This Will Be My Most Disliked Video On YouTube | Climate Change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 авг 2023
- Climate change is happening, but has it ever happened before? If you’re struggling, consider therapy with BetterHelp. Click betterhelp.com/astrum for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a credentialed professional specific to your needs (ad).
Astrum Podcast! www.buzzsprout.com/2250635/share
Astrum Merch! astrum-shop.fourthwall.com/
Join us on the Astrum discord: / discord
SUBSCRIBE for more videos about our other planets.
Subscribe! goo.gl/WX4iMN
Facebook! goo.gl/uaOlWW
Twitter! goo.gl/VCfejs
Astrum Spanish: / @astrumespanol
Astrum Portuguese: / @astrumbrasil
Donate!
Patreon: goo.gl/GGA5xT
Ethereum Wallet: 0x5F8cf793962ae8Df4Cba017E7A6159a104744038
Become a Patron today and support my channel! Donate link above. I can't do it without you. Thanks to those who have supported so far!
#climatechange #astrum #globalwarming
climate change, global warming, Earths temperature, climate cycles, Foraminifera, Milankovitch, milankovitch cycles
Day 12 UPDATE: Still at 89%! This is my most disliked video ever, by a wide margin (by nearly 3x)! But thank you to the many people who did like and enjoy this video 🙏
- Day 4 Edit: 89%!
- 53- hour EDIT: Back down to 90%
- 12-hour EDIT: We are up to 91%! Still the lowest on the channel but an improvement!
For those wondering, we are 37 mins in and I'm sitting at 88% likes... which for this channel is very low.
Oh trust me, it's gonna get lower.
you're harming their profiteering lol
That’s crazy. Science is science. It doesn’t care about political opinions. This video is a truth bomb to ignorant people.
Can you as the content creator see the percentage of dislikes as well?
Thanks for doing this. Facts and science are the proper way forward, always.
As George Carlin said,
"The planet will be fine.
The people are fucked"
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👍🏻
Always has been true, always will be true.
There's lots of planets. Dead balls of rock or gas. The point is the people are fucking this planet's ability to support life, choosing to do so, and choosing not to change, which will lead to a lot more than just us getting fucked out of existence. And maybe etch a sketch the ability for complex life for millions of years. Point being, much as i love George, thinking in cosmic timescales isn't really helpful when we are choosing to wipe out the only known life in the universe on a day by day basis, and could chose not to. It's kind of a cop out for not bothering to change because it requires nothing of us today.
And many of the other species who we share this planet with. They don't get a say or a chance. What species can evolve fast enough to cope with the speed with which the climate is changing?
more accurate WESTERN CAPITALISM WILL KILL OUR PLANET.
@@richardallan2767
The fact that merely talking about this topic is now considered 'controversial' and 'political' says a lot about the state of modern society.
The fossil fuel industry has its tendrils in so many aspects of modern civilisation, and in every government around the world.
Factor in the huge disinformation and obfuscation campaigns they have run over the last 3 decades to poison the discourse in the public domain, and we arrive at the extremely dangerous result of the current situation.
Shell has had drilling plans since 10+ years ago for when the arctic *no longer has any ice at all*...
If humans are still drilling for more oil to burn when the arctic no longer has any ice, we have absolutely no chance at all. It is indescribably insane and is an ultimate example of the issue with commercial interests being allowed to pursue value for their investors regardless of the public interest and at huge detriment (and inevitable death and violence) to everyone and everything else.
Well, the science isn't political. But all the proposed solutions are. And some of them might work. But some are extremely unlikely to work and are just a waste of (often taxpayers') money. Some are just virtue signaling for proflt (companies claiming they're "green"). Some are outright scams (the recent explosion of "green" scams that crowdfund tons of money and then produce nothing or smth completely useless). Some solutions are so drastic that they'd cause mass unemployment, poverty, and starvation. And some people propose reducing the human population by mass genocides, sterilization programs, and draconian laws on family planning.
So this is why it's highly political and controversial topic. Because everything we can do about it is highly political and controversial. Even if the science behind it isn't.
I've been around awhile, long enough that I've seen this show before. What we're seeing now with global warming is the same pattern we've seen with every profitable threat to civilization that's come along in the last couple hundred years. Take whatever deniers are saying about climate change right now and substitute lead, asbestos, DDT, PCB's, CFC's, tobbaco, seat belts, etc. It's like an old fashioned madlibs where you have blanks to write in whatever word you want. The crucial difference here is that rather than the suffering and dying end after lobbying and disinfo makes society drag its feet on the latest threat to public health, the damage done by climate change is frontloaded. If we manage to get this under control, the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to increase climate instability for generations to come.
It tells you /us that Most Powerful Corporations such as Exxon, SHell, Koch Industries, and so forth are really ruling the world. They are true OVERLORDS dictating to governments and top Market Figures. Our Petrochemical Overlords only care about their current power and money - they are Greed Made flesh and blood. Until we all admit who is calling the shots we won't be able to stop excess CO2 production.
@@expandranon Quiet down you tragic drooling vegetable.
Telling the truth in times of deceit is considered a revolutionary act
"If we get them to squabble over temperature and carbon we can keep on polluting like there is no tomorrow."
Exactly.
Until we have people in power who actually CARE TO MANDATE CHANGE, we are just puppets in their greed game.
"Maybe if governments and media were more busy with explaining and educating, rather than fear mongering and furthering their own political goals, more people would listen."
They don’t want us to be educated. They want us to be brainwashed. That’s the fundamental problem.
Hear hear. The media landscape is particularly atrocious. Surely it's worse than previous eras
Yep this is the problem right here. When the media spreads around misleading stories and then says "If we don't do something within 10 years we are all gonna die!" It ends up having the opposite affect that they think it does.
I think the dark ages might have been worse. At least we get Astrum today.
As long as the power that be doesn’t want to change course, everything will stay as it is, doesn’t matter how many people shout STOP, they are the ones steering the wheel.
The controversy surrounding this issue arises when the upper crust of society tells you that your cow is causing climate change, while flying a private jet to their special meetings about how to take away your cow, for causing climate change.
How much effect does the burning of thousands of lbs of chemical rocket propellants on a regular basis, to launch more junk into space have? I wonder...
Who is taking your cow?
Then pass a carbon tax.
@@Kenbark42 don't be obtuse. The UN is all about taking away from the West and telling us to eat bugs like other people do.
If the environmentalists were really concerned about the Earth they would put a moratorium on War making.
when your scale is 500 million years, you can't expect your initial 100 years of measurements to fall in line with what you assume is correct about your original scale. Especially when data sets have been manipulated multiple times.
Spot on!
Ippc funded by governments should tell you all you need to know about these conclusions
1 thing I still struggle with is, if the land ice mass is melting at a rapid rate and the oceans are warming, why am I not observing a faster ocean rise rate.
Because oceans are huge and the ice mass is huge. The amount melting is small compared to the ocean and the remaining ice masses.
Melting all ice will take around 5000 years at the current rate (or never if we slow down the warming) or at least 600 years, if we emit CO2 like madmen and reach multiple tipping points.
mostly because they are not the important part in ocean rise: the entire polar cap and all glacier melting would mean less than half meter of ocean level raise. to compare, every degree of heating mean around three quarters of a meter rise. the big one will the permafrost (it it will take long time to all the water slowly reach the ocean) and greenland melting. even those will be two or so degrees worth of rise, so temperature will be the greatest contributor for it.
@@thorin1045 Melting polar caps and glaciers would raise sea level by 60m...
@@old-pete nope, less than half a meter, not that hard to check, what you meant is the antarctic, but that is a continent, not a polar cap. and even that is closer to 5-10 meter, and not sixty.
@@thorin1045 The antarctic is a polar cap...
And yes, that are around 60m.
The fact that this is considered controversial is ridiculous.
Because we should all follow the narrative blindfolded. Here is a chocolate bar my good slave.
@@charliefrharper You sound just like you would use a car mechanic as a brain-surgeon.
You make that much sense.
@@charliefrharper I hope the chocolate is gluten free and 100% organic
@@charliefrharper Yeah, i think we should eat expired meat, expiration dates are just a scam to make us buy more food.
@@charliefrharper Are you saying that average global temperatures aren't increasing or they are but it is not caused by human activity?
I am not an aerospace engineer so when I fly on a plane I have to trust the people that design, test, manufacture and maintain passenger jets know what they are doing. I am also not a climate scientist so I have no way of evaluating climate change besides understanding the general principles.
Could the climate scientists, NASA, WHO, UN, practically every government be wrong? Sure but they could also be right. Could this all be an elaborate hoax to make us pay more taxes? I suppose but that doesn't make much sense to me.
My personal view is global warming is a thing and it's probably either caused or exacerbated by CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere due to human activity. But there's nothing I can do about it and I will be long dead before it has any significant effects.
I have no time for the alarmists, they need to STFU. The planet isn't going to die and the human race is not facing extinction.
If governments and institutions have been corporately captured, how can we trust them to not solely look after their own interests and use extreme political measures against us?
you can't and you shouldn't
We cant
If anybody doesn’t think that all the things like carbon dioxide, no the other greenhouse gases, that trap hundreds of time more heat. Along with habitat destruction, destroying our soil to monoculture, the list is immensely long…. if you don’t think that we are playing huge role in how fast is happening then you were literally blowing to reality it have delusions… you need to get out into the field with botanists, ecologists, and all those alike to see the damage we are doing it is beyond comprehensible.
To deny this is just pure ignorance…. For example, soil is great at trapping carbon dioxide. In Illinois use to be 22 million. Acres of Prairie now there’s 2500…… literally look and find out what native plants are suppose to be around you, go around you neighborhood and see if there’s any…. These plans evolved with the insects and animals and bacteria in the soil to use nutrients trap carbon dioxide among many other beneficial things to the ecology there… and it doesn’t exist. We have destroyed it all. These things have evolved over millions of years.
We have a literally killed off 60% of all animals in all bird population since the 1950s or maybe in the last 50 years….. everything is contaminated with PFAS and herbicides…. To think you aren’t delusional or stuck in some information silo is to be denying reality.
The sad part is distrust of institutions increases in times of famine, war, economic distress, etc. All of this will escalate exponentially as climate change continues.
There is good critical thinking that can and should be applied to institutions and conclusions thereof. But climate change is not one of those issues.
You cannot make a broad statement that nothing can be trusted. It helps no one but elites and changes nothing.
