I’ve learnt the most about climate change from those who deny it | George Marshall | TEDxEastEnd
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 апр 2017
- Activist and communicator George Marshall has spent his life campaigning for action on climate change. He's done a lot of yelling but over the years he has discovered that listening to those you disagree with can be even more important. George takes us on a hilarious and insightful journey of speaking to the unusual suspects - from climate change deniers to Tea Party local activists. In a time when the world faces widening divisions, George shares what he has discovered to be the secret power that can come from listening to those with differing views.
George Marshall is the founder of Climate Outreach and is one of Europe’s leading experts in climate change communication, advising governments, campaign organisations, trades unions and faith groups. Over the past 28 years he has worked across the environmental spectrum - from grassroots protest groups to senior positions in Greenpeace and the Rainforest Foundation. George writes widely on climate change issues and has written two books on our personal behaviour toward climate change and the reasons for our collective denial.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
In all honesty, I started as a climate change denier until I started hearing just absolute nonsensical things from other denialists like Tony Heller.
I stopped paying attention to social media, pundits, bureaucrats, and politicians.
I started reading the actual research papers (not blogs, videos, or independent publishers).
Climate change is not difficult to understand. Like weather, there are limited factors which affect climate. Understanding what they are and how they interact isn’t difficult.
An underrated lesson. I always remember to try and never let myself sink to the level of the opposition and give up my humanity(and all the things that can mean).
Amazing talk, emphasizes the importance of listening and collaboration. Also refreshing to hear someone speak the real implications of Climate Change. We must act :)
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
@@doobidoo095 If I'm understanding correctly, you're disregarding accumulated heat and the greenhouse effect. If this is so, what do you believe is the cause of Earth's warmer temperatures than outer space?
Also, how would the Earth's and all others' magnetic field be weakening? The dynamo effect that generates their magnetic fields will continue for a long time from now. Aside from mars, since its core has cooled down.
If it's because their poles are flipping, why would this all happen at once? It's highly improbable.
Not only is it important to listen but also leave open the possibility that you can be wrong in your belief. This applies to both "sides" on any issue. I have heard the same message as this speaker several times but have not heard anyone leave open the possibility that they can have their minds changed.
OK I am in the video and I willingly say I am open to having my mind changed. As soon as any one major scientific institution or national science body or university or research science body or recognised academic journal formally challenges anthropocentric climate change. Come on- its not too much to ask. Find me just one and I will question my views. Good luck with that one!
Have a look at observations by Dr Patrick Moore, former champion of Greenpeace. Moore has come to realise that all is not as simple as it seems. It inspired me to think that someone from so determined a viewpoint could contemplate that he was wrong, or that there was an alternative way of viewing things. When we say, "the science is decided", we really have lost the plot. The one thing about science that is constant, is that we can only hypothesise. Until then it may be accepted as "fact" , but when it is disproved, then back to the drawing board. That is why I am sceptical of the climate change movement, because they do not allow any scope for error.
@@leeholmes855 An individual opinion doesn't meet the criteria he's looking for when it comes to a position that carries enough weight. Even if they are the former president of Greenpeace in Canada (1986) and have a phd in a scientific field (biology, 1974).
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
@@doobidoo095
"micronova"? Is that the Opposite of a Supernova?
One could give a similar talk - making the same points - if one believed that human activity was irrelevant to climate change.
Possibly and I definitely think sceptics should listen to the other side (considering that it has a phenomenal weight of evidence)
but my observation- borne out by this comment stream- is that opponents are the least interested in listening or learning from their opponents.
Or talking to an atheist.
Many a scientist will be startled by the revelation that an individual’s world view - their personal sense of reality - is a social construct. Most scientists naturally assume that the public can be persuaded about the need for action on climate change when presented with the relevant facts. Sadly, this information deficit model is very wide of the mark, as George Marshall explains. Narrative-based arguments are the key to connecting with those who deny objective reality, whether it be human-driven climate change or the curvature of the Earth.
I've learnt the most about totalitarian nutcases by studying climate change.
In Italy, climate change was a politically divisive topic until the flooding of Venice in November 2019, when the city's (centre-right) mayor publicly declared that it was caused by climate change. Summer 2022, a real DROUGHT has arrived. The old and sick are literally dying of heat. The glaciers in the Alps are melting in big chunks, the river Po (652 km) is almost completely dry, farmers have to choose what to water, breeders have to slaughter their animals because they have no more water to give them to drink. Gardens cannot be watered and I don't know what flowers the bees will find.
Yes, there are still representatives of the centre-right who say that the so-called 'ecological transition' will lead to job losses, but I really hope they will become more and more of a minority.
Great!
