But of course. You'd think so, wouldn't you. Do you recall Roger and Larch visited with John Sauven (then ceo greenpeace uk) ~5 years ago? Before Burning Pink got going. It's because the public including activists and scientists are scared, no more no less. What's the number of real out-and-out activists, those planning and organising activism as their lifes work, like Roger and Larch, as a percentage of the present population? Greater, the same or less than 0.00005% ? It's not dissimilar to who wants to be famous as a pop star, or great athlete? Lots do, and some are good, but most are never going to make it unless and until someone takes them by the hand and leads them day by day to the goal... but at some point events will take over and choice will diminish unless action is taken to find food and water.
This is pretty deluded. Firstly, there's a reason that eg XR was created in the first place rather than people just joining Greenpeace. Traditional protest groups had not succeeded. Secondly the world will not be saved by the accumulation of a critical mass of climate activists. Only working class mass participation can do that.
I care about animals not so much of humans anymore. FReedom from fossifuels means lost of nature and even more emissions and even less carbon sinks and costs of shifting is huge to taxpayers unlike stopping animal agriculture and abuse.
16:26 Note that the Paris Agreement says nothing about how 1.5C is measured. Vague on the baseline. Nothing about a long term average. The IPCC SR1.5 does have a definition (SPM page 4. Use 30 year average centred on current date, using 15 years into the past, and assuming trend continues into future), and page 24 states that 1850-1900 will be used as the baseline.
@@jmrozendaalthe present is always 15 years away from termination of the data set We can measure 1994-2024 and find that average... which is under 1.5
9:11 I'm with Claire, it's been 1.5 for 2 years now and if we MUST use that FACT as a motivation we must!! In the scientist Rambling Away From The Point, VERY frustrating, you're now saying "IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S 1.3 OR 1.5 OR 1.7" Sheesh!! THAT is de-motivating
It's the same with the framing of "Carbon Budgets" as something we can use. A "safe" buffer. It removes motivation. There is another issue with the so-called "scientific" 1.5C 10 year average: a 10 year average with half above and half below *assumes* no overall warming trend. How is that a scientific position when we know there is an energy imbalance?
The climate debate at the heart is really about redistribution of monies. Green lawmakers just assume take tax money & allocate to the solar sector & in return the solar employees will reward that lawmaker with their votes & the two-way relationship would continue. So what you get is favoritism, instead of equal treatment under the law. Look technology simply may not be a panacea. You have to evaluate it do you get a lot of bang for your buck. Can adverse ramifications be kept to a minimum? It has to be able to stand on its own. A problem with wind e.g. is it is killing whales b/c it interferes with their acute echolocation skills so they are getting stressed & stranding on beaches. Where is the Sierra Club? Their silence is deafening. I like the whales. I can't save everyone of them so I don't throw a hissy fit. What I do is point it out to lawmakers that an enviro impact study was not done by the greens. You know the greens that think every piece of technology save theirs has an adverse impact. So my analysis is you can do some wind but not in the numbers you want.
Green energy plans will come nowhere near the demmand - we will unfortunatley need lots more nuclear + planned continnued use of carbon fuels. Any vision of the near term future without these is pure BS.
We really need to run a multi pronged program:- Lobbying Scientific reasertch Mobilisation of:- Membership Legal confrontation Etc Problem solvers in various areas:- Polluter’s pay for clean up Carbon sequestration Biodiversity enhancers Financiers to fund projects to revers the situation via crowd funding etc. Communities to invest in Renewabules (As Cumbria Action for Sustainability (CAFS) did in Burneside Kendal & octopus energy MD advocates. Many of use already see the writing on the wall and want to get started implementing Solotions.
Of the 149 total comments, only 114 are showing by default, with 35 hidden from view. The reason for this is that RUclips AI decides what qualifies as a 'Top comment', and 'Top comments' is the default comment view. They use this method to remove what they consider to be 'undesirable' comments. You can see for yourself just what such 'undesirable' comments are by switching the 'sort by' option to 'newest first' as this will reveal the 35 hidden. Channel owner: You can set to display 'Newest first' as the default in your publish options should you prefer that all comments get a fair chance at being seen and read.
most people think, what makes something sustainable depends solely on HOW we do things. The HOW is to make it possible to be sustainable on a human timescale. What makes it sustainable is the rate of consumption. Fossil fuels are sustainable..... If we took 4 million years to use what we used in the last 200 years. But that is useless on a human timescale.
"what makes something sustainable depends solely on HOW we do things."......reminds me of the quote from Socrates when he said. "the only time I've been able to prepare bacon and eggs for breakfast is when I've made bacon and eggs"....fk that guy was brilliant.....
@@DrSmooth2000 That's where the "renewable" in renewables comes in. The source has to renew/rebuild itself at the same rate or faster than it is being used. If the tree growth in my woodlot is half of what it takes to keep my house warm, it isn't renewable on the time scale I am using it. So I would need a bigger woodlot or reduce the size of/ add insulation to my house.
You can't control the speed of heating either. One of major atmospheric phenoms in the last decade has been the disruption of the polar jet stream. Instead of being a slightly meandering west to east wave its taken on a shape of steep hills & deep valleys. The line itself separates the air masses. If you have a steep hill that means within the hill space, air from a southerly air mass is able to migrate further northward, bringing warm, air & in the case of the US, warm, humid air from the Gulf. So this allows this uncomfortable weather to sneak further up in latitude. In the case of a deep valley, if the jet descends to lower latitudes say Arkansas, Tennesee, Oklahoma you drag down much cooler, drier air from Canada. This facilitates the snowstorms in the south. This pattern can exist for long periods of time unless pushed out by a stronger front from the west, which in many cases is absent.
Clear description 🦭 However back to the OGs in 60s... regional variations are little more significant than weather and weather is insignificant for Scientists. What matters is total Earth Energy Balance. Invert Quebec and New Orleans weather makes no difference to the Balance
I've wondered about the jetstream meandering too, though without having viewed historical recordings, I can't be sure that it's any different today than it was in the past.
We don't really have cold fronts anymore, just giant storms that run from the arctic to the gulf. I have NEVER seen prevailing winds blowing in from the Atlantic onto the eastern seaboard of the USA which has been the pattern for the last 2 years. You can't prepare for whatever the current shift is because it will only get more disturbed and NOBODY has a good idea of if or when things will settle down. The real danger is the unpredictable shifting that will disrupt conventional weather preparedness (not like people do this anyway, so no sympathy here).