It leads to the demos broadly using it as a permission structure to reject anything uncomfortable, which happens to fold nicely into corporate exploration of people and the environments they need.
If you /want/ to distrust everything for do-my-own-research, which overwhelmingly when stated means "I look at yt videos and read clickbait," there's nothing, no argument that can be said that can change your mind unless it feeds into dopamine receptors triggered by sensationalism, ergo the brain spiral into the yarn ball of conspiracies.
Tyranny! The order of the day!! And those on top wouldn't have it any other way!!! This is the rule and has been Always. When has it ever been possible to trust centralized power of any kind? Accountability and transparency are anathema to Power, and corruption of intent is all but assured by Unchecked Power.
The obvious red alert answer, if red alert is what you want to label it, is fission reactors until fusion can take over 20/30 years maybe down the line. Get them up and let’s move on to other things. Thanks
They cannot be built fast enough, are expensive and get even more expensive when they cannot providd base load.
We don't need to know the actual temperature 1000 years ago. Historical records clearly state how there was a thriving wine industry in what is now the UK as late as the 13th century, and we know what type of climate is required to grow grapes. In fact, in the late 13th century, Britain was exporting wine to France. I think it's safe to say that there is no wine industry in the UK exporting its product to France today; hence, we know that the temperature was warmer during the medeival warm period than it is today.
... for britain
Growing grapes in Scotland no less.
I'm not sure which wine you're sipping today but clearly, it has NOT affected your fascinating logic !
@@gtfg3800 His logic is spot on, the historical records are spot on. The circumstantial evidence surrounding this was the building of large Churches, how could the society in Britain at that time afford to build such expensive structures; the warmer weather contributed to bumper harvests, which led to prosperity !
Clearly all problems can be fixed by giving money to politicians.
Who will then immediately cede all power to their rich investor friends who use it to enrich themselves.
Say no more!!
Many problems have been solved by governments in the past. You're cherry picking if you think governments have never done anything for society.
@@eliaspanayi3465 Who will then hire those same politicians to be their CEO once (if) they retire.
The fact that this subject is characterized as "sensitive" or "controversial" is mind boggling to me
cuz its propaganda buddy
@@Luke-ym7oy bruh
@@Luke-ym7oy noob
It’s a scam. A war they can fight forever, even after they’re done with Ukraine and Taiwan 💸
@@Luke-ym7oy What's the alternative if you're wrong buddy?
Did you have any sources? I checked the description but didn't find any.
I find this video unreliable * There are no links to data sources in this video * There is no public debate by independent scientists on this topic because it is inconvenient for the current narrative and political correctness * Carbon dioxide has a specific gravity lower than air * Therefore, the more carbon dioxide, the more intensively vegetation develops...
@@Kurkuma10 CO2 is plant food and the people that scream the most that it is bad and CO2 must be lowered are also the ones that cry about deforrestation. make it make sense.
@@notsure1783more co2 traps more heat in the atmosphere. This causes a global climate change that happens too fast for organisms to adapt. Before the industrial revolution, volcanic eruptions would cause similar effects (at varying levels of intensity) through shooting carbon sequestered in the earth’s crust into the atmosphere. It’s all about balance, too much carbon makes a very warm globeal climate, and a lack of atmosphereic carbon can cause “a snowball earth” as mentioned in the video. Also the US military knew about climate change since the 70s.
TLDR: high carbon levels are bad for us as it is changing the climate faster than organisms (and humans) can adapt. This can cause a massive collapse in biodiversity, so it’s cool if you want unique animals to go extinct and famine due to it’s impact on food production
@@notsure1783 @kurkuma10 even if that’s true, helping vegetation =/= good for humans. That’s like saying ‘oh our bodies make for great soil nutrition. I guess I should kill myself!
@@notsure1783 While also ignoring the fact that the current level of CO2 is at the lower limit necessary to maintain photosynthesis.
The reason that there seems to be a sudden rise in global temperatures in the last 100 years, is because the majority of land based thermometers in the world are located in places that once were just outside of urban areas so that they were not as influenced by the urban heating island effect, however in the time since they were placed there, those communities have grown around them and encompassed them into the urban heat island effected areas. When scientists have adjusted for that by removing those thermometers from the measurements and only focused on rural and maritime based thermometers, the sudden rise is eliminated.
Thermometers outside urban areas show the same increase...
@@old-pete That's just false. This has already been studied. You can search it yourself.
@@old-pete There are thermometers in urban environments which grew up around them, there are some in rural locations, there are sea based thermometers and there are satellite based thermometers. Look at the evidence for yourself. I am not here to prove anything to you.
@@TribalGlobe I did look it up and contrary to you scientist know about the heat island effect for over 200 years. They compensate for it and the data from outside cities show the warming.
With satellite measuring the effect can be shown for the most isolated places on this planet.
@@old-pete no they don't!
“You’re not gonna like this”
Proceeds to make the most milquetoast and uncontroversial video ever.
The video is highly disliked on YT. Half of America doesn’t believe in climate change. You need to realize how stupid conservatives are
And yet it really is one his most disliked videos at 14k dislikes. Even his most popular videos with 5+ million views have less than half the dislikes of this one.
modern political state means something that was a normal take 10 years ago will get you called a million 'isms' by social justice particularly
@@swanqlord3048 im pretty much certain that most of those dislikes are just people disliking for shits and giggles, if he didint say that this will be his most disliked video it wouldnt be
@@fur_avery ...i am guilty of that, yes
Irony here is that habitat such as grasslands held carbon back, keeping it out of the atmosphere, and now recommending "burying" carbon in the oceans. How about stopping habitat destruction and engaging in habitat restoration? No one ever seems to talk about these options.
That cuts into the profits, so it's out of the question.
Habitats store some carbon, but they aren't as good at it as systems engineered to store lots of carbon.
I'm with you. Need more plants to suck up CO2 and Make Oxygen. Problem Solved.
The ocean generates 50 percent of the oxygen we need, absorbs 25 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions and captures 90 percent of the excess heat generated by these emissions.
@@donaldhobson8873 by “some” carbon, you mean all the carbon that has ever been stored until the invention of these engineered systems. By what measure are they “better” than habitats, particularly considering they don’t operate independent of or without an effect on habitats?
Maybe one other thing that’s contributing is deforestation, given that trees are the most effective CO2 absorption “devices” that exist…
Trees and the oceans absorb C02 but nothing is said about sulphur hexafluride a man made gas used by electricity companies 23000 times worse for the environment than C02 and cannot dissipate for over a thousand years 🤫
Your assumption is not correct.
In fact it's plankton which absorbs the most CO2 during photosynthesis.
Absorption isn't important. Storage is. Seeing we're removing trapped carbon from the ground, we'd need more living trees than the earth can support to hold all the carbon we've added.
@@MikeisFunnyCollection It's not carbon . It is carbon dioxide.
It's essential in the cycle called photosynthesis. Most of the air
you are breathing contains oxygen produced by plankton.
70% of all the oxygen in the atmosphere was produced in the
oceans.
@brianterence3211 it is carbon. The carbon in the carbon dioxide is from fossil fuels which were trapped either in coal or oil. The oxygen in carbon dioxide was already part of our biom in the atmosphere. The plankton and trees break that bond and re-release the oxygen. But don't trap the carbon back in the earth. Especially plankton that has a short life cycle, is either eaten or rots. Re-releasing the carbon. Trees can store the carbon much longer, but it comes down to biomass. We aren't reusing the carbon already up here. We're pulling more trapped carbon. So we need more trees every day to remove the carbon that was not previously part of our ecosystem.
There is still an issue… you stated that the data from ice cores and fossil records gives us “roughly” the average temperature to create these patterns, but accurate global temperatures have only been recorded for about the last 170 years… which coincides with the more drastic rise in temperature for the last 100 years. Are the measurements from much earlier in the earth’s history inaccurate enough to create a “smoothing” of data?
We don't have accurate records for even 100 yrs. Sensor locations change, surroundings of those sensors change, there is a formula they use to calculate the "average" temperature. Now they add satelitte sensors. So no we do not have a consistent real global temperature for the past 100 years.
No where near that long, not even 50 years. It's only quite recently that sensors and satellites have been widely distributed.
Ice cores go to 800,000 years ago!
@@GaymerPunkIce cores provide proxy measurement. They don't give actual temperature readings and aren't extremely accurate either in time or value. Like the OP says, they provide "rough" temperatures.
the earth has been around for billions of years. it would take much longer than 100 years to observe an entire span of fluctuation
Most people don't like climate change; I agree
most people don't like any change
@@doolsy Did you watch the video?
@@doolsySays who? Your Facebook _"friends?"_
@@upgradeplans777 yes. Why?
@@doolsy I don't even have a Twitter account. Never been a fan of pretending to be something you're not. Meeting your friends in person is much more enjoyable than staring at an LCD screen.
In speech class, we had to give a "convincing" speech about halfway into the class.
Basically we had to try and sell something to the audience.
I decided to pick the worst topic ever, and try. So I tried to convince my audience to cut down the rain forest. LOL.
They did not like it.
I know some loggers. I can hook you up.
hero!!!
I had something similar lmao. We had debates. We were assigned the topic and which side we would debate for. Basically, I had to debate about using animals as testing subjects for medications. My side would fight to keep testing on animals and other side had to fight to stop using animals and instead use lab created organs or whatever they're called. Organs grown in a lab. I guess it's safe to assume I lost that one badly. Especially when my opponents side had 3 person group, my side had a 2 person group because we ran out of students. On top of that, I had the special needs student in my team. So it was me and a special needs guy. Add that he didn't do anything for the research and couldn't even debate properly on the day of. Add that I had the losing side to debate. Add that I'm competitive and didn't take that loss very well lmao.
Very interesting. Well played. That should go further and be used more. ‘How would you like a world without trees?’
I am sure you must have researched the topic. There is plenty of evidence that cuttign down the rainforest would have a beneficial effect. More CO2 would be obsorbed, provided the soil is not disturbed and a new forsst can grow in its place.
I consider myself really incredibly informed about climate. However I have learnt a lot from this, about context and how we have come to the conclusions we have today. Also how ignorant I was to an astonishing amount of historical data capture. Very very well done piece. ❤
Scientists funded by politicians that deliver the "science" that allows the politicians to advance their agenda should always be taken with a huge grain of salt.
