The Biggest Myth About Climate Change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 сен 2022
- Check out America Outdoors Understory on @PBS : • Can Surfing Survive Cl...
We’re on PATREON! Join the community / itsokaytobesmart
↓↓↓ More info and sources below ↓↓↓
You’ve seen it in the comment section before: “Climate change is natural. It’s happened before and it will keep happening”. In reality, comments like these are the newest kind of climate change denial. In this video we’re going to learn about all the reasons that Earth’s climate changes, natural and otherwise, and then how we know that modern climate change can’t be blamed on natural forces. Maybe we can finally put this biggest myth about climate change in the trash.
SUBSCRIBE so you don’t miss a video! ►► bit.ly/iotbs_sub
-----------
High fives to all our Brain Trust Patrons:
NullBlox.ZachryWilsn
paul andre bouis
Mark Littlehale
Ali Freiburger
Mehdi Damou
Barbora Bei
Attila Pix
Burt Humburg
Roy Lasris
dani bowman
David Johnston
Salih Arslan
Baerbel Winkler
Robert Young
Eric Meer
Dustin
Karen Haskell
Join us on Patreon!
/ itsokaytobesmart
Twitter
/ drjoehanson
/ okaytobesmart
Instagram
/ drjoehanson
/ okaytobesmart
Merch
store.dftba.com/collections/i...
Facebook
/ itsokaytobesmartpbs
Enjoy this short video about climate change! I'll heart any comment if you can prove you watched the whole thing 🤓
This comment is the proof that I haven't watched it yet but you can give a heart for honesty Joe
Thanks it helped me in my school project.
@@Tanishdutt0007 bruh You are so early there's no way it helped you in any way yet.
Climate change is natural.
@@nishantmanchanda3221 yes
And even if the current warming was completely natural, it would be super stupid to make it worse by continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Or to put it another way, even if we couldn't do anything to make it better, that's certainly no excuse to make it worse.
Yesss, for real.
What do you think is the gas responsible for the greatest part of greenhouse effect on Earth? What's the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, according to you (possibly not what is in the report from the IPCC)? Have you heard of Milankovitch Cycles? what was the temperature in Europe in the XVII century? and in the XI century?
About making it worse, what do you think is the impact of mining (conveniently ignored by the IPCC) to make electric vehicles, wind turbines or, worse, solar panel and batteries? Long term pollution of water bodies, air and soil: congratulations for the solutions you'll bring to a problem that is *mostly* natural.
@@RegisMichelLeclerc only way to stop this so called manmade climate change is to limit one child per couple till population is back down to 80s records
@@girlsdrinkfeck Or replace pension age by execution age and recycle the bodies into Soylent Green? Seriously, plants thrive in CO2-rich atmosphere, not that much in the current 0.04% (that's the official number). In this regard, nuclear plant feed the water cycle, as water vapour is responsible for 98% of the greenhouse effect, Milankovitch Cycles show 41,000-year "main" cycles with global heating alternating with cooling cycles (including ice ages like the one culminating in the XVIIth century when the sea froze). The global heating we see now starting in the XIXth century was expected, and it's only the beginning (those cycles are 1,000 years long, 500 heating and 500 cooling) and the Sun... Well, you would love to have more greenhous effect next winter. Unfortunately, solar winds wipe the clouds and make pressure higher, which makes the air much cooler in winter, therefore incapable of carrying as much water, thus reducing a lot the greenhouse effect: it's going to be freezing this winter, what part do you think will be man-made in solar activity?
By the way, the aforementionned cycles predict that CO2 levels *follow* global warming. Al Gore pretended it was the opposite, while being perfectly aware he was inverting cause and consequence. Ecology is a huge sham, a blatant lie. About mining, the lowest estimates bring the GHGs around 7% of manmade releases of GHGs, but it's more like 20%. The mining industry destroys biotopes, pollutes drinkable water, releases pure poisons in the atmosphere (heard of antimony?). Ask yourself what is better "for the Earth", or even for human: an electric car, or a diesel propelled with vegetable oil (that's how it was initially designed), promoting Agriculture (hemp tends to capture a lot of carbon from the atmosphere)? Continue drilling for "natural gas" to support the lack of wind in winter (high pressures from Siberian anticyclones don't help too much, and the Sun is too low in winter to produce anything anyway because the energy is fully absorbed by the atmosphere), or invest into biogas from the fermentation of dung and promote breeding cattle? Choose your solution wisely before pretending you're fixing a non-existent problem with lethal "solutions".
@@RegisMichelLeclerc Don't reply with such a misleading comment especially when the video itself addresses almost everything you thought you were clever enough to bring up
Anyone, everyone in fact, that had decided the science is done has already abandoned science in favor of politics.
The science is clear: Man made climate change is a fact.
The only uncertainly left in the science is how bad the effect will be.
But the science is also says we can't take the risk to wait for the science to become more precise.
Anyone that says we should do nothing is deliberate ignoring all the science for the sake of short term convenience.
And what we actually do about it is inherently political.
They've been saying this for over 50 years. The ozone, a coming ice age, al gore saying by 2016 the coast will be underwater and most recently aoc saying we only have 12 years back in 2018
@@earthsurgery1237 it only needs to happen once after tipping point reaches... Many islands are already under water
And oceans did grow by 400 feet after last glacial maximum
Go read the story of great flood in ur bible and every other culture... Where do u think that water came from?
@@themanof oh yeah. How about the Cayman islands
I DEMAND physical proof
Turning climate change into a political debate is probably one of the smartest things the oil corporations have ever done. It's really working out for them
My windows were frozen this morning do you have any advice on this problem.
@@woodchipgardens9084 plug your car's exhaust into your HVAC system and start it up, that should warm up your house pretty quick
@@lordthicknipples-gt2oq my house and car have working heaters but i just cant stop the windows from freezing overnight because of global warming.
@@woodchipgardens9084 hmm. That's a tough one. Maybe try the COVID vaccine, I hear it gives you a third ass cheek and makes you impervious to cold weather. Personally, the vaccine gave me a third eye... but it's in my belly button. I use it to freak people out at parties and also to look up girl's shirts, but that's just between you and me
@@woodchipgardens9084 Yeah, there is something wrong. Don't know what it is but I would advice seeking help.
Natural processes are working and will always keep working unless the earth stops rotating.
If the Earth stops rotating, *still* natural processes would be working. Why not?
@@enderwiggin1113 Dumest thing I ever heard, you should consider deleting that.
honestly love the way you talk about this
"the people who discovered how the climate naturally changes over time are climate scientists, the same group of people who discovered the climate change we're currently facing is human caused." is kind of a connection that should be obvious but it really hits different when spoken out loud.
kind of a fun realization seeing how the reason the example comment at the start of the video knows about it in the first place are the same people he's trying to use that argument against.
This is actually a mistake in the video. Exxon found out about climate change more than 40 years ago. Climate scientist later on simply researched further into it.
Haha, I was actually thinking this as he was speaking about the first myth.
@@Ashitaka255 exept Milankovitch Cycles are some misleading informations like it was only in some parts of europe was short time changing climate it was warm not only in europe in XI century was so warm that wikings make farming colony on greenland in XI century was global warmig that way greenland has name greenland after wiking left because get much colder after in XVII century it was so cold that they call it litle ice age He also downplay influence of volcanos on climate 1815 Mount Tambora eruption and year 1816 was call Year Without a Summer far over 100,000 people died worldwide from hunger. And Politics who shout about global warming buying big mansions for tens of milions dolars on florida beach which supose to be soon under water... florRegis-Michel Leclerc make good point about electric vehicles, wind turbines or, worse, solar panel and batteries? Long term pollution of water bodies, air and soil. I add to this that electrity to charge electric cars is made from fossil fuels and we dont have electric grid to charge many milions of electric cars also will be milions tons of toxic waste from bateries and solar panels we need clean way to store energy when sun is not shining and no wind even industry still use fossil fuels only way we can now produce clean energy is atomic electric plant it produce small amount toxic waste which can be safe to store and is even safer than wind turbines including charnobyl and fukushima its lest dead for megawat than any other electric plants. but warriors with global warming want to close atomic electric plants.....
Find this actually to be a bad argument, can't use truth in an argument because both were discovered by scientist? And you think its a good argument?
@@kmoses582 Did you even watch the video? The argument is that the climate scientists, being the ones who discovered the natural cycles in the first place, already took them into account when coming to the conclusion that the current climate change crisis is man-made.
I've not got an issue with is it us or isn't it. I have an issue with us being told we need to be more "Carbon neutral" BUT the politicians don't actually do anything about it, they just take more money and MOVE the carbon footprint to another country to then say that we are doing out bit.
that is a very valid concern. we need governments to take this disaster seriously and make real efforts to restore our planet and prevent the further destruction of it. we must make them change
I get what you mean. I think that we definitly do have responsibility and should all try to reduce carbon since significant change can only happen if most people participate. It obviously is frustrating to see governments and companies to continue as before though, or also seeing rich people blast a bunch of CO2 into the athmosphere for a 10 minute trip with their private jets.
Those are really significant factors that need to change, too, not just the general population.
But the sad reality is that if you are wealthy and got power in this system, you will suffer less than many others that are less privileged and for example will have to leave their homes and countries or die as a result of climate change if we don't act now.
Great, recent example which has angered a lot of people in germany:
Just last month, a german company called RWE demolished a village called Lützerath in order to dig for estimated 280 million tons of carbon beneath it.
They persuaded the people living there into selling their homes to them, and even though they got compensated, many felt pressured into that decision and aren't happy with it now. Lützerath also stopped getting supported by things like good public transport, kindergardens or supermarkets in order to make living there even less attractive.
The government of northrhine-westphalia (the german state which Lützerath belonged to) allowed the demolishion after making deals with RWE.