@@KathyWhiplash Indeed in New England we have not had any winter cold fronts or the Alberta Express the last 2 seasons. Noreasters still brew. This is due to the position of the polar vortex & the way the saddle shifts over the pole. It does not imply the change is permanent. Certainly the ENSO has been very strong the last few years after about a decade relegation to the team bench. 2014-15 was the last fierce winter in New England following a cool summer & this was the start of the vortex thing. I remember coaching my indoor track team & we were out on the track in December & I thought the weather was going to be pretty cooperative out there for us. Boy did that change in a hurry. We got plundered by snow for Christmas & then the temps dove into the single digits. It was like every Wednesday we were getting a storm. I was coming home from practice at 5 PM & the temps in the valley were already down to like 7 or 3 or 11. This was far too cold even for the valley at that hour. We were relegated to the inside. The snow remained on the track till late April. That was the positive vortex & the way it's saddle-shaped geometry slides over the pole contributes to the peaks & valleys of the jetstream. And no we cannot control it. So for snow lovers, enjoy it if it comes your way. Good skiing. If it's a dry & mild winter, well you don't have to shovel snow or spend money on someone to do it, & it gives a tad of encouragement on our utility bills.
As a paleo-climatology guy. There are some who think 🦕 might have enjoyed a super-cane 🌀 just to freshen air and get some excitement W->E winds are already slowing, but in summer when pole is closer to equatorial Temps and static potential is low so if get hot won't be many storms ironically
@HoneyBAJR well there is because that comment was meant to be on WC21 productions 😅 no idea how it ended up here. The video must have changed while I was commenting 🙄 or hacked
We have to understand that governments, fossil fuel companies, the economy in general (and most people) do not want to reduce our use of energy. Or use of resources. There is effectively no brake on our use of energy, and the general desire for ever more economic growth. The fossil fuel companies know that our economy, and the economy of every country, depends on use of ever more energy - for vehicles, for heating/ cooling, for production of almost every consumer or food product. There is no way - other than a bit more electricity being generated from renewables - of changing that. In a democracy, there is no way to slow economic growth, without there not being money for health services, education, pensions, public services etc. In a democracy, there is no way a government can enforced a reduced standard of living (ie. lower energy and resource use) by its population. Nor can it stop population growth. So there are no brakes.
Roger Hallam might be right about many things but he intellectualises and that alienates anyone whose head it goes over which is most / a lot of people. We can see that by the numbers of views / followers his videos and social media posts attract. Or have I got that wrong?
No you're right, he banged on about not exceeding 1.5°C for ages because of irreversible catastrophe for humanity. Then 1.5°C is exceeded and he doesn't want to talk about that really, but does double down on the emotional blackmail as an incentive for activism. Make your mind up mate.
@@billkosses3808he was right, it *is* irreversible. It is, however, still worth fighting for a better future (what little’s left of it anyway.) In his latest rhetoric he tactfully speaks about fighting it for a higher purpose to give life meaning (while avoiding the tragic inevitability), speaks about fighting for the benefit of the global community. We can still *mitigate* the now-inevitable catastrophe. Just because we can’t *solve* our predicament, we shouldn’t give up and let the powers that be strip us of what little freedom we have left without resistance. I don’t blame anyone for turning apathetic or not having the courage to stand up for what’s righteous; these are tough times and there are plenty of bad actors moulding our thoughts, but like I said I believe standing up for a cause will be the only way to stay sane in the near future (unless you believe the propaganda of course, and are okay with what you‘ll end up doing in the name of it.)
How frustrating that media haven't been covering this to meet the scope and scale of the issue. How many people even know that we've blown past 1.5 degrees C? Sure, maybe some ways to address the issue are complicated. But can we at least stop subsidizing the problem? We subsidize meat and dairy for example.
Meat and dairy are nutritionally unnecessary and an extremely inefficient way to generate calories for humanity. Ending meat and dairy subsidies would have almost zero downsides. Let those industries stand on their own in the marketplace, at the very least. I'm not a "let the market sort it out" person, but come on...these industries would crumble without subsidies.
Are you kidding me? They wouldn't even call the POTUS elect what he is: a convicted fraudster, convicted felon, and adjudicated sexual abuser. They elevated a duck to an eagle, and the eagle has a gun pointed at everyone who does not believe climate change is a hoax. Secure your boot straps and bend over. Dictator on day one.
Earths energy imbalance is a v imformative metric..that is leading...and somewhat predictive..its fairly easy to understand..if you convert watt per square meter to a tangible measure... electric kettles boiled .. over a football feild area per day..as an example...
Please it is not 1.5⁰c. It is 2.5⁰c. Because 1⁰c is being held back by the aerosol masking effect which we will eventually lose when the world goes Net Zero.
@johnpritchard8946 There have been a number of peer reviewed studies that suggest 1⁰c of warming is being held back by the aerosol masking effect. Professor Guy Macpherson has detailed them on his channel.
@HoneyBAJR The next Ice Age is not for at least another fifty thousand years. If we don't stop emitting greenhouse gases and apply atmospheric aerosol injections to cool the Earth, the human race will be gone within a hundred years.
@@johnpritchard8946 reference is to James Hansen. Vibe Im picking is His team got him to round down to .9C 'in the pipeline' but suspect he believes there's perhaps multiple degrees 'hidden'
There are 5 commonly referenced global temperature datasets. Berkeley Earth had 2023 over 1.5C. For 2024 Berkeley Earth, Copernicus ERA5 and HadCRUT will all very likely be over 1.5C. NOAA and Nasa are about 0.1C below Copernicus. At the start of December 2024, Copernicus will have 25 month running average over 1.5C. As Charlie says, the longer trend (e.g. loess 30 year, for all 5 datasets combined... Is currently around 1.3C)
12:20 clare is right here. By the time the trend is clearly over 1.5C, we will be having individual years averaging over 1.8C. Not too worry! That's only 4-8 years away.
I wouldn't say Julia Steinberger lacks an emotional response but on the whole there's poor communicators within the scientific community. It could prove to be the epic fail of all epic fails. Oh dear.
Was it man’s influence when it warmed for the Roman and medieval warms periods that weren’t regional? China also reports the same. Was it man’s influence when it cooled into the little ice age? CO2 is of great benefit and even though it is increasing its effect is reduced. 97% of all CO2 is produced naturally by the oceans etc, so if UK, Europe and USA went to zero it wouldn’t make a difference. The Drax power station burns 32,000 tons of wood per day from North America. The IPCC scientific AR6 report says there is no detectable manmade influence on all the areas the alarmists like to quote, only a slight warming (which has happened several times before) It’s only the political summary that mentions crisis. Renewables will continue to make our energy more expensive.