I studied thermodynamics in college, but it was only after reading a newspaper opinion that the 2nd law of thermo proves creationism and disproves evolution (a position I knew wasn't true but couldn't quite put my finger on why), that I made the mental breakthrough about the 2nd law that I've always been SO grateful for every day thereafter. I agree: you learn the most from those who genuinely disagree with you on a topic.
This is satire right?
"studied in college" - so, like a full degree around the topic? Or a part of a chapter in a 100 level science course?
"the 2nd law of thermo proves creationism and disproves evolution" I wish you could elaborate
I give you tremendous credit for resisting the temptation to tell us what you really think about those Texans. Self-control is a virtue I wish I had more of.
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
To demonstrate your thesis, please tell me a single thing that you've learned from listening to Myron Ebell.
On the spot. He seem’s to become a master on the issue
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
Its unfortunate that excess CO2 doesn't make the sky darker , if we knew that we where heading for an endless night.We would quickly pull our heads out of our asses.
Because of this summer’s record breaking temperatures, interest in global warming has also risen. The following is my response:
“If we cannot and do not explain the physical science and quantum mechanics of such things as the ‘greenhouse effect’ so that the layperson can understand, then we do a disservice to them and to ourselves. For example, when photons of visible light strikes the surface of the Earth they cause the molecules of the surface struck to vibrate faster, increasing its temperature. This energy is then re-radiated by the Earth as longer wave photons, infrared radiation (heat). These photons only interact with greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere which slows down their escape back into space, thus causing the atmosphere to retain more infrared photonic energy that we call heat.”
Maybe Marshall should talk to sceptics that are scientists, but i get it: he has to be entertaining. I really like the aproach of "talk to the enemy" though.
"Spent a lot or time shouting at people," he says. If I have learned one thing in life is that screaming people do it because ..... they have no arguments. This man confirms that again. He gives his opinion to people who are unable to form it themselves. They only listen to people who share the same opinion to get their views confirmed.
@Ton Hoffmann
lol comfirmation bias
It’s funny how you miss the point of what he is saying, Ton. He isn’t a scientist, he’s a campaigner, from the cut and thrust of politics and activism. If you want to understand about the science of climate change, basically, ditch RUclips (which is just a nice fun forum for songs and videos plus an echo chamber of politics) and get a science education, including an understanding of statistics, and dive in. You’ll find the water is warm....statistically a little warmer than it should be.
We learn to welcome the negative and positive feedbacks, those ideas may translate good solution for climate change.
It's a great idea to help people understand that their freedoms and way of life are actually threatened by climate change - I'm just not sure how possible it is given the fact that they get most of their information from sources directly or indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry which is ALWAYS going to work hard to convince them that the opposite is the case.
Yes, it IS difficult to debate Climate Change (and its subset, Global Warming), especially when they are your Friends and Relatives!
I remember back in the Summer of 2021, when the Pacific NW heated up to 120 Degrees Fahrenheit ("F"), which those people were not just used to.
And it was not just in Oregon and Washington State -- the hot weather extended into British Columbia, Canada.
A friend of mine dismissed it, saying "So they had a HEAT WAVE", as if 120 Degrees F was "normal".
Later, an estimated ONE BILLION (with a "B") Mussels boiled alive on the beach, since it was so hot!
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Well seems like the comment stream has a lot of people shouting across each other and not listening...I will read all of them and learn what I can. Clearly, though, most of the critical voices are more engaged with an oppositonal identity of NOT being a "liberal" "green" than recognising the threat posed by climate change to their own values .
Numbers: Our contribution to CO2/yr: 3%/yr
Nature's contribution to CO2/yr: 97%
Btw, we were producing CO2 by burning things long before coal (we burned "fossil fuel" for hundreds - if not thousands of years before in the form of pitch (tar pits) and peat. And biomass actually seems to produce even more CO2 - so alarmists are leaving out an awful lot of evidence that shows our emissions didn't cause it before and they're not causing it now. We don't control the climate. It controls us.
4TIMESAYEAR Science and reason is not allowed in comments here.
Climate change has been going on since the planet formed. Man-made climate change has been going on since man evolved to the point where we call the organism "man". Global warming/climate change alarmists have only been in the spotlight since Al Gore expended all that jet fuel shopping his movie around the globe.
Where do we find oil? Where do we find diamonds? How are oil and diamonds created? Were dinosaurs giant lizards? Why do we find their bones and fossils in northern Canada?
Divers and submarines have photographed ruins that are believed to have been cities, submerged in the ocean. So the ocean has risen or the land submerged. I live in an area believed to have been under ice a couple of miles thick.
It's clear that climate change has happened. We can expect it to continue happening. The main drivers are the sun and water vapor (clouds) and we can do very little about either of those. CO2 is a small factor in global warming. Methane is a larger factor. Water vapor is an even larger factor. So why do some people want to focus on CO2? Could it have to do with controlling the rest of the population? Even those who believe in the IPCC models have to admit that removing all the man-made CO2 will barely affect the result predicted by the models. And, enough time has past that we can measure the current climate and compare it to the models. The inconvenient truth is the models did not accurately predict our measurable results. That means the models are wrong.