After harsh criticism, they started telling the population that we would need that carbon because of the energy crisis in correlation to the war in Ukraine, which is opposed by scientific institutes. Germsny actually managed to stop being dependent on russian oil, carbon and gas and stopped buying those in the beginning of 2023. We have enough reserves, too.
Furthermore, the government acts like it's okay to demolish Lützerath because RWE has to leave the other villages in that area alone, like that's a fair compromise. Lützerath is even treated as a symbol for climate protection, which ignores the fact that it's more than that and that the decision has an actual impact. Our planet doesn't care about such compromises and symbols though, and even if we only use the carbon below Lützerath, germany still won't be able to meet the goals of the paris agreement on climate goals from 2015.
Protesters occupied the village over multiple years but got evacuated by the police this january as a order of the government, so RWE can get to work. During the evacuation, 35.000 people also went there to protest. Police violence took place and the single officers didn't have individual numbers to be identifiable but instead only had group numbers, which makes it even harder to sue an officer for violence (besides the fact that it's already extremely hard to get justice when you literally have to go to the police for that).
Companies such as RWE really try to profit as much off of carbon until they finally _have_ to stop in 2030, instead of taking responsibility asap and actually starting to reduce the use of carbon and extendimg climate friendly, renewable energy sources as much as possible.
And our government protects these companies instead the future of humanity.
We all need to start working together to solve this problem, or at least reduce the consequences as much we still can in order to protect this planet, but sadly it doesn't look too good.
@@astradose I think if ALL Governments around the world stopped using private jets for their meetings and just used the internet, that alone would be a saving worth more than millions of people turning off a light or TV or doing 1 less trip in the car. If they want us to start, they need to start showing some real concern at the top, because what they're saying doesn't match with anything they're doing. Like buying up all the cheap properties by the sea where they have scared off the residents. Doesn't seem quite right that after saying we'll be under water in 12 years. They're either lying to us or know something we don't. And for someone like Obama to buy that property for millions is a kick in the teeth.
@@Denzanmaru1 With a name like "Rain" I would be surprised if you _didn't_ think like that.
Were your Mom and Dad hippies?
@@astradose Do you actually believe that adding to a wisp of a trace gas, by a hundred parts per _million_ or so will cause a climate catastrophe?
If so... Your Indoctrination is Complete.
Carry on.
Climate change is a natural process impacted by human activity. However, the challenge lies in the fact that it's often more socially, politically, and economically advantageous to portray Earth's destruction as solely caused by humans to incentivize financial support for prevention efforts.
Nooo, they're taking money away from the poor billionaire oil companies 😢
Natural factors alone would actually result in cooling currently.
co-friendly building practices, integrating energy-efficient designs and materials, contribute substantially to reducing the carbon footprint of construction, heralding a shift toward more sustainable infrastructure.
Ignorance in itself is not a major problem. It becomes a major problem when combined with arrogance.
Yes! I call that “weaponized ignorance” 😂
Ignorence + social media = major problem.
@@PeterAden ignorance *
Ignorance*arrogance + Social Media + Conspiracy bubble = Mass Movement of Arrogance*Ignorance = Biggest problem
The biggest problem that many people just comment whatever is in their heads without thinking for a second whenever it's really true. It often takes just 10 seconds to Google to find an answer, but many simply skipping that step...
As long as money runs the world, it will always be about money.
Um, no. This simply does not follow. I'm sure you can think about *a lot* of things which are *not* about money yourself.
@@enderwiggin1113to be fair it IS a lot about money.
@@Joseph-vt5um So what....? Somehow deniers always miss that there's *FAR* more money in big industry and fossil fuels. Following the logic of the OP, one should not believe them a single thing.
@enderwiggi The Earth cools down after every sunset and warms with every sunrise, the degrees depend on weather and wind patterns not hunan activity, human activity polution gets wiped out by natural processes, human activities do not impact the atmospheric systems.
SPAMMER
or the people who say: it was really cold the other day, so much for global warming…
Or the numerous scientists who have been calling it bunk for decades, and demonstrating it with facts and evidence that no one disputes.
When the chemicals that were found to be causing the hole in the ozone layer, we had only really been using them on mass for maybe 50 or 60 years, now most of that damage has been reversed because we took action. We’ve been pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere for much longer and it much higher quantities Than any of the chemicals involved in damaging the ozone layer, so it’s completely understandable that we have caused this. However, unlike the air-conditioning industry, the fossil fuel industry is probably the wealthiest, most powerful and most politically connected than any other industry on earth and of course they don’t want the gravy train to stop chugging. The saddest part about all of this is, even Margaret Thatcher, the absolute darling to conservatives who tend to oppose climate change was completely bought into the fact that man-made climate change was occurring and that something needed to be done about it. And that was in the bloody 80s. Plus, most of the people who use the climate is always changing argument. Still seem to be the people saying that we should make no preparations as a species for the changes that is happening, okay, even if the sea levels weren’t rising because of us or storms weren’t getting worse because of us, you still advocate doing absolutely nothing. That’s how you know they are bad faith actors
Volcanos gave us atmosphere and will never go away.
Accurate coners4430
why would we care what a politician from the 80s thought? Thatcher? uhhh
You might be surprised that like the endless nonsense about the climate the same can be said about the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica. Ozone is produced around the equator (heat breaks down O2) it then is spread by winds around the planet. It was well known that the amount of Ozone changes seasonally at the Poles. The conspiracy was due to Dupont losing the patent on CFCs. They organised a " scientific paper" discussing the non issue and had them banned while they came up with a new hard to manufacture gas. Very clever but very crooked. It cost companies a lot of money to change over!
The storms are the same, we have the www. More coverage, so these disasters are more known not more frequent.
It's like throwing something at the ground as hard as you can and then arguing "I didn't smash it, gravity is natural, everything is pulled down"
edit: well that analogy as good as it sounds isn't really useful if you don't already know how the whole thing works. So it's not gonna be useful in convincing anyone that disagrees.
more accurately it'd be more like the lights were out when it happened, with lots of people hearing it, and the smashed to pieces object laying on the floor with the suspected person suspiciously standing next to it, so based on the circumstances and the broken object all it can be infered that this exact thing happened, all the evidence is there and good enough to put together an accurate pictuer, but *technically* no one did "see" it happen.
It's a good analogy both in terms of equivilance of what's happening and what kinds of information are missing but it's not gonna be useful in convincing anybody.
A much more convincing argument would be what joe repeated in this video a bunch:
"The field of science that told you about how earth's climate naturally changes over time is the same field of science that says the climate changes we're currently experiencing are absolutely caused by human activity. It's all climate scientists. They didn't just selectively forget about it, the natural shifts are already being accounted for."
Incorrect. You can prove that you threw something.
Oh good one. I've never thought of this analogy.
@@yourcrazybear
And we can prove that we've added a lot of unnatural stuff to the atmosphere, or rather the same stuffs but at an extremely unnatural rate.
It's measurable, it's demonstrable, it's probably been shown to you countless times before already. This is literally addressed within the first 3 minutes of the video ffs.
Stop denying reality.
Also, stop liking your own comments. It's just sad.
@@osmosisjones4912 Carbon and Oxygen are in fossil fuels that's why they release Carbondioxide
@@osmosisjones4912 Dear estimate, that's the point of the carbon cycle. Natural sources release and absorb carbon constantly, absorbing more carbon dioxide that it release, so forest, ocean etc. are natural sinks of carbon dioxide. The problem is us, humans, release more than the ecosystem can absorb so it continues adding up during years and years. The CO2 ppm of the atmosphere was practically constant during the last thousands of years (all of them in human era), about 270 ppm. From 1750 to 1950 it rised to 310 ppm aprox, from 1950 to nowadays it has escalted to 410 ppm aprox. We are reaching levels not seen for 20 millions years ago. Best regards.
It's also worth noting that modern humans were able to develop in the way we did because the climate was stable for a relatively long period of time. We rely on that stable climate to continue our current existence and further development. If we wish to create our perfect home and stick to it, we really need to do what we can to keep a stable climate (and also keep a healthy level of biodiversity). Our activities have a huge impact on the systems we depend on for our existence and it's shocking to me that the oceans have masked that impact for some time. It goes to show how much of a difference we made in barely 250 years time. Shifting baseline syndrome makes it harder to really see what's going on, so education is key.
Just note that the oceans always absorb a lot of heat, it's not so much that they are masking it but rather a normal part of the process considering their thermal capacity
@@123FireSnake Ok, uhmm, why the fck are the storms getting stronger year by year if there's no accelerated climate change?
@@123FireSnake unfortunately that absorbed heat will cause its own problems. The deepest waters are actually still warming from the temperature they were cooled to tens of thousands of years ago, meanwhile the topmost parts of the ocean are warming so much that the buoyancy difference will have a large effect on ocean currents and anything dependent on them, anoxic zones may develop, native organisms will have hard times staying in their original habitat, and coastal areas will experience different weather. Europe likely will become cooler and dryer because the gulf stream will continue weakening.
Well, you can`t stop climate chaos. Tell me how you plan to control the Sun, asteroids, sea currents, evolution, changes in natural systems, or the certainty of more catastrophic volcanic eruptions like 536 A.D. or "The Year Without A Summer"? So would you prefer warmth or freezing cold?
@@baneverything5580 It's not about controlling everything. It's about taking a look at history and manage risks. We know what happens when we burn fossil fuels and we know this disrupts the stable climate that allowed us to get where we are in the first place. So lets fix that and at least not shoot ourselves in the foot. Indeed, a lot of factors are out of our control. We shouldn't try to control everything, but it can't hurt to look at possible risks and see how we can make the best of it.
I cant find the sources in the description. Can anybody help me?
It's mostly from NASA. Just ask for specific things, I'm glad to help.
@@enderwiggin1113 thanks! I wanted some references on what he says at 2:43 "every climate model factors in these natural forces... the only way to get climate models is to add in all the stuff that humans are doing to the climate". It's very well explained and wanted to read a bit more about it.
