroleum gas? Where the government owns a majority stake in one of the world's largest oil and gas companies? Which has among the world's highest GDP per capita entirely due to North Sea oil and gas? Or is there a different country with the same name?
I think there’s a difference between “we’re doomed, let’s do nothing” and “we’re doomed, better start doing something now and I don’t care if it’s costly or inconvenient. We need to be more aggressive”. I count myself in the latter “doomer” camp
I'm with you! Climate anxiety and pessimism in the current structures of power but I gotta live here a fair while longer and I'm not interested in the apocalypse thanks 😅
Yeah but, since simon used jordan's picture and what the report said about him, i'm not quite sure i'd like for people who have it bad to have it worse... i'm not on board on the "lesser of two evils thing"
@@emd4682climate pessimism isn’t a “lesser of two evils”. Doing absolutely everything in your power to prevent climate catastrophe is a positive thing. Doing nothing because you’ve fallen for disinformation about the point of no return spread by right wing propagandists who actively deny that climate change even exists is an absolute moral failure.
It's a simple case of mathematics.
India, China, etc. You know that "factories of the world" where we explored all of our manufacturing.
The are only increasing their emission and that'll offset any Greening of our western economies.
Not to mention our diminished industrial capacity will hamper our construction of infrastructure such as desalination plants that can help us deal with the effects of the Ice Age Termination Event we recently entered.
So even if we when back to the stone age in the west it wouldn't make a dent.
It never had anything to do with the climate.
Its power and control. It always was.
@@vi6ddarkking/videos this ignores the massive leaps "the east" has made, see previous videos on this very channel. China has had huge rollout of solar, for example, the largest of any other country
A thought that scares me: In a society that worships strength and competition, some people may have lost perspective to a point where they think a societal collapse will benefit them, because "they are the survivors" and "they got this" and all the "losers and weak people" will perish and hence make the society stronger.
Strong people who can survive a major disaster like, oh, say a deadly virus, a major war or a fundamental change in how the local economy works?
I've heard that before, always sounds like there one line away from endorsing eugenics
Not an exaggeration, they are for Eugenics
This kind of thinking tends to be comorbid with fascism.
I call that attitude Individualist Madness... preference to be "One eyed King of blinds" instead an average person in a better and susteinable society🤦🏽
I’m a millennial and in my experience, most people that have become climate doomers have done so because of their mistrust of politics. I personally just feel as though greenwashing and the general state of geo politics makes me feel as though we can’t reach our targets.
I'd say the blanket mistrust of elected officials and cynicism about them achieving anything is even more dangerous than blind trust.
There are a lot of rotten apples in the politics/government basket, so get rid of the rotten apples! Those rotten apples stay there because of a lack of good democracy. And the rotten apples are made rotten by corporates and individuals who are too rich and too self-centered.
Sure, corporations did it, it was not us.
I often say, we are not the problem, but it is our problem.
It was simply built into the American Dream. Who could have resisted this? We are all to blame, therefore, no one is to blame.
This is how I have resolved the reality of the inevitable Climate Collapse. When will it happen? No one knows for certain. Will everyone perish, including the oligarchs? My guess is that the oligarchs will not, but some hard core peppers/survivalists might, unless Nukes take out mankind - which is a solid possibility.
Planet survival or extending life could be happen if everyone would return to previous eras of our, or our parents, lives.
Yet, it's difficult to believe that everyone would be on board with such a lifestyle.
I don't see the point here. We but their products. We are complicit.
My favourite is when sceptics say, "We didn't all die in the 80s when the ozone layer was supposed to be destroyed". 🤦
I know you know this but I have to scream "THAT'S BECAUSE WE GOT TOGETHER AS A SPECIES AND FIXED IT!!!!!!!!!"
Thanks for tolerating my reply. Lol
@@tristanridley1601nah its good that you said it
@@tristanridley1601 Exactly Tristan. Nice one.
That’s right up there with “Y2K was gonna collapse everything”
SMH. Correct , it was !!
But we paid a bunch of programmers to change computers and add digits so it didn’t screw everything up, JFC these people are so stupid and annoying.
@@tristanridley1601The problem is that CFCs weren't nearly as central to civilization as, for better or worse, fossil fuel combustion currently is. And because DuPont's CFC patents had expired. :P
The biggest thing for people to grasp is this is not pass/fail. We can still influence how quickly things get worse, and we can still plan and prepare for the effects that are headed our way. Even if we're past the point of no return we can still decide how many chapters are left in the book and what those chapters contain.
sure man. don't use plastic straws and all will be fine.
How bad do you think it will get?
I mean, the earth can heal. There is no point where we're truly past the point of no return; it's just a matter of how extreme the solution needs to be. Realistically humanity isn't doomed; climate change will make environments harsher until enough people have died that their impact doesn't outpace the healing.
Seems like a good bet that when 80% of the human population is dead that those remaining agree to stop excessive polluting. Or no longer have the collective knowledge to keep those systems running.
@@splijterYour ignorance incredible.
@@trillex1861
time will tell you little fool. u on the wrong side of history. but go ahead. use your paper bag instead of plastic and save the planet.
It's the classic 4 stage strategy, as a brit you should be familiar with it:
In stage 1, we say nothing is going to happen.
In stage 2, we say something is maybe going to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
In stage 3, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we CAN do.
Stage 4 denialism is what I personally predict is what is going to fuel further inequality, militancy and instability in the 2050's/60s.
It might even bring rise to an even bigger generational divide between boomer-age millennials who think the world has already ended and are pissing the rest of their lives away hedonistically on their inherited wealth and the younger generations trying to scrape by on what's left trying to fix things and forever resentful that the millennials/doomer generation gave up on them.
I think there are so many doomers because we see so many depressing news nowadays, that many young people just feel like living their life in their own way, not caring about anything, because if they were to care it would be overwhelmingly depressing. I kinda get that people strive to just chill and be isolated from all that crap
No no weren't you watching the video? We're apparently cowards for not taking on the big polluting industries. Boeing literally just killed a guy.
Have you ever looked outside? The climate is still the same it was 50 years ago! And it will looks the same 50 years from now!
@@DarthChrisB yea like the heatwaves in spain or wildfires in fucking greece thats normal. also brazil and half of the us is constantly burning away in 2024 butbthats normal (never seen before)
@@DarthChrisB Most people over a certain age who work outside, from roofers to naturalists, can tell you from their own lived experience how much the climate has changed in an unbelievably short span of time.
@@DarthChrisB I live somewhere that used to have snowy winters and where we could go ice skating on the local lake 25 years ago and I can tell you that's definitely not the case anymore and hasn't been for the last 10 years.
Goverments going after consumers instead of corporations is like deleting text files on a hard drive instead of 100 gb games.
yep, we're fucked
Great comparison 😢
Both needs to be done. Are you suggesting that consumers should just give up?
@@FOATE Doomer argument. Well done for missing the point entirely.
@@neilwilson5785 It's not an arguement, it's a statement.
After 4 years of seeing how effective my little 2kw solar/9kw battery system is it blows my mind that solar isn't on every roof available, it has slashed my power bill by easily 80% and I think its wild that my friends talk about being hot but not wanting to turn on the ac because of how high their power bills are when summer makes so much power for me I can't use it all. It falls out of the sky for free yet stupidity and greed is making most pay top dollar for it, our system is seriously sick.
I always wonder why the US isn't massively invested in solar yet. They have half a contintent worth of deserts and solar doesn't even need any government subsidies anymore to be profitable. Like cities in texas, arizona, california etc. should be covered in solar panels right now, they could easily be energy independent.
Unfortunately oil industry is trying everything to keep their profits going up
If those individuals (friends) were really greedy, theyd put solar RIGHT NOW. Mine paid for itself in 3 or 4 years. Absurdly good investment. Real roi of 15% to 25% per year.
@@lb2791from what I've seen, it is the result of energy companies having their talons in media and legislation that has kept the USA away from widespread solar panel use
@@lb2791it’s because of legal bribery called “lobbying”
My problem with climate policies is that they seem to be uneffective when we can use nuclear power. Honestly we just need to do more devlopment in nuclear to be carbon neutral, instead people keep shuting down nuclear power plants to put coal in place.
Nuclear has two problems: Public fear and prohibitive expense.
That used to be the case among environmentalists, but not for much longer. Government policies are starting to turn back to nuclear, like in Illinois. This shift will accelerate as the climate crisis becomes more urgent.
I was probably seven or eight, and California was drowning in the El Niño. Even the wealthy areas where we lived, it was bad. I want to ask my mom after I got home from school with my literal boots full of water because the water got pretty hot, even in the streets, and I asked her why is it raining so much and are we just going to be washed away. She taught me about the climate, as simply as she could get a nine-year-old would understand. I asked her how did she know about the climate when she was a cardiac surgeon, and her expertise were on the heart. She told me, the only way to solve problems is to study how the situation works and what happens when the process that makes the situation work becomes corrupted. She taught me that just because someone has an expertise in one thing, doesn’t mean they can’t study and learn about the other, because the fundamentals of science is all about exploring and learning relationships between one thing and another. But the most important she told me was that, if we want to make a difference, we have to be willing to learn, and if we want to survive, we have to be willing to make a difference. Just like how, in order to become the species, we are today, we had to risk learning how to farm instead of following the animals, and there were times when farming went bad, and we had no crops. Just look at what happened to Ireland in the potato famine. But learning how to raise crops was what allowed us to ultimately become of the species that we are now. She told me she wasn’t sure what would happen since the rain could continue, or it could shift, and we could end up in a drought, which is literally what happened, or something completely different but she knew if we try to make a change, based on what we’ve learned, we can prevent the worst from happening. Because that is our job as people. To make sure that lives that are born after us, have a good chance. That was what she taught me when I was nine. I still carry that With me. That no matter what my own personal moods and emotions are, whether I even care to live to see tomorrow, I owe it to the next generation, just as my mothers generation owed it to me, to take what is been learned and use it to make a better world as long as I exist within it. Because the more people stop trying, the chances raise higher for worse to happen.
it rained a lot because that is what happens sometimes, Ace
@@RobertMJohnson so you think our climate science is wrong? Then what’s your answer?