Different things can influence temperatures and climate. At Different times, or even at the same time Sunlight sometimes 🧜♀️ and sometimes there's been Volcanism for CO2 🦭 Or both 🧜♀️🦭 at once
I have long admired your ability to communicate under pressure on TV interviews and after a long time away from XR, I have started to engage again. Now, when you say "it basically comes down to two men having a pissing contest" I felt like I had received a punch. Clare, I would like to request that you examine your thinking. There are at least two occasions where you get into a rhetorical reaction to your thoughts about men. I resent the insinuation that I, as a man, am to blame. As though men need to step aside and leave it to the women. The part of your thinking that I'd like to ask you to examine is the degree that misandry is present. One of the factors that I stepped away from XR, is the level of hatred that I experienced and that is echoed in some of the threads that run through what is mainly a very potent message that you deliver.
Recalling my time as a self identified Green, it was a pleasant identity to have. Other Greens were generally pleasant, nice people, and inoffensive. We had this common belief that we really cared, felt a responsibility and were prepared to make sacrifices for a greater good. But therein lay the danger. We didn't regard ourselves as sanctimonious, but behind the facade of our niceness lurked a sanctimonious hubris, in that we regarded people other than ourselves as ignorant and in need of saving. It began with a love of nature, not a bad thing to have, a dislike of pollution, desolation, and contamination. But contaminated we were, we took the CO2 global warming, climate crisis narrative, hook, line and sinker, with little question, or examination ! Yes the people selling the idea buried us in data, but we didn't choose to examine, or challenge them, we were the chosen, who were out to save the planet. How many have rewatched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth ? The first time I watched it I took it as truth, it spurred me on, confirming my belief and reinforcing my self image. Well it didn't stand the test of time, much like Greta's tweets, it's an embarrassment, the crisis failed to emerge. CVD ! Thank you CVD for opening my eyes. You revealed yourself for what you are, ambitious totalitarian, authoritarian, Malthusians, who hate humanity ! There they all were, the philanthro capitalists who sold me “ Oil will make us boil “ pushing by every means bar physically holding me down, to put an experimental gene therapy into my body, into all our bodies ! You let the mask drop, and as a consequence, I rigorously examined everything you had ever told me and found it wanting ! There is always more than one way to approach a problem, so why not employ all of them ? The problem in your eyes is us, the useless eaters, so how do you reduce our numbers ? Well if you can get them to hate themselves, which a generation or more clearly does ! Get them to identify as a blight on the planet ? And then they might just volunteer, go quietly ? Slowly poisoned by novel “foods”, novel pharmaceuticals, particles sprayed into the air, starving as the politicians who claim to represent them attack the food supply, through austerity because the oil that fuels our prosperity is reduced and removed, or better still casualties to avoidable wars. Well you misunderstood this former Green ! Yes I love nature, and I love the planet, but I love humanity too. And as for you Malthusians ? You are the problem seeking a solution, and people are starting to realise, so you’d better finish building your bunkers soon !
Wha? CVD? Cardio Vascular Disease opened your eyes? Fk mate, it made me close mine and grimace like I'd had a hot poker cshoved through my chest! Whatcha on about, Chine?
You must understand you cannot obtain utopia. Challenge is that all humans have different visions. Instead of an all or nothing approach I'd seek a middle road. The problem with the greens is they react on emotion & not science. I gather this begins in school & they are schooled to see the planet as unfair & they then appoint themselves the arbiters of fairness. You cannot get to utopia w/o curbing the standard of living that many people enjoy today. I am reminded of Christ's parable about the lost sheep--would not one of you go out to find it even it were the Sabbath? This is the finer point He made: did God make the Sabbath to serve mankind or did God make mankind to serve the Sabbath? The greens follow the latter; they want everyone to be altruistic & not everyone shares that vision of sacrifice. The planet is not going anywhere. You can be a decent steward w/o obscession. With the greens, their obscession has become a burden to them (Christ's parable to Lazarus). Obtaining such a utopia would involve Marxist principles of enforcement aka a police state. What would be the point of human existence. So e.g. instead of banning gas-powered cars & forcing people to expend money they don't have for an EV or doing w/o maybe one could say is the Maglev train possible in some geographies for an improved mass transit. You lose this part of the diesel sector coming from this mode of transport in the giant transport sector.
very well said - i love the planet same as my own life...but NetZERO is nonsense, and climate change narratives have been completley co-opted by enemies, not friends of nature.
lets talk about weather forecast. if you say it will be raining tomorrow and tomorrow is not raining then people start to not believe in what you are saying. so climate change is like that too. people wont believe it until it happen. so thats how stupid humanity as a whole is. yes. they wont believe in doomsday prediction until doomsday happens
Here let me try helping out re 1.5C.. ok we're not sure if were past 1.5C over 10yrs. But imo we probably are re trend. But hey the 1st year of 1.5C clearly shows that we have now reached the impacts going forward of a 1.5C world. There. We're fucked #wass.
Carbon sequestration and storage (CCS) is irrelevant in practice and yet the fossil fuel cabal are totally dependent upon it to allow the continued carbon pollution. We have one hope, one strategy, #LeaveItInTheGround. We can have a great life, but not an extractive carbon based one.
@@DrSmooth2000 agreed there was none. But atleast Non humans had maintained some equilibrium with its environment. Our consumption and greed has no limits. The first one's to die off would be the one's that had nothing to do with this. Poor people and animals.
The MWP wasn't a unified global phenomenon but describes periods of warming that occurred at different times and at different places over a roughly 4 to 500 year period. Even if I accepted a global change in temperature the difference between the warmest MWP period and the coldest LIA is much less then 1 degree C. I agree that the effect of CO2 is logrithmic in nature. I also agree that, other things being equal, plants grow better with more CO2. The problem will be (is becoming) that other things aren't equal. Crops don't respond well to drought or flooding and thrive best within a given temperature range. Your 97% figure is misleading. CO2 has gone from 280ppm to 420+ppm (a 50% increase). I heard an interesting analogy if you're thinking 420ppm isn't very much. It's equivalent to nearly 280 gallons of urine in an Olympic sized swimming pool.
@axeman2638 Have a look at the Wikipedia article on the MWP. If you disagree with it and have good reason to do so then perhaps you'd like to correct it. I've not read the whole article but, apart from the length of time it lasted for, my previous comment pretty much agrees with what it says.
@@johnpritchard8946 Oh how cute, it thinks wikipedia is a trustworthy source. Listen sport, 97% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, CO2 is a very minor contributor, and man is a very minor contributor to CO2. Stop believing the alarmist lies. Go and study the subject.
A duvet isn't energy, nor is clothing, nor those shiny emergency blankets that first responders deploy - they have no warming effect. Strip the victims of the RTA! The moon is warm, why should it need an atmosphere? Not much gas in space, and astronauts should be left naked... CO2? Irrelevant, mate!
