What should be made apparent the Sun's impact on global warming it can go the other way cooling there being evidence to support that in Earth's history there being an ice age there should be difference between man made pollution there being an impact from that on our lives having so many people in the world has a impact relating to man made pollution
I think what is frustrating for me is that the environment and the direct impact from what we are doing has been spoken about as early as I can remember. I remember environmental issues been spoken about and even addressed positively in the early 80s, yet we are still talking about it like some new profound awakening. I'm done with the conversation and welcome more in the form of action. Honestly think things will be put be put in place after it is too late, when we won't be able to get back what I have experienced within my early childhood.
Maria Colls the earth can heal but not if we keep plundering it at the rate it is. There needs to be a concerted effort to slow down and move towards greener power, that is what the Paris Agreement was about, it's time governments did what they signed up to do which is lower emissions anyway they can and if that requires moving to sustainable energy then it is up to them to do it. Ultimately the people can vote against it or for it. In the meantime, everyone must live sustainably to encourage the movement for change, look up zero-waste if you don't know already. Going vegan is the most obvious move, This is the way forward while change and policies occur, it won't happen overnight - it will take time that we are running out of.
@@Anita-md9ze It has to be on each individual's effort however. If you drive a car, run your air conditioner, leave lights on, eat meat, etc. you are contributing to global warming. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.
It was created by Al Gore so he could rake in money from people who are afraid... In the 80's it was saving the trees, in the 90's it was the Ozone layer, in 2000 it was Global Warming, 2010 it was the Climate Change, 2020, Climate crisis.... ALL of their predictions failed
@@Anita-md9ze the planet was much hotter 5000 years ago than it is today, there was a period within the last 1800 years where the water rose over 2 meters. it's a Hoax, It always has been.
@@McIntoshYoga In America most people need to drive to have a job. If you don’t have a job, you’ll be homeless. Direct action must be taken from the top to reform society in terms of infrastructure, energy, work, etc.
As long as politicians pocket millions of dollars from corporations like oil and gas, there will not be a future, I’m 71 and I am scared for my children.
Seriously?! The entire piece gave example after example of how historically humans do not act on evidence. He does not have to present you with all the evidence for the climate emergency, that has been done over and over. His point was how if we don't act when presented with evidence. It was a call to action.
@@rogerm1343 that is a logical fallacy, and frankly you should be insulted that someone could say such things and expect you to believe it. Just because one may be a fact does not prove anything about another subject completely unrelated.
@@s00p3rmanyour comment makes no sense. And yes we are in a climate emergency. That is a fact with overwhelming evidence. I have been to green land and seen the ice sheet and it's exponential melting with my own eyes. I am well aware of all the facts. The talk in this video makes perfect sense.
@@rogerm1343 Greenland?!?! 2018/2019 according to science and the DMI, Greenland gained around 600 billion tons of fresh snow and lost around 100 billions tons so the net gain is around 500 billion tons. Just 4 days ago on July 3d 2019 east Holland had it's coldest July day since record began -1.6 degree celsius below zero, and in Germany today we still had top high temp. of 17 degrees Celsius, in Hannover, which is about 15 degrees BELOW average and the forecast for the whole next week sees an average high of 22 degrees. Since 2017 ocean levels dropped 2 mm!
Today I'm going into as many greenhouses I can find and I'm going to yell at all of the healthy plants thriving on excessive Carbon and admonish them for being deniers.
David, I don't need to check your facts. I'm amazed that while you lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis you were so prescient in October 1961 to know about it a year in advance. Cuban Missile blockade was in October 1962.
Two days ago, it was broadcasted by CP24 in Toronto that 2017 peak temperature was lower as compared to 2016. If the carbon dioxide emission is increasing cumulatively, we should expect straight line increasing temperature, but it is not. The highest recorded temperature in the US was in 1913. Why did the temperature fell if carbon dioxide is increasing?
You must be aware that nature never follows a straight line, or maybe you never studied science. Weather and climate are not the same thing. You probably don't think nicotine is addictive either.
If you drive 100km and it takes 1hr, your average speed is 100km/h, even though your actual speed throughout the journey was rarely exactly 100km/h. Likewise, the global mean temperature is not the same as day to day temperature. You should look up “Signal to Noise” and how it effects climate data.
@@clive373 You're a kid, so it's all right for you to not remember it. But normal adults remember that we've been told forever that new york would be underwater and that never happened. Fossil fuel consumption has no effect on the weather so just get over it.
Ok u never took 1 science class. We teach children that 1 year does not make a climate trend. That takes the average of 30 years. And I see the typical denier tactic of cherry picking. 2016 was the hottest year on record, and also a super El Nino. The year after, 2017 will almost certainly be cooler. Oh and since then, temps have continued to warm, so much so that over the last 12 months, they have been over 1.6C above the baseline. Your attempts at denial would embarrass a school child
I enjoyed the Ted talk and agreed with everything bar the comments about climate change. 16 minute Ted talk and zero climate change data, science or evidence. In fact I think he only talked about climate change for about a minute, this was more like propaganda than anything else. I'm not a denier, but I can't be a believer either if this is the best they can do...
Brad Flutey This video isn’t about proving climate change. There are already hundreds of videos on that already. This video is about understanding why nothing substantial is being done about it in regards to economic factors and the nature of profit maximisation. The big issue is that businesses and politicians don’t like negative economic growth which is what they fear will result from serious climate change policy. Basically, this video is trying to show that there can be a decent economy after serious changes just like there was after ending slavery.
If you are really asking for "evidence for climate change" in 2019, you are already showing your high level of ignorance. its been a thing for more than 40 years. how about you look it up in science books and journals. sigh
Reeno I do, the North Pole is gaining ice as well as the South Pole gaining ice. The Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland has been growing for the last 3 years. Something you would never understand, not reading an positive information about the environment for your non-factual text books.
“The Duty of Care” to third world people living in extreme poverty: how about those people utilize fossil fuels and capitalism to lift them out of poverty and literally save their lives?
That means we have to drastically cut down on our own emissions. A US citizen is responsible for 200 times the emissions of a Congolese. Beside, we are liable for the harm global warming causes to them. Because, those most affected are those who least contributed to it. In third world countries, global warming is killing people already today. The Philippines are annually devastated by superstorms now, in Southern Africa, 45 million in Zambia and Zimbabwe are currently experiencing the drought of the century. In South Asia, 1.5 billion are affected by the receding Himalayan glaciers. Global warming is undoing every bit of progress development aid ever achieved.
@@jochannan7379 those numbers you cited are nonsense. Someone told you those numbers without backing them up. Fossil fuels are helping those people. Lifting them out of poverty. Cleansing their water and safely heating their food.
If we cannot agree on climate change, we can agree that fossil fuels is not a sustainable source lf energy. We can agree that the emissions effect our healths.
Nun, Gina12345 Take it up with NASA , it’s their paper .Next you’ll be telling me that oil is a fossil fuel.Leave the basic science books alone and read what the experts have to say.
@Nun, Gina12345 So burning coal is good then? Melting ice caps are good? Rising sea levels are good? So more CO2 in the atmosphere = prosperity? Let's live on Venus then! You are one of the prime examples of why natural selection needs to do its job properly.
@@fancifulrat There's absolutely no consensus on the theory that oil is a fossil fuel. You kids should look up the "abiogenic petroleum origin" theory according to which oil doesn't come from fossils and thus is not sustainable. For all we know, oil reserves are actually infinite. There's no consensus on how it's created.
Dear Sir, I'm a concerned scientist and engineer and it bothers me that the term "Climate Change" is vague and mathematically it's very hard to quantify changes in Climate Change over time to answer the important question: is it getting better or worse? Rate of Climate Change change? The derivative of variance of Climate? It's as meaningless as it sounds. Can we please go back to calling it good old Anthropogenic Global Warming? Then we all at least could have a solid socio-political discussion about costs relative to some measurable climate event. I'm okay with paying a dollar a day, how about those folks living on less than... oh yes. You are aware that they'll be required (by the West) to pay part of the bill, are you not? Their industry stunted so that it never rivals that of the West? I'll forgive 6B people for politely declining to follow your lead on this... in which case more viable solutions are needed. This won't win me any liberal or conservative brownie points, but in my opinion the solution is to build lots of nuclear power plants. Get the world off fossil fuels and metals by offering an energy (not resource) intensive better standard of living.
Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium. Uses more of its original fissile material. Creates waste with significantly smaller half life's and can consume old radioactive waste material currently in storage. Biggest reason includes less risky process that leads to runaway reactors.
No. If you were a "concerned scientist and engineer " then you would know AGW & ACC are not the same thing, wouldn't you. Also, nuclear alone is not the answer, a combination of nuclear, solar and wind is,
@@22burst2020ddsspec The first thing you need to do is get all the godbotherers to accept that AGW & ACC are real because most deniers do so based on biblical literalism. Next you have to get these same godbotherers to stop voting for their Orange God Emperor, "Trump Digs Coal". Fun Fact. The PRC is the world leader in R&D and implementation of nuclear, solar and wind energy. Fun Fact. Calling uneducated, gullible and inexperienced idiots and liars uneducated, gullible and inexperienced idiots and liars is not making insults it is telling the truth. Deal with it.
While I am never going to say human kind should not cut pollution, I would like to remind Lord Puttnam and anyone else reading this that there are many, many Doctors, Professors and other learned people who work in the field of climate science who have been treated in the same way as Ralph Nader. Why? They dare to question the data that is presented to the World. They dare to question the accepted opinion. The committee that Lord Puttnam chaired also made the choice of who they called to give evidence. That on its own could, by some, be seen to call into question the validity of the evidence that was presented.
Are not the (tobacco-industry-grade) denialists who demand the prioritized indulgence of their narcissistic priviledged entitled greedy attitudes just as vitriolically opposed to competently dealing with pollution ( and ecological degradation, and deforestation....) as they are to any form of mitigation of climate disruption ? What personal benefit do you derive from your facile apologism?
Give me three recognized scientists or professionals, who question climate change with legitimate facts. I would really like to know they are because I would read their material or listen to their presentations.
The only niggle I have with this presentation is that we are not the first generation to feel climate change. We decreased the slide into the next glaciation starting about 6000 years ago. This was beneficial. Now we are in the situation of having too much of a good thing
He is right on one point the climate is changing... It is always changing and human impact is a very small %. Want to "save the world" fight for clean water and advancements in food to feed the masses. let the climate do its thing.
I find it telling that our government and its agencies want to protect us from climate changes (that, as you say are always changing) and will seemingly do anything necessary to convince us of it, but our government agencies do NOTHING to protect us from poisonous food additives and foods that give people diabetes and other diseases and conditions. If they care so much about our safety, wouldn't they want us protected from EVERYTHING?
But a few among the elite want to make a trillion-dollar business out of it by having control over the world population simultaneously. Don't forget that such treaties are followed by many other control mechanisms, too.
He says at the very beginning that his purpose is to frighten you. This was 7 years. Half of Australia hadn’t burned down and Lake Mead was full and the western US wasn’t a tinder box. There is no propaganda here. It is “justifiable fear” as he calls it.
One of the ways we can be part in slowing down climate change is when we stop our behavior of IMPULSIVE SHOPPING (Shopping for greed and not the need). It takes 2700 litres of water to manufacture just a T-Shirt. Hold the fashion industry accountable, STOP THE GREED, STOP IMPRESSING PEOPLE AROUND YOU WITH IMPULVE & IRRESPONSIBLE SHOPPING.
In reality our economic system is slowly but surely starting to gravity more along virtual products instead of physical products. You don't really need physical resources to mass produce virtual products. I personally would like to see a more strict efforts into recycling electronic products.
Definitely it is a herculean task to protect the earth from this drastic climate change.However,every drop of effort we make today will certainly make an ocean of difference tomorrow.But we need to more aggressively chase our mission to influence the govts.and also create an awareness amongst people.
Whether you believe in man-made climate change or not, this man is very wise and made a great case for positive change. The greed of big industry is the greatest sin in the world today. What sort of a world do the CEOs expect to leave for their grandchildren?
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." H L Mencken
Well said. In this case politicians like Trump are using the threat of climate change activists taking away your freedom to scare and alarm you. Trump might save you from crazy climate changers but you won't have a liveable planet to enjoy your freedom on. Wake up!
@Tyler Stearns i reckon the real problem is that Mark is not a sheeple. His statement is actually correct. The so called human impacts are easily deniable. Try reading history to see the real facts. Check out Tony Heller, among others, on youtube and you will see the truth.