@@foxdavani4091of course it’s wrong. Good lord.
Why do you think it’s right? Because you believe everything you hear from people you don’t know.
It's like if you are driving and suddenly there is an object blocking the street, shouldn't you brake? And even if you know that a collsion is inevitable shouldn't you still brake as hard as possible to make the impact less forceful and severe? Noone would think: "ach, I can't avoid a collision. I won't brake and will just slam into that car/rock/tree/whatever with every kmh/mph I can get."
Great analogy
Sometimes the better option is to swerve.
This is the perfect analogy!
You don't have to break, because it isn't your car. Let the owner sort it out after you give it back.
@@CaffeineConnoisseur Let the owner sort it out after you died in the crash. But I think I know what you mean: There are some drivers that die before the car crash anyway.
One of the biggest hurdles to conquer is the lobbing in the US. Politicians get millions donated to their campaign by many of the companies that are the worst offenders such as big oil.
It's almost like legalized corruption :3
Biggest hurdle are poor voters who don’t want to go broke.
@@gangstadrz9326 They'll go broke anyway, and on a side note, elections on a weekday are a travesty, lol.
and here you are, talking and talking by what? a computer or a smartphone .... made of plastic which comes from ... OIL. Ergo, you are no better than those politicians.
Any person that really cares about the environment and critizes the convenience of oil and other commodities and yet uses them, then that person is an hypocrite.
This is a capitalistic society, which mean, YOU have the power, not the companies. There are no excuses for your hypocrisy.
@@johndoe2-ns6tf There's a difference between having a device, buying a new one every year, and making its production pollute tons more to scrape a dollar on it.
But I agree that the list of the biggest corporate culprits needs to be better known.
In the US this is the same tactic used by the Right to oppose any and all gun control legislation for decades. 1. Suppress analysis of the problem by prohibiting the CDC to research gun deaths, and then 2. when there is another mass shooting that affects people directly, loudly proclaim that since no law conceived by man can prevent gun crime, we shouldn't act at all. Oh, and 3. "making criminals of law-abiding citizens" is the cherry on top. That one is working its way into the climate debate as well.
i live in europe and the EU is very focused on the climate change, but i hear a lot of people saying "what is the difference if we are driving electric or diesel cars while china is opening new coal powered power plants and they are making X times more CO2 than us?" how to adress it?
China and India were offered fewer requirements in the Paris agreements for very sound reasons. CO2 molecules remain in circulation for centuries, which means that the lion’s share of the current accumulation came from the United States and Europe, both of which industrialized 200 years ago. China only began to modernize 40 years ago and has emitted nowhere near the CO2 that we have in the United States and Europe. Who but the lion should clean up the lion’s share of the mess?
Per capita, the Chinese spew HALF as much CO2 per year as Americans do. Most Chinese adults don’t even own cars yet, while Americans drive the world’s largest gas hogs. Per capita, the Chinese use HALF as much electricity as we do. They also lead the world in the development of clean energy. EVs there have exploded in popularity and many cost LESS than traditional ICE cars. 90% of China’s buses are electric.
China added more solar panels to its infrastructure in 2023 than the U.S.has done in its entire history, according to a report in Bloomberg.
Finally, 80% of Wal-Mart’s merchandise is manufactured in China. China makes hundreds of products for American companies, so that factory pollution is partly due to our insatiable demand and conspicuous consumption. Who exactly should be responsible for such downstream emissions?
The United States was unfettered by CO2 and pollution restrictions as it modernized. China and India naturally want the same freedom to grow. Yes, China and India burn a lot of coal, but they are also making steady progress toward transitioning to clean energy. These are big ships to turn around. It's not going to happen overnight.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 None of that justifies imposing draconian measures on western citizens to decrease CO2 EMISSIONS, especially when said measures are known to stunt growth as well as make countries poorer. How much poorer? We dont exactly know, but its not like the politicians in charge of this actually care.
You can do whatever you want in the West, the most obvious truth is that if China doesn't stop doing what they're doing, most of our efforts will be made useless. This isn't a matter of fairness, this is an obvious matter of political convenience. If the West tries to impose anything, China will simply say no. So they get to keep their supply chains intact while we cant even drive our cars anymore. And again, our politicians dont give a damn because they are still flying around in their private jets.
They are so focused on climate change that they are perfectly fine with supporting an endless war in ukraine which produces god knows how many emissions
EU is contributes a lot to climate change, even if US and China do effect it more.
We can't just deny that this is also our fault (to be fair industrialization and globalization started with us). Also taking action against global warming would also improve the environment we live in. For example: protecting and improving forests would mean a better water and air quality; Circular economy would make us less dependant on global trading; Renewable energy could reduce gas and oil usage, meaning we won't have to buy it from other countries (see all the debate about Russian gas).
Acting on climate change is not just about ethics, is to improve our lives and economy.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Yes, CO2 molecules remain in circulation for centuries... but the cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 still put China in second place, at about half that of the USA (Russia is third). So that argument does work for India, but definitely not China. China is _way_ over-emitting, even on a per-capita basis. Yes, USA produces more per-capita, but China's production is still way too high even in reasonably short-term (a decade or two). It's perfectly fair for India to grow their emissions; but China should already be hard into reducing theirs.
Europe is already below the per-capita emission of China, and still trending way down. Yes, part of that is importing goods that were produced in Asia and Africa - but a much smaller part than you probably think. For example, Germany (already way above average per-capita CO2 in Europe) had some 8t CO2 per capita in 2020 locally... and imported some 1.5t CO2 per capita from abroad. Some of the lowest local emissions are clearly subsidized by shifting production abroad - e.g. Switzerland got nice 4t/cap in 2020... but imported mind-blowing 8.3t/cap. Properly accounting for everything shows a very different picture from the politics speech; Germany is often shown as a green success story, but compare Germany's real 9.2t/cap to "dirty" UK's 7t/cap. Czech Republic is fairly dirty at 8.7t/cap, but only imports 0.7t/cap. And of course, just looking at the trade emissions isn't enough - e.g. Russia is a net exporter of CO2 at -1.8t/cap... but still manages a total of 9.3t/cap (at a fairly low life quality by European standards). France, with its nuclear power, sits at 5.8t/cap (including the 1.5t from net imported goods). Heck, Norway has 8.7t/cap!
How about that Africa and Asia we "clearly" export our emissions to? Yep, most of them are near neutral or net exporters in trade. But it's severely overblown, and the others (like South Korea and Japan or even Cambodia and Botswana) are enough to sway the pendulum the other way. India is a net exporter... at about -0.12t/cap (though poor as the country is, the native emissions are at just 1.6t/cap - clearly a place that can fairly ask for a bit of a boost). China? Not a chance. Yes, net exporter at -0.65t/cap, but native emissions are already at 7t/cap. For fun, Kuwait stands at -0.65t/cap, so a net exporter (oil exports tend to do that!)... but has native emissions at absolutely staggering 22.2t/cap.
Looking at the data, it seems that by far the biggest impact on those "exported" emissions is the fossil fuel industry. The net exporters are almost invariably exporters of coal, oil and gas. Manufacturing is not insignificant, but is dwarfed by the fossil fuels, and always has been. And of course, while most industries are getting ever cleaner and more efficient, the exact opposite is true of fossil fuel industries - they emit more every year.
Per-region the numbers are quite telling. The world average is 4.5t/cap. Africa is at 1t/cap. Asia at 4.1t/cap. Europe has 7.3t/cap (EU is slightly lower at 7.1t/cap). North America has 10.5t/cap, overwhelmingly due to the US (NA without USA is just 4.1t/cap). Oceania is at 9t/cap. South America just 2.2t/cap. Of course, 7.3t/cap in Europe doesn't produce the same living standards as 7.3t/cap in Asia - it took a lot of investment to make the incredibly high living standards so "cheap" in Europe; and we want to push it much lower anyway. Though of course, a lot of that effort is something that Asia and Africa get for "free" now - they already have access to all that research and advanced technology, as well as the industrial bases that make it practical to use.
It's clear enough that this "they are making X times more CO2 than us" is pure rhetoric by populist (and greedy) politics and businessmen, and clearly enough promoted by fossil and car industries. It's clear that politicians do what they always do - lie, lie and then lie some more. It's fairly clear that it's still mainly the fossil and car industries that we have to fight at every turn. The amount of damage they do to the environment and human lives in general is massively disproportional to their benefits. And it's not just about pollution and CO2 emissions. And they've known this for sure for almost a century now - but decided to just make more money instead. After all, it's cheaper to pay for advertising than to find actual solutions. None of this is any new science (global warming due to CO2 emissions is a concept that predates _computers_ ; it's nothing new, we're just getting better and better at modelling the impact and scope) - the only thing that is slowly changing is that we're slowly gaining the strength and will to fight them.