@@nolongerlistless You posted a lot of disconnected thoughts. If I'm understanding what you posted, the property of a gas that is similar to the things you described is called DENSITY. A denser gas will hold more thermal energy.
"In fact, irreversible entropy production by radiative processes is the dominant source of irreversibility on the planet. Most studies of the second law applied to Earth, however, consider only matter (atoms and molecules) to be a part of the climate system, whereas radiation (photons) is considered a part of the surroundings. In that view, radiation is treated as an external and reversible heat source or sink, and the irreversibility of radiative processes does not enter discussions of the planetary heat engine." oops - that's the error you just made!! see Thermodynamics of the climate system: To understand Earth’s climate, think of it as a giant, planetary-scale heat engine that drives the circulation of the oceans and atmosphere." Martin S. Singh; Morgan E O’Neill Physics Today 75 (7), 30-37 (2022);
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 My friend, I've been studying gas physics for the last 20+ years. What you just posted is complete nonsense. It was fabricated by 1-dimensional thinkers who don't understand pathlengths, that the atmosphere is a 3-dimensional construct, and that the greenhouse effect has limits--just like everything else in the universe.
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 In fact, the greenhouse effect may not even be real. It's most likely an artifact created by the interaction of ONE region of the atmosphere with EM radiation from the surface. The "effect" DOES NOT pan the entire atmosphere. Case in point, what effect does CO2 have in the mesosphere and upper stratosphere? Look it up.
1850s were cold - but dont worry, "ordinary ears" understand averages good enough. Try to not misrepresent the historical and paleoenvironmental context....and throw out your broken climate models :/
Would you people get off it. You can't control the weather. Ya know it's all nice to have goals but it's too utopian. You risk bringing down people's standard of living with mandates. Things like food, utilities, transport are all essential to human progress. What will happen if you hit 1.6? You'll still get up the next day. Put in AC if you're hot.
The heating itself is NOT the problem. The speed is the problem. Life takes long to adapt, and can adapt, but not at the exponential speed the heating is happening right now - plus all the energy imbalance and the wind, floods, droughts, etc that are one of the many consequences. So yeah, collapse will happen.
@@brunawitt4973 The planet goes out when the sun becomes a red giant. Earth is pretty resilient with its balancing mechanisms. You guys just go with emotion & no science. The atmosphere is dynamic because of gradients. It is not dogma that you have 60 Degrees every day & a blue sky. Wind, floods, tornados, blizzards, hurricanes, dust storms, earthquakes, landslides, eruptions, sinkholes, ice all occur because by its very nature the atmosphere is dynamic.
Rupert tries to be and is a pretty good communicator. Most of you live in a bourgeois bubble which is fine if that's who you want to reach but it falls on deaf ears beyond that, imo. Many ppl just aren't in a position to make adaptive adjustments because of the costs involved. Not always and not necessarily but if you're already alienated from the message in numerous ways you're not going to listen to any of it, I would say. I might be wrong and I'm generalising but I think there's a reasonable amount of truth to all that.
@@billkosses3808are you claiming that, more broadly and not necessarily as something quotable from the video, that's not the case? Or is it only possible to refer to the specific words or quotes from the uploaded video in order to satisfy your narrowmindedness?
@@billkosses3808so for the percentage of people who are skint and don't exist in a bourgeois bubble who would like to make adaptive changes such as, for argument's sake, installing a heat pump or solar panels they can make that happen by....what? praying? wishing on a star? how is that achievable for the cohort I refer to here?
Thing is - uk people / bourgeois types are going on more holidays and flights than ever before and carbon rates / emissions are going up, not down - unless I've got that wrong but I don't think I have. Do you see any evidence at all of people reining in consumption levels? I don't. Car use gets worse and worse, traffic jams are pervasive, cyclists are the enemy etc etc etc. Whatever carbon budget or whatever is left according to whatever calculations it will be blown through in no time at all and quite literally almost nobody is arsed and they'll continue not to be arsed until they've got nowhere to live or their gentrifier's house is flooded and uninsurable and it costs them money that's not currently taxed adequately and is a massive pain in the arse for them. Until then they'll pretend to be bothered and just laugh at everyone not in their position or who gives two fuc7s such as xr, jso etc etc etc. It's possible I've got that wrong but I don't think it's too far from the reality of it all. I've got no idea what kind of realistic solution there is but atm I'm just not seeing one. I am a bit of a pessimist generally and it doesn't win you any friends but a pessimist is a well informed optimist as the aphorism goes. I'd like to be all happy and positive about stuff but I just can't seem to make myself do it, unfortunately.
Why don’t we all join forces? XR, JSO, Greenpeace etc etc?
But of course. You'd think so, wouldn't you. Do you recall Roger and Larch visited with John Sauven (then ceo greenpeace uk) ~5 years ago? Before Burning Pink got going. It's because the public including activists and scientists are scared, no more no less. What's the number of real out-and-out activists, those planning and organising activism as their lifes work, like Roger and Larch, as a percentage of the present population? Greater, the same or less than 0.00005% ? It's not dissimilar to who wants to be famous as a pop star, or great athlete? Lots do, and some are good, but most are never going to make it unless and until someone takes them by the hand and leads them day by day to the goal... but at some point events will take over and choice will diminish unless action is taken to find food and water.
Just Stop Extinction
This is pretty deluded. Firstly, there's a reason that eg XR was created in the first place rather than people just joining Greenpeace. Traditional protest groups had not succeeded.
Secondly the world will not be saved by the accumulation of a critical mass of climate activists. Only working class mass participation can do that.
I care about animals not so much of humans anymore. FReedom from fossifuels means lost of nature and even more emissions and even less carbon sinks and costs of shifting is huge to taxpayers unlike stopping animal agriculture and abuse.
You've not heard of "Narcissism of Small Differences"?
11:20 The average since that zoom call is 1.5C
(Copernicus ERA5, Nov 2nd 2022 -> Nov 25th 2024, baseline: 1850-1900)
1.5 is commonly cited in the lit but I think it was Fahrenheit.
16:26 Note that the Paris Agreement says nothing about how 1.5C is measured. Vague on the baseline. Nothing about a long term average. The IPCC SR1.5 does have a definition (SPM page 4. Use 30 year average centred on current date, using 15 years into the past, and assuming trend continues into future), and page 24 states that 1850-1900 will be used as the baseline.
It is more and more measured on the asphalt. ... 🥱
Where are we in this definition, 30-year average centred on current date?