NASA 'Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change (1850-2018) '
and 'Is Current Warming Natural?'
@@enderwiggin1113 thanks!
an important question for all viewers of this regardless of what side you believe is “what piece of data or evidence would cause you to change your mind?”
A single piece? Certainly not. Science does not work this way.
A good start would be a climate model which reproduces the observations *that* well like the ones with have, but without human factors.
What's your *own* answer to your question?
over the last few years i have flipped back and forth several times as i come across different evidence and perspectives that cause me to rethink my stance. at the moment i’m undecided, focusing on building myself and my business first. maybe one day ill put forth the effort to form a sagacious opinion. as of now, it’s not that big of a deal for me atm
one thing i would be very interested in though is how the temperature measurements are being taken, by whom, where, when. that’s probably what i’d look into first
@@conrad8968 Well, just look at the websites of the metereological services. They explain this in great detail.
Proof I watched the whole video: "America Outdoors: Under story"
I have a friend who believes climate change and temperature increasing is natural. I was unable to convince him why that's wrong. I just shared this video with him. Hopefully he watches it and changes his mind.
Thanks for this great video!
Check out my comments on this video. There are plenty. Global warming is a hoax perpetrated upon the unlearned by people who want to gain power and are willing to use other people to get there.
Yeau send him a flat earth video too, maybe you'll convince him.
"Hurrr, durrr, climate has never changed naturally before." I trust science that there is evidence and proof of, such as the historical record that we can check. I don't trust people who call themselves "the science" as they speculate about a "possible" future, yet the are PROVEN WRONG, over and over again. How many times have they said certain cities would be under water, by now? They always act like something major is going to happen within 10 years if we don't act quickly to give them more power, right away!
It's not about the climate. It's about control. They want to have another method of controlling (and taxing) the people. It should be very clear to anyone who looks at it.
Sure, do your best to avoid polluting, but don't trust the same clowns who call water vapor and carbon dioxide (what we exhale) greenhouse gases that need to be taxed.
update? did he change his mind?
I doubt it worked.. nothing here to prove.
The first rule of science: IT'S NEVER THAT SIMPLE.
oh yes it is: you're the problem. Now pay more taxes and more for your energy. period
@@philosophicaltool5469 No
This is not simple. I've taken courses in meteorology, planetology and planetary science and everything here is included. More detail can be given on all of these which are based on physics included spectroscopy, atomic physics and quantum field theory. One thing left out is the feedback process of the melting of polar ice. Ice reflects 75 percent of the sunlight while water only 4 to 40 percent depending on the angle of sunlight. Water absorbs more light so the more than the north polar ice cap melts, the warmer it gets in that region due to more surface area of water and less ice. It is important to know that it's not just science, but physics. Meteorology and Climatology are based on physics, chemistry, geology, geochemistry which is chemistry and geology, oceanography, spectroscopy which is based on atomic physics and quantum field theory, astrophysics and astronomy. This video does have the correct physics.
Why pay more taxes? To finance the elephant in the room aka the military industrial complex?
@@philosophicaltool5469 aaaaaaand you prove his point
I have been landscaping in philadelphia for 40 years. The first 25 or so were the same season started mid april ran till mid october. Then it started around april 1st and ran till halloween....I started this season 3 days ago.....third time in the last 6 years i had to start in mid march....i now finish around mid november last year it was the 18th.....the season is around 6 to 8 weeks longer then it used to be....just so you know i am apolitical......what i am saying is not to support a political view. I am simply stating a fact. The climate is changing and i know it because it has affected my vocation. Also there always used to be a part of the season around late july where there was a break in the action due to high temps and lack of rain....the lawns would turn brown. That doesn't happen anymore
because there is more rain......the lawns don't brown out and stop growing. Its a different world out there now.Things are changing. Just saying.
The video is about the question what *causes* this change.
There was never a time when it wasn't changing, and there never will be.
@@emergentform1188 Right. Your point? That's climatology 101.
As I said: the video is about the *cause* of the change.
0:18 Yeah, about that... Ok so, I am NOT a science educator, I am a science defender. Secondly, whenever I come across someone like that, I ask them what they do for work, and then I BADLY misinterpret their field of work or inject a random (and made up on the spot) conspiracy theory just to see how they'll react. You know, feed them their own BS. Or sometimes I will ask them how they know about palm trees in Antarctica. How do they KNOW about the Milankovitch cycles? How do they know what Mars looks like (just seeing an orange dot in the sky wouldn't be enough for them). Any idea how we know? Scientists. I essentially show them that they're using science information as a pick and choose smorgasbord to defend their agenda or misconception. Some people will RAIL against science using their hand held electronic devices, connected to a worldwide network - all things that were created thanks to science.
OK, I confess, guilty as charge, in that I used to be a global warming skeptic!
But that was based largely on my ignorance in regard to the subject of climate change.
So videos like yours help address said ignorance.
Great video!
Bravo educating yourself! To me, being a smart/nice/good person more about educating yourself and improving your compassion and awareness then anything we’ve done or believed previously :)
The smartest thing they did was rebranding it "Climate change" instead of "global warming" Because I'd still be skeptical of "Global warming" but it's undoubtable that humans have contributed to climate change. It also slowly allows us to talk more about the enviroment (oceans and more) that humans have interacted with as well instead of worrying about a single variable.
@@Kinglink a fart can be considered climate change, so it was a cool rebranding to continue the panic
A lot of people are willing to learn so the fact that you were willing to like tells a lot and I respect that
@@Kinglink you mean the most evil and manipulative thing they did? sure...
It's also worth remembering that natural isn't harmless. Even if we found a "natural" cause to climate change (yes, I know we won't) we'd still have to do something because it would still be making the planet unlivable. Most mass extinction events come with massive climate change, not just the Great Dying.
The Oxygen Catastrophe also featured very successful life changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, causing massive climate change, and being unable to survive in the new world of it's own making so humans can't even be special about that. I mean, we're doing it faster. But we're still not the first.
Remember, cyanide is natural.
I wonder if the Quadrillions/Quintillions of Archaea/Bacteria were thinking their environment was just cooling off a bit; they were not dying of in the next few thousand generations. There was still plenty of room and carbon dioxide for photosynthesis; what did it matter other lifeforms were dying off. That seems to be the mentality if some of these people. Or Worse they think God will just fix it for them or The Rapture will occur where they magically get teleported to Heaven. Now I will not argue whether God exist; but I doubt the Abrahamic God meant for us to Ravage the Earth beyond habitability.
A city being flooded by a near by river is natural. Yet people don't like their cities being flooded even if its natural.
well if you havent figured out by now that mainstream lies constantly on just about everything for profits, then theres no hope for you. you could take all the greenhouse gases away and the climate will still change because this big sphere we are on is rotating on its axis and true north is migrating at the rate of 50 miles per year towards siberia, and the earth is only 8500 miles in circumference, whats 8500 divided by 50? since we have learned about pole shifts in the last 50 years how long do you think we have been slowly rotating on our axis? it doesnt mean we are going to get destroyed or anything, we have been goin nice and slow so far, and if it keeps up we will be fine, but eventually cold areas will move into warm ones and warm areas will move in to cold ones, like maine will end up were florida for an example, so ya the climate is going to change no matter what, scientist were talking about this 40 years ago, do even realize that 2/3 ds of the land in the world is empty. now i dont know if you follow elon musk, but he claims that the 7.9 billion we have now could fit in the size of new york, so the world is really under populated, not to mention that only 4 countries or so that have a less then 1% birth rate, the other 150+ countries have more deaths then births, so we arent really getting bigger, that is coming to an end, we will actually start going down in numbers. i dare you to check for yourself, a scientist that has studied the weather for over 70 years says the average temp hasnt increased or decreased more then 6 degrees in the last 100 years, hardly sounds like much global warming to me, i personally know the guy, i think ill take his word over some brainwashed twat that just repeating what the marxists have been crying about since the 70's. slow pole shift, expect it, its happening now!
cancer is natural. yet people don't want to live next to chernobyl.
dying is natural. yet people don't like terrorism.
gravity is natural. yet people don't want to die in a plane crash.
night is natural. yet people want street lighting.
rain is natural. yet people want umbrellas and a roof over their heads.
a running nose is natural. yet people prefer a handkerchief.
heck, (natural) human hunter-gatherers probably had a life expectancy of 30 years, and child mortality of almost 50%. who wouldn't love to go back to that? 🤣
Whenever a journalist speaks of a record in high temperature, think what was the world like then.
"think what was the world like then"
Huh?
Traffic lights melting is a new thing. Sea levels are rising and there is plenty of evidence for that. Record seawater temperatures.
@@Justwantahover Which traffic light melted due to global warming...? Huh?
Did you mix something up here? See 'Photo shows melted traffic light in Italy, not extreme heat damage in Texas'
@@JustwantahoverPropaganda. Numerous scientists are calling bunk on all of this and proving it with their research. Ignorance is the real problem, leads people to getting misled.
Nuclear power isn't safe, Thomas Sowell said compared to what, Not having any lights?
"Did Geology stop when humans arrived on the planet?" Greatest quote ever!!
Geological time includes now.
@@nik07nikaccording to the Video host geology has less force than man made forces.
Tom Nelson has 197 Interviews regarding Climate Crisis.
@@woodchipgardens9084 "according to the Video host geology has less force than man made forces."
Please cite in the video with a time stamp, when that was actually said. I'll wait.
Scammer
Remember when there was that solar flare that wiped out all of the pagers (pre-cell phones)? I had my pager that day and thought nothing of it, but all the rest of the doctors in the hospital were blissfully unaware that the Emergency Room lit up and the nurses were screaming "Where are all the doctors? I've paged EVERYBODY!"
Remember when Brentford beat Manchester City?