And no, that doesn't mean there will be no car or no fossil fuels. It just means that we need to stop building everything around the two, and treat them as just the minor conveniences that they are. We can do better. We _did_ do better, and we're getting better again. We just need to keep fighting. In just 30 years, Europe went from 10.7t/cap (and being a net exporter) to 7.2t/cap, while living conditions generally improved. Much of that comes from rejecting car-centric life. Even the USA, as horrible as they are, went from 20.3t/cap to 15.5t/cap; there's absolutely no technical reason why they couldn't match Europe - just build more like Europe, and get rid of the residential suburbs (while we need to keep pushing against the sprawl in Europe, Asia and Africa).
Ah, the classic "first they don't believe, then they think it's too late".
Both are wrong. It's, all the times "I won't move a finger". The excuse changes depending on the argument.
I think a scientific view of the situation is that we’re doomed. I sympathize with you guys. I hope you can accomplish something, but you’ve got a daunting challenge in front of you.
@@peterwilson8039 naah, i'd just keep the effort on my own individual and not worry too much about it. whatever comes, let it come. not going to waste my time being depressed, it's unproductive.
@@peterwilson8039 Classic "Doomer Boomer" rhetoric. "Sorry we broke the world, but I'm gonna die soon so it's your problem... I'm not gonna bother using my last decade or so of life to do anything to fix it".
For anyone feeling hopeless: spite is a good motivator. There isn't any point in giving up. Fixing some of what was damaged is better than fixing none of it due to inaction. Humans are like cockroaches, we'll live. So let's not repeat the mistakes of our forefathers and make a world worth living in for our children instead of giving them something even worse off than we got it.
@@maxixe3143It's difficult to hold out much hope for the future, when about half the voting population of the U.S. is going to vote for Trump in November. The future is going to be far grimmer than the world I was fortunate enough to spend most of my life in. I admit that my generation was initially to blame for starting the problem, but it was the Reagan and later, far-right Republicans who deliberately set out to foil any attempts to deal with it. Unfortunately my generation was, and still is, stupid enough to believe them. Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss climate change. It's going to be very bad, and it will probably stay really bad for a really long time.
To me it's horrifying to know that some people are pushing others into literal despair, for their own benefit. Despair is a mindnumbingly horrifying mental state to be in, and a precurser for so much suffering, so to think that some people are willing to push people into that, is something I cannot consider to be anything but an act of evil.
I sincerely hope that those fallen into this despair can get back out of it, because that is not a mental state to be in that people deserve.
despair is necessary to understand reality.
our civilisation will not be going further than this century for many reasons beyond climate change.
before we can move on from this, we should despair and grieve, or we will be trapped in delusion.
There's a lot of sociopaths about these days.
@@op4000exe what a meaningless truism. can you point to the institutions of the roman empire today? what happened to 90% of the incan and aztec empires? why is the forbidden city of beijing a tourist attraction? i specifically said, our civilisation: global, western, dependent on fossil fuels. that will end this century and i dont need a religious explanation for it.
you put quotation marks, who are are you quoting?
What if despair is the correct reaction?
@@Yosef9438It can be. But staying in despair is not going to change the situation. It’s a ‘Do what you can because doing nothing is always worse!’
As soon as I saw he was British and said misinformation I immediately knew he was wrong.
So, an important thing to note about the survey at 10:45 is that it focuses far too much on individual action. Changing one person's behavior really doesn't make a meaningful difference when it comes to climate change, and it is a myth that was perpetuated by big business for the benefit of big business. The changes that need to be made are on a systemic level, law and policy for countries rather than the actions of individuals.
An example of what I am talking about is recycling. When concerns were originally raised as to pollution issues to do with plastics, recycling was created as a way to shunt the responsibility from the companies to the consumer. Plastic was cheaper for the companies, so they wanted to keep using plastic. The problem with that is that (aside from just shifting the blame) plastic isn't even good for recycling like metal or glass is, you can't melt a water bottle and turn it into the same kind of water bottle, it turns into a different kind of plastic. The solution to the problem is reducing single use plastic to only things that are absolutely necessary, but that would be more expensive for businesses.
"and it is a myth that was perpetuated by big business for the benefit of big business. "
Its not only happening to the climate debate. Debates of human rights, social trends, democracy or other very important discussions are driven by people who have given up on the thought that we could overcome those obstacles hindering us to live as a species in better conditions. Maybe it is not on the climate debate but on how hopeless a lot of humans feel when they see injustice, corruption, war and consumerism every day.
It's funny, because people who agree with the global warming message usually are against human rights and democracy.
The doomer movement is growing, and It makes sense.
Yes, and while it's understandable given how interrelated and challenging those issues are, doomism is not only incredibly detrimental to those causes, it's also ahistorical. There have been massive positive alterations to entrenched power structures in the past, such as the abolition of slavery and the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Although a confluence of factors led to the ending of those systems, in both cases committed groups of people (activists, politicians, lawyers, etc.) played a critical role in realising a better society. It's worth remembering that the rights and freedoms we enjoy today (although limited) were not freely given, but hard fought for by ordinary people who believed that achieving a more just and equitable society was possible. Imagine they hadn't.
@@nicvdb4669 Slavery was never abolished though.
Its hard to not be pessimistic about our chances of reaching any of the lofty climate goals. Im a swede and our total share of the Co2 emissions is 0.13% meaning that even if Sweden somehow reaches 0% Co2 emissions It wont change anything and we already are doing more then most.
I think rather then countries doing whats needed this whole issue is going to solve itself as the world population crashes once baby boomers and gen X starts dying off given how low our birth rates are. Wouldnt at all be surprised if birth rates would become a much more serious issue over climate change in a few decades
I am a climate pessimist. I am a biologist and I despair for the natural world and the destruction that is already happening. But to give up hope entirely and advocate NO mitigating action is not only insane, but as this video says ... cowardly. It is spineless. The people who think this way should have no influence over our future, since they don't care about any of it.
We are in the 6th mass extinction event, and this time humans are the cause.
It’s probably time to relax and eat a pickle.
@@Zulonix by far the weirdest and admittedly funniest one of these infuriating and condescending types of comments.
There's also a recent paper published showing that we probably will not meet the challenge of global climate change because of "evolutionary ratchets"
"Characteristic processes of human evolution caused the Anthropocene and may obstruct its global solutions" (Waring et al, 2024)
This video really doesn't do credit to to doomers' arguments. It's not could mitigating actions work if they were implemented on a massive scale, it's just that given the evidence and human dynamics they won't and haven't been so far. The mitigating actions typically undertaken by individuals (recycling, electric cars, paper straws, etc) are so pathetic their only real purpose is to make the person doing them feel better. We've known about the climate crisis for 50+ years but emissions keep going up.
As a big believer in nuclear power, it's really odd to see so many "climate activists" being very anti-nuclear... Especially here in Denmark. But keep informing, with information comes change! :)
No climate deniers would survive spending two days in the southern hemisphere during the summer.
Despite having many conservatives who are anti-vax and things of the sort in tropical countries. It is simply undeniable that each new summer is simply less bearable than the last. We feel the difference in our very skin. Every single summer, all of our news channels warn us that "the current summer is the hottest in recorded history." Not to mention rising tides and islands simply dissappearing. Denying climate change is basically saying, "If it doesn't affect me, then it must not exist."
We just suffered through a record high tide that caused over $100 million in damages. There were a lot of naysayers here before it happened. Not so many now. I think you're exactly right about public perception. If it doesn't affect people personally, it simply doesn't exist.
I grew up on the equator and it still doesn't feel any warmer now than when I was little. I am against the whole climate change science because I don't believe their data. I think the whole climate change crisis just like covid(nurse now who worked the covid units) is being exaggerated to control society.
We had a guy in Rotterdam claim the floodings in Maastricht were not real. That's 170 kilometers away and both cities are on the same river.
We were in Bali last summer, nobody we talked to said it was getting worst. They say is hot, and they have to work outside for farming, construction etc., but none of them mentioned is getting worst each year, or that the plants were burning up from heat. That is just one data point.
Southern hemisphere is very big. What is hot in one region may not be the same in another region that you are in.
Here in the northern hemisphere, we had an unusual long winter lasting all the way into June last year. This year we just had an unusual snow storm in the spring. Summers are hot in the dessert for sure, but don't remember it being worst than previous ones.
Lakes were getting very small. That was a scare. Now the lakes are getting back to size again. I can't make a definite conclusion.
@@benmlee I don't mean to be rude, but you were a visitor. I'm a native to an equatorial country, and let me tell you: it IS getting hotter and worse. I'm not just talking about the sensation on the skin but actual data, reliable news media constantly showing that the last few summers were the hottest in recorded history according to research. I'm not sure if you heard, but the heat waves were so serious earlier this year during the peak of the current summer that Taylor Swift had to cancel and postpone her shows in Brazil, and people even died *during* the event as a result of that. This happened in Rio, which is waaaay south of the equator and not one of the hottest regions of the country. Summer is almost over now, so things are a bit better, but we can't just invalidate the data and these people's experiences.