@@jmrozendaalthe present is always 15 years away from termination of the data set
We can measure 1994-2024 and find that average... which is under 1.5
9:11 I'm with Claire, it's been 1.5 for 2 years now and if we MUST use that FACT as a motivation we must!! In the scientist Rambling Away From The Point, VERY frustrating, you're now saying "IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S 1.3 OR 1.5 OR 1.7" Sheesh!! THAT is de-motivating
It's the same with the framing of "Carbon Budgets" as something we can use. A "safe" buffer. It removes motivation.
There is another issue with the so-called "scientific" 1.5C 10 year average: a 10 year average with half above and half below *assumes* no overall warming trend. How is that a scientific position when we know there is an energy imbalance?
@@TheUAoBuse 30 year trend and obvi over 1994 Temps 🤷♀️
Thought provoking conversation
The climate debate at the heart is really about redistribution of monies. Green lawmakers just assume take tax money & allocate to the solar sector & in return the solar employees will reward that lawmaker with their votes & the two-way relationship would continue. So what you get is favoritism, instead of equal treatment under the law. Look technology simply may not be a panacea. You have to evaluate it do you get a lot of bang for your buck. Can adverse ramifications be kept to a minimum? It has to be able to stand on its own. A problem with wind e.g. is it is killing whales b/c it interferes with their acute echolocation skills so they are getting stressed & stranding on beaches. Where is the Sierra Club? Their silence is deafening. I like the whales. I can't save everyone of them so I don't throw a hissy fit. What I do is point it out to lawmakers that an enviro impact study was not done by the greens. You know the greens that think every piece of technology save theirs has an adverse impact. So my analysis is you can do some wind but not in the numbers you want.
Green energy plans will come nowhere near the demmand - we will unfortunatley need lots more nuclear + planned continnued use of carbon fuels. Any vision of the near term future without these is pure BS.
We really need to run a multi pronged program:-
Lobbying
Scientific reasertch
Mobilisation of:-
Membership
Legal confrontation
Etc
Problem solvers in various areas:-
Polluter’s pay for clean up
Carbon sequestration
Biodiversity enhancers
Financiers to fund projects to revers the situation via crowd funding etc.
Communities to invest in Renewabules (As Cumbria Action for Sustainability (CAFS) did in Burneside Kendal & octopus energy MD advocates.
Many of use already see the writing on the wall and want to get started implementing Solotions.
Excellent video, thank you .❤
Of the 149 total comments, only 114 are showing by default, with 35 hidden from view. The reason for this is that RUclips AI decides what qualifies as a 'Top comment', and 'Top comments' is the default comment view. They use this method to remove what they consider to be 'undesirable' comments. You can see for yourself just what such 'undesirable' comments are by switching the 'sort by' option to 'newest first' as this will reveal the 35 hidden.
Channel owner: You can set to display 'Newest first' as the default in your publish options should you prefer that all comments get a fair chance at being seen and read.
most people think, what makes something sustainable depends solely on HOW we do things.
The HOW is to make it possible to be sustainable on a human timescale.
What makes it sustainable is the rate of consumption.
Fossil fuels are sustainable..... If we took 4 million years to use what we used in the last 200 years. But that is useless on a human timescale.
"what makes something sustainable depends solely on HOW we do things."......reminds me of the quote from Socrates when he said. "the only time I've been able to prepare bacon and eggs for breakfast is when I've made bacon and eggs"....fk that guy was brilliant.....
@@ceeemm1901 the pigs and egg-layers had no part in providing breakfast?
@@ceeemm1901 never heard advice to pace yourself?
After 4My using the fossil fuels... believe some would have fossilized in the meantime and ♻️ now classed a renewable
@@DrSmooth2000 That's where the "renewable" in renewables comes in. The source has to renew/rebuild itself at the same rate or faster than it is being used.
If the tree growth in my woodlot is half of what it takes to keep my house warm, it isn't renewable on the time scale I am using it. So I would need a bigger woodlot or reduce the size of/ add insulation to my house.
Thankyou guys
You can't control the speed of heating either. One of major atmospheric phenoms in the last decade has been the disruption of the polar jet stream. Instead of being a slightly meandering west to east wave its taken on a shape of steep hills & deep valleys. The line itself separates the air masses. If you have a steep hill that means within the hill space, air from a southerly air mass is able to migrate further northward, bringing warm, air & in the case of the US, warm, humid air from the Gulf. So this allows this uncomfortable weather to sneak further up in latitude. In the case of a deep valley, if the jet descends to lower latitudes say Arkansas, Tennesee, Oklahoma you drag down much cooler, drier air from Canada. This facilitates the snowstorms in the south. This pattern can exist for long periods of time unless pushed out by a stronger front from the west, which in many cases is absent.
Clear description 🦭
However back to the OGs in 60s... regional variations are little more significant than weather and weather is insignificant for Scientists.
What matters is total Earth Energy Balance. Invert Quebec and New Orleans weather makes no difference to the Balance
I've wondered about the jetstream meandering too, though without having viewed historical recordings, I can't be sure that it's any different today than it was in the past.
We don't really have cold fronts anymore, just giant storms that run from the arctic to the gulf. I have NEVER seen prevailing winds blowing in from the Atlantic onto the eastern seaboard of the USA which has been the pattern for the last 2 years. You can't prepare for whatever the current shift is because it will only get more disturbed and NOBODY has a good idea of if or when things will settle down. The real danger is the unpredictable shifting that will disrupt conventional weather preparedness (not like people do this anyway, so no sympathy here).
@@KathyWhiplash Indeed in New England we have not had any winter cold fronts or the Alberta Express the last 2 seasons. Noreasters still brew. This is due to the position of the polar vortex & the way the saddle shifts over the pole. It does not imply the change is permanent. Certainly the ENSO has been very strong the last few years after about a decade relegation to the team bench. 2014-15 was the last fierce winter in New England following a cool summer & this was the start of the vortex thing. I remember coaching my indoor track team & we were out on the track in December & I thought the weather was going to be pretty cooperative out there for us. Boy did that change in a hurry. We got plundered by snow for Christmas & then the temps dove into the single digits. It was like every Wednesday we were getting a storm. I was coming home from practice at 5 PM & the temps in the valley were already down to like 7 or 3 or 11. This was far too cold even for the valley at that hour. We were relegated to the inside. The snow remained on the track till late April. That was the positive vortex & the way it's saddle-shaped geometry slides over the pole contributes to the peaks & valleys of the jetstream. And no we cannot control it. So for snow lovers, enjoy it if it comes your way. Good skiing. If it's a dry & mild winter, well you don't have to shovel snow or spend money on someone to do it, & it gives a tad of encouragement on our utility bills.