🤑
1. Scientists are usually not funded by politicians
2. The fossil fuel industry does a lot of funding
3. Climate change was discovered around 50 years before politicians or the fossil fuel industry got involved
When you mix science and politics...you get politics. It is often stated by politicians: "In the latest IPCC report it says doom and gloom will happen very soon and humans are to blame". But there are 2 reports, the actual IPCC reports don't speak of any climate emergency. It does say that humans have an impact on Earth, but it doesn't say that we are the main contributor of climate change. But there is a "Report for policy makers" that is used to scare the public and push an agenda. Which is where that UN warning label on all YT climate videos comes from.
@@old-pete Please tell me you're a young person?
Here's one simple example- Next time you watch legacy media what commercials are playing - Big Pharma
1970- Global cooling, 1980-2000 global warming,.... today- climate change....= fear-mongering
guess were Obama and all the American elites that cry about climate change?.....Marthas Vineyard...right by the beach..sure, climate change , right???
@@ronja6791 100% and the so called 97 percent of scientist that agree on climate change?....well what was the questioned asked?
Do humans add c02 to the atmosphere?...of course...and does the climate change?....of course....the ( WEF) twisting the words that 97% of scientists believe in this climate catastrophe...clever
@@old-peteany research at all that gets government $ or grants is "funded by politicians" By definition 😂
I’ve always been on the fence about this topic, but I’ve always been certain that whether the climate changes or not I don’t want my planet covered in garbage. I wish people would use their brains and value the planet if not for climate change do it because living in trash is lame
Exactly. Worse case you helped clean up the planet so it's not covered in trash. Best case you saved the planet and humanity from destroying itself.
lol
yes, each of us must be responsible. to leave it as it was, or better. most of these 'tool's are being paid to do something else. condition us.
@@prestonburton8504 If by 'tools' you mean the lobbyists, they are paid to stupefy the ppl. Hence, we now have Trump!
The IPCC has now incorporated environmental degrading into its assessments as part of the issues affecting Earth's balances. We just started banning PFAS and PFOS chemicals in some new manufacture. Unfortunately our plastics today are loaded with them. Other toxic chemicals banned in Western countries are still being used in some developing countries. These get circulated everywhere, and are very hard to clean up.
We can adapt to changing climate conditions, but not to poisoning our soil and water.
The pollution of the Oceans, Air and Ground are definitely the biggest concerns for me personally.
Stating plain fact has become controversial because these days, it seems, everything has to be an argument.
No it doesn't
People are too stupid, immature and apathetic to change their destructive behaviors.
An argument?? No, no.. If we were only as bad off as that.. I reckon we're at opinions only now, more or less. Hell, if even that!? More like, unfounded, ungrounded, mostly emotionally based, entitled opinions.. 🙈🙉🙊
@@kinjunranger140 You said it did.
@@coraltown1 There is no identifiable man-made CC. But what the timelines do overlay with, are milestones for autonomy: 2035 and 2050 are interestingly both key dates for each. BOTH require a massive decrease/culling of the human herd.
I encourage everyone to look at the data from the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer on a regular basis, especially their temperature anomaly maps. Its obvious the Arctic is warming much more than the global average. There was a period of about a week this January when the daily highs around Hudson Bay, Canada, were well above freezing. That is NOT normal. It fits with the predictions of how human accelerated global warming is likely to manifest.
Thanks for that suggestion. Always good to learn about other sources.
A lot of people didn't watch the whole video, they just stopped after they got their confirmation bias fix.
There was nothing to watch in the second part of the video.
Most disliked video on RUclips? How would anyone even know? RUclips hid that useful feature long ago. I’m still upset
Clickbait title
Browser add-ons are your friend. Get the like-dislike ratio back.
I've gone off it now. It's just another fearmongering video.
@@Rayblondie nope, it is a science video tho
He claims it will be HIS most disliked video. Not the most disliked on the entire platform.
And creators can still see dislikes.
Maybe if governments and media were more busy with explaining and educating, rather than fear mongering and furthering their own political goals, more people would listen.
It’s be nice if the science actually made sense
97% of scientist agree something is happening meaning more than 0 nobody can predict ANYTHING about it
start with the elite giving up their private jets and yachts
then stop sending consumer goods halfway around the globe
then build many nuclear power plants
then i will take our govt solutions seriously
Simply telling the truth is not fear mongering lmao
Why did the Scotland government cut down 17 million trees?
Truth is not fear-mongering. You are just too stupid to read science.
Is the illustration at timemark= 16:31 provided by forecasting trends, or is this just "for example"?
Could @astrumspace or anyone explain why in your video on Milankovitch cycles you mention decline in angle of tilt to the cause of ice ages, whereas in this one increasing angle of tilt is shown to be the cause that initiates the 'snowball effect', so to speak.
TY in advance!
Well I's also like to understand how something like this can be stated as fact considering we don't have 20000 yrs of data. We also have no way of knowing what the exact tilt of the earth has been throughout history. These are all theoretical numbers but always treated as proven fact - like so much in the climate culture
@@russagrusa7024The tilt can easily be calculated. Just say it was at zero tilt now and it's a 100k year cycle. So it takes 100k years to return to zero tilt to complete a cycle, so 25k yrs ago it was at half tilt, 50k was full tilt, 75k was back to half tilt and 100k, it's at zero again.
Then at 125k, back to half, 150k, at full tilt and you keep calculating out and see what the temperature was at that time by looking at the known data (ice cores etc).
I was trained as a marine scientist a decade ago, we knew all this; political agenda and other problems are more pressing(apparently).
This whole field of study has been corrupt for decades. Descenting voices have been eliminated . You were indoctrinated not given a balanced education. The "political agenda" was baked in long ago. Rapid change is not new. The Greenland ice core contains 10 deg. cooling in a few decades at one point. Most of the long proxy records have several centuries or millennia between data points, so simply would not record rapid changes like the present. Saying rapid change never happened before is a constructed lie that the author picked up because he does not know the subject. You neither it would seem.
No you dont know anything. You think you do but you dont. Climate change is the first and foremost political agenda, it prevents growth and substance. Germany played the climate changes games and then fell short when they dont have enough energy to sustain their own people.
Politicians aren’t smart enough to have a political agenda that you seem to think exists. There is only one agenda : money. When principles get in the way of money, they go out the window. And that isn’t true of only politicians. When there is more quick money to be made by reducing CO2 than by burning oil, that will become the next political ‘agenda’.
But that little self indulgent rant aside, I agree totally.
Guess they didn't manage to teach you the scientific method, eh?
Im a geologist. I went to University in the late 90s and graduated in 2002. This has all been common knowledge to the geoscience crowd for several decades now.
PHONY mafia racket $$$$ Started in 1973, when the racketeers FIRST tried calling it "The New Ice Age". They then changed the name 2 more times $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
@CANNABISfreedomNOtaxes ---- Im a geologist.
Wayne Patterson --- No, you are actually pretending to be a geologist, because you are practicing a pseudoscience when you pretend to know the Alarmist Climate Change to be "common knowledge to the geoscience crowd for several decades now."
CANNABISfreedomNOtaxes --- I went to University in the late 90s and graduated in 2002. This has all been common knowledge to the geoscience crowd for several decades now.
Wayne Patterson --- In other words, you voluntarily allowed your self to be indoctrinated into adopting a cult's mass delusion and pseudoscience rather than learn how to practice science and the scientific method. The video is pure false propaganda by using faked data. The video uses imaginary temperature numbers fabricated by the Climate Change Alarmists as substitutes for the historical temperature observations. Descriptions of the methods for fabricating the temperature data is included with each edition of the datasets and their documentation files. There is no significant and Human caused increase in atmospheric Carbon dioxide concentrations. The present Carbon dioxide levels are LOWER or about EQUAL to the 415 ppm average and 574 maximum levels observed in 1827-1829 and the below and above 400 ppm averages and the 550 ppm maximum observed in 1939-1941. The observational evidence demonstrates how the imaginary numbers fabricated by the Climate Change Alarmists and presented in this video have zero scientific validity.
@@waynepatterson5843can you cite your sources?
@@ac1119His source: trust me, bro.
I completely changed my mind after watching Randall Carlson
I really do not understand why someone would dislike this video. It is well balanced, it comes with good explanation and facts, it does not aim to "choose sides". It is not politically biased. Just a great explanatory video.
my theory is that people generally feel uncomfortable with the idea of global warming, so they press on the dislike to express dissatisfaction
we are not logical creatures ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
IPCC is funded by our woke governments, Who trusts them? Not many if any.
@@ade5324 you mean we are logical creatures
Well the first mistake you are making is stating that it is factual. The reality is that no data from 1M years ago is factual - it's hypothetical. We have absolutely no way to know with 100% certainty what the temperature or CO2 level was 1M years ago and certainly not 500M years ago. An ice core or a plant can only capture what is in it's immediate surrounding. So first of all that does not represent the entire atmosphere and secondly it has an enormous margin of error.
@@russagrusa7024 "The reality is that no data from 1M years ago is factual - it's hypothetical." No, the measured particles are factual. The raw data therefor is factual. Any deductions from that, are indeed not factual but typically presented with a probability interval. Based on the data retrieved from ice cores, it is possible to make reasonably accurate estimations on temperatures and CO2 levels.
Saving to watch later, but thx for tackling it; even tho I haven't watched yet, I know you work hard on your uploads and it'll be generally good.
I don't know why you waited three years. There is nothing in this video we haven't known for at least twenty years. What I do love about the video is how well you presented the facts and the scientific methods used to determine them. We need more of this. 😊
@@helpmboab2034 Is that some random words you just either willingly or inadvertently typed out, or am I seriously meant to make sense out of it?
More Than 1,600 Scientists Declare Apocalyptic Global Warming a Myth
BY ANDREW MIILLER • SEPTEMBER 3, 2023
Acoalition of 1,609 scientists and professionals have signed a declaration stating they “strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy” being pushed around the globe. The declaration, published on August 14 by the Global Climate Intelligence Group, states:
Natural as well as human factors cause warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
CO2 is plant food (the basis of all life on Earth).
Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
The most recent signatory of the declaration is Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for work on entangled photons.
Red environmentalism: Burning fossil fuels may have some limited effect on global temperatures, but it’s hard to tell because repeated scientific fraud has clouded the issue. Reasonable people want clean air, water and soil for themselves and others, so radical central planners are highly motivated to mix concern for the environment in with their socialist ideology. This strategy also makes socialist activists, journalists and politicians highly motivated to hijack and exaggerate concerns about the environment to literally doomsday-level proportions.