What's disturbing is how many people think it's more important to beat deniers into submission than to focus on what we're actually going to do to deal with climate change. We don't need unanimity to take action.
Yep. As the ancient adage goes, don't feed the trolls.
You kinda need enough unanimity to create a global democratic mandate. Arguing loudly with people who won't change their mind isn't necessarily the way, but combating mis- and disinformation is very important.
@@K3zster
Ah yes, "global democratic mandate" with wide reaching Powers and autonomy,
made up of people who have only the best for Humanity in Mind....
What could go wrong ?
Dont you think creating something like that isnt the only reason for all of this ?
You need to suck it up and be a man. You don't control the climate. It controls you.
Want something bipartisan? Better urban design that requires less driving, and backing off of electric cars which contribute to further lithium waste we're going to have to deal with.
the worst kind of self-fulfilling prophecy....
Similar to GMO harm deniers. Deny forever and then after years and years of proof say oh well what can we do at this point.
The kind that not only affects you, but everyone around you as well...
It's just being realistic.
and one most of these idiots wont live to see come true! [the doomers/deniers]
@@juskahusk2247 No, it's being willfully ignorant in the face of evidence. You are just the ohter side of the climate change denier.
Honestly, this is the video I needed. For lots of things this applies. From understanding you acting (though not thinking) like the ones who profit from this puts you on their side, to being a coward towards trying, and not putting yourself on the spotlight for making a "public" commitment to try, because hey, it's easier to not commit because you won't be judged if you fail.
It's not that I don't believe I just don't think giving the government more money and power will fix the problem
They don't need more money or power. They need more PRESSURE to do the right thing with that power or be replaced.
Important to note that another reason why people might not want to change their behaviour because it "won't make a difference" is because most of the pollution is not caused by individual consumer action it is caused by a tiny number of massive companies. Individual decisions are not going to change that. It's a poorly phrased question that make zoomers sound like doomers; when they might actually just have a clearer idea of who the real source of the problem is. And it isn't them.
it is also often used by individuals to blame other individuals, leading to subcultures that act in cultist ways
It's actually caused by government regulations. Either by allowing companies to greenwash (Look up Carbon certificates) or by enforcing costly yet ineffective solutions.
We can, by this logic alone, assume that efforts to protect the climate would be more efficient without those regulations. Would they be perfect? No, of course not. The amount of evironmental protection that would be done is equal to the cumulative demand for environmental protection, with every single person on the earth contributing to that demand. The problem with that is that poor people literally cannot afford to vote for evironmental protection with their wallet (literally forcing companies to adapt and adopt more sustainable practices by not giving them money until they do so). The wealthier the people, the more climate and environmental protection they can afford and are willing to afford.
The key to fighting climate change is therefore: Make everyone as rich as possible, as fast as possible. Degrowth or more regulations instead make it harder for people to become wealthier. Production costs are driven up, prices increase, everyone has less wealth. Government regulation does exactly the opposite of what it tries to achieve.
@@ThePhilosophermaking everyone as wealthy as possible is literally the basis of capitalism.
It is the only method we know that does that.
Capitalism has proven however that it doesnt achieve that aim without regulation.
So you have literally just started the doomer argument without saying it's impossible, by defining the only solution (regulation) as ineffective.
It isn't ineffective, it has merely been sabotaged by climate denialism like your own.
Regulation works. When it is based in science.
Regulation doesn't work when it is based in feelings.
Fix how you create and apply regulation, and you create regulation that works.
Zero regulation unrestrained capitalism does not address climate change.
Wanna know how I can. Prove it? Simple. Without regulation a company can simply lie about it's green credentials. So even rich people will think they are addressing climate change, when they are not in fact. All to raise profits.
You need regulation there's no way around it.
@@ThePhilosopher
Ah, but I want the products I buy to be made cheap and dirty, but the products you buy to be expensive and green.
Also, it is in practice too hard to tell which products are green when faced with endless options in the shops.
Carbon tax.
Nope, this is still doomerism, just shifting the blame. Who buys from the companies? Individuals. You still have agency.
I just love how fans of R1 zoning, parking minimums, outlawing bikes on some/all roads, and putting as much money as possible into highways are "anti-regulation".
cope
@@golagiswatchingyou2966 Yes we get that people like you are coping. Thank you.
Alberta for the win. until wildfires get too big.
Obviously, we need government regulations to stop the people who want government regulations.
So you dont see the hypocrisy?@@golagiswatchingyou2966
I've been of an opinion for a while now, that we need to begin a big movement that will focus on protesting against destruction of envirenment by individual companies, like those producing plastics. We've got enought movements focusing on individual people.
100%
If you really want to go that way, 90% of your time will be spent protesting against China, India and other third world countries with dubious environmental practices. Yet, what we see the most is those geniuses in UK, France and Germany laying down in the middle of the roads to protest fossil fuel powered vehicles, without realizing those represent a very small fraction of CO2 emissions.
It doesnt take magical powers to figure out that the climate movements in the West have been contaminated by politics. They now serve the interests of bureaucrats and technocrats wishing to impose more control and censorship as opposed to enacting actual good changes.
The problem is, if the business brings in money, the government closes a blind eye.
@@gavinlew8273
Which is the exact f*cking reason these protests are needed- so they stop making money. Instead of accepting realty and doing nothing.
You can't fix climate denial with facts. They're talking a belief system - it's functionally a religion, and the commitment of actively disbelieving the facts only strengthens their commitment to their beliefs.
In civilised countries we work on teaching kids scientific objectivity so they're armoured against anti-fact belief systems, but in the US where they let creationism into the curriculum uhh. Good luck with that.
It is worth fiighting, but politicians make it harder and harder to remain optimistic
It's not about politicians. They're just the hired help.
tombradshaw5164:
"CO2 has never been used by any national weather office in the world for weather/climate purposes. The only gas that's used is water vapour. CO2 plays no role.
The following are the factors that influence the world's different climates:
Latitude
Elevation
Proximity to large bodies of water
Ocean currents
Topographical features (the shape of the land, if you prefer)
Vegetation
Prevailing and seasonal winds.
CO2 counts for nothing; never has, and never will.
That's the science which is taught and practised in meteorology/climatology."
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans have contributed only 3% of that, nature 97%. The 3% club could go back to horse and cart tomorrow and have no effect on climate.
It is frustrating to see head of states reversing from climate actions while yourself are trying even more.
Or they move the issue elsewhere so it isn't their problem, see manufacturing and China. Rather than the West cleaning up industry and investing in cleaner energy, it was just moved 'outside the environment' to places like China or India. Now politicians here can crow about being net zero while importing ship loads of dirty goods from abroad that they don't have to declare emmissions on, the Drax wood pellets being the worst example of this
Can’t let them win tho
They’ll pretend they were always on the right side of things when it’s all said and done.
Oh yes and they will still find a way to say they are better than the climate change advocates.
These are the people that will 100% be like this.
They already do it in other ways.
like COVID?
and time after time, we will let this societal cancer make that claim instead of relentlessly hounding them with their own words
I've seen research showing that a reduced workweek could reduce pollution. It's something I think we'll be hearing about more and more. Bernie Sanders just proposed a 32hr workweek without a reduction in pay. It could help the environment, help mental health, and increase freedom and free time, as well as allow us to more fully embrace automation and AI as we continue to reduce the workweek as those technologies continue to advance.
I always believed climate was changing, but I feel we are doomed because of impotent politicians. I don't believe that humanity can come to a common consensus in time. Peak oil seems like a mitigating natural factor at this point.
0:18 How filtering comments by newest feels like:
what?
@@PeterChoyce most of us have "top comments" sorted by default and that makes it look like there's a healthy debate, but if you (re-)sort by "Newest comments first", there's a tendency to get cynical 'doomer' comments. They don't get voted up, won't appear at the top comments by default, but can become a steady stream of gloom. just continuing wails of despair into the intellectual vacuum that is the RUclips comment section.
@@PeterChoyce They are saying if you filter comments by new you see a lot of the overly toxic, climate denial doomers.
this is a widely used censorship method to filter out the opposing point of view. Facebook does it too.
aka the people the elites don't want you to hear because they could actually inform you.@@esar96
You're equating 2 different types of "doomers". Some are deniers who are saying "oh those renewables are worse anyway" and some do come from groups that were trying to get something done about it, but ended up giving up.
agreed, my peers and me are very open about system reform to solve the problem, but most have given up since the realisation that there won't be any meaningful reforms due to corrupt politicians and big companies has set in.
And having to argue with people who are convinced that people who fight against climate change are the problem. Apparently protester are hypocrites who pollute more than anyone else and anyone working green technology are just in it for money, and all politicians who tries to do something about it are corrupt. It does make me feel hopeless. I had nothing but those discussion last year and just had one on Wednesday.
There's a third subgroup of "doomer" as well, like myself--I don't think we should give up trying to mitigate. It's not that I think we *couldn't* make it better, but that humans simply won't, for political and economic reasons. It's more of a "human psychology" sort of reason that I'm a doomer.
@@gasparmeco7445 I haven't said I'm one of them. I only said there's more than one type.
Then there's those of us who haven't given up, but are looking at the odds and trying to make sure that our families and communities have a decent chance of surviving the crash anyway. If the world suddenly comes to its senses we haven't lost anything by living off-grid and as self sufficient as we can, after all.