@Tyler Stearns Mark is correct. Lets shut down the oceans and plug up all the volcanoes. They produce more co2 than anything else on the planet. Anyone who thinks humans can change the climate is delusional. Extinction is natural
@@seancassidy4812 You suggest reading the real facts, and then go on and make a ridiculous statement like plugging up all the volcanoes, and shutting down all the oceans. Oceans and volcanoes are not man made, and the C02 emanating from them is not man induced. Nature over millennia has adjusted conditions on this planet so that man can survive. Humans have been the cause of excessive Co2 for at least three decades, to a point it is interfering with the normal order of things. Try putting too much of a good thing into a fishbowl and see what happens to the fish.
@@twalgoolan4249 Hiya T. thank you for your reply. I would like to know where all the extra co2 is coming from, given that there is only so much co2 available on the planet. No one is making new co2. Nature has not done anything just so that mankind can survive. Nature does not love humanity. All gasses are actually recycled. For instance, it is known that millions of years ago, the concentrations of oxygen were far higher than today, which resulted in animals and even insects being much larger, followed by climatic events which wiped out life to a great extent. Subsequent to these events, the levels of gasses were altered, resulting in different lifeforms which were adapted to exist in those environments. So, given that plants require co2 to exist and the fact that plants exposed to large doses of co2 will actually increase in size massively compared to those plants receiving less co2, could you please explain why we are not completely surrounded by greenery? Incidentally to this, I want you to know that I do believe that the planet has been damaged by mankind, but co2 is only the latest scapegoat, not the problem. Our biggest problem is physical pollution and waste. Most of the figures that are being bandied about come from computer modelling, based on equations that can be made to fit. There are historic records that show that nothing is actually any different from 100 years ago. The newspaper reports from around the world that describe events with recorded weather that show this. In the 1970s and 1980s, people were saying that we would be in an ice age by the year 2020. These articles are easily found in newspaper archives. There are loads of them from the USA at that time. Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see and you may find some truth. If you put me in your fish bowl what will happen is that I will probably eat your fish. (sorry mate, i couldn't resist the last bit) Peace to you.
@@twalgoolan4249 hot off the press T, on youtube, USA Today Grants The Arctic A 20 Year Reprieve. Definitely worth a look. It's Tony Heller who is worth a look because he actually searches for the facts, which is what all people should do when faced with any situation. Please understand, I am not attacking anyone when I make my statements. Nor, do I want to upset anybody. I just want everyone to know the truth. My main reasons for doubt are based on weather records that one of my friends has taken himself in his fishing diaries which go back almost 40 years. He is extremely precise about everything. We have learned a lot from reading similar diaries from history, which is where the idea came from. Tony Heller is definitely worth a look. You will see that climate is cyclical in nature and you will recognise that billions are being funneled into creating equations that are fit for the purpose of garnering more billions. A massive racket, just like wars. Man cannot adjust nature, but can adapt to changes in nature, as they always have.
GoodTimeTraveller They daren't bring on Lord Moncton nor Peers Corbyn because they would be saying things that TEDx doesn't want to be passed on to the Globally Hoaxed.
@@ilikethisnamebetter What ever it is, those biased and loaded Leftie pseudo, self-appointed intellectuals at TT must have had their reasons! This is so far back that I need to go back and find what the blazes I said. However I would reverse the question and ask ''what does TED talks have to qualify them to publish what he says."" I have since, slowly become aware that TED Talks are a bunch of Left wing propagandists on whom I wouldn't waste an overfull, painfully bursting bladder should I encountered them burning to the ground. If I were standing on a railway line (railroad track) and somebody from TED Talks shouted "Look out! There's a train coming," I'd write off immediately to the railroad company for a timetable to check! Hmm.. That rather puts your flimsy question into perspective...don't it just?
It's amazing how many people miss the point of this talk. The man is not a scientist. He did not prepare a speech with scientific facts, because scientists are best suited for that role. And there is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change exists and is man-driven. His speech is about paying attention to these facts and also paying attention to the fact that there are some very powerful people that have a short-term interest in keeping things as they are, because they profit. And he reminds us of similar past cases. The major difference with this case is that instead of hundreds of thousand of people dying of lung cancer because of the industry lying, it is the world as we know it that is in danger of perishing. Every one that denies climate change should try and think why it really is that they have this opinion. How have they formed it? Through scientific study? Through reading science journals? Or is it through the opinions of others? Who are these others? Do they have anything to gain by saying this? My guess is that, as always, people are afraid of change. They are afraid of the changes that will be needed to combat climate change. They are afraid of the extra taxes needed to pay for large scale programs. So when they hear someone discrediting climate change, they want to believe it. But why isn't anyone thinking that it is the richer that will have to overwhelmingly pay for this? They profited the most from the current economic model that polluted the world. So they will have to pay proportionately more to combat the problem. So the poor many should not be so afraid of that aspect. But more to the point, shouldn't people be afraid of the cost of not doing anything? What is it that makes people so reassured that things will not get bad? Again, this is something for which we have to listen to the experts. And the experts that the human race has created in its intellectual journey through the ages, trying to find the truth about reality, is scientists. Science is what the human race has come up with to give real, provable, testable answers to questions. Few people, of those reading this, I would think, would go to a witch-doctor to treat their illness. Even fewer would stop using their cell phones because they were made by that despicable sect of scientists. Think about the logic (or lack thereof) of this cherry-picking: I have no problem with using cell phones, aeroplanes, toasters etc. but when it comes to climate change, I will not listen to the overwhelming majority of scientists. Science is not an industry. Coal-mining, car-making, oil-drilling are industries. Do people really believe that thousands of scientists around the world have made a pact and have a vested interest in making us believe in climate change? And do people really believe that the coal, oil and automobile industries (to name but a few) do not have any interest in keeping things as they are? If so, then there is nothing more I can say.
I read this comment section. So many that are lost and completely miss the whole point. The problem is clear in which this subject becomes irrationally debatable by simple means of misinterpretation. The term "climate change" is a funny one that most react negatively to. I call it a blanket term. It dances around the topic but never actually gets to the root cause. If the term were called "climate reaction", Mr. Putnam's message might be better received. There is no argument to combat that our rate of consumption, waste and pollution is not sustainable. So instead of arguing about interpretation why not argue over things like solutions to base problems. For instance things like plastics, jet engine emissions, nuclear waste and emissions. To turn a blind eye to this topic is to pass the buck to our children to solve it.
Chill Hammer Climate change isn't caused by humans. However I agree that we really do need to stop polluting our ecosystem because that has a very immediate and negative impact on plant and animal life including *OUR OWN LIVES.* That said how are so many people conflating Global Warming™/climate change with overfishing, poaching and direct habitat destruction (i.e. deforestation). These things aren't caused by the passive and ever climbing amount of CO2 emissions; they're caused by direct human interactions, engagements and wasteful practices with regards to the environment and it's inhabitants. Is that so hard to understand? And why the *FUCK* are people taking a damn filmmakers word as gospel? You know what that bit is just too far beyond explanation. [minor corrections]
VariantAEC ... filmmakers can play a vital role in making the changes we both discussed. While we don't have to agree with their every word, they can still be an instrument of spreading awareness. Industry will not make these changes and governments won't write legislation for it but they sure will impose taxes related to the subject. We all (as humans) need to come together and understand that this topic should be near the top of the list. There are definitive solutions to solving these problems and while they will be difficult, they'll also be necessary for our species survival.
Chill Hammer Maybe this filmmaker should focus on real issues related to the environment then? I mean if he's serious why not showcase the harm poaching and overfishing and deforestation does? Instead he's preaching the evils of exhaling (which all living animals do to my knowledge)!
VariantAEC ... I agree. That's what my original comment addressed. Nobody looks at the root cause instead they all just beat around the bush like a bunch of idiots.
I agree, we shouldn't take a damn filmmakers word as gospel. That's because he is not a climate scientist. For that matter, neither are you. So why should I take a damn youtube commentor's word as gospel. "Climate change isn't caused by humans." Because? Because you say so? What do climate scientist say in their publicly available published research? Do their conclusions match what this damn film maker is saying?
there have been two temperature spikes similar to today's in the past 400,000 years. Both times the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rose along with the increase in temperature (direct effect of the warming) then fell off much slower than the temperature, which dropped rapidly. (Ice Core Project data and tree ring studies.) There's really no evidence that this will not be the same way. Hint -- look into how carbon dioxide is affected by radiation and specifically which frequencies of radiation cause any warming. Then you will not be afraid. Sorry you can no longer find very many scientific papers on google search anymore -- you'll have to dig to discover what you should know
The earth is alive. It is a living organism made up on interconnected ecosystems that all work together to create and sustain life. When your body temperature raises 2 degrees, you have a fever. When it raises 5 youre in a coma. Any higher and you’re dead. That’s what’s happening to the life on this planet. It’s too hot, and the forms of live that evolved to live in a cold, low carbon environment are dying off in droves. We evolved to thrive in the last ice age. To change that is to change our chance at survival.
iviewthetube I’m not that familiar with that theory but my understanding is that it’s similar to our scientific understanding of how earths life works.
James Davis - well it would be quite hard to use future events wouldn't it! You posted your comment on his 2014 presentation in 2020. Do you not think that in those six years there have been many examples of the impact of a changing climate? One that springs to mind is the vast bush fires in South Eastern Australia.
I noticed that too. I also noted the attempts to maniplate the viewer. For example, the sound played at key times for the purpose of word association; the many, many slogans (some of which had their true meanings twisted); the image of someone standing with smoke photoshopped in, at the exact moment he said "this is not a sustainable future"; and the lack of ANY scientific evidence whatsoever. If you want to convince me of a theory, I suggest using facts and evidence, not cheap trickery. If I am to reach ANY conclusion from this video it is that this man (like many orhers) is using the climate "crisis" as a cover for his anti-capitalism.
We have now crossed the threshold after which rise in temperature will always exceed any attempt to bring it down. The only thing we can do now is to reduce the pace of climate change.
What climate change? What part of the climate has been irreversibly changing, particularly due to AGW? Temperature? Temperature hasnt increased out of the range of normal cyclicality and ability to measure accurately to date.
Heartland defended Philip Morris, and for many decades employed "scientists" who reported that cigarettes were not addictive and were OK for your health. Heartland is the same organization that today employs "scientists" to tell you that CO2 is not causing warming. In fact, some of the "cigarettes are great for you" scientists are now telling you what the oil companies want to to think.
@@bassmaster1953 The LIA was at least an Atlantic Basin phenomenon which would affect Florence. There are a few mountain glaciers around the Mediterranean Sea which apparently grew during the LIA period (Hughes et al. 2014).
Yes, sir. I believe the verdict is still out on the subject.History is a great teacher of man's follies, no doubt. I did listen to what he had to say here in this video. I am a man of the scientific principles. I believe that more needs to be done in the observation and science on the matter. I would really love to find more science on the subject, especially with the science of the SUN on the climate change subject. In my opinion there is a great deal of hubris on both sides of climate change. What can man do IF in fact we are facing a serious climate change situation? Again, especially IF the SUN plays any part in this equation. Yes, I understand CO2 in the atmosphere. Who’s to say that the CO2 levels are bad or good? What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere? A more serious question might be what is the SUN doing? Is it cooling, expanding, spotting, ect. What really could we do about all this and when.Yes, I also believe the oil/coal and gas are limited resources and that using ALL of them in a relative short period is not a good thing. But again, I have to ask myself what can man do? I’m trying to think outside the box here. I’ve seen some outrageous ideals long ago on the subject. For example, “growing algae in the desert” for Bio fuel. Not only does this reverse CO2 in the atmosphere but also produces fuel for cars. What is a smart thing both left and right can agree on? How can we balance curbing our appetite for cheap fuel, EPA clean power plans, and NOT repeating error like Solyndra. I hope both sides of the climate change debate can agree to work together and temper everything with a bit of common sense and science.
So, I go to your site mentioned above and watch the entire video called: “Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 6”. Thank you by the way, I’ll keep an eye on that site above. I have two separate takeaways, as my first impressions of this site. Please read BOTH below. First, here is my problem. In the first few moments in the video, I hear that “flood insurance in Minnesota tripled over the last 20 years”. So it gets me thinking and searching the internet for more information. For example, I’m asking myself, what has the population done over the past 20 years? What has the median home values in Minnesota for past 20 years? Both are easily up. I also see lakeshore properties are increasing. So I decide there are no clear irrefutable facts here. The climate change folks need to provide better science in general here. The issue comes across as how someone feels about it. We need more FACTS. But wait there is more… I did learn about “urban heat islands” also in this video. I’m reading the wiki on “urban heat islands” and doing more studying here. This “urban heat islands” is one I’ve not heard anything about. I have often felt the effects of it myself but it really never registered as anything of a concern. It makes clear sense to me and has been studied since the 1800’s I read. Wow, now there is some science and “green” in that “urban heat islands” that I could easily get behind and support. This is the type of information we need more of. Thanks again. I’ve become interested lately over this topic because of the President-elect Trump 2016 winning. Trump recently meet with Al Gore. I strongly despise Al Gore. I do like Trump. I also like that Trump is listening to Al Gore. I sincerely hope that President Trump finds the correct agenda for Climate Change or green initiatives. I also hope that the democrats give Trump a chance and little room to decide priorities.