When a course of action (such as soil remediation) would help the environment but do nothing for the socialist agenda, they ignore it. When a course of action would hurt the environment (such as giving a pass to the world’s biggest polluter, which happens to be Communist), they go for it.
Deadly distraction: What you see in the news isn’t a may-the-best-facts-win scientific debate. It is the result of manipulation designed to frighten people into surrendering their God-endowed rights to a central planning committee.
Many scientists scoff at the notion that God controls the weather, but the book of Job states that God balances the vapors of the clouds and warms the Earth with a south wind (Job 37:16-17). God commands the clouds to do His will, whether for mercy or for correction (verses 12-13). Psalm 148 shows this understanding of God’s power, stating, “Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word” (verse 8). Such passages confirm that God controls the sun and balances the gases that compose the clouds. They also confirm that God sends fire and stormy winds to fulfill His promises.
Learn more: Read “Greenhouse Apocalypse.”
E-MAIL ANDREW MIILLER
OR FOLLOW ANDREW MIILLER ON TWITTER/𝕏
@@RonanGallagherBandI understood it by picturing him as a British accented Disney character 😂. He is saying that they are adding dramatic effects by saying they had to hide the info. Embellishment hooks listeners and readers.
@@helpmboab2034I'm not sure what you are saying. Then again, between Disney analogies and a lack of substance I'm not sure if you understand what you're saying either. Are you saying the Climate Change thing is false? Not sure what your point is. Are you? 😊
I bet you’re real fun to be around 😂😂
As long as there's a RUclips Rewind, this will never be the most-disliked video on RUclips.
Also because it was the most ordinary take on climate change. Like wow, the earth is heating up, we need to stop that or animals will go extinct. This information was freely available in 2009. Outside of USA, this topic is not controversial in the slightest.
well they technically said *their own* most disliked video.
@@meapyboy12345 well the title technically says the most disliked video on youtube
@@n0denz doesn't the title say "My Most Disliked Video On RUclips"? also didn't mean to sound rude earlier but it does kind of come with making these types of comments.
Well, YT pushed it onto my home feed just now, and I'm watching it. I'm two thirds of the way thru, and they've only mentioned politics as a side effect of some other story, and they described those issues as a future historian would, rather than as a political troll, so I really appreciate it.
I remember the Great Oxygenation Event. I was in high school when it happened. It was a good time to be an endurance athlete.
I have four large carbon capture devices in my yard. Three of them are more than 80 feet tall and the fourth is in the shape of a globe 40 feet across. A white oak, a maple, a white pine and a honey locust.
I love that!
We can't solve the issue just by planting trees, though that's still a good thing.
1 The extra co2 doesn't just come from cutting down forests, most of it was trapped safely underground and even if you reforested the entire planet that portion would still be an issue.
2 You can't reforest the entire planet because we need a high percentage of the land that's not glacier or desert as farmland to feed more than 7 billion people.
All of the Carbon Capture projects combined have so far managed to capture less than a day's* worth of humanity's emissions. Hopefully we'll get better at scaling it, but for now I'll keep planting as many trees as I can.
(*I think it's actually about 10 minutes' worth, but I'll be vague so I'm less likely to be wrong).
I'm not a climate alarmist or anything, so I know you're right. But nothing wrong with more trees where possible anyways my dude.
Let's have more of them. They're nice to look at.
You must be used to raking up leaves and cleaning out your roof gutters?
The worst thing standing in the way of the climate change conversation are political allegiances.
The worst thing is, even the politicians who criticize others on global warming, don't do anything about it when they're in power.
Also personally they have huge carbon footprints. The NZ and Canadian Prime Ministers flew in a private jet after a global warming conference.
Whose 🤔
politics in at all is problem in science
@@TheRilluma there's pro and anti science politics
People can change their behaviour, no need for politics in that case. Though it would help.
All the hysterias of the last decades: none came to fruition- ONLY the taxation. (That reveals the plot)
Then do not get your scientific information from the media.
@@old-pete Or youtube.
Shhhh....you're not supposed to say that out loud. It hurts people's feelings.
Is it possible that the data for the Milankovitch cycle just isn’t granular enough to account for recent fluctuations like the one we’re seeing in the last 100 years?
Milankovitch Cycles change temperature by no more than about a degree every thousand years. We're warming ten times faster.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 thanks for the reply. I guess I’m referring to something akin to the coastline problem. I’m not a scientist, just wondering how, with estimations based on gas from ice samples they can be sure that the fluctuations in the past were measured accurately and that the numbers today are comparable to those estimations, or if possibly some of the extremes we see are due to more frequent measurements. Not denying that humans have had an effect on weather.
@@SleepingInsomniac19 Absolute sea level, as measured from the middle of the ocean, has risen four inches since 1993, according to NASA, and its rate of rise has doubled since then, according to the World Meteorological Organization. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen 400% and 1100% respectvely since the year 2000. Even New England, which is uprising land from glacial rebound, is up 140%. It's why New York and Louisiana already have a combined $100 billion in new flood mitigation projects in the works and why Miami Beach has raised 105 miles of roads. This month, my neck of the woods suffered over $100 million in damages from a record high tide. Knowing the statistics is one thing, but seeing first-hand in real time the tide come up and sweep away buildings and docks is shocking. Our community is a microcosm of what is happening worldwide. Climate damage isn't happening in the future. It's happening now, and sea level rise alone is going to cost the world trillions of dollars.
I would recommend taking a deep dive into the research conducted by the University of Southhampton. They know the history of sea level rise better than anyone. I do recall them stating that the last time CO2 reached 400ppm, back in the Pliocene Era, sea level was 22-30 feet higher than today. The only reason we haven't seen that level of rise yet is time, as ice melt lags CO2 levels.
The “Net Zero” plan includes caveats for “carbon offsets” which allows those with the money and resources to continue to consume as they please in return for paying for the “offset”. This will force a certain amount of rationing for the general public who can’t afford to pay an added tax on their carbon footprint , and as an added bonus this reduction in consumption will help ensure a sufficient supply for the people who can afford it.
That sounds fair. Jeff Bezos gets to travel the world on his private jet and yacht with his girlfriend and her ex while the rest of us have to ration what we consume.
You are the carbon they want to get rid off
@@carlt6932 I’m glad your onboard sir. Someone has to eat the bugs so there’s still enough beef for the wealthy to have their filet mignon when things get tight next decade.
A lot of people seem oblivious to the fact that all of these lifestyle changes effecting the standard of living will be burdened on the shoulders of the middle class.
We are the carbon they want to get rid of
18:12 How is nuclear not on that graph, it's the singe most hopeful energy source we have. The fact that every climate activist movement seems to completely ignore nuclear as an option is beyond me.
the chart only goes up to 40%, you could say that the nuclear went off the charts
Fukushima. Tchernobyl. Earthquakes. Reality. Death.
Not specifically about the graph, but building new nuclear isn't as tractable as it seems. At this point, new reactors are too expensive to build, and will take too long to be operational to make the difference they need to make, with the lengthy construction process continuously emitting lots of carbon dioxide from concrete and transport requirements.
For generation, renewables are cheaper, and quicker to build. As for the energy security problem from weather fluctuations, I think nuclear is a red herring solution for the reasons above, and what needs to be done is further investment and research into new energy storage.
Nuclear could be useful long term, but the time it takes given the process of getting them started means that they are not useful immediate solutions. It would require some more immediate solutions simultaneous to getting nuclear going. Personally, I agree that nuclear would be very useful, additionally, it would be amazing if Fusion technology produces results relatively soon. However, we still need to phase out carbon emitting sources as quick as we can so slow down the rate of change. For now only stuff like solar and wind can help mitigate that until we get more nuclear and other sources. The biggest hurdle to nuclear is finding places where the locals will let you build one. I agree that its frustrating that there doesn't seem to be more effort on the nuclear path. Although given Fukushima, Chernobyl, and recent concerns regarding the nuclear plant in Ukraine under Russian occupation could all contribute to politicians seeing nuclear as a being politically "radioactive."
It’s the only real solution to get rid of coal burning.
The whole issue is the time line. Notice the only cycle we the video is concerned about is also the only one we have actual temperature records for. Also, the records have been vastly affected by technology and availability.
Wait, so scientists think the earth was 100% covered in ice, but there’s no evidence of a global flood? How does that work?
How do we know what the temperature of the earth is today or at any point in the past down to a single number? We don’t. How do we know what the optimal or correct or desirable number is? We don’t. How can we base economic policy on this fictitious number that there will never be consensus on?
It is called temperature measurement and climate science.
The desirable temperature is the one nature and our society adapted to. Quick changes counter the adaption.
A measured number is not fictitious. There is no need for concensus on facts.
exactly, As Freeman Dyson Once said the planet gets more green with C02...
@@tyl8terhe's a charlatan
@@stevejones2310 ....Watch this people...How so Steve?
@@stevejones2310 Freeman Dyson Knew Syukuro "Suki" Manabe the Japanese-American meteorologist and climatologist who pioneered the use of computers to simulate global climate change in the 60s...He found the warming which is necessary for life period...but, Suki said a horrible predictor....
"A species must move to a more suitable environment or perish..." That sounds like a global conflict like no other.
See: The USA's southern border with Mexico. ;)
like others before. Ever studied the younger Dryas temp fluctuations 13000 to 11 000 years ago? They still fight about the cause of the extremely rapid and short drop. What is the effect the massive deforestations since 1800 ? Who says they are not the cAUSE?
yes, this will also will be true for our species...
the right wing radicals in my country in europe are: totally against immigration, and totally against taking action against climate change.
i alwas tell them, then they have to set up a lot of weapons and ammunition factories, because they will have to shoot tens of millions of refugees at the borders to europe in the mid future, that will come because of climate change and spreading wars due to the enviroment failing to support half a billion people at the half to the end of this century.
There is massive migration in Europe and USA now. It has NOTHING to do with climate.
Living in snow country takes a lot of energy.
To reduce FF use, northern migration should be strongly discouraged.
Carbondioxide removal facility : A forest.
nope. cut down the trees and put in the solar and wind farms!!!!
@@mistaajonesgreat idea, because trees have zero effect on local humidty and temperature, none at all.
@@mistaajoneslol, right? I tried to listen till I saw propaganda bear. That polar bear was debunked as a diseased specimen. Polar bear populations are growing. Polar ice extant is growing yearly. The climate-tastrafy narrative is falling apart. It's a global money harvesting machine that has everyone addicted to terror though. Like a train it's going to keep rolling for a while.