My own personal "climate doomism" isn't based on the idea that it's impossible for us to save ourselves, or to improve the situation. My climate doomism is based on the idea that we just won't. People are too unwilling to change. They are unwilling to give up even the smallest conveniences to save a future that they have no certain date for. They refuse to accept it's really happening, even if they know, logically, that it is. And so we will just go on destroying the planet and ourselves, until it becomes too obvious to deny anymore. That's the only point we will truly change. I hope it's not too late by then.
While it's important for us to take measures to tackle climate change what should people in countries like India do as we want to develop at a faster pace and also cannot afford to shift to green energy by leaving coal and other fossil fuels behind because they are much cheaper and affordable than these. This question has been itching my mind since many days. The rest of the developed has developed on the shoulders of fossil fuel but what options are there for developing nations where price plays a major factor for affordability?
another idiot who doesn't realize that coal and oil are growth industries
At this point rooftop solar is cheaper per unit power delivered to the premises than coal fired electricity anyway. So for factories, you want to go straight to solar. It is the cheapest option, and for a factory running in daylight hours anyway you don't even need a huge battery bank. If the factory owner can't afford it, demand that the government help - it's cheaper than building and supplying coal plants, and India is set to be one of the worst affected countries in the world from everything getting hotter.
For poor villagers using firewood to cook their meals, planting fast-growing coppicing firewood trees is the best thing - if you're growing as much wood as you're burning, the system is carbon neutral. If the trees you plant provide fruits, nuts, or seeds that people can eat, or leaves that livestock can eat, that's a bonus. The shade they give comes for free.
@@tealkerberus748 Yeah installing solar rooftops for household electricity generations is something which is heavily being marketed by the government and I am looking forward to installing it in the coming days. I cannot say this for factories though. I don't see things changing rapidly but slowly I hope things are changing there as well.
@@tealkerberus748it’s so cheap that the federal government has to subsidize it by 26% and some states add another 25% subsidy. Also, what do factories do in regions where the sun doesn’t shine at night?
Genius.
It's been a scary warm winter in my area. The most unbelievable thing is watching people with whom I used to argue about climate change whine about how there's no snow for their snowmobiling and there's just... no dots connected.
Where
it's magic... or jesus... or both...
What’s even worse in my country are those that hate the cold and get cold easily. They cheer every hotter winter and summer we have.
@@thedunkirk7Madison, Wisconsin, we have not had snow stick here yet all season.
@@WilliamDesichthat’s concerning, in NY very little snow
It's unfortunate that they, the least culpable, the global poor, the southern hemisphere, animal life, nature itself will continue to bear the brunt of our leaders and our selfish countrymen too ignorant and heartless to care about them until it's at our own front door. Until it's your family, your friends, your parents.
It is even more unfortunate that the believers are too short sighted to see the reality. Climate change is just a symptom of an unsustainable economy. Half a century ago the club of Rome presented a report stating the obvious. Unlimited growth in a limited world is not possible. The climate believers refuse to address this root cause and just talk about combating the symptom that the 1 percenters have made into a profitable business opportunity, something they can't do when the root cause is addressed. So the root cause is ignored and it is just a matter of time till the next crisis. Actually they are already here, nitrogen, pfas, microplastics, etc etc. The only long term solution is to transform to a sustainable economy, one based on maximizing quality of life instead of material wealth, one that stays within the regenerative capacity of earth.
I have been listening to your predictions all my life and none of them came true. Never ever did I see anyone take responsibility. So excuse me but your crap is a bit worn out and tired by now,
What we must admit to ourselves is is that the people pushing denialism, doomerism, etc know this and that seeing the global poor die because of climate change is their goal.
The right wing doesn't mind coastal cities suffering either.
@@TheCatherineCC Yes, the very very rich understand that resources are going to quickly diminish, and depopulating the planet is their goal. And it's not even a new idea. The eugenics movement, for example is a century old.
Its so crazy how close idiocracy is to RL right now, I've been thinking this stuff for years and have come across many reputable sources making similar claims about the future of our climate and economy but if you try to talk to the average person about it they think you sound gay and retarded for even thinking about an issue that could inconvenience them in the slightest or that requires a tiny bit of wisdom to see the bigger picture.
I'm a techno-optimistic, I believe with technologies and education, and the correct incentives, the emissions can be reduced. But cutting corners and go to extremes like high-carbon taxes to make small farmers out of business is NOT the solution. That will cause more people to get angry and fight against the cause.
Similar here. The problem I see is that the prposed solutions don't want to change anything about the capitalist world order. And I think this will make them ineffective and harmful.
The changes we need are far deeper than electric cars and solar panels on farmland. We need next to zero cars and solar panels on parking lots. We need to overhaul global production and consumption and even decrease technology in a few places, like for example industrialized farming and animal keeping. That has to be deindustrialized to a certain extent.
Finally, if the climate protection measures are not made socially consciently, then we'll get what you already predicted: That people will resist them.
It's like you have a really really dirty basement. Some people would throw up their hands and declare the job was too hard. Other people would start to clean and even if it took a long long time the basement would ultimately be spotless.
yeah ...uh. no it's not like that
While at this point it's impossible to prevent climate change (because it already happened, can't turn back the clock) we can still slow it down and mitigate the consequences. And that is the case even if the well is poisoned, it's still possible to make things not as bad as they could be. And even if we fail, good things can come from bad situations, there is always hope.
considering the "extreme catastrophic consequences" we had over the past 20 years, looks like its not going to be a problem
Well said.
@@echelonrank3927 You know, if you wanted to go be an edgelord, you could just learn to play Mortal Kombat.
@@neoqwerty no i can only afford street combat
@@echelonrank3927 Well thats the thing, there are catastrophic things already happening, you just dont realize it living in first world country. Massive immigration waves are not just because of war.... a tiny bit less food production means food prices goes up, not by much for you but massively for poorer people, causing them to migrate. Medicine is going to be more expensive, you will say its because of big pharma, but we actually need a lot of plants to make drungs. Few flood and droughts here and there and it will cost more, but you wouldnt realize the connection.
Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late
The ecofascist plan:
Step one: Find a problem.
Step two: Demand more government control to fix the issue.
Step three: Issue is not fixed, blame everyone esle but those responsible for solving the issue, demand more government control.
Repeat step three ad infinitum.
One thing every doomsayer like you have in common throughout all of human history: You've always been wrong.
Step 6: Geoengineering
Step 7: Escape Vault 101
@@adriadelafuente3648So the sum total of climate scientists are in fact not scientists just going about their job but "ecofascists"?
If no, then good job you are correct. But that also raises the question, did someone "find a problem" or was a problem discovered by said scientists?
If no efforts to fix said problem are made because of science denialism what are we to blame other than science denialism?
@@adriadelafuente3648The question is: Are you really this stupid, or are you paid to post this?
Taking a look at the global temperature curve, one can clearly see the temperature leaving the usual range (one could say skyrocketing) around the year 1900, when most of the population of less than 2 billion people lived under miserable conditions.
My question to the channel host @SimonClark:
How far shall we go back population-wise and prosperity-wise in order to stop climate change when the conditions about 120 years ago weren't good enough to prevent the temperature rise at that time.
This is a fallacy, abandoning fossil fuels does not mean we have to abandon 200 years of technological development, at the VERY least we have Renewables and Nuclear energy which should be able to account for most of the shortfall lost from fossil fuels
@@justforlawlsandtrolls
1.) Unfortunately, renewable energy is only affordable for rich people. If there was such a thing as cheap renewable energy, we would be already using it.
2.) Building nuclear power plants takes many years and, in reality, they are rather taking town existing and functioning ones.
3.) How do you prevent other (very big) countries, which are not so much into these things from using cheap coal without starting WW3?
@WolfgangPototschnik
1. Uh, no, especially Solar has become cheap enough to see widespread use by common people, the reason why it isn't widely adopted is because a) it's new, b) it's easier to not put effort into the upfront process. We're not living 20 years ago, the price of renewables has dramatically fallen
2. Just because a solution is not being implemented does NOT mean that it wouldn't work; the fact that nuclear power plants are being torn down is more of a reason to ACT and stop that process. In addition, even if it does take 8 years to put them up, it will still make an important difference in reducing carbon emissions, and act as at least a temporary solution
3. One method is by simply developing renewables to the point where they can outcompete fossil fuels, but sanctions could also work, or perhap, getting communities to care enough could do the trick. Regardless, 'how will we get other countries to implement the solution' does not change the fact that it is still a solution
Most people do not want to be told they are/were wrong.
They'll only accept facts readily when they find these themselves.
Otherwise they might have to admit they made a mistake, or worse, they actually were misled, or even dimwitted.
I saw how quickly the environment changed just from some months of covid lockdowns causing overall lesser carbon footprints. I believe in the possibility of change.
Youre tripping
Right, if we put all of society in a cage forever, destroy all industry and technological progress, and revert back to the stone age, yes, our carbon footprint stops existing.
But you recognize what you're asking for, right?
For some people, those months/years were the worst time of their life, because of those actions.
Ok I get what they are trying to say, I think what they mean is that the climate can go back to normal, obviously we aren’t going back to lockdown but making climate friendly decisions can actually help
@@LoganChristiansonthat’s ignorant of their point; the point is there is still hope and it is possible to save the climate.
Yes, that includes without shutting down the world.