I love clean air and clean water and healthy food,,,that"s what is important to me and the world The world climate has always like the all things in this world ARE ALWAYS CHANGING...
To everyone here who says "he didn't talk about the science of climate change", the reason for this is that the science of climate change is as settled as Newton's Laws of Motion. He was explaining why there is such a huge backlash against this settled science. He should perhaps have mentioned the startling ignorance and political bias evident in comments on RUclips.
Great so to fight climate change all we need to do is end human and corporate greed in time before the North Pole melts. 4 years should be plenty of time.
ilikethisnamebetter I don’t care about continuing the planet eating economic machine we have built. There is a 0% chance humans become a positive influence or presence on this planet. Whether we have solar panels or windmills won’t stop Indonesia from burning the Borneo rainforest to grow palm oil. It won’t stop Brazil from burning the Amazon for soy and cattle. It won’t stop Congo from burning their rainforest to grow food. When I tell you the arctic ice was no thicker than 1.5 meters during the September minimum this year, what does that mean to you? Because to me it spells global disaster when the jet stream shifts to center around the remaining ice on Greenland in a few years. Our ability to grow food in mass quantities is over. Crop production in the US was 90% 2 years ago. It’s down to 55% this year because of all the flooding and non stop rain, drought, and flood again. Everything they said would happen has happened and it’s worse than we could have imagined.
ilikethisnamebetter it’s not an ideal situation but we’re about 50 years past all the geologic markers for runaway climate change. It’s here with a vengeance, and here we are almost in the year 2020 with people like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte, Narendra Modi, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Xinping running their countries with the intention of setting the planet on fire of it means profits and GDP. I say we live our lives the best we can. There is no stopping the 6th mass extinction, there is no stopping the 8 degrees of warming we could see in a century. The worst predictions 30 years ago didn’t even come close to the reality of our situation. I’m just trying to live my life as honest as I can, and that means accepting that human civilization is currently collapsing all around us. There’s also zero technology available to us that can cool the planet. Our best hope is to reduce our carbon emissions, there is no such thing as sequestering warmth. The laws of thermodynamics are not on our side.
When I stood up in front of a lecture theatre of fellow scientists to deliver my honours project results I was asked to justify a claim that I had made. So I pointed to two stone cold pieces of evidence that strongly supported my theory. If I'd have said "Well 97% of scientists who have looked into this agree with me that I'm right, so just accept it." I'd have been laughed out of the room quite rightly. Having to fall back on nonsense like that shows how weak the theory is. It is completely unscientific to try to use consensus to prove a theory. And regarding this talk, well it's just weird! Yes I do get what he's saying completely but a talk consisting entirely of anecdotes is poor. "My talk is about climate change, so I'm going to mention slavery, tobacco, seat belts, the industrial revolution (ironically based on coal!) the cuban missile crisis, F.D.R., the insurance industry, vietnam war protests, in fact, everything but climate change. Like I said before, I understand his angle. He thinks the science debate is over so he's moved on to what to do next. The problem is that the debate is far from over, it hasn't even begun properly. It has steamrollered the issue to the point that a retired filmaker and non scientist can stand up with complete confidence and self belief and predict such doom as this. It is just wrong, espe ially as millionaires like Lord Putnam are completely immune to any cost rises in fuel or other monetary issues related to this.
You need to ask yourself why there is a consensus. Perhaps it is because there is overwhelming evidence of r it and no other viable explanation. That is where we are in the scientific debate - basically game over unless someone can come up with an entirely new theory that explains the rising temperatures and why the GHGs/aerosols are not having the effect that they should be.
Predictions that have come true: Global temperatures will continue to rise. Oceans will acidify. Many species will start to die off. Weather will become more extreme .... need I go on?
Dont worry for the Earth. The Earth is fine and can survive xtreme temperatures for billions of years. It has been doing that for billions of years. Worry about yourself. Change for yourself. Coz the Earth has been there when the climate was hostile but we humans were not and the earth will still be there whn the climate will change but we will not.
If you really want to stop climate change, assuming "human activity" is the cause, then ban all personal vehicles (cars, trucks, minivans,) immediately. Especially superfluous polluters such as power boats, recreational vehicles, lawn mowers, outdoor gas patio heaters, leaf blowers, etc. Who's ready to give up their car for the sake of the planet? This is something YOU CAN do today if you are really willing to back up your rhetoric.
does the speaker KNOW the percentage increase of co2 in the atmosphere? well an increase of 0.01% co2 from 0.03% to 0.04%,,in over 100 years, 2 more molecules per every 20 000 molecules! is that something dangerous? and to think water vapour and cloud is 10-20X more abundant, its all just a bit weird what the actual reality is which he never mentioned,,
Try ingesting 0.04% of your body weight in a powerful poison and see what effect it has. A small percentage doens't mean a small impact. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 330 PPM to 415 since 1985. Just 1000 PPM has been shown to have significant negative effects on cognitive abilities, and rising outside levels will also increase the CO2 levels inside buildings which already commonly reach such levels.
@@budbud2509 You will not find times in the ice cores when the CO2 content was over 280 ppm. They only go back about a million years. When CO2 levels were that high the only life on the planet was one-cell creatures that lived in the oceans and ate CO2 to produce O2. The % of CO2 in the atmosphere is not relevant, it's the number of CO molecules between the surface and space (the partial pressure - see the fundamental gas laws).
Do YOU know that a rise from 0.01 percent co2 concentration to 0.03 percent is a 200 percent INCREASE? Maybe leave the science stuff to the scientists.
There is clear evidence for climate change, looking back at past climate events we know that global temperatures have never been higher than it is now, even the last glacial periods where the earth was cooling, was actually warmer than the previous glacial period. Evidence from ice cores, dendrochronology and historical records prove this. As we are now in an interglacial periods, it is expected to be warmer, however, this increase in global temperatures is unprecedented, we can blame natural causes all we want but that does not change the fact that there is a clear correlation between the amount of CO2 emitted and temperature increase. Lets NOT bury our heads in the sand, this problem will not go away if we simply sit back and do nothing!
Ferdousi, I agree! It's time that we educate ourselves and do things that can help stop Climate Change! It's a scientific fact, and it's time that we act!
*Ferdousi Chowdhury* True, except one fact... Temperatures have been higher than today... [research PETM] and global temperature further back in deep time. Otherwise - all correct, except one other thing... . There is no way that humans can mitigate the current increasing trend in global warming, short of an all out nuclear winter, as a result of global nuclear war. No technology exists that can effectively scrub the amount of greenhouse gasses presently in the atmosphere. . This is a predicament. And predicaments have *no* solutions.
*Fergus* The information you request exists all over the internet. Just be sure to research valid peer reviewed papers from climatologists. We've already done our homework... So don't be lazy... Go and do yours. But at the end of the day, it matters not, whether *you* believe or not in the facts, so widely reported by valid scientific minds. Carry on believing you are a 'climate skeptic'... Which is closely related to 'climate denier'.
I like faith. I have a great deal of faith and I am proud of that fact. I do not have faith in this religion though, the prophets don't invoke the spirit with their words.
"...and my object next 15 minutes is to get you as justifiably angry as I possibly can..." And yet another call to emotional action. I believe in climate change... but I I am also tired of it being politicized and used to take our money. I will patiently wait for scientists to come up with an ACTUAL solution. And for that we need booming economy so scientists and entrepreneurs have funding to do so.
Don't know very much about the subject then, do you. Only a very specific demographic has attempted to politicise AGW & ACC and that is for a very good reason. They hate science. There are numerous solutions and they are being implemented, as you would know if you new anything about the subject.
Just words end emotions, some fact would be better That citation "who is not part of solution...." resembles with abominable "who is not with us is against us" and this no good
To make things better we have to change our economic system such that corrupt leaders as we now have will not find their way to office or, being reasonable candidates, be corrupted by said office.
We are now seven years down the road from this and things are only MUCH WORSE. Actually, even seven years ago, it was too late to do anything meaningful which would have reversed the established trend of habitat collapse driven by human activity. Yes, do what you think is right, for the reasons you find compelling, but don't become attached to outcomes.
I was thinking the same thing, he uses the analogies that we have proven that cigarettes are harmful and seat belts save lives so I was expecting proof that human existence is affecting the climate...I guess you have to subscribe to something to get the full video? Lol
Describing lots of 'analogies' becomes tedious because they could simply be false analogies. One could equally describe a long list of hoaxes. Would that get us anywhere? - No! Just give us data and facts please otherwise you can be dismissed as simply a film maker trying to weave a narrative
Without going deeply into what I think about linking Climate Change to slavery, the tobacco industry and the cold war - almost nuclear disaster - I would like to point out that (without any disregard for Ralph Naders battle with GM) Volvo introduced the 3-point seatbelt as a standard to the PV 544 in 1959. This was a world-first for a series produced car. So, Mr. Puttnam, you would most likely be on that stage, presenting your highly un-scientific (but very politicized) message on Climate Change, even without Mr. Naders fight against capitalism.
This " expert" has no science degree and there's no evidence he gas ever studied math or anything technical but the master communicator knows all about the 'madness of crowds'. Mr Puttnam, can we start talking about facts such as the earth hasn't warmed in 25 years while CO2 has risen slightly to 400 ppm but the central thesis states temp vs CO2 emissions are directly proportional.
The guy has links to the government what do you think he'd say! All serious scientists in the field are trying to debunk the climate change alarm and you should watch Dr. Spencer (the leading scientist probably in the world) in front of US senators who were trying to amplify the bogus alarm without scientific evidence. For politicians this climate change BS is "bread and butter" because it provides them with good excuses to steal our money in the form of "polluting" fines, road taxes (that in many countries are linked to emissions), pollution checks, etc. This is money that they steal from with the excuse that "it's for our own good".
An image came to mind: frogs in a pot on a burner arguing about the water temperature as it rises. There is a certain futility to that image. If you're living every day like it might be your last, making peace where you can, putting self-awareness first, then you're likely doing all you can. You're stepping out of an extremely punishing economic system, both for humans and other creatures on the planet. People often think the earth is a dead, inorganic thing from which living things arise. What if the earth, itself, is a living sentient 'being' of a different order, a planetary order; what if we're guests and it's the host? Maybe it's decided our jig is up. We've become more like an infection now, and a planetary 'fever' is the response. Human beings only pretend to be nice to each other to avoid negative consequences or for self-gain. They are vicious animals that think nothing of enslaving/ running rough shod over one another. They behave ruthlessly and rapaciously in the name of profit, are greedy and petty. A few of them own almost everything, while a great many go hungry or without. And to a greater or lesser extent we as individuals are complicit. Let me state that another way: none of us are innocent. Ignorant perhaps, but not innocent. In our collective vanity we somehow think we can survive, but our time on this globe is likely limited in spite of what we do now (that doesn't mean we shouldn't try). If so, the thing to do is to make harmony and spread peace wherever we can, and stop punishing others as well as ourselves. Most of all stay present, and worry less. Peace out.
Kenneth Edwards So you would chose to be ignorant and curse your child or your child's child to be cursed to drowning cities, world migration all, out war of land and possibly the end of civilization. Sir, there is a reason Ignorance is referred to as a bitter, arrogant and selfish term. After all, better to live for something than die for nothing. Also consider that this is the world you're talking, think, maybe your all the people you look up to and care about could die because of your and our actions. And before you say, I can't make a difference. Know that each year, you could save up 6 tons in carbon waste only by doing recommended things to fight climate change. And when you say, living in the moment, know that right now climate change is the moment. There are other things that could end us but this above all is the most immanent. Please consider what consequences you make before you take ignorance.
Not at all, King, we should absolutely do what we can to serve the greater good, but we have to understand the dark side of human nature as well, and not pretend that all is well when it is not, admit to our own wrongness. True, ignorance is not innocence. That said, you or I can only take personal responsibility, and for our direct relationships. We cannot do what is not in our power. That's a big problem, people try to solve problems from the periphery in, while it should be the other way around. Wake up, become aware, and you'll know what is best and what is possible.
His first statement, "movie makers can make anything work.." certainly mitigates and qualifies his later accomplishment of producing the first AGHG bill.