Here you go on I 95 cut the trees down in the median there is a little decline valley like now there is water buildup on spend more money put in a drain system.dang the trees sucked the water up and took in CO2 and put out .smart move think not lol But guess what the drain not working.water ponds still there guess what else.mesequitos . anyways we can just spray chemicals and kill em 😁
@@darrelv764How erudite.
Lionel Shriver yesterday, in conversation with Toby Young about her latest novel, 'Mania', explained how you know a movement is a mania: it's when opposing it has bad consequences for you personally. Hence her suspicion of the climate change ideology. Who hasn't been lambasted for expressing doubts about anthropogenic global warming?
Looks like Toby Young is pretty smart.
This isn't a disliked video when you already know this information.
You really ought to put your sources in the description for all the information mentioned in the video. Its important when making something like this.
Sources would be great, but you can also find each of these facts in scholarly articles by using Google. It is important for everyone to "Do their own research"
Self education is a good thing.
800w power plus gold
@@brittneypagan5144 You are absolutely correct. I do, and I encourage everyone else to do their own research. I just think it's important to cite sources when one is making claims because it adds value for everyone.
@janamations1079 Yeah I agree it's a research video. You need to put sources when you compile research in scientific settings. It's a requirement for any sort of scientific publishing. Why shouldn't videos have similar standards even if their primary demographic is lay people.
The sources that AGW cult members use are paid by the government to produce numbers to scare new members into believing the science. So, there’s that.
I am always bothered when they show "smokestacks" belching out pollution in videos and invariably they are showing steam.
And when they talk about animals going extinct and they show polar bears....who are thriving btw
@jmace1957 steam is in fact a form of pollution. Water vapor is now the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
@@bradymoon1889 how long polar bears survive remains to be seen. The chance that they will successfully adapt to radically changing conditions is 50/50. They either will or they won't. If they do go extinct it will probably be fairly soon.
@@bradymoon1889 You appear to be quoting a Forbes-sponsored "researcher" who is not relevantly qualified and has never done any relevant research on polar bears and whose phoney research was debunked a decade ago.
@@dingusdingus2152 so thats why the planets heating up, its covered in water
We didn't have a global temperature record in the 1850's. Temperature measurements were very sketchy 170 years ago.
There were quite a lot of measurements back then.
But there was obviously no reason to calculate global temperatures back then.
All these data are laughable and you can interpret them as you want.
@@kg0173 Only for people of no understanding of the matter
Trees use co2 - so simplistic - plants create balance . We can agree to stop cutting down the forests - this continues .
It would help a bit, but would not solve the problem.
There is nothing wrong with simple. IME 😅
The planet is greening as predicted by mainstream climate science, but most of the current global greening is due to China’s and India’s mega tree planting programs, but it would take four times more land than exists on this planet with new trees on it keep up the current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but most of that land would require irrigation with fresh water.
Remember that trees absorb most CO2 when they are growing fast when they are young. So if we harvested mature trees and planted half a dozen new trees for every one cut down, there should be a net increase of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere.
Great attitude 🤬
I think the best way to capture CO2 are plants. Taking into consideration how an increase in O2 has cooled Earth before, we should probably try our best to facilitate plant growth across the globe.
That's for sure. But it woud only cover CO2 emissions from deflorestation, not from fossil fuel. So it is necessary but not enough. We also need to capture carbon in other ways. Bioconstruction, for example
And depopulationing the planet, a return to animal fur, sheep shearing, cotton farming and silkworm production of clothing and other material based things, horse and buggy transportation because of evil oil.
Many like me find it madness that whole forests are being felled to make way for 'renewables' such as Wind & Solar banks, they themselves require enormous amounts of Fossil Fuels to Mine, Muster, Build, Spare, Repair, Support through to decommissioining.
Plants don't capture CO2 , they capture C and release O2. But with atmosphaeric CO2 concentration as low as it is right now, there is no need for capturing C at all.
Imagine inventing nuclear-powered powerplants; an answer to most of current problems, and being too afraid to use it because of scare-tactics rich people use to stay wealthy with their fossil fuel businesses.
Extraterrestrial beings would laugh at us
I mean.. chernobyl and fukushima were pretty convincing scare tactics. But I agree, I'd much rather have nuclear than coal.
The problem with nuclear is that the technology will soon pass a point where ROI is too low to justify the building of new reactors.... It's just not an affordable solution. Nuclear's effectiveness has peaked, while renewables has just started, and in 2050 renewables have won in terms efficiency.
@PixelShade what does ROI mean?
@@clydekimsey7503 Return of investment.
You have no answers for radioactive waste. Nuclear power is even not really cheap and still the technology is not safe
Did you know people were ice skating on a frozen Thames river around 1850? Same for the USA, Galveston Bay froze over from Houston to Galveston Island in the 1800s; the ground in Dallas was frozen on Mayday then too, the settlement "La Reunion" had to quit and move into town. Now ask yourself what the temperature usually does after another periodical 'little ice age'... temperature has usually risen 4-5 degrees Celsius. So far we've warmed less than 1 degree...no folks the sky is not falling (aka chicken little syndrome)
Have you noticed the predominant feature of 'alarmists' is self loathing?
There was no little ice age. We are in an ice age.
It is cooling for 8000 years and it was supposed to continue 50k years.
A planet does not just warm. There must be a trigger. The current trigger is CO2.
There was no global little ice age. The Little Ice Age was a temporally asynchronous variation, so in no way reflects in the long-term trends.
Would love to have you explain what we know about the Sun and it's cycles. I have heard it's hard to estimate anything going on in the sun due to the complex nuclear reactions occurring. Is there anybody studying to see if the sun itself is getting hotter in certain areas or sun spots moving around causing cooler spots that are affecting the global temperatures?
Look up “Solar Cycle: and “Introduction to Solar Radiation”.
Solar energy output is highly predictable, on time scales relevant to humans. Total solar irradiance (energy output) varies one part in a thousand on an eleven year cycle. Another part in a thousand when there's a pause in sunspots.
These well known variations have no correlation with climate.
great idea. that would be interesting
there is a channel "suspicious observers" who have a lot of information on that topic. and they give a daily space weather report. yes there is space weather and it has a huge effect on earths climate.
I love the fact that the tiniest clam-like animals send us climate data from millions of years ago. Humbling. Live your channel, Greetings from Spain.
yet the presenter proceeds to ignore the data and push human made climate change agenda.
Garbage data in garbage data out
It is very humbling, but not in the way you suggest. To think that people form their impassioned opinions based on data collected and interpreted is this manner absolutely boggles the mind. Holy cow are people arrogant and stupid.
Just imagine the margin of error in that data. 10-15% perhaps? Yet today's 'unusual' warming is what 2-3% if that. Yet we draw a quite interesting conclusion. One might wonder why... Let alone the fact that we gather data about our own sun which keeps on rocking the science community. You know the sun which fuels our life and the climate.
@@DigitalsapienYou don’t even have to look back millions of years to realize that the current rise in temperature is abnormal. There’s a reason every scientific organization takes this stuff seriously. Right wing media and random people who have no idea what they’re talking about aren’t going to change that
people are only willing to listen to what they want, not what is actually true, which explains alot of our problems
If climate changers really want to do something they would push weather manipulation and Geo weathering that’s the fastest way to save the planet
So people can still continue using fossil fuels, but we will manipulate the weather or they should be pushing putting gold in the atmosphere to reflect the heat rays of the sun. The technology is already there. Saudi Arabia makes it rain in the desert by doing cloud seeds, but that’s just my opinion .
People can't listen when they don't understand what's being said. If you went into a lecture on "Non-Gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity" you wouldn't pay attention after you realised it was all going over your head. That's why the number one thing when you encounter skeptics and deniers is not to attack, but to explain. Tell them what you know in words they'll understand. Spare no detail if they ask for more credible information. So long as you speak what's true then no arguments can counter it
Look up John Kay. He wrote a good book about this. NOT the musician.
..it's about money of course, one trillion and counting but they want 17 trillion more last time I checked, could be far higher now.
The problem is everything is just sensory input to our minds.
There's no such thing as true, only what is orthodox to the internal model our 250,000 wildly obsolete instincts create to navigate uncertainty and a worlď far more vast and complex than our brains can handle without a forest of mental shortcuts. Our minds handle those orthodoxies as though they're a body part - people trend toward reinforcement for the same reason they're loath to mash their hand into a hot plate, the instincts take it as a physical safety risk.
The perceived uptick is also where decadal averaged proxy derived temps meet granular direct measured temps. They are not the same metric but are stapled together. Also the geo specificity and urban heat island effects account for most of it. Plant stomata proxies show much more granular variations in line with this also. The rest is politics and opportunism.
The urban heat island effect is know for around 200 years and is considered in the measurements. Data from outside cities shows the same warming.
No method of ancient dating can get down to hundreds of years resolution.
Says lot about the intent or the accuracy of this celebration of the IPCC.
Double speak ?
Well actually we can get to that resolution.
@@thomfisher1100explain... with some good data/evidence...
@@thomfisher1100 with carbon-14 dating or potassium-40 dating?
When someone from the government tells me how I should live my life or what I should do, I do the exact opposite because I automatically assume they don’t have my best interests in mind.
Do you mean when they pass laws about wearing seat belts to save your life?
OR
do you mean like when they tell you to inject disinfectant or stick a strong light in your body to kill the covid virus?... then yeah, I agree... don't listen to your goverment on this one.
Safe reaction
Lole this is still letting them dictate what you should do. If they say “don’t buy this thing” then you buy it but what if they actually wanted you to do it?
Sure sure ... because a seat belt has never saved a life...right?
@@notme2day Intentionally taking his words as literally as possible is awfully dishonest is it not?
If all conversations about global warming could be done apolitically and factual instead of with the tone of Chicken Little, perhaps more people would take it seriously. Thank you for simply presenting information.
How I understand, “Waaagh give me power or we all are going to die… waaaah I want to be most important president.”
I don’t understand what you mean. Global warming is causing mass species die off, it is directly impacting our food and water systems. This video doesn’t dispute that. Chicken Little was lying, the scientists who say we must take drastic steps immediately are speaking with factual basis for their claims, which this video also backs up.
the world needs to change, apoltical and factual aren't mutually exclusive
Pretty pictures of steam coming out of coolers (no pollution there) and comments about sea levels rising (they are not) rather undermine this.
@@ArstotzkaEmpire”Waagh” why are you talking about Warhammer orks?
Some UK politicians and natives have started to despise the net zero initiative, maybe it was never accepted by most people. The implications are dire for future generations .