We have the technology to do so
@@Potato_the_third You're not seeing my point: to the degree you turn off the CO2 production, you cause suffering in humanity. We shut down almost everything, and nature quickly began to snap back. Are you able to recognize the cost of doing that, though? What did that do to people?
Blaming individuals for not taking responsibility when 90% of global emissions comes from 100 major corporations is missing the target more than the individuals not taking responsibility when their impact is, in fact, relatively minimal.
Those corporation also provide key sustaining support for well over half the individual humans on Earth - without the needs of those individuals driving things, the corps wouldn't exist.
Spreading messages that inaction is justified because "it's hopeless" is still worthy of criticism
@@Bookhermitplenty of those corporations are not providing an essential service, in fact a lot of them provide services which harm people or use harmful strategies in their business
@@geroni211they do both
All these polluting companies are our pollution. They are doing it for us because we consumers as individuals don’t take responisibility. We have the power through our consuption choices.
It's easy to tell which side is right. Climate realist comment sections are full of rational people who talk about data, studies and natural sciences in general. This comment section is full of delusional people who talk about their feelings, their fears, their subjective impressions and their anger against the "deniers" but not a single grain of fact or reason found anywhere.
seems old deniers' and new doomers' discourse call in the end for the same thing : nothing to do about it. It's either out of lazy complacency, or to actively keep something the same as it's been since climate denial existed. both aren't in the best interest of everyone, and the latter one disturbingly points towards the benefit of a select few.
Climate denial is not a thing. It has always been some crazy people saying "Look at my graph, doomsday is near." and science said "No, that's not how science works!". End of story.
They believe in something they can’t see with maximum devotion but they refuse to believe what is clearly laid out in front if them.
Unfortunately most of the time it’s a mix of
“I grew up believing this thing that I can not observe, thus this has become part of my foundation of who I am as a person”
“That this thing that I believe in has my best interest at heart even when it doesn’t feel like it”
“Science doesn’t believe this thing that I believe in so why should I trust them”
“This person I trust confirms my biases”
Essentially getting influenced at a young age to not only believe something that they can’t observe but make it part of their identity, thus any attack on this thing is viewed as an attack at the person, causing them to go on the defensive with no critical thinking.
They're so focused on their eternal life that they're not caring about the life that any of us are living right now
@@typemasters2871 Very well put. A lot of people are maybe not even influenced since their childhood, they just adopt these simple explanatory models because they can't or simply don't want to deal with the complexity of reality and problems - so if somebody then challenges their narrow and dumbed-down worldview , they feel threatened in their very existence. So their reaction is filled with hatred, denial and aggression towards the people who try to point out other possible perspectives. It's silly and scary at the same time - because these people can vote and often they are the most active voters.
@@adambazso9207 Exactly.
@@adambazso9207
The unfortunate reality that religions that try to promote positive social traits (being truthful, being kind, showing empathy, etc) end up attracting people who want to use it for personal gain (to be in a position of power, to become rich, as an excuse for their hate, to ignore what’s happening on earth) and/or people who have a tendency to cherry pick the parts they like and ignore the parts they don’t whilst (either willingly or unconsciously) ignoring any of their own hypocrisy.
I audibly shouted "15% PERCENT?!" at my monitor when you stated that fact... I almost cannot fathom, that such a HUGE amount of people actually think that climate change is not real.
Yeah, just looking at this video's comment section should convince you the 15% might even be under-estimated 😩
@@mantislazuli well that is why it is called "The vocal minority", they are often the loudest, even if they are a smaller group
Man made climate change is not real if you look at records from before the industrial revolution. That's mathematically obvious. CO2 is the main gas that drives climate change, or so the climate change cult says. But there's a problem with that and that is this:
tombradshaw5164:
"CO2 has never been used by any national weather office in the world for weather/climate purposes. The only gas that's used is water vapour. CO2 plays no role.
The following are the factors that influence the world's different climates:
Latitude
Elevation
Proximity to large bodies of water
Ocean currents
Topographical features (the shape of the land, if you prefer)
Vegetation
Prevailing and seasonal winds.
CO2 counts for nothing; never has, and never will.
That's the science which is taught and practised in meteorology/climatology."
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and humans have contributed only 3% of that, nature 97%. The 3% club (you and me) could go back to horse and cart tomorrow living in caves with zero CO2 emissions and have no effect on climate. How can we have an effect against nature's 97% CO2? It's like trying to outweigh an elephant with a mouse.
The climate cult is using fear and guilt to create a new billion dollar energy industry backed by government subsidies, a new world order programmable trackable e infrastructure including the e car industry, and the woke leftist subculture of taking away individual liberties and of controlling individual behaviour. Don't fall for their scam. This is not about the climate, it's about wealth transfer and control of the population.
There is ALWAYS a 20% in any poll ever that goes with the most implausible option. This is the absolute baseline of polling.
if you've grown up in the Americas or Europe for the past few hundred years, you know much of the population believes, or at least pretends to believe, a Bronze age god from the Middle East made a virgin pregnant, and this bastard saved humanity by getting Himself crucified in Caesar's Roman Empire... Facing reality is not an inherited talent of the masses
But wont someone think of the poor billionaire and beautiful share holders??
After all, money is going to matter when we're all dead
Three important hopeful facts:
1) We outnumber them.
2) Phase two has always been followed by phase three, where legislation and change happens.
3) The economics favour renewables, the economics almost always win in the end.
We don’t use whale oil anymore, not because we exterminated all the whales, but because it was displaced by something better. Oil is dead already, the industry knows that, it knows this is its death rattle, all it can do is slow down change and eek out the profits for as long as possible, they can’t stop it. Phase two will work, but only to keep some politicians in some countries dragging their heels. And as those countries fall further behind their clean energy neighbours (I’m looking at you England), their residents will start to question the choices of their leaders.
A 4th hopeful point: change will be exponential. It looks too slow at the moment because we’re at the start of the curve and looking at it with brains that expect it to be linear, but the curve will take off and then we’ll look back at this time and realise things were already better than we realised.
I had to laugh out loud when you said "...successful channels too" @3:00. You're producing great content, Simon, and I hope you will be able to keep doing this.
I’ve recently started to see an even stranger kind of denial.
That “The ocean temperature is warming but it’s due to increased heat coming from the earths core”
I think this was as a response due to the unexpectedly high sea temperature in the North Atlantic last year.
Maybe they are wrong maybe not
Creative Society mathematical model, 22 November 2022 'our survival is in unity' (first hour video)
pls no :'(
I think that would be classified under the 'old denial' discussed in this video. The old denial is still very much around, and the wackadoo stuff they come up with would be fascinating if it weren't so exasperating. One 'theory' that emerged around 2010 and is still bandied about in the most extreme circles today is that the sun is made of electricity ('the electric universe') and that the GHG effect isn't real because thermodynamics is wrong - yes, denialists would rather believe batshit so crazy it undermines all of physics just to avoid the conclusion that our CO2 is causing heating of the Earth/atmosphere. That is how desperate they are, it is insane.
Douglas Vogt was a great scientist
and he did quite a lot of studies about the 12.000 years cycles
@@jacobcoburn7634
Few months ago Ben (Suspicious Observer) said:
the climate war is started
scientists vs scientists 😲
Talking about 'living in a bubble'.... most worrying are the 'you's', the ones so utterly content and convinced of themselves being right, it does not occur to them it is actually themselves who could be wrong. The danger in that is that they are certain 'something' needs to be done about the people that are wrong (in their eyes). And we have seen some scary examples of that already on Covid for instance.
the problem that i saw from this debacle personally is an aversion of these so called scientist to admit that "We don't know, at least yet"
that the data that has been collected is not enough yet to predict such an extreme change with a certain degree of confidence.
how do we know that this upward trend in temperature will be keep going upward until earth explode into smithereens, or it is just a small uptick inside a downward trend?
combine that with havard going absolute bonker with academia fraud, pushing papers not based on truth but political agenda
how can people NOT become skeptics with all of this. especially after covid debacle......
"Do you see this? This is a snowball🗿"
He should have gone with chewbacca
I first noticed this trend in constantly changing the argument against climate change about 15 years (maybe more) ago.
The trends of climate change science has changed rather s lot also
@@shane_2337Because there isn’t a reliable trend. Trying to predict such complex systems years in advance is absurd and the error bars become massive. It’s too bad so many scientifically naïve people just accept things like cattle.
@@shane_2337 the climate is having a difficult time keeping up with all these rapid changes
Yep they used to say the polar icecaps would be gone and New York City would be under water by 2015
@@rumfordc that was eventually moved to 2020, dont know what it is now LOL
It saddens me that people that go from climate change denial to doomist actually exist. I feel slightly disgusted by it. But i console myself with the fact that accepting theres a problem is the first step towards fixing that problem.
denialism to doomerism makes sense when you understand that such people aren't at all motivated by a desire to find truth, but instead only seek to justify the desire to minimise (or reverse) change. they don't really care about whether _climate change is happening_ or not; they care about whether or not _they might be asked to do/stop doing anything._
But they would say that it can't be fixed by humans because it wasn't caused by humans - it's just a natural cycle 😂
The deniers never actually believed their nonsense, it's always been a grift to keep things from changing, or in the case of fossil fuel industry, to keep making money.
This is the natural evolution of the grift, if your aim is to make sure nothing has to change, and you can keep making money.
Instead of denying the problem, you say its pointless to even try to solve it.
@@bipolarminddroppings Find me a substitute for fossil fuel, and then we might talk.