As a paleo-climatology guy. There are some who think 🦕 might have enjoyed a super-cane 🌀 just to freshen air and get some excitement
W->E winds are already slowing, but in summer when pole is closer to equatorial Temps and static potential is low so if get hot won't be many storms ironically
I will keep enjoying this channel until it gets too popular 😅😊🎉
no danger there
@HoneyBAJR well there is because that comment was meant to be on WC21 productions 😅 no idea how it ended up here. The video must have changed while I was commenting 🙄 or hacked
Always gotta be the rebel eh
We have to understand that governments, fossil fuel companies, the economy in general (and most people) do not want to reduce our use of energy. Or use of resources. There is effectively no brake on our use of energy, and the general desire for ever more economic growth. The fossil fuel companies know that our economy, and the economy of every country, depends on use of ever more energy - for vehicles, for heating/ cooling, for production of almost every consumer or food product. There is no way - other than a bit more electricity being generated from renewables - of changing that. In a democracy, there is no way to slow economic growth, without there not being money for health services, education, pensions, public services etc. In a democracy, there is no way a government can enforced a reduced standard of living (ie. lower energy and resource use) by its population. Nor can it stop population growth. So there are no brakes.
Roger Hallam might be right about many things but he intellectualises and that alienates anyone whose head it goes over which is most / a lot of people. We can see that by the numbers of views / followers his videos and social media posts attract. Or have I got that wrong?
No you're right, he banged on about not exceeding 1.5°C for ages because of irreversible catastrophe for humanity. Then 1.5°C is exceeded and he doesn't want to talk about that really, but does double down on the emotional blackmail as an incentive for activism. Make your mind up mate.
You won't believe how many "Hippy/Alternatives/ Permaculturists" et al still eat fish.......
@@billkosses3808he was right, it *is* irreversible. It is, however, still worth fighting for a better future (what little’s left of it anyway.)
In his latest rhetoric he tactfully speaks about fighting it for a higher purpose to give life meaning (while avoiding the tragic inevitability), speaks about fighting for the benefit of the global community.
We can still *mitigate* the now-inevitable catastrophe. Just because we can’t *solve* our predicament, we shouldn’t give up and let the powers that be strip us of what little freedom we have left without resistance.
I don’t blame anyone for turning apathetic or not having the courage to stand up for what’s righteous; these are tough times and there are plenty of bad actors moulding our thoughts, but like I said I believe standing up for a cause will be the only way to stay sane in the near future (unless you believe the propaganda of course, and are okay with what you‘ll end up doing in the name of it.)
@@ceeemm1901fish as a generic class is in no danger of depletion.
Have to analyze by species or by ecology the fish is from
@@billkosses3808 Yeah, hallam is a weird fckn guy.
How frustrating that media haven't been covering this to meet the scope and scale of the issue. How many people even know that we've blown past 1.5 degrees C?
Sure, maybe some ways to address the issue are complicated. But can we at least stop subsidizing the problem? We subsidize meat and dairy for example.
Meat and dairy are nutritionally unnecessary and an extremely inefficient way to generate calories for humanity. Ending meat and dairy subsidies would have almost zero downsides.
Let those industries stand on their own in the marketplace, at the very least. I'm not a "let the market sort it out" person, but come on...these industries would crumble without subsidies.
Are you kidding me? They wouldn't even call the POTUS elect what he is: a convicted fraudster, convicted felon, and adjudicated sexual abuser. They elevated a duck to an eagle, and the eagle has a gun pointed at everyone who does not believe climate change is a hoax. Secure your boot straps and bend over. Dictator on day one.
Love the pride logo! Thanks for not abandoning us.
Oh we can go back to 1.5.... We just need to keep all humans in agreement for 3000 years! 😂
Earths energy imbalance is a v imformative metric..that is leading...and somewhat predictive..its fairly easy to understand..if you convert watt per square meter to a tangible measure... electric kettles boiled .. over a football feild area per day..as an example...
Wm2 is helpful universal translator, even be used for 🌋
But can't always translate to °C as also have latent heat 'spent' on water state change
Please it is not 1.5⁰c. It is 2.5⁰c. Because 1⁰c is being held back by the aerosol masking effect which we will eventually lose when the world goes Net Zero.
I understand the concept but where do you get the extra 1c figure from?
@johnpritchard8946
There have been a number of peer reviewed studies that suggest 1⁰c of warming is being held back by the aerosol masking effect. Professor Guy Macpherson has detailed them on his channel.
dont worry - humans have limited the next ice age to a mild spell.
@HoneyBAJR
The next Ice Age is not for at least another fifty thousand years. If we don't stop emitting greenhouse gases and apply atmospheric aerosol injections to cool the Earth, the human race will be gone within a hundred years.
@@johnpritchard8946 reference is to James Hansen.
Vibe Im picking is His team got him to round down to .9C 'in the pipeline' but suspect he believes there's perhaps multiple degrees 'hidden'
8:10 dude just finished explaining the he KNOWS why people don't take this seriously, crosses his legs, chuckles and keeps doing it 🤦
Is there a transcript of this conversation available?
oh god, please no! - go plant some flowers or feed a bird instead:)
1.5C is in the pipeline. And 2.0C is also in the pipeline.
'The Next President'
a 47 years old song from
Freddie McCoy dit Ahmed Sofi
There are 5 commonly referenced global temperature datasets. Berkeley Earth had 2023 over 1.5C. For 2024 Berkeley Earth, Copernicus ERA5 and HadCRUT will all very likely be over 1.5C. NOAA and Nasa are about 0.1C below Copernicus.
At the start of December 2024, Copernicus will have 25 month running average over 1.5C.
As Charlie says, the longer trend (e.g. loess 30 year, for all 5 datasets combined... Is currently around 1.3C)
Assuming a straight line which is incorrect
@@earthsystemplease elaborate
12:20 clare is right here. By the time the trend is clearly over 1.5C, we will be having individual years averaging over 1.8C. Not too worry! That's only 4-8 years away.
I wouldn't say Julia Steinberger lacks an emotional response but on the whole there's poor communicators within the scientific community. It could prove to be the epic fail of all epic fails. Oh dear.
Emotional has its limits of appeal
@@DrSmooth2000I didn't say otherwise. The point was not mine. Up to a point. Hysterical people just look mad, for example.
Gods, this is so painfully middle class
Was it man’s influence when it warmed for the Roman and medieval warms periods that weren’t regional? China also reports the same.
Was it man’s influence when it cooled into the little ice age?
CO2 is of great benefit and even though it is increasing its effect is reduced.
97% of all CO2 is produced naturally by the oceans etc, so if UK, Europe and USA went to zero it wouldn’t make a difference.