Now, imagine if we went through a Carrington-level event. This was a *MASSIVE* solar flare that affected telegraph equipment in 1859, caused Aurora Borealis displays as far south as San Diego, sparks and fires at battery installations at telegraph stations. People were reported to even be able to use telegraphs without any power connected at all during the flare. If a Carrington-level event were to happen today, chaos would result. It'd cause blackouts, damage the power-grid, and our satellite networks.
@@DrachenGothik666 Also only pre 1980 vehicles would still run. Restomods? Probably not.
I do not think my 2004 Envoy or the 2016 Trax is hardened enough to run after a 1859 style flare event.
And the microwave in the kitchen also may not survive.
@@DrachenGothik666 It would only affect the area of the planet facing the sun though. Solar winds don't wrap around the planet, they go in straight lines. ;)
But what does that have to do with climate change?
Chimborazo is a place in Equador that freezes, this means even the hottest places on earth have snow because of Elevation. Cayambe in Equador has snow 365 days a year.
Sorry, and your point is?
@@standardnerd8691 There is freezing temperatures on the equator.
Summer time Forest fire encompasses far more acreage than any humans occupy as living space, humans pollute in centralized areas while forest fire is very expansive and far reaching making it unmatched in destructive force.
In Hungary, our government just started forcing cutting out trees in a never before seen rate, and our way of handling natural values has never been good either. It's so sad.
We will help you.
Signed, Brussels 🤣
@@LMB222 just please don't kick us out of the EU, we just need some... adjustments to our leadership :D
Or it's forest management.
Greetings from Germany, where we also have a growing populist and right wing part of our population. Mostly countryside, religious and not too well educated.
It makes me sad to see what is becoming of hungary, the country that kind of started the opening of the iron curtain. Why are people voting for their own disadvantage?
I speak with colleagues from Poland and Czech Republic and they also don't get why people vote for these authoritarian governments.
@@andreaswagner8356 Because nationalism and the fostering of a persecution complex towards the outside world is a great way to control the populace and keep them mad at those outside their borders rather than their leaders within them. After all, it's not the fault of Hungary's government policies for why you are poor, no, your problems all stem from our external enemies, like a foreign, Hungarian, Jewish billionaire!
I even heard once that warming is a result of excessive radiation caused by the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn. This just gets exhausting.
lemme guess. zodiac signs and astrology?
Maybe it's just galactic summer and winter
In theory just know that other galaxies can affect ours. Stretch your mind to that one if you can
Of course they do. It's just negligibly small.
Well yes it's part of the Milankovitch cycle..
Fire fighters always discuss wind direction and Grass Seed as the cause of Forest Fire, this is their training.
Is Global warming for 2 minutes or all day, Is it for one day or all year, is freezing for day time or just night time.
I was taught in school that the Earth has gone through multiple ice age cycles. The last one having just ended, though not sure what caused the previous ice-age events.
I was taught in school that the Earth has gone through multiple ice age cycles. The last one having just ended, though not sure what caused the previous ice-age events.
Wayne Patterson --- You are mistaken, because the Late Cenozoic Ice Age extending from about 34 million years ago to the Present day and the Quaternary Glaciation 2.5 million years ago to the Present Day have not "just ended." What "just ended was the Last Glacial Maximum ~20,000 years ago to ~6,000 years ago when we entered the Holocene Climatic Optimum and interglacial period which will end with the next Glacial Maximum Period in the ongoing Late Cenozoic Ice Age. The causes are a combination of events with the continuing reductions of Atmospheric mass from greater than 100 atmospheres to less than 1 atmosphere in the future due to natural biological sequestration of Carbon dioxide being one of the key factors.
Per definition we are still in a deep ice age. It's defined by at least one pole being glaciered and currently both are.
Plus we are just getting close to the roman climate optimum.
Climate change is real, but it's in no way proven it's man-made.
Also if you care so much about climate, stop the CO2 nonesense and start caring about the seas!
Simply because of the curvature of earth, we would reflect way more than would stay inside, if CO2 really had such an effect.
Or did the earth heated up last time a volcano erupted?
Humans ofcourse!They are the ones who do this,aint it so??No,the ones who are calling to lessen the CO 2 to prefent climate change are the ones who dont know nothing!!Years and years they are calling that the sea rise is steadily higher and the global temperature is steadily rising!And guess what ?The temperature globally isnt rising!The rising off sea level is still the same as it was for centuries!When there was no rising off CO 2!!
MILANCOVIC CYCLES
The last Ice age ended around 10,000 years ago. Ice core studies have shown it basically goes 100,000 years ice age/10,000 year warm period/100k Ice age/10k warm...repeated over and over as far as they have records for. So id say we are getting closer to another ice age. So what we need is MORE carbon dioxide. As the planet is actually cooling down. What happened to all the Acid rain? That was some genuine BS!
Burpy volcanoes can def be a serious drag. As someone who was once killed by a volcano that had really bad gas, I can confirm.
I hope your death did not hurt too much
@@isabellach oh thank you so much! No it was not too painful. A little itchy. But now I'm in the afterlife and damn it's pretty kewl. Free internet all the time. I mean that's like a big perk you know??
Canada has had their first Grass fire 4/15 this year and the rain hasn't stopped in California yet, better to burn the grass now than in June.
Global warming is failing to produce excessive rain in California this year, Climate scare people said the weather is suppose to be bad.
Governments: “Give us your money and we’ll change the weather.”
Yeah. No. Giving the government more tax dollars and hoping for the best is not a solution.
And would probably be detrimental to our efforts.
The purpose of the so-called carbon taxes is to discourage use by making alternatives appear less expensive. The tax revenue goes to line the pockets of politicians and to their buddies who support the global warming narrative ... and possibly to poor nations that are unable to afford modern technology. It isn't and wasn't meant to solve any problems.
@@bobjones7908 Well intended. Poorly executed. Well said my friend.
That’s quite the straw man.
@@iangrant4756 don’t call me a scarecrow 🤨🤨🤨.
I think that the fact that volcanoes can lower temperatures by like a degree is worth mentioning.
This is only for a few years. So this doesn't change anything in total.
It would be worth mentioning it you can explain all the fenomena that happens behind and why it only work in a really little temporary scale and don't affect in a deeply way the climatics dynamic of the world
@@davidcaro1229 Which phenomena are you talking about...?
The climatic effect of vulcanoes is mainly their aerosols - which are 'washed' from the atmosphere (by rain) in months to a few years.
@@enderwiggin1113 Yeah forget about the millions of tons of CO2, it's manily aerosols. Lmao.
This is temporary
I learn science to make my opinion and make my understanding of the world better. That was "2 months ago",now i've teached myself that to be able to do critical thinking,i must question,analyse,interpret,evaluate and make a judgment
Great idea! But what's the relevance to this video?
I forgot my opinion on this,also I'm surprised that it was "2 months ago",actually I realised that months is "mo" while minutes is "min"
Whoever burns the most fuel has the most prestige.
I find it rather amusing how you can still see the exhaustion and frustration in his eyes, even while he animates his face to be Bill Nye levels of Enthusiasm for education
That is what fanaticism looks like.
Science is worthy of such things
@@phoenixthedragon6798 You left off the "not".
@@boogathon where tho
@@phoenixthedragon6798 There's only one place it could go...
00:25 lmao that's a good diss😂
Humans don't occupy the amount of space that forest fires take up every Summer, the oil production doesn't weight more than the magma spewing from Volcanoes every year. Humans occupy centralized locations, Fire can be very wide spread as we all know.
Indeed. So what? Magma isn't hydrocarbons / CO2.
@@enderwiggin1113 your doing what people call spliting hairs, doesnt mean the whole truth, half truth is as much of a lie, half truth is 50% lie.
@@woodchipgardens9084 I see. Saying that things are not the same at all is 'splitting hair'....
The most important fact I learned in this video: it actually is called a "bald-faced lie!!!"
I've been saying "bold-faced" for something like 40 years without any clue how wrong I was!
Hear! Hear!...
Or is it 'Here! Here!' ?
well if you havent figured out by now that mainstream lies constantly on just about everything for profits, then theres no hope for you. you could take all the greenhouse gases away and the climate will still change because this big sphere we are on is rotating on its axis and true north is migrating at the rate of 50 miles per year towards siberia, and the earth is only 8500 miles in circumference, whats 8500 divided by 50? since we have learned about pole shifts in the last 50 years how long do you think we have been slowly rotating on our axis? it doesnt mean we are going to get destroyed or anything, we have been goin nice and slow so far, and if it keeps up we will be fine, but eventually cold areas will move into warm ones and warm areas will move in to cold ones, like maine will end up were florida for an example, so ya the climate is going to change no matter what, scientist were talking about this 40 years ago, do even realize that 2/3 ds of the land in the world is empty. now i dont know if you follow elon musk, but he claims that the 7.9 billion we have now could fit in the size of new york, so the world is really under populated, not to mention that only 4 countries or so that have a less then 1% birth rate, the other 150+ countries have more deaths then births, so we arent really getting bigger, that is coming to an end, we will actually start going down in numbers. i dare you to check for yourself, a scientist that has studied the weather for over 70 years says the average temp hasnt increased or decreased more then 6 degrees in the last 100 years, hardly sounds like much global warming to me, i personally know the guy, i think ill take his word over some brainwashed twat that just repeating what the marxists have been crying about since the 70's. slow pole shift, expect it, its happening now!
@@ericvulgate "Hear, Hear” is the correct expression that means an agreement with someone's point. It's short for “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!”
@@ericvulgate They're both correct for all intensive purposes.
@@damonedwards1544 brilliant ;)
In one day Al Gore has a carbon footprint that absolutely dwarfs anything to do with my carbon footprint in my lifetime. When Al Gore gets worried and cuts back to a level closer to me or less maybe I'll be motivated as well. Good luck with that you'll need it.