Until then, our way of life is so inextricably linked to those, you might as well ask people to stop eating entirely.
@@adriadelafuente3648 you are an example of exactly the attitude the video is about. You’re setting the narrative so high it’s unachievable. Won’t you consider some kind of personal and societal change in behaviour?
Take responsibility, stop being so silly.
Science has NEVER been able to accurately predict future weather patterns. NEVER.
Wow, there was a RUclips commercial from Epoch Times literally denying climate change right in front of your video. How can you allow that?
RUclips doesn't give control over the specific ads played before a video.
Epoch Times deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for that!
The changes to your channel and video production process are really coming through. Keep up the good work Simon, your new videos are popping up organically in my feed. Please stay around!
My father has a new one: "We are at the end of an ICEAGE. And as it's ending, there is nothing we can do."
I was speechless. o.O
We could start nuclear war and cause a nuclear winter?
Maybe you need to do some research and you may find that it has merit.
That's actually an old one, that argument was cycling around the early 2000s when Gore was pushing An Inconvenient Truth
You're speechless about a fact?
Did you know, that an ice age doesn't end until there's no ice on the poles? You do realize that for most of Earth's history ice ages were not, in fact, the "normal" state of climate, right?
@@LecherousLizard Regardless, if you're paddling your ship towards a cliff and some of your shipmates are trying to inflate a life raft, responding with "the tide is going that way anyway 🤷♂️" is not the proper course of action.
It's not "fear of government regulartion", it's ideological opposition to (and hatred of) government regulation. Either by, or originated by, folks who stand to make short-term gains if such regulations are avoided.
Government regulation translates into extra costs, meaning less money in someone's pocket, except the government institution that will receive said funds. No matter your political side, it's either a bureaucratic nightmare or an economic catastrophe for some community. Scientists don't really understand economics, and neither do politicians, so you have a lot of inaction, and finding the right trade-off is still a mystery.
@@Yangmangyou know what I have to say about that? There's plenty more to our lives than line go up. Regulations and protections are a good thing
@@kyle9401 Haha if it were that simple. Regulation and protectionism has gone bad plenty of times throughout history.
@@Yangmang because some have not been good is not an argument against them as a whole.
I am an electrical engineer specialised on electro optics with focus on laser technology. As young Engineer I worked with co2 gas lasers an learned very detailed how co2 interacts with infrared radiation. I can only tell to everyone the climate scientists are totally correct in their forecasts and reasoning. With renewables and storages we can build up a bright sustainable future...no need for doomers
🤯🤯🤯😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫 stimulated emissiin in CO2 laser at 10um is telling you something about spontaneous emission in CO2 gas with central walength around 14um. And also somehow informs you about CO2 gas absorption in low concentration. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. Not funny
Both mindsets are two (extreme) sides of the same coin. The coin being not wanting to change anything about themselves...staying in the comfort zone.
precisely. it's less about climate change, more about desperately searching for reasons to avoid doing or changing anything.
There is only one coin: The ignorance coin. And the two sides are 1. Believing whatever the politicians and the media say must be true 2. When hearing that the ACTUAL science (not the Michael Mann bogus science you guys believe in) says otherwise choosing to ignore it and still believe in whatever the politicians and the media say.
@@soupalexImagine believing humans stand above nature, talk about messiah complex
You forgot to mention nuclear as clean energy. It is, in fact, cleaner than all renewables according to UNECE 2022 report. Half of CO2 of wind power, one fifth of solar. Even better than hydro by a small margin. It also uses less materials than all of them.
didnt forget, purposely omitted.
nuclear is bad for business as usual because it doesnt require require large input from the fossil fuel industry like renewables do.
this is not about co2 or climate at all. its about increasing demand and price of oil.
Except, you know, nuclear reactive waste. People always seem to omit that one very specific point.
@@SleepyMatt-zzz radiatioactive matter on earth is a given. question is where do u want it?
left around the earth randomly by nature or concentrated into underground concrete bunker storage as nuclear waste?
@@echelonrank3927 Radioactive matter exists naturally inside the earth's crust, that's true. As unrefined ore, and in such low concentration to be harmless. Keeping it there has no disadvantages.
Storing radioactive waste in a concrete bunker, however? Building that gets expensive *very* quickly, not to mention the maintenance to keep it intact.
@@shrouddreamer low concentration ! yes. i didnt think of that.
that totally reminds me of THE SOLUTION TO POLLUTION IS DILUTION.
no concrete bunkers anymore.
mix it back with the earth it was extracted from and put it all back.
the ultra mega expensive super massive aircraft hangar size ultra deep underground gold plated diamond encrusted concrete bunkers dont need to exist.
More to the point: the predictions made in the 80's and 90's has been pretty darn accurate. That ought to prove we understand quite a bit. FWIW I object to your misuse of the word "skeptic" at 12:11. Skeptics and deniers are rather different creatures.
To the comment about “if anything, climate scientists tend to *understate* consequences and severity.
I learned in a very good book Uninhabitable Earth that it’s quite common practice,
Because climate scientists have to walk this impossible line; if they actually publish how severe the situation really is,
They’ll be dismissed and cast aside as alarmists.
They have to do this song and dance to avoid being ignored completely.
Thx.. I am a pessimist. Was always doubting if i was a doomer. I do see the 'doom', but i also 'know' that we can do it.. We are smart enough, we can figure this out. But when i look around, my heart simply breaks.I realise that too many people don't realise it enough, because we, as a whole, we don't seem to be concerned about climate change at all.
05:52 there’s a little truth in there…..there are only 2 countries in the entire world that run entirely on renewable energy- they are Iceland and Lesotho (a small African nation). But in both cases they don’t get their energy from renewables like wind and solar. In Lesotho’s case the majority of their power comes from hydroelectric sources (dams). Whereas in Iceland’s case the majority comes from geothermal energy (85%) and the rest coming from, again, hydroelectric. And in both cases the countries are much smaller than the average country and their power demands are lower than say the UK’s.
The idea that the U.K. could just switch to renewable sources like wind or solar and be fine is laughable. They are both intermittent sources of energy and constantly need to be backed up by other sources of power. With the UKs power requirement and it’s limitations on geothermal and hydroelectric sources, nuclear is actually the most environmentally friendly option for us, short of significantly reducing our power requirements.
To be clear I am not a climate change denier. It is clearly happening. But equally I’m not naive enough to believe that wind and solar power is gonna save us.
Exactly, I’m a conservative who isn’t a climate change denier, and Nuclear is the way!
@@scorpionjaxxer339
One can say nuclear is the only way, but I believe, that we can put around 50% of our energy production into renewables, and the rest in hydro powered energy storages, plus nuclear to stabilise the energy peaks and dips that happen throughout the day
Hydro power _is_ a renewable source in exactly the same sense solar and wind are (i.e. it's ultimately driven by the Sun which, at least on a human timescale, will never run out). Not sure if you intended it but your implication is otherwise.
(but in general I agree - short of some big advance in storage technology or perhaps fairly radical global energy sharing, nuclear power seems the best bet. Of course the way we currently run things in the UK, it likely won't happen quickly enough - Hinkley C for instance has been in the works since 2008 and won't start producing power until _at least_ 2029)
but there are more and more countries that run more and more and even mostly on renewables and considering that the technology is so new thats impressive as hell.
If you go nuclear you are still dependent on mostly autocratic regimes. You can see in the case of Germany where that can lead to. But even if thats none of your concern. Look at the building times and cost estimations of current nuclear power plants. They are all much more expensive and take way too long to build. Just look at Hinkley Point C if you need a close example. And this is not only the case for the large plants like the one mentioned, but the smaller versions like SMRs all mirror the issues of their bigger brothers. This will ulitmately result in very expensive electricity costs.
A fully renewable system can work if you not only factor in the production side of things, but also the grid, flexibilities (storage and management) as well as demand as many studies have shown (even for the UK), it just requires investment and political will for change. But as we all know, change is scary (but necessary).
I’m only 20.. so sick and tired of hearing about all the bad news about climate change… just want a world to grow up in….. 😢
You have one. Grow up and when you're 80 you will come to your senses and realize that the climate is OK and the real threat are the people in this comment section and the media that deludes them.
Too bad, you won't have one because the ultra-rich will hide in bunkers, on yachts, or even outside of the Earth's atmosphere instead of doing shit that works.
We have seen the stages of denial at a faster pace during the Covid pandemic:
1. "The problem does not exist."
2. "The problem exists, but it will not affect us."
3. "The problem will affect us, but there is nothing we can do about it."
4a. [if it gets fixed] "We were right, the problem wasn't so bad." (because the measures, which they did not want, worked)
4b. [if not] "We could have done something about it, but it is too late now, let's not point fingers and move on."
The issue that needs to be discussed isn't whether climate change exists (it does by the very nature of the solar system) or whether at least in part it's influenced by human activity (it does affect local systems by tipping the balance in ways that wouldn't occur in nature, thus influencing bigger systems and, over time, the overall structure of Earth's macroclimate itself), but rather two entirely different questions:
1. what are the end consequences of climate change, what would be the end equilibrium (because, again by the physical nature of the solar system, there will be one, eventually) and if it's hospitable or even habitable for human beings
2. what can we do to establish an equilibrium point which does meet these two criteria, while retaining quality of life for the people, as if we ruing QoL short-term for the majority of people we will lose all support for climate engineering, and without that support there's not much we can really do.