19:00 Mann's hockey stick graph image, fading to the outrageous abuse of the dying polar bear from 15 years ago gives you away. They starve and whither as their teeth fail or major illnesses take them, having them come to this condition is not due to any factor relating to human activity. Due to bans on hunting and other conservation efforts, the polar bear polulation has exploded over the past 50 years, from about 10,000 individuals to over 44,000 individuals. Its good to know the facts on this issue.
The facts are that they were hunted uncontrolled in the past. That was stopped. That has nothing to do with climate.
Now their habitat is decreasing. That has to do with climate.
And no, their population is around 26,000.
The polar bears they can track, some are doing relatively well, but no one knows the world's real population of polar bears is, as population estimates are just that: as subpopulations of bears haven’t been counted in decades.
Science doesn't have to be liked, it just has to be the most honest attempt to find the truth.
During COVID we learned that science did not really have that answer but was instead used to control the population
That's the problem in this and in many other areas of science with political implications. There are very powerful groups, driven by despotic motivations, who are willing to fudge the numbers and the research in order to find an excuse to impose totalitarian rule and eliminate democratic institutions. These groups exert a lot of control over the funding of research that supports their agenda, and they have enough control over media and academe to suppress evidence contrary to their agenda. This distortion of data was blatant during the recent public health crisis, and it was obviously slanted in the direction of their stated goals. Al Gore began 30 years ago to advocate for censorship with regard to scientific discourse regarding the climate, and those crazies in Switzerland have been touting climate as a reason to enslave the people and to depopulate the planet (with them having ownership and control, of course) for decades. So it's an open question how much we should trust a scientific community that has vested financial interests in finding conclusions that comport with their donors' desired "scientific" outcomes.
@@grizzlygrizzle10,000 upvotes!
@@grizzlygrizzle The system of giving grants provokes distrust.
Politicized science is always BAD science. (politics are never "honest")
With bad science it is almost impossible to know the truth. No science is more politicized than climate science.
I remember watching an MIT testimony before the US congress, about 20 years ago, that addressed this. It put things into perspective for me back then. We need to be good stewards of our home planet. But, this subject has become a polarized political football.
Baa a check then it was global cooling.
You thought to do nothing about it since then?
From a profit perspective, it's intelligent to make it political. You immediately secure 50% of people believing you. From there you can sell tons of stuff. Like Tesla cars, which have been amazing for my net worth.
@@Cardioid2035do what? Somehow alert the world to this grift when everyone is so hyper political polarized? No thanks, I'll just profit. Just like Nancy Pelosi. Bought the green energy stocks, and quadruped my money.
Because it’s nonsense. When you have UK scientist’s caught faking sea level numbers and constantly spraying the atmosphere to keep the planet’s temperature warmer. You get warmer temps and worse storms.
Funny. The pre-historic part and Milankovich cycles were well explained based on the science, but when the focus movend to last the 150 years the scientific view was completely abandoned and panic attack mode was activated. Just one example, why to ignore the obvious lack in the global temperature measurements ? Hardly any weather station in Africa, Asia, South America, Siberia, and on the sea (that is 70% of earths surface). The messurement data comes from the USA and Western Europe, which is not enough to define the global average temperature. Or why to use false adjusted temeperature data and hockey stick to prove the case? Why to ignore all other factors that affect to the (very moderate) change in temperature (e.g. ozone, sun, volcanos, sea streams, el niño/la niña)? Why not to talk about the little ice age which sure had its impact on the rapid, yet small temperature rise? And the list goes on…
I must have missed the deforestation, world wide over the last Milenia. . . ? The temperature changes more between Breakfast to lunch, than it has over the last century.
That is hard to miss.
Most cities and fields were forrests 1000 years ago.
And climate is something different than weather.
What a shockingly reasonable video, not what I expected when I clicked on it. Geological history is so fascinating to me - to me it's a shame that so few people are aware of the history of earth
But well, on a personal level, this makes me think a couple of things. One, is that if we stop abruptly producing carbon dioxide and somehow absorb it back (not feasible with our current economy) then there's a possibility of triggering an ice age. The another is that, although the Earth has been hotter in the past, if global warming goes out of control this will undoubtedly have a potentially catastrophic impact on our society. Life will exist, us, well, maybe, but in a deplorable state. Our civilization is extremely fragile to this and that is somehow demoralizing.
@@repentandbelieveinJesusChrist8 Think twice: You sucessfully conformed to the current youtube comment spam pattern epidemia. Jesus didn't do and surely wouldn't have done it this way...
I saw this title and thought "ohh this will be disliked by climate change deniers right? Because he's going too hard with the mainstream narrative or something." But he actually meant pro climate change people because he's daring to talk about factual historical data instead of just spamming fear propaganda and I think that's hilarious lol. Discourse about this subject in recent years has shifted so much that the default for most people now is not skepticism but fanaticism. That shows how powerful propaganda is.
@@thekamotodragon I don't think so. How dare you to tell us what he meant? You can see the IPPCs worst prediction scenario maps for what happens if we do not change with 10-18 degrees (which is NOT Fahrenheit) of warming on land masses for the year 2300 in the video. Also, if you looked closer at the comments, you clearly could have witnessed that it's actually the notorious deniers that seem to dislike it - with some of these spammers showing that they didn't even whatch it 🤷
@@thekamotodragon Also, from a personal view, I would say that there is much more fear with the deniers than with the ones that are warning about climate change.
The number of comments stating that AGW was made up on purpose to get everybody into some worldwide communism with total control and no private posession of goods and some of them even wildly fantasizing about breathing beeing rationed is no longer countable.
I've heard the argument made before that drastic temperature increase has happened before, creatures evolve and continue, it's natural. But, for one, they always fail to account for the speed at which creatures can adapt, and even IF they could adapt that quickly, it would mean the creatures we know now, and the entire ecosystem would either completely change, or be completely destroyed, as it's forced to adapt to unnatural circumstances. The worry isn't the end of the world. The worry is the end of this one
your comment says it perfectly
perfectly put, but again, just because we'll survive, is not an excuse for not doing our part to try fixing our mess.
Well there are scientific studies of cave fish evolving in 45 days so um yeah
@@thisexists2927 What mess? Technology and the use of fossil fuels has elevated the world's standard of living to its highest level in the past 10,000 years. An ever increase global population is placing strains on natural resources. This does require a real effort of conservation but government encourage consumption and then complain about it. Corporations = Consumption and governments love corporations!
What unnatural circumstances ?
You didn’t talk about the SUN cycles that drive our temperature OR the very instruments they use to take temperature readings being totally skewed by urban heat island effect.
Solar forcing is indeed important, but on time scales relevant to human history solar irradiance is practically constant. Even near solar minimum, when galactic comic rays have easier access to Earth, and during the solar maximum, their spectrum remains relatively constant in energy and composition, varying only slowly with time. Just as the solar cycle follows a roughly elven year cycle, so does galactic cosmic rays with its maximum.
No mechanism has been discovered for variations in the solar wind or magnetic field to affect Earth's climate significantly. It's a red herring when folk claim these forcing do; popular on "climate skeptic" pseudoscience blogs, but we know once a talking point gains inertia in the "skeptic" echo chamber, it never dies. The steady decline in energy output, the 11 year cycle in sunspots, and the variations in the solar wind shows no correlation with climate on annual, decadal, nor century scales.
The Urban Heat Effect has no significant influence on the record of global temperature trends.
Please share this video with our media suppliers,they would welcome the feedback.Just post them the link.
My problem with the current response to climate change is that there are, as always, small groups of extremely wealthy individuals who benefit financially and politically from the measures. Whereas, we know that deserts can be refreshed as in the cases of Ethiopia, and the gobi desert examples. Why cant countries just agree to de-desertify and use funds from the UN? This would bring back ecosystems, flora and fauna and human subsistence whilst trapping more CO2 and producing more oxygen. A relatively simple solution but one where powerful individuals cant exploit meaning humanity, in its selfishness, won't do this.
Sorry it's just not profitable to save humanity.
You saying that the UN wouldn’t be contracting the companies and enriching the elite profiteers?
Why should this be done with funds from the UN? Is there a price to pay with those funds? Why does the UN have this kind of money if they are not a corporation that produced and sells goods?
You can only refresh desserts with water from somewhere else. You can’t count on that
In the US and most of the world we accepted the idea that any movement must be profitable to be worthy of success. The fact that corporate interests will make profit off of EVs or windfarms or solar farms or nuclear isn't a reason to discredit the principle. It is unfortunately the bargain we struck after colonialism ended. These structures must make insane profit.
Hundreds of private jets to the climate change conference, that tells me all i need to know about how serious it is.
Those private jets are for the lobbyists fighting against climate change. They are literally the people trying to sabotage the conferences,
when a cabal or secret family spends its entire life benefiting themselves and keeping their power over humanity while not helping humanity in countless opportunities, let alone hurt humanity why would they care about this
@@awesomestevie27 If there really was anything to worry about they'd be building nuclear power plants like there's no tomorrow. Instead just the thought of an existing solution makes them foam at the mouths, because that'd ruin the grift...
@@solaroid4442 Nuclear power plants won't do squat unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Stopping fossil fuel use is the only real solution, and fossil fuels are what is making rich people rich. They aren't worried, because they have enough money for them and their families to be fine. You and your family are something they just don't care about.
exactly.
There are more climate feedback processes than the albedo effect. The methane gun is especially interesting if you're not afraid to learn.
Does the up tick in temperature (mentioned @ 11.13) account for how urban expansion affects temperature readings?
Yes. The effect is known for 200 years.
@@old-pete thanks for the response, even though the video didn't state that.
I agree that we have been recording temperatures accurately since the early 1800s, but knowing that urban heat islands is a real effect, and urban areas have dramatically expanded in that time - in some cases into rural areas where we our temperature measuring equipment has been located.
Are you sure that the urban heat island effect isn't affecting temperature readings?
Do you know of any studies that correlate this with rural data?
@@TheSpartacusBrown I am sure.
Scientists regularly calculate the warming without the urban areas to check for bias.
@@old-pete fair enough, might look into that research for myself. Unless you have references to these papers that you would be willing to share?
As someone who’s interested in this stuff I’ve always pointed out that issues like deforestation have less to do with the creation of breathable air and more do to with biomass essentially acting as a carbon reserve preventing it from just being released into atmosphere.
are you calling CO2 carbon?