Sadly, I can't download YT videos of this quality informative level no more right now.
YT has change something in its coding.
I trust someone will go around that form of censoring soon enough.
Someone always do.
Frack YT with all this crap once again.
Its Forest Fires melting the Glaciers in the Summer and Volcanic Sulpher driving precipitation at some level.
Somebody give me One year that New York City didnt have flood waters.
Good thing we know co2 doesn't control temperatures thanks to physics and thermodynamics.
Bad things that you simpls refuse to watch the video and look at *actual* evidence.
Radiation balance has changed just as predicted since the 1970ties. Models work.
Can you explain the "physics" and "thermodynamics" you speak of?
Because how CO2 impacts temperature is well understood even by undergraduates. Walk into your local college and say this, and you'll get a long explanation from every professor in the earth sciences department.
Proof of scientific consensus about man-made global warming is here (pdf to download):
"Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature", Mark Lynas et al.
One thing I don't understand is IF there was an ICE AGE how did the world get HOT enough to melt it? I mean we weren't around were we?
Find on internet the Milankovic cycles.
And if one thing can be naturally modified, it does NOT mean it could not be modified non-naturally, by human activities.
The people that push it the most and put the fear in people the most, live on the coast and are the worst polluters
Exactly, all fly private jets but have ads about climate change like our old mate Bill. When will people wake up, its honestly so transparent
Your comment will probably get deleted
The true cause of CC is ice-sheet albedo.
Read paper: ‘Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo’.
And this dust feedback works as well in the modern era (dust from China), as it did during the ice ages.
Ralph.
@@RalphEllis If you were correct when it comes to modern CC, the nights would not be warming faster than the days. But since the opposite is happening, we know that you are wrong.
Just because these people have horrible lifestyles, doesn't mean climate change isn't real. It just shows they don't understand they're part of the problem, or are willingly ignoring so in spite of trying to make everyone else change. They're arrogant, sure, but we should all strive to change our behavior so that we decrease carbon pollution.
Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly. I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious
Unfortuneatly,scientists monitor theories that the do not agree with and stiffle them.They will be the death of us.
Truth is winning and humanity is prevailing over tyranny. This is happening despite the fact that most people still haven't even realized we are at war. It only takes a small minority of awake people to turn it around, and that's what's happening. Covid was the wake up call. It's glorious.
Even if the earths Tilts it still has an Axis and Coriolis Affects, so change is minimal, ever hear that phrase before.
I thought @veritasium did a video saying the earth absorbs and releases the same amount of engery.
It's *essentially* the same. Only if radiative equilibrium is established - which isn't the case due to increase in greenhouse gases. As soon as a new equilibrium is established (this takes same decades, ignoring ice-albedo feedback), energy absorbed and energy emitted are going to be the same again.
Humans are part of the climate equation. The big question is can we move the needle more than non-human climate forces and whether those moves are detrimental to humanity. Do we think we can stop the next ice age?
Well, we are already in an ice age but I know what you mean. We probably can't stop long-term climate change, but we can certainly stop accelerating it from what should be a few million years to a couple hundred.
I'm also more concerned about an ice age that Alaska growing tomatoes ( aside from the gulf stream collapsing)
@@CHMichael if tomato's are growing in Alaska, that means the places that grow tomato's now would start to look like deserts. The economic and humanitarian consequences of that should scare you a LOT more then a ice age that, even without any human caused climate change, would be 50.000 years into the future.
Except in North America co2 increases in Winter. Then drops quickly in spring all the way to end of Autumn at the 45th parallel.
So does co2 circulate from China, Russia, Europe and the US? Probably. Or does it go to Southern hemisphere for a summer vacation?
NASA does record it and it does happen every year in the northern hemisphere. Why is co2 added to a greenhouse environment?
Maybe that ancient 2012 prophesy is not about the planet's climate. It may be about society imploding.
@@warrenpuckett4203 It goes into plantmatter (leaves, yearly plants ect) that starts growing in spring and summer, and later decays again in autumn and winter, or eaten and breathed out.
That's just part of the natural carbon cycle.
It has been a decade or more since I was a part of the climate "denial" debates so I don't know the shape of things in that community now. I never denied that humans had an effect on climate change. My problem had more to do with media reporting on the science. I saw that a lot of the science studies would have a best case, worst case, and something in-between forecasts for the future climate conditions. And the media only ever cared about the worst case scenarios, even though the something in-between usually matched the recorded data better in most cases.
And then there were the people that used the fear mongering around the worst cases to push for their political policies that had little to nothing to do with actually fixing the causes of man made climate change. Then because I questioned the biased media reporting or the prescribed political solutions I was labeled as a climate denier, even though I never denied that man made climate change was in fact happening. Most of the people labeling me as a denier clearly had even less understanding of the science than my own admittedly amateur level understanding. It was often apparent that they labeled me as such more for disagreeing with their political solutions than because of my understanding of the underlying science.
This a crucial viewpoint to get across as well. Just because man made climate change is real, doesn't mean that there aren't people trying to profit off of it in some way or that some of the people pushing only the most extreme viewpoints, don't understand much of the underlying science itself either. Then you get groups of people, even some scientists, who manufacture opposing data and easily swindle those who already are predisposed to believing it isn't real or our fault. The whole problem (and many others) could be basically eliminated eventually by putting more emphasis on education in science literacy and critical thinking. I don't have much hope for that happening anytime soon though. I fear we are on our way towards a lot of warming and we won't be able to stop it.
That's something interesting to consider. Thank you for putting that forth, I'll consider this too when trying to spread the word.
The term "climate denial" is a fallacy in itself. Joe's really fond of arguing with nearly only fallacies, so you're in good company here...
@@philosophicaltool5469 provide evidence of these fallacies. Unless you are just a troll since that seems to be the only thing you commented about here. Why are you even on a science channel if you have no interest in science?
@@naolmstead here's my first comment I posted here: that might get you an idea how bad it is what this man is pushing on you:
"Without even watching this longer than 30 seconds, I can tell you this: it's really very simple to tell this supposed "climate change crisis" is an absolute fabrication; when you have a 16 year old girl with braid, Greta Thundberg, talking doom and gloom at the UN, you can be sure them Socialists are taking you for a run for your money... Also, it's a fallacy called 'pedophrasty' - "leave the kids out of this, let's talk facts", basically.
- And yes indeed, "climate change occurs naturally" and CO2 has no effect on it whatsoever.
When it gets warmer, the oceans release more of their CO2, just as your soda or beer does a lot faster in the summer.
And this release of CO2 from the oceans, might only slightly result in a tiny positive feedback on the warming trend (the amount of CO2 needs to first double to even increase temperature with just one degree Celsius... )
Basically it's the sun, you silly! (and how it works it's 'magic' on the oceans, which are so good at retaining the sun's heat, so we can not freeze and have a life here on the planet, with plants converting CO2 into sugars..
..so we can eat and live, together with everything else here on the planet!)
-
I'll watch this though, so I can make a video to debunk this one. Keep my channel in check.
For now there's only a rather funny one on how Flat Earhters also don't do very well in the science department if you're interested."
- pretty shitty video though, it's my first. But still funny af though.
Were is all the Man Made weather disasters like 2023, California isn't getting any Snow pack like I predicted would happen and the reason is because there wasn't any massive Volcanos last year. Man Made pollution is a totally inconsistent factor if you take into consideration that California only see excessive rain once or twice every 5-8 years.
The reality of climate change does not care about parties, ideologies, beliefs. We are in the worst case scenario. People don't care or deny it. We won't stop it. Societies WILL collapse. Not in the distant future but in the next decades.
The strangest thing about a Global Warming Crisis is that Lake Tahoe Ski resorts still sell tickets to them Icy Slopes, when do ski resorts go bankrupt for Global warming crisis.
The strangest thing about a gardener who should be prone to environmental protection and climate change awareness writing about oil companies profiting from climate change when they themselves demonstrably and evidently made a big effort to deny it
Like the reason you dont believe in climate change ironically are these oil companies. You reproduce what they want you to
So diplomatic way to say "If you have the Internet to write ignorant comments on it, there is not a good excuse not to use it to educate yourself instead."
Problem is, the people writing those comments intentionally don't look at actual scientific studies on this topic. They just pick the first FOX News article they can find.
Right on, Naum.
Well said!
@@WildFyreful There are ignorant people in countries that don't have FOX News.
It's so frustrating when someone tells you "Just go and learn for yourself" and they give you a Facebook post from which you should "learn" what is the truth...
@@Vortyrion weird, usually they don't Give me anything, Facebook post or not.
They don't care about evidence, they just don't want to agree with "the mainstream" it's not about thinking they're smarter, it's about mistrust, and generally they can't or won't follow a video like this. They don't have the tools to understand the explanation, and because they don't understand they distrust. Plus the whole issue of building a personal identity around not trusting scientists because they didn't understand why their teacher failed them in high-school science.
Over time climates change happens without our influence
This is like seeing a man with a knife in his chest and saying ‘he wasn’t murdered. People die of natural causes all the time’. Yes, slow or localised climate change can happen over extended periods of time, but they isn’t what is happening here especially as we are meant to be cooling due to natural cycles right now.
I suggest that you actually *watch* the video.
NO your suppose to say Global Boiling to scare the pants off everyone.
Yes, technically, but us putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is not helping it
Michio Kaku says we listen to the Echos of Earth quakes to theorize the movement of our Core, what does this discover, nobody knows yet but the theory says changes take place every 7 years, this could maybe explain Larger than Normal Volcanic eruptions.