I don't know what local practices are, in Iceland we visited a greenhouse that uses over 100 tons of CO2 annually! Their plants grow very well and taste great. We spent quite a while in the greenhouse with no ill effects. Perhaps we need more CO2, not less.
More uneducated comment. It doesn't matter. Physics will do its thing, talk all you want.
"Why don't you scientists make up your mind and tell us what is going on..." - Did I miss something, is he a scientist? I thought he was a "communicator".
If he shouts then to me at least he is an anti communicator. I just tend to walk away from someone shouting.
How about communicating honestly and being more precise about what you actually mean when you say “climate change”.
That would help a lot.
You're funny!🤣
Notice how mad they get and the "climate emergency" gets worse when there budgets are cut.
This issue in some ways points out how weird morality can go. It's strange how a lot of people might stand in front of a bullet for a friend but won't help prevent brutal deaths of people they can't see. If we were to get concise about it - and really be moralistic - people go fight and die over oil but we don't die to save the planet? Compared to other things we give our lives for...we theoretically should humanely kill a lot of people especially those behind fossil fuel production in order to prevent more harsh deaths created by overpopulation and climate change. Humanity is nuts...
You don't seem to realize how many benefits mankind has received from fossil fuels. You wouldn't have all the luxuries you do today without them. (I haven't received any financial compensation from "fossil fuel companies".)
The lead is mine.
He’s quoting what no serious, denier, climate scientist would ever say.
George, I came across your work almost a decade ago and have always had great admiration for your ideas. You've had a massive influence on my way of communicating. I think you're underrated.
Also, this comment section depresses me so much that I have no choice but to look away.
It feels like societal polarisation and tribalism have passed a point of no return. The world needs many more people like you!
Late to the party but I wholeheartedly agree.
Climate change related videos have some of the most toxic, patronizing, rude comments of any subjects I watch on RUclips, that's both depressing and quite fascinating really...
@@fenn1729 Fascinating indeed! It speaks volumes about the psychology of addiction. But also keep in mind that at least part of the comments are not posted by real people, but by comment troll bots that pick comments from a prepared database.
If someone overturned the physics of greenhouse theory, by experiment, by quantum theory and application, would that make a difference to you George? You should talk to me, George.
Strange, I can do an experiment at home with household stuff to show greenhouse gases retain heat.
What’s the DOI link to your research paper?
@@montithered4741 mystery why they never responded
They are giving away beachfront property
Podrían poner plantas ahí ya que quieren cuidar el planeta en vez de esos carteles hechos con químicos tóxicos
The intelligent-level of comments show that even animal could have a better chance for survival; They at least have an instinct left that would tell them to run...
So, Mr Marshall, what exactly did you learn from talking to the climate change deniers? You repeatedly say how important it is (and I agree) but you do not tell us a single useful thing you actually learned that would be relevant to the "discussion," such as it is, of climate change, or to the effort to deal with it. It just sounds like you're patting yourself on the back, in a most verbose way, for having such excellent values. You seem like a good guy but we don't have time for this.
I disagree. We truly are in news bubbles - especially those of us who are addicted to browsing the internet, and tutting at deniers. It's an important point that the deniers are perfectly sane and decent people, and if you won't listen, then you have no chance of persuading them to listen to your arguments.
@@MrMartibobs The people I listen too are the experienced climate scientists who have spent most of their lives studying and researching climate. Scientists who are honest enough to give us their truthful opinion and who have an in-depth understanding of the Earth's climate.
There are many videos of older highly acclaimed scientists exposing the alarmists. Eg Prof Ivar Giaever, Dr Don Easterbrook, Murry Salby, Prof Ian Plimer, Prof Bob Carter, Prof Fred Singer, Prof Freeman Dyson, Prof Patrick Michaels, Prof Garth Paltridge, Dr Richard Siegmund Lindzen etc.
Older scientists can more easily speak their mind because they have nothing to lose w.r.t. career prospects.
For the politically aware, view the video titled, *The Globalist Agenda Explained*
@@theknowall2232 Every time people cite some 'eminent scientist' to back up their views they turn out to be in the pay of big coal or oil, or to have qualifications that are NOT in climate science.
So here's the Wikipedia entry on the first person on your list:
"Giaever earned a degree in mechanical engineering from the Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim in 1952. In 1954, he emigrated from Norway to Canada, where he was employed by the Canadian division of General Electric. He moved to the United States four years later, joining General Electric's Corporate Research and Development Center in Schenectady, New York, in 1958. He has lived in Niskayuna, New York, since then, taking up US citizenship in 1964. While working for General Electric, Giaever earned a Ph.D. degree at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1964 [the degree was in Physics]
Based on a review of his publications at Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute and at Google Scholar. HE HAS NOT PUBLISHED ANY PAPERS IN THE AREA OF CLIMATE SCIENCE!!!