ITS ALL PSEUDOSCIENCE THERES NO COORELATION WITH CO2 LVLS AND TEMPERATURE INCREASE. TAX IS THEFT
@@badtuber1654 Astronomy is a science; astrology is a pseudoscience.
Evolution is science; creationism is pseudoscience.
Molecular biology is science; homeopathy is pseudoscience.
Vaccination is science; the MMR scare is pseudoscience.
Oxygen is science; phlogiston was pseudoscience.
Chemistry is science; alchemy was pseudoscience.
Climatology is science; anthropogenic climate change is pseudoscience.
Deforestation assuming burning will release CO2. But even animals dying contribute somewhat as carbon not contributing to carbon cycle can just end up contributing CO2 increases longterm.
@@michaelbayley9432 Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically more trees than previously thought. In a blockbuster study released Wednesday in Nature, a team of 38 scientists finds that the planet is home to 3.04 trillion trees, blowing away the previously estimate of 400 billion
The worst part is that our fellow sentients will suffer for the nonsense we have created on this earth !
If you’re tempted to dislike this video because it seems to say “don’t worry so much, climate has always changed, and life on 🌍 has coexisted with a much warmer global climate”, then WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO. I appreciate his calm & thorough presentation.
I disliked the video because of his adoration of the IPCC, - a hopelessly ideological and politically motivated organization that is divorced from sound science.
@@slooob23got evidence backing up or just parroting/inventing a sentiment?
@@Shoey69 yes, the IPCC was caught in an email scandal where they deliberately manipulated data for political and ideological purposes.
This among many, many other unscientific proclamations and ideologically derrived action that is an affront to sound scientific process.
If a person blindly believes anything that they say at this point, they are either ignorant or tribally aligned with the ideology behind this faux scientific organization.
its super easy to look it up, its all a scam. idk why you guys don't just research it on your own. its easy to debunk.@@Shoey69
Which “sound science” are you referring to?
3:27 The sun does not have a constant temperature, it has solar cycles where it is more and less active which will increase and decrease the heat it radiates towards the earth.
Earth is hit decreasing amounts of solar radiation for around 8000 years.
@@old-pete Are you trying to argue that disproves my point? The cycle is about 12000 years, that only shows I'm right and that the heat from the sun isn't constant
@@TheAdderkop No. The solar cycles are short term.
There are different cycles, which can weaken or strengthen each other, which have nothing to do with solar output.
They are known as Milankovitch Cycles.
And the current cycle is a cooling one, which started 8000 years ago and will last another 50k years.
Simple, every once in a while volcanoes say Howdy! and the atmosphere got all covered in a sun screen blocker creating an Ice age. so the increase in heat is due to lower amount of sun blocker we got from last extinction, is like the earth restarts every once in a while caused due to the low amount of sun screen from volcanoes causing the earth to heat up while creating the Volcanoes to get active once again, causing a massive explosion creating an ice age after putting some volcano sunscreen into the atmosphere.
1. We are in an ice age.
2. Ice ages are rarely caused by vulcanic eruptions.
3. There was no climate changing "sun blocker" in the air for the past couple hundredthousand years.
4. Earth is not warmed by increasing solar radiation hitting the surface. To the contrary, earth is hit with decreasing amounts of solar radiation for around 8000 years now.
18:10 Carbon Capture Projects? Those brilliant technicians and physicists and climate researchers seem to never have heard of "trees".
Trees capture CO2 during their lifetime, but release all of it as they die. Therefore, on their own, they don’t remove Carbon from the atmosphere permanently.
@@oktupol that is actually not true, unless you want to put the effort into burning the whole tree, including any piece of biomass it ever consumed, with 100% efficiency. The Video even told about the sudden temperature drop when plants emerged, because they ate all the CO2. You can easily check my statement by looking in the mirror (you are a carbon based lifeform), filling your tank (oil) or turning on the light (coal). On your way to check all of those, you might even encounter a fourth prove in the form of a door (wood). Trees are actually the perfect way to store CO2 - unless we burn them (or oil, or coal).
@@RandomGuy-qr5jw Your statement isn't a contradiction to mine. You described the carbon cycle. Fossil carbon that we introduce to the carbon cycle by burning it can be captured by trees, but that doesn't remove it from the carbon cycle permanently. Not without further human intervention at least.
@@oktupol other then burying it and hoping it doesnt come back up later, which is deemed horribly unsafe for nuclear waster overall, what do you propose we do with it? I dont mean this maliciously, except for the nuclear waste comparison, im just curious, because if the plan is to do that with CO2 then why not switch to nuclear and then do both?
@@oktupol Tell me how fossils are formed?
“It’s not the hottest we’ve ever been. It’s the coldest we’ll be for the rest of our lives.” Great video!
Wrong video
Our wood stove makes a blast of heat right before it goes out. I think the earth is doing the same thing.
Travel to the south and tell me
@@diegoreynoso8730
Dats called geography dude.
Or and this is a big OR , the Earths climate is always changing and the Earth will be just fine...@@suzieseabee
Excellent video! May I add that human behavior has more of an impact, for better or worse, in global temperature cycles. A snapshot of what change in behavior can be is the recent global pandemic that drastically dropped impact on the environment globally. People traveled less, discharged less pollutants in the air and in 8 weeks, the impact on the earth was dramatic.
And when you ask the question on the internet "by how much does the sea level rise in mm per year in the Maledives" you get this statistical answer:
"Currently, the annual rise is approximately 3mm per year. Regional variations exist due to natural variability in regional winds and ocean currents, which can occur over periods of days to months or even decades."
Incerdibly "frightening" I would say and I havent even been able to figure out how you would even measure this insignificant mm annual sea level rise.
That is why there are people who are experts in that field. They know how to measure it.
The problem is not the one year increase, but the long term trend.
the phrase "the hottest we've ever been" is often paired with "temperatures not seen since the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum." it is implied that these temperatures are the highest IN HUMAN history, not geologic history
no, it is implied in geologic history, that´s why people hate that expression
@@sanji1259I have never heard someone say "the planet is the hottest it's ever been" referring to the entire life of that planet. It's always been implied that it's the hottest it's ever been in human history as that's the only point which is relevant to our survival.
It's certainly a very open statement that can be taken either way and often lacks context when it's said.
@@sanji1259absolutely not LMAO. Who the fuck think the planet can ever be hotter than it was when it was a ball of magma in the early days?
@@user-sw2nh4ll7h People who never learnt about the early days of Earth/forgot the information if they ever even absorbed it
It’s been the same temperature where I live for the past 48 years. Not interested in any forever wars. Plus I don’t give a sht what earth does, it will not last forever and neither will humans
This video needed to be made. Don't be afraid to present the truth. If truth is 'controversial' then society is rotten.
why don't make a video on the ozone layer hole instead? maybe because that climate scare hoax has been exposed already.
They tell you TRUTH is plural.
What is the average concentration of the strongest climate gas - water vapor - in the atmosphere? What do you think? 14,000 ppm !!
But the 100 ppm human CO² cause a climate catastrophe? Yes of course. Who believes it becomes blessed. 😆🤣
muh alternate faxts 😢
I mean the video isn't really controversial.
Worrying about this is akin to thinking you can control when you die
Two different things.
And yes, some people control how they go out.
@@old-petetaking your own life is not what is meant by choosing when you die. There is zero chance everyone stops using fossil fuels before changes become apocalyptic and some will most likely continue after. So it is similar to thinking you can affect when fate takes you.
@@lloydwright3661 But that is what people do.
And not everyone needs to stop fossil fuels and no, it will not get apokalyptic.
@old-pete apocalyptic in the sense of widespread destruction, not actual end of the world. Clearly noone is stopping using fossil fuels, governments in Western countries are making some feeble virtual signalling efforts but sweeping changes would need to be made and it probably wouldn't matter anyway because none of the third world or communist countries are going to change a thing.
Good point, there are myriad ways one can choose to live that are likely to either shorten or extend our lifespan. Mitigating risk is an effective and useful strategy in the cases of both human life and planetary temperatures.
What about the Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which took place long before the Industrial Revolution?
The Roman Warm Period was not global.
The Little Ice Age was no Ice Age, as we are still in an Ice Age. It was the end of a cooling period that started 8000 years ago and was supposed to continue. Humanity changed that.
Each dip represents a glaciation, not an ice age. As you said, we're already in an ice age, but in an interglacial period between glaciations.
Did you notice how his milankovic cycles chart disagreed with his 100 year chart? Very sloppy lying.
@@RonaldReagan99-oh2dv Man you’re dumb. Like impressively so.
@@RonaldReagan99-oh2dv hey again, yeah questioning his every video now
The fact that you decided to go forward with such controversial topic and invest the time to make it even though you are aware it's risky is good enough reason to like the video.
There's nothing controversial about it.
@@nilssonakerlund2852 Exactly lol.
And we can already see why this will be controversial
Exactly.
@@doolsy You wish
6 months later 90% positive, 10% negative, maybe times they-are-a-changing....!
You cannot compare the recent uptick in temperature, which is measured with high-frequency accuracy by instruments, with the low-frequency record from before thermometers and satellites. That comparison is guaranteed to generate a spurious "rapid" change in temperature simply because the older records smooth out the high-frequency peaks and troughs. The same applies to the paleoclimate record---comparing the speed of temperature change using data with very different temporal resolution is invalid and misleading.
Why should more accurate measurements be higher?
At times they could be lower. The problem is that short-term fluctuations, up and down, are suppressed in the older data. So a short-term upstroke around a smoother trend would look like a spike if one didn't account for the different time resolution. If I average hours of sunlight over a week, then append the first 12 hours of the next day it's going to look like a runaway sunshine crisis. @@old-pete
@@stevenpostrel4901 Hourly data is hardly a problem with a one year resolution.
@@old-pete It's very much a problem. The older data smooth and average across years, while the recent data are at much higher frequency without smoothing.
This video misses several KEY points, that many climate scientists have discussed.
1. The data presented assumes that climate changes based on human activity will have an ever accelerating cycle, and that climate will rapidly spiral out of control. What it does not mention is that many or most of the earth processes are based on "feedback loops" that auto-correct themselves. In fact, almost all planetary cycles correct themselves, and do not spiral out of control. For example, CO2, along with being a greenhouse gas, can also be thought of as "plant food". Most of the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere for billions of years became rapidly fixed into carbon chains, once photosynthesis came about and spread across the planet. Human consumption of CO2 has increased atmospheric CO2, but also has resulted in massive blooms of blue green algae, which have become visible from outer space. This is the basis of the food chain, and has had an effect on all sea life. In a sense, higher CO2 levels result in more algae food, which grows fish populations, counteracting the effects of massive human commercial fishing of the oceans. There are many more of these type of feedback loops. To try to talk about climate change while ignoring these feedback auto correcting loops is not correct, and can be misleading.