Anthropogenic climate change is the biggest problem humanity has ever faced mainly because humanity can’t collectively seem to face it
Noooo, worse, because it's being used to do the wrong thing in the alleged name of fixing it
@@minagica crude oil is contingent on the stability of the global economy. Whoever controls the money controls the world so I personally think we’re screwed regardless since the years of environmental protests for cleaner energy have failed to overcome the corporate greed that indoctrinates us…
@@Cardioid2035 I don't think we're necessarily screwed, but we will be if focus isn't turned on carbon capture instead of counterproductive Kyoto 🥺
it is , 75,000 years ago the population dropped to 30,000 humans estimates that only 2000 lived in sub Saharan Africa
@@minagica carbon capture is just bullshit at least at this point...
Something that I feel went a overlooked (and understandably so; it's something that I don't normally expect people to do the research on) is that the ancient limestone that has been produced by oceanic carbon sequestration over the eons has become the key natural resource in one of the largest carbon-emitting industries in the world: cement. Limestone is "burned" (heated up to decomposition temperature) to make quicklime, or calcium oxide, which becomes the primary chemical component in cement, which is the binder used in concrete. Tremendous quantities of carbon dioxide is released in this process--not to mention the energy required to do this process. Although most of the carbon dioxide released in cement manufacture IS re-sequestered by the curing of the concrete, not all of it is. If the cement plant is powered by non-carbon-neutral energy sources, all of _that_ carbon dioxide _doesn't_ get re-sequestered by the curing concrete.
I am a little confused. I read your comment and looked into sequestration and the process of sealing CO2 emissions in concrete. In a study published in 2011 by Elsevier Ltd, it states that there is evidence to support the usage of post-combustion CO2 capture technologies, which would mean that the fuel source used is irrelevant. These technologies would work on the carbon released in the process of creating carbon, regardless of the fuel used.
If I am understanding this correctly, then the carbon released from the chemical reaction can be captured and then stored in deep underground geological formations or reutilized in concrete.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t need fossil fuels to sequester carbon, effective carbon capture technologies have been created (or are in development) that will capture, secure and store carbon.
In case you want to check the study yourself here is it’s name: CO2 Capture and Sequestration in the Cement Industry.
If you are wondering about the feasibility or funding of this technology: The DOE awarded funding to CEMEX Inc to develop and demonstrate a commercial carbon capture sequestration technology for their integration into cement plants in 2021.
I am still new to the topic, so please fact check my information by going to the article!
@@silverblade236 you know what puts all the carbon in the atmosphere?
Warming oceans.
i.e. it's not the other way around, that CO2 warms the earth and thus the oceans.
@Nad Senoj Not only did you fail to say anything useful, you pushed someone further into their dogma with your hostility. Did Google hire you?
@@philosophicaltool5469 Warming oceans do hold less gases, and thus less CO2, which is true. But even while warming up the CO2 concentrations in the oceans has risen everywhere. So how come the CO2 is from the oceans while their concentration has increased?
Simple: the CO2 content in the oceans is not only dependent on ocean temperature, but also on the partial pressure of gases in the atmosphere. Meaning that CO2 levels have risen so fast in the air that it is outpacing even the oceans warming effect. So it is coming from other sources, and thanks to the change in the carbon isotopes we know it comes from fossil fuels.
For now oceans are
@@Stratosarge also, what is a circular argument?
we need this Mostly Man Made Climate change to keep producing that excessive water. California never has enough water to satisfy every Farmer that helps our cities grow bigger and bigger, there is always some arguments about whether the fish get the water or the farmers get more water, what about the movie star swimming pools cant leave these people hanging after they made investments, we need this Mostly Man Made Climate change to keep producing that excessive water.
I appreciate the vid and the explanation. But why do you use a graph at 3.00 min, where the distance down to -1.5% is equal to the distance up of 0.5%? According to the graph, the temperature dropped 1.5% from 1880 to 1910. From the 1940s to the 1970s it seems to have returned to the temperature of 1880. Then the temperature goes up approximately 0.8%, however the distance going up in the graph is three time that of the distance going down per 1%. As a result, the temperature going up from the 1970s seems visually much more than the shift down from 1880 to 1910, but the real temperature shift, according to your graph, has been 0.8% up compared to 1.5% down. Why did you make this skewd comparison?
All of this climate data is skewed.
To trick you into thinking that the temperature has dramatically increased in the last 40 to 50 years when the truth is it hasn't increased anymore than the models show the standard increase due to the fact that we are coming out of an Ice Age still the whole thing is about funneling money into corporations and large interest groups and transfer wealth from poor middle class people in the world to the wealthy
Oof yeah that’s a disingenuous graph
He also completely omitted how the earth's magnetic field reflects solar radiation. And protects u from harmful UV rays...
Actually no he’s showing the accurate graph, you are just trying to make a point that literally makes no sense
I have a problem with massive multi-billion dollar companies wanting to keep providing extra carbon while blaming your car and your cheeseburger, trying to take both away from you while they buy "carbon credits" to keep polluting. also false or misleading advertising which fails to point out that you make a much bigger carbon footprint getting a new electric vehicle if you don't keep that one for over 6 years of driving. Or politicians who refuse to work on upgrading the power grid, tell us NOT to charge EVs, but tell us that we HAVE TO buy one, when they are still full of TOXIC lithium batteries while Humans have SUCH a spotless record when it comes to waste management (see pacific garbage patch). Lithium Apocalypse everyone ?
Bartist, you probably haven't heard of the salt battery didn't you? It's more efficient and you don't have to mine it, I mean its just concentrated salt and metals. That can be fully discharged unlike lithium batteries.
@@nushia7192 I have not heard of the salt battery, I have heard of the molten sodium solar mirror power plants and carbon batteries which they are still struggling to construct.
Heat is always temporary and Night Time is always Cooling.
To be for Social Justice and Saving the environment puts you on a Higher Moral Level, Self Flattering.
Before retiring, I was a climate geologist for over 34 years.
We live on a dynamic planet that's in constant change with extremes.
Climate change is not only natural, but also inevitable. I'd be more worried if it wasn't changing.
I spent 15yrs studying Geo evidence of the earth's past climate (recent i.e. within 10k years to past 50 million years ) the best most prolific periods were during high carbon level periods. The Earth was teeming with life - carbon based life.
Today, the earth is actually going through an extinction event, but not because of climate change.
Globalist greed has stripped this planet of its glorious abundance. The finger should be pointed hard at greedy globalist and the huge corporations they fund.
Don't blame the people whom are in subjection.
whenever people say globalists, they almost always mean jews
Thank you.
would be great to read a paper you wrote, that disagrees with pretty much everyone else on the fact that the current climate change is not natural. How about you cite one?
And when you are saying "Climate change is [...] also inevitable. I'd be more worried if it wasn't changing.". It seems like you imply here, that anyone on this planet actually says the climate is not always changing. Why?
Absolutely
@@chimp09 My background is in geology too and I agree with Chris Bishop. There are many geologic papers out there regarding paleoclimates. Just jump in and start reading some.
If you have a friend or family member that doesn't believe in climate change or believes that it's natural and you want to change their mind, showing them this video and giving them more and more facts likely WON'T change their mind.
Instead try the following:
1. Ask them on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being low and 10 high) how strongly they believe climate change is real and human caused.
2. Then ask why they didn't choose a LOWER number. This will get them to start thinking about the reasons why they believe climate change could be real and human caused.
3. Ask questions as they talk and let them answer them such as "why do you think that is." You can throw in a few small facts here and there, but you want to be gentle and let them figure out the gaps in their theories on their own. Don't make them feel stupid or that you are trying to win the argument.
Make sure they feel comfortable and safe throughout the process. You want to get them to start examining their own beliefs more deeply and have them discover why they are mistaken on their own. If you just tell them they are wrong, they will dig in even deeper and start thinking of ways to dispell the facts that you are giving them. Just be patient and help them discover the truth on their own!
They call that the Socratic method. :-)
May work unless the person doesn't want to believe because they know that if they do, then they are going to have to change their behavior and they don't want to be inconvenienced.
Why do we keep separating humans from nature, as if we're not a part of it?
This comment is underateted
And just when will you discover that you are being manipulated again by the panic mongers, there's a new impending dire catastrophe every decade or so to separate fools from their money
Salt Lake City says their 1942 Dam structure is in Danger from Ice Accumulation April 11, 2024.
Climate change isn’t all about heat. Dont you read anything?
@@peteconrad2077 read about year 536 and 1816 then come back and talk about your fears.
Glaciers might be having a drought like California but I don't think the freezing has stopped so life goes on.
Are you a bot or do you need actual help? Because looking at the comments and the time difference (months to hours), there seems to be some issues. Not rhetoric btw.
@@bdarecords_lake tahoe still makes snow, nothing changes.
@@bdarecords_That's what I keep asking myself. woodchipgardens is really amazing.
@@woodchipgardens9084 What's the benefit in arguing against things that are proven beyond any reasonable doubt? Coping mechanism?
@@bdarecords_ Nobody believes your statement.
It’s really frustrating that people are still questioning this when this year alone we’ve seen the devastating effects of natural catastrophes intensified by climat change.
And if you don’t « buy » the reality of climate change, biodiversity decline on its own should terrify us.
Maybe if politicians weren’t over exaggerating and pushing ridiculous talking points it would be more acceptable. The push for “green” energy and EVs is more damaging to the environment than gas combustion vehicles.
@@ivermectin7928 i absolutely agree! Even if EVs are more efficient, we need LESS. less cars, less production, less consomption and a much greater stress on the responsibility of companies and large corporations rather than the current focus on individuals turning off the tap when brushing their teeth
@@DesignEducation_ EVs aren’t more efficient. Strip mining harmful materials with slave labor is bad enough, yet the electric provided to power EVs is made by coal plants and other polluting means. “Green” energy products are being tossed in landfills because they can’t be recycled or it’s too hard to. None of these people care about “climate change”. They care about an agenda and control.
@@ivermectin7928 yes of course, I was talking about the efficiency of the evs engine bs a combustion engine. In that sense it is much more efficient but of course everything you said after I agree with
@@ivermectin7928 Look at you lie.