BINGO!
You REALLY think that a background in mechanical engineering and partice physics qualifies him to pronounce on climate change?
So the first person on your list of ‘climate scientists’ turns out on the most cursory of investigation to be …. NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST!
Do have another barrel full of fish you would like me to shoot at?
@@theknowall2232 "Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Easterbrook was educated at the University of Washington, where he received the BSc in 1958, the MSc in 1959, and the PhD (Geology) in 1962. His doctoral dissertation was entitled Pleistocene Geology of the Northern Part of the Puget Lowland, Washington.
"
(Wikipedia)
So his discipline is GEOLOGY. I don’t think that makes him a climate scientist.
Until his death, Easterbrook was on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. Here’s a interesting look at the institute’s funding sources:
ExxonMobil (1998-2010):
$7,312,500
Koch Foundations (1986-2010): $14,391,975
Scaife Foundations (1985-2010): $45,337,640
Grand Total: $67,042,115
You can see why telling lies on behalf of the Heartland Institute can be a profitable business.
@@theknowall2232 As for Murry Salby, he’s a scammer and a crook:
From the mid 1980s, Salby conducted research at the University of Colorado Boulder. In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby's federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed "a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money.[4]He resigned at Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 the university dismissed him on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.
Here’s an extract from a report by the university authorities:
“His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.”
H’mmmm wonder why he feels the need to make money by lying about climate change? Gee, now let me think….
when George Marshall stops speaking 1:27
He’s an actor, pretty much that’s it.
He is irratating. Talks like a politician/salesman.
"In Part One of this book I will present a scientific review of the evidence. And yes, I am indeed, as you’ve undoubtedly noted, a skeptic. However, unlike so many others who’ve written on this topic, I don’t expect you to believe me. In fact, unless you are already a skeptic, I feel sure you won’t. Based on many years of experience debating this issue, I’ve concluded that no matter what evidence one might present, no matter what science, what research, what data, what logic, attempting to convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced is a waste of time. What makes this book different is the fact that I no longer really care whether or not you believe me. As I see things, it’s already too late to argue one way or another on this topic. It’s not that “the science is settled” - I feel sure it isn’t - it’s that the issue is settled. Climate change is no longer a scientific matter, but a social construct. The debate is over and it’s been won by those most adept at influencing public opinion.
At this point, therefor, it’s no longer a matter of whether “the science” is right or wrong, but whether humanity can survive the dangerous “existential” abyss we are now being forced to confront. I’m not talking about the predicted climate disaster, but the social and psychological trauma induced by the extreme demands that will increasingly be insisted on as necessary to avoid it." From "Existential Threat: Facing the Climate Change Abyss."
And if you're wrong in your skepticism (which should mean you're undecided seeing as the "it's a hoax crowd" has yet to come up with anything convincing either) then time will eventually tell wont it?
200 years from now humans will be looking back and thinking either "what a bunch of idiots" or "what a bunch of idiots". Personally i just hope they're doing all right.
I think I understand the confusions about CC, considering the 100s of doom predictions given through time, with anything from melting poles to worldwide droughts and sealevel rises to erase cities or landmasses from the map, or the 1970s ice age scare, all that to happen before 2020. We are still here, so why should we listen/believe them now! 😁 😉
Because real data supports the predictions.
I acknowledge there is a lot of propaganda, and i can think of a rational motive for a lot of it. What do deniers think the motive is for it to be made up. I have not heard one that makes any sense
god forbid we make the earth a better place & create sustainable energy for no reason amirite
Plain and simple: it gives power to those (ie one world government advocates) who want to diminish the power and influence of the USA: "It's not fair that America is the predominate leader!"; it transfers wealth from those Americans who earned it to every one else. Perhaps oversimplified, but not much.
I take exception to the pejorative "deniers". A true scientist is a natural born skeptic, otherwise we'd still be practicing phrenology. I look forward to the day AGW is thrown on the same trash heap that phrenology is in, but I'm afraid we'll all be dead and not able to enjoy the satisfaction of historic confirmation.