Most of the way through the video and all he has said is irrational emotional arguments. Weird Addendum: watched the rest of the movie and still not a single argument that climate change is 1: man-made 2: bad for us 3:catastrophic 4:fixable 5:more cost effective then mitigating technologies. Just a bunch of fear mongering.
He is trying to connect with and galvanise a ley audience into action. It is far better to using emotional arguments than cold statistics, if you want to leave a lasting impression that will motivate change. Also he doesnt need to argue that climate change is man-made, it has been empirically proven many times over - and the only people denying are people who stand to benefit financially from manintaining teh status quo. The reaction of the insurance companies would suggest it is categorically bad for us. The Intstitute for Building Sciences has calculated that evry 1''$ invested in mitiagtion will save 6$ in future damages. Please actually look at the facts, instead of peddling obfuscating untruths, your grandchildren will thank you.
The most basic question is whether or not you believe in the greenhouse effect. It’s a simple question with either yes or no as the only possible answers. Don’t hide behind tribal dictates, just decide one way or the other. If you decide ‘yes’, then science is on your side.
@@johannesswillery7855 A MUCH better question is whether you think a more stable climate. like the one we had when CO2 was between 280-350ppm, is better than a warming planet. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The rise is because of man. The warming is because of CO2. Arable land changes, ice melts, permafrost thaws, sea levels rise, deserts shift, species migrate towards the poles. Science is on my side.
@@scottekoontz CO2 has been fairly stable for thousands of years but climate has varied substantially between ice events and ice retreat. Again, would it be better if Siberia, Alaska and Northern Canada were lush teeming with diverse life forms or if they were under ice?
You're right. With communism it wouldn't be 1% holding most of the money, it would be .0001% instead. It wouldn't be a thousand major corporations competing, it would just one monopoly. Brilliant solution.
''TedTalks'' is like the CIA'S palygorund,just a bunch of pointless weirdos and perverts wh ohave noauthority, and are servents of a very complicated,business-criminal enterprise..the TePresenters cannot say much of anything here..
***** Yes, Putnam's a first class logician: Slavery is bad, cigarettes are bad, seat belts are good...... therefore, global warming isn't a hoax. [from Jennifer Jones below] Two of many points: - CO2 isn't pollution. It's in our lungs, from the day we are born till the day we die, in a concentration 400 times the ppm in the atmosphere. - Millions, every day, consume carbonated drinks that contain more CO2 than would the ocean under an atmosphere of pure CO2.
Wow...the sheer lack of understanding of CO2 science in this previous comment is AWE-INSPIRINGLY evident! You take a real fact--our exhalations are ~100 times as rich in CO@ as the ambient air--and then falsely extrapolate an utter idiocy from that...wow.
CO2 is being referred to as a pollutant because it raises the temperature of the air and may do so uncontrollably. Compete burning of a fuel yields CO2 and water. The pollution standards for vehicles has been striving for this. Today most vehicles have a little unburnt fuel in the exhaust but the exhaust is mostly CO2 and water. Plants use CO2 and water to grow. A greener planet needs more CO2 and water.
Greenhouse operators raise there CO2 levels to 1000 ppm (using kerosene heater exhaust) to get optimal growth. Below 150 ppm plants die and we die due to lack of food.
This works in a greenhouse, however, on a global scale it would result in trapping more energy in the atmosphere resulting in devastating and unpredictable extreme weather phenomena. Crops fail because of draughts and freeze, oceans get more acidic causing mass extinctions. CO2 is not the only problem, there are other pollutants from kerosene exhaust, even if it does make crops in a controlled environment of a greenhouse grow better, those crops are at risk of being polluted by PAH NOx and other nasty stuff that you wouldn't want to eat or breathe but I'm sure that those are dealth with accordingly. In most cases, you don't need a heater when it's warm and sunny and when the plants consume most of the CO2, you need it when it's cold and dark, when the plants actually give away CO2 and consume oxygen.
The main point is the earth is not in trouble, humans are. Our species has only lived within a certain sweet spot - if the earth cools more than 3 degrees or warms more than 3 degrees our climate will not be able to support our ability to grow food in the quantities that can sustain our future and our leaders keep thinking that their wallets are more important than our survival !!!
lol, you should ask how much money a scientist gets from the Koch charity foundation or similar "charity" foundations. Government money is innocuous compared to that.
He gets nothing. You clearly don't know who he is. He us just a misguided old man. He didn't say what he thinks we should do, he just thinks something should be done.
Whenever one must state "this is real" without producing inarguable evidence of their claims, it's called an opinion, NOT SCIENCE. This is opinion based discussion, not hard science.
You want evidence of pollution... Have a look outside... As he points out, our current system is not sustainable. There's plenty of evidence... Including R. Carson Silent Spring he waved... The discussion should be about what we should do about it...
@@benmonson8655 If you make a claim to the public, display your findings and how you came to them, otherwise it's just talk, an opinion, a theory. Without presenting your scientific evidence to support your theory, it is still just a theory. All I am saying, if you want to be taken seriously, put your money where your mouth is. Show it. Otherwise we might aswell debate God for an eternity.
@@Daggz90 There is amble evidence from NASA, the Royal Society... with a consensus that humanity has caused significant negative impacts in our quest for economic growth. It does not need to be rehashed. We are both (hopefully) aware that RUclips comments are not the place for the level of information you require.... however, as I pointed out - Rachel. Carson's Silent Spring and the Brundtland Report will give you the grounding you ask for... pollution (litter) being a visible example... with plastic causing significant issues. Without some change you cannot have a system based on endless growth on a single planet with finite resources; we are currently degrading the planetary boundaries required to support our current civilisation. PS> There is no biblical god!
The theme of this talk can be so summarized: "Let's not debate the science. There is no debate. Let me just appeal to your emotions instead by stirrin your anger. If you disagree with what I say, you are a gerbil in a class equal to that hated group called Tobacco Executives,. You can believe me when I claim my talk proves the 'Reality of Climate Change' because I produced an Academy Award winning film and am now a self-styled philanthropist, all of which bought me a bench in the House of Lords."
Dr. Michaels, an actual Climatologist, who has studied the temperature of the earth since the 70s, and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, says we have only warmed up 9/10ths of a degree celcius in the last 100 years. The Russians actually have it correct.
Michaels is not a Nobel Prize winner. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel prize in 2007. Michaels was not a member of the IPCC but sent in review comments on that report. I sent in review comments on that report - as anyone can. Does that make me a Nobel prize winner - No! Michaels is a member of an ultra right-wing think tank that is funded by the fossil fuel industry.
People don't realize that the decline of raptor birds was based on the slaughter of wolves and the subsequent rise of coyotes who eat the small rodents that the raptors rely on.
11:00 Re: the insurance industry. He's wrong about that. Insurance is not compulsory. You can always accept your own risk. The cost of insurance claims will always increase because the assets that the insurance products cover increase in value. If Florida was still a big swamp, it's asset value would be zero and the insurance risk would also be zero. Maybe he just chose a bad example
David Putnam Bsc, Msc, Phd.physics? This why I have ceased viewing any further TED talks! Putnam, get back to playing magic lanterns. It's just about your intellectual level.
We're supposed to believe these scientists when they tell us how the universe and Earth functions when they really can't even figure out the human body yet.
Good presentation with clever anecdotes. Bet he drove a car to the airport, flew to the conference, taxied back to the hotel and used his laptop until well after dark in his comfortable hotel room. All thanks to fossil fuels.
Don Anderson. You bet? You mean you don't know? It's good that you highlight the problem though. Our dependence on fossil fuels is the problem, which is why we need to turn to alternatives asap.
when science become political you lose science
Diareah of the mouth not a single scientific fact (cause) just a bunch of speculative reasons for our current state.
What should be made apparent the Sun's impact on global warming it can go the other way cooling there being evidence to support that in Earth's history there being an ice age there should be difference between man made pollution there being an impact from that on our lives having so many people in the world has a impact relating to man made pollution
all those wannabe smart ppl, science gets us the data - interpretation is always subjective and connected with ppls interests
J Pitman : and .....conscience nor integrity!
Science never turns into political. Politics try to talk science.
Lmao I love the George Carlin nod
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked"
:) :)
yup the people are sheep the planet is laughing
Please explain which bit of this you don’t agree with and why. 💚🌍💚
Yeah, so funny. NOT
I think what is frustrating for me is that the environment and the direct impact from what we are doing has been spoken about as early as I can remember. I remember environmental issues been spoken about and even addressed positively in the early 80s, yet we are still talking about it like some new profound awakening. I'm done with the conversation and welcome more in the form of action. Honestly think things will be put be put in place after it is too late, when we won't be able to get back what I have experienced within my early childhood.
Maria Colls the earth can heal but not if we keep plundering it at the rate it is. There needs to be a concerted effort to slow down and move towards greener power, that is what the Paris Agreement was about, it's time governments did what they signed up to do which is lower emissions anyway they can and if that requires moving to sustainable energy then it is up to them to do it. Ultimately the people can vote against it or for it. In the meantime, everyone must live sustainably to encourage the movement for change, look up zero-waste if you don't know already. Going vegan is the most obvious move, This is the way forward while change and policies occur, it won't happen overnight - it will take time that we are running out of.
@@Anita-md9ze It has to be on each individual's effort however. If you drive a car, run your air conditioner, leave lights on, eat meat, etc. you are contributing to global warming. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.
It was created by Al Gore so he could rake in money from people who are afraid... In the 80's it was saving the trees, in the 90's it was the Ozone layer, in 2000 it was Global Warming, 2010 it was the Climate Change, 2020, Climate crisis.... ALL of their predictions failed
@@Anita-md9ze the planet was much hotter 5000 years ago than it is today, there was a period within the last 1800 years where the water rose over 2 meters. it's a Hoax, It always has been.
@@McIntoshYoga In America most people need to drive to have a job. If you don’t have a job, you’ll be homeless. Direct action must be taken from the top to reform society in terms of infrastructure, energy, work, etc.
As long as politicians pocket millions of dollars from corporations like oil and gas, there will not be a future, I’m 71 and I am scared for my children.
As long as scientists pocket BILLIONS in climate research grants, you will get climate scare results
Excuse the pun but that was 16:34 of hot air. He said nothing about climate change.
Spot on. "Someone was right about X, therefore IM right about Y"
Seriously?! The entire piece gave example after example of how historically humans do not act on evidence. He does not have to present you with all the evidence for the climate emergency, that has been done over and over. His point was how if we don't act when presented with evidence. It was a call to action.
@@rogerm1343 that is a logical fallacy, and frankly you should be insulted that someone could say such things and expect you to believe it. Just because one may be a fact does not prove anything about another subject completely unrelated.
@@s00p3rmanyour comment makes no sense. And yes we are in a climate emergency. That is a fact with overwhelming evidence. I have been to green land and seen the ice sheet and it's exponential melting with my own eyes. I am well aware of all the facts. The talk in this video makes perfect sense.
@@rogerm1343 Greenland?!?! 2018/2019 according to science and the DMI, Greenland gained around 600 billion tons of fresh snow and lost around 100 billions tons so the net gain is around 500 billion tons. Just 4 days ago on July 3d 2019 east Holland had it's coldest July day since record began -1.6 degree celsius below zero, and in Germany today we still had top high temp. of 17 degrees Celsius, in Hannover, which is about 15 degrees BELOW average and the forecast for the whole next week sees an average high of 22 degrees. Since 2017 ocean levels dropped 2 mm!
Today I'm going into as many greenhouses I can find and I'm going to yell at all of the healthy plants thriving on excessive Carbon and admonish them for being deniers.
Yeah, greenhouse effect seems benign. Should rename it outhouse effect.
"I stink therefore I am"
Rene Descartes has been often misquoted on this.
You might as well, because you obviously haven't bothered to read up on the science.
David, I don't need to check your facts. I'm amazed that while you lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis you were so prescient in October 1961 to know about it a year in advance. Cuban Missile blockade was in October 1962.
Two days ago, it was broadcasted by CP24 in Toronto that 2017 peak temperature was lower as compared to 2016. If the carbon dioxide emission is increasing cumulatively, we should expect straight line increasing temperature, but it is not. The highest recorded temperature in the US was in 1913. Why did the temperature fell if carbon dioxide is increasing?
You must be aware that nature never follows a straight line, or maybe you never studied science. Weather and climate are not the same thing. You probably don't think nicotine is addictive either.
If you drive 100km and it takes 1hr, your average speed is 100km/h, even though your actual speed throughout the journey was rarely exactly 100km/h. Likewise, the global mean temperature is not the same as day to day temperature. You should look up “Signal to Noise” and how it effects climate data.
@@clive373 You're a kid, so it's all right for you to not remember it.