This -18 degrees Celsius without a greenhouse effect would be the case assuming the Earth albedo would be identical to the current one. In reality it would be way lower due to the ice and snow, as would be the temperature. In fact during the periods of a snowball Earth, the poles were so cold that the condensation of CO2 was occuring there
@@johndennis5233 I know this derivation and the assumptions used in it. This -18 deg. C mean global temperature is obtained by inserting a current value of the Earth's albedo into that formula derived from the energy balance, with the outgoing energy given by Stefan-Boltzmann law and assuming that the Earth is a perfect blackbody in the longwave regime, but not taking the greenhouse effect into the account in this derivation. But of course one can expect that on such colder Earth a value of its albedo can be be greater (as one could anticipate a snowball Earth-like state). It would decrease the absorbed energy flux, thus resulting in a temperature lower that that -18 deg. C
@@johndennis5233 Seems OK with this value of an albedo :) Although honestly I cannot say what will be the exact Bond albedo of such a planet, it requires some complicated calculations to determine. But this value would also be my rough guess, though it is of course to be taken with a grain of salt
The Washinton Post, Posted - It’s been unusually cold and gloomy in California. What’s going on?
By Diana Leonard
June 22, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
Save
SAN DIEGO - In Southern California, summer opened with a rare and welcome treat: the sun.
Doom and Gloom climate change theory doesnt work durring cooling trends of 2023.
@@woodchipgardens9084
For the 1000th time: climate isn't about change in a SINGLE year.
And this of course ignores that October 2023 was the hottest ever recorded (global average).
@@enderwiggin1113 your scientist probably put their thermometers on the cement at the edge of Death Valley then say look what we discovered.
No, they don't. As always you mix up California (and Nevada) with the rest of the world. Especially since they measure only *changes* - and the *change* in Death Valley has not been greater than in the rest of the world.
@@enderwiggin1113Tom Nelson has 197 Interviews regarding Climate Crisis.
Everyone commenting on other RUclips climate videos from the UK said last Summer 2023 was cold Just Like I said about California 2023 harvest year, this means you can have a Volcanic winter from Volcanos as small as Hunga Tonga.
The argument I hear alot is not a denial of change or even denial that it's caused by humans, but that the rate of change is alarmist and that the earth will be able to absorb any change we throw at it and we will all be fine. I do not agree.
Given that the Earth has survived unknown numbers of life-ending meteors slamming into it and countless volcanic eruptions that covered the sky with ash for years...yeah...
@@macethorns1168 I believe the earth will survive. Humans might, but everyday life as we know it will not.
@@macethorns1168 🤦
Yet they have been right and the alarmists* haven't been not once. You can go back nearly 100 years for alarmist predictions that fall flat.
@@macethorns1168 and everything the size of a human died then🙂
Natural climate change is so small that most of the biodiversity gets the time to evolve.
But climate change due to humans is faster so most of biodiversity would become extinct without having time to adapt
That doesn't explain the medieval warm period or the little ice agi.
Jan Oberg said if there was nobody cheering for Russian defeat or nobody cheering for Palestinian deaths then it would all stop, If one death is Illegal how is 1 million OK.
2023 is the worst wildfire season in Canadian history | APTN News
Pine Needles and Grass Seed Burn Hot in the Desert Wind.
As a meme enjoyer, I love it when you include little meme snippets.
However as an Environmental Science student, it's almost frustrating that I have to stop videos to go and see where a meme is from.
I'm looking at you, jiggle jiggle.
🤓
Using the "mean " temperature instead of the actual temperatures , the Average Daily Minimum and the Daily Maximum , is deceptive and is part of the "trick". The 1.3 degree increase since 1880 is coming from two temperatures not one, thus its 1.1 increase in the daily minimum and .2 degree increase in the daily maximum temperatures. It is less cool, not more hot since 1880.
covered all the bases. great job
Speed and Scale of Warming has not Happened, Car windows still freeze in the Morning.
Has happened as predicted. No one predicted that no car windows are supposed to freeze today.
How...
Okay, you know how it's kind of spooky when you start seeing ads for things you actually need but never searched for? That's how I feel about this video right now. I was just thinking about this very question a few days ago because I got into an argument with a friend who thinks it's just the end of an ice age. I didn't convince him so I've been wondering where I went wrong with my argument. And then this video pops up in my subscriptions. How did you guys know I needed this? I feel like I understand it well enough for myself but I failed at explaining it to someone who doesn't.
Long term, we are in an ice age that will continue so long as the continents are positioned in such a way that equatorial currents are blocked. As long as we are releasing greenhouse gasses it will be warmer, but the larger climate remains.
Most of Earth's pre-history there were no ice caps at all.
😱 BIG 😱 BROTHER 😱 IS 😱 WATCHING 😣....
Oooooooooooooo
😱 Scary 😱😱😱😱
Oh, boy. You are not going to like hearing about this.
I’m an environmental scientist. That means I’ve studied many subjects related to climate and earth sciences (geology, meteorology, atmospheric contamination, ecology, botany, erosion and desertification, oceanography, etc etc), so I have a decent knowledge about how the earth system works and the causes of climate change. Now comes the bad part: I’ve failed over and over again to convince people it’s teal and human made.
What I’m trying to say is it doesn’t matter how much you research, that’s not the reason you failed. If your friends level of education on the topic isn’t enough, he simply won’t understand what you are explaining. Or if he has a strong political opinion against it, words simply won’t make it to his brain. And I mean it: people who refuse to accept what you expose, even if it’s completely backed up by science, and even if you give them the damn names of the studies, won’t accept it.
The only people who changed their minds are those who had an open posture to begin with.
@@fernandoish9194 I experienced the same as a biopharmaceutical science postgrad regarding the covid vaccines. Many people just spread tales without sources, but they won't read or understand the ones I give. Oh, and I'm biased of course. Brainwashed!
People are free to not get a vaccine, but not by basing their choice on false arguments.
@Fernando Ish you hit the nail on the head. You can’t fight ignorance with facts if people are trying to be willfully ignorant
Problems with combating climate change:
#1 - China: They have the largest carbon footprint.
#2 - Corporations: I saw a study that showed that in the US they are responsible for about 70% of the carbon footprint.
#3 - Politics: Politicians don't actually care about climate change, they only use it as an excuse to pass bills in to law for other policies they want under the guise of climate change. They do this with many more issues as well.
"Problems with combating climate change"
Which is entirely off-topic here.
You do know China uses legit 10x we do right ?
How does China have the largest carbon footprint but the US is responsible for 70%. Am i missing something?
S'weird. Why'd you list "Corporations" three times?
It's all about getting money from YOUR TAXES!
18:49 “it’s a pretty cool way to keep things perfectly balanced as all things should be” - great episode, but this “perfect balance” way of thinking is very problematic on a level, as it sets people up to think of nature in a magical sense, as something that has a homeostatic neutral position.
This obscures the hard facts that nature is full of absolutely massive disruptions and indifferent changes-think of how almost all life went extinct from millions of years of snowball earth deep freeze, how volcanic activity can send us into ice ages yet also bring us out of them, how almost all life went extinct from mega asteroid strikes.
The earths systems fluctuate and oscillate and that’s what is natural-though none of this is to say that humans aren’t rapidly accelerating changes with their green house gas emissions or ecological pollution. Just saying be careful of fetishizing nature as some new aged balanced mother figure, when in reality it is an indifferent system which can be very violent and volatile in its extremes.
Most of Earth natural changes are much slower that the change we are cuasing today. Meaning on a *human timescale* , it *is* rather balanced.
@@enderwiggin1113 As I said I’m not arguing against human caused climate-we have pumped vast amounts of warming gasses out and caused the rate of warming to accelerate.
I’m arguing against fetishizing nature as eternally balanced for life. There have been many major events in the history of Earth that are naturally occurring, like mega-volcanoes and meteors that obliterate life on earth. We live on a seething ball of magma and ice pelted by cosmic rays and rocks, not on some everlasting garden of Eden. Our sun will become a red giant and burn earth to a cinder eventually. This is all natural. My point is that the ACTUAL balance of nature involves mass destruction and death and recycling of elements. Entropy is coming for the entire universe and that is nature you know.
@@enderwiggin1113Watch “Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth)” and understand what the truth actually is. We’re currently in a CO2 famine. We could use up all the fossil fuel there is and still not get CO2 levels back to where abundant life is possible. You are unaware how badly you have been lied to and for how long. There is so much more to learn from this movie from MIT and Harvard scientists, professors, physicists, researchers along with Nobel Prize winners, NASA scientists and other renowned experts the government won’t let you here. The green mining industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry that would still require multi-trillion dollars worth of diesel fuel just to mine. Understand and see the truth. Your life will change because of it. Care about the planet. That is the point here. The oceans certainly need help. But no one is educating the public on what China’s 10000+ strong boat cities are doing to ocean habitats. It is horrific. Once one area is fished out and destroyed, they move and do it again. I could go on but let the true experts with free minds free your mind.
@@nightoftheworld "I’m arguing against fetishizing nature as eternally balanced for life"
I don't think that many people argue this. It's rather what I said: that most changes in nature are rather slow. Sure, there have been major cataclysms like supervulcanoes etc., but they happen very seldom.
Due to displacement of the core in 1998 according to Medicin Italian center ., the planet's rotation accelarates , and its centrifugal force is growing.
For this reason magma sources in the mantle began to sharply rise to the surface ( imagine the washing machine) undermining and heating the lithosphere from the inside.
Consequently , magma rising in the area of lower pressure expands in volume and boils up. Its pressure on the earth's crust increases. The expansion of magma pushes apart the tectonic plates, increases volcanic and seismic activity across the planet and causes the number of cracks in the crust to grow rapidly.