The simplest answer is what Layne Morales stated. It grants a blank check on spending and global government regulations on business, power generation and power usage. There hasn't been ANY precise identification of the climate change problem. How much of Climate Change is man made and how much is nature. If you don't identify the problem then there can not be a solution. Yet these politicians who fund this "science" claim that the "science is settled." How can it be settled if you haven't even identified the problem? As with every issue in government whether you are talking western democracy or socialism or whatever else there is; the political answer is ALWAYS more regulation and more spending. With the problem not identified, politicians have a literal blank check on regulations and spending. PLUS they get to wear spandex and a cape while playing superhero for the cameras because they are "saving the world." Al Gore one of the first people to push his political agendas (vote for me I'm saving the planet!) in this area already declared that the Paris Agreement was "SYMBOLIC." It would not solve anything! It would cost American tax payers a trillion dollars right out of the door and place them and every other country under global ruler ship in the area of energy and industry though. The agreement in addition to setting America up as a global piggybank to be plundered in the name of climate rescue and social justice posturing also had the US on the hook for free technology and equipment for less progressed third world countries. So those countries who have been ruined by dictators and war lords who pillaged their people, need to be rewarded with the fruits of successful governments all because it's FAIR... Somehow America took away from someone else because in Social Justice if everyone doesn't have the same out come someone oppressed someone else. A third world country's own government can't possibly be to blame for their lack of progress. The guy in this video presents no facts supporting climate change. He simply attacks deniers by using the guessing game of psychology. Here is a fundamental question that should be the basis for proving man made climate change. If greenhouse gases (which CO2 is actually a tiny part. Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas) are collecting in the atmosphere holding in heat and causing the climate to become warmer and creating drastic climate change. Why hasn't any weather balloon sensors or satellite thermal imaging detected noticeable increases in atmospheric temperatures? Heat rises, right? So heat rises, encounters greenhouse gases so the atmosphere MUST be warming, yet there is no evidence of that and NOT ONE climate scientist supporting the political agenda even mentions this data point. All we have are surface temperature readings.
I believe in climate change. However we have to keep that GDP up, we must consume. Do your research on ev’s, wind turbines and solar. Not a free ride. We will not be told however to stop consuming which is really what we need to do. That may slow down the top 100 global companies who actually responsible for 71% of all emissions. We, the 29% are being told it is up to us: keep buying just make sure it is environmentally friendly.
CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th part of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2,500"C of heat energy. That is of course impossible and it breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more impossible. To cause 1° of heating methane would have to capture 600,000°C of heat energy. Problematic as this is over a hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Methane also breaks down in sunlight.
To get round the obvious flaw, NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect.
Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is.
When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case.
Imagine a river. It's flow is not water but heat. The river is being fed from a point a 2,500th the size of the river's overall diameter. The flow at the point the river is being fed from must be 2,500 times faster. So if the flow of the river is 1 the flow at the point source must be 2,500. Heat cannot be accumulated because heat, like a river, must continually flow. The measure of heat is the measure of its loss.
There is no getting round this. Accumulated heat is nonsense.
Fraction elements have fractional effects. We understand this everyday as scale and proportion.
When confronted with these contradictions 'the butterfly effect' is sited allowing fractional elements to be attributed major effects. This too is nonsense and deeply unscientific. The flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil cannot cause a hurricane in Texas just as the stamping of a foot will not cause the moon to crash into the earth. All processes must be measurable and proportionate. The butterfly effect is magical thinking.
Similarly, over complexity has been introduced to support man made climate change. This gives the impression of evidence whilst burying obvious contradictions of logic under a mountain of incomprehensible information. Opaque terms such as 'solar forcing' are used to add further unnecessary muddle, in this case the word 'comparison' works much better.
Man made climate change is a cover story. It has been constructed to hide real changes taking place to the Sun, Earth and all the planets in the solar system as the electromagnetic polarity resets.
Like all the planets, Earth's electromagnetic field is weakening. This weakening is accelerating. As the field weakens more damaging solar particle radiation is able to reach the atmosphere, ozone is destroyed.
Ozone thinning is directly observable, in clear skies you will see an unnaturally bright 'white' sun. It's why the moon seems so much brighter. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared.
Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress to mitigate this damage, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, geometric ripple patterns (HAARP), bizarre and unnatural cloud formations.
The collapse of the electromagnetic fields mean climate change will increase and get much much worse. Harmful radiation will scorch plants, destroy crops. Electromagnetic deterioration will cause earthquakes, seismic activity, rivers to run dry, finally electronic devices will burn out, blackouts, no electricity. Nuclear war will be used to conceal the levels of increased radiation. Three years before the reversal is complete the inner planets Venus and Mercury will develop tails that will spiral back towards the Sun. Of course by then geoengineering will be used to create permanent cloud cover, in part to conceal such an alarming spectacle but also to reduce the damaging effects of increased solar radiation.
Throughout this period of collapse man made climate change will be used as the popular explanation. Descent will not be tolerated. A variety of strategies are already being deployed to impose authoritarian government in what will be a rather orgiastic cull of population. Collapse of the economic system likely September this year and the prelude to the introduction of digital currencies.
The inevitable culmination of pole reversal is micronova, something that our Sun does at regular intervals of thousands of years. As the Sun's electromagnetic field reaches total collapse the Sun will micronova. Actually micronova represents solar reset as the electromagnetic fields of the Sun and planets restore. There will be survivors but in all likelihood most will perish either before or during the micronova itself.