But normal adults remember that we've been told forever that new york would be underwater and that never happened. Fossil fuel consumption has no effect on the weather so just get over it.
@@alainportant6412 I'm 72, so I think we can safely say you are a moron.
Ok u never took 1 science class. We teach children that 1 year does not make a climate trend. That takes the average of 30 years. And I see the typical denier tactic of cherry picking. 2016 was the hottest year on record, and also a super El Nino. The year after, 2017 will almost certainly be cooler. Oh and since then, temps have continued to warm, so much so that over the last 12 months, they have been over 1.6C above the baseline. Your attempts at denial would embarrass a school child
I enjoyed the Ted talk and agreed with everything bar the comments about climate change. 16 minute Ted talk and zero climate change data, science or evidence. In fact I think he only talked about climate change for about a minute, this was more like propaganda than anything else. I'm not a denier, but I can't be a believer either if this is the best they can do...
Brad Flutey This video isn’t about proving climate change. There are already hundreds of videos on that already. This video is about understanding why nothing substantial is being done about it in regards to economic factors and the nature of profit maximisation. The big issue is that businesses and politicians don’t like negative economic growth which is what they fear will result from serious climate change policy. Basically, this video is trying to show that there can be a decent economy after serious changes just like there was after ending slavery.
If you are really asking for "evidence for climate change" in 2019, you are already showing your high level of ignorance.
its been a thing for more than 40 years. how about you look it up in science books and journals.
sigh
Well said, agree 100%
Reeno I do, the North Pole is gaining ice as well as the South Pole gaining ice. The Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland has been growing for the last 3 years. Something you would never understand, not reading an positive information about the environment for your non-factual text books.
exactly
“The Duty of Care” to third world people living in extreme poverty: how about those people utilize fossil fuels and capitalism to lift them out of poverty and literally save their lives?
That means we have to drastically cut down on our own emissions. A US citizen is responsible for 200 times the emissions of a Congolese. Beside, we are liable for the harm global warming causes to them. Because, those most affected are those who least contributed to it. In third world countries, global warming is killing people already today. The Philippines are annually devastated by superstorms now, in Southern Africa, 45 million in Zambia and Zimbabwe are currently experiencing the drought of the century. In South Asia, 1.5 billion are affected by the receding Himalayan glaciers. Global warming is undoing every bit of progress development aid ever achieved.
@@jochannan7379 those numbers you cited are nonsense. Someone told you those numbers without backing them up. Fossil fuels are helping those people. Lifting them out of poverty. Cleansing their water and safely heating their food.
You don't actually care about these people you pretend to, it's all about maintaining your greedy lifestyle, duh!
"Have you tried not being poor?"
toddness. Those people you're concerned about are already victims of fossil fuels.
If we cannot agree on climate change, we can agree that fossil fuels is not a sustainable source lf energy. We can agree that the emissions effect our healths.
Russians & NASA Discredit ‘Fossil Fuel’ Theory: Demise Of Junk CO2 Science .
Nun, Gina12345 Take it up with NASA , it’s their paper .Next you’ll be telling me that oil is a fossil fuel.Leave the basic science books alone and read what the experts have to say.
@Nun, Gina12345 So burning coal is good then? Melting ice caps are good? Rising sea levels are good? So more CO2 in the atmosphere = prosperity? Let's live on Venus then! You are one of the prime examples of why natural selection needs to do its job properly.
@@fancifulrat There's absolutely no consensus on the theory that oil is a fossil fuel.
You kids should look up the "abiogenic petroleum origin" theory according to which oil doesn't come from fossils and thus is not sustainable. For all we know, oil reserves are actually infinite.
There's no consensus on how it's created.
Dear Sir,
I'm a concerned scientist and engineer and it bothers me that the term "Climate Change" is vague and mathematically it's very hard to quantify changes in Climate Change over time to answer the important question: is it getting better or worse? Rate of Climate Change change? The derivative of variance of Climate? It's as meaningless as it sounds.
Can we please go back to calling it good old Anthropogenic Global Warming? Then we all at least could have a solid socio-political discussion about costs relative to some measurable climate event. I'm okay with paying a dollar a day, how about those folks living on less than... oh yes. You are aware that they'll be required (by the West) to pay part of the bill, are you not? Their industry stunted so that it never rivals that of the West? I'll forgive 6B people for politely declining to follow your lead on this... in which case more viable solutions are needed.
This won't win me any liberal or conservative brownie points, but in my opinion the solution is to build lots of nuclear power plants. Get the world off fossil fuels and metals by offering an energy (not resource) intensive better standard of living.
Yup.
Time to be the change and future squillionaire by initiating the nuclear revolution.
Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium. Uses more of its original fissile material. Creates waste with significantly smaller half life's and can consume old radioactive waste material currently in storage. Biggest reason includes less risky process that leads to runaway reactors.
No. If you were a "concerned scientist and engineer " then you would know AGW & ACC are not the same thing, wouldn't you.
Also, nuclear alone is not the answer, a combination of nuclear, solar and wind is,
@@22burst2020ddsspec The first thing you need to do is get all the godbotherers to accept that AGW & ACC are real because most deniers do so based on biblical literalism.
Next you have to get these same godbotherers to stop voting for their Orange God Emperor, "Trump Digs Coal".
Fun Fact. The PRC is the world leader in R&D and implementation of nuclear, solar and wind energy.
Fun Fact. Calling uneducated, gullible and inexperienced idiots and liars uneducated, gullible and inexperienced idiots and liars is not making insults it is telling the truth.
Deal with it.
Wonderful emotional argument .... not true, the model based "evidence' IS WRONG ....
Elaborate
While I am never going to say human kind should not cut pollution, I would like to remind Lord Puttnam and anyone else reading this that there are many, many Doctors, Professors and other learned people who work in the field of climate science who have been treated in the same way as Ralph Nader. Why? They dare to question the data that is presented to the World. They dare to question the accepted opinion.
The committee that Lord Puttnam chaired also made the choice of who they called to give evidence. That on its own could, by some, be seen to call into question the validity of the evidence that was presented.
Name one!
Are not the (tobacco-industry-grade) denialists who demand the prioritized indulgence of their narcissistic priviledged entitled greedy attitudes just as vitriolically opposed to competently dealing with pollution ( and ecological degradation, and deforestation....) as they are to any form of mitigation of climate disruption ?
What personal benefit do you derive from your facile apologism?
Give me three recognized scientists or professionals, who question climate change with legitimate facts. I would really like to know they are because I would read their material or listen to their presentations.
@@dalelehar7335 the climate is always changing!
To do with the sun a nd earth orbits as proved by Milutin Milankovitch in the 1920's
@@kurtklingbeil speak english
The only niggle I have with this presentation is that we are not the first generation to feel climate change. We decreased the slide into the next glaciation starting about 6000 years ago. This was beneficial. Now we are in the situation of having too much of a good thing
He is right on one point the climate is changing... It is always changing and human impact is a very small %. Want to "save the world" fight for clean water and advancements in food to feed the masses. let the climate do its thing.
I find it telling that our government and its agencies want to protect us from climate changes (that, as you say are always changing) and will seemingly do anything necessary to convince us of it, but our government agencies do NOTHING to protect us from poisonous food additives and foods that give people diabetes and other diseases and conditions. If they care so much about our safety, wouldn't they want us protected from EVERYTHING?
You sound like someone who knows more than 99% of Climate Scientists.
Emotional presentation loaded with platitudes, solving nothing and stoking the growth of ignorance. This guy is no scientist.
Yet, you can't find a single incorrect statement he makes.
Amen
I can’t be angry with something that nature does. Climate is always changing!
But a few among the elite want to make a trillion-dollar business out of it by having control over the world population simultaneously. Don't forget that such treaties are followed by many other control mechanisms, too.
lantern bearer. Yes, and this time we're forcing it to become a lot warmer than it normally would be. Why is that so hard to understand?
@@solarpark The fact that they are the elite means that they already have a lot of control. The scam doesn't make any sense.
He states that he wants to incite anger. Anger immediately prevents one from rationally applying reason. Its the Lefty way of doing things.
Excuse you. the right uses anger tactics. the left only seek to use that for actual good reasons.
@@iamhewhospeaks lol.
Anger promotes action. He was a film maker and understood that. I'm a psychologist and understand that. You are wrong.
@@denisdaly1708 in 30 years, no time for debate. hmmmm.
I thought this was supposed to be a lecture on climate change - actually more a lesson in fear propaganda
You got that right.
He says at the very beginning that his purpose is to frighten you. This was 7 years. Half of Australia hadn’t burned down and Lake Mead was full and the western US wasn’t a tinder box. There is no propaganda here. It is “justifiable fear” as he calls it.
Lesson in truth whats better
One of the ways we can be part in slowing down climate change is when we stop our behavior of IMPULSIVE SHOPPING (Shopping for greed and not the need). It takes 2700 litres of water to manufacture just a T-Shirt. Hold the fashion industry accountable, STOP THE GREED, STOP IMPRESSING PEOPLE AROUND YOU WITH IMPULVE & IRRESPONSIBLE SHOPPING.
In reality our economic system is slowly but surely starting to gravity more along virtual products instead of physical products. You don't really need physical resources to mass produce virtual products. I personally would like to see a more strict efforts into recycling electronic products.
*knock knock* nfts would like a world…earth 2 would like a word
So David Putnam's entire premise is that if someone keeps on saying the the same thing for long enough they will definitely be correct..
No, he just showed you a book, that destroys the common deniers claims that 50 years ago something else was predicted
If you tell a big enough lie often enough some people will start to believe it.
Definitely it is a herculean task to protect the earth from this drastic climate change.However,every drop of effort we make today will certainly make an ocean of difference tomorrow.But we need to more aggressively chase our mission to influence the govts.and also create an awareness amongst people.
Whether you believe in man-made climate change or not, this man is very wise and made a great case for positive change. The greed of big industry is the greatest sin in the world today. What sort of a world do the CEOs expect to leave for their grandchildren?
Why are the left promoting some big captialistic multinational companies but not all ?
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge
to rule it."
H L Mencken
Well said. In this case politicians like Trump are using the threat of climate change activists taking away your freedom to scare and alarm you. Trump might save you from crazy climate changers but you won't have a liveable planet to enjoy your freedom on. Wake up!
AGW & ACC are real. Grow up.
one of the best ted speeches ever
Of course, the climate is changing, that's a no brainer. Its been changing since the beginning of time regardless of man's influence. So what!
@Tyler Stearns i reckon the real problem is that Mark is not a sheeple. His statement is actually correct. The so called human impacts are easily deniable. Try reading history to see the real facts. Check out Tony Heller, among others, on youtube and you will see the truth.
@Tyler Stearns Mark is correct. Lets shut down the oceans and plug up all the volcanoes. They produce more co2 than anything else on the planet. Anyone who thinks humans can change the climate is delusional. Extinction is natural
@@seancassidy4812 You suggest reading the real facts, and then go on and make a ridiculous statement like plugging up all the volcanoes, and shutting down all the oceans. Oceans and volcanoes are not man made, and the C02 emanating from them is not man induced. Nature over millennia has adjusted conditions on this planet so that man can survive. Humans have been the cause of excessive Co2 for at least three decades, to a point it is interfering with the normal order of things. Try putting too much of a good thing into a fishbowl and see what happens to the fish.
@@twalgoolan4249 Hiya T. thank you for your reply. I would like to know where all the extra co2 is coming from, given that there is only so much co2 available on the planet. No one is making new co2. Nature has not done anything just so that mankind can survive. Nature does not love humanity. All gasses are actually recycled. For instance, it is known that millions of years ago, the concentrations of oxygen were far higher than today, which resulted in animals and even insects being much larger, followed by climatic events which wiped out life to a great extent. Subsequent to these events, the levels of gasses were altered, resulting in different lifeforms which were adapted to exist in those environments. So, given that plants require co2 to exist and the fact that plants exposed to large doses of co2 will actually increase in size massively compared to those plants receiving less co2, could you please explain why we are not completely surrounded by greenery? Incidentally to this, I want you to know that I do believe that the planet has been damaged by mankind, but co2 is only the latest scapegoat, not the problem. Our biggest problem is physical pollution and waste. Most of the figures that are being bandied about come from computer modelling, based on equations that can be made to fit. There are historic records that show that nothing is actually any different from 100 years ago. The newspaper reports from around the world that describe events with recorded weather that show this. In the 1970s and 1980s, people were saying that we would be in an ice age by the year 2020. These articles are easily found in newspaper archives. There are loads of them from the USA at that time. Believe nothing you hear and half of what you see and you may find some truth. If you put me in your fish bowl what will happen is that I will probably eat your fish. (sorry mate, i couldn't resist the last bit) Peace to you.