Through these cracks , water from the surface escapes deep into the crust. The thin oceanic crust is ruptured by magma causing the ocean to heat up at the bottom. Rising magma leads to an increase in geothermal flow from the earth's bowels beneath the glaciers of West Antarctica and Central Greenland which melts glaciers from the bottom up.
Numerous facts of increasing geothermal anomalies : cases of water boiling in wells, permafrost melting at great depths, and methane explosions have been recorded. Further prediction of the trends of rapid geodynamic and climatic changes indicates that in the coming decades due to the rise of magma, a massive melting of glaciers will begin along with the rise in sea level. Increasing the number and the power of disastrous earthquakes, typhoons and hurricane winds, stratovolcanoes will erupt, which will lead to a long volcanic winter and disappearance of most life forms including humans. Based on objective forecast, we have only five or ten years at most. Changes similar to what we now see occured before the peak of the crushing disaster just about 12,000 years ago. Those events are called The Allerød oscillation and the Younger Dryas glaciation that followed.
12,800 years ago global temperatures rose as much as 15 degrees Celcius within just a few years. Most of the ice sheets suddenly melted. And the earth emerged from a full Ice Age. At that time, there were extreme floods and other natural disasters along with an intense sea level rise. The Gulf Stream stopped at that time just as it is happening nowadays. Scientists from the university of Kansas have proven that about 12,800 years ago there was a giant fire on earth that covered a tenth of the entire planet's surface. Other researchers have also found that large fires raged in Siberia 12,000 years ago. Similarly, nowadays, there are more and more large scale fires that cannot be extinguished. ( for example Lahaina , Hawaii, August 2023) Based on an analysis of satellite images , scientists have discovered that 10,000 to 13,000 years ago the largest known dunes formed in the Sahara Desert and other regions indicating the enormous strength of winds during the Younger Dryas. A short term intensification of winds during that period has also been documented from Greenland ice cores data and research in Alaska. Nowadays, the same phenomena are happening on earth as during the Younger Dryas. We see winds, hurricanes , typhoons and tornadoes intensifying and destroying entire cities razing them to the ground.
Right at the cycle change, 12,000 years ago, there was a very intensive seismic activity. This is indicated by radio carbon data as well as paleographic reconstructions of the Younger Dryas. During the same time period, more than 12,000 years ago as well as now, there was a drastic weakening of the magnetic field and a pole shift , which was called The Gothenburg Excursion.
The reason for all these abrupt changes was an abnormal magmatic activity caused by changes in the core. This was expressed in large scale volcanic eruptions that scientists recorded in the Younger Dryas by dust and traces of acid rain in glacial cores. Analysis of sediments found in Hauls cave points to voclanic eruptions that caused a volcanic winter about 13,000 years ago and glaciation across the globe.
After the sudden warming in the Younger Dryas an equally abrupt cooling occured. This event caused a mass extinction of megafauna. Thousands of frozen mammoths and other mammals were found in the ice on the northern slopes of Siberia. There happened a drastic decline in the human population including extinction of the Cro-Magnon.
All of those catastrophic events occured within just a few decades.
The same catastrophic events occured on the planet not only 12,000 years ago but also earlier. Taking into account errors in dating , this cycle is very well traced in the geological data. Catastophists among scientists wrote about it independently of each other in their books and works. More info in this online forum : 'Global Crisis. The Responsibility'
"Due to displacement of the core in 1998 according to Medicin Italian center"
Huh?!?!?
" the planet's rotation accelarates , and its centrifugal force is growing."
Entire nonsense. Earth's rotation is *slowing*
Either way, the effect is miniscule.
"magma sources in the mantle began to sharply rise to the surface ( imagine the washing machine) undermining and heating the lithosphere from the inside."
Geothermal heat flux is about 1000 times smaller than insolation. In short: negligible.
"12,800 years ago global temperatures rose as much as 15 degrees Celcius within just a few years"
Locally? Maybe. Globally? Certainly not.
"The reason for all these abrupt changes was an abnormal magmatic activity caused by changes in the core"
Evidence? Nonexistent. Yawn.
One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird. This last, as it grows old, becomes a prey to microbes, which end by getting the better of it. These microbes, in their turn, find their predestined ends.
When I was in school, we were told that things were getting colder. College, the world is getting warmer. Now the term is climate change. That makes the claim safe.
Is climate change bad? Greenland, when the earth was warming, they could farm. Now again, they are farming again. Warm weather makes the air more moist. There was a time, when the Sarah Desert was green. So is climate change bad?
I wish i could like this comment 100 times
Perfect! You get it!
The Green Hornet ready to fight crime after a 6 hour charge.
Wild fires in Fish Hoak, Cape Town 4 days ago april 22, 2024.
This comment section.... I can't believe we're still at a stage where we debate whether climate change is real. It's like debating whether we believe in rain. I thought most people today have accepted this fact and we've moved on to talking about solutions. Apparently not :(
ccccccause its natural and the only climate change im aware of right now is the climate being to damn cold.
p.s. watch out for enderwiggin the troll gatekeeper he might get you!
@@saulgoodman-qq2oz It is not the magnitude of current climate change that is unusual, but the speed of climate change. Way faster than most biological systems can evolve to keep up with (the bugs will evolve fast enough, mammals probably won't). And every species has a niche in the web of life around it. Pressure on one key species can kill the whole system. Even if the temperatures are normal for a year, but the rainfall is very low then the web of life will be cut away close to the bottom of the food chains.
The one temperature for the whole planet idea is a deliberate simplification that seems to throw a lot of people: I am not convinced it is helpful. At any given place in 24 hours you would expect a whole range of temperatures, but most forecasts might give you just one average for the day and another (probably lower) figure for the night. All places will still have summers hotter than winters, on average. Even on a warmer world there will still be colder days. And the predicted underlying climate changes are slow and small unless you live as long and at the same relaxed pace as a large tree. But the short duration extremes will be more frequent. Like snowfall in Texas, extended periods of low rain followed by very heavy rain, storms and floods.
Those are the 2 things to watch: the speed of the mean temperature rise (difficult to picture) and the frequency of extreme events (floods, droughts and so on). There have been a lot of extremes in the past couple of years around the globe. That could just be a low probability happenstance. If climate change models are correct we can expect more destructive extremes sooner than normal in the near future.
In 2005 Gore said that by 2014 the icecaps would have completely melted, the Maldives would be underwater, Manhattan would be flooded and it would not be possible to reverse the disaster. Am I missing something or has none of that actually happened?
Nah that's just the climate cult speaking
Exactly.
Gore has four houses and still flies private jets. Why are people so easily tricked by these types? Beyond me.
From an article:
"America’s favorite climate hysteric, former vice-president Al Gore, has announced his newest money-making scheme fueled by climate change alarmism. Gore is a co-founder of Generation Investment Management - a $36 billion investment firm. The company’s new $1.7 billion Sustainable Solutions Fund IV will focus investments on companies “that contribute to lower emissions, increased financial inclusion and more accessible healthcare,” according to Bloomberg."
We are talking about BILLIONS here.
My Car windows were Icy this morning February 27 in the San Franicisco Bay, where is the Dam warming I keep hearing about. Everyone was ignorant once, so why is it still freezing?
It’s cloudy today, so I no longer believe the sky is blue.
@@benlaseter7719 Is it freezing also, tell me more.
@@benlaseter7719 11 ft of machine groomed Snow in Kirkwood California from the cloudy day.
Alberta B.C. issues first fire evacuation order 3 days ago april 23. 2024.
I have full trust in people to start saying “you see he tells us to absolutely not look at the sun the scientists are hiding something for sure”
you see he tells us to absolutely not look at the sun the scientists are hiding something for sure... 😆😆
Because it could never be exactly what it is I'm sure intended for. A small print clause for the "not so smart people" who will try to it and then sue PBS. Jeff Foxworthy says it best: "Here's your sign"
Scientists are hiding something? Do you actually think there's some obscure community of scientists that conspires against the climate? No, I mean c'mon man. The bean counters conspire against the climate for their short term financial gain.
But do you still have trust in him when he works for PBS Digital Studios which received $3M from the federal government via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
You can't communicate properly. A bit of punctuation, perhaps? Seriously - I can't understand what you're trying to say.
I have to admit I've been intensely frustrated by the folks who say "it's natural," and I've been pretty gloom-and-doom about the climate crisis. Pointing out that if we're the cause - we can be the solution too... that's really helpful. It's still also true that we've got to somehow get all the money makers and law makers on board with, you know, NOT destroying the climate to the point we can't live anymore. Which is daunting to say the least. But we got ourselves into this, we can get ourselves out.
I feel like a "sassy complaining" thing should be a good April First venture, by the way.
Some people just never want to learn, you can try and educate people but it doesn’t stop them from thinking you’re starting a fight and go straight into the insults. I’ve gotten so frustrated in the past trying to educate others that i have a lot more… tone to my comments now in a way I’d call “aggressive educating” I don’t stoop to others levels by my belief that they… aren’t smart is clear in my wording
Just think about how long the dinosaurs were the dominant species, longer than we have been, and natural catastrophes just took them out in the blink of eye. What makes us different? Why are we safe? I’m sure they thought life for them was how it always would be. It’s naive to believe that we can’t face the same challenges.
If we are already so green and want to live in harmony with nature, then let's let those forests burn! It's not natural to put out a fire! If we weren't here, no one would extinguish them!
I think the proper answer to "it's just natural" is "so was the last ice age, but I don't want to live in another one."
@@sifridbassoon if we follow the CO2 argument that's what we'll get if we reduce it to pre industrial levels. Warm is very good for everyone.
@@sifridbassoon Well, you can`t stop climate chaos. Tell me how you plan to control the Sun, asteroids, sea currents, evolution, changes in natural systems, or the certainty of more catastrophic volcanic eruptions like 536 A.D. or "The Year Without A Summer"? So would you prefer warmth or freezing cold?