Of course you may consider this far too incredible and horrific a prospect. Compared to the CO2 narrative it seems exceptionally bleak.
I am putting this information out as it is important not because I am interested in endless debate. I am extremely familiar with the mainstream narrative.
Micronova likely 2033.
All these observations are my own and have not been lifted from third parties. Furthermore, the figures quoted are all checkable so please do check.
____________
Please be aware of organized attempts to dismiss this comment including:
- Irrelevant questions and attempts to confuse. This will include misdirection to mainstream narratives.
- Closing-down questions and thought by deferring to 'experts'.
- Counter accusation.
- Contradictory statements that are not supported.
- Condescension, abuse and accusation.
According to geological records for the past 600 million years, global temperatures range from 8°c to 22°c, now 13°c. CO2 dropped from 7000ppm to current 350ppm. Why the urgency to freeze millions of people to death? Don't be conned by the climate death cult.
They can't even 100% explain the past and they will predict future. LOL.
Now I know why this guy listens instead of talking. He doesn't really say anything that is true or makes sense.
Wait are you serious on him not making sense?
What has led me on a different course is that I am not a dogmatic activist. I have a true foundation in science. There is no need to shout. Let me softly proclaim this one simple truth.
Due to sensitivity to initial conditions, any model attempting to predict a non-linear phenomenon, such as climate, quickly descends into chaos. You can not predict climate. No one can. The IPCC clearly understands and has stated this.
Exactly, especially when the feedbacks get added in. That's why extrapolation, attribution science, and empirical evidence (looking out the window or, better yet, going outside) are so important. I've found that many North American climate emergency deniers don't have windows. Nor do they understand how their food is grown.
Marshall suggests that climate change action requires a complete reconstruction of society and the economy. From what he says about his values we know that what he has in mind is a denial of the centrality of the individual; constraints on personal freedom imposed by people who know better what we should do than we do ourselves; and constraints on what projects and opportunities we want to pursue in favour of projects and opportunities that our overseers tell us we need. I'm sorry, but if Marshall thinks that himself and his ilk can do a better job of deciding for us what we should do he should go to a country that follows his Marxist line. Of wait, there isn't one because they all failed or are in the process of failing.
Well said. PS I've reported you to the proper authorities. Take care.
It's that or extinction of the human (and most other) species. Your choice. Truly, your choice. How's that for the "centrality of the individual"?
@@greenhearted8453 Rubbish! While Marx was a naive romantic, the men of steel who tried to realise Marxism all failed because experts cannot run our lives. There isn't a sixth mass extinction in progress and the only reason to fear a human mass extinction is the misanthropic policies of Net Zero. My choice is human flourishing.
@@ronshaw1955 What's your proof that we're not in the Sixth Mass Extinction when those who study evolution and biology and ecology are seeing it? "'Our activities are causing a massive loss of species that has no precedent in the history of humanity and few precedents in the history of life on Earth,' said lead researcher Gerardo Ceballos, a professor of conservation ecology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and a visiting professor at Stanford University (from Here's More Proof Earth Is in Its 6th Mass Extinction, in LiveScience).
"Right now, humans find themselves at the beginning of the latest mass extinction, which is moving much faster than any of the others. Since 1970, the populations of vertebrate species have declined by an average of 68%, and currently more than 35,000 species are considered to be threatened with extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). During the 20th century alone, as many as 543 land vertebrates became extinct, according to a research article in the journal PNAS" (from The 5 mass extinction events that shaped the history of Earth - and the 6th that's happening now, also in LiveScience). (Sorry, RUclips doesn't allow links out.)
And the reason I know you're not correct about the "misanthropic policies of Net Zero" is because they haven't even got off the ground. Fossil fuel and other greenhouse gas emissions are still rising. Ergo, they can't be responsible for anything yet.
As for choosing the flourishing of human life, I'm with you there. A zero-carbon economy has the potential to be safer, cleaning, healthier, more equitable, more beautiful and more peaceful.
@@greenhearted8453 What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without consideration. I have no intention of wasting time and crayons explaining to you why you are wrong. Have a nice long life.
George: You are to be commended for listening to opposing views. We need more listening on this topic, and less ad hominem attacks on one another.
Listen to this: "Climate Change" was adopted by Leftists as the term to euphemistically substitute for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Can you answer the simple question, "Why?"
The answer to that simple question should lead you to eschew your assumption that this issue does not have any political aspect to it. In fact, the issue is ONLY political. There is no scientist who questions the truth of Climate Change. It has been happening since the dawn of this planet.
However, there is also no scientist who can provide concrete evidence that human consumption of fossil fuels has had any affect on earth's average temperature. Computer programs created to show CO2 warming cannot possibly be used as evidence, because this fails against the criticism of circular reasoning. If you begin with an assumption, then you cannot use output from programs created specifically to prove your assumption as evidence.