2. The author mentions only ONE source of data and recommendations, the IPCC. For a topic so controversial and complex, data from a multitude of centers without sampling bias should have been done. I am skeptical of reports from scientists, even universities, because biased, non-science radical people often withhold grant money from science labs, unless they report favorably the way they want. Therefore, so much of all this research is corrupted and biased, and this makes it very difficult to trust the objectivity of these reports.
3. There have been numerous attempts at "falsifying" and data manipulation by many of these "scientific" sites. For example, before the Paris accord, the research data used as the basis for the agreement forged much of the data on deep ocean temperatures, extrapolating the most unlikely and dangerous option when no data was collected in the past, and using that model to predict the future. Once this was discovered, it cast a shadow on all the scientific data used, because it was not credible. It was used to push a political agenda. While it was not falsifying the data, there was a deliberate extrapolation of deep sea water temperatures in the past, assuming the worst possible scenario.
4. Many of the people, politicians, and investors who are pushing the climate change agenda have a huge profit motive backing their actions which they fail to reveal. For example, Warren Buffett wanted to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, but at the same time, he quietly invested heavily in a railroad that now takes all the oil harvested in Canada by rail to the refineries in the USA, resulting in big profit for himself. Remember the "energy crisis" of the 1970's? OPEC countries profited dramatically by creating a world energy crisis, spreading a lie that oil reservoirs in the middle east were nearing their end. Oil powers all of humanity and is the the single most valuable resource on the planet. There are many powers at play seeking to profit from the "climate change crisis". To assume that all these actors are purely altruistic and want to "save the planet" is incredibly naïve and plain stupid.
5. The loudest voices warning about climate change are often the most hypocritical. Al Gore pushes the dangers of climate change, yet he has made hundreds of millions of dollars from lobbyists in the green energy industry, and his own mega mansion and lifestyle leaves a MASSIVE carbon footprint. Many of the "elites" traveling to climate change summits do so in private jets, which release so much CO2, that one flight is the equivalent of a half year consumption of CO2 for an average household.
6. Ocean levels are rising. 3 mm a year. 7 cm rise in the next 25 years. However, beachfront property in Miami is selling now at an all time record high. Facts are important, but also taken in the context of the big picture.
7. No mention on the two biggest carbon polluters in the world, China and India. China opens one new coal plant a week, and buys TONS of coal from the USA and other countries, yet the western world continues to move their industrial base into China, so they can manufacture their products for them cheaply.
Sure, continue investing in green energy, transition away from fossil fuels, invest heavily into nuclear energy, transition into electric and fuel cell vehicles. Those are all noble goals and we should continue in that direction. No argument. However, there are so many different facets to this complex topic that were simply not brought up and discussed.
I personally am not worried, and I am 100% confident that Earth will enter ice age #8 in another 60,000 years.
And no mention of volcanoes or the cooling affect of plants as a higher CO2 level will allow plants to live in more arid areas cooling these areas and IPCC shown to actively remove weather stations to support the data they create lol.
Great comment friend.
And what knowledge have studied? Are you studying effects
Thank you. A sane voice in this smoke and mirror topic
Feedbacks are considered in physical models.
Current simulations as in CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) consider a myriad of climate forcings, such as atmospheric variables, land cover, oceanography, ecology and so on from many sources (satelital images and sensors, oceanographic buoys, meteorological stations, etc.).
These simulations are contrasted, calibrated and validated with current and historical measurements, and with geological records, to better understand the past and to predict future scenarios based on changes of forcings.
You can see at 11:43 the predicted trajectory of temperature considering only natural forcings, simulations with the output of human activity and the actual observations. This result, just as an example, is quite clear.
So to wrap it all, we study climate with in situ measurements across all the globe in the land, the sea and the air, with remote measurements thanks to hundreds of satellites, with geochemical proxies at glaciers, fossils and the bottom of lakes and seas, and use all that information to produce statistical modela ans physical models that allow us to understand and predict the behaviour of the climate.
From all of this, we can derive the role of many forcings, and in this particular case, understand how industrial emissions are affecting the climate.
If western governments are really worried about Co2 then why do they keep down sizing heavy industry and manufacturing in their own countries? Laws and regulations are much stricter here, and the processes used to make these products and materials are much cleaner than they other parts of the world. Areas where they now need to ship the materials and products in from create much more pollution and Co2 to make the same things we could make ourselves! It literally makes zero sense. If this is a global problem, then it doesn't matter where the Co2 comes from. All that should matter is that there is less of it being produced no matter where it comes from. All western nations seem to care about it that their own co2 balance sheet looks good, but their actions actually caused more Co2 to be produced globally. Judge them by what they do not what they say and what they do seems to contradict what they say!
Are governments to blame for companies seeking to maximize profits and cut down on paying workers higher wages and having to give them more rights and benefits? the companies themselves choose to move overseas to push further profits for their shareholders, that’s not something the governments control
We are carbon based lifeforms..they say they want to get net zero carbon emissions…pretty obvious what the climate change agenda is about
@@harmanthind2147 well they can but that would be a communistic system and has been proven almost impossible to implement. But governments can influence these decisions in other ways with various carrots and sticks to influence choices made by producers.
@@harmanthind2147yes. Because those governments are specifically enacting policies admittedly in their public statements doing so in order to cut down on their own manufacturing which has the effect of increasing manufacturing and those other countries.. In fact if you look at the Paris climate scam all it would have done is Forest Western countries with stricter regulations to reduce their manufacturing and thus their pollution but it placed no restrictions on the world's largest polluters which were China and India and in fact allowed them to INCREASE their pollution
At the same time it would have taken hundreds of billions of dollars of Western taxpayer dollars and paid them out to China and India. And then you wonder why people say that the left-wing communists are controlled by China.. maybe it's because everything they do seems to be in the effort to hurt America and help China.. The point is that it wouldn't have done anything for global temperatures or pollution. Well it would have done is help the economies of foreign countries at the expense of the Western ones.. So yes it's the fault of the government's mostly.. They are specifically trying to force more manufacturing in these other countries that control them.. It's why they were so against Trump's trade war with China. By doing what George Washington and other founding fathers did and increasing tariffs it would motivate companies to move manufacturing back over large scale time frames. That would mean less money for China and if China owns your party you would very much be against that. Also the same with doing oil drilling in America. Making America energy independent hurts China and also reduces pollution because of less need for shipping. You don't have to drill it in the Middle East drive a truck to the ocean and then a giant oil ship across the ocean just to get it to America..
All of those are GOVERNMENT policies.. corporations will do whatever is cheaper. The government can influence whether manufacturing at home or in China is cheaper.
Just like the lie about censorship. That they are "private companies" Who can "do whatever they want"
As we know from leak to documents and public letters and freedom of information requests it's actually the government's typically the Western Communist governments of America and Europe FORCING these companies to censor
We know that the Biden dictatorship openly forced many of these companies to censor his political opponents. We've seen public letters and documents coming from Western European regimes where they force the social media companies to censor political opponents of the Communist agenda..
The European regime sent a letter out to most social media companies telling them to demonetize Russell Brand. Over sexual assault allegations apparently.. Why would European Communist governments take such an interest in a former Hollywood actors allegations to that extent? Probably because it has nothing to do with the allegations and everything to do with them trying to silence a man that was exposing their corruption..
So yes the governments censored.. The government were behind most of these terrible things. Including pushing all the manufacturing to places that pollute more. China owned the left wing.. The Soviet plot that Joe McCarthy warned about where the Soviet communists were infiltrating every aspect of the Western world from academia to Hollywood the media the government the deep state etc came true.. The ripple effect continuing long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.. The only difference is that with the Soviet Union collapse those Communists had to go and pledge their loyalty to the next closest thing. The only other communist government: China
And they were more than happy to allow it.. point is that yes these are done by the government. The government purposely enact policies to make those things happen. To influence gas prices going up so that Americans will have to buy electric cars. To influence manufacturing going abroad. Whether it's done for money or not is irrelevant. If they truly care about climate change and so it has the greatest threat the world ever faced the way they claim then one of their top priorities would be to bring manufacturing back to the Western countries with more restrictions and regulations and less pollution. By instead creating policies to force as much manufacturing as possible towards countries like China and India who pollute more than anyone they are showing that it's not a top priority for them. That they don't believe in it that badly. While Democrat voters might be so stupid and conspiracy doomsday cult that they think they will literally live through the end of the world as it literally burned the reality is that the politicians telling them those things don't believe it at all. Even their grifting spokes grifters like Greta Thunderbird run around the world on private jets that pollute more In one tr than the average person in an entire year
So again people pushing these climate doomsday conspiracy theories Don't believe in it themselves. At least they don't believe that they're going to live through it.. And that's the basic premise. The governments that supposedly care enough about it to give millions of dollars of subsidies to the green energy lobby that fund most of their campaigns clearly aren't concerned enough to bring manufacturing back to countries that have emissions standards
The grifting pundits and celebrities always talking about climate change when they're promoting a new book or movie clearly don't believe in it enough to stop flying on their private jet or even to buy a house slightly further inland from the beach.. They keep claiming that everything will be underwater yet they spend millions of dollars on beachfront property. Property that gets insured by insurance companies. Who also must not believe in that because if the insurance company believed that the beach house would be underwater they would never agree to insure it..
The biggest promoters of these doomsday conspiracy theories don't seem to believe them. So why should we?
You're conflating 'they'. Government and Scientists are not the same. You are also forgetting a core aspect of human nature - humans do NOT choose rationally. We have a myriad of incentives that would pull us toward danger - despite what you might think. Look up Expected Utility Theory, proposed by Neumann and why it doesn't work given it's perfectly logical and rational set up.
And how will they explain of much, much warmer 500 years in middleages and much colder in XVII, XVIII age? Remember the studys on climate before it begun profitable, it said , we are in short term trend of warming untill 2050 before the small ice age era.
It was not warmer back then.
There will be no small ice age, as we are in an ice age.
It was warmer. There are historical data about plants and winters, or better said just no winters. @@old-pete
@@schuwar No, it was not. These were isolated incidents, indepedent from each other in time and region.
It did not happen at the same time everywhere.