The Drax power station burns 32,000 tons of wood per day from North America.
The IPCC scientific AR6 report says there is no detectable manmade influence on all the areas the alarmists like to quote, only a slight warming (which has happened several times before)
It’s only the political summary that mentions crisis.
Renewables will continue to make our energy more expensive.
Let me go out on a little limb here Andy...you haven't been able to have a root yet, have you?
well said:)
drax...Drax...DRAX ......DRAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Different things can influence temperatures and climate. At Different times, or even at the same time
Sunlight sometimes
🧜♀️ and sometimes there's been Volcanism for CO2 🦭
Or both 🧜♀️🦭 at once
We won't know til it's over and when it's over we won't know at all. Is that the definition of useless?
I have long admired your ability to communicate under pressure on TV interviews and after a long time away from XR, I have started to engage again.
Now, when you say "it basically comes down to two men having a pissing contest" I felt like I had received a punch.
Clare, I would like to request that you examine your thinking. There are at least two occasions where you get into a rhetorical reaction to your thoughts about men. I resent the insinuation that I, as a man, am to blame. As though men need to step aside and leave it to the women.
The part of your thinking that I'd like to ask you to examine is the degree that misandry is present.
One of the factors that I stepped away from XR, is the level of hatred that I experienced and that is echoed in some of the threads that run through what is mainly a very potent message that you deliver.
Recalling my time as a self identified Green, it was a pleasant identity to have. Other Greens were generally pleasant, nice people, and inoffensive.
We had this common belief that we really cared, felt a responsibility and were prepared to make sacrifices for a greater good. But therein lay the danger.
We didn't regard ourselves as sanctimonious, but behind the facade of our niceness lurked a sanctimonious hubris, in that we regarded people other than ourselves as ignorant and in need of saving.
It began with a love of nature, not a bad thing to have, a dislike of pollution, desolation, and contamination. But contaminated we were, we took the CO2 global warming, climate crisis narrative, hook, line and sinker, with little question, or examination ! Yes the people selling the idea buried us in data, but we didn't choose to examine, or challenge them, we were the chosen, who were out to save the planet.
How many have rewatched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth ? The first time I watched it I took it as truth, it spurred me on, confirming my belief and reinforcing my self image. Well it didn't stand the test of time, much like Greta's tweets, it's an embarrassment, the crisis failed to emerge.
CVD ! Thank you CVD for opening my eyes. You revealed yourself for what you are, ambitious totalitarian, authoritarian, Malthusians, who hate humanity ! There they all were, the philanthro capitalists who sold me “ Oil will make us boil “ pushing by every means bar physically holding me down, to put an experimental gene therapy into my body, into all our bodies ! You let the mask drop, and as a consequence, I rigorously examined everything you had ever told me and found it wanting !
There is always more than one way to approach a problem, so why not employ all of them ? The problem in your eyes is us, the useless eaters, so how do you reduce our numbers ? Well if you can get them to hate themselves, which a generation or more clearly does ! Get them to identify as a blight on the planet ? And then they might just volunteer, go quietly ? Slowly poisoned by novel “foods”, novel pharmaceuticals, particles sprayed into the air, starving as the politicians who claim to represent them attack the food supply, through austerity because the oil that fuels our prosperity is reduced and removed, or better still casualties to avoidable wars.
Well you misunderstood this former Green ! Yes I love nature, and I love the planet, but I love humanity too. And as for you Malthusians ? You are the problem seeking a solution, and people are starting to realise, so you’d better finish building your bunkers soon !
Wha? CVD? Cardio Vascular Disease opened your eyes? Fk mate, it made me close mine and grimace like I'd had a hot poker cshoved through my chest! Whatcha on about, Chine?
You must understand you cannot obtain utopia. Challenge is that all humans have different visions. Instead of an all or nothing approach I'd seek a middle road. The problem with the greens is they react on emotion & not science. I gather this begins in school & they are schooled to see the planet as unfair & they then appoint themselves the arbiters of fairness. You cannot get to utopia w/o curbing the standard of living that many people enjoy today. I am reminded of Christ's parable about the lost sheep--would not one of you go out to find it even it were the Sabbath? This is the finer point He made: did God make the Sabbath to serve mankind or did God make mankind to serve the Sabbath? The greens follow the latter; they want everyone to be altruistic & not everyone shares that vision of sacrifice. The planet is not going anywhere. You can be a decent steward w/o obscession. With the greens, their obscession has become a burden to them (Christ's parable to Lazarus). Obtaining such a utopia would involve Marxist principles of enforcement aka a police state. What would be the point of human existence. So e.g. instead of banning gas-powered cars & forcing people to expend money they don't have for an EV or doing w/o maybe one could say is the Maglev train possible in some geographies for an improved mass transit. You lose this part of the diesel sector coming from this mode of transport in the giant transport sector.
O pen your I 's@@ceeemm1901 CVD is incomplete without them, sensor ship has us all at sea.
very well said - i love the planet same as my own life...but NetZERO is nonsense, and climate change narratives have been completley co-opted by enemies, not friends of nature.
We've had similar journey 🍻
lets talk about weather forecast. if you say it will be raining tomorrow and tomorrow is not raining then people start to not believe in what you are saying. so climate change is like that too. people wont believe it until it happen. so thats how stupid humanity as a whole is. yes. they wont believe in doomsday prediction until doomsday happens
denial is trending
Here let me try helping out re 1.5C.. ok we're not sure if were past 1.5C over 10yrs. But imo we probably are re trend.
But hey the 1st year of 1.5C clearly shows that we have now reached the impacts going forward of a 1.5C world.
There. We're fucked #wass.
We made it to 1.5.
Yep, we're goal orientated....
Carbon sequestration and storage (CCS) is irrelevant in practice and yet the fossil fuel cabal are totally dependent upon it to allow the continued carbon pollution. We have one hope, one strategy, #LeaveItInTheGround.
We can have a great life, but not an extractive carbon based one.
algae
i dont understand, why are we rebelling against extinction?
Longtermism
Because we don’t want to be extinct.
@@mikearcher6568 why not? Aren't we the ones causing all the suffering?
@@beyonder7817 define the time was no suffering
@@DrSmooth2000 agreed there was none. But atleast Non humans had maintained some equilibrium with its environment. Our consumption and greed has no limits. The first one's to die off would be the one's that had nothing to do with this. Poor people and animals.
The MWP wasn't a unified global phenomenon but describes periods of warming that occurred at different times and at different places over a roughly 4 to 500 year period. Even if I accepted a global change in temperature the difference between the warmest MWP period and the coldest LIA is much less then 1 degree C.