The Greenhouse Warming Effect on Earth has been asserted (without evidence) to provide 33 degrees Celsius of surface warming. That is, the surface should be expected to be 33C colder with no atmosphere, based solely on our distance from the sun, and the sun's average energy output. This assumption is expected to satisfy Stefan-Boltzmann equation regarding blackbody energy absorption and radiation.
The IPCC asserts (again, without evidence) that CO2 in the atmosphere causes 5% of the total Greenhouse Warming Effect. My own calculations indicate it is more likely less than 0.14%, but let's stick with the IPCC's numbers, shall we? This means the entire amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (3200 Gigatonnes) causes no more than 33C x 5% = 1.65C of surface warming.
How much CO2 has been added by human consumption of fossil fuels? Again, the IPCC asserts (without evidence) that human CO2 emissions have increased from 0.1 Gt to about 25 Gt over the last 60 years. Let's use 30 Gt per year for the entire 60 years. That way we can simplify the math, and obtain an upper limit to the possible warming attributable to human consumption of fossil fuels.
How much of the 30 Gt of CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere after one year? Again, the IPCC reports that nature emits about 25X more CO2 than humans each year, or an estimated 30 Gt x 25 = 750 Gt. Therefore, total CO2 emissions each year (natural and human) total 750 Gt + 30 Gt = 780 Gt. We know from IPCC reports that CO2 levels increase only 2ppm (average) each year. We can equate ppm to Gt by recognizing 3200 Gt = 400ppm, so each ppm = 8 Gt. Simple math proves the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased only 16 Gt each year. Therefore, very little of the 780 Gt emitted each year remains at the end of the year. In fact, nature sinks 780 Gt - 16 Gt = 764 Gt. This can be calculated as 764/780 = 98%. We can now calculate how much human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere at the end of one year. It is 30 Gt x 2% = 0.6 Gt.
Let's keep the math really simple, and overestimate how much CO2 humans could have added to the atmosphere over the past 60 years. Taking 0.6 Gt x 60 yrs = 36 Gt total.
Remember how we accepted the IPCC assertion that 3200 Gt causes 1.65C of warming? How much warming would be added by adding 36 Gt more over 60 years? This is simple math again: 36/3200 x 1.65C = 0.02C. Yes, you can check the math until you need to relieve yourself, but it won't change anything. The maximum possible amount of warming ALL humans could have contributed to global warming is an unmeasurable amount.
There are so many reasons why my calculations are wrong. The most important one you'll see is the assumption (with no evidence supporting it) that this tiny 0.02C of warming necessarily drives more water vapor into the atmosphere, and the tiny amount of CO2 warming is therefore amplified by more atmospheric water vapor. Remember, water vapor is responsible for at least 95% of the earth's Greenhouse Warming Effect.
So, George, the next time you listen incredulously to those "good people" in Texas, you know, how they "deny climate change" you'd do well to give them credit for having more than simple brains in addition to their hearts. Coming from Britain, you can be forgiven for not knowing how many high technology companies (like Texas Instruments and Hewlett-Packard, for example) have been founded and grown right there in Texas. That audience of "rubes" you thought you were talking to were actually much better informed than you were on this topic.
You don't need to thank me for educating you about this topic, George. Just tell others, and urge your fellow Britons to dump any further attempts to control global population through CO2 taxes and "carbon credit" scams. You might also consider rounding up the Liars on the Left and charge them with defrauding your fellow citizens by taking tax dollars to support this utter tripe and nonsense. There's no science on the Left side of this debate; all you have left is politics.
johndaddyo444. The evidence that climate warming has been, mostly, caused by humans is overwhelming. Go to any science website to understand this. If you don't believe the science then that is a political decision.
@@danzel1157 There is also much evidence that the current warming phase is an entirely natural occurrence, which has happened many times before. If the pro global warming "scientists" didn't insist on cherry picking their data and removing any information that undermine their assumptions, I may have less scepticism about it. As it stands, I will check any story I am given against the available data.
P.S. Have you noticed just how green it's been everywhere this year and how the highest sea level was lower than in 1914.....................
@@TheDajoca What evidence have you got? How about you provide a link? I'll bet you don't.
You didnt model the CO2 cycle correct. CO2 created by nature comes from things like photosynthesis. Because of this its a cycle and doesnt increase overall concentration.
The 3% emissions are 100% of the change from 280ppm to 400ppm. And with 4000GT of CO2 in Coal, Oil, Gas we have still room. Air stores around 700GT only. Water 40.000GT and Biomass is around 600GT.
I have learnt a lot about leftist psychology and personality disorders by listening to climate change alarmists protest incessantly about climate without being sufficiently self reflective (are these issues mine or theirs), or adequately dealing with their deep down emotional problems.