@@twalgoolan4249 hot off the press T, on youtube, USA Today Grants The Arctic A 20 Year Reprieve. Definitely worth a look. It's Tony Heller who is worth a look because he actually searches for the facts, which is what all people should do when faced with any situation. Please understand, I am not attacking anyone when I make my statements. Nor, do I want to upset anybody. I just want everyone to know the truth. My main reasons for doubt are based on weather records that one of my friends has taken himself in his fishing diaries which go back almost 40 years. He is extremely precise about everything. We have learned a lot from reading similar diaries from history, which is where the idea came from. Tony Heller is definitely worth a look. You will see that climate is cyclical in nature and you will recognise that billions are being funneled into creating equations that are fit for the purpose of garnering more billions. A massive racket, just like wars. Man cannot adjust nature, but can adapt to changes in nature, as they always have.
When has TEDx scheduled a visit from Lord Moncton?...
GoodTimeTraveler or dr Patrick Moore
GoodTimeTraveller
They daren't bring on Lord Moncton nor Peers Corbyn because they would be saying things that TEDx doesn't want to be passed on to the Globally Hoaxed.
@@MauriatOttolink When has Lord Monckton done anything at all that would qualify him to give a TED talk?
@@ilikethisnamebetter
What ever it is, those biased and loaded Leftie pseudo, self-appointed intellectuals at TT must have had their reasons!
This is so far back that I need to go back and find what the blazes I said.
However I would reverse the question and ask ''what does TED talks have to qualify them to publish what he says."" I have since, slowly become aware that TED Talks are a bunch of Left wing propagandists on whom I wouldn't waste an overfull, painfully bursting bladder should I encountered them burning to the ground.
If I were standing on a railway line (railroad track) and somebody from TED Talks shouted "Look out! There's a train coming," I'd write off immediately to the railroad company for a timetable to check!
Hmm.. That rather puts your flimsy question into perspective...don't it just?
@@MauriatOttolink Please stand on a railway line and wait. You have nothing to offer the world.
It's amazing how many people miss the point of this talk. The man is not a scientist. He did not prepare a speech with scientific facts, because scientists are best suited for that role. And there is overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change exists and is man-driven. His speech is about paying attention to these facts and also paying attention to the fact that there are some very powerful people that have a short-term interest in keeping things as they are, because they profit. And he reminds us of similar past cases. The major difference with this case is that instead of hundreds of thousand of people dying of lung cancer because of the industry lying, it is the world as we know it that is in danger of perishing.
Every one that denies climate change should try and think why it really is that they have this opinion. How have they formed it? Through scientific study? Through reading science journals? Or is it through the opinions of others? Who are these others? Do they have anything to gain by saying this?
My guess is that, as always, people are afraid of change. They are afraid of the changes that will be needed to combat climate change. They are afraid of the extra taxes needed to pay for large scale programs. So when they hear someone discrediting climate change, they want to believe it. But why isn't anyone thinking that it is the richer that will have to overwhelmingly pay for this? They profited the most from the current economic model that polluted the world. So they will have to pay proportionately more to combat the problem. So the poor many should not be so afraid of that aspect. But more to the point, shouldn't people be afraid of the cost of not doing anything? What is it that makes people so reassured that things will not get bad?
Again, this is something for which we have to listen to the experts. And the experts that the human race has created in its intellectual journey through the ages, trying to find the truth about reality, is scientists. Science is what the human race has come up with to give real, provable, testable answers to questions. Few people, of those reading this, I would think, would go to a witch-doctor to treat their illness. Even fewer would stop using their cell phones because they were made by that despicable sect of scientists.
Think about the logic (or lack thereof) of this cherry-picking: I have no problem with using cell phones, aeroplanes, toasters etc. but when it comes to climate change, I will not listen to the overwhelming majority of scientists. Science is not an industry. Coal-mining, car-making, oil-drilling are industries. Do people really believe that thousands of scientists around the world have made a pact and have a vested interest in making us believe in climate change? And do people really believe that the coal, oil and automobile industries (to name but a few) do not have any interest in keeping things as they are?
If so, then there is nothing more I can say.
Thank you... hope your message will be read by many others... it deserves that.
I read this comment section. So many that are lost and completely miss the whole point. The problem is clear in which this subject becomes irrationally debatable by simple means of misinterpretation. The term "climate change" is a funny one that most react negatively to. I call it a blanket term. It dances around the topic but never actually gets to the root cause. If the term were called "climate reaction", Mr. Putnam's message might be better received. There is no argument to combat that our rate of consumption, waste and pollution is not sustainable. So instead of arguing about interpretation why not argue over things like solutions to base problems. For instance things like plastics, jet engine emissions, nuclear waste and emissions. To turn a blind eye to this topic is to pass the buck to our children to solve it.
Chill Hammer
Climate change isn't caused by humans. However I agree that we really do need to stop polluting our ecosystem because that has a very immediate and negative impact on plant and animal life including *OUR OWN LIVES.*
That said how are so many people conflating Global Warming™/climate change with overfishing, poaching and direct habitat destruction (i.e. deforestation). These things aren't caused by the passive and ever climbing amount of CO2 emissions; they're caused by direct human interactions, engagements and wasteful practices with regards to the environment and it's inhabitants.
Is that so hard to understand?
And why the *FUCK* are people taking a damn filmmakers word as gospel? You know what that bit is just too far beyond explanation.
[minor corrections]
VariantAEC ... filmmakers can play a vital role in making the changes we both discussed. While we don't have to agree with their every word, they can still be an instrument of spreading awareness. Industry will not make these changes and governments won't write legislation for it but they sure will impose taxes related to the subject. We all (as humans) need to come together and understand that this topic should be near the top of the list. There are definitive solutions to solving these problems and while they will be difficult, they'll also be necessary for our species survival.
Chill Hammer
Maybe this filmmaker should focus on real issues related to the environment then? I mean if he's serious why not showcase the harm poaching and overfishing and deforestation does? Instead he's preaching the evils of exhaling (which all living animals do to my knowledge)!
VariantAEC ... I agree. That's what my original comment addressed. Nobody looks at the root cause instead they all just beat around the bush like a bunch of idiots.
I agree, we shouldn't take a damn filmmakers word as gospel. That's because he is not a climate scientist. For that matter, neither are you. So why should I take a damn youtube commentor's word as gospel. "Climate change isn't caused by humans." Because? Because you say so?
What do climate scientist say in their publicly available published research?
Do their conclusions match what this damn film maker is saying?
We've been coming out of an ice-age for the last 20,000 years. I am more concerned when that is going to stop.
The warming is not going to stop. The sun warms the oceans and the air it is not going to stop.
there have been two temperature spikes similar to today's in the past 400,000 years. Both times the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rose along with the increase in temperature (direct effect of the warming) then fell off much slower than the temperature, which dropped rapidly. (Ice Core Project data and tree ring studies.) There's really no evidence that this will not be the same way.
Hint -- look into how carbon dioxide is affected by radiation and specifically which frequencies of radiation cause any warming. Then you will not be afraid. Sorry you can no longer find very many scientific papers on google search anymore -- you'll have to dig to discover what you should know
The earth is alive. It is a living organism made up on interconnected ecosystems that all work together to create and sustain life. When your body temperature raises 2 degrees, you have a fever. When it raises 5 youre in a coma. Any higher and you’re dead. That’s what’s happening to the life on this planet. It’s too hot, and the forms of live that evolved to live in a cold, low carbon environment are dying off in droves. We evolved to thrive in the last ice age. To change that is to change our chance at survival.
@@roberthollandsworth1809 Are you referring to the Gaia theory or the Gaia principle?
iviewthetube I’m not that familiar with that theory but my understanding is that it’s similar to our scientific understanding of how earths life works.
this planet is gonna blown away by the materialism philosophy , earth has much of our needs not for our greed !
I just love this man. Very intelligent and brave.
Love
He basically used past, unrelated events and quotes to justify a call to action. (?)
James Davis true
James Davis I think so, is to do something that is injustice. Power of the people our voice.
When we stop. Everything stop.
Unfortunate that you can't make those very clear connections...perhaps that is why you don't understand science.
James Davis - well it would be quite hard to use future events wouldn't it!
You posted your comment on his 2014 presentation in 2020. Do you not think that in those six years there have been many examples of the impact of a changing climate? One that springs to mind is the vast bush fires in South Eastern Australia.
I noticed that too. I also noted the attempts to maniplate the viewer. For example, the sound played at key times for the purpose of word association; the many, many slogans (some of which had their true meanings twisted); the image of someone standing with smoke photoshopped in, at the exact moment he said "this is not a sustainable future"; and the lack of ANY scientific evidence whatsoever.
If you want to convince me of a theory, I suggest using facts and evidence, not cheap trickery.
If I am to reach ANY conclusion from this video it is that this man (like many orhers) is using the climate "crisis" as a cover for his anti-capitalism.
We have now crossed the threshold after which rise in temperature will always exceed any attempt to bring it down. The only thing we can do now is to reduce the pace of climate change.
What climate change? What part of the climate has been irreversibly changing, particularly due to AGW? Temperature? Temperature hasnt increased out of the range of normal cyclicality and ability to measure accurately to date.
Climate alarmists often don't care who will suffer from their policies.
Their 'solutions' oftentimes are not so 'green.'
And the oil companies do? LoL
A nice talk from a passionate and caring man.
The shillary of ted 🎯💯😇
Heartland defended Philip Morris, and for many decades employed "scientists" who reported that cigarettes were not addictive and were OK for your health.
Heartland is the same organization that today employs "scientists" to tell you that CO2 is not causing warming. In fact, some of the "cigarettes are great for you" scientists are now telling you what the oil companies want to to think.
As opposed to siding with corrupted data from the IPCC commissioned by governments? It's like Climategate never happened.
What do you do when big corporations are diving onto the green bandwagon , and advocating against climate change?
Skillfully ignore the facts, and the flock will follow. !!!!
Seems to work where money, vested interests and willful ignorance is concerned
bob hope. Like most of the people commenting here.
Could you share the text of his speech?
History has shown that civilization thrives during warm periods, hence our advancement.
During the LIA (1350-1850), we had the renaissance, the enlightenment, and the industrial revolution. Necessity is the mother of invention.
@@drkstrong The LIA wasn't a global event. Places such as Florence, Italy were not affected.
@@bassmaster1953 The LIA was at least an Atlantic Basin phenomenon which would affect Florence. There are a few mountain glaciers around the Mediterranean Sea which apparently grew during the LIA period (Hughes et al. 2014).
David Puttnam, is many things... Film, politics, education... But he is NOT a climate change scientist.
He explains at the beginning of the talk why he is knowledgeable on the subject
And neither are you. And I'm guessing that you don't believe what climate scientists say. Do you?
Yes, sir. I believe the verdict is still out on the subject.History is a great teacher of man's follies, no doubt. I did listen to what he had to say here in this video. I am a man of the scientific
principles. I believe that more needs to be done in the observation and science on the matter. I would really love to find more science on
the subject, especially with the science of the SUN on the climate change
subject. In my opinion there is a great deal of hubris on both sides of climate change. What can man do IF in fact we are facing a serious climate change situation? Again, especially IF the SUN plays any part in this equation. Yes, I understand CO2 in the atmosphere. Who’s to say that the CO2 levels are bad or good? What is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere? A more serious question might be what is the SUN doing? Is it cooling, expanding, spotting, ect. What really could we do about all this and when.Yes, I also believe the oil/coal and gas are limited resources and that using ALL of them in a relative short period is not a good thing. But again, I have to ask myself what can man do? I’m trying to think outside the box here. I’ve seen some outrageous ideals long ago on the subject. For example, “growing algae in the desert”
for Bio fuel. Not only does this reverse CO2 in the atmosphere but also produces fuel for cars. What is a smart thing both left and right can
agree on? How can we balance curbing our appetite for cheap fuel, EPA clean power plans, and NOT repeating error like Solyndra.
I hope both sides of the climate change debate can agree to work
together and temper everything with a bit of common sense and science.
If you're genuinely interested and not just concern trolling go to skepticalscience.com
So, I go to your site mentioned above and watch the entire video called: “Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 6”. Thank you by the way, I’ll keep an eye on that site above. I have two separate takeaways, as my first impressions of this site. Please read BOTH below.
First, here is my problem. In the first few moments in the video, I hear that “flood insurance in Minnesota tripled over the last 20 years”. So it gets me thinking and searching the internet for more information. For example, I’m asking myself, what has the population done over the past 20 years? What has the median home values in Minnesota for past 20 years? Both are easily up. I also see lakeshore properties are increasing. So I decide there are no clear irrefutable facts here. The climate change folks need to provide better science in general here. The issue comes across as how someone feels about it. We need more FACTS.