I agree that the effect of CO2 is logrithmic in nature. I also agree that, other things being equal, plants grow better with more CO2. The problem will be (is becoming) that other things aren't equal. Crops don't respond well to drought or flooding and thrive best within a given temperature range.
Your 97% figure is misleading. CO2 has gone from 280ppm to 420+ppm (a 50% increase).
I heard an interesting analogy if you're thinking 420ppm isn't very much. It's equivalent to nearly 280 gallons of urine in an Olympic sized swimming pool.
Carbon dioxide isn't energy. It doesn't warm anything. The problem is, 1-dimensional thinkers can't understand this.
co2 is the smallest of problems facing real environments and habitats - direct destruction by people is more of a threat.
The MWP was most definitely global and warmer than now.
As were the roman and holocene warmings.
@axeman2638 Have a look at the Wikipedia article on the MWP. If you disagree with it and have good reason to do so then perhaps you'd like to correct it. I've not read the whole article but, apart from the length of time it lasted for, my previous comment pretty much agrees with what it says.
@@johnpritchard8946 Oh how cute, it thinks wikipedia is a trustworthy source.
Listen sport, 97% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, CO2 is a very minor contributor, and man is a very minor contributor to CO2.
Stop believing the alarmist lies.
Go and study the subject.
Carbon dioxide isn't energy. You can't warm anything with it.
A duvet isn't energy, nor is clothing, nor those shiny emergency blankets that first responders deploy - they have no warming effect. Strip the victims of the RTA! The moon is warm, why should it need an atmosphere? Not much gas in space, and astronauts should be left naked... CO2? Irrelevant, mate!
@@nolongerlistless
You posted a lot of disconnected thoughts. If I'm understanding what you posted, the property of a gas that is similar to the things you described is called DENSITY. A denser gas will hold more thermal energy.
"In fact, irreversible entropy production by radiative processes is the dominant source of irreversibility on the planet. Most studies of the second law applied to Earth, however, consider only matter (atoms and molecules) to be a part of the climate system, whereas radiation (photons) is considered a part of the surroundings. In that view, radiation is treated as an external and reversible heat source or sink, and the irreversibility of radiative processes does not enter discussions of the planetary heat engine." oops - that's the error you just made!!
see Thermodynamics of the climate system: To understand Earth’s climate, think of it as a giant, planetary-scale heat engine that drives the circulation of the oceans and atmosphere."
Martin S. Singh;
Morgan E O’Neill
Physics Today 75 (7), 30-37 (2022);
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
My friend, I've been studying gas physics for the last 20+ years. What you just posted is complete nonsense. It was fabricated by 1-dimensional thinkers who don't understand pathlengths, that the atmosphere is a 3-dimensional construct, and that the greenhouse effect has limits--just like everything else in the universe.
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
In fact, the greenhouse effect may not even be real. It's most likely an artifact created by the interaction of ONE region of the atmosphere with EM radiation from the surface. The "effect" DOES NOT pan the entire atmosphere. Case in point, what effect does CO2 have in the mesosphere and upper stratosphere? Look it up.
To much women thinking and to little logic.
1850s were cold - but dont worry, "ordinary ears" understand averages good enough. Try to not misrepresent the historical and paleoenvironmental context....and throw out your broken climate models :/
Would you people get off it. You can't control the weather. Ya know it's all nice to have goals but it's too utopian. You risk bringing down people's standard of living with mandates. Things like food, utilities, transport are all essential to human progress. What will happen if you hit 1.6? You'll still get up the next day. Put in AC if you're hot.
Said the frog in the pot
@@billkosses3808 That's actually a myth, but we get it..
The heating itself is NOT the problem. The speed is the problem. Life takes long to adapt, and can adapt, but not at the exponential speed the heating is happening right now - plus all the energy imbalance and the wind, floods, droughts, etc that are one of the many consequences.
So yeah, collapse will happen.
@@brunawitt4973Well Said, Bruna! ✨
@@brunawitt4973 The planet goes out when the sun becomes a red giant. Earth is pretty resilient with its balancing mechanisms. You guys just go with emotion & no science. The atmosphere is dynamic because of gradients. It is not dogma that you have 60 Degrees every day & a blue sky. Wind, floods, tornados, blizzards, hurricanes, dust storms, earthquakes, landslides, eruptions, sinkholes, ice all occur because by its very nature the atmosphere is dynamic.
Rupert tries to be and is a pretty good communicator. Most of you live in a bourgeois bubble which is fine if that's who you want to reach but it falls on deaf ears beyond that, imo. Many ppl just aren't in a position to make adaptive adjustments because of the costs involved. Not always and not necessarily but if you're already alienated from the message in numerous ways you're not going to listen to any of it, I would say. I might be wrong and I'm generalising but I think there's a reasonable amount of truth to all that.
Where do they advocate individuals making self-funded adaptive adjustments as a solution to the situation? Where?
That's the government line.
@@billkosses3808are you claiming that, more broadly and not necessarily as something quotable from the video, that's not the case? Or is it only possible to refer to the specific words or quotes from the uploaded video in order to satisfy your narrowmindedness?
@@billkosses3808so for the percentage of people who are skint and don't exist in a bourgeois bubble who would like to make adaptive changes such as, for argument's sake, installing a heat pump or solar panels they can make that happen by....what? praying? wishing on a star? how is that achievable for the cohort I refer to here?
Thing is - uk people / bourgeois types are going on more holidays and flights than ever before and carbon rates / emissions are going up, not down - unless I've got that wrong but I don't think I have. Do you see any evidence at all of people reining in consumption levels? I don't. Car use gets worse and worse, traffic jams are pervasive, cyclists are the enemy etc etc etc. Whatever carbon budget or whatever is left according to whatever calculations it will be blown through in no time at all and quite literally almost nobody is arsed and they'll continue not to be arsed until they've got nowhere to live or their gentrifier's house is flooded and uninsurable and it costs them money that's not currently taxed adequately and is a massive pain in the arse for them. Until then they'll pretend to be bothered and just laugh at everyone not in their position or who gives two fuc7s such as xr, jso etc etc etc. It's possible I've got that wrong but I don't think it's too far from the reality of it all. I've got no idea what kind of realistic solution there is but atm I'm just not seeing one. I am a bit of a pessimist generally and it doesn't win you any friends but a pessimist is a well informed optimist as the aphorism goes. I'd like to be all happy and positive about stuff but I just can't seem to make myself do it, unfortunately.
Oh ? you guys still banging on about the climate hoax
Shut up you're stupid.
Shut up you're stupid.
🤡
Not much longer now😪
Armageddon is SO passé....