Yeah, that's cuz we don't have time to worry about our own deep down emotional problems. We're busy trying to safeguard the future for the beloved children in your life.
"learnt"????
Odd presentation, in many ways. 😆
George, it's year 2020. Hopefully your passion is now abated. The powerful communicator with a gun-toting woman image to convey open neutral discussion. Not good. It crippled value of TEDx objectivity. Particularly as deniers seem to be absent. Or denied.
Can't deny something like climate change. But in the last century there has been very little change. As for human caused? That's a scam. See the *'Tony Heller'* channel.
When this gentleman or one of his like thinking colleagues explains why the earth started to warm after the last ice age and the one before that and the one before that, all without the help of man I'll be closer to understanding why we're taking the blame for the warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. We know that the earth was warmer at the peak of last warming periods than it is today and that the sea level was 25' higher at the peak of the last warming period. That happened without the aid of man. What we should be doing is preparing for the inevitable sea level rise that's coming and stop selling snake oil about man being able to stop it.
Why don't you just google what causes the climate to change. The climate is affected by the sun, volcanic activity, the earth's tilt and orbit, and greenhouse gases. This is all very simple stuff.
The earth has not been warming consistently since the last glaciation. The rate of warming and CO2 accumulation right now is vastly higher than any in many thousands of years.
@amosjsoma:
Sorry I was 4 years late in seeing your post.
Here it is:
The Earth has warmed about 5 Degrees Fahrenheit ("F"), in the last 110 Centuries (11,000 years) since the end of the last Ice Age, or at an Average Warming per Century of 1/22nd of a Degree F (Decimal 0.04545 F).
Now, that "Average" includes the last 243 years, since the Industrial Age began in 1780, but that is statistically insignificant, compared to 11,000 years.
In the 20th Century, the Earth's Average Global Temp (AGT) increased by 0.6 Degrees Celsius ("C") or 1.08 Degrees F. That seems tiny, but 1.08 Degrees F is over 23 times the above Historical Rate of Decimal 0.04545 Degrees F per Century.
In the 21st Century, if we do NOTHING, then in the 21st Century, the Earth's AGT will increase by 2 or 3 Degrees C. This is where the Climate Scientists FAIL to put it in Historical Perspective, when 99.9% of Americans don't even USE Celsius!
2 to 3 Degrees C is equal to 3.6 to 5.4 Degrees F.
3.6 to 5.4 Degrees F is 79 (seventy-nine) to 118 (one hundred- eighteen) times the above Historical Rate of Decimal 0.04545 F.
Watch your video George and you will be ashamed! Not one fact!
If you've dedicated your life to this, why are you so bad at it?
One of the primary catastrophic results of climate change is accelerated sea level rise. Sea level records are kept for marine navigation and some go back nearly 200 years. I have scoured through these and have not found one that had accelerated rise during their record. They all show varying change over time, but THEY ARE ALL STRAIGHT LINES. None are accelerating. If you are afraid that we are heading to catastrophic climate change, please research yourself, your anxiety about climate change will go way down, but the fact that people like this keep telling us this stuff to just believe them will bring on a different anxiety.
What’s your data source?
The primary catastrophic result of climate destabilization, breakdown and chaos is starvation and dying of thirst.
let's see ? freeman Dyson who worked elbow to elbow with Einstein ; sceptic . this clown ; alarmist . hmmm, let me think about it
chicken little the sky is falling get a hard hat
I just wish I could explain how much I disagree with you George.
Why does the scammer say Left Wing and Conservative instead of Left Wing and Right Wing? Does that sell his BS better?
Also does he know his tie is tucked in his pants or what?
Another prat
This guy is a hack. Flew thousands of miles to give this talk, creating tons of co2 in the process. Probably drives less than a mile to the supermarket for food. I doubt he walks anywhere.
George Marshall is from the South East Of England. He probably got a train to do this event in East London - which is also in the South East of England and probably no more than 50 miles from home.
Even if he did, it doesn't make him a hack. Pointing fingers at people doesn't make their IDEAS not worth listening to. Plus, if we are accepting as authentic activists only those people that act 100% in alignment with the values that they advocate for, than we shall have NO ONE. For instance, an ideal climate change activist should use bikes and trains never cars and planes, should eat local plantbased 100%, should be a minimalist in clothing and housing, use energy only from renewable sources etc - seeing as all these industries contribute heavily to climate disaster we're facing. How realistic is that? The point George Marshal is making is that we need everyone on board, even the plane flyer and plastic user - we need everyone to demand from the governments the policies that would protect the environment, that would stop this climate crisis that we are all in. together. And speculating about something you really cannot know (how he got there and hoe he goes shopping) instead of hearing the point is really not productive.
Utter nonsense.