But wait there is more…
I did learn about “urban heat islands” also in this video. I’m reading the wiki on “urban heat islands” and doing more studying here. This “urban heat islands” is one I’ve not heard anything about. I have often felt the effects of it myself but it really never registered as anything of a concern. It makes clear sense to me and has been studied since the 1800’s I read. Wow, now there is some science and “green” in that “urban heat islands” that I could easily get behind and support. This is the type of information we need more of. Thanks again.
I’ve become interested lately over this topic because of the President-elect Trump 2016 winning. Trump recently meet with Al Gore. I strongly despise Al Gore. I do like Trump. I also like that Trump is listening to Al Gore. I sincerely hope that President Trump finds the correct agenda for Climate Change or green initiatives. I also hope that the democrats give Trump a chance and little room to decide priorities.
I love clean air and clean water and healthy food,,,that"s what is important to me and the world The world climate has always like the all things in this world ARE ALWAYS CHANGING...
You can only have them with "fossil fuels" otherwise its Mogadishu for you.
To everyone here who says "he didn't talk about the science of climate change", the reason for this is that the science of climate change is as settled as Newton's Laws of Motion. He was explaining why there is such a huge backlash against this settled science. He should perhaps have mentioned the startling ignorance and political bias evident in comments on RUclips.
Great so to fight climate change all we need to do is end human and corporate greed in time before the North Pole melts. 4 years should be plenty of time.
@@roberthollandsworth1809 There's plenty of money to be made from solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, etc., etc.
ilikethisnamebetter I don’t care about continuing the planet eating economic machine we have built. There is a 0% chance humans become a positive influence or presence on this planet. Whether we have solar panels or windmills won’t stop Indonesia from burning the Borneo rainforest to grow palm oil. It won’t stop Brazil from burning the Amazon for soy and cattle. It won’t stop Congo from burning their rainforest to grow food. When I tell you the arctic ice was no thicker than 1.5 meters during the September minimum this year, what does that mean to you? Because to me it spells global disaster when the jet stream shifts to center around the remaining ice on Greenland in a few years. Our ability to grow food in mass quantities is over. Crop production in the US was 90% 2 years ago. It’s down to 55% this year because of all the flooding and non stop rain, drought, and flood again.
Everything they said would happen has happened and it’s worse than we could have imagined.
@@roberthollandsworth1809 If it won't help then everyone should carry on doing exactly what they want to. Is that what you are advocating?
ilikethisnamebetter it’s not an ideal situation but we’re about 50 years past all the geologic markers for runaway climate change. It’s here with a vengeance, and here we are almost in the year 2020 with people like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte, Narendra Modi, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Xinping running their countries with the intention of setting the planet on fire of it means profits and GDP. I say we live our lives the best we can. There is no stopping the 6th mass extinction, there is no stopping the 8 degrees of warming we could see in a century. The worst predictions 30 years ago didn’t even come close to the reality of our situation. I’m just trying to live my life as honest as I can, and that means accepting that human civilization is currently collapsing all around us.
There’s also zero technology available to us that can cool the planet. Our best hope is to reduce our carbon emissions, there is no such thing as sequestering warmth. The laws of thermodynamics are not on our side.
When I stood up in front of a lecture theatre of fellow scientists to deliver my honours project results I was asked to justify a claim that I had made. So I pointed to two stone cold pieces of evidence that strongly supported my theory. If I'd have said "Well 97% of scientists who have looked into this agree with me that I'm right, so just accept it." I'd have been laughed out of the room quite rightly. Having to fall back on nonsense like that shows how weak the theory is. It is completely unscientific to try to use consensus to prove a theory. And regarding this talk, well it's just weird! Yes I do get what he's saying completely but a talk consisting entirely of anecdotes is poor. "My talk is about climate change, so I'm going to mention slavery, tobacco, seat belts, the industrial revolution (ironically based on coal!) the cuban missile crisis, F.D.R., the insurance industry, vietnam war protests, in fact, everything but climate change. Like I said before, I understand his angle. He thinks the science debate is over so he's moved on to what to do next. The problem is that the debate is far from over, it hasn't even begun properly. It has steamrollered the issue to the point that a retired filmaker and non scientist can stand up with complete confidence and self belief and predict such doom as this. It is just wrong, espe ially as millionaires like Lord Putnam are completely immune to any cost rises in fuel or other monetary issues related to this.
But you are not intelligent enough to understand the DATA.
Would you also argue that you could perform a Heart surgery?
97% of government funded scientists...
You need to ask yourself why there is a consensus. Perhaps it is because there is overwhelming evidence of r it and no other viable explanation. That is where we are in the scientific debate - basically game over unless someone can come up with an entirely new theory that explains the rising temperatures and why the GHGs/aerosols are not having the effect that they should be.
Thank you
The reality is that you've forecast doom and gloom for 40 years and not a single prediction has actually come to pass.
exactly
Precisely!
Predictions that have come true:
Global temperatures will continue to rise.
Oceans will acidify.
Many species will start to die off.
Weather will become more extreme .... need I go on?
Dont worry for the Earth. The Earth is fine and can survive xtreme temperatures for billions of years. It has been doing that for billions of years. Worry about yourself. Change for yourself. Coz the Earth has been there when the climate was hostile but we humans were not and the earth will still be there whn the climate will change but we will not.
The Earth as a hole could withstand a lot of things. So could we. That doesn't mean they won't cause damages and deaths.
He’s right the earth is not dying we created a world that humans can’t live on....
Excellent presentation . Well done David.
John, I agree!
If you really want to stop climate change, assuming "human activity" is the cause, then ban all personal vehicles (cars, trucks, minivans,) immediately. Especially superfluous polluters such as power boats, recreational vehicles, lawn mowers, outdoor gas patio heaters, leaf blowers, etc. Who's ready to give up their car for the sake of the planet? This is something YOU CAN do today if you are really willing to back up your rhetoric.
you got to be kidding
it reminded me of a hs speech class argument.
does the speaker KNOW the percentage increase of co2 in the atmosphere? well an increase of 0.01% co2 from 0.03% to 0.04%,,in over 100 years,
2 more molecules per every 20 000 molecules! is that something dangerous?
and to think water vapour and cloud is 10-20X more abundant,
its all just a bit weird what the actual reality is which he never mentioned,,
Try ingesting 0.04% of your body weight in a powerful poison and see what effect it has. A small percentage doens't mean a small impact.
Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 330 PPM to 415 since 1985. Just 1000 PPM has been shown to have significant negative effects on cognitive abilities, and rising outside levels will also increase the CO2 levels inside buildings which already commonly reach such levels.
@@MusaM8 .......... Go check the ice cores ......... CO2 has been as high as 8,000PPM
@@budbud2509 You will not find times in the ice cores when the CO2 content was over 280 ppm. They only go back about a million years. When CO2 levels were that high the only life on the planet was one-cell creatures that lived in the oceans and ate CO2 to produce O2.
The % of CO2 in the atmosphere is not relevant, it's the number of CO molecules between the surface and space (the partial pressure - see the fundamental gas laws).
Do YOU know that a rise from 0.01 percent co2 concentration to 0.03 percent is a 200 percent INCREASE? Maybe leave the science stuff to the scientists.
Honest man! 🙏🏻🙏🏻
There is clear evidence for climate change, looking back at past climate events we know that global temperatures have never been higher than it is now, even the last glacial periods where the earth was cooling, was actually warmer than the previous glacial period. Evidence from ice cores, dendrochronology and historical records prove this. As we are now in an interglacial periods, it is expected to be warmer, however, this increase in global temperatures is unprecedented, we can blame natural causes all we want but that does not change the fact that there is a clear correlation between the amount of CO2 emitted and temperature increase. Lets NOT bury our heads in the sand, this problem will not go away if we simply sit back and do nothing!
I would like references that a correlation between temperature and co2 levels means higher co2 is the primary cause of temperature increases.
Ferdousi, I agree! It's time that we educate ourselves and do things that can help stop Climate Change! It's a scientific fact, and it's time that we act!
*Ferdousi Chowdhury*
True, except one fact... Temperatures have been higher than today... [research PETM] and global temperature further back in deep time.
Otherwise - all correct, except one other thing...
.
There is no way that humans can mitigate the current increasing trend in global warming, short of an all out nuclear winter, as a result of global nuclear war.
No technology exists that can effectively scrub the amount of greenhouse gasses presently in the atmosphere.
.
This is a predicament. And predicaments have *no* solutions.
*Fergus*
The information you request exists all over the internet. Just be sure to research valid peer reviewed papers from climatologists.
We've already done our homework... So don't be lazy... Go and do yours.
But at the end of the day, it matters not, whether *you* believe or not in the facts, so widely reported by valid scientific minds.
Carry on believing you are a 'climate skeptic'... Which is closely related to 'climate denier'.
Have you been listening to Michael Mann? You really shouldn't.
Got this in 2019 and the world has not burned up yet
You obviously haven't been to Australia lately, or Africa, or California, or Greenland, or, ...
Excellent David. Only one criticism.... Human extinction is a likely outcome, *before* the close of this century.
🤣
I like faith. I have a great deal of faith and I am proud of that fact. I do not have faith in this religion though, the prophets don't invoke the spirit with their words.
The climate changes everyday and I’ve got nothing to do with it.
i think u might mean the weather
"...and my
object next 15 minutes is to get you as justifiably angry as I possibly can..."
And yet another call to emotional action. I believe in climate change... but I I am also tired of it being politicized and used to take our money. I will patiently wait for scientists to come up with an ACTUAL solution. And for that we need booming economy so scientists and entrepreneurs have funding to do so.
Don't know very much about the subject then, do you. Only a very specific demographic has attempted to politicise AGW & ACC and that is for a very good reason. They hate science.
There are numerous solutions and they are being implemented, as you would know if you new anything about the subject.
wong thats not correct. there is no solution yet. There is a laundry list of things that can help but no way of actually solving the problem yet.
wong you are Wong. Heh
@@AdamSpade Thanks for not only proving me correct but also advertising that you are a silly little kiddy.
I would like every point of his a million times! Such an incredible speaker!
The best speakers always make the best conmen.
Just words end emotions, some fact would be better
That citation "who is not part of solution...." resembles with abominable "who is not with us is against us" and this no good
nice ,thanks for figuring out what was,is the problem actually . will ? it is in our hands
Play at 1.25x playback speed.
thank you!!
😄😄
Can understand some words, but sentences...
Oh wait, who is still interested in the meaning of a full sentence
TL/dnr I rather not know
To make things better we have to change our economic system such that corrupt leaders as we now have will not find their way to office or, being reasonable candidates, be corrupted by said office.
So there'd be no corruption in communist systems with their unelected leaders then?
We are now seven years down the road from this and things are only MUCH WORSE. Actually, even seven years ago, it was too late to do anything meaningful which would have reversed the established trend of habitat collapse driven by human activity. Yes, do what you think is right, for the reasons you find compelling, but don't become attached to outcomes.
You should watch the Ted talk by Michael shellenberger.
is the entire video rhetoric without substantive scientific claims, or is that just the first 10 minutes
edit; nope, waste of my time.
Worthless Urchin a total waste of time.
I was thinking the same thing, he uses the analogies that we have proven that cigarettes are harmful and seat belts save lives so I was expecting proof that human existence is affecting the climate...I guess you have to subscribe to something to get the full video? Lol
he even lied about the slaves what a tool.
Well then you are a part of the problem
Describing lots of 'analogies' becomes tedious because they could simply be false analogies. One could equally describe a long list of hoaxes. Would that get us anywhere? - No!
Just give us data and facts please otherwise you can be dismissed as simply a film maker trying to weave a narrative
Well, did you go online to check his sources like he said at the beginning of his talk?
David Puttman ❤️❤️❤️❤️💪💪💪💪💪
Nice old man, giving a lot of anecdotes, short on facts!
Without going deeply into what I think about linking Climate Change to slavery, the tobacco industry and the cold war - almost nuclear disaster - I would like to point out that (without any disregard for Ralph Naders battle with GM) Volvo introduced the 3-point seatbelt as a standard to the PV 544 in 1959. This was a world-first for a series produced car. So, Mr. Puttnam, you would most likely be on that stage, presenting your highly un-scientific (but very politicized) message on Climate Change, even without Mr. Naders fight against capitalism.
Why is the sound quality so terrible?
This " expert" has no science degree and there's no evidence he gas ever studied math or anything technical but the master communicator knows all about the 'madness of crowds'. Mr Puttnam, can we start talking about facts such as the earth hasn't warmed in 25 years while CO2 has risen slightly to 400 ppm but the central thesis states temp vs CO2 emissions are directly proportional.