The issue isn’t whether it’s happening, it’s what can we, or should be doing about it, knowing that there aren’t any solutions, only tradeoffs. So what we should be doing is discussing those tradeoffs honestly and not reflexively saying we should do anything and everything about it.
Hard agree. That’s why the word predicament is apt here.
Nuclear is a good example. Safe nuclear requires stable cooling centers. Given that climate change is actively happening, I am against more nuclear as I believe it will only cause more problems once they are subjected to extreme heat or weather, then we have climate change and radiation
@@clairbear1234 At first I disagreed with you, but I looked into it and found an assessment of the risks nuclear plants will face - now it was like 125 pages so I grabbed a summary but basically said that floods, storms, heat waves, and droughts have already started to affect their operation and if the water temperature increases, its efficiency goes down. Adaptation is necessary for them to function and costs extra to install new things and analyze; however, inaction will likely cost more. In my opinion, there are areas of the world that really need to start on building nuclear resources now and methodically building so they are relatively future-proof, because this year we saw a spike in emissions from hydropower plants shutting down from drought. Also, nuclear plants are held to a much higher standard than coal plants, and actually put out less radiation than coal ash.
Thank you for taking the time to look into it. I think that is what is lacking now. People have a cursory understanding of something and then run with it- so it’s good to question ourselves.
I just fear that nuclear meltdowns are highly likely the more unstable out climate inevitably becomes, and as you point of, the more other forms of electric fail, such as hydro, the more we are currently falling back on things like coal and then making the climate more unstable, making more sources of energy unstable, untenable. It’s a vicious cycle
@@clairbear1234 I'm hoping that very soon, we'll have tangible results with geo-engineering that'll give us the fighting chance to build renewable infrastructure, because right now I'm worried about El Niño bringing record highs and making more places move back to coal
But that'd require giving the other side a forum to speak. As you can clearly learn from this video, the only thing this channel advocates for is complete censorship of any opposing voices, while calling them idiotic names like "climate deniers".
There is a direct relationship between the extent to which one is informed on issues pertaining to humanity's 'overshoot' of our planetary boundaries and the extent to which one is prone to pessimism about the future.
Unfortunately, climate change is only one of many aspects of this overshoot (others include soil degradation, collapse of insect numbers, collapse of fish stocks, severe pollution of land sea and air, poor management of fresh water, habitat loss, mass extinction of wild species, increasing pandemic vulnerability, worrying population projections, proliferation of PFAs and micro-plastics, decreasing mineral and fertiliser availability, the persistence of new bird flu strains and their devastating effect on the poultry industry etc, etc) and it is the combination of all of these impacts - together with our quite severe global economic and energy-related challenges, that have led the well informed to their somewhat bleak outlook. And that's before you even consider the tense geopolitical landscape, the seemingly unstoppable rise of the hard right, and the impact of rapidly developing use of AI in all aspects of our lives.
Even climate scientists can be prone to myopia on the big picture issues. They are used to viewing the world though a narrow lens and this can impede their ability to see the bigger picture. A climate scientist might, for example, suggest that we have decades before the worst climate impacts are witnessed, which may be true according to some models, but this belies the fact that the climate is only one of a myriad of issues that threaten our way of life. I find that systems experts and those from more generalised academic disciplines tend to be the ones who see things most clearly, as they seem adept at 'joining the dots' in the way that is necessary to truly understand the perilous state of our predicament.
The 'doomer' movement is growing with every failed COP, and now includes some very eminent scientists. Alternatively, the likes of Michal Mann, Hannah Ritchie and others who refuse to accept our predicament are now in a minority and their pleas, like your own, are sounding increasingly plaintive against the backdrop of relentlessly bleak news and data. And it hasn't escaped our attention that climate scientists are increasingly reporting that the pace of climate change (eg ocean warming) is taking them by surprise - making their previous models and predictions look somewhat optimistic, to say the least. As Zeke Hausefather recently stated; 'it appears as if we have shifted to a new paradigm of rapid warming'.
There have been a significant number of scientific articles and reports in recent years that have highlighted the extent to which the latest data is puzzling scientists. What was thought to have been a slow process is, in fact, racing away from us at breakneck speed. Whilst some suggest El Ninho may be to blame, most reject that its impact could be so dramatic. Whatever the reason, I, for one, expect that trend to continue, and even accelerate, and I see no value in clinging to the hope that our (hitherto ineffective) governments will suddenly see sense, untether themselves from fossil fuel interests and act rapidly and purposefully on this issue. Let us face it...that is simply not going to happen. Rather, the methods that have been used so effectively to date (misinformation, the systematic undermining of science and scientists, the use of funds to 'buy' political influence etc) will be ramped up and will result in further political inertia until we finally enter a collapse phase.
It doesn't take much research to expose the 'green transition' as a myth. Electricity accounts for but 20% of our collective energy needs, the rest is fossil fuel-powered. The airline industry, shipping, steel, the pharmaceutical industry, concrete and a myriad of other industries still rely on fossil fuels and their bi-products with no viable alternatives in sight. And with what do we replace our reliance on plastics in manufacturing? Siloed climate scientists are all too often unaware of these problems.
As for 'doomers'. They are simply people who have read widely, understand, and recognise the severity of these complex and multifarious challenges, and refuse to countenance denial as a means of dealing with our predicament.
Pretending things are not as bad as they are is disempowering people from making the kind of sensible decisions that might give them a chance at surviving climate chaos by becoming more resilient. A person who is of the view that things are 'in hand' and governments still have time to respond will not act with due urgency by taking control of their own food, water and energy needs. It's time to face facts....Our governments are not going to solve this problem, no fix-all technology is on the horizon and things are going to get very bad, very quickly. Let's be grown up and start having this difficult, but necessary conversation.
I knew this would happen when I was still in high school. People will do everything they can to say it’s not real or not a problem up until the point it becomes inconvenient where they will then say we shouldn’t do anything because the outcome is unchangeable.
Well that wasn't hard to predict. They lied for money until their position was untenable, then fell back to another position and continued to lie for money.
These people should be taken behind the shed.
Did you know, that mainstream media (back then pretty much only the press) was touting "impending global warming" trumpet all the way in 1890s? Did you know that the mainstream media peddled impending ice age in 1978?
I wonder which people "should be taken behind the shed".
The climate is changing because that is what it has always done. C02 levels in the atmosphere is just 0.043% a tiny fraction yet absolutely vital for plant life and humans contribute to just 3% of that tiny amount. I the past C02 levels have been 1,000 times higher and the planet still went into an ice age. BTW We are in an ice age right now, we are between glaciations but we are in an ice age never the less and we will be for another 30 to 60 million years and yes the climate will continue to change long after we are gone. Our climate is driven by the seasons of the Sun big surprise for some I know but true non the less.
@@MegaDavyk Both water vapor and CO2 are responsible for global warming, and once we increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans warm up, which inevitably triggers an increase in water vapor.
It’s called a positive feedback loop
@@MegaDavykwe are supposed to be getting colder we are getting hotter
Stop saying Kermit The Propagandist's name! You're gonna f up my algorithm!
That's so relatable 🤦♀️😂
The issue I have with government policies is that it more about appearing you’re doing something and less about a policy that is having the biggest impact on climate change. In Australia. Home battery systems paired with solar panels would make a bigger impact on climate change than a push to EV’s. 9 x 10kw home batteries would have a bigger impact on CO2 emissions then 1 Tesla model S with a 90kw battery. Until battery technology improves EV’s in Australia in anyplace other then the cities make little sense. I believe that would be the case in most other countries as well.
The other issue is the policy makers are penalising those that least can afford it, to meet the targets. When you have the majority of your population that can’t afford a EV or want one. Or when people see all the wind turbines go up and the solar farms being built and their electricity bills get more expensive. What do you think people are going to care about?
If renewables are cheaper why is the price of electricity going up? ( yes I am aware of all the variables that go into the price of power, it’s not just the running cost) The point is the every day person only sees their point of view and what they see is going green is making everything more expensive.
You should make a difference between the impact that individuals have vs industries and governments. Individuals can have an impact, but it is not by recycling and composting, it's mainly by voting and pushing policies in governments and companies.
Given the past decades and the current situation, I believe that a future in which we as humanity have not sufficiently combated anthropogenic climate change is plausible. In the vast majority of cases, economic, political and territorial interests take precedence over efforts to save the climate. More realistic is a future in which countries adapt to a rapidly warming planet or simply endure the consequences of climate change, with populations forced to adapt according to the circumstances.
Yep. And in most of those worlds, the people are still better off than us now, because economic growth and technological progress are still things.
I guess as long as the concept of nation exist climate change will always be secondary to national interest
There once was a man named Can't...he was unable to accomplish anything.
I'm a chemistry undergraduate, and I've even heard this sentiment echoed by my lecturers - albeit more climate pessimism than doomism. His feeling was that the British gov doesnt think things will be that bad for us, in spite of the evidence. He believed we wouldnt succeed not because it wasnt possible, but because he couldnt see the political will to do something about it changing fast enough. He still emphasised that we should try, but still it's not a great thing to hear from your renewable energy professor 😅. Here's hoping hes wrong!
Like most things... nothing will change unless legal policies change... 80% of americans were against invading iraq and it didn't do shit. Money. It's always about money, as long as our system runs on self interest.