What's your documentation, expert-guy ?
Did you not hear his introduction?
An exceptional speech on climate change each and every human being on the planet has to listen to.
Uday, I totally totally agree!
The guy has links to the government what do you think he'd say!
All serious scientists in the field are trying to debunk the climate change alarm and you should watch Dr. Spencer (the leading scientist probably in the world) in front of US senators who were trying to amplify the bogus alarm without scientific evidence.
For politicians this climate change BS is "bread and butter" because it provides them with good excuses to steal our money in the form of "polluting" fines, road taxes (that in many countries are linked to emissions), pollution checks, etc. This is money that they steal from with the excuse that "it's for our own good".
talks about history not science
An image came to mind: frogs in a pot on a burner arguing about the water temperature as it rises. There is a certain futility to that image. If you're living every day like it might be your last, making peace where you can, putting self-awareness first, then you're likely doing all you can. You're stepping out of an extremely punishing economic system, both for humans and other creatures on the planet. People often think the earth is a dead, inorganic thing from which living things arise. What if the earth, itself, is a living sentient 'being' of a different order, a planetary order; what if we're guests and it's the host? Maybe it's decided our jig is up. We've become more like an infection now, and a planetary 'fever' is the response. Human beings only pretend to be nice to each other to avoid negative consequences or for self-gain. They are vicious animals that think nothing of enslaving/ running rough shod over one another. They behave ruthlessly and rapaciously in the name of profit, are greedy and petty. A few of them own almost everything, while a great many go hungry or without. And to a greater or lesser extent we as individuals are complicit. Let me state that another way: none of us are innocent. Ignorant perhaps, but not innocent. In our collective vanity we somehow think we can survive, but our time on this globe is likely limited in spite of what we do now (that doesn't mean we shouldn't try). If so, the thing to do is to make harmony and spread peace wherever we can, and stop punishing others as well as ourselves. Most of all stay present, and worry less. Peace out.
Kenneth Edwards So you would chose to be ignorant and curse your child or your child's child to be cursed to drowning cities, world migration all, out war of land and possibly the end of civilization. Sir, there is a reason Ignorance is referred to as a bitter, arrogant and selfish term. After all, better to live for something than die for nothing. Also consider that this is the world you're talking, think, maybe your all the people you look up to and care about could die because of your and our actions. And before you say, I can't make a difference. Know that each year, you could save up 6 tons in carbon waste only by doing recommended things to fight climate change. And when you say, living in the moment, know that right now climate change is the moment. There are other things that could end us but this above all is the most immanent. Please consider what consequences you make before you take ignorance.
Not at all, King, we should absolutely do what we can to serve the greater good, but we have to understand the dark side of human nature as well, and not pretend that all is well when it is not, admit to our own wrongness. True, ignorance is not innocence. That said, you or I can only take personal responsibility, and for our direct relationships. We cannot do what is not in our power. That's a big problem, people try to solve problems from the periphery in, while it should be the other way around. Wake up, become aware, and you'll know what is best and what is possible.
I see...
His first statement, "movie makers can make anything work.." certainly mitigates and qualifies his later accomplishment of producing the first AGHG bill.
He makes a argument that you can also turn around and it still works just as good.
So that is the weakest argument you can make.
Great speech 👍
Most of the way through the video and all he has said is irrational emotional arguments. Weird
Addendum: watched the rest of the movie and still not a single argument that climate change is 1: man-made 2: bad for us 3:catastrophic 4:fixable 5:more cost effective then mitigating technologies.
Just a bunch of fear mongering.
He is trying to connect with and galvanise a ley audience into action. It is far better to using emotional arguments than cold statistics, if you want to leave a lasting impression that will motivate change. Also he doesnt need to argue that climate change is man-made, it has been empirically proven many times over - and the only people denying are people who stand to benefit financially from manintaining teh status quo. The reaction of the insurance companies would suggest it is categorically bad for us. The Intstitute for Building Sciences has calculated that evry 1''$ invested in mitiagtion will save 6$ in future damages. Please actually look at the facts, instead of peddling obfuscating untruths, your grandchildren will thank you.
The Earth survived the impact of huge meteorites but is doomed by CO2??
the earth survived, how about the dinos or the plants😂
The earth will survive, maybe not humans tho
The most basic question is whether or not you believe in the greenhouse effect. It’s a simple question with either yes or no as the only possible answers. Don’t hide behind tribal dictates, just decide one way or the other. If you decide ‘yes’, then science is on your side.
Perhaps a more important question than yours is are we better off if the planet warms or cools. The climate never remains constant.
@@johannesswillery7855 A MUCH better question is whether you think a more stable climate. like the one we had when CO2 was between 280-350ppm, is better than a warming planet.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The rise is because of man. The warming is because of CO2. Arable land changes, ice melts, permafrost thaws, sea levels rise, deserts shift, species migrate towards the poles.
Science is on my side.
@@scottekoontz CO2 has been fairly stable for thousands of years but climate has varied substantially between ice events and ice retreat. Again, would it be better if Siberia, Alaska and Northern Canada were lush teeming with diverse life forms or if they were under ice?
Thank You for your time this late evening. Or early morning. Bless UP
You're right. With communism it wouldn't be 1% holding most of the money, it would be .0001% instead. It wouldn't be a thousand major corporations competing, it would just one monopoly. Brilliant solution.
Bring back the Hemp plant
Absolute profound and intelligent speech!
Those tobacco execs were so full of it. Omg I can't handle it.
''TedTalks'' is like the CIA'S palygorund,just a bunch of pointless weirdos and perverts wh ohave noauthority, and are servents of a very complicated,business-criminal enterprise..the TePresenters cannot say much of anything here..
Gemeral dis Just a bit too intellectual for you, are they? I can tell, by the utterly bollocks response you posted.
***** Hey aren't you late for the liars convention? Bullshit can't hide because it smells so bad. kinda like a trollfart...or your words..
***** Yes, Putnam's a first class logician:
Slavery is bad, cigarettes are bad, seat belts are good...... therefore, global warming isn't a hoax. [from Jennifer Jones below]
Two of many points:
- CO2 isn't pollution. It's in our lungs, from the day we are born till the day we die, in a concentration 400 times the ppm in the atmosphere.
- Millions, every day, consume carbonated drinks that contain more CO2 than would the ocean under an atmosphere of pure CO2.
Wow...the sheer lack of understanding of CO2 science in this previous comment is AWE-INSPIRINGLY evident! You take a real fact--our exhalations are ~100 times as rich in CO@ as the ambient air--and then falsely extrapolate an utter idiocy
from that...wow.
CO2 is being referred to as a pollutant because it raises the temperature of the air and may do so uncontrollably. Compete burning of a fuel yields CO2 and water. The pollution standards for vehicles has been striving for this. Today most vehicles have a little unburnt fuel in the exhaust but the exhaust is mostly CO2 and water. Plants use CO2 and water to grow. A greener planet needs more CO2 and water.
That's not how it works.
how does it work then ?
there's more than enough carbon dioxide now.
Greenhouse operators raise there CO2 levels to 1000 ppm (using kerosene heater exhaust) to get optimal growth. Below 150 ppm plants die and we die due to lack of food.
This works in a greenhouse, however, on a global scale it would result in trapping more energy in the atmosphere resulting in devastating and unpredictable extreme weather phenomena. Crops fail because of draughts and freeze, oceans get more acidic causing mass extinctions. CO2 is not the only problem, there are other pollutants from kerosene exhaust, even if it does make crops in a controlled environment of a greenhouse grow better, those crops are at risk of being polluted by PAH NOx and other nasty stuff that you wouldn't want to eat or breathe but I'm sure that those are dealth with accordingly. In most cases, you don't need a heater when it's warm and sunny and when the plants consume most of the CO2, you need it when it's cold and dark, when the plants actually give away CO2 and consume oxygen.
The main point is the earth is not in trouble, humans are. Our species has only lived within a certain sweet spot - if the earth cools more than 3 degrees or warms more than 3 degrees our climate will not be able to support our ability to grow food in the quantities that can sustain our future and our leaders keep thinking that their wallets are more important than our survival !!!
How much money do you get from government grants Then I’ll tell you how much I believe you
lol, you should ask how much money a scientist gets from the Koch charity foundation or similar "charity" foundations. Government money is innocuous compared to that.
Absolutely
He gets nothing. You clearly don't know who he is. He us just a misguided old man. He didn't say what he thinks we should do, he just thinks something should be done.
Biggest waste of 16 min ever. Analogies and quotes from someone in the film industry. Not one bit of science.🤦🏻♂️.
More grace sir
Whenever one must state "this is real" without producing inarguable evidence of their claims, it's called an opinion, NOT SCIENCE.
This is opinion based discussion, not hard science.
You want evidence of pollution... Have a look outside... As he points out, our current system is not sustainable.
There's plenty of evidence... Including R. Carson Silent Spring he waved...
The discussion should be about what we should do about it...
@@benmonson8655 If you make a claim to the public, display your findings and how you came to them, otherwise it's just talk, an opinion, a theory. Without presenting your scientific evidence to support your theory, it is still just a theory.
All I am saying, if you want to be taken seriously, put your money where your mouth is. Show it.
Otherwise we might aswell debate God for an eternity.
@@Daggz90 There is amble evidence from NASA, the Royal Society... with a consensus that humanity has caused significant negative impacts in our quest for economic growth. It does not need to be rehashed.
We are both (hopefully) aware that RUclips comments are not the place for the level of information you require.... however, as I pointed out - Rachel. Carson's Silent Spring and the Brundtland Report will give you the grounding you ask for... pollution (litter) being a visible example... with plastic causing significant issues.
Without some change you cannot have a system based on endless growth on a single planet with finite resources; we are currently degrading the planetary boundaries required to support our current civilisation.
PS> There is no biblical god!
The fact that he's his age and he didn't die when he was in his 20's, completely annihilates his very premise for this discussion.
So if you don’t die the second you’re diagnosed with cancer, then you don’t have cancer?
A very rational observation.
The theme of this talk can be so summarized: "Let's not debate the science. There is no debate. Let me just appeal to your emotions instead by stirrin your anger. If you disagree with what I say, you are a gerbil in a class equal to that hated group called Tobacco Executives,. You can believe me when I claim my talk proves the 'Reality of Climate Change' because I produced an Academy Award winning film and am now a self-styled philanthropist, all of which bought me a bench in the House of Lords."
Dr. Michaels, an actual Climatologist, who has studied the temperature of the earth since the 70s, and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, says we have only warmed up 9/10ths of a degree celcius in the last 100 years. The Russians actually have it correct.
Michaels is not a Nobel Prize winner. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel prize in 2007. Michaels was not a member of the IPCC but sent in review comments on that report. I sent in review comments on that report - as anyone can. Does that make me a Nobel prize winner - No! Michaels is a member of an ultra right-wing think tank that is funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Silent Spring 50 Years Ago - and I still hear the birds. the crows in the spring bother me so I know that they are there.
People don't realize that the decline of raptor birds was based on the slaughter of wolves and the subsequent rise of coyotes who eat the small rodents that the raptors rely on.
Bird populations are falling worldwide. According to Cornell University, bird populations have fallen by 30% since 1970.
11:00 Re: the insurance industry. He's wrong about that. Insurance is not compulsory. You can always accept your own risk. The cost of insurance claims will always increase because the assets that the insurance products cover increase in value. If Florida was still a big swamp, it's asset value would be zero and the insurance risk would also be zero. Maybe he just chose a bad example
David Putnam Bsc, Msc, Phd.physics?
This why I have ceased viewing any further TED talks!
Putnam, get back to playing magic lanterns. It's just about your intellectual level.
You would prefer his intellect to be of the kind that denies the science I take it. Way to go.
I have a BSc, MSc, and PhD in astrophysics (look me up) and I think he is right on every point.
I thought "form" was a euphemism for "criminal record".
We're supposed to believe these scientists when they tell us how the universe and Earth functions when they really can't even figure out the human body yet.
that’s a weird attitude : so you don’t listen to a word your doctor says presumably. If he doesn’t know everything about the human body.
Good presentation with clever anecdotes. Bet he drove a car to the airport, flew to the conference, taxied back to the hotel and used his laptop until well after dark in his comfortable hotel room. All thanks to fossil fuels.
Hypocrisy is rampant
Well like use renewable and nuclear energy then. No one wants to give up the good stuff I agree.
Don Anderson. You bet? You mean you don't know? It's good that you highlight the problem though. Our dependence on fossil fuels is the problem, which is why we need to turn to alternatives asap.
@@markc7955 No one is able to because the system is geared to using fossil fuels.
@@zeolitequeen You want we should just ignore the science? What that please you?